Anthony Everitt's book; Cicero, The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician is written in the modern style with a fast narrative that makes it a painless and quick read. Rome is a source of constant historical fascination and Cicero lived right through one of the most turbulent periods that dominates modern perceptions of Rome. Consequently a biography on Cicero is incomplete without being placed in the events and political culture of the time. Everitt achieves this well.

Cicero was a contemporary of Julius Caesar, Mark Antony, Pompey, Marcus Brutus and the young Octavian who was to become Caesar Augustus. It was the proscription that Octavian, Antony and Lipidius came up with to pay for their civil war against Brutus and Cassius which led to Cicero's death in his 60s. Like many acts of violence the original proscription list gathered people for reasons of wealth, enmity and political competition. It is likely that Cicero was killed for the dual reasons of property and competition. During the period when Octavian and Antony were feuding Cicero led the Senate in politically dividing up the Caesarian Party.

The Roman political system managed to provide sufficient order despite not having a civic support system that we take for granted today. For instance there was no police force, and bills were often passed by gangs flooding the Senate and intimidating the legislators. During Clodius' reign as Consul gangs were used for political power constantly - including intimidating Cicero by burning down his house, which prompted Cicero to flee Rome, and then returning to find that Clodius had built a holy shrine on his property.

So politics in Rome was pretty violent and arbitrary. To add to the violence, politicians were expected to be soldiers as well. In Cicero's time most Consuls only achieved the position after martial success - such as Sulla, Caesar etc. The Roman constitution was designed to defray unitary power and had a massive set of checks and balances on the Consul (executive) who had veto power. The Tribunes, who represented the people, had veto power as well which made many policies impossible to implement as one person could veto it and it was sunk.

After Sulla, the fear was that politics and order would only be possible through dictatorship or a state of emergency which was called the Final Act. By Julius Caesar's reign the Final Act and Dictatorship became the main form of governance. Antony governed as an autocrat and Octavian had no intention of returning power to the Senate or the Tribunes.

The Senate was a limited body anyway, largely limited to the aristocratic class, though Cicero was from the wealthy merchant class, and access to the Senate required going through several other elected and appointed positions first. Cicero lacked the antiquity that the likes of Marcus Brutus had, who could trace his family line to the founding of Rome, so Cicero often touted his political and limited martial success constantly.

Cicero is known as the great orator, and his early career involved defending people in the public trials that were held in The Forum. Apparently he was a very nervous speaker and it was hit or miss whether he would rise to the occasion or not. After the trials, he would go home and write out his speech, presumably cleaning up errors and without the nervous and faltering starts. He would then distribute his speeches in written form.

During Julius Caesars reign, Cicero dropped out of politics for a while, and devoted himself to authorship. He had written books (scrolls really) prior to this such a book on oratory and on the Roman State, but, during this period he was particularly prolific and rounds up Greco-Roman philosophy and a defence of the Roman Constitution amongst others. Books from the time had no guarantee of surviving through history, something that seems odd in a world of Raid5 arrays and trans-continental digital backups.

The letters between Atticus and Cicero also survived, and this is where Anthony Everitt draws on the personal feelings of Cicero as well as the political strategies he employed. Letters were published at different times and could serve as a form of 'leaking' to the public. After Cicero's death, Atticus published the complete letters between himself and Cicero - which survived. What didn't survive was the letters between Cicero and the two Caesars.

All in all this book is well worth a read. It is a fascinating time of Roman history and Cicero was right in the middle of it with those very events and history being directly responsible for his death. Cicero is an interesting person to tell that history through as he was involved in it constantly, but not as a soldier, so it is a purer reading of the politics of the time where Roman governance went from a Senate, to dictatorship, and then to emperor.

That was after Cicero returned from Sicily as a Quaester (bureaucrat for the Governor) which gave him access to the Roman Senate. The Roman political system was very hierarchical and certain milestones in public service (and religious service) had to be achieved before Romans could run for offices such as Consul, Pro-Consul, Tribune etc.

