Chapter IV: The Romans: Interdisciplinarity, Politics and Moral Questions

No other empire in history flaunted its exceptionalism, power, and expansiveness like the Romans from the end of the AD era and throughout the BC era. Throughout history, the Roman Empire has been re-casted in many forms, from the influence of the great bard William Shakespeare, to the similarities between the Roman Empire and the current United States of America, to whom Thomas Jefferson was an admirer¹. Although the Roman Empire had many tales from the Ides of March to Julius Caesar’s Crossing of the Rubicon, the primary focus of the Roman Empire in this book will attempt to look deeper into the methods of learning, life and society that made the Roman Empire stand for over 2000 years. We will attempt to focus on some of the major characters that played a role in the building of Rome and more specifically the interdisciplinarity that was present. Throughout this chapter certain themes will emerge on how the Romans conducted themselves through this epoch, and ask how did the Roman Empire proceed to stand for thousands of years through their ways of learning, life, and society? Furthermore, how does the Roman Empire display an interdisciplinary nature throughout their culture?

It is important to understand the Roman Empire from the beginning, I will not go as far back as Romulus and Remus feeding from the mythical giant wolf; more along the lines of late BC and the beginning of the Greco-Roman world. However, the goal is to obtain a sense of collaboration at one time between the powerful Greek Empire and the burgeoning Roman Empire. It was inevitable that these two factions would end up warring over territory considering the early Greek colonies located in the south of modern-day Italy. This would lead to the expansion of the new Roman Republic meeting the vaunted Macedonian army led by Pyrrhus, who the Romans learned a great deal of war strategy such as the idea of camping and using towers to spot enemies². The Romans would eventually expand their territory, but this offered the first look into war strategy and the first confrontation between the Ancient Greek (Macedonian) phalanx and the Romans³.

Although war was inevitable, it is said that the different ideals and traditions were shared between the two sides acting almost as a passing of lineage from one superpower to another. Similar to the changing in the eighteenth century with the Americans and the British. Kerby Anderson makes similarities between the rise of the Romans to the rise of the Americans. Although both of the empires share a lineage from their predecessors, both empires according to Anderson, are unique in their ability to enact a global influence through economic, military and socio-cultural power⁴. This building of a past knowledge to create your own knowledge on society is an interdisciplinary way of growth; however, some question the moralistic or ethical measures that both empires used to gain their power through imperialistic tendencies. During the expansion of the Roman Empire some statesmen and orators would be able to draw knowledgeable connections to the culture of Rome and imperialism through their rhetoric and oration.

Cicero (106-43 BC) was a Roman orator and statesman who held the philosophy of a skeptic during the rise of the Roman Empire. Cicero observed the concept of imperialism with a practical lens; and intended to take the middle ground through the critical deciphering of events such as Julius Caesar’s dictatorship. Cicero made the understanding of governance between the leaders and the followers, a framework that both roles must have a stake in the success or failure of the republic⁵. Of course this is based on the ideas of democracy from the Platonic and Aristotelian philosophic method, to which Cicero was trained in, therefore his questioning on imperialism takes an interdisciplinary approach that goes beyond the statesman and focuses on the majority of the people that make the republic. Although Cicero’s belief on the stable continuity of imperialism for Roman politics has been seen as detrimental, his practical approach and connection to an ethic upheld a semblance of democracy presenting serious ethical questions regarding Caesar’s dictatorship⁶.

It is Cicero that was instrumental through his interdisciplinary way to create a set of laws for the Roman senate and empire. It was through his oratory skill from the Greek tradition that helped provide views in concert with the Lex Romanus (Roman Laws) and provided information about the ugly side of tyranny. Unfortunately, at the same time, his upholding of the Roman senate to be the beacon of power indirectly produces more tyranny. In his most significant work of De Oratore, Cicero outlines the concept of rhetoric through the eminence of all fields that helps build knowledge through different realms:

“For indeed you cannot fail to remember that the most learned men hold what the Greeks call philosophy to be the creator and mother, as it were, of all the reputable arts, and yet in this field of philosophy it is difficult to count how many men there have been, eminent for their learning and for the variety and extent of their studies, men whose efforts were devoted, not to one separate branch of study, but who have mastered everything they could whether by scientific investigation or by the method of dialectic.”⁷

