As new American military maneuvers and offences take place on almost a daily basis around the world, and as the number of nations in which there are American forces continues to rise, many persons looking back on history will wonder to themselves if the Americans are the modern version of a Roman empire. Is the American republic the same, or if not than similar to that of the Roman one? Is America a modern day Rome?
To answer that question, one must first looks back at the Roman Republic, look at its founding and political structuring. One must thoroughly examine the Roman republic, and see if politically and similarities arise with that of the American one. One must then compare and contrast to the new American republic that is rising, and see if it would seem that history is repeating itself.
Founding
The true facts surrounding the founding of Rome are almost entirely hidden in the shadows of history. Little is known on the bases of true hard fact, the kind of fact that would satisfy a modern historian. As such, historians have had to rely not only on simple archaeological facts, but also literary sources, although those that are available to us are often written hundreds of years after the fact.
Even in the literary sources, conflicting stories often arise, and are often more based on legend than fact. In Plutarch[1] for example, a variety of very different stories are given, even a multitude of different details concerning the same story. Many of the stories given are linked to ancient Greek stories. In one the founding of Rome was taken up by refugees from the city of Troy, by others it was founded by a son of Hercules or Odysseus or a multitude of others. But to the Romans, the story of Romulus is the most popular (although this is again given by the Greeks). Here the details of the story are disputed, but the general outline is farley clear. The city of Rome was founded by Romulus and Remus (according to some they were even the sons of the god Mars, the god of war). While the details of the story are of some interest, the main point to stress is that from the very beginning, Rome’s founder was one which was constantly at war (in some cases even the son of a god of war). This aspect will become important when looking upon the Romans in more detail.
“While geography rarely decides the fate of communities, it rarely fails to affect it.” [2] Again if ignoring the literary record, one can look at many things concerning the Romans simply by looking at the site at which it was founded. The river Tiber was a very difficult one to cross. The site of Rome however is an exception, for it contains an island within the river, making the crossing that much easier. It became a meeting point between different groups, such as the Sabine in the North, and the Latins in the south. Although just over 32 km upstream from the sea, the river ran swiftly and was difficult to navigate from the site of Rome. That fact, adding on that Rome was often the meeting point for farmers and herders; this would lead Rome to become a land-based people. [3]
Rome was also founded in an area where many different peoples and groups fought over each other for supremacy. If one looks at the accounts of Romulus one will find Rome’s first king in a state of almost constant warfare. It was his first act after founding the city to build an army. “When the city was built, in the first place, Romulus divided all the multitude that were of age to bear arms into military companies.” [4] It was with this force, Plutarch mentions that Romulus undertook some of the first battles against the Caeninenses and the Sabines. Often the results of the battles and wars were an expansion not only of territory, but of civilian population itself (the conquered were often incorporated into the Roman population). Thus even from its founding, Rome was at war and was expanding.
America however was founded under different circumstances. First and foremost, unlike their Roman counterparts, America was not founded in a single location, but in areas, two separate ones to be exact (of very different nature and purpose). The first being in Virginia in the south, and the other in New England in the north. Unlike the Romans, the history of America is very well known and documented. As Tocqueville stated, “America is the only country where one has been able to witness the natural and tranquil developments of a society.”[5] As well, America was founded in an area in which the threat of competition was not as much of a factor as it was to the Romans. Contrary to war and expansion, the guiding principles to the Americans were ones of wealth (in the case of Virginia) and freedom from religious persecution (in the case of New England). Particularly in the North, the great experiment or the founding ideas of the American Republic would be brought from Europe. “Proportionately, there was a greater mass of enlightenment spread among those men than within any European nation of our day.” [6] Some might say, that free of the presence of war and competition, the Americans were allowed to build their utopian republic. The ideas brought about would later be revealed in the founding of it.
