The Largest, Most Impressive Empire in the History of the World Started with 10,000 Square

Republic to Empire: An Examination of Government in Ancient Rome

Jenna Topan

Mr Cotey

IDP4U

18-12-2009

The largest, most impressive Empire in the history of the world started with 10,000 square kilometres of land in 326 BCE. Triumphant expansion fed a growth rate so rapid, the end result was 4,400,000square kilometres in 390 CE.

Alongside growth and expansion, tyranny and corruption remained evident during each of the three eras of government. A tyrannical monarchy, forcing the people to revolt, and then a Republic full of men living the life of luxury, in society ruled by the elite. Finally, the last administration was left standing, with only one man ruling over the entire populace. Citizens were subject to the radical whims of the Emperor, occasionally blessed with a reasonable ruler.

Forty-three Emperors were murdered or executed. Thirty-three were deposed, exiled, imprisoned, or received similar treatment. Of the first 12 emperors, seven died violently by poison, stabbing, or suicide. Many Emperors of Rome faced tragic fates because they either went recklessly into battle or were driven mad with power, forcing the people of Rome to revolt, and depose or murder the Emperor.

Ancient Rome was a time of brilliant progress, and also terrible conflict. From the tyrannical Etruscan Monarchy, to the extravagance of the Republic, and finally, the severe Emperors, Rome has had a colourful and memorable history. Rome is a part of history that is often overlooked, and given only cursory attention. When considering the past, it is clear that the Roman civilization has influenced much of today’s society. Roman times mirror many of the power conflicts and issues today’s world faces, and it is for these reasons that analyzing and learning about Rome is crucial to understanding a large part of today’s world. Rome’s past is divided into three eras with different forms of government, and a large question surrounding this period of history concerns the impacts these eras has on Rome. Historians today consider, in detail, the flaws within the Republic, and the faults of the Emperors.

In 509 BCE, the RomanRepublic was in control. The Republic took over because the people were discontent with the oppressive Etruscan monarchy. The Republic was made up of Magistrates, Assemblies, the Senate, and the Plebeian Tribal Council and Tribunes. In 46 BCE, Caesar appointed himself dictator of Rome, and the distribution of power within the Republic started to falter. The people of Rome had many problems with the Republic’s actions, and in 27 BCE the Republic was finished. At this time, Octavian was in control of Rome. He claimed he would return control of the Republic over to the Senate; however, Octavian kept most of the control for himself, a prime example of power beginning to affect a ruler’s decisions. As an Emperor, he was the commander in chief of the army. The Senate continued to exist to suggest and approve the Emperor’s decisions. Many Emperors came and went, and while there were flourishing periods in Rome, many Emperors went insane and caused much damage. After being divided up, the Western portion of the Empire fell, and the East (or Byzantine Empire) continued on for many years.

The study of Ancient Rome is a study of government: which of these systems worked best? In the Republic, the citizens of Rome voted in people to be their leaders, and power was diffused throughout different members of government. For example, at the top of the Republic’s hierarchy, there were two Chief Magistrates, or consuls. Having two main leaders, as opposed to one, sole leader, proved to be useful: the two were able to keep each other rational, provide different opinions, and divide up power so dictatorshipand tyranny could be avoided. The people of Rome themselves consider the transition into this sensiblegovernment a blessing in Roman history: this change presented the welcome opportunityof public voice in the government:

Because the Etruscan monarchy was now so abhorrent to the Romans, they decided to replace it with elected officials known as consuls. The consuls, who were [at first] always patricians, served one-year terms. The end of the monarchy marked the start of the RomanRepublic, which the Romans considered the high point of their history.[1]

While there are obvious benefits to a Republic, more people in the government can lead to more corruption, and this is true of Ancient Rome. An article concerning rent-seeking and taxation illustrates corruption in the Republic: “The Republic was theoretically democratic, but the senators, their friends and families held power and made the rent seeking laws, including the tax laws, to benefit themselves.”[2]

However, the same article goes on to say the following about the Empire:

The privileged, who received their titles usually by inheritance, lived and met in grand buildings and attended games, festivals, gladiatorial combats, all evidence of the prosperity of the wealthy few. Meanwhile, the peasants saw little improvement in their standard of living.[3]

In fact, it is arguable that the Empire’s greed for excess money is what led to excessive expansion, and eventually, the Empire’s downfall. Corruption is a difficult scale on which to measure these government systems, simply because corruption was rampant throughout history; however, it is true that the RomanRepublic enacted many reforms to gain equality between average citizens, patricians, and members of the Republic. The most important thing to stress concerning the Empire is this: citizens of Ancient Rome were unable to vote in their Emperor. Often the title of Emperor passed through bloodlines, and so it was essentially a lottery to the Roman people: would they have a sane, responsible Emperor or would they experience terror and anguish because of this next Emperor’s reign? The only input concerning choosing the Emperor later came from the army and this resulted in rivalry, murder plots, and power struggles.