Rome did not have a written constitution as the United States or Australia do. It did not even appear to have a Westminster style one such as Britain's or Tasmania's which exists across multiple non-contiguous acts. It seems to be purely a mix of convention and tradition. Which was probably why it was easy for Sulla, Caesar and Augustus to subvert it.

We mainly know the Senate as the Roman political body, but prior to 510BC Rome was ruled by a monarch until (King) Tarquin was run out of town. This led to a fear of unitary or supreme power and Roman political institutions established themselves to stop such an outcome. What replaced it was effectively a Senate led oligarchy. For most of Rome's early history approximately twenty families dominated the Senate and it was rare that outsiders were able to establish themselves sufficiently to become Senators - Cicero was one of those rarities.

Since Montesquieu it has been firmly established that the three branches of government are executive, legislative and judicial. The Roman system does not really fit into those categories; the Senate being problematic again; but the Roman institutions are near enough that modern Australians would recognize executive, legislative and judicial functions in the Roman political bodies.

The main Executive position was the Consul. Rome solved the issue of absolute power and sovereignty in this position by electing two Consuls each term who would alternate month to month. A Consul's term was twelve months and they could not be re-elected Consul after serving in the position.

This pluralistic or power-sharing aspect of Roman politics may have been why would-be emperors such as Caesar, Augustus, Antony, Pompey, Crassus, Lepodus etc were happy dividing the Roman Empire up and ruling it as triumvirates - however transitory the arrangements were; ie Caesar crushed Pompey, and Augustus crushed Antony.

After a Consul's term was up they became a Proconsul and were sent off to govern a province such as Spain, Africa, Macedonia, Cisalpine Gaul etc. Anywhere that was far away from Rome. For the Proconsuls there was the added advantage of being able to extort the provinces for money as Roman elections were usually quite expensive - what with all the bribing and whatnot.

There was no civil service or bureaucracy in Roman times, that was a technology that was invented during English and French dominance in the 1700s as they required organisational technologies to support their highly militaristic and capital intensive war machines; such as a navy and continental army.

Roman politicians carried the burden of the civil service as they would take their own people with them to their appointed position and the cost tended to be defrayed by the wealth that a Roman could make in such a position. There was also no tax department either; especially not in the provinces. Tax collection was sold off, or bidded for. Tax Farmers were a wealthy and politically influential special interest group that rivalled the merchants for the ears of Roman politicians.

The Roman system carried checks and balances everywhere, and achieving the position of Consul required serving in several political positions first. An aspiring Roman public figure had to first serve as a Quaester. These were like provincial tax collectors. Cicero, for instance, served his period as Quaester on Sicily.

After serving as a Quaester the individual was eligible to become an Aedile of which they were only four in Rome. This wasn't absolutely necessary to become a Consul as it was an expensive position to hold. Most of the civic improvements came out of the Aedile's own pocket. Crassus apparently made the comment in his later life that you "Weren't rich unless you could afford to pay an army." Which gives an idea of how oligarchic the Roman system was. Only the Bill Gates, Warren Buffet's etc of Rome could afford politics; George Bush would be too poor to be part of the Roman oligarchy.

The final position before Consulship was as a Praetor. This position held real executive power as they executed the law in provinces and stood as judges. The Roman judicial system is different to our form. For instance all cases, criminal or civil, were brought by individuals against another. Again, there was no civil service, no police force, and no real penitential system. So most decisions were fiscal in nature. Capital punishment was extremely rare even in times of emergency.

The Roman lawyers used to act like TV attorneys. They would be the interviewer, the detective, the collector of evidence and then would represent their client in the Forum, defending their case with a speech full of rhetoric, innuendo and facts. This would be done infront of a public audience, who would react to the speech with cheers and boos. It is hard to believe that mob justice didn't have an influence on Roman law cases in such an environment.

