An idea of Rome in the centuries
by Flavio Sanza
In 476 a.C. the last emperor Romulus Augustus was put down and the western
part of the roman empire ended while the eastern one survived until Turks
conquered Byzantium in 1453. The idea of imperial power lived for centuries in
Europe after the end of Rome and inspired great political buildings as the Sacred
Roman Empire and the Napoleonic One.1 But the Latin tradition gave also other
fruits: reports between masters and clients were the base for feudalism while
barbarian reigns inspired the modern state – nation, so many authors tried to
explain how Rome had influenced the European development.
For example, in the beginning of fourteenth century there were problems
between the pope Bonifacio VIII and the king Philippe IV of France; some
writers lived this situation asking themselves if the church and the monarchy
could live together in peace. When Henry VII of Luxemburg became emperor
and went to Italy to solve contrasts between Communes, Dante Alighieri wrote
Monarchia about imperial position in Europe:
“Answering to the question, I say that Romans were the monarch or the
empire by right, not illegally, for the entire humanity. Firstly it could be
explained in this way: noblest people must dominate the others, Romans were the
best, so their universal domination was right… Now it is clear that roman people
were naturally made to command so, conquering the world, they had built the
legal empire”.2
Here Dante reprises an idea from Aristotle, that strong man must dominate the
weak one for a natural right3; Romans were the powerful people in the world, so
it was normal for them conquer the others. It is also important to underline that
God created Rome, so he gave it the mission to organise the world after the
1
Leopold von Ranke wrote in his book Modern History Ages of 1854 that Romans were
fundamental for building of the Modern Europe, in four particular fields as the literature, the
law, the idea of empire and the Christianity. (KLAUS BRINGMANN, Storia romana. Dalle
origini alla tarda antichità, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1998, p. 113; or. ed., Römische Geschichte: von
den Anfängen bis zur Spätantike, München, Verlag C.H. Beck, 1995, Translation of Alessandro
Cristofori).
2
“Dico igitur ad questionem quod romanus populus de iure, non usurpando, Monarche offitium,
quod Imperium dicitur, sibi super mortales omnes ascivit. Quod quidem primo sic probatur:
nobilissimo populo convenit omnibus aliis preferri; romanus populus fuit nobilissimus; ergo
convenit ei omnibus aliis preferri... Propterea satis persuasum est quod romanus populus a
natura ordinatus fuit ad imperandum: ergo romanus populus subiciendo sibi orbem de iure ad
Imperium venit”. (Dante Alighieri, De monarchia II, 3, 1 – 3; 6, 11 from DANTE ALIGHIERI,
Monarchia, A cura di Maurizio Pizzica, Introduzione di Giorgio Petrocchi, BUR, Milano, 1988,
p. 236 – 7; 264 – 5).
3
“The war will be a natural acquisition art (in fact the hunt is a part of this) and it must be
practised against beasts and those men who were born to obey but refused, so this war is
naturally right”. (Aristotle, Politics I, 8, 1256 b, 20 – 25).
1
conquest. If the empire derives from God, it can’t be a contrast with the church
that is also a divine creation, so Dante uses the roman history to demonstrate that
emperor and pope mustn’t fight between them because their power derive from
the divinity.4
“Because, if it was never found a republic that had same profits of Rome,
everybody knows that it was never found a republic made to have power as
Rome. Because his armies’ virtue gave it the empire: its order to go on and its
way found by its first law maker allowed Rome to maintain it, as it will say in
next many speeches… If the fraud is bad in any action, during the war it is an
excellent and glorious thing and who won the enemy by fraud or force is lauded
in the same way”.5
This text derives from Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio written by
Niccolò Machiavelli in the beginning of sixteenth century: the author says that
many roman emperors arrived to the power by the richness and the army as
Augustus who used his clients to build a large social base for making the empire.
