A Republic, If You Can Keep It

The Roman Republic is often romanticized as a stable and free society, tragically ended by Julius Caesar's dictatorship and his assassination by concerned senators. This act, intended to save the Republic, ironically hastened its fall, leading to civil war and the rise of the first Emperor, Octavian.

This was (supposedly) a golden era preceding the imperial ambitions of Julius Caesar and his successors, when Rome immediately shifted from one form of government to another.

I want to show you how wrong this perception is today.

Long before the Republic, Rome had kings—a monarchy that lasted for two and a half centuries. There aren’t amazing records of this time, so we have a blend of legends and recorded facts, but I think the legends themselves are important to understand, since many Romans believed them to be true.

The last king, legend has it, was called Tarquin the Proud. He was a notorious tyrant, and when the people of Rome had had enough of this dictatorship, they decided to never be ruled again by a king. Instead, they would allow power to be in the hands of the republic, with careful safeguards to keep the power from being too concentrated.

The Republic would see two consuls at the top of the executive branch, and a senate, functioning as a complex system of checks and balances designed to prevent any single individual or group from gaining overwhelming power. The consuls, elected annually, were the highest-ranking officials, responsible for presiding over the Senate and the assemblies, leading the military, and executing public policies. Their power was limited by the principle of collegiality, ensuring that each consul could veto the other's decisions, preventing autocratic rule.

This makes it sound as though there was a carefully crafted balance of power, and that conditions might have remained stable for a few hundred years.

Far from being an idyllic period of democratic governance, the Roman Republic was riddled with internal power struggles, social conflicts, and a gradual, inexorable slide towards autocracy. Instead of stable serenity, a complex political landscape evolved, where the lines between republic and empire were constantly blurred.

From its inception, the Republic was marred by the deep divide between the patricians (aristocrats) and plebeians (common people). Legend had it that Romulus and Remus, the twin founders of Rome, argued about whether to build the city on the Palatine Hill (Romulus’s choice) or the Aventine Hill, as preferred by Remus.

After murdering his brother and establishing the city on the Palatine Hill, Romulus’s choice became the symbol of wealth and power, while the Aventine Hill came to represent the common people. This division of class and wealth weren’t bugs of the Republic; they were features.

This mythological dispute foreshadowed the enduring conflict between the elites and the commoners in Roman society. The patricians, holding most of the wealth and political power, often clashed with the plebeians, who, despite being the majority, were initially excluded from significant political roles.

This tension led to the establishment of the Tribune of the Plebs, an office designed to protect plebeian interests against patrician abuses. However, this arrangement only partially alleviated the friction, as the struggle for power and equality continued to be a hallmark of the Republic. Over time, these class conflicts occasionally escalated into open confrontations and civil unrest, reflecting the underlying instability of the Roman political system.

The plebeians, despite gaining the right to elect their representatives (Tribunes) were continually marginalized, a factor that frequently led to frequent unrest and uprisings. A slave revolt broke out in the second century BCE, and violence frequently broke out in the streets during attempts to reduce wealth inequality.

From around 150 BCE all the way until the official fall of the Republic, the story of Rome was of constant turmoil and unrest.

Between 88 and 82 BCE, Marius and Sulla fought civil wars for control of Rome, leading to the deaths of tens of thousands of Roman citizens.

Spartacus’s slave revolt in 73-71 BCE nearly overthrew the republic.

In 63 BCE, Catalina tried to overthrow the government in an attempted coup. He wasn’t the first, and he wouldn’t be the last, but I wanted to include his attempt since it clearly set the stage for Caesar.

In 44 BCE, a political alliance between Julius Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus led to near-absolute power being consolidated in the hands of three men. After more than a decade, civil war began in earnest, with Pompey representing the Senate, and Caesar crossing the Rubicon to ultimately overthrow the Republic.

Did he really overthrow it, though? Wasn’t it more of a slippery slide toward empire the entire time?

All throughout this era, Rome was expanding its borders. All of these claims were justified as “self-defense”, but as Rome expanded, it became far easier to cry “self-defense” any time a consul wanted to expand their territory.

Ambition and power ruled the Republic, both domestically and internationally. Ultimately, it wasn’t a snap of the fingers that switched Rome from Republic to Empire, but instead a steady march in that direction for hundreds of years, picking up in intensity as Julius Caesar’s lifetime came into focus.

---

Typically, on Fridays I’ll write something as a part of a celebration of all things science fiction we call Sci-Friday. Science fiction has remained important to me over the years, igniting my passion for actual science at a very young age, and amplifying my curiosity for all things.

Today’s piece might seem utterly unrelated to sci-fi, but I want to challenge you, the reader, to think about examples of republics in science fiction. Do the movies, shows, or books these governments are in do a good job of representing the sort of friction that’s inevitable from a republic?

Do any of them remind you of ancient Rome? Did you know about all this turmoil within the Republic? Let’s talk!