The Senate was an unusual body. It wasn't really legislative, as it didn't make laws, however it controlled money supply and made policy. It also reviewed any legislation that came from the Assemblies, effectively giving it the yay or nay. Probably the closest analogy to their function in a modern democracy is the committee system in the Australia. But even that is a bad analogy.

Senators were appointed for life, and because of the high turnover of Consuls and their power-sharing requirements, the real power of Rome was in the Senate. It dominated what an executive could do, what was political achievable in the system, and how policy was conducted. It was a permanent institution, consequently it was very conservative in its political operation.

The Consuls and Tribunes were far more temporary institutions and it is a not a surprise that most radicalism came from those bodies such as Sulla, Caesar and Augustus. Than again Caesar during his period as dictator/tyrant managed to appoint so many Senators that it became a body pliant to his executive will.

The other positions in the Roman executive were the Censors and the Tribunes. The Censors were like public servants, they conducted administrative functions such as keeping the census up to date, enrolling citizens, purging the Senate of deadwood (!). There were only two Censors and the individual had to have been a Consul to become one.

The final position is the Tribune. This position came into being when the people (plebs) removed their labor from Rome in 493BC and basically conducted a strike over debt relief by camping en-masse on a nearby hill. To placate the plebs and have them return to Rome a voice of the people, the Tribune, was established. The Tribunes could propose legislation and could convene a Senate meeting to respond to the concerns of the people, but their main power was the veto.

The veto was the ultimate Roman power of check and balance. Consuls could veto, Praetors could veto and Tribunes could veto. The veto was final too, and only required one Consul, Praetor or Tribune to shoot down a proposal. It seems the idea was that it covered an executive veto, a kind-of judicial veto and a popular veto to place a check on absolute power.

One of the criticisms of the Roman system was that this overlapping check and balance created stasis in the system such that good governance could not occur; and consequently a unitary executive was required to come in and plow through these obstructions to government. When Caesar established himself as dictator he basically did an end-run around these checks and balances, however he made the other positions weak or pliant to his executive will. Augustus did similar. So this is not necessarily a good argument.

There is an argument that all the overlapping made the constitution and conventions difficult to change. Which was an issue successive Roman reformers discovered. The loophole in the Roman constitution was the position of dictator, and this is what reformers such as Sulla, Caesar and Augustus used to get around the Senate. The Dictator was a formal position, established through law, where a Consul had supreme power for six months.

This law was enacted through the Final Act which the Senate would vote into being. This would establish tumultus where civil law falls down and laws becomes the arbitrary whim of the Dictator. This is where the state of emergency and state of exception, as well as Agamben's work on homo sacer come from.

Roman politics were militaristic. Consuls and Senators were expected to be generals as much as they were required to be politicians. A quick method for an aspiring Roman politician to become a public figure was to be a successful general. For instance Pompey rose to public prominence through raising an army illegally and leading it to success during a civil war. He was twenty-three when he did that.

There were two legislative bodies in the Roman system during Cicero's time, or its most powerful age. There was the Centuriate Assembly which was a military body, and the General Assembly which was tribally based and called comitia tributa in Latin. The General Assembly approved bills, but it didn't debate them. It could also declare war. The General Assembly was territorially based rather than the oligarchic nature of the Senate which only included the wealthy families. But all democracy was constrained in Rome by transport and communications.

Enfranchisement in Rome was for male citizens and elections were held in Rome, so only those that were within travel distance of Rome could vote. Given the size of the Roman Empire, and the lack of a representative system of government, this meant that citizens in Rome wielded a great deal of power over the politics of the Empire.

cam

Everitt on Augustus: "Perhaps the most instructive aspect of Augustus' approach to politics was his twin recognition that in the long run power was unsustainable without consent, and consent could best be won by associating radical constitutional change with a traditional and moralizing ideology."

Augustus saw Rome's downfall into constant civil war, which he was a major contributor to, as a loss of the moral rudder from Roman greatness of centuries before. So he passed moralising laws. These, like modern statutory restrictions aimed at morality, had no discernible effect.