Cicero proceeds to use this understanding for a wide extension in a variety of studies forming the arrangement of rhetoric in many different facets. The arrangement according to Bizzell and Herzberg calls for speeches and oratory to have: (1) creation, (2) arranging, (3) style, (4) memory, and (5) delivery⁸. This arrangement has remained consistent to this day as the general makeup of an academic essay or academic speech leading to the creation of a thesis, arranging in an effective style, and delivering the information. This interdisciplinary style of knowledge relating to rhetoric, presents a principal understanding on the relation of oratory to politics and the learning in society. He uses the concepts of rhetoric to make sense of the ethical implications of oratory in society and politics:

“To come, however, at length to the highest achievements of eloquence, what other power could have been strong enough either to gather scattered humanity into one place, or to lead it out of its brutish existence in the wilderness up to our present condition of civilization as men as citizens, or after the establishment of social communities, to give shape to laws, tribunals and civic rights.”⁹

Cicero is carrying the tradition from the Greeks to the Roman Empire. This is done through the concept of life and society through learning and teaching about the methods of democracy. As was in Greek society, the concept of democracy based on individual autonomy of citizens but still under the kings of the Greek states; Cicero questions and produces a sense of statesmanship from the public to produce and influence laws within the Roman system.

Reforming Politics for Better or Worse

The reformation of politics to highlight an interdisciplinarity framework relates to the Roman Empire and a deciphering of politics with a contemporary understanding. Schmidt concludes that the European Commission renders a positive way to enhance public discourse from interdisciplinarity politics through political and institutional collaboration¹⁰; he also cites that “identifying the different types of interdisciplinarity provides a framework for distinguishing different kinds of knowledge politics.”¹¹ With this, how do we see the concepts of collaboration and knowledge during the reformation of political discourse during the Roman Empire? As previously stated through the works of Cicero who saw the tyranny of Julius Caesar, moving from the Republic of the BCE era to the empire of the ACE era we attempt to see if the Roman Empire really removed tyranny.

After the retreat of Pyrrhus and the siege on Carthage, the Republic was in dire financial trouble and the goal was to enhance economic prosperity. It was at this time the emperors who pursued peace and prosperity of the Roman Empire, at the same time the conquest of non-Roman or indigenous lands through force of the ruling Roman aristocracy creating distinctions between different social groups¹². This presents a dichotomy between the wealth and wellbeing of Roman people vs. the degradation of indigenous peoples of conquered lands, strangely this presents a common similarity of contemporary expansions, such as the Western expansion of the United States during the eighteenth and nineteenth century. The moral question to be asked through the reformation of politics is a classic Latin phrase: Cui bono or from who is to benefit? Through the conquest of new lands, the people of Rome benefit and tribes of lands conquered either adjusted or faltered, furthermore, with the people of Rome benefiting from the conquest of new lands and prosperity, it was the heads of states and the Roman statesmen that benefited the most, with indigenous people of conquered lands laying waste to Roman swords.

With new lands and conquest, the moral question to ask is about conformity of the people under Roman rule. Should the people follow Roman rule and gain prosperity under the Roman Empire? Or follow their own rule and falter under the sword of the Roman Empire? Even to this day, that is a difficult question to answer as it presents the dichotomy of conformity and autonomy. An interdisciplinary mindset uses a physical growth mindset of expanding lands but fails in the knowledge mindset of expanding a society through a democratic process. It was Hadrian and his conquest of the lands of Brittanica (modern day: Brittan), that used powers to the excessive extent to control land and fortify the Roman Empire through this conquest. Datum research from Hadrian’s reign used a sense of power in strength and numbers to conquer, suggesting over 200,000 members for conquest were used under the emperor, including the use of non-citizens (willingly or forced) to expand the empire¹³. Up to this point we are entering an interesting conversation on power. What the Roman Empire suggests is that power is not a result from a system, rather an inherent solution to governance within a society. No one left a scroll or a framework for the Greeks or Romans to expand power, it could be a tool of human nature, an idea of hierarchical management to act as a stabilizer for society.

Ultimately the political understanding of a modern-day Europe of collaboration and enhancing public discourse would not be found in the transition of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire on the surface. One might argue the collaboration between the senate statesmen have somewhat improved between the citizens of Rome including the armies of the Roman Legion and applaud Hadrian’s building of a centralized and organized government. During this time, we look at the building of learning, life, and society, it depends on a world view on how one views the scaffolding of power in relation to political and social control.

