Rome #1: Republic, not Monarchy

Ancient Rome by Simon Baker is a history book written like a thriller. It leads me to say something nobody ever says about a history book: it’s a page turner!

Rome, from the time of its foundation, hated the idea of being dominated by one man rule. Their solution? To form a republic. It was a trial and error system of government that evolved with time and events:

-         They create a body of aristocrats called the Senate. The Senate, however, could not pass laws and had no legal powers. Instead, all adult male citizens voted in the assemblies for the passing of bills. But, of course, the money of the aristocrats still wielded influence.

-         From amongst the senators, two were elected as “consuls”, not by the people, but by the senators themselves. The two consuls would have the power of a king. But just for one year, after which they returned to the Senate. Why two of them? So one could “act as a restraint on the other”. And long gaps were prescribed before one could be a consul a second time.

-         For times of an emergency, they also created the post a dictator, “to which the consuls could appoint someone to restore control”. Once the crisis was over, power would return to the two consuls.

-         The rich non-aristocrats, known as plebeians, resented being left out. And they got some power when they staged a protest when Rome was under attack. Give us some degree of power, they told the aristocrats, or we won’t fight the invaders. And so came into existence the “tribunes of the people”.

This form of government with elements of democracy, oligarchy and monarchy (and even dictatorship!) took root long before Rome became an empire.

At this time, Rome didn’t have a professional army: rather, it was manned by regular citizens who would return to their lands once the war they joined for was over. They got a share of the inevitable looting that followed wars, an incentive that meant a legion had great loyalty for the general who could win big and fast.

As the empire expanded, it took longer and longer for soldiers to reach the borders (and come back home). In that time, land lay unutilized and often had to be sold by the family members. The availability of slaves due to the conquests meant the landless now couldn’t even be employed as laborers. A revolt was brewing:

 “Both sides claimed to be defending the republic… They disagreed profoundly over the question of what was being defended.”

Was the state under attack from revolutionary state-wreckers? Or by the corruption of the self-serving aristocratic elite? This tussle would occur again and again through Roman history; and it would lead to the rise of leaders who were sometimes genuine in their beliefs while at others, would merely be using it as a tool to further their own power.