This traditionalist view of morality, such as promiscuity, and not breeding enough heirs, is not the same as Harpurian or republican views of morality. The Harpurian view of morality is one of decreasing violence through moral expression, and eventually, with moral perfection, the replacement of the state with individual moral virtue. For instance Harpur believed that war would eventually become morally impossible.

Republican morality is predicated in the absence of violence. Augustus' view of morality was a political narrative designed to bind his imperial rule to the history of Roman greatness. It is not much different to the modern passage of nationalist and moralistic laws.

btw Augustus' was a horrible hypocrite and did not follow his own moralising laws.

Propaganda has changed little in politics. A quote from Augustus' Res Gestae [wiki and English].

Augustus in Res Gestae said, "At the age of nineteen on my own responsibility and at my own expense I raised an army, with which I successfully championed the liberty of the republic when it was oppressed by the tyranny of faction."

Colin Wells comments after that excerpt in the Roman Empire:

'Liberty' and 'faction' are stock words of the political vocabulary. I am always for liberty, you are always for faction. Like 'democracy' today, 'liberty' could mean anything you wanted it to mean, and nobody was ever against it.

Liberty is used often on this site, and normally in the meaning of freedom under a political system or the state. Faction is also used often, as political parties and special interests are factions in modern systems. Under a system of liberty factions are not a problem unless they resort to violence. Augustus' plan was violence all along, even under Roman law, it was illegal to raise private armies without the permission of the Senate. The increasing civil strife in Rome can be traced to the ability of individuals to raise threatening armies and often of the Senate to give the leaders of those armies legal status afterwards. Pompey made his name with a privately raised army during the civil wars of Sulla's time.

Interesting to see though that propaganda has changed little. In fact Augustus put Virgil and Horace, the well known poets, to work writing a history of Rome and events that supported his traditionalist and imperial view of Rome that inevitably pointed to the necessity of a benign imperial rule.

The Roman form of naming was pretty logical and limited. A name was made up of the praenomen, the nomen and the cognomen. The nearest analogies today are that the praenomen was the personal or christian name, the nomen was the tribe/clan name and the cognomen was the surname within the tribe/clan.

So to use some well known examples; Marcus Tullius Cicero. The praenomen for Cicero, of which there were about a thousand all up, was Marcus. Tullius was Cicero's family or clan name - the nomen. Which could be traced back to Regal Rome. The cognomen was often a common word, like rabbit, or a plant etc - Cicero means chickpea. In the ribald rhetoric of Roman politics the cognomen was often a source of mockery or insinuation. The closest anglicized version of Cicero's name is Marcus Cicero of the house of Tullius.

The Romans also added names, called agnomens, to the end of their formal name to denote triumphs. A good example is Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus. Africanus was added to his name (by himself) in honor, and reminder, of his defeat of the Carthaginians.

Another example of the complexity of Roman names is Julius Caesar, the first dictator for life, and Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. The Roman name for Caesar was Gaius Julius Caesar. Augustus was his adopted son through Julius Caesar's will; but Augustus was born Gaius Octavius. Not all Romans had a cognomen. Probably the anglic equivalent of not having a middle name I guess ... (I don't have a middle name) and seen as unusual.

Augustus' father, after his praetorship, put down a slave revolt in Thurii. As a result he took the honorific (like Scipio did with Africanus) which was added to his name and automatically to his sons'. So the future Augustus became Gaius Octavius Thurinus.

Years later he was named in Julius Caesar's will as his heir, so the future Augustus became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus which denoted he was now the son of Caesar but from the Octavius family/clan/tribe. Augustus, as we know him today, is an honorific which was granted by the Roman Senate, which rather than being a constitutional position, is a religious one.

One of the confusing parts of Roman names is that there were so few praemonens. To make it more difficult for historians, it seems the first son always took the praenomen of their father. The lex repetundarum which was a judicial roll, required that juror's names be taken down in the form: father, tribe and cognomen. Presumably the taking down of the father's name was due to the Roman organisational form of the paterfamilias which gave the father complete sovereignty over his family and property. Rome was a male dominated world.

