Pirates of the Mediterranean (History and political content)

[Rodeo]

I thought this piece had some interesting and important points, so am passing it along to fellow Pelicans.

Pirates of the Mediterranean

By ROBERT HARRIS
Op-Ed Contributor
Kintbury, England

IN the autumn of 68 B.C. the world’s only military superpower was dealt a profound psychological blow by a daring terrorist attack on its very heart. Rome’s port at Ostia was set on fire, the consular war fleet destroyed, and two prominent senators, together with their bodyguards and staff, kidnapped.

The incident, dramatic though it was, has not attracted much attention from modern historians. But history is mutable. An event that was merely a footnote five years ago has now, in our post-9/11 world, assumed a fresh and ominous significance. For in the panicky aftermath of the attack, the Roman people made decisions that set them on the path to the destruction of their Constitution, their democracy and their liberty. One cannot help wondering if history is repeating itself.

Consider the parallels. The perpetrators of this spectacular assault were not in the pay of any foreign power: no nation would have dared to attack Rome so provocatively. They were, rather, the disaffected of the earth: “The ruined men of all nations,” in the words of the great 19th-century German historian Theodor Mommsen, “a piratical state with a peculiar esprit de corps.”

Like Al Qaeda, these pirates were loosely organized, but able to spread a disproportionate amount of fear among citizens who had believed themselves immune from attack. To quote Mommsen again: “The Latin husbandman, the traveler on the Appian highway, the genteel bathing visitor at the terrestrial paradise of Baiae were no longer secure of their property or their life for a single moment.”

What was to be done? Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual. The consulship, elected annually, was jointly held by two men. Military commands were of limited duration and subject to regular renewal. Ordinary citizens were accustomed to a remarkable degree of liberty: the cry of “Civis Romanus sum” — “I am a Roman citizen” — was a guarantee of safety throughout the world.

But such was the panic that ensued after Ostia that the people were willing to compromise these rights. The greatest soldier in Rome, the 38-year-old Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (better known to posterity as Pompey the Great) arranged for a lieutenant of his, the tribune Aulus Gabinius, to rise in the Roman Forum and propose an astonishing new law.

“Pompey was to be given not only the supreme naval command but what amounted in fact to an absolute authority and uncontrolled power over everyone,” the Greek historian Plutarch wrote. “There were not many places in the Roman world that were not included within these limits.”

Pompey eventually received almost the entire contents of the Roman Treasury — 144 million sesterces — to pay for his “war on terror,” which included building a fleet of 500 ships and raising an army of 120,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Such an accumulation of power was unprecedented, and there was literally a riot in the Senate when the bill was debated.

Nevertheless, at a tumultuous mass meeting in the center of Rome, Pompey’s opponents were cowed into submission, the Lex Gabinia passed (illegally), and he was given his power. In the end, once he put to sea, it took less than three months to sweep the pirates from the entire Mediterranean. Even allowing for Pompey’s genius as a military strategist, the suspicion arises that if the pirates could be defeated so swiftly, they could hardly have been such a grievous threat in the first place.

But it was too late to raise such questions. By the oldest trick in the political book — the whipping up of a panic, in which any dissenting voice could be dismissed as “soft” or even “traitorous” — powers had been ceded by the people that would never be returned. Pompey stayed in the Middle East for six years, establishing puppet regimes throughout the region, and turning himself into the richest man in the empire.

Those of us who are not Americans can only look on in wonder at the similar ease with which the ancient rights and liberties of the individual are being surrendered in the United States in the wake of 9/11. The vote by the Senate on Thursday to suspend the right of habeas corpus for terrorism detainees, denying them their right to challenge their detention in court; the careful wording about torture, which forbids only the inducement of “serious” physical and mental suffering to obtain information; the admissibility of evidence obtained in the United States without a search warrant; the licensing of the president to declare a legal resident of the United States an enemy combatant — all this represents an historic shift in the balance of power between the citizen and the executive.

An intelligent, skeptical American would no doubt scoff at the thought that what has happened since 9/11 could presage the destruction of a centuries-old constitution; but then, I suppose, an intelligent, skeptical Roman in 68 B.C. might well have done the same.

In truth, however, the Lex Gabinia was the beginning of the end of the Roman republic. It set a precedent. Less than a decade later, Julius Caesar — the only man, according to Plutarch, who spoke out in favor of Pompey’s special command during the Senate debate — was awarded similar, extended military sovereignty in Gaul. Previously, the state, through the Senate, largely had direction of its armed forces; now the armed forces began to assume direction of the state.

