Ancient Rome, the Republic

(Ancient) Rome was unique. It didn’t have a king. Instead, it had a power sharing system with (1) a Senate for the upper classes, (2) another body for the lower classes (plebians) with lesser powers, (3) 2 counsels (heads of government) elected for a period of 1 year who then had to leave Rome on some assignment (this was to ensure the two most powerful men in Rome didn’t get to stay in town beyond their tenure), and (4) the provision to appointment a dictator in times of emergencies, but only for the duration of the emergency.

 

If you’re wondering why they had 2 counsels, it was for each to act as a check against the other becoming too powerful. Distribution of power, checks and balances, limited tenures, elections. Reminds one of modern-day governance systems, right? That is why Tom Holland says in his wonderful book, Rubicon:

“We flatter ourselves, in the democracies of the West, as if we trace our roots back to Athens alone. We are, for better as well as ill, the heirs of the Roman Republic.”

But did the Roman system sound a bit too complicated? Aha:

“The Romans judged their political system by asking not whether it made sense but whether it worked.”

While it did work, no form of governance is perfect, and the Roman model had its structural problems too. Let’s look at those next.

 

Generals who led campaigns, when successful, would expand the empire, and win untold riches (by plunder) both for themselves and their army thereby building a very strong (and potentially dangerous) support base. A Roman general would always send back parts of the loot to Rome and its citizens, thereby making himself loved in Rome. He’d also use his riches to bribe and coax the Senate and voters to do his will. You see where this is headed? Every successful general wanted to return to Rome and become a counsel.

 

The Senate feared generals for exactly these reasons. And Senators had some aces up their sleeve: they got to decide who was appointed to lead a military campaign, and whether a campaign was even worth fighting in the first place. It was a fine balancing act: deciding between what was good for the empire v/s what might make one general too powerful, too loved by the masses.

 

This setup wherein the Senate tried to rein in generals who became too strong and popular inevitably created the risk of a showdown between a general and the politicians in Rome. And no, the first man who ran afoul with the Senate, overthrew this model of governance (aka “the Republic”) and seized power was NOT good old Julius Caesar. Rather, it was a general named Sulla.

 

Roman history is like Game of Thrones. Endlessly entertaining, everyone can (and does) befriend and betray anyone, great generals, smart politicians, power seekers, idealists, orators, demagogues, you name it: Rome had them all. Let’s look at the general named Sulla in the next blog.