ROME: A BRIEF CIVICS LESSON

Fresco of men engaged in the work of government (probably)

You hear a lot about “the fall of Rome.” As I’ve mentioned in comments elsewhere, this is a nebulous target. There’s no clear definition of when Rome fell. Many scholars regard the collapse of the Western empire in 476 AD as the pivotal moment, but there are other ideas.

One of these is the collapse of the Roman Republic which was marked by the ascent of Julius Caesar in 46 BC and the consolidation of power by his great-nephew Octavian (the future Augustus) over two decades following a brutal civil war. This began the era of the Roman Empire, the time we most associate with ancient Rome.

The ruins of the Circus Maximus. Built in roughly the 6th century BC, it remained popular during the 3 main eras of Roman government: the Monarchy, the Republic and the Empire.

But the Republic was incredibly important. It began in 509 BC after the overthrow of the last king. Paramount was the prominence of the Senate and the election of various magistrates, including two very powerful consuls. These men would lead, each for a one-year term, with each possessing veto power over the other (except in a field of war). This system served Rome well for centuries. Or, more accurately, it served the wealthy of Rome well for centuries.

A necessary sidebar: it’s a popular pastime to map signs of America’s decline to those of Rome’s. For many reasons, I don’t find these comparisons apt. For one, Rome existed for 1,000 years, and 2,000 if you count the Byzantine Empire. Our 227 years are puny by comparison. More germane to our topic though is that while America’s founding fathers had a fondness for Rome’s republican form of government, it bore little resemblance to what would emerge in America, both then and now.

Ruins in the Jewish Quarter of Rome

For one, “democracy” was a dirty word in Rome. It implied chaotic rule by the unwashed masses. Rome was a deeply classist society and the Senate was exclusively populated by the monied classes - you had to meet a wealth requirement to even be a senator. Athens had tried a strictly democratic government and while we idolize it today, it was problematic and not truly democratic; it was responsible for the senseless execution of Socrates and proved disastrously ineffectual when fighting the Spartans in the Peloponnesian War, with the latter seizing Athens and immediately dismantling popular rule. (It would reemerge in weakened forms over the centuries but was never quite the same). The Romans were keenly aware of Athens’ political history and attributed the relative brevity of democratic rule to the system’s deep flaws.

This sidebar is important because it’s a common misconception that Rome’s government during the republic was very similar to ours. This is definitely not the case, and it’s largely because government during the Roman Republic was nothing like our modern democracy.

Nevertheless, there were democratic elements to the Roman Republic. Magistrates - consuls, praetors, aediles, quaestors and others - leaders roughly equivalent to our president, judges, public administrators, treasurers, etc - were elected by the people. But it wasn’t one man, one vote. Instead, the people were grouped into tribes. Within each tribe, all the members voted, then each tribe would cast a single vote based on the majority votes of the tribe. (Similar to our Electoral College). And keep in mind that only men could vote - no women, no slaves, and for a large part of its history, no one outside of the city of Rome.

The Colosseum was built post-Republic, in the early days of the Empire. But it screams ‘Rome,’ and I needed something to put here, so yeah.

Most of these tribes, however, were comprised of the monied classes, even if the tribe only contained 100 people. The poor and plebeians - most of the population - were crammed into a couple of tribes by the thousands. Furthermore, voting began with the wealthiest tribes. Once a candidate reached a majority, voting ended, so the masses rarely had their voices heard. (It’s actually a lot more complex than this - there were tribes, curiae and centuries; differentiated groups related to the type of position they were voting on, but the gist is the same among them).

The people weren’t completely voiceless, though. The Conflict of the Orders was a political upheaval across the 5th and 4th centuries BC that gradually saw the plebeians gain more political power. The plebes would essentially go on strike, disrupting society until the elites came to the table. A key outcome of the conflict was the creation of popular assemblies. Within these, a powerful position emerged - Tribune of the Plebes. Ten tribunes were elected every year (still by the tribal system but one much more equitable to the masses), and each had power of veto - from Latin, “I forbid” - over any piece of legislation.

Over time, these popular assemblies were responsible for passing laws. The Senate customarily proposed laws or was consulted for the assemblies’ proposals. “Senate” comes from the Latin senex which means “old man,” so its members were ostensibly revered for their wisdom.

So, if the plebeians had power through the assemblies, things must have been going well for them by, say, the 2nd century BC, right? Hardly. The Senate and wealthy still wielded enormous influence and sought only to further their own interests. It was not uncommon for one of the 10 tribunes to be in the pocket of the aristocracy. This man could veto any “people-positive” legislation the assembly proposed and go pocket his bribe later. Tensions were simmering between the optimates (the wealthy) and the populari (the general masses) and would only get worse.

Oh look - more ruins!

In 169 BC, one of the noblest women in Rome gave birth to a son who, despite his aristocratic background, would champion the people and change Rome forever. His name was Tiberius Gracchus and if you haven’t heard of him, I’m not surprised. But trust me when I say he’s one of the most transformative, unsung heroes of history. And it will be my pleasure to tell you all about that favorite Roman of mine.

 But next time. Stay tuned!