RE: Constantine the god of the bible
October 29, 2010 at 2:15 pm
(This post was last modified: October 29, 2010 at 2:23 pm by Anomalocaris.)
Well, the main current that ran though the Roman society from Marius down through Caesar, Octavian, Claudius to Vaspasian was the gradual destruction of the political influences of the traditional Roman patrician class. Although Julio-Claudians were as blue blooded patricians as they get, they knew they won't get ahead by championing the interest of a class that regard them as no more than a peer amongst many. So the Julio-Claudians decided from Caesar onwards that the ticket to supremacy was not to champion the patrician class, as Sulla had tried to do, but to be seen as a patrician champions of the plebians. As a later British politican said, "the commoners love a lord".
After the end of the civil war in 31BC, the power rested with the Emperor and the emperor stayed in power by catering to the plebians. The Patricians were not so much the ruling political class any more. They were now a class seen to still possess residual previleges and wealth, but whose political credit have largely exhausted and who have become ripe for plucking by a dictator for popularist reasons. Admittedly Octavian plucked them rather subtlely and artfully, and with more show of deceptive deference then some later emperors, He plucked them nonetheless.
It may be a very good thing to redistribute the wealth. But whether the redistribution of the wealth is good not not depends on whether the wealth is redistributed to people who are better at reinvesting the wealth to generate more wealth. If the redistribution is a one time windfall that actually reduce the long term productivity of the wealth involved, then its just shabby popularism.
I read an analysis sometime back. It suggested that under Augustus, Tiberius, and Gius, the productivity of Italy suffered a continued decline, plebians become contiuously less productive. Most of the wealth transfer that prompted the less productive plebians of Italy to continue to support the Imperial system came not from the Patricians, but from the provinces. Basically the from Augustus onwards the emperors squeezed the provinces to create a welfare state for the plebians in order to stay in power. The first Roman emperor to actually try and reverse the decline in the productivity of the plebians through systematic improvements of productive infrastructure in Italy was the lame and supposedly mad emperor Claudius. As to who the best emperor of Rome was, I believe the cult of the deified emperor Claudius was still venerated in Rome right up to 5th century CE. I've not heard the cult of Augustus lasting that long.
After the end of the civil war in 31BC, the power rested with the Emperor and the emperor stayed in power by catering to the plebians. The Patricians were not so much the ruling political class any more. They were now a class seen to still possess residual previleges and wealth, but whose political credit have largely exhausted and who have become ripe for plucking by a dictator for popularist reasons. Admittedly Octavian plucked them rather subtlely and artfully, and with more show of deceptive deference then some later emperors, He plucked them nonetheless.
It may be a very good thing to redistribute the wealth. But whether the redistribution of the wealth is good not not depends on whether the wealth is redistributed to people who are better at reinvesting the wealth to generate more wealth. If the redistribution is a one time windfall that actually reduce the long term productivity of the wealth involved, then its just shabby popularism.
I read an analysis sometime back. It suggested that under Augustus, Tiberius, and Gius, the productivity of Italy suffered a continued decline, plebians become contiuously less productive. Most of the wealth transfer that prompted the less productive plebians of Italy to continue to support the Imperial system came not from the Patricians, but from the provinces. Basically the from Augustus onwards the emperors squeezed the provinces to create a welfare state for the plebians in order to stay in power. The first Roman emperor to actually try and reverse the decline in the productivity of the plebians through systematic improvements of productive infrastructure in Italy was the lame and supposedly mad emperor Claudius. As to who the best emperor of Rome was, I believe the cult of the deified emperor Claudius was still venerated in Rome right up to 5th century CE. I've not heard the cult of Augustus lasting that long.