Since its founding, Rome was a monarchy. Ruled by kings, Rome would (through wars, alliances, and more wars) gradually expand its area of rule and influence. According to legend, by 509 BC however, the Roman Monarchy was no more and the Roman Republic was born. After the rape of Lucretia by the son of King Tarquinius Superbus, a coup was conspired and the King overthrown. After much war by the ousted king against the Romans, the king lived out the rest of his days in exile, and the Republic was allowed to take shape. Some others however believe that the date of the change in government to be must later than that (even as late as 450 BC), others say the change was not so drastic, but rather slow in coming, with the monarchy dwindling in power, to be replaced by the consul system of the Republic. Again much support can be found for the idea, for the simple fact that many of the institutions of the Republic were already founded before the monarchy came to an end.[7]
The Americans also had a revolution, but in this case the history of it is well known. By the time of the revolution, the territory of the Americans had also expanded. This was due not only to the Americans themselves, but to their mother country which still ruled them. As such the Americans were also under the rule of a monarchy. However for the reason of taxes and want of self-government, a declaration of independence was signed by the thirteen colonies in 1776. It would be over ten years later, when the first attempt at self-government had failed, that a new constitution was made.
Political Structure
The institutions of the Republic were first found in Rome far before the monarchy ever fell. In the story of Romulus, some familiar political institutions are already in place. “He treated the remainder (after the army) as a people, and this multitude was called populus; a hundred of them, who were the most eminent, he appointed to be councillors, calling the individuals themselves patricians, and their body a senate.” [8] One of the oldest comitia, the comitia curiata was founded well in the reign of the monarchs. It is also during the reign of King Servius Tullius in the mid-sixth century that the comitia centuriata was also organized. It is now that we will look in more detail at the inner working of the Roman Republic.
The government of the republic is a large and complicated one, filled with checks and balances of power. To state that the republic is one form of government or another is something not only difficult to moderns but to the ancients as well. “It was impossible even for a native to pronounce with certainty whether the whole system was aristocratic, democratic, or monarchical.”[9] When one looks at a certain part, one finds democracy, another aristocracy, and so on. As such we must look at each part one by one.
The democratic element consists of a number of assemblies, all with different purposes at different times in Rome’s history. The first and oldest is that of the comitia curiata. The people for military purposes were divided by three tribes (Tities, Ramnes, Luceres), each of those divided into ten curiata. Eventually recognition of the tribes faded away (for the military purpose) but the groupings still retained significance as each of the curiata (thirty in all) came together to form a committee. The comitia curiata would confer the rights of command (called imperium) on senior magistrates and other purposes such as witnessing adoption, wills, etc. By the time of late republic each curiata was represented only by a lictor. It only had a formal purpose and was rarely very important in the political scene (although it is said to survive right up until the end of the republic).[10]
All other assemblies voted in the form of group voting (usually orally in groups, but by the late republic a secret ballot was common. By the time of King Servius Tullius, the comitia centuriata was organized. This was one of the most important bodies in Roman politics. Like the curiata, this assembly was also organized in the same mode as the military was. It was responsible for the elections of consuls, praetors, and censors, as well as declarations of war and treaties of peace and alliance. All citizens were eligible to vote in this comitia. The groups were chosen originally by the quality of armor, but latter by wealth. [11] It is not every group of voters was equal in number. For example a group of one hundred wealthy people would vote together and that would count as one vote, and so on and so on till you got to a few thousand poorer people voting as one group (and so one vote). The group distribution heavy leaned to the wealthy, and it was the wealthy that voted first. Groups would continue to vote till a majority was reached and as often happened the vote would almost never continue past the wealthiest of citizens( although some exceptions would happen from time to time). Within the mid third century B.C. the comitia centuriata was reorganized to enable it to lean slightly more to the poor. However wealth was still a major factor in the comitia centuriata.[12]
The two other assemblies were the comitia tributa and the concilium plebia. They were organized not by wealth like the comitia centuriata but by region. Each area of the republic was divided into thirty-five tribes, only four of which were urban or from Rome. The catch was that all voting took place within Rome. So voters from the other tribes would have to travel to Rome and vote. This had the effect of making the voters from outside of Rome have more power than those inside Rome (as there were more tribes, and because less could travel to Rome, each individual voter counted for more votes). All citizens could vote in the comitia tributa, but only plebeians could vote in the concilium plebia. These assemblies were responsible for voting on legislation (although the plebia only got that power by 287 BC), as well as for voting in lower magistrates, such as curule aediles and quaestors for the tributa, and tribunes and plebeian aediles for the plebia.[13]
What were the powers of the officials that the assemblies voted into power? First and foremost were the consuls. These were the positions almost equivalent to the king at the end of the monarchy, and are referred to the monarchal element of the Roman political system. They would be elected every year and for the most part re-elections were not so common. Consuls would often take command of armies and lead any wars Rome was to take part in. They also acted as executive officers of the senate, and would summon them for advice. Consuls originally acted in the area of jurisdiction as well, but this was taken up by the praetorship in 367 BC. This development was followed by a second praetorship in 242 BC. As the empire expanded, two more practors were added to manage the Sicily and Sardinia, and two more for the acquisition of Spain. Eventually by the time of Sulla, two more were added for a total of eight praetorships.
