Republican Rome vs Imperial Rome
I am writing this essay one day after the Queen Elizabeth II of England has passed away. I find it a coincidence to think that the following topic will be surrounding the eternal debate on whether a Republic should form part of an imperial or monarchical structures. It is difficult to compare the times of the past with the modern day, yet the question remains, what is the best system to provide for the needs of people. During these last hours reporters of the most important channels asked the people of England and commonwealth states to share their opinion about the sovereign who has passed. Mixed emotions appeared across the scene, people explained how they see, or they don’t see the relevancy of a monarchy in modern times. Rome on the other hand, during those days of reform, shared a set distinct ideals. The constant shift of power and the necessity of survival against outside threats made of Rome an ever-changing state.
Rome like the neighboring city-states had an incredible shift of authority during the time of Julius Caesar. It went from being a monarchy to a system of aristocracy to a republic to a dictatorship. All of this in a relatively medium period of time. As we could expect, these changes brought uneasiness and more problems to the people, same people that through violence would seek the best serving system. Exploring the different changes of power most of the commoners that lived in the borders of Rome suffered multiple displacements and constant oppression. This oppression grew bigger as the republic grew bigger and the trade for slaves became more popular amongst the rich citizens. “The largest functional difference between the late republic and the early imperial government was essentially that the republic was unable to control the vast empire while the imperial system could. The key problem raised by the Roman republic’s size was it was not able to control the military, a problem that led to several rounds of civil war and political murder. By contrast the centralized autocratic powers vested in an emperor combined with a small personal army were usually enough to control the military.
While it might be expected that a republic would have a fairer and more peaceful foreign policy it is important to remember that both governments engaged in brutal wars of conquest. Indeed, much of the key expansion of the Roman Empire occurred while it was still a Republic. Rome was an empire long before it was imperial (Imperial Rome Vs. Roman Republic, 2005).
I believe is essential to distinguish the differences between the two major forms of government we are discussing, this will help us identify the key aspects of each ideology. We will begin with the republic. Republic means the power is directly vested in the hands of the people that conform the body of citizens, these citizens then elect representatives that act as the official voice of the people. These representatives can be subject to criticism and justice if wrong doings are discovered. Empire refers to the term when a group od states come together under a single supreme authority. The authority for an empire is absolute and unique. The authority can be a single individual or a group of individuals with equal powers over the territories they control.
In Rome during the times of the republic most of the mistakes made by the ruling few was to oversee the need of the poor, group that quickly expanded as new territories were added to the rule of the republic. The different levels of government were divided in two main bodies. The senate and the military. One in charge of the internal duties and the other in charge of defending and conquering, strengthening the nation. “Perhaps the key difference that the modern viewer sees between an imperial system and a republic is one of political participation and by extension legitimacy. While it is true that the “common man” had more political power under the Republic the reality was that in both systems it was really only a select few who had the true political power. The real irony may arise from the fact that the imperial system had times when it acted far more in the favor of the “common man” than the Republic ever did. In any case it is important to remember that the average inhabitant of ancient Rome was either a woman or a slave, people who had essentially no political power (Imperial Rome Vs. Roman Republic, 2005)”.
Some of the important figures that we should review as they form part of the important movements that transformed Rome are Julius Caesar, Marcus Crassus, Gnaeus Pompey, Octavian Augustus Caesar. These key figures gave a twist to the future of Rome. This essay will stay focused on the transition from Republic to Empire, leaving behind the topic of the ruling monarchy in Rome prior to the republic, monarchy that made such damage most senators and politicians of Rome never wanted to go back to a single body of ruling, opening the doors for the republic. As we discussed earlier the ruling class or senate oversaw various types of duties in the name of the people of Rome, Alliances and treasons would be a significant part of the way the “republic” operated. Alliances in between the Caesar, Crassus and Pompey created a strong operating body under whish many reforms were introduced and passed by the senate. Of course, means of intimidation and hostility were always part of the ways to lobby for any reform. Upon the death of Crassus, a very wealthy men and financier of many programs for Rome, the rivalry between Caesar and Pompey became more apparent, despite Pompey marrying Caesar’s daughter. This rivalry would soon become a major conflict as the hunger for power became evident from both parties. “Although Caesar was greatly outnumbered, his veteran legions successfully routed Pompey’s diverse but undisciplined levies. Pompey’s flight to Egypt and subsequent murder handed the ultimate victory to Caesar (Hudson, n.d.)”.
“Caesar’s victory at Pharsalus was the deciding battle of the civil war. Pompey’s army suffered some 15,000 casualties, and 24,000 of its soldiers were taken prisoner. Little is known about Caesar’s casualties; he personally reported 230 dead or missing legionaries, although that improbably low number should be treated with skepticism. With the bulk of its army now gone, the exiled Senate was in no position to mount an offensive. Caesar pardoned all his surviving enemies. Pompey was thoroughly stunned by his army’s destruction and fled by sea to Egypt in the hope that young Ptolemy XIII would grant him refuge. Ptolemy’s advisors had Pompey killed as he was coming ashore. Caesar reached Egypt shortly thereafter and is said to have mourned his old friend’s murder. When hostilities finally abated in 45 BCE, Caesar returned to Rome as the undisputed victor of the civil war and dictator of the Roman Republic. He would bear that honor until his own assassination a year later Caesar (Hudson, n.d.)”. Caesar is one of the most recognizable names in history, and although he was a military genius, there is a poor reference as to why he became such an important figure in the history of Rome and known around the world. A statesman, an incredible orator, a forward thinker, and an incredible soldier himself, perhaps he is a figure that shined during a time where the structures of the modern world were being forged. His wit and legacy are the base of the republics today.