Machiavelli uses the roman history to explain the politics in Italy during the
Renaissance, because the empire is a good example to understand how to
conquer a reign. The Italian prince must be ready to see his potential enemies and
to kill them before they could destroy him; so an intelligent use of violence is the
key to have a strong power. In this Romans were masters and it is necessary, for
Machiavelli, to know their techniques to maintain the power.6
We must wait 1734 to find another interesting book on this theme,
Considération sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence
by Montesquieu:
“Rome was in an eternal and extreme war: a political fighting nation
necessarily had to die or win the others who were unable to attack it and defend
themselves during the peace or the war. For these reasons Romans had a strong
knowledge of the military art. During short wars, good examples are lost because
the peace gives other ideas, so mistakes and virtues are forgotten. Another
4
Monarchia was considered an heretic book by cardinal Bertrando del Poggetto and written in
the Index of prohibited books published by pope Paul IV in 1559. (ALBERTO CASADEI –
MARCO SANTAGATA, Manuale di letteratura italiana medievale e moderna, Laterza, Roma
– Bari, 2007, p. 60).
5
“Perché se non si è trovata mai republica che abbi fatti i profitti che Roma, è nato che non si è
trovato mai republica che sia stata ordinata a potere acquistare come Roma. Perché la virtù degli
eserciti gli fecero acquistare lo imperio: e l’ordine del procedere ed il modo suo proprio e
trovato dal suo primo latore delle leggi, gli fece mantenere lo acquistato, come di sotto
largamente in più discorsi si narrerà… Ancora che lo usare la fraude in ogni azione sia
detestabile, nondimanco nel maneggiare la guerra è cosa laudabile e gloriosa, e
parimente è laudato colui che con fraude supera il nimico, come quello che lo supera
con le forze”. (Niccolò Machiavelli, Discorsi sopra la prima deca di Tito Livio II, 1; III, 40
from MACHIAVELLI, Il Principe e altre opere politiche, Introduzione di Delio Cantimori,
Note di Stefano Andreatta, Garzanti, Milano, 1994, p. 245; 447 – 8).
6
For Machiavelli the prince must have the fox smartness and the lion force, so he can protect
himself and his reign from anything. (CASADEI – SANTAGATA, Manuale di letteratura
italiana medievale e moderna, op. cit., p. 184 – 5).
2
consequence of the continue war was that Romans wrote peaces only as winners;
why writing a dishonourable peace with someone to attack someone else?”.7
In the passage the author explains that the continue practise to fighting was the
real secret of the empire’s long life; Montesquieu reprises also the Rome divine
mission to conquer the others to justify the aggressive politics of Louis XIV.8
Also the Sun King had this idea of “right war”: God has created the French
monarchy to dominate his people and it was normal for it to fight always
everywhere. Bishop Bossuet, the cultural minister, explains this concept in his
treatise Politique tirée des propres paroles de l’Écriture Sainte: the monarchy is
the most ancient and natural form of government in the history, so all its
decisions are right, also the war.9
“During the second century of Christianity the roman empire had the most
beautiful part of the earth and the best civilian elements of the human genre.
Frontiers of that great empire were defended by ancient fame and disciplined
value. A discreet but powerful influence of laws and habits had gradually
strengthened the provinces’ union where peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused
advantages of richness and luxury. Free constitution’s aspect was preserved with
a good reverence: the roman senate appeared to have the best authority and gave
all government’s powers to emperors. For a good period more of eighty years the
public administration was driven by value and capacities of Nerva, Trajan,
Adrian and two Antonini”.10
7
“Roma era dunque in guerra perpetua e sempre violenta: ora, una nazione sempre in guerra, e
tale per principio di governo, doveva necessariamente perire, oppure avere la meglio su tutte le
altre che, ora in guerra, ora in pace, mai erano così pronte ad attaccare, né così preparate a
difendersi. In tal maniera, i Romani acquisirono una conoscenza profonda dell’arte militare.