Although the Senate remained, they did not have nearly as much power as the Emperor: the entire Empire was subject to this one man’s whims, and they were often radical, irresponsible, and caused more damage than a responsible Emperor could hope to fix. Often, Rome’s rulers were unsure how to deal with the general unhappiness that plagued their Empire:

Rome's rulers offered entertainment in the arenas, such as bloody gladiatorial competitions, to distract Rome's unemployed and unhappy citizens. With poor and weak rulers, Romans lost faith in their government and Empire. The Empire was plagued with disaster.[4]

The main advantage to the RomanRepublic was the complexity of the administration: as the historian Polybius wrote, it was the balance of monarchy, oligarchy, and democracy which gave ancient Rome its greatest strength. The time of the Republic is a period in history often unobserved in comparison to the legacies of the Emperors; however, upon closer examination, it is clear the former government did a much finer job.Evidenced by positive legal reforms, a successful economy, and triumphant campaigns, it is clear the RomanRepublic was superior to the united Empire.

There is one main opposing argument to this thesis: the Roman Empire was a time of government superior to that of the Republic. This could be proved by either claiming the Roman Empire was more successful because of positive events that occurred during that period, or negative events that transpired during the Republic.

It is ignorant to claim the Empire had no positive impact on Rome. Second Century AD brought a succession of wise Emperors, many of whom were born out of Italy. Emperor Hadrian rebuilt Pantheon, Hadrian's Wall, and created special departments to control things such as correspondence, justice, taxes and records. Hadrian’s legal reforms were some of the most positive and beneficial of the Emperors. RationalEmperors, such as Trajan, Hadrian, and Diocletian, developed a larger civil service and separated the governing of the empire into military and civil affairs.

Historians argue the Roman Emperors also made great contributions to cultural and social services, such as their architecture developments: Emperor Hadrian’s wall, Roman Aqueducts, the Pantheon, thermal baths, and the Colosseum are all reputable developments that were created by the Emperors.

Historians also argue Christianity is another large argument for the Emperors: Emperor Constantine was the first Christian Emperor, after he claimed God had helped him win an impossible battle. In passing the Edict of Milan in 313 CE, Constantine proclaimed the Christians free from persecution. Christians had been persecuted for a long time, and many Emperors were cruel and harsh: for example, Emperor Nero was known for his ridiculously brutal punishments, including crucifying Christians and lighting them on fire, to use as garden lights. However, Emperor Constantine did successfully free the Christians from persecution, and established Constantinople (later Byzantium).

A large factor to consider in this argument is longevity: the RomanRepublic began in 509 BCE and while the end of the Republic is debatable, this government lasted for approximately four-hundred eighty-two years. The Roman Empire, arguably beginning in 27 BCE, was split into two in 293 BCE. Emperor Diocletian recognized that one man could not possibly control such an Empire, and so the Empire was divided into the East and West (and later, into four parts total). The split became permanent, and many historians argue that 293 BCE was the end of the Roman Empire: the Western part of the Empire lost its Roman nature, while the Eastern portion developed into the Byzantine Empire. It is for this reason the word “united” is used: once Rome was divided into sections to be ruled separately, the system of government changed. In fact, structuring multiple rulers for one area is similar to the organization of the Republic: in the Republic, there were two chief rulers. This is not to say the argument for the Republic cannot be made against such an Empire; however, the argument would no longer be a study of government, as the Empire’s dynamic changed. At this time, Emperor Diocletian’s reforms ended the Roman Empire, but created the West, which later fell, and the East, which became known to historians as the Byzantine Empire.

In 5th century CE, invasions of barbaric, Northern tribes continued to rattle the Western portion. The split Roman Empire was not strong enough to combat these invasions and in 476 CE, the German barbarian Odoacer deposed the historic line of emperors in Rome. Even if this part of the Empire is compared to the Republic, both phases were similar in length. Moreover, the end of the Republic was caused by Caesar’s resolve for power, and without his violent interference and seizure of government, it is impossible to say how long the Republic would have lasted.

The Eastern Roman Empire, at this time the Byzantine Empire, survived the loss of Syria and Egypt, and lived on for many years, until its last remains were finally annexed by the emerging Ottoman Empire. Due to the incredibly durability of the Byzantine Empire, some historians argue the Empire under the Roman Emperors was more successful than the Republic.