It also brought a flood of money into an electoral system that had been designed for a simpler, non-imperial era. Caesar, like Pompey, with all the resources of Gaul at his disposal, became immensely wealthy, and used his treasure to fund his own political faction. Henceforth, the result of elections was determined largely by which candidate had the most money to bribe the electorate. In 49 B.C., the system collapsed completely, Caesar crossed the Rubicon — and the rest, as they say, is ancient history.

It may be that the Roman republic was doomed in any case. But the disproportionate reaction to the raid on Ostia unquestionably hastened the process, weakening the restraints on military adventurism and corrupting the political process. It was to be more than 1,800 years before anything remotely comparable to Rome’s democracy — imperfect though it was — rose again.

The Lex Gabinia was a classic illustration of the law of unintended consequences: it fatally subverted the institution it was supposed to protect. Let us hope that vote in the United States Senate does not have the same result.

Robert Harris is the author, most recently, of “Imperium: A Novel of Ancient Rome.”

[Wrecked944]

Oh Rodeo, I respect your views a lot on this forum - even when I disagree. But this article is way off the mark. My undergrad degree was in Roman History and saying that the events surrounding the fight against the Mediterranean pirates caused the end of the Roman Republic is like saying that you know which bean made you fart. Man, a LOT of things brought about the creation of the imperial system - not the least of which being that Rome was never really a "republic" as we would define one. Instead, even at its best, it more closely resembled a clan of mafia dons - or, more technically, an olagarchy. Actually, the mafia don analogy is surprisingly accurate. And when the imperial system was created, it was still much the same except there was one don who was more powerful than the rest.

We could talk for hours about the causes of the transition from "republic" to "imperial rule". There is no one answer.

And I also have to point out one major flaw in the article. It implies that money corrupted the electoral system in Rome. Well, frankly, the "electoral" system was dysfunctional from the start. To begin with, Senators were not elected by the people. They were simply the heads of each of the most powerful families in Rome - much like mafia dons. It was the senators themselves who decided who got to be a senator. And in the "republic", the senate wielded absolute power. The people got to "vote" for representatives called the "Tribunes of the Plebs". But in practice, these tribunes had no power what-so-ever. They had power in theory. But in 122BC, that power was effectively destroyed when the senate had one of the Plebian Tribunes executed for disagreeing with them.

Blah, blah, blah...sorry for the long rant. Like I said, I could go on for hours...

[Rodeo]

Well, I thought about posting this with the disclaimer that my knowledge of acient Rome is zilch (well, I did watch the mini-series )

So I appreciate commentary from those that are more, um, learned on the subject

[widebody911]

Ever watch any gladiator movies, Jimmy?

[1967 R50/2]

Ditto what Janus said-

The statement "Over the preceding centuries, the Constitution of ancient Rome had developed an intricate series of checks and balances intended to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a single individual" overreaches in the extreme.

First off, Rome had NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. Which was part of the problem, laws were constantly in flux.

Secondly, you can hardly point to the pirates as the beginning of the downfall of the Roman republic. Long before Pompey, Gaius Marius became the first of the over-mighty generals, being elected Consul 7 times. He was followed not to long after by his one time protege and collaborator, Sulla, who purged Rome and of course ultimately by Crassus, Caesar and Pompey.

Finally, let's give credit where it is due. Pompey DID ERADICATE THE PIRATES...from one end of the Mediterranean to the other..at least for a few decades. No small task. Therefore requiring no small budget. He also did it without spying on fellow Romans, to the best of my knowledge.

Ironically, many years later, after Pompey's death, Pompey's own son, Sextus, became a pirate himself.

[Wrecked944]

Originally posted by Rodeo
Well, I thought about posting this with the disclaimer that my knowledge of acient Rome is zilch (well, I did watch the mini-series )

So I appreciate commentary from those that are more, um, learned on the subject

Well, I hope I didn't rant too much. I do believe the comparison is a worthy exercise - it was just Harris' Op-ed that I disagreed with. Even after two millenia, I think there are lessons to be learned from the Romans. And it would not hurt to throw the British Empire in there as well. Rome still stands as the longest lived and most successful super-national state (except maybe for China - depending on how you define "China"). And Britain was, of course, the first global empire. If America decides to walk down the imperial path - which appears to be the case - then it can't hurt to look at how others succeeded and failed.