Nella guerre saltuarie, la maggior parte degli esempi va perduta; la pace dà altre idee, e si
dimenticano i propri errori e addirittura le proprie virtù. Un’altra conseguenza del principio
della guerra continua fu che i Romani mai fecero la pace se non da vincitori; in effetti, a che pro
fare una pace disonorevole con un popolo, per andare ad attaccarne un altro?”.
(MONTESQUIEU, Considerazioni sulle cause della grandezza dei romani e della loro
decadenza, Introduzione, traduzione e note di Davide Monda, BUR, Milano, 2001, p. 83 – 4; or.
ed., Considération sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence).
8
“Nullum bellum susciti a civitate optima nisi aut pro fide aut pro salute… An non, inquit,
cernimus optimo cuique dominatum ab ipsa natura cum summa utilitate infirmorum datum?”.
(A right state starts wars only to respect treatises or for its salvation… Why don’t we see the
nature gives to the best ones an absolute dominion that is a biggest advantage also for the weak
ones?). (Cicero, De republica, Fragmenta III, 8, 11 from CICERONE, Dello stato, A cura di
Anna Resta Barrile, Mondadori, Milano, 1994, p. 189 – 191).
9
“See a great people united in one person, see this sacred, absolute and fatherly power; think
the secret reason that is closed in one head drives the State; in monarchs you will see the God
imagine and also you’ll have the royal majesty picture”. (“Guardate un popolo immenso riunito
in una sola persona, guardate questa potenza sacra, paterna ed assoluta; considerate la ragione
segreta che governa tutto il corpo dello Stato, racchiusa in un solo capo: vedrete nei re
l’immagine di Dio e avrete l’immagine della maestà regia”.) (GIAN MARIO BRAVO –
CORRADO MALANDRINO, Profilo di storia del pensiero politico. Da Machiavelli
all’Ottocento, La Nuova Italia Scientifica, Roma, 1997, p. 69).
10
“Nel secondo secolo dell’era cristiana l’impero di Roma comprendeva la parte più bella della
terra e gli elementi più civili del genere umano. Le frontiere di quella grande monarchia erano
3
In the introduction to his masterpiece of 1776, Decline and fall of the roman
empire, Edward Gibbon analyses the origins of the Rome’s power: firstly legions
stopped foreigner people and defeated enemies, then the roman law gave
freedom to provinces with the strength of its rules. The senate was the real centre
of the empire, in fact it controlled the state and gave powers to the emperor; for
these reasons Rome became the “best part” of the world where everyone was
happy and satisfied. Laws and habits produced richness, so the provincial way of
life was the best for Romans; the senate guaranteed the citizens’ tranquillity
while the emperor maintained the peace as Trajan who was celebrated for his
respect of traditions.11 Naturally Gibbon doesn’t describe the real empire of the
first century b.C.; he deforms the roman history to demonstrate that a nation can’t
exist without a strong governmental group; in the senate he sees the parliament of
the seventeenth century that had transformed England into an empire by a strict
control on the king.12
“The political philosophy often tries to know what had done great Rome, if its
value or fortune. Plutarch and many writers, Greeks and Romans, said their
opinion on that and, also in the modernity, who reflects on the history has the
same problem. Plutarch, showing the importance of the roman value, explains the
fortune was stronger; in this and also in other books, he was a good writer as
Greek ones but not so brilliant analysing this problem. Many roman writers said
the value was the most important factor but later philosophers invented a political
wisdom plane on which the roman power was built from the first stone and then
developed. The history teaches these two schemes aren’t singularly right but they
become true if united in a good way. Value, fortune and political wisdom had to
union themselves to realise what was done and, from the Romulus’ age, we had
seen these three divinities together to help Rome”.13
difese con antica fama e con disciplinato valore. La discreta ma potente influenza delle leggi e
dei costumi aveva cementato a poco a poco l’unione delle province, i cui pacifici abitanti
godevano e abusavano dei vantaggi della ricchezza e del lusso. La facciata di una costituzione
libera veniva preservata con decorosa venerazione: il senato romano sembrava possedere
l’autorità sovrana e delegava agli imperatori tutti i poteri esecutivi di governo. Per un felice
periodo di oltre ottant’anni l’amministrazione pubblica venne diretta dal valore e dalle capacità
di Nerva, Traiano, Adriano e dei due Antonini”. (EDWARD GIBBON, Declino e caduta
dell’impero romano, Compendio in un solo volume a cura di Dero A. Saunders, Prefazione di
Charles A. Robinson Jr., Traduzione di Michele Lo Buono, Mondadori, Milano, 1990, p. 25; ed.
or., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. A one-volume abridgement by Dero A.
Saunders, Viking Penguin, 1952).
11
Plinius the Young wrote the panegyric for the consulate of Trajan the first September of the
100 a.C.; this text had to celebrate the new report between the emperor and the senate after a
troubled political period. (B. GENTILI – L. STUPAZZINI – M. SIMONETTI, Antologia della
letteratura Latina, Laterza, Roma – Bari, 1987, p. 696).
12
The Bill of Rights, composed by parliament in 1689, had to limit the royal control on the
country: the king couldn’t stopped laws, imposed taxes, had an army during the peace and
named special tribunals without permission. (G. CRACCO – A. PRANDI – F. TRANIELLO,
L’Europa e il mondo nell’età moderna, SEI, Torino, 1991, p. 334).
13
“Spesso la filosofia politica ha cercato di stabilire che cosa abbia più fortemente contribuito
alla grandezza di Roma, se il suo valore o la sua fortuna. Già Plutarco e parecchi scrittori, sia
4
This text derives from the masterpiece Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte
der Menschheit written by philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder between 1784
and 1791; the author sees the history as a perfect mechanism where the divine
providence had fixed precise rules for all the civilizations, so Rome became part
of an universal project because God wanted this.14 The conquering mission of the
empire was possible for its value and wisdom that permitted to build a good
harmony with foreigner people. Herder was the first who didn’t use Rome to
explain its time because, for him, the history is an instrument of God to
understand why so different civilisations drove the world during the centuries.15
In France, between 1835 and 1840, the young magistrate Alexis de
Tocqueville, published a book titled De la démocratie en Amérique after his nine
months visit in the U.S.:
“At the time of the greatest Caesars’ power, different people who lived in the
roman world conserved their different traditions: many provinces, although they
were under the same monarch, were administrated singularly; in those there were
powerful and active municipalities and, although the imperial government was in
the emperor’s hands who was arbiter of everything, social and individual life
details were out of his control. It is true that emperors had an enormous power
without limits and they used it to do every strange thing freely and by the state
force; so often it happened they abused of their power to bring citizens’ lives and
properties not respecting rules; but their tyranny, heavy on someone, wasn’t the
same on the majority; it was fixed on some principal objects and ignored the rest;
it was violent but restricted at the same time”.16
greci che romani, hanno detto la loro opinione a questo proposito, e nei tempi moderni quasi
tutti quelli che hanno riflettuto sulla storia, hanno trattato questo problema. Plutarco, pur
riconoscendo tutta l’importanza del valore romano, dà la prevalenza alla fortuna e anche in
questo, come negli altri suoi scritti, ha mostrato di essere uno scrittore fiorito, gradevole come i
Greci, ma non uno spirito che va a fondo del problema. La maggior parte degli scrittori romani,
invece, attribuivano tutto il merito al valore e, anzi, filosofi di tempi successivi inventarono
l’esistenza di un piano di saggezza politica sul quale sarebbe stata costruita l’intera potenza
romana dalla prima pietra fino ai suoi più alti sviluppi. Evidentemente la storia dimostra che
nessuno di questi due schemi da solo è vero, mentre opportunamente collegati sono entrambi
veri. Valore, fortuna e saggezza politica dovettero unirsi, perché fosse costruito ciò che è stato
costruito, e a partire dai tempi di Romolo vediamo che queste tre divinità sono tra loro alleate a
favore di Roma”. (JOHANN GOTTFRIED HERDER, Idee per la filosofia della storia
dell’umanità, A cura di Valerio Verra, Laterza, Bari, 1992, p. 281 – 2).