Regal Roman history is somewhere between 750BC to 510BC when the republic replaced the Roman kings. Many of the political bodies, such as the Senate and Assembly existed during the regal period - the main innovation was the replacement of the king with two term-limited Consuls who had imperium or royal power.

Roman history tends to get broken into three periods: regal, republic and imperial (empire). The regal period is while it was a developing town, then city, under Etruscan influence, and ruled by Kings. The republican period is after the monarchy was overthrown and replaced by the dual-consuls and Senate. This period lasted until either Julius Caesar or Augustus, to which the latter has the claim as the first emperor which was constitutionally different to Caesar's dictator for life.

Calling the third phase of Roman history the Roman Empire is a bit disingenuous as well. Augustus did expand the Roman Empire to its maximum, but the expanse into Greece, Syria, France, Germany, Spain, Egypt and North Africa all occurred under the Republic.

The political organisation of Rome was for martial purposes and expansion. Even during the Regal period Rome was an expansive city-state eventually being mentioned in a treaty with the Carthaginians as having sovereignty over several Latinium cities and speaking (not vassal) for many others. Rome was a martial-state.

The early iron-age people of Italy were the Villanovans. Europe of the time was one of constant migrations for reasons of violence, displacement and opportunity. It is not sure where the Villanovans came from and it has been suggested that the came from the Balkans, the Adriatic, or were local evolutions of the Terramara or a group from the Appenines.

It is the same with the Etruscans, who eventually displaced the Vollanovans as the dominant people, cities and culture in Italy. There had been Phoenician and Greek settlements or colonies in Italy and it is not certain that the Etruscans were immigrants from Asia Minor by the same method as the Greeks, or if they developed from the Villanovans in cities like Veii. H.H. Scullard write:

One thing however is clear: whether with or without the introduction of newcomers from the Eastern Mediterranean, the varied elements were fused together during the orientalisating phase in the early seventh century [BC].

The Etruscans remained largely Villanovan in population but developed, or imported, ever increasing administrative skills such that towns and villages became cities. That wealth and trade increased so that Greek pottery became more common at archaeological sites. Scullard argues that small numbers of immigrants were able to establish themselves as an aristocracy through their superior technology and organisational skills, effectively ruling Etruria with a Villanovan population.

The Etruscans expanded into Latium and reached as far south as Cumae which was Greek at the time. Rather than precipitating greater war, it seems this offered increased trading opportunities, but the Etruscans like any technologically dominant city-state of the time, used their stability to expand. Rome was one such village that fell under their control, including their religious, cultural and economic influence.

During the 6th century BC Rome was ruled by Etruscan kings. It is possible that the area known as Rome had settlements on it as early as 1500 BC, though archaeological finds date the continual habitation of the area at about 800 BC though it was more huts and villages than one town or city.

These villages started to coalesce during around 650 BC as Etruscan influence and trade starts to appear; along with increasing wealth such as tiled roofs. The first Etruscan King took the throne of Rome in 616 BC which entwines with Rome becoming an urban Etruscan city.

One of the problems of pre-history and scant written record, not to mention the pre-modern nature of the time, is that historical record is hard to determine. For instance Rome's founding myth is Romulus and Remus. So if there were Latium or Sabine kings from 750 BC to 616 BC (supposedly four) it is more suitable to myth than historical record. It does seem, however, that two of the Etruscan kings of Rome fit pretty well in the historical record.

The three Etruscan Kings were Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquiniss Superbus. The last king's name gives me a giggle, it has a glaring modern look to it that evokes diesel smoke, beaten in sheet metal and crowded Sydney streets rather than pre-Roman regalia.

