The Roman Republic

"When king Eumenes of Pergamum paid a state visit to Rome, the Senate received him with extraordinary honours, and the most prominent citizens in Rome vied with one another in showing him attention, whereupon Cato made a point of treating him with suspicion and reserve.
'But surely', someone said to him, 'Eumenes is an excellent man and a friend of Rome.'
'That may be', replied Cato, 'but nevertheless a king is an animal that lives on human flesh.'"
-- Plutarch, in his "Life of Cato" (The Elder, 234-149 B.C.), written ca. A.D. 100

Like most states and social organizations in the classical urban world, Rome was originally ruled by absolute monarchs and a few prominent families. These kings were foreign, Etruscans from the north of Italy, though the local aristocracy was both foreign and local. During the 700-300's B.C., the Etruscan civilization declined through invasion, depopulation and migration, and their various city-states ceases to be independent. Unfortunately for historians, the Etruscan language disappeared, and even classical historians lamented this loss, as many records and inscriptions were now indecipherable. However, many placenames and family names remained, and north-central Italy is still called Tuscany today.

The ancient Romans rebelled and forcibly expelled their last king, Tarquin the Proud, an Etruscan or a Latin/Italian who had adopted an Etruscan name. The Romans hated the idea of kings. Soon after expelling their king, they actually adopted a saying: "We Shall Have No King!". Even the actual Latin word for king, "rex", was hated. Future tyrants went to great lengths to be decidedly un-kinglike, and when the Republic was destroyed, the first Emperor was careful not to obviously re-introduce monarchist principles.

But power did not pass completely into the hands of the Roman masses. Most people were still left out of the major decision-making processes.

Over time, the rich landowners and aristocracy, the effective ruling elite, formed themsleves into an aristocratic governing body called the Senate. Membership was based on inherited privilege and wealth, much like the British House of Lords. In reality it was more like a cross between the Canadian and British Senates. As in the Canadian Senate, the individual members could (eventually) be appointed, but as in the English House of Lords, the hereditary arisoctracy could also inherit their Senate position because they were members of ancient noble families. If families died out, lost their social influence or betrayed the "Roman State" (which were usually defined as the interests of the rich nobility), they could be thrown out of the Senate. Because of its rigid, class- based composition, the Senate always remained a force for conservative social order and elite power throughout Roman history.

The nobility, called Patricians, or "fathers", fought against the common people, called Plebians, or Plebs, for political and religious influence. The common folk and the nobility were permanently locked in an endless, self-consuming social war, which frequently erupted in violence. Before the creatin of an efective, disinterested police force designed to keep public order, the rich were able to buy off supporters and, in effect, created private armies to enforce their will. "Mass Thuggery" is a term which has often been applied to Roman politics.

Reform movements were common and well-organized. At one point, the entire lower class decided there was no way to force the nobility to relinquish their control. They "seceeded", and went on a 4th-7th century versoin of a strike. This was called the Secession of the Plebs. They marched out of Rome, made camp on a local hill, and refused to perform military service, work for the elite or provide any services whatsoever to the Senatorial and wealthy families. Through mass actions of passive resistance like this, voilent acts and the dilligent work of reformers, lower and middle class Roman citizens forced the elites to allow more democratic methods of decision making and power sharing. Eventually, prominent Plebians could rise to the highest offices in the state, and a highly complex governing system evolved. This system had a mix of religious, class, political, economic and administrative elements specific to Rome of the time, able to adapt and change, and though this system evolved to meet historically contingent needs, many of its elements survive today largely intact in Western governing concepts and structures.

The Plebians created the National Assembly to govern themselves, organized into artificial "tribes", or sub-groups. At first, the old division between the Senatorial families and the Plebians was reinforced, because the National Assembly originally had no power to govern members of the Senate. This senatorial privilege was eventually eliminated, and the Assembly could pass laws affecting all Romans. One by one, the old aristocratic privileges of the elite were eroded, but there was one key area to wihch the Aristocrats clung, and the ideology of the time didn't allow the plebians to assume control.

In the eyes of the people, kings were originally not just rulers. In a superstitious age filled with competing ideologies and the need to justify power and inequality, they were also seen as intermediaries between the community and the Gods, spirits or higher powers. Most rulers throughout history have tried to maintain an almost quasi-mystical role, in order to compel people to respect their rule. Because they had a clearly-defined and prominent religious role, meant to guarantee the security and prosperity of the people, the king's place in society couldn't just be eliminated. Their old religious duties fell to the Senate as the next more senior body right after the expulsion of the King. This gave the Senate the power to declare war, because the outcome of a war and the rightness of a particular cause could be affected or determined by the Gods. Because of this, the Senate als ohad the ability to control international relations. This was not as relevant to the masses at the beginning, but as Rome grew in influence, foreign policy gave the patrician families more and more power over areas outside Rome, including through trade with foreign powers. it guaranteed that any new power Rome acquired collected in the Senate and not in the National Assembly. From a democratic perspective, this originally marginal fact became a fatal flaw in the constitution, guaranteeing the eclipse of the democratic process and the rise of the elite families.

In most ancient Mediterranean state-societies, a wealthy and powerful elite, a monarch, tyrant or theocrat usually exercised absolute authority. In Rome, political reforms demanded through constant activism and revolt eventually gave birth to a city-state in which power was shared more equally, though it was never a democracy. Even so, these reforms set it apart.

What's remarkable is that Rome didn't in fact develop into something more closely resembling a free democracy, but instead became a type of constitutional oligarchy with some democratic inclinations. Even so, it was a remarkable step forward in power-sharing, and with time, may have inspired even greater movements toward universal power-sharing. But events overtook these changes, as Rome became a more and more powerful military force and its power grew.

Through perseverance, luck and sacrifice, the Republic survived a violent social history. It experienced constant, savage warfare, social uprisings, division and population migrations throughout all of Italy. On many occasions it came close to subjugation, collapse, implosion and self-destruction.At one point, a force of Gaulish cavalry invaded and occupied the city, though the citadel never fell and the Gauls were bribed to retreat, one of the most humiliating chapters in Roman hist