The Roman Republic: The Problem. How to account for the collapse of the Roman Republic? The Republican constitution was greatly admired by ancients and moderns; indeed its influence on modern political thinking especially in the area of citizenship and consensual government remains substantial. Factors:

• The acquisition of empire, so the Romans themselves thought, introduced excessive wealth and led to moral degeneration
• Moderns scholars note that the 'empire' undermined the constitutional checks and balances
• those who "fight" no longer identical to those who "vote".

A brief overview:

1. The Roman Perspective:
   1. the Roman "national" myth of expansion--note the focus on the form of government and values (this statement below from of the Roman historian Sallust may be compared to that of Thucydides in the Funeral Oration): Of the city of Rome, as I understand, the founders and earliest inhabitants were the Trojans, who, under the conduct of Aeneas, were wandering about as exiles from their country, without any settled abode; and with these were joined the Aborigines [Latins], a savage race of men, without laws or government, free and owning no control... [They] formed a union (assimilation) when they met within the same walls (urbanization) ... then their state, from an accession of population and territory, and an improved condition of morals, showed itself tolerably flourishing and powerful (virtue leads to success)...they protected with their arms, their liberty, their country, and their homes (those who fight, vote). And when they had at length repelled danger by valour, they lent assistance to their allies and supporters, and procured friendships rather by bestowing favours than by receiving them (patronage). They had a government regulated by laws (rule of law) . ...But when, by perseverance and integrity, the republic had increased its power; when mighty princes had been vanquished in war; when barbarous tribes and populous states had been reduced to subjection...and sea and land lay everywhere open to her sway, Fortune then began to exercise her tyranny...at first the love of money, and then that of power, began to prevail, and these became, as it were, the sources of every evil... These vices at first advanced slowly but soon the infection spread like a pestilence and the state was entirely changed, and the government, from being the most equitable and praiseworthy, became rapacious and insupportable. Sallust, Cataline.
2. Modern Scholars look to other factors in the political history of the Late Roman Republic (148 to 44 BC).
1. The balance in the constitution (last lecture) was more theoretical than actual: Not only did the institutions of patronage, status, familia, etc. secure the dominance of the nobility, but the elite used bribery, religious obstruction, manipulation of the calendar to secure its own interests and block reform.
2. Assembly and army no longer identical; no longer represent the same interests. The evidence is indirect:
   1. Armies far from Rome / Italy; yet voting possible only in Rome. The fighter and the voters not the same after 150 BC. The reform of the Roman Army to meet the needs of empire, ca. 100
   2. A professional, but "privatized" army . Soldiers' oath to their generals in the late republic (a composite): "I willingly and freely swear by the gods of the state to protect the safety, honor and victory of …….. . I will take up arms, and I will hold as friends and allies the same ones I understand are his. And I will consider those to be my enemies, those whom I observe to be his. And if anyone does or plans anything against him or his family, I will pursue them to the death by land and by sea…and if I do anything contrary to this oath…I myself call down upon myself and property utter ruin and utter destruction unto all my issue and all my descendants, and may neither earth nor sea receive the bodies of my family or descendants, or yield fruits to them." Note that Hitler and Stalin do much the same:

   3. German Soldiers' Oath of Allegiance before August 2, 1934	The Führer Oath (effective August 2, 1934)
      "I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will at all times loyally and honestly serve my people and country and, as a brave soldier, I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath."	"I swear by almighty God this sacred oath: I will render unconditional obedience to the Fuehrer of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and, as a brave soldier, I will be ready at any time to stake my life for this oath."

3. The root of these problems may be found in the consequences of expansion and imperialism:
   1. Citizenship given to Italians, but provincials remain subjects. Tension between the two, taxation without representation
   2. How to govern a world empire with the constitution of a city-state?
      1. Provincial magistrates beyond constitutional control (evidence in Sallust).
      2. A professional army that did not vote and whose loyalty to the state was suspect (see above)
      3. Effectively only those living near Rome had the vote, yet the overwhelming majority of citizens lived throughout Italy.
3. The situation in 133-122 BC --when the internal contradictions began to overwhelm the state--when the Gracchi become tribunes and met violent ends.
1. Problem: inadequate number of small farmers / citizens /soldiers to meet needs of army; to make more men eligible for service; meant the poor needed to become landowners
2. Solution: distribute public land (acquired by war) and pay the costs out of imperial revenues => exploitation of subject-allies. A change in Rome policy:
3. Senate opposed reform because it would give too much power (patronage /clientele) to the Gracchi. They were accused of plotting to establish a tyranny and destroyed.
4. Consequences: end of domestic peace (rise of violence => civil war); use of imperial revenues to fund social reforms/benefactions and the professionalisation of the army.. But there were problems: soldiers loyal to their commander, not to the state.
4. Party Politics: The "opimates" and the "populares"
1. These are not political parties in the modern American sense nor do the terms describe an alignment of the senate vs. the people. Difference rather in that the former (those in power) operated through the Senate in the traditional way; the latter (those who sought power) through the assembly and without reference to the senate. A successful popularis became an optimate.
2. The Issues:
1. The prize was not simply the annual magistracy (especially the consulate) but the opportunities that office provide to exploit the wealth of a mighty empire.
2. Programs (i.e., how to gain a clientele)
1. state subsidy of grain, bread and gifts for urban mob (only comprehensible if the mob controlled the assemblies)
2. agrarian laws: land for the poor
3. extension of citizenship: provides new clientele but endangers an older one.
4. Defense of private property (often conflicts with (b.)
5. sound government (especially toward subjects of Rome)
5. Cicero, Pompey, Caesar and a New Formula
1. Continuing civil dissension and also civil wars during the period from 100 to 31 BC made it clear that the traditional constitution was not working; respectable opinion increasingly looked to a rector.
2. Civil War of 49; Caesar dictator for life, assassination.
6. Conclusions and Significance: The Roman state gained considerable vitality though consensual government and assimilating former enemies as new citizens. Nonetheless, it is manifest that the elite controlled the state. With the acquisition of empire, the constitutional checks and balances broke down and members of the elite entered a period of violent competition with one another characterized by the increasing use of private armies and violence as a means of persuasion. The moderate forces of Republic Rome were overwhelmed by the lawless extremists.