Marcus Aurelius: The Roman Interdisciplinarian

Where can we look to find the scaffolding and combination of interdisciplinarity through learning, life, and society during the mass expanse of the Romans in the ACE period? We can look to Marcus Aurelius (121-180 ACE) emperor, statesman, and philosopher said to be the last of what was promoted by Niccolo Machiavelli as the five good emperors:

“Let a prince therefore look to that period which extends from Nerva to Marcus, and contrast it with that which went before and that which came after, and then let him say in which of them he would wish to have been born of to have reigned. For during these times in which good men governed, he will see the prince secure in the midst of happy subjects, and the whole world filled with peace and justice.”¹⁴

The reflection of the five good emperors relate not only to economic prosperity, but also social prosperity in the form of Pax Romana (Roman Peace). Out of the five good emperors, one might argue that Marcus Aurelius was the most benevolent through his stoic style of philosophy inherited from Greek moral philosophy.

The interdisciplinary concepts that Marcus Aurelius would produce would be his insistence on teamwork and collaboration with other consults such as sharing his reign with Lucius Verus. Although many wars were fought during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, his history of collaboration can be regarded as one of the most benevolent aspects of his reign. Not only with the people of Rome but the different lands he came in contact with as an emperor and leader of Roman Legions. Inside of the Historica Augusta, teamwork is explained as one of the lasting legacies of Marcus Aurelius for the use of peace towards tyranny of emperor’s past:

“He conducted many negotiations with kings, and ratified peace with all the kings and satraps of Persia when they came to meet him. He was exceedingly beloved by all the eastern provinces, and on many, indeed, he left the imprint of philosophy.”¹⁵

The stoic nature of Marcus Aurelius relates to the old Greek philosopher Zeno of Citium and the Aristotilean ideal of virtue ethics through an endurance of patience and logical self-control. One of the most famous modern stoics is Martha Nussbaum who suggests that the stoic human obtains virtue through things that are of no control to the human, such as health and freedom of pain; leading towards the concept of a person who lives with virtue and respect to be healthy and free of pain¹⁶. Marcus Aurelius would also follow this through the concept of difficult decision-making during his reign as emperor and even towards his death, he kept human virtue and the lineage of knowledge after his reign.

The most significant interdisciplinary lesson is that Marcus Aurelius was steadfast in keeping individuals inside, and outside of his ruling circle with a level of collaboration and teamwork. Interdisciplinarity allows teamwork to be a viable option through learning and observation to develop different strategies to different problems. This perhaps was the problem and the difference between Julius Caesar as emperor and Marcus Aurelius as emperor. The dynamic form of teamwork through a sense of shared democracy and stoic understanding can be seen as an interdisciplinary mixture to produce a good society, and by all accounts of historians is reflected in this time of the Roman Empire. He held a great deal of respect towards the Roman Senate which carried over into his work as an emperor, a benefit to the people and therefore the republic.

In his personal work: Meditations, Marcus Aurelius reflected interdisciplinary thoughts through his writing, the interesting aspect of this work is that it really places a mirror on the emperor and in a greater sense on ourselves. Hammond suggests that book ten is the glimpse into the emperor’s soul and brings in deep questions about the life of Marcus Aurelius¹⁷. It is also in this book he brings into question ‘the whole’ which reflects the world and the nature around him with the acknowledgement of the world and nature. The whole is the grouping and collaboration of everything of experience including the emperor himself.

“Whether atoms or a natural order, the first premise must be that I am part of the Whole which is governed by nature: the second, that I have some close relationship with the other kindred parts.”¹⁸

He further reflects on the whole as a process of natural change, and that aspects of nature perish from Earth. However, the reflection of change goes beyond the external, but the internal. The internal reformation in one’s self and that all-natural things works harmoniously together is a process that we all engage with.

“The parts of the Whole, all that form the natural compliment of the universe, must necessarily perish – and perish should be taken in the sense of change…But if someone abandons the concept of nature and explains these things as just the way they are, how absurd it is to combine the assertion that the parts of the Whole are naturally subject to change with surprise or resentment as if this change was something contrary to nature.”¹⁹

His conceptions towards the connections of human and nature is a treatise on how nature affects humans and the inverse. The interdisciplinary implications that can be drawn from the concepts of ‘the whole’ is to cultivate a sustainable framework through mind and body.

