Reconstructing the Roman Republic: An Ancient Political Culture and Modern Research

by Karl-Joachim Hölkeskamp, Henry Heitmann-Gordon (Translator)

In recent decades, scholars have argued that the Roman Republic's political culture was essentially democratic in nature, stressing the central role of the 'sovereign' people and their assemblies. Karl-J. Holkeskamp challenges this view in Reconstructing the Roman Republic, warning that this scholarly trend threatens to become the new orthodoxy, and defending the position that the republic was in fact a uniquely Roman, dominantly oligarchic and aristocratic political form.

Holkeskamp offers a comprehensive, in-depth survey of the modern debate surrounding the Roman Republic. He looks at the ongoing controversy first triggered in the 1980s when the 'oligarchic orthodoxy' was called into question by the idea that the republic's political culture was a form of Greek-style democracy, and he considers the important theoretical and methodological advances of the 1960s and 1970s that prepared the ground for this debate. Holkeskamp renews and refines the 'elitist' view, showing how the republic was a unique kind of premodern city-state political culture shaped by a specific variant of a political class. He covers a host of fascinating topics, including the Roman value system; the senatorial aristocracy; competition in war and politics within this aristocracy; and the symbolic language of public rituals and ceremonies, monuments, architecture, and urban topography.

Certain to inspire continued debate, Reconstructing the Roman Republic offers fresh approaches to the study of the republic while attesting to the field's enduring vitality.

"

Genres: History

208 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Isaac Clemente ríos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Libro para muy entregados a la causa.

El autor recorre diferentes aspectos históricos, políticos, militares, económicos y sociales, tales como la naturaleza de las relaciones familiares o de patrón cliente, para explicar que la naturaleza política de la república romana era más oligárquica y aristocrática que puramente democrática.

Rechina el intento del autor por enfatizar la importancia de la competencia basada en el mérito para acceder a los puestos más relevantes. Sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que no hace referencia a que en gran parte de las ocasiones había corrupción, extorsión, compra de votos e incluso violencia física en los procesos electorales.

El concepto de capital simbólico como crédito social justifica, solo en parte esa aceptación del consenso político por parte de la sociedad. Tampoco es cierto que no existiesen alternativas al sistema, como bien demostro Octavio

Muy buen libro, solo para muy cafeteros.

Más allá de que es un ensayo técnico, está escrito de una forma amigable, vamos que se deja leer. Las reflexiones son de calidad, y abre la posibilidad de debate.

Mi nota: 8/10

[Harry Triggs · Rating 4 out of 5]

More like a 130 page academic diss track than a book, this definitely isn't for the casual Roman history fans. Essentially devoted to picking apart some of the theories of Fergus Millar, particularly his views on Roman democracy, this is a very complicated book dealing with a vast amount of historical political theory and historiographical debate. You WILL need to read certain passages multiple times to actually understand what Hölkeskamp is saying, and it can be very stodgy at times. That being said, for those with an interest in Republican Roman political theory, this is a great book, and although it is hard to get into it really picks up in later chapters.

[Joce · Rating 3 out of 5]

Hölkeskamp's "structural" approach to the Roman Republic (and shitting on Fergus Millar) concludes that Republican society was intensely hierarchical, and those who were at the "bottom" of these hierarchies accepted their position because of the "top's" symbolic means of displaying their aptitude for dominance. It seems difficult to argue against Hölkeskamp's analysis and extensive bibliography, and his analysis of symbolic manifestations of power/precedence is always strong. But I do wonder if he can object so strongly to Millar. There was a degree of "popular sway"—even if it was not so strongly manifested in elections—and elites would find themselves having to placate the people (the most prominent instances I can think of right now are in terms of taxation and war). Indeed, I was thinking of Hegel's master-slave dialectic as I read this book... yes, the elites were hierarchically superior, but did they find themselves "subservient" to the people too in the end? And did the people feel more empowered, despite their subordinate position?

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

Probably necessary for the overall discipline, the book nevertheless suffers from the author’s circumlocution, who’s thesis could have been summarized in less than a page.