14
The philosopher sees the nature and the universal history that realise the humanity using the
education, so the language is the principle to unify the people. (ROBERTO ESPOSITO –
CARLO GALLI, Enciclopedia del pensiero politico, Laterza, Roma – Bari, 2000, p. 314).
15
For Herder the history is a linear process that gives a specific function to all; the divine
providence helps the development of this dimension where the nature and the humanity are in a
perfect harmony. (MASSIMO MORI, Storia della filosofia moderna, Laterza, Roma – Bari,
2005, p. 274 – 5).
16
“Al tempo della massima potenza dei Cesari, i diversi popoli che abitavano il mondo romano
avevano ancora conservato usi e costumi diversi: la maggior parte delle province, benché
sottoposte allo stesso monarca, erano amministrate a parte; in esse fiorivano municipi potenti e
attivi e, sebbene il governo dell’impero fosse accentrato nelle sole mani dell’imperatore, il quale
5
Also this author uses the roman empire to demonstrate a theory, that also an
absolute power can’t be everywhere, in fact the emperor controlled Rome only
because he lived there but he couldn’t do the same in all the empire. Tocqueville
thinks that one powerful man could damage his country as it was happened in
France, so it was right that the king was stopped by parliament17; the
demonstration is that empire could live only because its provinces maintained
their independence. For Tocqueville the secret of a long state life is in the respect
of local traditions because, only with terror, no one could govern in a so long and
efficient way.
“Romans conquered the world by seriousness, the discipline, the organization,
the ideas, the method; by the conviction to be a superior race born to command;
by the calculated use of the greatest cruelty, the cold perfidy and the hypocritical
propaganda they utilized together or singularly; by a strong resolution to sacrifice
all to the prestige without ideas of danger or human respect; by the art of
transforming enemies’ souls with terror or hope to swindle them before
conquering them by weapons; finally by a so able manipulation of false ideas to
deceive posterity and also us”.18
These ideas derives from Simon Weil, a young intellectual who was in Berlin
during the summer of 1932, few months before Hitler got the power; the writer
saw the birth and expansion of Nazism, so she tried to understand why. For this
reason, in 1939, she wrote Réflexions sur l’origine de l’Hitlerisme, a violent
pamphlet against the roman imperialism accused to be the Hitler’s political
era all’occorrenza arbitro di ogni cosa, i particolari della vita sociale e dell’esistenza individuale
sfuggivano generalmente al suo controllo. Gli imperatori possedevano, è vero, un potere
immenso e senza contrappesi, che permetteva loro di abbandonarsi liberamente a qualsiasi
stranezza e di soddisfarla con la forza intera dello stato; così che accadeva spesso che
abusassero di questo potere per togliere arbitrariamente a un cittadino i beni o la vita; ma la loro
tirannide, pur gravando straordinariamente su qualcuno, non si estendeva sulla maggioranza;
essa si fissava su alcuni oggetti principali e trascurava il resto: era nello stesso tempo violenta e
ristretta”. (ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, La democrazia in America, a cura di Giorgio
Candeloro, BUR, Milano, 2007, p. 731 – 2; or. ed., De la démocratie en Amérique).
17
Carl X became king in 1824 but he drove his country only for six years; in fact he abolished
the press freedom and limited the vote right causing a popular riot. In July of 1830 the people of
Paris, during three “glorious days”, deposed him and elected Louis Philippe of Orleans as new
king. (G. CRACCO – A. PRANDI – F. TRANIELLO, L’Europa e il mondo nell’età
contemporanea, SEI, Torino, 1992, p. 114).
