In parallel to the military campaigns of the early republic, the constitution during that time was largely class based. H.H. Scullard argues that early republican Rome was two states; a plebian state and a patrician state. These states did not become unified until after the Gauls seized Rome; when the patricians and plebians became a unitary Roman state.

The positions of the early republic came directly from the regal period. Other than the Consuls, which was a position to replace the magistracy of the King, the other positions and assemblies already existed while Rome was under a monarchy.

This is one aspect of Rome throughout its period of political independence, the constitution was always contiguous, and never underwent revolution. This is consistent with an unwritten constitution where new conventions and constitutional structures are constantly added. The down-side is, that many of these conventions come in times of emergency; such as the positions of dictatorship, tribune, etc. These can be good, it appears that the unification of the patricians and plebians came from the Gaullish threat (which fits Turchin's argument), but we have examples in the modern world of increasing political equality achieved without a state going into emergency.

Arguably the Roman Constitution was so conservative, as oligarchies are, that the only method for constitutional change was emergency. The civil strife of the late republic where Caesar and Augustus sought to change the fundamental nature of the Roman Constitution could only be done through the imposition of emergency. Since Gracchus, this, rather than statutorial or consular change, became the dominant political form of progression.

I think it is a mistake to look at the Roman Constitution in modern liberal democratic terms. Rome was a martial-state; not a nation-state, and not a modern market-state. It was structured for martial success and security. Its magistrates, assemblies and Senate all had military aspects - such that its democratic nature was militarily based. Consuls and Senators were expected to be generals rather than civil servants. And the plebians that made it into the patrician class, or later into the elected positions, were from the wealthy plebian equestrian class (cavalry).

Since a military structure and militaristic society needs to be able to adapt to constant expansion, warring and infrequent catastrophes such as invasion, it makes sense for emergencies to be the driving force behind organisational, and hence constitutional change.

Another aspect of the Roman Constitution, outside of its deeply oligarchic nature, that would help retard and stop constitutional change, was the veto. This was a central political technology in the Roman Magistracy that could stop any legislation by a single person with imperium. It was intended to halt tyranny, especially from the consuls, which it was feared might seek regal powers, but it became an effective means to halt change. The veto was well established in the early republic as a technology, but I don't know how much it was used. I have not seen or read any discussion on its use during this period.

Part of Scullard's argument for their being two class based states in the early republic was that plebians were not allowed to run for elected positions such as consuls. Plebian law from plebian magistracies and assemblies were also not binding on particians, whereas patrician law was binding on plebians. Not surprisingly, plebians, especially rich ones, agitated for legal equality. Additionally the caste nature of this arrangement was enforced by law that prohibited the inter-marriage of patricians and plebians.

During the early republic many of the constitutional and magistrate positions were duplicated in both the plebian and patriciate states; such as the aediles, and there were four assemblies at this point. There was, however, a written component to the Roman Constitution in the early republic which was the Twelve Tables (I will cover them in detail later). This was the writing down of traditional or customary law into statutory legislation which could be termed constitutional. It appears they were ten commandments like - ie be a good person, where good is defined by the tribe, and don't be an immoral asshole, where immoral is defined by the tribe. Morality always being a moving target in human history.

So we have in the early republic the standard template for Roman Constitutional change and advancement for the martial-state's prosperity. It continued the constitutional positions from the regal period, other the Consuls which were created to replace the King, and Rome went conquesting, such that it became a local power, able to siege Etruscan cities as well as help out its Latium and Hernici allies.

The Roman martial-state was slowly on the path of increasing its size, army, wealth and influence through this period, until it was invaded by Brennus' Gauls and the state collapsed as its military was destroyed. A martial-state is nothing without its military power guiding the state, the society and culture.

This emergency led to the reorganisation of the state and constitutional innovation which was the removal of the partician-plebian caste divide. This became the common constitutional basis for the next stage of the Roman Republic - the middle Republic. Which is probably best defined as the period between the Gaullish invasion of Rome and the Second Punic War.

Where do the analogies between Rome and an Australian Republic coincide. Pax Romana was real, and Italy did benefit from the Roman commercial and civil view of citizenship and half-citizenship. Prior to Roman dominance of Italy there was constant warring between city-states, tribes, towns and the immigration of Gauls from the north. Rome's military extension halted the incursion of this violence - this is the Roman Peace or pax Romana.

None of that is constitutionally relevant though. These Roman gains were achieved through the sword and military dominance. The democratic systems extended back in structure to regal rome and were established for the purposes of military organisation and land-taxation. With the removal of the King, the Consul position that replaced the monarch were military positions. All the magistrate positions, other than the praetors, were expected to be generals and lead Rome in provincial expansion.

This is where the Roman system becomes alien to a liberal democratic nation-state. Rome was an agrarian martial state. Wealth came from land, and expansion meant greater wealth. A downside of this process was that pro-consuls became wealthier and more militarily capable than the consuls in Rome which was the cause of the civil wars in the late republic, until Augustus strengthened Rome's central military capability. Arguably the English empire was an agrarian martial state as well, and as it moved to a nation-state, the colonies, rather then being a source of wealth to the center, became an expensive drain. Consequently the English exported responsible government which maintained political dependence, but lowered the costs of political influence in an empire that was relying less on land and more on industrial production.

