An Inquiry into the Permanent Causes of the Decline and Fall of Powerful and Wealthy Nations Part 7

In the first place, so far as prosperity depends on good conduct, and good conduct depends on the state of the mind, the Romans are a most striking example. While they preserved the manners that first occasioned their rise, they continued to become more powerful; as they forsook these manners, their power abandoned them; and they, after having conquered all with whom they ever contended, because they had more skill or less corruption, were themselves overcome, by men infinitely inferior to what they had been, before they became enervated and corrupt.

The smallness of the territory, which the Romans at first possessed, laid them under the necessity of extending it, and drawing resources from their neighbours; who, being brave and hardy, could not be easily either robbed or subdued. [end of page #27]

The Romans began with robbing, and finished with subduing them all, but the modes they practised deserve attention.

It is in vain to think that superior bravery or skill would alone have done the business; those are often triumphant, but occasionally defeated. The Romans owed their gradual aggrandizement to a line of conduct that, whether in good or ill fortune, tended to make them the sovereigns of the world. A line of conduct in which, if it had been in human nature to persevere, they would have preserved the situation to which they had elevated themselves.

Along with this decided conduct, which seems to have arisen from something innate in themselves, or to have been occasioned by some circ.u.mstance that is not known, the Romans possessed a number of methods, in addition to personal bravery, by which they advanced the end they had in view.

When the kings were abolished, Rome was only a small, rude, irregular place, and a receptacle for plunder; inhabited, however, by men who had great strength of mind, and who possessed a great command over themselves.

Their moral code was suitable to their situation. To rob, plunder, and destroy an enemy was a merit; to betray a trust, or to defraud a fellow citizen, was a crime of the greatest magnitude. With the Romans, oaths were inviolable; and attachment to the public was the greatest virtue.

As they had neither arts nor commerce, and but very little territory, plunder was their means of subsistence; it was to them a regular source of wealth, and it was distributed with perfect impartiality; they were in fact an a.s.sociation; the wealth of the public, and of the individual, were, to a certain degree, the same; they were as an incorporated company, in which private interest conspired with the love of their country to forward the general interest.

Plundering and pillage, as well as the modes of dividing the spoil, were reduced to system and method; and the religious observation of oaths was conducive to the success of both. Every soldier was sworn to be faithful to his country, both in fighting its battles, and in giving a rigid account of whatever might be the fruits of the contest. [end of page #28]

The moveables and lands taken from an enemy were sold for the benefit of the public; the former went wholly for that purpose, and the latter were divided into two equal portions; one of which, like the moveables, went into the general stock, the other was distributed to the poorer citizens, at the price of a small acknowledgement.

The consequence of this system was, a perpetual state of warfare; in which it was clear that the armies must obtain a superiority over neighbours, who but occasionally employed themselves in acts of hostility.

From such a plan of operations it naturally followed that they must either have been subdued altogether, or come off in general with some advantage, otherwise it would have been impossible to proceed. Of this they seem to have been fully sensible; for, with them, it was a maxim never to conclude peace unless they were victorious, and never to treat with an enemy on their own territory.

Acting in this manner, and engaging in wars with different nations, unconnected with each other by treaties of alliance; without any common interest, or even any knowledge of each others =sic= affairs; ignorant, in general, even of what was going on, the Romans had, in most cases, a great advantage over those with whom they had to contend.

There were in Italy some very warlike people, and those were nearest to Rome itself. The contest with those was long obstinate, and repeatedly renewed; but still the system of conquest was followed; and at last prevailed.

The consular government was favourable, also, for perpetual warfare.

Those temporary chief magistrates did not enjoy their dignity long enough to become torpid or careless, but were interested in distinguis.h.i.+ng themselves by the activity of their conduct while in office; whereas, in hereditary power, or elective monarchy, the personal feelings of the chief, which must have an influence upon the conduct of a nation, must sometimes, happily for mankind, lead him to seek peace and quietness. {27}

{27} During the interruption of consular government, by the decemvirs, though they did not reign long, the energy of the people was suspended, and their enemies found them much less difficult to resist.

[end of page #29]

Even when the Gauls burned the city, the Romans yielded no advantages in treaty; they abandoned it to its fate, retired to Veii, and renewed the war.

In the art of war, the Romans had those advantages which men generally possess in whatever is the natural bent of their genius, and their constant occupation. Every thing that continual attention, experience, or example, could do to increase their success was attended to; and their hardy manner of education and living, with constant exercise, enabled them to practice =sic= what other men were unable to perform.

They accustomed themselves to heavier armour than any other nation.

Their rate of marching was between four and five miles an hour, for four or five hours together, loaded with a weight of above 60lb. Their weapons for exercising were double the usual weight, and they were inured to running and leaping when completely armed.

The success of the Romans in Europe was not sufficiently rapid, nor were the nations they conquered sufficiently rich to bring on that luxury and relaxation of discipline, which were the consequences in those victories obtained in Egypt, Syria, and Greece; nor were the soldiers the only persons inured to such exercises, for the Roman citizens practised the same at home, in the Campus Martius.

No people educated with less hardiness of body, or a less firm attachment to their country, could have undergone, or would have submitted, to the terrible fatigues of a Roman soldier, which were such, that, even at a very late period of the republic, they were known to ask as a favour to be conducted to battle, as a relief from the fatigues they were made to undergo in the camp. {28}

In addition to this unremitting and very severe discipline, and to the inventions of many weapons, machines, and stratagems, unknown to other nations, they had the great wisdom to examine very carefully, if they found an enemy enjoy any advantage, in what that advantage consisted. If it arose from any fault of their own, it was rectified

{28} This happened under Sylla, in the war against Mithridates, which immediately preceded the fall of the republic.