The Roman kings weren't a monarchy as we tend to think of them today - especially as most of our experience with kingship is through the British empire and monarchy. It appears the first king was able to exert his will on Rome and establish himself as King. The Senate existed before the Etruscan kings and must have been an innovation, or imposition by the patricians during the previous rule or rulers of Rome.

The king was ethnically Etruscan, but did not rule from Etruria, the monarchy was restricted to Rome alone. This may have been due to poor communications of the time, as well as the decentralised city-state organisational structure. The second king, Servius, was the son-in-law of Tarquinius and the third king was probably the grandson of the first.

The tribal curia has been accredited to Romulus and appeared to have been for military, religious and political organisation. Scullard argues that as the state overtook the familial or collegial nature of tribal rule the curia transformed into the Comita Curiata - a voting assembly body.

Servius, in order to expand the Roman military, set up a centuriate system, similar to the curia. A census was performed and the centuriate's gathered according to property and free status. This effectively expanded the military while creating a new assembly body - the Comitia Centuriata. It wasn't immediately a political body, but inevitably became one.

The Senate of the Regal period was a body of advisors to the king, chosen by the king from the patricians (nobles in anglic). The number varied from king to king, presumably for political reasons such that it was branch stacking as Julius Caesar did centuries later. An appointment to the Senate was for life.

The Senate also had the responsibility of appointing a caretaker king or viceroy on the king's death, who would nominate the next king. It appears that the Senate had to approve the nominated next king. So it is far from the dynastic bloodline monarchy that Australians are familiar with in the British monarchy.

Roman tradition has it that Tarquinius was a tyrant, and his son raped the king's wife. Which led to Lucius Iunius Brutus leading a rebellion that overthrew the monarchy. The political turmoil led to Rome being invaded by the Etruscans, however they did not stay, as Etruscan power was waning and Latium cities were claiming their independence at the same time.

With the overthrow of the Regal system, Rome established the Republic, which placed royal power, imperium, in two consuls who were term limited to a year. The consuls came from the patricians which meant that it was an expanse of senatorial and autocratic power.

Most of the democratic systems, though laughable in sophistication by today's standards, especially in the area of enfranchisement, were already in place during the regal period. The only real change was the elected consuls, and later the election of quaestors, praetors and tribunes. The assembly bodies were already in place, as was the Senate.

This was to be the basis of a martial state and society that would eclipse the Etruscans, Greeks and Carthaginians in their ability to organise their conquests from a centralised political system. The one we know as Rome.

The Roman system, rather than having a Montesquieu system of separation of powers, had the organisational structure of provincia - which was separation of magistrates. Provincia seems to mean an area that requires administration, which presumably demands executive attention, but it appears it could be an area that would be allotted a magistrate to be conquered and administered. Which is not surprising as the political positions of consul were martial executives and heavily involved in military matters including conquest. Andrew Lintott makes the comment that this led to the provincial magistrates becoming more powerful than those in Rome.

Lintott writes in The Constitution of the Roman Republic:

It is preferable in my view, to treat the increase in magistracies [any executive/judicial position such as consul, praetor, tribune etc] at its face value - an indication that, as the Republic went on, the Romans became subject to more government. It remains true, however, that this increase in government did not add to the authority of the supreme magistrates in the city [Rome].

Moreover, the growth of Roman military power and empire, which ultimately allowed a single Roman commander discretion over territory which in the present day forms more than one nation-state, made the powers of a consul in Rome insignificant compared with those of a consul or proconsul abroad.

Which is an important point in my opinion of the ongoing civil wars in the later republic as consuls, such as Sulla, Pompey, Caesar etc could camp an army in Gaul, and draw upon all the resources of the western empire, while directly threatening Rome. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, Pompey's strategic decision to remove all republican/loyalist troops to Greece and Macedonia, while popularly and morally crippling, was strategically sensible as it meant he would have the eastern Roman empire to draw upon - in troops, resources and money through taxes.

Part of the destabilisation of Rome may have been the increased power the ever-growing in size provinces gave consuls over the central government in Rome.

