The Roman Republic and America

 

The Pantheon

 

Remember, Roman, that it is yours to lead other people. It is your special gift.

    Virgil, The Aeneid

 

We are the indispensable nation.  We stand tall.  We see further into the future.

    Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright

 

Imagine an educated Roman office from around 20 BC. He had spent most of his military career in the last decades of the Roman Republic and now is a legion commander in the first years of the Roman Empire of Caesar Augustus. Rome is at the height of its power and influence, acquired through conquest during the Roman Republic. Now image he was transported through time to today’s Washington. After marveling at the new technology (horseless chariots?), like any curious tourist he would start to look for similarities to his hometown, imperial Rome.

 

The similarities would not be hard to find.  Both cities have a Capitol Hill. Both have a Senate building for senators to meet and debate. But, as he would predict, foreign policy was in the hands of the executive, who was similar to the elected consuls during the Republic and Caesar Augustus in the first days of the Empire.

 

The Washington Mall would remind him of the Roman forum; even the architecture of the surrounding buildings would look familiar.  He could read the Latin above their entrances. As he toured Washington, he would notice that the monument to a founding father, the Jefferson Memorial, was styled after the Pantheon.  He would see a statue of George Washington dressed (improperly) in a toga, handing in his resignation as general of the army. Our centurion would immediately recognize the model from Roman history – Cincinnatus. He would not be surprised to learn an organization of Washington’s officers was called the Order of Cincinnatus.

 

He would be curious about Christian churches. But he would understand the service if it were in Latin or Greek. The layout of large churches would be familiar since they were based on the Roman basilica. But he might wonder what happened to the many religions tolerated by Rome. 

 

The Roman concept of citizen was still alive. Even compared to the Republic, American citizens had more say about who ran the Republic. Yet he knew that the rights and obligations of a Roman citizen during the Empire had been “hollowed out” by the Caesar Augustus.

 

The role of law was just as important to Americans as to Romans. Americans were just as quick as Roman citizens to sue each other, hire lawyers and go to court. Cicero, who made his reputation as a lawyer and orator, would have loved it. Even the legal code contained elements from Roman law. 

He probably understood the American Constitution. It was somewhat similar to Rome’s 12 Tablets. After overthrowing a foreign king, the Romans wrote down their basic laws and outlined their form of republican government. The republic’s government was later described approvingly by a historian named Polybius. He emphasized separation of powers, checks and balances to limit despotic power, and the role of the people. His writings greatly influenced the founding fathers. Many of them, including Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams and Madison, read Polybius. At the Constitution Convention, many of the delegates cited or read passages from Polybius. None more so than James Madison, who wrote the first draft of the Constitution. 

 

But the federal government’s sharing of power with the states might have puzzled our Roman. Somewhat analogous to Roman provinces, whose governors were appointed by Rome, the states had substantial power and were not ruled from Washington. In the Roman republic, all power and decision-making were centralized in Rome. He might have thought this sharing of power would be a source of conflict. 

He would probably be amazed by the size of the Pentagon and the CIA headquarters. But he would understand what they meant – that America was a world power and needed a large bureaucracy to manage its far-flung armed forces. Maintaining, improving and using military might was obviously an important function of the American government, as in Rome. 

As he read recent American military and foreign power history, he would see another parallel to Roman leadership. For hundreds of years, Roman historians described "barbarians" in the same stock phrases. Roman leaders had such faith in the superiority of Roman legions that they felt they did not need to know anything about potential enemies. Of course military commanders like our centurion would have local knowledge along a small part of a frontier but it never translated into a general strategy. One consequence was that the Roman army, at the height of its power, suffered two of its most disastrous defeats when it crossed a frontier and fought a little-known enemy in hostile geography (dense German forest and arid Middle East desert). In both cases, local commanders pleaded with the commanding consul or legate not to advance. To no avail, annihilation of Roman armies.

