Ancient Rome and its Similarities and Differences from Ancient Greece
Romans and Greeks
Unlike the time of the Greek era, in Roman times this was science. especially the science of statehood cannot develop in such a way, so that in fact there is very little knowledge that we get from this era.
But people should not reduce the meaning of the services of the Romans, because even though the constitutional system is not written into a science of thought, but is implanted in the practice of state administration, it can affect the entire world constitutional system.
Although the Romans in some ways inherited only the culture and civilization of the Greeks, after the Greek state in 146 BC. was conquered by Rome and then incorporated into the Roman Empire, but it was very different from the two countries.
Differences between ancient Romans and Greeks
1. In Roman times science could not develop rapidly
This is because the Romans were a nation that focused on practical problems rather than thinking theoretically.
Meanwhile, the Greeks were more of a people who like to think, also think about the state and law.
The Greeks produced many philosophers.
Thus, we can only know the conceptions of state of the Romans from their constitutional practices, because indeed the conceptions of statehood are always carried out in legal institutions and state institutions, while the conceptions of statehood from the Greeks are widely documented, and this is where we can find out.
2. The Roman Empire started from a divided state
But later, after going through wars, conditions in Rome underwent changes.
Which change is important is the change from a polis state or city state, Rome to an Empire (world empire), which can unite all areas of civilization in one kingdom.
Meanwhile, in the Greek era the state began with a united national unity, but eventually fell because the country was divided, which could no longer be controlled to be reunited.
The first government in Roman times was the Monarchy or Kingdom, which included various ethnic groups.
The government of the Monarchy was accompanied by a representative body whose members consisted only of patricians (aristocrats).
In this first system of government, the seeds of democracy were seen, which could then be implemented after the last king was expelled from his throne.
At that time later there was a conflict between the patricians (nobles) and the Plebeians (the hobo, commoners).
Which conflict can then be resolved by a statute, known as the 12 table law.
Then the government is held by two consuls who together with the government council run the government and laws.
Thus, the Roman state has undergone a change from a kingdom to a democracy, it's just that in an emergency, for example in a state of danger, war, state power is concentrated in one person, called a dictator.
Dictator
This dictator has enormous and absolute power, but only temporarily, with the intention that all decisions and actions can be taken and carried out quickly.
However, after things return to normal, his government will return to using a democratic system.
In this emergency, the statutory and judicial powers are held and exercised by a praetor, and in carrying out his duties he must adapt the legislation to new needs in a society which continues to develop towards progress.
So that it can lead to permanent jurisprudence and legal certainty for its citizens.
It has been said above that Rome could reach the peak of the development of its constitutional system into an Empire (World Empire).
In this stage of the Empire, the Romans used the teachings of the Stoics created by Zeno as the basis of their constitutional system.
And indeed it was this teaching of the Stoics that enabled Rome to become a world empire.
Universalism
Because the teachings of the Stoics were Universalistic, which was not limited to the city state like the universalism of the Greeks, but the universalism of the Stoics was universal and vile.
It's just that the difference, even though the Universalism of the Romans used as the basis is the teachings of the Stoics which also cover the whole world, is that the universalism of the ancient Greeks, namely Aristotle's universalism only covers polis and is state in nature.
The universalism of the Stoics, which was created by Zeno, covers the whole world and is psychological in nature. Meanwhile, the universalism of the Romans, although it also covers the whole world, is political, constitutional politics.
We mentioned above that there are two things that indicate the difference between Greece and the Roman state. But apart from that, there are still more principal differences.
Namely, that in the Greek era the person or citizen was part of the state, so that the citizen did not have any rights and could not file challenges against the state.
Meanwhile, in Roman times, people or citizens of that country were separated from the state, each of which was governed by different laws.
The relationship between citizens to one another is regulated by private law (civil), so they feel legal certainty, because disputes between them will be judged based on an objective balance.
Meanwhile, relations concerning the state are regulated by public law.
So in this way both individuals or citizens of each state and country have their own rights.