The obvious English word for factio is faction, however, Andrew Lintott notes that in Roman comedies factio implies power from wealth and social status, rather than leadership of a political or economic special interest group which is the accepted meaning in liberal democracy. Rome existed for long enough, and the historical record short enough, that factio pops up with several meanings, including a corrupt oligarchy, but also the Roman optimates which were the noble and conservative families of the Senate.

Lintott argues that because of the vague description of factio in the Roman political record, the political effect of the Roman aristocracy is better determined through how the aristocracy controlled the consulship and their cohesion in the Senate.

The position of consul was originally the domain of the patricians alone, until the third century BC when plebians became eligible for the position through election. It appears that plebians is misleading as the position required Roman citizenship and in the increasing Roman Empire, this was a small privileged minority.

It also appears that the equistrian order (cavalry) and its high barriers of entry (400,000 sequesteres) meant that the plebians were high in the economic strata. These weren't dung shovellers being elected to the consulship, they were new wealthy families, who were outside of the original Roman nobility.

Lintott notes that despite some social mobility, with plebians families being integrated into the Roman aristocracy, the plebian consul's were still small in number:

new names form only about eight percent of the total in the consular lists in the period between the Pyrrhic War and the Second Punic War.

and:

A well known analysis of the period from 232 to 133 BC shows that the 200 consulships were shared between 58 gentes, 26 of which accounted for 159 consulships, and ten of which accounted for 99., effectively half the total.

That suggests that the Roman aristocracy was very cohesive, as well as competitive in the powerful positions, though within a small group of families.

This would suggest that a class reading of Roman politics may be in order, and since it was a democratic system, which combined voting from tribes and the military, that upward pressure from the majority was being dampened by the cohesive patrician class.

There appears that like the British monarchy, the Roman patricians bent as they needed to. For example the political communication between patricians and plebians prior to the establishment of the Tribunes, and when the position was abolished, was usually a riot. Lintott writes :

Moreover, as Cicero recognised, the plebs at Rome, deprived of its tribunes, resorted to the traditional method of riot in order to give vent to its grievances: the restoration of the tribunate of its full powers became desirable as a safety-valve.

Enfranchisement and political representation became important tools in not only political order, but also social and civil order.

The Tribune was a very powerful position, being made sacred while the Tribune was in office such that violence against them was a crime against divine law (not human law) and they also had the power of veto over consuls and the senate. Augustus, in establishing his power, made the emperor's positions equate to Tribune for life - which was more powerful and popular, with both patricians and plebians, than Caesar's constitutional position as dictator for life.

There was constant competition and the seeking of advantage between the patricians and plebians, and in the late republic, popular will was recognized as a very powerful political weapon, such that the nearest thing to what we would call parties developed. These were the optimates and populares. These were Roman conservatives, the optimates, and Roman popular politicians (normally Tribunes and Consuls), or populares, who pandered to the plebs. Which are political strategies that can be viewed under liberal democracy.

In the early republic the dominance of the patricians was shown in legislation as there were bans on marriage between patricians and plebians, as well as bans on plebians entering elected positions, though this changed.

I suspect this was mainly because of Rome's military success and subsequent conquest. This placed stress on the existing patricians to administer Rome, its provinces and new conquests while still supplying the consuls, senators, magistrates and generals. Essentially the franchise of administrative positions was expanded to include plebians, though rich ones that were Roman citizens, because of the demands of empire for an ever increasing number of skilled administrators.

When we think of Rome, we think of its empire extending into Spain, France and out west into Turkey, but it had to grow and conquest to reach that, and it took several centuries to do. After the kings of Rome were overthrown, or removed, in about 510 BC, there was an expansionary century for Rome where they established themselves as the dominant city in the Latium League and expanded their land-holdings, which is important for a yeoman military, however in 390 BC all these gains were lost with a successful Gallic invasion of Italy - and seizing of Rome.

