A Roman Kingdom

Scrolling the thread back up to the first post, I said "One could see a parallel" between dual magistrature in Rome and dual kingship in Sparta

Odds are that the Romans didn't adopt the dual magistrature directly after the foundation of the Republic. At the latest, the consulate was in place in 367, but many historians presume that Rome originally opted for a single head magistrate, the Praetor Maximus.

So I think an inspiration by archaic structures is pretty unlikely - maybe at this point the Romans really knew about Sparta and copied its system?
 
Odds are that the Romans didn't adopt the dual magistrature directly after the foundation of the Republic. At the latest, the consulate was in place in 367, but many historians presume that Rome originally opted for a single head magistrate, the Praetor Maximus.

"Many historians" might presume that, but given that the only evidence for such a theory is a single law of ambiguous meaning and date, the balance of probability is decidedly against the theory.

So I think an inspiration by archaic structures is pretty unlikely - maybe at this point the Romans really knew about Sparta and copied its system?

We don't actually know all that much about the constitutions of sixth-century Italian city-states -- it's quite possible that there were other cities in the area with collegiate magistracies already. Although if we're assuming Spartan influence, there's no need to delay it until 367 -- monarchical Rome, we now know, enjoyed strong commercial links with the Greek world, so there's no reason they couldn't have known about Sparta back in 509.
 
"Many historians" might presume that, but given that the only evidence for such a theory is a single law of ambiguous meaning and date, the balance of probability is decidedly against the theory.

Well, I should have been more precise. Forgive me. The theory is especially popular with German historians.

But the law you have in mind is certainly not the only evidence for this theory. You find it not only at Titus Livius 7, 3, 5 (the single law), but also at Titus Livius 3, 55, 12, who writes that in earlier times "the judges weren't called Consuls, but Praetors."

Also, consider the etymology. Praetor comes from pra-ire, meaning to lead. The Greek translation of praetor was strategos, general. The tent of the Roman general was the praetorium (think of the praetorian guard). So in the Roman language, praetor was the word used to describe a general. Still, Roman historians wrote that the first Praetors was elected in 367. Alledgedly it was a judiciary office, and praetors mostly played secondary roles in wars.

Why should the Romans, after creating an office to disburden Consuls, give this office a military name, but primarily judiciary tasks? And then name the central place of military camps after them? Admittedly the Praetors also sometimes led armies, but the great campaigns were commanded by the Consuls, and there were even less Praetors than Consuls for hundred years!

That's completely illogical!

It makes much more sense if you consider that the praetor was the original president of the Roman state. He was the supreme judge and general. He simply received the functions of the former Kings, who also were both judges and generals. The Consuls, if they already existed, were subordinates of the Praetor (I agree that he possibly called Maximus, but still). Later on, at the latest in 367, the Consuls became the most important magistrates and the superior generals of the Roman state. But still Cicero calls the Consuls "praetors, judges and consuls".

We don't actually know all that much about the constitutions of sixth-century Italian city-states

But what we know is that Capua (at later times) had supreme magistrates called praetors. The rulers of Carthage, the Sufets, are called Praetors by Cornelius Nepos. According to Titus Livius, the Latins were ruled by two Praetors, and the Samnites by one.

Nearly everything indicates that the first republican rulers of Rome were called Praetors. And there is some evidence that, at first, there was one single Praetor Maximus, replacing the single King.
 
Last edited:
Polybius, IIRC, described Rome as having a mixed constitution, not a democratic one, whilst Dio was writing centuries later.
That being said, it's maybe less due to an historical evolution of the word, and maybe more on Polybus' own (cyclical) political theories : Dionysios of Halicarnassos points that many in Athens argued that in -404 the rule of delagates was the "truest democracy" (IRRC) in the wake of the Athenian defeat. Maybe the distinction wasn't that clear-cut, allowing Polybos to make a point about the cyclability of institutions.

Now, I agree that there's not much for arguing a Greek influence on Roman early republican institutions, would it be Athenian or Lacademonian, until the hellenistic period IMO.

I'm trying not to sound snotty here, but you keep misspelling or misusing English words (including ones, like "ideal", which are vital to understanding your argument)
I didn't realized (it's unfortunate that while some rightfully complained, they tried to get the point in other threads) that not being a native English speaker made my contributions invalid due to misspelling. I've an hard time believing that being on an international board means that only non-English speakers have to make an effort and read other posts in good will.

That said, words as magistrature does exist in English, if maybe not common (if it's better for you, I will use magistracy). For the rest, as ideal, it's not that easy to translate without using "long rambling sentences" you complain about to be sure being understood trough the language bareer : it's not the best situation for an exchange but as said, I tought it was up to everyone to make an effort.
I don't think there's much more to say on this, from me at least.

Odds are that the Romans didn't adopt the dual magistrature directly after the foundation of the Republic. At the latest, the consulate was in place in 367, but many historians presume that Rome originally opted for a single head magistrate, the Praetor Maximus.
I was under the impression that double praeture was, as duumviirs, already present in late royal Rome, at least for classical historians? I didn't know about the possiblity of relatively late development of dual magistracy, tough : what are the reasons argued for this evolution?
 