 

The same has been true of American political and military leaders. Their combination of reliance on superior American firepower with ignorance and arrogance led to disasters in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. They did not read Roman military history and ignored the main lesson of the American Revolution. (For a discussion of how the American rebels won the American Revolution, see my post Revolution and the New Country:  America History, 1755-1790.)

 

He would also understand much of the national symbolism.  No one would have to explain to him what the eagle on Air Force One signified; it meant the same thing as the eagle standard Roman legions carried into foreign lands.  He could even understand the important Latin quote on American money, since it came from a famous Roman writer describing a source of Roman greatness. The American pledge of allegiance was similar to the military salute in the Roman army.

 

As he studied maps and learned more about the United States, he would realize two other similarities. The United States, like Rome, was a world power (Rome's world was the lands surrounding the Mediterranean and western Europe) with military might orders of magnitude greater than any other state. Washington, like Rome, was the capital of this imperium. But there was something odd about both cities. They were upriver on a minor river, not even a major port. They were not economic centers, cultural centers or even militarily important.  They were political centers that depended on drawing in immense resources from the territory they controlled. And both had a psychological border that separated them from the surrounding territory – the sacred pomerium for Rome and “the Beltway” for Washington. The world was different, the thinking different, inside this border compared to outside.

 

He would probably be amazed at America’s political institutions and how democratic they are. Although all free adult males in the empire would eventually be given citizenship, no one was under any illusion that all power and decision-making rested with the Emperor. But he read Roman historians and was likely descended from one of the ancient political clans that helped to rule the Roman Republic for centuries. It is possible he was pleased that the peaceful transfer of power still existed in the American republic. 

 

Like Romans, Americans believed they were spreading a superior form of "civilization" throughout the known world. Both Romans and Americans believed they were "exceptional," and had an obligation to spread their particular ideas and institutions abroad.

 

Like America’s founders, he could draw imperfect parallels to the history of the Roman Republic. Those who ran the country tended to be the educated elite. The Senate was made up of individuals far wealthier and better educated than the average citizen.  There were professional politicians, of course, and even political clans. But like imperial Rome, smart, ambitious (and in Rome’s case, often ruthless and brutal) men from the provinces could aspire to become Emperor.

 

Finally, he would ask the question that many Romans asked themselves in the first century BC.  Could Rome be both a republic – could it keep its republican institutions and civic virtues – and also be an imperial power?  Could America?  In Rome’s case, the answer was no. Its republican institutions were too weak, weakened by incessant civil war, internal conflict and taking power away from citizens, plebs and their tribunes. So far, in America’s case, the answer is yes, but with significant changes to its government and stresses to its society. But then, the Roman republic lasted for about 500 years and was an expanding military power over much of this period. The resulting western Roman Empire lasted for another 450 years and the eastern part (Constantinople) another 1,000 years after that.  The American imperium only began in 1945, a mere 78 years ago. It’s too early to answer the question.

 

But we can ask how well America has managed its role as a world power and what are the risks to that power.  The history of Rome may provide some clues. Maybe we can learn to avoid some of Rome’s mistakes. Maybe we can learn from some of Rome’s more successful policies. Even if comparisons are highly tentative and imperfect, maybe this exercise will give us some different perspectives on American power.

 

America and Rome

 

Later Roman historians and commentators lamented the passing of the Republic and its grounding in ideals of civic virtue, citizenship, law, checks and balances of political power, and popular elections. Both Rome and America thought they could erect political and legal institutions to contain selfish behavior dangerous to the republic. James Madison, a keen student of the history of the Roman Republic, was acutely aware of this problem when he wrote and submitted the first draft of the Constitution. Madison, like the other “founding fathers,” believed that survival of the new republic depended on the “civic virtue” of its citizens, exemplified by Washington. But Madison also knew, from reading Roman history and his experience in American politics, that he could not count on future American leaders to be as virtuous and selfless. So he constructed the Constitution, with its separation of powers, to protect the republic from tyrants, oligarchs and demagogues with unbridled ambition. He also supported (at first reluctantly) and helped pass the Bill of Rights to protect individuals from the arbitrary power of the state. Or a man who wanted to be an emperor. 