It was through the gravitas of the emperor to harken in a new age of leadership during the Roman peace. Unfortunately, in a twist of irony, becoming one with the positives of nature comes with negatives, such as a troubling plague that happened during his reign, also the constant onslaught of barbarian invasions. One of the most significant aspects of the life of Marcus Aurelius was within the challenges of his reign, he remained steadfast in his leadership of peace within the Roman Empire. It is perhaps considering why Meditations remains a piece of literature that teaches us to overcome challenges and effectively problem solve as a leader of senates, armies, and people.

Roman Interdisciplinarity: Questioning the Morals

To question the morals of the Roman Empire is a difficult comprehension, considering through the stories of past emperors we can see glimpses of hope and degradation, which itself can be a lesson in interdisciplinarity. As an interdisciplinarian, it is important to have self-assurance, a sense of individualism, and personal confidence. It is when your self-assurance, individualism, and confidence turn into self-gratification, inflation of ego, and arrogance which can cause ripple effects from a leader to its people, much as the situations with many Roman emperors. It was after the death of Aurelius that historians suggested the fall of the Roman Empire leading to the incompetence of his son Commodus as emperor. This culminated with the emperor Constantine creating a new chapter of a Roman dynasty in the new capital of Constantinople (formerly: Byzantium, modern day: Istanbul), and harkening a new age of Christian religious power. Although it was seen by the emperor Constantine as a divine vision through the despair of the Roman state to “remedy existing evils”²⁰ which on one hand brought a whole new level of religiosity to the empire paired with social and economic degradation (more will be discussed with this in Chapter 5).

The moral lesson learned from the Roman Republic and Empire is that learning happened over time, but happened after social destruction, royal tyranny, and political strife, which primarily reflects at the time that harmonious knowledge was not achieved. Similar to the story of Marcus Aurelius who was regarded as the philosophy-king, and true form of leader; if only this was seen before his death, this would not bring the fall of Rome. The ability to balance was the key of the Roman Empire, but when that balance fell or shifted so did the whole empire of the Roman leaders and their people. Balance is the interdisciplinary lesson, as in to balance different forms of knowledge and epistemology all while being self-aware that complete knowledge is unobtainable and ignorance is irresponsible.

Through their culture, we can see a moral aspect to living life lavishly and happily to obtain a sense of virtue, but the virtue is mired only in aesthetics; riches, lands, and people; all were considered aesthetic and losing the lesson of Aristotelian virtue of action. Implications are drawn through the hierarchical style that was lived in Rome and the resentment of the empire. The eastern sects caused an over-inflation of the Roman culture, and eventually a crumbling of the culture. It would be sufficient to proclaim the building of Rome was done through an interdisciplinary framework of conquest and obtaining resources, but was it good?

Perhaps only on the surface we can see Rome as being built through an interdisciplinary framework, or it was built on an interdisciplinary inevitability? But aside from Marcus Aurelius, the structure holding up Rome was for the most part disciplinary, and if the structure does not work in unison, the whole building crumbles. It would be safe to say that one can have deep questions about the morals of the Roman Empire depending on context. Sure the concept that their Latin language became the basis for modern English suggests that the Roman world still has an effect on the world to this day, but to think deeper about the power and influence of the ruling class, and to present a perceived autonomy for the people of the empire fractionates a democratic foundation. Perhaps it is the nature of humans to follow this path, much like the struggle within Meditations that suggests that man and nature are intertwined²¹, maybe tyranny and failure are the nature of man.

To put a modern framework on ancient Rome, one could see some of the powerful nations of the world follow similar paths of conquest. Physical growth and societal growth can be combined in an interdisciplinary nature, but it involves sacrificing the full action of either growth mindset, or the creation of rigid disciplinary bureaucracy limiting freedom. True democracy cannot happen when the decisions are ruled by few, sure natural orders and hierarchies suggest that there must be a ruler, but the ruler must have a wide base of knowledge to effectively make decisions. Much like a philosopher-king as Marcus Aurelius was described could be the effective ruler of an empire, as the ‘ruler’ he would also be able to morally and ethically introduce good in people’s lives through collaboration, communication, and a cohesive mindset between man and nature to continue peace within Rome. Perhaps it would be safe to say that through an interdisciplinary mindset, could one become less vain in their attempts to rule and more impactful to rule morally and ethically?