The aediles were used in the day to day running of Rome, including games, road, public buildings and in particular the grain supply. Quaestors were the financial assistants to the consuls, and often managed the financial aspect of the Republic (when the senate did not). Finally there were the tribunes, elected by the plebeians. Although their purpose originally was to act at the plebeian voice in a patrician government (the patricians were the original members of the senate, the aristocracy, while the plebeians where often new immigrants and the poorer persons), as the blending of the patrician and plebeian family began to take place the need for it decreased, they would often still act as advocates for the common Roman. They were also sacrosanct, meaning no person could harm them. They also had veto power to any legislation, although a tribune could veto another’s tribune’s veto.
There was only one major flaw in the democratic process in Rome, and that was that no discussion of the legislation could be made by any of the assemblies, nor could they pick any of the candidates. Simply put they could only vote yes or no on any given legislation, and only vote for the one candidate they preferred the most. Therefore, the job of making up legislation and picking candidates was left to one body.
The aristocratic element consisted of the Senate. The senate as stated before began as an advisory council for the kings and afterward the magistrates. However as time progressed, the senate began to acquire more and more power. Although never formal, the senate’s power was one of authority. Its main role was one of an advisory one to the consuls, as well as control of the financial aspects of the empire, and anything to do with foreign policy (a role which would become very important with the growing influence of the republic. Especially after the Punic wars, and the start of Rome’s expansion outside Italy, the senate would become the most powerful body in the Roman government. As military campaigns began to take longer than a year, and re-election was not encourage much at around this time, the role of military policy and management felt on the hands of the senate. This gave them much power, and some academics believe that it was the expansion of the empire than prevented Rome from becoming a full democracy. [14] The growing republic also fueled competition within the senate that would cause the breakdown of the Republic itself.
The American system of government however is far more different than that of the Roman Republic. As is apparent from an examination of the Roman republic, it is one that is based on a hierarchy. The American one is not.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights….”[15] Such ideas would be laughable to Roman ears, and it is this principle of equality and human rights that sets apart the American republic from a Roman one. Such evidence can be found in the arrangement of the comitia centuriata by wealth, and that a certain wealth was required to gain entrance into the Roman senate and magistrates. Almost any form of permanent hierarchy attempted is to be eliminated in the American way of government. For example, all persons can vote, do so not in groups but individually, and as such no form of wealth will make one vote count for more than another. All people and citizens (this would eventually include all persons over the age of 18) would have the right to vote.
Does wealth play any role in American government at all? While in the past it may not have, it is no secret that today wealth is almost a prerequisite to it. The high costs associated with an election have driven position of power beyond the reach of the average man. The costs of an election campaign are in the millions in the United States as is much similar in the Roman Republic.
