Ancient Greece and Rome

Ancient Greece was divided to many autonomous city-states (polis), with a great variety of political systems: democracy, oligarchy, monarchy or despotism. Although Greeks did not know the word "revolution", they acutally made them quite often, changing violently their governments from one political system to another. They called it simply "stasis", what means just "change".

The city-states tended to form two main military alliances, with sites in Athens and Sparta. This conflict is often compared to the cold war of XX-th century; such comparison is perhaps offensive to a professional historian, but it is interesting for a humble journalist (like me). The common point is that this conflict had a strong ideological background: Athens advocated democracy, whrereas Sparta - oligarchy. Both miltiary blocks encouraged revolutions in third-party cities, trying to export their form of government. This conflict, known as the Peloponese War, led eventually to destruction of the whole Hellenic civilisation in IV century BC, when Greece finally became "united" under the yoke of Macedonian rule.

Those fatal experiences led ancient thinkers to general condemnation of "stasis" as such. Thucydides, the famous historian of the Peloponese War, blamed political diversity for failure of the whole Greece. Plato, with his extremely conservative political beliefs, advocated in his famous dialogue "The Republic" a kind of enlightened despotism as the best possible form of government. Aristotle had more empirical approach. Together with his disciples in Lyceum he has studied 158 constitutions of Greek city-states. He has concluded, that a liberal, constitutional republic (not an extreme democracy) is the best form o government, with the smallest vulnerability for "stasis".

In second century BC Greek-born Roman historian Polybius summarized ancient views on revolution. In his opinion (close to those of Plato and Aristotle) the forms of government are subjected to a cyclic change. Monarchy inevitably degenerates into tyranny, which breeds anger and is finally broke down by aristocracy, degenerating further to oligarchy, what provokes the people to establish democracy, leading to chaotic mob rule, that can be solved only by monarchy. Polybius - as it often happens with converts of all kind - admired Roman Republic and considered it the best form of government ever invented. He maintained, that Roman Republic succeeded to blend democracy, aristocracy and monarchy creating a perfect mixture, responsible to outstandind stability of this republic.

Two centuries later a succesful coup by Juluis Caesar restored monarchy, considered to be an obsolete form of government by most of ancient political thinkers. Roman Empire retained some republican elements, such as the Senate or civil law, but it was based on a doctrine of divine power of Caesars. The Caesar, by grace of Gods, being a God himself, was winning wars and maintaining Pax Romana. Any thought of revolting against his power would lead to wrath of Gods and collapse of stability and peace. Hence the Imperial Rome did not contribute into Revolutionary thought.

Almost simultaneously the Empire was challenged by appearance of new approach to theory of state. "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" - sais Jesus in one of the Gospels. Together with christianity a new vision of state and religion emerges, bearing a potential revolutionary implication. If Kingdom of God is not of this Earth, then sometimes christian has to disobey the state power wishing to obey the divine one. Thus christianity led potentially to revolutionary, or even anarchist view of state.

Saint Augustus, the bishop of Hippo, witnessed in V century the collapse of Pax Romana. He saw the governments rise and fall like leafs on the wind. "Without justice, what is sovereignty but organised brigandage?" - he asked, thus opening the way to the medieval revolutionary thought.