[end of page #30]

without delay; and if it arose from any new mode of fighting, or superior weapons, they adopted methods with such prompt.i.tude that the advantage was only once in favour of the enemy. {29}

The Asiatic methods of fighting with elephants, though new, never disconcerted them twice. If they knew of any superior art that they could imitate, it was done; and when the advantage arose from natural circ.u.mstances, and they could not themselves become masters of the art, they took other methods. Expert slingers from the Balearian Islands, and bowmen from Crete, were added to their legions; as, in modern times, field-ordnance and riflemen are added to ours.

It is impossible not to view with astonishment and admiration such wise conduct in such haughty men, whose simple citizens treated the sovereigns of other nations as equals; but that greatness of mind had a well-founded cause. They knew that the physical powers of men are limited, and that to obtain a victory with the greatest ease possible it was necessary to join together all the advantages that could be obtained; they knew, also, that war is altogether a trial of force, and a trial of skill, and that neither of the contending parties can act by rule, but must be guided by circ.u.mstances and the conduct of the enemy.

{30}

This conduct of the Romans in war was supported by the laws at home. The equal distribution of lands, their contempt for commerce and luxury, preserved the population of the country in that state where good soldiers are to be obtained. The wealthy, in any state, cannot be numerous; neither are they hardy to bear the fatigue. Their servants, and the idle, the indolent, and unprincipled persons they have about them are totally unfit, and a wretched populace, degraded by want, or inured to ease and plenty are equally unfit.

{29} This conduct appears the more admirable to those who live in the present times that in the revolutionary war with the French, who invented a number of new methods of fighting, and had recourse to new stratagems, the regular generals opposed to them never altered their modes of warfare, but let themselves be beat in the most regular way possible. One single general (the Archduke Charles) did not think himself above the circ.u.mstances of the case, and his success was proportioned to his merit.

{30} The copying the form and structure of a Carthaginian galley that was stranded.

[end of page #31]

It has been a favourite opinion among many writers on political economy that artists and workmen are cowardly and unfit for soldiers; but experience does not warrant that conclusion; though it is certain that, according to the manner the Romans carried on war, the bodily fatigue was greater than men bred up promiscuously to trades of different sorts could in general undergo.

So long as the Romans had enemies to contend with, from whom they obtained little, the manners and laws, the mode of education, and the government of their country, remained pure as at first. Their business, indeed, became more easy; for the terror of their name, their inflexibility, and the superior means they had of bringing their powers into action, all served to facilitate their conquests. But when they conquered Carthage, and begun =sic= to taste the fruits of wealth, their ground-work altered by degrees, and the superstructure became less solid. {31}

Wealth, as we have already seen, was confined to Asia and Africa, and of it the Carthaginians possessed a great share. It has long been the opinion adopted by writers on those subjects that the Carthaginians, as being a commercial and a trading nation, were quite an unequal match for the Romans; that in Rome all was virtue, public spirit, and every thing that was great and n.o.ble, while at Carthage all was venal, vile, and selfish. A spirit of war and conquest reigned, say they, in one place together with a spirit of glory, in the other a spirit of gain presided over private actions and public counsels.

This is all very true, and very well said, with respect to the fact, but with respect to the cause there is one of the greatest errors into which a number of men of discernment and ability have ever fallen. {32}

The true state of the case is easily to be understood, if we only

{31} It will be seen, in the subsequent part of this inquiry, that, in the present mode of warfare, the Romans would not have had equal advantage.--Skill, and not personal strength, is now the great object, and money to purchase arms and ammunition is the next.

{32} M. Montesquieu, notwithstanding his very superior knowledge, accuracy, and acuteness, enlarges upon this subject; and never takes any notice of the corrupt, mercenary, and degraded state into which Rome fell when it became as rich as Carthage.

[end of page #32]

throw aside, for a moment, the favour for the brave warrior, and the dislike to the selfish trader. The fact was, that Rome, in the days of its vigour, when it was poor, attacked Carthage in the days of its wealth and of its decline; but let us compare Carthage before its fall to Rome in the time of the Gordians, of Maximus, or Gallus, and see which was most vile, most venal, or most cowardly. This would at least be a fair comparison; and nothing relative to the two cities is more certain, than that Rome became far more degraded, in the character both of citizens and soldiers, than ever Carthage was.

Wealth procured by commerce, far from degrading a nation more than wealth procured by conquest, does not degrade it near so much; and the reason is easily understood. Whenever a commercial nation becomes too corrupted and luxurious, its wealth vanishes, and the evil corrects itself. Whereas, a country that lives by tribute received from others, may continue for a considerable while to enjoy its revenues.

This is so evident, that it would be absurd to enlarge on the subject.

The reduction of Carthage, and the wealth it produced at Rome, soon brought on a change in the education, the nature, and the manner of acting, both in private life and public concerns. The conquest of Greece, Syria, and Egypt, completed the business; and the same people who had conquered every enemy, while they retained their poverty and simplicity, were themselves conquered, when they became rich and luxurious.. =sic=

After the fall of Carthage {33}, Rome was fundamentally changed; but the armies still continued to act. Their ambition was now strengthened by avarice, and became ten times more active and dangerous to other nations. They then carried on war in every direction, and neither the riches of the East, nor the poverty of the North, could secure other nations from the joint effects of ambition and avarice.