Evidently, there are arguments for the Emperors and against the Republic; however, upon examining the positive and negative aspects of both periods in history, it is clear the Empire was a much more unstable and unpredictable era, regardless of how many years the Byzantine Empire endured. The Republic was “the high point of [the Roman’s] history”[5], and when examining law, the economy, and military campaigns, it is clear the Republic was superior.

Changes in Roman law affected a large portion of the world. The Republic was definitely superior to the Empirebecause they successfully improved Roman law concerning Plebeians, legal awareness, citizenship, and gender laws.

An example of the Republic making law to be more inclusive concerns Plebeians. It is a common argument against the success of the Republic that the dividing lines between the rich and the poor contributed to the decline of Rome; however, during the Republic, many legal reforms took place, with the goal of giving plebeians more rights.

Plebeians were upset with the treatment they had received in the past. They had been degraded and subject to unfair treatment. The First Succession of the Plebs took place, as many lower class citizens decided to go on strike, withdrawing to hills outside of Rome. A large counterargument refuting the success of the RomanRepublic is that with this withdrawal of peasants and farmers, the economy under the Republic suffered. However, these protests were necessary in order to achieve more balance in Rome; the protests exemplify how the Plebeians knew the Republic was a time open to consideration and negotiation.

The Plebeians were imperative in upholding the economy, and so members of the Republic realized their mistreatment of the lower class citizens. They changed laws to be more accommodating. Firstly, Patricians granted them the right to annually elect their own leaders in the Republic, called Tribunes. Historians today question whether or not these leaders were taken seriously in government; however, the Patricians eventually increased the Plebeian government voices from two members to ten, showing the progress they were responsible for.[6]Furthermore, the significance of the Tribunes is exemplified through the quote, “The prime responsibility of a tribune was to protect the rights of plebeians, [so] the position was a powerful one.”[7]

Another amendment made to Roman law concerned establishing awareness. Many citizens realized patricians were much more aware of the law than the plebeians, so in 451 BCE and 450 BCE, ten government members, called the decemviri, were appointed to publish a codification of Roman law, the Twelve Tables. The Twelve Tables emphasized restorative justice, something that is obviously still important today: “historical examples of punishment systems based on restorative justice are the RomanLawof theTwelveTables”.[8]Codifying Roman law made it easier for the citizens of Rome to understand and follow law, and thus, it was obviously a large, positive improvement.

There are many other examples of improved law within the Republic. In 445 BCE, Plebeians and Patricians gained the right to marry one another. In 367 BCE, Plebeians became eligible for elections concerning consulship. These laws all reformed to put anemphasis on human rights and equality. Later that year, laws were passed that limited the amount of land an individual could possess, as some Plebeians felt Patricians were holding too much. In 367 BCE, 357 BCE, 352 BCE, 347 BCE, and 342 BCE, laws were passed to help alleviate the Plebeians debts.[9]Historians argue that the growing gap between the rich and poor citizens contributed to the fall of Rome; however, these laws exemplify the attempts at creating a more balanced society. While not all gaps between the Patricians and Plebeians were bridged, it is clear that efforts were made throughout the Republic to aid in the Plebeian’s struggle and remove some of the Patrician’s privileges.

Further amendments were established concerning equality in government and general roles. In 356 BCE a plebeian dictator is elected, and further promoted to consul. In 342 BCE, Plebeians were awarded the guarantee of one of the consular posts in any given year. In 300 BCE, Plebeians were given the right to hold places in two of Rome’s colleges (pontiffs and augurs). The emergent equality was remarkable: “By 300 BCE, being a patrician was only a slight political advantage. Debt-bondage was eliminated”.[10]It is apparent these successful legal reforms contributed to a balanced society. Unfortunately, many citizens who lived under emperors could only dream about such equality.

Additional successful reforms concerned citizenship. During the time of the monarchy,

the only "true" citizens of Rome were those who lived in the city of Romeor those with two Roman parents. This group of citizens formed a representational government under the king. The king would summon the citizens only when he wanted to and would present the issues that thecitizens would vote on.[11]

This flawed system was overly selective: the requestsand opinions of the majority were not represented. Alternatively, voting in the Republic decided the public officers who would rule over Rome. Citizens could hold public office, and were granted trading advantages not available to other Italian villagers. Citizens of Rome enjoyed these exclusive privileges until the Latin League, the Volscians, and other Italian tribes rebelled against Rome, and were defeated in 388 BCE. Rome granted some of these residents in these villages Roman citizenship, in order to keep them from rebelling.[12]TheRepublic’s “sharing of Roman citizenship encouraged the spread of Roman language, law, and culture throughout the Italian peninsula”.[13]