Today a political structure that is for the purpose of expansion has no merit. The technology of a Westphalian nation-state has meant that there is a lot of stability between nations and when there is war, the original boundaries of the nation-states are kept to. The military of a nation-state is less for expansion, provincial administration and colonisation than it is defence. Additionally the Commander-in-Chief is a civil position and not intended to directly conduct warfare unlike the Roman Consuls who were generals first and civilian administrators second.

We are currently moving to the Market-state structure courtesy of modern telecommunications and transportation. Rather than the heavily centralised political systems of a nation-state, the market-state rewards local and decentralised innovations. As John Robb wrote:

Whereas the nation-state used centralized control to enable slower regions to catch up, the market-state will need to accelerate (mostly by getting out of the way) innovation at the regional/community level.

The nation-state is constantly having to justify its massive overhead as well as its legitimacy. Smaller semi-political and semi-militaristic movements, such as Hezbollah, have proven that they can fight a larger and more powerful nation-state into stalemate. In Iraq we have seen this type of warfare paralyse a nation-state's civil legitimacy entirely.

So what lessons can a Roman Republic offer a modern Australian Republican. Well not much really. An agrarian martial-state which expanded to empire has little relevance to a liberal republican market-state. One is centralised, militarised and oligarchic - the other is decentralised, civilised and democratic. Rome was pre-Montesquieu and had separation of magistrates (or executives) while a republican principle is separation of powers, not positions. Where a martial-state and nation-state respond to crisis with a centralised military, a market-state responds with decentralised volunteer civil structures such as the Bush Fire Brigade and State Emergency Services.

A republican market-state has a written constitution, decentralised structures, separation of powers, universal rights (not limited by citizenship), political equality and legal equality. Rome lacked all of these.

x-posted to Gary Sauer-Thompson's philosophy site.

Mos is one of the latin words the Roman used for constitutional tradition. One of the curious natures of the Roman Constitution and legal system was how unwritten it was. Much of it was ius , which me might call customary, to mos which Lintott describes as 'the way things were done at the time'.

Most Romans were illiterate, unlike modern Australia which is a literate society. So written laws were mainly of value to the Magistrates, rather than the population. However, despite Australia's high literacy rate, you could probably count the people who actually read the laws or legislation in Australia on one hand.

I am willing to bet that even in the modern Auian political blogosphere there are very few who read legislation directly, and if they do, it is probably only one or two statutorial tracts.

The benefits of written law are at their most valuable when appealing to the judicial. They are also at their best in restricting the actions of public positions from arbitrary to regulated.

Tacitus wrote that when there was bad public administration in Rome a flurry of laws would come soon after from the Tribunes and assemblies - most of which were aimed at restricting the actions of the magistrates.

Another reason for the lack of written laws may have also been because criminal law was dealt with as a civil matter. There were no public prosecutors in Rome as we know them today in our legal system.

However, written laws were inscribed into brass plates and placed in prominent public places, such as temples and obelisks, in Rome, and the other Roman cities, so that the law was widely known. Many of the archaeological evidence for Roman law comes from these brass tablets.

Mos was intended to have the force of history - but again, we find it relieved from any binding force as the liberty of the sovereign under mos is deliberately for creating new convention. It is presumed that the sovereign's action will create a new contiguous force of custom; but again, that new precedent, and even precedent before it is subject to the whim of the sovereign.

It could be glibly argued that Mos led to the abuses of consulships, and pro-consuls and pro-praetors in the provinces, not to mention the new traditions of dictators and tribune that led to the Augustan empire. Then again, the counter argument is that Mos enabled plebian law to bind the patricians, and defeat the worst excesses of classism between Roman citizens (sucked to be a slave though pretty throughout Roman history).

The mistake is to read the Roman Constitution as a liberal democratic one. Basically, the Roman Constitution is from antiquity, and prior to the enlightenment. Rome was a martial-state and its constitution was a martial one. It political, social and economic structures were designed for martial success.

Mos, as a Roman institution, has to be seen within that framework. Most of the expansions of constitutional practice, especially the negative, in Rome were claimed under emergency. The tumult of war and violence was seen as a valid method to make the Roman Constitution reactive - the problem is, as Cicero found out, once the genie is out of the bottle it will not go back in.

It becomes expansive and not contractive; new powers, hard won, are rarely given up. Cincinnatus is the myth that says they are; Rome is the history that says they are not. It did not halt Roman military effectiveness, but did make the Roman political system more arbitrary.

From a liberal democratic point of view that is horrifying, but from a martial-state's point of view, it is probably just mos in action, and despite the lament for the republic by the likes if Cicero and Brutus, consuls continued to have military success under empire, the losers were the oligarchs, whose main political power was through the Senate and its feeder magistracies.

After Tiberius politics becomes arbitrary as well, mos compounds mos. Where once imperium hand over was consistent and ordered through the elections of consuls, praetors and tribunes each year; it was replaced with dynastic or violent passage of power from one Emperor to another with the support of the Senate or Pretorian Guard.

Violence and civil war replaced elections.