The Openness of Roman Civilization: Rise and Fall, Research Paper Example

The emergence of the Roman empire is clearly one of the pivotal events of human history and the empire possessed a profound influence within its own historical time period. Furthermore, the legacy of Rome can be said to have greatly influenced other cultures and civilizations after its collapse. Rome’s innovative contributions to a diverse number of aspects of social life, such as politics, law, religion, economics, military, philosophy and art is a confirmation of its uniqueness within human history. These aftereffects of Roman rule cannot be restricted to merely the ancient world. For example, Roman law is still relevant in contemporary jurisprudence and the center of Catholicism remains in Rome: this attests to this civilization’s radical effect on the way in which humans conduct their lives up to the present day. According to such influence, the topic of Rome has compelled historians to examine this civilization from a diverse number of perspectives. One of the key questions of these historians concerns why Roman civilization collapsed. In other words, the historical problem of Rome’s collapse seeks to answer how such a powerful empire, proactive in such a diverse number of fields, could eventually crumble: where, despite the obvious and many strengths of Rome, do the weaknesses of this civilization lie, weaknesses that lead to this civilization’s downfall? This question is further complicated by the previous mentioned fact that the legacy of Rome continued to remain historically influential in the ancient world and is relevant still to the present day. As Gibbon, in his classic work The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire states this problem, the historian must “deduce the most important circumstances of its decline and fall; a revolution which will ever be remembered, and is still felt by the nations of the earth.”[1] Following Gibbon’s lead, the following essay shall summarize some of the lasting impacts Rome has made on Western Civilization, in order to understand how such an influential civilization could deteriorate. In this regard, it is perhaps the very deep influence of Rome on the world that contains the logic for its collapse. Rome’s successes can be traced back to the openness of its civilization; this openness, however, while encouraging expansion, nonetheless contributes to its eventual decline, since the inclusiveness of Rome prevents this society from centralizing and consolidating its power. In other words, with its very successes Rome grew beyond its own boundaries, and its victories and accomplishments that simultaneously sewed the seeds for its own downfall.

The trajectory of Rome has, of course, been treated countless times within the academic literature. Each historical approach will advance its own precise reasoning as to the rise and the downfall of the Roman Empire. In addition, such histories will stress the importance of Roman civilization, so as to identify this civilization’s effect in shaping the development of the overall Western world. But Rome did not suddenly emerge in the world as a power. The development of the culture and civilization of Rome can be traced back to the influences of its own unique predecessors, in the form of the Greek or Hellenic world; furthermore, Rome was one of many Latin speaking cultures that existed in what is today modern Italy. As Spielvogel says, “in the first millennium B.C., a group of Latin-speaking people established a small community on the plain of Latium on the Italian peninsula. This community, called Rome, was one of numerous Latin-speaking communities in Latium…Roman history is basically the story of the Romans’ conquest of the plain of Latium, then Italy, and finally the entire Mediterranean world.”[2] Following this account, it is therefore important to underscore the particularity of the Roman beginning. The new Roman civilization developed precisely in correlation to other similar tribes from the same linguistic group. There is thus nothing outstanding to this origin itself. Rather, Roman develops its hegemony over time, as opposed to suddenly appearing on the scene and acquiring power. Accordingly, as Spielvogel points out, because of such humble beginnings the important question in regards to Rome’s eventual dominance is precisely: “Why were the Romans able to do this?”[3] The author gives the following logic: “The Romans made the right decisions at the right time; in other words, the Romans had political wisdom.”[4] Following Spielvogel’s definition, the rise of the Romans is attributed to success in politics, which are equated by the authors with a certain pragmatism that the Roman peoples possessed. This is a valuable hypothesis since it helps anticipate why Rome eventually collapsed: it is because of a gradual erosion of this same pragmatic political wisdom that established Rome which led to its downfall. Accordingly, in order to grasp the reasons for this downfall, it is therefore necessary to understand what constituted Roman political wisdom.

As demonstrated by the tradition of political philosophy in Rome, the Romans were radically self-reflective thinkers, continually postulating what government and politics means. For example, Cicero, referring to Africanus, gives the following explicit definition of a political entity: “A commonwealth is a constitution of the entire people. But the people is not every association of men, however congregated, but the association of the entire number, bound together by the compact of justice, and the communication of utility. The first cause of this association is not so much the weakness of man as a certain spirit of congregation which naturally belongs to him.”[5] In this clear definition, three main factors make up the state: a common sense of justice; a common pragmatic aim; and a sense that humans by their very nature are drawn to community forms of rule, as opposed to being pure individualists. However, the underlying similarity between these factors is an essential sense of inclusiveness and openness that contribute to the Roman political idea: Romans understood the practical success of politics in terms of the inclusion of individuals within the political process, motivated by a certain essential and universal quality of man understood as a being who lives in a community. This basic philosophical idea, if it captures the essence of Roman political thought, is found in its everyday practice, as Spielvogel notes: “Unlike the Greeks, who reserved their citizenship for small, select groups, the Romans often offered citizenship to the peoples they conquered, thus laying the basis for a strong integrated empire.”[6]  Accordingly, the political formation of Rome, both theoretically and practically, was not initially based on notions of elitism. Rather, Rome realized that power lies in a greater inclusive political body, which is arguably one of Rome’s primary influences on subsequent politics: for example, such an inclusiveness can be said to echo in current democratic ideals. Thus, precisely because Rome pursued this integrative political strategy, it did not create a political system based on division and some form of “us vs. them”: to be conquered by Rome, is thus to a certain extent to become Roman. This largely practical approach to the realization of political power is thus a clear part of Rome’s success: by integrating as opposed to segregating humanity, Rome created a certain ideal that was democratically attractive, since this ideal was available to a great number of peoples. Of course, within Rome, there still existed slavery: but this is clearly a more open political system, as opposed to previous systems, such as those of the Greeks, as Spielvogel notes.

