Read a History of the Roman Republic

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. Wikimedia Eatables

The U.South. Constitution owes a huge debt to ancient Rome. The Founding Fathers were well-versed in Greek and Roman History. Leaders similar Thomas Jefferson and James Madison read the historian Polybius, who laid out i of the clearest descriptions of the Roman Democracy's constitution, where representatives of various factions and social classes checked the power of the elites and the power of the mob. It'due south non surprising that in the United states of america' nascent years, comparisons to aboriginal Rome were common. And to this mean solar day, Rome, whose 482-twelvemonth-long Republic, bookended by several hundred years of monarchy and 1,500 years of purple dominion, is however the longest the earth has seen.

Aspects of our modern politics reminded Academy of California San Diego historian Edward Watts of the last century of the Roman Republic, roughly 130 B.C. to 27 B.C. That's why he took a fresh expect at the flow in his new book Mortal Republic: How Rome Fell Into Tyranny. Watts chronicles the ways the republic, with a population once devoted to national service and personal honor, was torn to shreds by growing wealth inequality, partisan gridlock, political violence and pandering politicians, and argues that the people of Rome chose to permit their democracy die by non protecting their political institutions, eventually turning to the perceived stability of an emperor instead of facing the continued violence of an unstable and degraded commonwealth. Political messaging during the 2018 midterm elections hinged on many of these exact topics.

Though he does non direct compare and contrast Rome with the Usa, Watts says that what took place in Rome is a lesson for all modern republics. "To a higher place all else, the Roman Republic teaches the citizens of its modern descendants the incredible dangers that come forth with condoning political obstacle and courting political violence," he writes. "Roman history could not more clearly show that, when citizens expect away as their leaders engage in these corrosive behaviors, their republic is in mortal danger."

Historians are cautious when trying to apply lessons from one unique culture to some other, and the differences between the mod The states and Rome are immense. Rome was an Fe-Historic period city-country with a government-sponsored faith that at times made decisions by looking at the entrails of sheep. Romans had a rigid class arrangement, relied on slave labor and had a tolerance for everyday violence that is genuinely horrifying. Then again, other aspects of the Roman Republic feel rather familiar.

The Roman people'south strong sense of patriotism was unique in the Mediterranean world. Like the Us after World War II, Rome, after winning the 2nd Punic War in 201 B.C. (the one with Hannibal and the elephants), became the world's hegemon, which lead to a massive increase in their armed forces spending, a baby boom, and gave rise to a class of super-wealthy elites that were able to use their money to influence politics and push button their ain agendas. Those similarities make comparisons worthwhile, even if the togas, gladiator battles and appetite for dormice seem completely foreign.

Cullen Murphy, whose 2005 volume Are We Rome? makes a more head-on comparison between the fall of the Roman Empire and the U.South., argues that the changes in politics and society in Rome stemmed from i source: its growing complexity. Rome, during the Republic and Empire, had increasing and evolving responsibilities around the Mediterranean which its government constantly struggled to manage. Those challenges forced changes throughout the economy and society, sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worse. In full general terms, he sees many of the aforementioned struggles in recent U.Due south. history.

"I think the U.South. is experiencing this same situation—we've never quite recovered from our victory in Globe War II, which left united states with the globe on our shoulders; and the implications of that responsibleness have skewed things in every part of our society and economy, and put our old political (and other) structures under enormous strain," he says. "New sources of ability and new forms of administration and management fill up the gap—and create unease and sometimes also injustice, and at the aforementioned time create vast new sectors of wealth."

Those types of social and economic changes also rattled the Roman Republic, leading to the moment in 130 B.C. when politics turned violent. The introduction of a undercover ballot meant Roman politicians and political factions couldn't keep tabs on (or bribe) individual voters. Instead, politicians had to build political brands that appealed to the masses, leading to something akin to mod American campaigning with big promises and populist linguistic communication aimed at the poor and middle class.

Reforms to the military also meant that service was no longer reserved for the aristocracy, who for centuries used their privilege to demonstrate their loyalty to Rome. For poorer soldiers, however, service became a path to riches. They began to count on the loot, bonuses and gifts of land they received from their oft-wealthy commanders meaning that over time the loyalty of the Roman legions shifted from the empire to their generals. These changes set up the stage for a new blazon of politics, one where whipping upwards the resentments of the lower classes and threatening political enemies with semi-private armies became the norm.