The legal building of the Romans which was based on the difference between private law (civil law) and public law, was simply the result of juridical thinking, which made the Roman state a state of fame.
Apart from that, if the Greeks in the past were always mixed up, in the sense that they had not separated law from decency, so that it was rigid in nature, they also had not separated the meaning of the state and the meaning of society.
Meanwhile, the Romans gave birth to a pure and practical juridical way of thinking.
Laws with decency are completely separated, also between the state and society.
The state is seen as an abstract form of meaning, which can be distinguished from society.
The principles or principles created by the Romans so as to form the Empire, the world empire, was a system or method by which a small group (minority) could control a large group (majority) consisting of foreign nations, and more importantly, which at that time there was not yet, what kind of system, by that system can maintain power forever, and how the state should defend itself from the dangers which threaten, which danger can cause division in the state, which can lead to destruction.
As a result of the growing and expanding of the Roman state, the government could no longer be led and implemented centrally.
So then in an attempt to overcome this situation, the state was divided into royal areas, called provinces, which had their own center of government (capital), led by a praetor.
Thus the democratic system which is implemented in the policy, also cannot be implemented in the Empire.
For if this was carried out there would arise the possibility that the nations which he had conquered and which had joined the Roman Empire would unite and revolt against the authorities.
So to overcome this the Romans have found a system, which ignores the principle of decency when it comes to the interests of the state, even though this system is known to be very bad. but it is very useful for those who implement it, namely the principle of dividing and controlling (divide et impera).
This principle implies that each nation which has been conquered must not make contact with one another, because the bonds born from this relationship may form a unity and rebel against the ruler, so this is very dangerous.
So, basically, the strict administrative practice of the Romans was clearly separated from the principles of decency.
If there are ethical ties that are deemed to endanger the state, the state will not hesitate to break them.
Thus, treason fraud and the like are permitted. as long as it is aimed at the interests of the state, such constitutional practice will be formulated by Niccolo Machiavelli in the renaissance era as his political teaching in a theoretical-juridical form.
After the Roman state was divided into provinces, led by a praetor, the prevailing law was expanded by a new system called jusgentium (law between nations), which contained general rules applicable to all nations.
This law is considered as a provision of an abstract ratio, which is fair and is considered the same for every nation, and which is also considered infallible.
In this case the teachings of the Stoics played an important role, because they caused people to think juridically, which then reached the conclusion that the natural laws of abstract thought were above jusgentium.
So people come to jusnaturale (natural law) thinking.
This means that the philosophy of the Greeks which contained natural law from the Stoics had based Roman law.
This was the view of the state in the Roman era, which in fact here the state was distinguished from society, the state was a legal entity besides society.
The state has its own interests and goals, which sometimes conflict with the interests and goals of society, but state power is not absolute, because this power is obtained from the people, and in private law, the state can be demanded by the citizens of the country to compensate for losses, should the state be carry out actions that are detrimental to its citizens.
The power of the people that is handed over to the ruler, namely the king, is not hereditary, so every time a new king is appointed the people hand over his power to the new king, and after that the people cannot revoke it.
This is what gives the ruler a reason to act as a dictator, and this has indeed happened, which was around the year 48 BC. Julius Caesar became a dictator for life, which resulted in Rome, which was originally a democracy and then became a monarchy.
But even so, the highest state power still rests with a people, and also comes from the people. So they thought the emperor's power was the same as the king's.
Against this situation, Polybius said that Rome was a government that united elements of democracy, aristocracy and oligarchy.
Polybius is one of the great thinkers of the state and law in Roman times.
In general, the theories of state in the Roman era did not show the original ideas, because they in many ways just continued the teachings of classical scholars (scholars from Greece). In fact, the Romans are actually the heirs of the Greeks.
But even so, their teachings are of high value to be studied, because their theories are implanted in their constitutional practices, which have a great influence on the countries of the world, whose traces can still be seen today, for example their legal systems. .
Thus we come to discuss the teachings of the Roman scholars.