Unlike the Roman Republic, not all those who were wealthy have a huge concern with the American Republican system. While all those who where members of the senatorial class were senators, and because of the huge responsible was placed on the wealthy to maintain the republic, the wealthy Roman had to have a concern and interest in government. Not so in the American Republic. While large portions of the wealthy do exert a force on the government, the general population is still apprehensive about such shows of wealth (this can be seen in the campaign “common man” approach). In the Roman Republic a huge pressure was exerted to show off a huge and lavish lifestyle (such as the presentation of games), and shows of wealth were generally encouraged. It would seem that to the American, any form of extravagant wealth is looked upon suspiciously. Look for example at the protests against globalization, against the growing influence of the wealthy on government, etc. Such protests and indignation would not be found in a Roman setting.
Let us look for a moment at the political structure of the America itself. First the nation is divided into semi-autonomous states (and in the beginning of the American Republic, they were far more independent). Each state can elect representatives to the Senate and House of Congress. The House is based on a population standard (that is more populous states get more representatives), while representatives to the Senate are elected by a state (two senators from every state). Such care to include all areas of the Roman Republic on the democratic process where never considered, with the entire voting taking place in Rome itself, even when the Republic stretched out as far as Spain and Syria. A concept of equality and rights was never present, nor was there a suspicion of wealth as we find in the United States.
Finally let us look at the demands war and competition put on the Republics themselves. While the Roman Republics it seems is constantly in a state of war, the American seems almost entirely absent from it. Finding nearly a sparely populated continent and little in the way of competition, the Americans were under no pressure like the Roman to develop a massive army. No pressure to expand the borders (although the Americans still did so more for ideological purposes) to defeat enemies. As was stated before, one the measurers that may have prevented the Roman Republic from becoming a democracy were war itself. Wars can hardly be undertaken in a democratic republic, unless a strong executive class or a highly centralized power is present. As such as strong executive class will often destroy the foundations upon which it stood to begin with, absorbing power long after the threat is gone. “Hence it is that all peoples who have had to make great wars have been led almost despite themselves to increase the strength of the government… A long war almost always places nations in this sad alternative: that their defeat delivers them to destruction and their triumph to despotism.” [16] In the Roman Republic, long wars ment a stronger Senate and centralized state, and eventually a single emperor. America has not yet faced a long war. One might wonder what will happen to it if it does.
Works Cited
——– (1996) Declaration of Independence (Funk & Wagnalls New Encyclopedia), R.R. Donnelley & Sons Company
Adcock, F.E. (1967) Roman Political Ideas and Practice, Ann Arbor Paperbacks
Cornell, T.J. (1995) The Beginnings of Rome, Routledge
Crawford, Michael. (1993) The Roman Republic, Harvard University Press
Patterson, John R. (2000) Political Life in the City of Rome, Bristol Classical Press
Plutarch, (1914) ‘The Life of Romulus’ in The Parallel Lives, Loeb Classical Library, http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Romulus*.html
Polybius,(1922-1927) Histories, Loeb Classical Library, http://www.ukans.edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/6*.html
Tocqueville, Alexis de. (2000) Democracy in America, (translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop) The University of Chicago Press
[1] Plutarch Life of Romulus
[2]Adcock (1967, 3)
[3] Adcock (1967, 4)
[4] Plutarch Life of Romulus 13 (Loeb Classical Library)
[5] Tocqueville Democracy in America Pg 30, (translated by H.C Mansfield and D.Winthrop)
[6] Tocqueville Democracy in America Pg 32, (translated by H.C Mansfield and D.Winthrop)
[7] Cornell (1995, 215-216)
[8] Plutarch Life of Romulus 13 (Loeb Classical Library)
[9] Polybius Histories 6.11.11 (Loeb Classical Library)
[10] T. J. Cornell (1995, 115,117)
[11] Crawford (1993, 195-196)
[12] Patterson (2000, 9-11)
[13] Patterson (2000, 12)
[14] Adcock (1967, 36-37)
[15] Declaration of Independence (In Congress July 4, 1776 The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America)
[16]Tocqueville Democracy in America Pg 159, (translated by H.C Mansfield and D.Winthrop)