For instance, one of the things that, I think, helped the Romans succeed (where others failed) was that they were extremely generous with citizenship. They made it a point to bring "conquered" peoples directly into the imperial power structure so they could have a sense of "ownership" in the empire. I was always amazed to see how many senators and even emperors were born outside of Italy or whose families came from recently "conquered" lands. This is something that Britain, for instance, was never very good at. The Romans also invested enormous amounts of money into the "conquered" provinces to improve the infrastructure and facilitate trade and defense. Again, this tended to please the locals and helped to reduce rebellions.

Of course, it was never that simple. And I don't mean to imply that the Romans did everything well in every case. Sometimes they just moved in and killed everybody (as was the case in Carthage). But they did make a lot of surprisingly smart choices which helps to explain why they lasted as long as they did.

Yeah, we can probably kill a lot of bandwidth hashing all of this out...

[Tobra]

I thought it was the inbreeding of the elites and lead plumbing they used. Pb is not the symbol for lead by mistake.

[nota]

Originally posted by Tobra
I thought it was the inbreeding of the elites and lead plumbing they used. Pb is not the symbol for lead by mistake.

NO it was the christians that did in the empire

look at the dates about 300 the christians began
to get power by 360 they had banned every other religion
distroyed all the temples ect
and by 411 the city was sacked

they used lead for hundreds of years
it was not a good idea BUT they drank wine NOT water
water is for baths
and their morals were stronger when pagan
about the important stuff not just SEX
thats just a christian hangup

but shortly after the christians got power
the whole western empire went to hell
and a thousand year dark age began

[Wrecked944]

Guys, I refer you again to the "bean" analogy. The Roman Empire was well designed and operated with a high degree of competence. So it took a LOT of factors to bring about its demise. You can throw in the use of mercenary armies over citizen soldiers. You can include the change of allegiance of the military from the state to the emperor (and/or individual generals) which undermined the stability of the state. You can cite the unexpected influx of central asian refugee populations. You can also argue that the empire required continued conquests in order to maintain its economy and that the stabilization of the borders marked the beginning of the end.

There are a zillion different theories and they may all be correct.The empire was too well designed and functioned too well to fall for just one reason.

But back to Rodeo's original point. I do believe there are some lessons to be learned from past empires. For instance, I am impressed that Rome always made it a point to rebuild conquered lands better than - actually FAR better than - they were before. So more than one nation essentialy "gave" themselves to Rome on the theory that joining the empire would be a great boon - which was usually true. I suggest we should have done something similar in Iraq. Had we devoted enough troops and spent a couple of trillian dollars to make Iraq a paradise, then I suggest we may not have the problems we have now. If every Iraqi woke up every day feeling glad that we rebuilt their towns, gave them great schools and jobs etc , then we'd be in great shape now.

Of course, when the Romans did it, they always devoted an enormous military force to make sure nothing went wrong during the reconstruction. So we'd need to have put a LOT more boots on the ground as well.

[thrown_hammer]

Pirates are so cool.

[Rot 911]

Originally posted by thrown_hammer
Pirates are so cool.

Especially women pirates. Arrrg!

[thrown_hammer]

Or Penguin Pirates...

[gaijindabe]

Some more recent history:

Barbary pirates and the U.S. Navy

When the U.S. became a country it had little in the way of a navy to protect its merchant ships, so in 1784, Congress appropriated $60,000 as tribute to the Barbary states. But continued attacks prompted the building of the United States Navy, including one of America's most famous ships, the USS Philadelphia, leading to a series of wars along the North African coast, starting in 1801. It was not until 1815 that naval victories ended tribute payments by the U.S., although some European nations continued annual payments until the 1830s.

The United States Marine Corps actions in these wars led to the line, "to the shores of Tripoli" in the opening of the Marine Hymn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_pirates

[BlueSkyJaunte]

Originally posted by Kurt V
Especially women pirates. Arrrg!

She sure shivers me timber!

[Jeff Higgins]

[Rodeo]

Is that Nero?

Where's his fiddle?

[Jeff Higgins]

It ain't a fiddle, boy, it's a banjo...

[Rodeo]

George Walker Bush's grandparents used to serve kids like that for appetizers at their Greenwich cocktail parties.

[Jeff Higgins]

Somehow I think that little feller would have Dubya and his kin for lunch. "...you sure have a purty mouth..."