Well, this being post 1900, maybe the internet was at play?
my-name-is-ass-smart-ass-gener-tor-ilu-4254188.png

This theme got evoked in my head.
 
But the law you have in mind is certainly not the only evidence for this theory. You find it not only at Titus Livius 7, 3, 5 (the single law), but also at Titus Livius 3, 55, 12, who writes that in earlier times "the judges weren't called Consuls, but Praetors."

Also, consider the etymology. Praetor comes from pra-ire, meaning to lead. The Greek translation of praetor was strategos, general. The tent of the Roman general was the praetorium (think of the praetorian guard). So in the Roman language, praetor was the word used to describe a general. Still, Roman historians wrote that the first Praetors was elected in 367. Alledgedly it was a judiciary office, and praetors mostly played secondary roles in wars.

Why should the Romans, after creating an office to disburden Consuls, give this office a military name, but primarily judiciary tasks? And then name the central place of military camps after them? Admittedly the Praetors also sometimes led armies, but the great campaigns were commanded by the Consuls, and there were even less Praetors than Consuls for hundred years!

That's completely illogical!

It makes much more sense if you consider that the praetor was the original president of the Roman state. He was the supreme judge and general. He simply received the functions of the former Kings, who also were both judges and generals. The Consuls, if they already existed, were subordinates of the Praetor (I agree that he possibly called Maximus, but still). Later on, at the latest in 367, the Consuls became the most important magistrates and the superior generals of the Roman state. But still Cicero calls the Consuls "praetors, judges and consuls".

It's well-established that the consuls were originally called praetors, but that doesn't contradict the notion that the Republic was headed by a collegiate magistracy from the start. Bear in mind that the Republic didn't have much of a distinction between civil and military authority, so, pace Greek translations, it would be unwise to press the idea of praetorian authority as being a specifically military authority. Most likely "praetor" was originally just a generic term meaning something like "leader", and retained some of this broader meaning (in terms such as praetorium) even after it was also used for a specific rank of magistrate. (Indeed, the English term "magistrate" provides a very good parallel for this sort of process.)

I didn't realized (it's unfortunate that while some rightfully complained, they tried to get the point in other threads) that not being a native English speaker made my contributions invalid due to misspelling. I've an hard time believing that being on an international board means that only non-English speakers have to make an effort and read other posts in good will.

Now who's twisting points? I said that your posts were difficult to understand, not that your contributions are invalid, and I only did so after you accused me -- twice -- of deliberately misrepresenting you. If you're going to complain about people not showing you sufficient good-will, maybe you should try extending the same charity to others.
 
Dionysios of Halicarnassos points that many in Athens argued that in -404 the rule of delagates was the "truest democracy" (IRRC) in the wake of the Athenian defeat.

Yes, Polybius calls representative governments (in the context of Greek federal states of the 3rd and 2nd century) democratic, even if these governments were hardly very popular.

I was under the impression that double praeture was, as duumviirs, already present in late royal Rome, at least for classical historians? I didn't know about the possiblity of relatively late development of dual magistracy, tough : what are the reasons argued for this evolution?

Well, I think we should distinguish two developments: the development of the title and the development of the mumber.

The development of the title is pretty clear. Praetor is a more senior title than Consul. The Praetor is "the one who leads" (the troops, the republic), and the troops were indeed commanded by Praetors, as the term praetorium strongly suggests. Even the Romans acknowledged that in earlier days, their supreme judge was called Praetor instead of Consul. As I wrote above, Cicero used the term Praetor to describe the Consuls. So it's not hard to realize that in the first years of the Roman Republic, the supreme magistrate(s) was/were called Praetor(s).

The number is more controversial. According to tradition, the Romans chose a dual executive immediatly after overthrowing the kings. Two Praetors, if we consider the linguistic evidence. The question is: how did two Praetors evolve into two Consuls and one Praetor urbanus? And why was this Praetor urbanus inferior to the two Consuls, even if we consider that Praetor was a more prestigious title? Also, if the dual magistracy was already so deeply entrenched in Roman culture, why did the Romans create only one Praetor urbanus in 367 BCE? The German historian Jochen Bleicken (in Die Verfassung der Römischen Republik) offers the following explanation: when the Romans overthrew their king, they didn't immediatly replace him with two magistrates. Instead they instored a supreme magistrate called Praetor (maximus). The Praetor received the entire political powers of the king, except that his term was limited to one year. Limitting the term of the king appears more intuitive than to limitting his term and doubling his number. It's hard to imagine why a culture accustomed to the unitary executive of the king should suddenly adopt a dual executive.

In Bleicken's theory, the Consuls were created to support the Praetor in his tasks. Here the law handed down by Livy comes into play: the text mentions a Praetor Maximus. Bleicken deduces that this means that the Praetor maximus and the two Consuls formed one collegium of Praetors, in which the Praetor Maximus held the senior position. However, the Praetor became so occupied by judicial affairs in the urbs that he evolved into a Praetor Urbanus, while his two subordinates, the Consuls, surpassed him due to their military tasks. Thus, the Consuls became the leading members of the praetorian college. According to Bleicken, this development was completed in 367 BCE, when the Leges Liciniae Sextiae formalized the new organization of the Roman Republic.