18
“I Romani hanno conquistato il mondo con la serietà, la disciplina, l’organizzazione, la
continuità delle idee e del metodo; con la convinzione di essere una razza superiore e nata per
comandare; con l’impiego meditato, calcolato, metodico della più spietata crudeltà, della fredda
perfidia, della propaganda più ipocrita, messe in atto simultaneamente o di volta in volta; con
una risolutezza incrollabile nel sacrificare sempre tutto al prestigio, senza essere mai insensibili
né al pericolo, né ad alcun rispetto umano; con l’arte di alterare nel terrore l’anima stessa dei
loro avversari, o di addormentarli con la speranza, prima di asservirli con le armi; infine con una
manipolazione così abile della menzogna più grossolana da ingannare persino la posterità e da
continuare ad ingannarci”. (SIMONE WEIL, Sulla Germania totalitaria, A cura di Giancarlo
Gaeta, Adelphi, Milano, 1990, p. 219 – 20; ed. or., Ècrits historiques et politiques, Èditions
Gallimard, Paris, 1960).
6
inspiration. Simon Weil was the first author to use a so strong language against
Rome, in fact other writers had analysed the empire but none of them in this way;
Romans used only the terror to govern foreigner people, so they became a perfect
example for Hitler who educated Germans to the myth of the “right war” against
the others. The writer says that Rome didn’t respect different cultures because
only the Latin one was the best and everybody had to learn it; they also
manipulated the reality using the idea of false peace to conquer people’s minds.
For her the conclusion is simple: the roman empire was the best school for
Nazism, a perverse historical example that showed how the oppression was the
ideal instrument to govern the others.
“Roman conquerors transformed subdued peoples in real Romans by two
ways, giving them the citizenship or destroying their original traditions and doing
them slaves. But, during the conquer process and especially in the Hellenic
world, also the roman citizen changed because he did his traditions similar to
subdued people’s ones. By this double fusion process, Rome created a moral and
political community that had same borders of the conquered lands and, in this
way, they gave stability to the new state”.19
The last interesting author that analysed the roman empire in a political
prospective was Hans Morgenthau who wrote a book to explain the world
situation after 1945 titled Politics among nations. Introducing the concept of
imperialism, the writer describes Rome as the best model of govern, because it
transformed conquered peoples in perfect Romans using refined weapons as the
citizenship or the slavery; this process was effective and deep because also the
new culture was absorbed by conquerors. For example, Greeks were military
defeated but they had a strong success when Rome adopted their habits as their
theatrical tragedies and comedies, their historical method and their philosophical
ideas; so, ideally, Plato and Aristotle were able to “win” the empire after the
Greek had been subdued in politics and economy by Rome. So, in the end, the
only secret of Romans was an enormous group of different cultures that was
protected by shields of legionaries.
19
“I conquistatori romani trasformavano i popoli soggiogati in romani veri e propri, o
conferendo loro la cittadinanza oppure sradicandoli dalla loro civiltà di origine e rendendoli
schiavi. Tuttavia, durante il processo di conquista, in modo particolare del mondo ellenico,
anche il cittadino romano subiva una trasformazione, poiché esso ricreava la sua civiltà a
immagine e somiglianza di quella del popolo soggiogato. Attraverso tale duplice processo di
fusione, Roma creò una comunità morale e politica i cui confini coincidevano con quelli dei
popoli conquistati e che conferiva stabilità al nuovo stato”. (HANS J. MORGENTHAU,
Politica tra le nazioni. La lotta per il potere e la pace, Il Mulino, Bologna, 1997, p. 479 – 80;
or. ed., Politics among nations. The struggle for power and peace, New York, McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1985, Traduzione di Patrizia Poggi, Edizione italiana a cura di Luigi Bonanate).
7