“The Senate lasted as a sole governing body for the republic for only a brief time, lasting from the republic’s founding in 509 B.C.E. until 494 B.C.E., when a strike orchestrated by the plebeians resulted in the establishment of the Concilium Plebis, or the Councilof the Plebs. This gave the plebeians a voice in the government. As a result, new legislative, or law-making, bodies of the Roman Republic were formed. Called assemblies, these legislative bodies shared power in the following ways:
Comitia Centuriata — This body decided about war, passed laws, elected magistrates (consuls, praetors, and censors), considered appeals of capital convictions, and conducted foreign relations.
Concilium Plebis — This body elected its own officials and formulated decrees for observance by the plebeian class; in 287 B.C.E., it gained the power to make all decrees binding for the entire Roman community.
Comitia Tributa — The tribal assemblies, open to all citizens (who only could be free, adult males), elected minor officials, approved legislative decisions often on local matters, and could wield judicial powers but could only levy fines rather than administer punishment.
Leading the republic were two consuls who were elected by legislative assemblies. They served for one year, presided over the Roman Senate, and commanded the Roman military. Though their power was somewhat limited by the establishment of other magistrate positions, the consuls were effectively the heads of state (Phipp, 2022)”. We see how the transition began within the bodies of government, the race to power came between the members of the groups that governed. Different ideologies grew from within and collided with the exterior reality. Rome was becoming so big therefore it was becoming a real challenge to keep in control all of the cities that were now part of it. “Centralized power and the rapid expansion of Roman territory and foreign trade led to an increase of wealth in Rome. The early Romans were quite proud of their reputation as practical, hard-working, and self-sacrificing individuals. Though this ideal remained in the collective psyche, influx of money and goods lead to the development of a much more luxurious lifestyle, particularly in the city of Rome itself and the surrounding resort cities of the Italian countryside. High society in Rome consisted largely of lavish bathing and dining and public entertainment and spectacles grew ever more ostentatious (Vermeulen, 2020)”.
Going back to the Caesar, he was the figure that proclaimed himself as the first emperor of the land, he saw himself as the ultimate solution to the problems of Rome, his victories and intimidation was perceived as a threat, such that wealthy people and the already established elite feared becoming opposition to the ruling power of the emperor. Again, we must remember the actual empire had already begun prior to Caesar, the addition of territory was not a singularity that is attributed solely to Caesar, he was merely the individual to first attempt to change the ruling structure of the land. The Caesar was put in a position of power since he was 16, after the passing of his father he became the lead in his family. He rose to power and as one of his famous quotes say, “I came, I saw, I conquered” we can deduct he had a complex fit for a ruler of Rome. “Caesar spent the next few years wiping out his enemies and what remained of Pompey’s supporters in the Middle East, Africa, and Spain.
In 46 B.C. he was made dictator of Rome for ten years, outraging his political opponents and setting the stage for the eventual end of the Roman Republic. Caesar began making several drastic reforms to benefit Rome’s lower- and middle-class, including:
Regulating the distribution of subsidized grain
Increasing the size of the Senate to represent more people
Reducing government debt
Supporting military veterans
Granting Roman citizenship to people in Rome's far-flung territories
Reforming the Roman tax codes
(Cowley & Parker, 2019)”.
Romans understood that the agility of the government to act upon any given situation was the key component to survive the hostilities of the time. And this mentality was the main driver to take the republic and make it more efficient under a single authority, yet this single authority lacked the ability to control the vast military. The original idea was to have the functionary serve fixed terms and replace them with another member of the senate. “The Romans understood though that in a true crisis their republic might be too slow to react, so they had an emergency position, the dictator. Dictators could be elected for six months during which the constitution would be suspended, and they would have complete autocratic control (Imperial Rome Vs. Roman Republic, 2005)”.
During my readings about the topic, I found many theories on what should have been the correct approach to the expansion of the Roman Empire, and most historians cannot help but to compare the situation of the Romans with those of the Greeks. Alexander the Great had a close supervision on his army, this allowed him to succeed during his quests. This essential difference between the two emperors explains one crucial mistake made by the Romans. The independent units of their armies were often in conflict with neighboring units due to resources and political power. Essentially everyone wanted to be on top of the already succeeding nation. Greed we could say, was the curse of an empire that should have succeeded. We could add that this type of greed for power has never been a success historically, most figures that turn their alliance to themselves rather than the people have always found a similar result. Our modern republics have succeeded regardless the size of the nation’s borders due to the balance between powers and a successful line of communication, although not absent from conflicts and differences of opinion from within there is a set rule of whom will be responsible to find a solution to any given issue.