These trends offset came to a caput in 134 B.C. when Tiberius Gracchus, an elected tribune of the people, proposed a land reform bill that would do good poorer and middle-grade Romans. The style Gracchus went most his reform, however, was an affront to the norms and traditions of the Democracy. He brought his law before the Plebeian Assembly without the thumbs-up of the Senate. When his beau tribune Marcus Octavius threatened to veto the bill, which was his right, Gracchus manipulated the rules to have him stripped of his office. In that location were other incidents as well, but the most concerning aspect of Gracchus was his fiery, populist language, which whipped his supporters to the edge of political violence. Every bit his power grew, Gracchus began moving through the streets surrounded by a mob of frenzied supporters, a kind of personal militia not seen in Rome before.

Rumors spread that Gracchus was angling to go a king or dictator, and some in the Senate felt they needed to act. When Gracchus stood for a second term as tribune, which was not illegal but broke another norm, a group of Senators and their supporters beat Gracchus and 300 of his followers to death.

It was but the beginning. Over the next century, Tiberius'south brother Gaius Gracchus would come into conflict with the Senate after a similar populist confrontation. The commander Sulla would march legions loyal to him on Rome itself and battle his political rival Marius, the get-go time Roman troops fought one another. He would then execute and punish his political enemies. In the post-obit generation Pompey and Caesar would settle their political scores using Roman legions, Octavian and Marc Antony would field an army against the Senate before finally contesting one some other bringing almost 500 years of the Republic to a bloody (and confusing) conclusion.

Watts argues that while the Senate ordered his murder, it was Tiberius Gracchus who let the genie out of the bottle. "What he has to deport responsibility for is he starts using this really ambitious and threatening language and threatening postures. He never resorts to violence, only there's always this implicit threat. 'If not for me, things would exit of control.' And that is dissimilar, that was never done before. What he introduces is this political tool of intimidation and threats of violence. Later on thinkers say once it'due south there, even if others choose not to utilise it, it's there forever."

While life in Rome, with gladiator battles, crucifixions and countless state of war was violent, for centuries Romans took pride in their republican system and political violence was taboo. "The Republic was free of political violence for the improve part of 300 years. People who are politically engaged are not killing each other and they're non threatening to impale each other. When they disagree with each other they use political means that were created by the republic for dealing with political disharmonize," says Watts. "If you lose one of those conflicts, you don't die and yous don't lose your property and you aren't sent away. You just lose face up and motility on. In that sense, this is a remarkably successful organization for encouraging compromise and encouraging consensus building and creating mechanisms whereby political conflicts volition be decided peacefully."

And so what does the story of the Roman Commonwealth mean for the United States? The comparison is not perfect. The U.S. has had its share of political violence over the centuries and has more or less recovered. Politicians used to regularly duel one another (Run across the Hamilton soundtrack, song 15), and in the run-upward to the Civil State of war, the ultimate deed of political violence, there was the raid on Harper's Ferry, Bleeding Kansas, and the most murder of Charles Sumner in the Senate chamber. Joanne B. Freeman, writer of Field of Blood, a history of violence in Congress before the Civil State of war, tells Anna Diamond at Smithsonian she found at to the lowest degree lxx incidents of fighting among legislators, including a mass ball in the House, though they often tried to paper over the conflicts. "It's all hidden between the lines in the Congressional record; information technology might say "the conversation became unpleasantly personal." That meant duel challenges, shoving, pulling guns and knives."

The better comparing, surprisingly, applies to mail-WWII America. Despite periods where the U.S. political system and established political norms accept been tested and stretched—the McCarthy hearings, Vietnam, Watergate, the Iraq State of war—partisan violence or attempts to subvert the arrangement have been rare. But recent events, like changes to filibuster rules and other procedures in Congress as well as increasingly heated political rhetoric requite Watts pause. "It is profoundly dangerous when a politician takes a pace to undercut or ignore a political norm, it's extremely unsafe whenever anyone introduces vehement rhetoric or actual violence into a republican organization that's designed to promote compromise and consensus building."

The solution to keeping a republic good for you, if Rome can truly be a guide, is for the citizens to reject whatsoever attempts to modify these norms he says. "I call up the lesson I take away about greatly from spending so much time with these materials is basically, yes, nosotros do demand to assign blame to politicians and individuals who take a shortsighted view of the health of a republic in order to endeavor to pursue their own personal objectives or specific brusque-term political advantages."

The case of the Roman Commonwealth shows the consequence of not policing those norms and keeping violence in check is the potential loss of commonwealth. "No democracy is eternal," Watts writes. "It lives only as long as its citizens want it. And, in both the 21stcentury A.D. and the showtime century B.C., when a republic fails to work as intended, its citizens are capable of choosing the stability of autocratic rule over the anarchy of a broken republic."

American History Ancient Civilizations Ancient Rome Volume Reviews Books History of Now Political Leaders Politics Roman Empire Warfare

Recommended Videos

readercandect.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lessons-decline-democracy-from-ruined-roman-republic-180970711/