I am going to focus on the military aspects of this period, to determine the external and internal pressures up against Rome. With the establishment of the Republic, the Etruscans were on the wane, while to the south was the Latium League, of which Rome was an on and off partner and signatory. Other groups that posed military threats included the Hernici, the Sabines which were probably being pressed from the north by Gauls and moving south under that pressure, the Aequi and the Volsci. Rome established treaties with the Latins and Hernici, and together they resisted the advances of the other tribes.

I am never sure how much of this is conquest, natural expansion, or just immigration. For instance the Gauls were constantly pressing down from the north, and it appears that a constant source of migration was from the Russian steppes into western Europe. Was the constant warring an aspect of culture or civilisation at the time? Or was it just a form of migration, albeit a violent form? I don't know.

Alot of the tales of the military campaigns from the period come from tradition, so they often have a political, as well as mythical, aspect to them, such as explaining away Roman failure in a way that is palatable to Roman readers. It appears that the Volsci and Aequians advanced into Latin and Hernici territory, a campaign in which Rome took part, and upon losing Lucius Mincius, precipitated the crisis that led to the legend of Cincinnatus. Who dropped the plough in a time of crisis, took dictatorial powers and retook the valley that Mincius was lost in. Seventeen days later Cincinnatus was back to his plough.

The big battles were in the north against the city-state of Veii - an Etruscan city which was only about twelve miles away from Rome. As part of this wider war, in which Rome expanded northward, the Etruscan city of Fidenae was taken through siege before Veii was besieged about twenty years later. In that time Fidenae revolted at least once.

All this fighting went on between 493 and 390 BC. A decisive battle against the Aequi was not until 431, and the same with the Volsci, who were pushed back constantly from the same year onwards. The battles with Veii seem to be in the latter part of the century, with Fidenae being taken in 435 BC and again, after a revolt, in 425 BC. Veii was also taken after a (probable) ten year siege in 396 BC. Interestingly, as the siege campaign went through summer and winter, the yeoman troops were payed for the first time - the beginnings of a Roman professional army.

H.H. Scullard writes that the end of this century's struggle left Rome on top politically, despite it having less land than the Latium League:

Whereas the Roman territory was a compact mass, the Latin possessions were scattered and often separated by Roman property. In these circumstances the Latins found common action difficult, so that a profound change came over th League. Rome almost unconsciously assumed the leadership. A city in distress would turn more readily to the united and ready forces of Rome than to the disunited Latins; and the Romans would often call on the Latins to supply their contingents without waiting to summon a federal council.

So the Sabines never really made it far enough south to bother Rome, but caused downwards pressure on other tribes. The Aequi and Volscans were beaten by a treaty between Rome, the Latins and Hernici such that they were no longer military threats; and the Etruscan cities, of which Veii was a large one, were now susceptible to Roman expansion. To top it off, Rome came out on top politically amongst its allies and had an efficient and organised military.

But this is still really only local power and influence. Rome is still pretty small and despite the conquering of Veii, it is a city that is only twelve miles away. This isn't the same projection the Roman legions in Caesar's time have.

This fragility is shown with the invasion of Brennus' celts. The Gauls were strong enough militarily that they were able to take northern Italian cities. When Brennus marched on Rome he did so with an army of approximately 30,000 to Rome's 10,000. Scullard comments that this Roman army was probably the largest it had put into the field in the history of Rome to that point!

Rome was taken by the Gauls, who appeared more interested in plunder than land, being bought with gold. The fact was that Roman power had been completely destroyed by the defeat at the hands of the Gauls. The city was taken, the treaties with the Latins and Hernici collapsed, the army was destroyed, and the territorial gains of the last century's fighting gone; and those that remained were under expansionary threat from neighbours.

Part of Rome's appeal is its resilience and it took fifty years to win back all that was lost in 390 BC to the Gallic invasion. Scullard writes:

it was largely owing to Roman courage in defeat and resolution in rebuilding a barrier against the north that France and not Italy became the home of the Celts.

cam