At the same time, as mentioned, the successes of Rome can be traced back to the integration of previous civilizatonial world views and the taking of the ideas of others, in order to extract the most powerful, practical and efficient concepts of previous civilizations. In other words, previous relevant civilizations were not viewed as an enemy to be disposed. Rather, the Romans learned from these previous civilizations. Thus, as Spielvogel writes, “The Romans also did not hesitate to borrow ideas and culture form The Greeks.”[7] This fundamental openness of the Roman civilization, both in terms of political citizenship and a cultural and ideological worldview that remained receptive to foreign ideas can be said to summarizeRome’s initial strength and subsequent influence: Rome, in a certain regard, remained what a fundamentally open society, one that was receptive to the ideas of others in a manner that anticipates egalitarian politics. At the same time, however, as Spielvogel suggests, this approach was not wholly arbitrary. Rather, it was the result of a careful strategy and deliberation about how to best maximize Roman power. In other words, this approach was consistent with Rome’s pragmatic “political wisdom.” Why is this strategy effective? A more inclusive society minimizes hostility which can help Rome persevere. Furthermore, openness to previous ideas that had been successful historically demonstrates Rome’s willingness to learn and be politically flexible. Such an approach can be viewed as the major political, philosophical and ideological position of Rome, a position which helped contributed to its unparalleled success in empire within the ancient world.

But Rome was not only intellectually open. The Roman civilization also used material resources from previous cultures. The archetypical notion of Roman organization can be traced back to pre-Roman cultures and previous inhabitants of Roman territory, such as the Etruscans: “The Etruscans were responsible for an outstanding building program. They constructed the first roadbed of the chief street through Rome – The Sacred Way – before 575 B.C., and oversaw the development of temples, markets, shops, streets, and houses.”[8] Accordingly, the framework for Rome’s successful infrastructure was in fact the products of a previous culture. Once again, both the success and influence of Rome lies not in rejecting the past and the foreign other, but rather in remaining open to, for example, the accomplishments of past civilizations, thus using the benchmarks these cultures achieved as a certain launching point for Rome’s own triumphs.

In this same spirit of openness, Rome also made radical changes in politics. This is most clearly displayed in its transition from traditional monarchy towards the notion of a republic. While monarchy can be considered as a certain traditional concept that emphasizes the importance of a ruler’s bloodline regardless of their accomplishments, the Romans’ shift to a republic suggest the dedication to a more practical political world-view. The structure of government was no longer tied to the notion of a king’s right to rule, but rather, the Republic elevated the most capable members of society to the position of leadership, thus creating the political system of republic. Who would lead Rome was to be figured out according to practical and pragmatic reasons, as in the idea of the political institution of “the imperioum” meaning “the right to command.”[9] The right to command contrasts with monarchy, because the privilege of rulership is something earned – the right to command must come with pragmatic and practical successes demonstrated by the competence of rulers. Such an approach creates a system in which power was given to those deemed capable. At the same time, those in power were under constant scrutiny: “invested with imperium, the chief magistrates of the Roman state exercised a supreme power that was circumscribed only by extraneous means – officials held office for a limited term and could be tried for offenses committed in office once the term ended.”[10] Accordingly, the Romans did not view their own government from any perspective of sacred infallibility. Rather, precisely because these leaders could be tried and condemned for their various political decisions meant that the civilization maintained an above all practical and realistically determined viewpoint regarding the goals of political life. In other words, politicians must continually demonstrate their worth to the Roman republic. Hence, Roman culture maintained a certain pragmatic openness in its political culture. It stressed that leadership rights were acquired because of practical achievements; at the same time, the right existed to criticize those who rule when they failed. Such a system, once again, arguably can be said to anticipate purely democratic foundations, thus demonstrating Rome’s influence. For example, the notion of the Roman senate foreshadows democratic representation. The senate consisted of various diverse bodies such as “senate and the popular assemblies, one of which is the centuriate assembly which altogether determined Roman political, social and legal life.”[11] The diverse number of political organizations that formed Roman power demonstrates that the Roman realized that in order for a particular civilization to remain strong, those with the best ideas should be rewarded. Moreover, power should not be concentrated in a single figure, so as to prevent the possibilities of a catastrophic and incompetent ruling class destroying the civilization. In this regard, Roman civilization was conscious of the dynamism of political existence and the continuing changes in social landscape. Roman civilization thus adapted to these changes by offering equally flexible political and legal institutions that could match the instability of politics and life in general. Such a flexibility can be said to have been the reason for Rome expanding seemingly at will: the conquest of all of Italy and subsequently the Mediterranean may be viewed as a product of the highly dynamic political institutions of Rome. Rome fundamentally in this regard remained open to change, instead of opposing it.

