On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 05:07:39PM -0800, Philip Hart wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Steve Simmons wrote: > > I'd argue that *any* transfer of power in Rome which involved the army > > was a coup de'etat. Ignoring the word 'class' for a moment (because the > > Roman army and the Senate sure weren't in the same social class), it was > > a coup when one faction of the oligopoly of power overthrew another > > faction. It certianly wasn't a revolution, which implies much more of a > > popular uprising. The Roman army, for all it's power, was rarely anything > > other than a tiny fraction of the population of the Empire during the > > period mentioned. > It's been too long since I read Roman history, but I thought there were > instances when the army marched from the east or wherever and installed > some soldier (not always a willing one) on the throne. I don't really > know what "class" means in this context, but say Sejanus was of the > old class so the Praetorian control of power which I was thinking about > citing doesn't work, hmm, the overthrow of the Republic isn't a counter- > example, thinking out loud here, back to the first sentence. Certainly > the social order wasn't overturned in those cases. I'd say we're in agreement on the point that whatever happened with the army, it sure wasn't a revolution. You mention the army installing soldiers on the throne; that certianly happened. As for social class - up to about 100 BC, the army was largely composed of the upper social strata of Rome. You pretty much had to be a landowner to join. The wars of that era depleted those ranks horribly, which ultimately led Giaus Marius to start recruiting from the lowest class - the capus centi, or 'the head count.' Within 50 years the army switched >from being an all-volunteer force of upper and middle-class volunteers to a profession manned largely by the lowest. Along the way the Army saw Marius, Sulla, Julius Caesar, and others use the Army to be the weapon that tipped the balance in various coup de'etats (however the heck you spell that). By early CE, the Army knew what it's power was and became less and less willing to let incompetents from the uppermost classes (who were the higher officers) lead them into slaughter. The army became a mix of both meritocracy and popularity, pushing people they respected into senior positions regardless of class. Eventually they did as you describe, just started installing their own emperors. So unlike the comment 3 or 4 back in this thread, the Army didn't act in a social revolutionary manner (ie, one class overthrowing another). They instead became one more faction in the general Roman power games, and hence I class their actions as a coup de'tat rathern than a revolution. Whew! Sorry to be so long-winded. > If I remember my Thucydides accurately, there were plenty of cases of > revolutions in city-states that just involved one faction (say the old > aristocracy) inviting the city's enemies in to take out the ruling class > (say the newly rich merchants), a favor that might eventually be returned > by the survivors. I certainly don't know how to evaluate "all other > means" though. I'm only barely into Thucydides, but think I've seen what you're talking about. My definition of 'revolution' is admittedly seat-of-the-pants, but a small faction overthrowing a city-state with the help of an outside army doesn't match it. Coup de'main might be a better description of such overthrows. The Other Steve -- "I try not to sound old and cynical, but it's hard to do that when you're old and cynical." -me > > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Steve Simmons wrote: > > > On Mon, Jan 19, 2004 at 02:13:55PM -0800, Philip Hart wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, Steven Brust wrote: > > > > > > I beg to submit that, if we make the scientific distinction between > > > > "revolution" and "coup-de-tat" (the former being the bringing to power of a > > > > new social class; the latter being a shuffling within the same social class) > > > > then never in history has a revolution occurred before all other means were > > > > attempted. > > > > > The Roman empire's army uprising in whatever-it-was-CE? Some of the more > > > abrupt transitions in Hellenic Greece? > > > > I'd argue that *any* transfer of power in Rome which involved the army > > was a coup de'etat. Ignoring the word 'class' for a moment (because the > > Roman army and the Senate sure weren't in the same social class), it was > > a coup when one faction of the oligopoly of power overthrew another > > faction. It certianly wasn't a revolution, which implies much more of a > > popular uprising. The Roman army, for all it's power, was rarely anything > > other than a tiny fraction of the population of the Empire during the > > period mentioned. > > > It's been too long since I read Roman history, but I thought there were > instances when the army marched from the east or wherever and installed > some soldier (not always a willing one) on the throne. I don't really > know what "class" means in this context, but say Sejanus was of the > old class so the Praetorian control of power which I was thinking about > citing doesn't work, hmm, the overthrow of the Republic isn't a counter- > example, thinking out loud here, back to the first sentence. Certainly > the social order wasn't overturned in those cases. > > If I remember my Thucydides accurately, there were plenty of cases of > revolutions in city-states that just involved one faction (say the old > aristocracy) inviting the city's enemies in to take out the ruling class > (say the newly rich merchants), a favor that might eventually be returned > by the survivors. I certainly don't know how to evaluate "all other > means" though. -- "I try not to sound old and cynical, but it's hard to do that when you're old and cynical." -me