 

In Rome’s case, military and political expansion, the increased wealth of the powerful political elite and personal ambition overwhelmed the republican institutions of Rome.

 

I doubt if anyone considers the U.S. military a threat to democracy. But there are other effects. One is that American foreign policy makers, like those of Rome, rely heavily on the use of military power to solve problems. They ignore the lessons about the limits to military superiority found in the American Revolution and Vietnam. Military victory can unleash local resistance and “endless wars,” the kind Rome fought along its many frontiers. And there are domestic consequences. As the advantages to America seem to be lessening, there are again calls for isolationism.

 

And the cost. Because the U.S. attempts to project global power, the U.S. military is expensive, the largest single item in the federal budget. (Maintaining Rome’s legions was the largest item in Rome’s budget.) This year’s military budget is around $900 billion; total national security costs over $1 trillion a year. American politicians and taxpayers refuse to pay the price of global power. Instead, this year, and in many prior years, the cost of the military was paid for with borrowed funds. The size of the national debt grows. The United States is financing its military and foreign power with a credit card. Many of the lenders are foreign institutions, including foreign governments.

 

The global political structure America put into place after World War II seems to be under increasing domestic attack. Nationalist economic policies like increased tariffs and other restrictions on global trade are increasing.

 

America may not be able to managed its accumulated debt in the future. The national debt is growing larger and faster than the economy, because of the government’s continuing inability to tax Americans to pay for both domestic welfare and global military dominance. This may be Paul Kennedy’s “imperial overstretch.”

 

The second concern is the new definition of national security. National security now includes “homeland security.” Domestic security policies challenge individual privacy and liberties, the rule of law, and civil liberties. Again, these are fundamental to the functioning of American democracy.

 

Summary and Conclusion

 

In the last decades of the Roman Republic:

 

The patrician Senators had grown very rich. They became corrupt, decadent, and greedy. They fought among themselves to obtain offices that would yield great wealth. They abused the law to dispossess citizen farmers in Italy, seize the land, and put together large plantations worked by slaves and landless farm laborers. 

 

The poor and unemployed of Rome grew rapidly. Their grievances were taken up by demagogues who challenged the power of the Senate. The Senate was forced to share power with the plebs’ tribunes. Most of the demagogues were assassinated. Senators or their supporters attempted to co-op or corrupt the tribunes.

 

Mob violence by both sides and assassination were common political methods. Politicians hired gangs to intimidate opponents.

 

As Rome fought to become an empire, the Roman army transformed from a part-time citizen militia to a large full-time army with well-trained, long-serving volunteer soldiers. Many of the legions were raised and paid for by politicians or generals. Legionnaires became more loyal to their generals than to Rome. Generals like Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Julius Caesar fought to defeat Rome’s enemies and conquer new territory. They also wanted political power and control of Rome. Two of them, Sulla and Caesar, led their legions into Rome itself and assumed political control. Marius and Sulla fought to control Rome, as did Pompey and Caesar. All except Pompey declared their political enemies as outlaws and instituted a “reign of terror,” killing thousands of Romans. In the end, Caesar declared himself Dictator and controlled Rome until he was assassinated. His grand nephew and heir completed the transformation of the Republic into the Empire.

 

Corrupt and venal Senators, corrupted or demagogic tribunes, mob violence, political assassinations, generals using their legions to fight each other and conquer Rome. Decades of violence and chaos in Rome. This is what the last decades of the Republic were like.

 

====================================================

Cicero was the last great defender of the Roman Republic. Here he is denouncing the generals, patricians and demagogues who were subverting the Republic. In his view, they were committing treason against the republic. Cicero was proscribed (declared an outlaw with a bounty on his head), hunted down and murdered by a Caesar Augustus assassination squad.

 

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague."

 

Marcus Tullius Cicero

 

============================================================

For background, see The Roman Republic Commits Suicide