Roman Currency

So I visited Rome, the capital of the last great pan-European empire. The legacy of the Kings, Republic, and the Empire has had so much cultural value since their demise. Since then, all three varieties of government have reached back and claimed some kind of parallelism. So this made me think how this value of Rome has been seen, and how it really has affected the way we see things.

Karl Marx said that history repeats itself. Mark Twain said that history does not repeat itself, it just rhymes. Adam Hagerman says history is a dialogue between the past and the present, and that dialogue is informed by patterns.

What Adam means by this is that we constantly refigure ourselves based on the values of our time. Other historians agree with him. How we see ourselves today informs our perception of the past, and even how we see the past informs our perception of who we are today. Sounds like a big circle of crazy craziness, but it makes sense if you break it down a bit. My first two references fill out this point. Consider the context in which they were said. Karl Marx said (simplified) that history is just a record put on repeat of class conflicts – the upper class gains oppressive power, the poor is oppressed and becomes fed up with it, the lower classes revolt, lower classes become content and oppression revs up again. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum. The surrounding contexts were largely irrelevant. Mark Twain wrote a book about an anachronistic bureaucrat, the “Yankee” who is transported back in time to King Arthur’s court, and detailed the interplay of change and conservation is played out at a grotesque level, only to show how any time period, even though experiencing different circumstances and experiences, are susceptible to the major themes of history, namely revolution (of a technological and social variety, as Twain uses.) The results are unique in that the effects are unique. So Marx’s world view of the circle of proletariat – bourgeoisie struggle informed his perception of history, just as Mark Twain’s world view of constant change in technological and social development informed his perception of history as a forward-moving train with similar events that smell a bit like the past.

My postulate is illustrated by Napoleon. Napoleon used every opportunity to compare himself to the glory of Ancient Rome, whether it be in portraits by David or the large monuments to himself he erected throughout Paris. France came from a long tradition of classical influence (or so it said.) During the time of the monarchy, Louis (of whichever variety) drew references with the Greek and Roman mythology to emphasis a divine influence of whatever sort. During the age of Revolution, France was home to the reincarnate Roman republic of liberty, fraternity, and equality. Let’s just ignore for a moment that this idea is a farce in the connection they made. When Napoleon came to power and constructed the great French Empire (which, comically for Marx and Twain, follows the same pattern of the Roman Empire), he assumed the paraphernalia of the Romans, from illustrating himself in a toga and laurel wreath to the grand Arc d’Trioumphe which looks startlingly similar to the Arc of Titus found today in the ruins of the Roman Forum.

So let’s talk about how Napoleon was anything but a repeat of the Roman Empire. His power came through a governmental coup (still debatable) and sought out to dominate the European continent with little incentive other than to exercise his military power. His empire fell because he was a weak leader incapable of controlling the (already) civilized and developed lands he unjustly invaded. Rome, on the other hand, expanded to spread civilization to the barbarian lands. Rome failed because it became too large for one emperor to handle.

Now let’s talk about how Napoleon is the rightful heir to the Roman Empire. Napoleon gained his power because he proved to be a good leader and the people chose to honor him by allowing him to serve indefinitely and spread the superior French values of culture and government to the unenlightened areas of the continent. He met his fate because he, too, had met his barbarians while fighting an offensive crusade and could not recover. It’s merely the force of destiny that brought the great French Empire to its knees, forced to shrink back to its former territory. The path of Rome was just the path destined for any great empire.

The first scenario is perhaps how the Germans and Russians would view Napoleon. The second is, of course, how the French would view Napoleon.

Napoleon isn’t the only one to have drawn on the fame and legacy of the Roman Empire. The United States did it, too. Look at Washington D.C. The domes and government offices scream classical from the Washington, Lincoln, and Jefferson memorials’ obelisks, concave roofs, friezes and columns, just like in ancient temples.

This constant reference to the classical world informs our outlook on ourselves, just as it did with the French and Napoleon. We view ourselves as the upholders of democracy, the land of the free, and the pinnacle of the western world. Others view us as the gluttonous heathens who will rot eternally because of our pagan ways. It just depends on who chooses to identify with which role in history and from whose perspective.

I didn’t give the third postulate’s context. We live in a world of information and the abundance of so many perspectives that anybody can form a polemic argument and be completely correct. We live in a world with so much documented history behind us that we can choose to ally ourselves with the great Romans or the heathen tribes from Gaul. The history is there and we are free to make it repeat itself if we so choose. Otherwise we can simply say that this is a new era with only minor similarities. Or it’s completely new. It’s all up to us.