I have found several theories by a professor Norena of Berkley University in which he narrates the possibilities the Empire and the reason behind the switch from one form of government to the other:
“First theory: philhellenism. Literally, a love of Greek things. Rome came to value the superiority of Greek culture. They fought a series of wars to protect the Greeks and to protect Greek autonomy against powerful, dangerous Hellenistic kings. This doesn’t explain anything for the Western empire so cannot be a general explanation.
Second theory: diplomatic entanglements. The Romans kept a high value on the keeping of promises. Trust, honor, and faith: pistis in Greek, fides in Latin. A series of formal treaties was conducted with a series of states; so Rome became dragged into the problems of these states. This is again more true of the East than of the West.
Third theory: theory of defensive imperialism. Rome had no real drive to expand but was only protecting peninsular Italy. Romans only wanted to protect the heartland, not to annex territory. But some wars were quite aggressive, and armies went far abroad, not always near Italy.
Fourth theory: economic motivations. Conquest brings economic benefits to the conquering power. But why did they refuse to annex territory for so long? And some Roman actions contradict this theory. For example, in 168 BC when they annexed Macedonia, they shut the silver mines down, rather than using the silver.
Fifth theory: a peculiarly Roman aristocratic ethos. The Roman aristocracy, particularly the senators, grew up with and had imbibed a very strong ethos of military accomplishment. Conquest defined being a man and being an elite. Military success, social status, and political power were bound together. There is plenty of unambiguous evidence for this, but all societies in the ancient Mediterranean had developed this ethos. Roman aristocratic aggression was not anomalous (Doran, n.d.)
There should be more theories as far as why the Romans failed themselves and how their own development came to be their destruction. If I was to create my own observations about why the Roman Emperor (Caesar) and the continuation of the ruling by Caesar Augustus was not so much a success in the history of the nation but rather a mishap that could have been avoided, I would conclude the immortality sought by men in those times and the need to be the “great” warrior or leader or thinker gave the ruling class this hunger for more, more land, more slaves, more soldiers, more reform, more control, more wealth, and more power. This in itself became the metric to measure the success of a men, and its lived ever since in the DNA of the modern cultures. The increasingly need for more anything is what keeps the constant battle between men, the wars and the conflict always incessant and alive in the hearts of the masses. Perhaps if you asked me the simple solution to most of the issues of the past and maybe the present is the ability to conform one self with the fruits of our work and only seek more when not enough is been provided, but never to satisfy an ego.The Roman republic that lasted from 509B.C. to 27B.C. lived as the true formation of an imperial power that began on 27B.C. and lasted to 476 A.D. All of the innovation and the cultural and social advances created by both the republic and the empire all came to an abrupt end. Nothing could help the Romans from their biggest weakness. Themselves.
“Even as Rome was under attack from outside forces, it was also crumbling from within thanks to a severe financial crisis. Constant wars and overspending had significantly lightened imperial coffers, and oppressive taxation and inflation had widened the gap between rich and poor. In the hope of avoiding the taxman, many members of the wealthy classes had even fled to the countryside and set up independent fiefdoms. At the same time, the empire was rocked by a labor deficit. Rome’s economy depended on slaves to till its fields and work as craftsmen, and its military might had traditionally provided a fresh influx of conquered peoples to put to work” “when expansion ground to a halt in the second century, Rome’s supply of slaves and other war treasures began to dry up. A further blow came in the fifth century, when the Vandals claimed North Africa and began disrupting the empire’s trade by prowling the Mediterranean as pirates. With its economy faltering and its commercial and agricultural production in decline, the empire began to lose its grip in Europe (Andrews, 2014)”.
References
Andrews, E. (2014, January 14). 8 Reasons Why Rome Fell. 8 Reasons Why Rome Fell - HISTORY. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.history.com/news/8-reasons-why-rome-fell
Cowley, R., & Parker, G. (2019, November 4). Julius Caesar - Play, Quotes & Death - HISTORY. History Channel. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/julius-caesar
Doran, T. (n.d.). “Roman Imperialism between Republic and Empire” Prof. Carlos Noreña, History, UCB. The period of Rome's rapid imperial ex. ORIAS. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://orias.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2010-norena-summary.pdf
Hudson, M. (n.d.). Battle of Pharsalus | Summary, Facts, & Significance. Britannica. Retrieved September 9, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Pharsalus
Imperial Rome vs. Roman Republic. (2005, September 28). View Page: Imperial Rome vs. Roman Republic. Retrieved September 9, 2022, from https://depts.washington.edu/hrome/Authors/joelnish/ImperialRomevsRomanRepublic/15/pub_zbpage_view.html
Phipp, P. (2022, June 2). Rome’s Transition from Republic to Empire. National Geographic Society. Retrieved September 9, 2022, from https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/romes-transition-republic-empire
Vermeulen, M. (2020, March 22). Roman Republic vs. Roman Empire and The Imperial System. TheCollector. Retrieved September 10, 2022, from https://www.thecollector.com/roman-republic/