This notion is further demonstrated by Roman expansion, which was based on a strategy that attempted to draw these conquered territories within the community of Rome. Instead of recognizing these territories as the conquered, the Romans viewed them as important parts of Rome’s continued political relevance in the future. Hence, purely practical projects such as the successes of Roman engineering can be viewed as aftereffects of this world view: “By building roads to these settlements and connecting them, the Romans assured themselves of an impressive military and communications network that enabled them to rule effectively and efficiently.”[12] Even in engineering, Roman political life pursued a fundamental openness in its policy: every territory constituting the empire must be connected to the empire; there is no place for exceptions. This fundamental decision to establish connections and relations as opposed to breaking them off and creating segregation is arguably the key to Rome’s success: they encouraged openness and also physically created openness through vast communication networks, clearly shown the phenomenon of the Roman road. All parts of the empire are to be connected, thus making all parts of the empire conscious of its belongingness to the Roman idea. This is also reflected in the crucial pragmatic successes of Roman law, which would have a lasting impact on subsequent civilizations. The institution of the codification of law helped provide a consistent legal framework with which Roman civilization could treat its inhabitants. The codification of law attempted to eliminate anomalies and exceptions, creating a framework that would be applicable to most of Roman society, and thus remaining fundamentally open.

Such a political and philosophical openness, however, as Rome’s greatest strength, was arguably also its greatest weakness. Because of this open political system, Rome experienced many radical shifts in its rulership, which left the civilization fairly unstable. Hence, there were attempts to avoid these problems, for example, by asserting a “new constitutional settlement”[13] (31), such as during the reign of Augustus. These specific changes led to a more aristocratic form of government, which stressed stability as an answer to the ever dynamic situation of civilization interaction and political change: “Throughout the imperial period the emperor was…the ultimate authority responsible for all decisions.”[14] As Spielvogel suggests, this change was made for pragmatic reasons: “republic institution had proved inadequate for the task of ruling an empire.”[15] In other words, the expansion of Rome, with its essentially all-inclusive political and legal system, also created gaps in Roman power: there were no stable rulers, which thus made Rome susceptible to weakness in times of especial turmoil. Accordingly, Augustus’ changes to the Republic can be viewed as a response to this very problem: the greatest reason for Rome’s expansion was consistent with the possibilities for its very downfall.

The collapse of the Roman Empire demonstrates how such inclusiveness ultimately remains fragile. This world-view of assimilation and openness clearly minimized threats to Rome. At the same time, perhaps this openness also contributed to Rome losing its fundamental identity. In other words, there was an uncertainty regarding what Roman power ultimately means, as, for example, demonstrated in the relation to Christianity and Constantine’s ultimate conversion to the Christian faith, an event that fundamentally shifted the essence of the Roman world-view. On the other hand, this does not mean that Rome would have had to remain closed to remain important, as the eventual deterioration of Augustus’ own new order and its more aristocratic approach to political government showed. Rather, the case of Rome shows the fragility of empire itself: With its many successes Rome is emblematic of the pure chance of political power. Whereas the legacy of Rome lies in Roman political and legal strength combined with a relentless pragmatism, such strength was arguably only historically gained because of the openness to new ideas. Yet such an openness is also a certain concession of one’s own inadequacy: one remains open to others, precisely because one wants to learn from others. This same approach, however, causes the eventual collapse of power, as it is impossible to maintain such hegemony over time, as new influences constantly shape the civilization’s destiny. Rome’s openness did in fact foster its success, but this same openness ultimately reflects the total instability of political power, however great, of which Rome is a prime example.

Works Cited

Cicero, Marcus Tullius. The Republic and the Laws. Lawrence, KS: Digireads.com Publishing, 2009.

Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855.

Hazel, John. Who’s Who in the Roman World. London: Routledge, 2002.

Mattern, Susan P. Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999.

Spielvogel, Jackson J. Western Civilization Volume 1: To 1715.  Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008.

[1] Edward Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London: Henry G. Bohn, 1855), 48.

[2] Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization Volume 1: To 1715 (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008), 114.

[3] Ibid., 114.

[4] Ibid., 114.

[5] Cicero, The Republic and the Laws (Lawrence, KS: Digireads.com, 2008), 17.

[6] Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization Volume 1: To 1715 (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008), 114.

[7] Ibid., 114.

[8] Ibid., 115.

[9] Ibid., 115.

[10] Ibid., p. 116.

[11] Ibid., p. 116.

[12] Ibid., p. 121.

[13] John Hazel, Who’s Who in the Roman World (London: Routledge, 2002), 31.

[14] Susan P. Mattern, Rome and the Enemy: Imperial Strategy in the Principate (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1999), 8.

[15] Jackson J. Spielvogel. Western Civilization Volume 1: To 1715 (Mason, OH: Cengage Learning, 2008), 114.