The theory is admittedly quite speculative. But it helps to solve the problems created by the word Praetor and the mystery created by Livy's law about the Praetor Maximus who has to "nock a nail" on the ides of September. Others advance a theory in line with Roman tradition: the Praetors were a dual office from the start, and Praetor Maximus is just an archaic name for a Dictator. But then the question is: why was the title of a Dictator, the most powerful Roman magistrate, given to an official who was only second in rank, after the Consuls? That's why I think Bleicken's idea has some arguments on its side, and does a good job explaining how the Roman magistrates received their names.

but that doesn't contradict the notion that the Republic was headed by a collegiate magistracy from the start.

Yes, but keep in mind that the collegiate magistracy wasn't that self-evident in Roman history. The Praetor Urbanus, elected for the first time in 367 BCE (according to traditio) didn't receive a colleage until the creation of the Praetor Peregrinus in 242 BCE, and the governors of the Provinces never had colleagues, despite their great power.
 
Last edited:
The development of the title is pretty clear. Praetor is a more senior title than Consul.

even if we consider that Praetor was a more prestigious title?

That seems a bit dogmatic, given that the consuls pretty clearly outranked the praetors, and given that we're not even sure "praetor" originally was a title (it might just have been a generic term, like English "leader").

The Praetor is "the one who leads" (the troops, the republic),

A prince is "one who is first", so we'd expect a prince to outrank a king, right? Except words, as you say regarding Polybius and democracy, can and do change their meanings. Etymological speculation is all well and good, but it's pretty weak evidence for how things work in reality.

Also, if the dual magistracy was already so deeply entrenched in Roman culture, why did the Romans create only one Praetor urbanus in 367 BCE?

Because the dual consulship was instituted so that each consul could provide a check on the other's activities; with the praetor urbanus, he could be checked by the consuls, who after all outranked him, so there was no need to creator a second praetor urbanus.

The German historian Jochen Bleicken (in Die Verfassung der Römischen Republik) offers the following explanation: when the Romans overthrew their king, they didn't immediatly replace him with two magistrates. Instead they instored a supreme magistrate called Praetor (maximus). The Praetor received the entire political powers of the king, except that his term was limited to one year.

An explanation that goes against both the historical tradition and the evidence of the Fasti.
 
Last edited:

Well, you made some good points, and I already wrote that I don't completly buy into Bleicken's theory (I call it that way because he advocates it, not because I'm sure that he set it up).

The existence of a Praetor Maximus can easily be explained by the fact that, for religious reasons, one of the Consuls always had to be Praetor Maximus. And Bleicken's theory can't explain the existence of the Dictator. Why would the Romans have needed a Dictator if they already had a single executive official? From this point of view, Bleicken's theory doesn't make much sense.

So maybe the most likely explanation is really that the Romans created a dual executive in 509 BCE, even if they called its members Praetors and not Consuls. The third Praetor urbanus was added only later.

As to the inspiration for this collegiate magistracy, I don't think we have to go as far as Sparta to find it. Many ancient city states, including Carthage, had such a dual leadership. If we consider entire human history, republics often opted for a government consisting of several persons, because single leadership was tightly connected to monarchy. It is only since the American Constitution that republics too regard a unitary executive as normal.
 
Interestingly, if you look at the Fasti, the Romans elected consular tribunes for a lot of the years preceding 367. So maybe the progression was something like: the Republic started out with two magistrates, called praetors or consuls or possibly both, but over time they came to the conclusion that two magistrates weren't enough, and experimented with electing more praetors/consuls/consular tribunes instead. Later they came to the conclusion that this didn't work either (maybe having so many people with veto power over each other made it difficult to get things done? That's just speculation, though), so they decided to reinstitute the dual magistracy, but with a third person under them to take care of the city while the other two were away campaigning.

Actually, that gives me a thought about the whole "Why did 'praetor' end up as a term for a secondary magistrate?" question. If we assume that "praetor" was still a generic term for a leader, calling the guy whose job was to look after Rome itself "the leader of the city" (praetor urbanus) would make sense. Maybe, over the course of the next hundred years or so, people got so used to using the term "praetor" when referring to the praetor urbanus that the meaning of the word shifted from a leader in general to a specific rank of magistrate below the consuls. That would explain change in a way that's still compatible with what the Fasti and Roman historians tell us about early Roman constitutional developments.
 
Forgive me that I reply only so late, but I had to get some information on the subject to be able to reply something substantial (sadly, my knowledge about this early period is quite limited). As I said above, I mostly read germanophone authors (Bleicken, Rainer, Bringmann...) who are quite critical of Roman and Greek historiography. The first Roman historian Fabius Pictor lived at the end of the 3rd century BCE, and only the events after 367 BCE are considered as confirmed. The preceeding centuries have been filigreed by Greeks and Romans, especially to give Rome a glorious past, and only some pivotal events are regarded as factual. The same goes for the fasti, which are reliable after 367, and somewhat factual between 450 and 367. Everything before is most likely legendary. For example, the early fasti (until around 480) are full of interpolations staging plebeian families who become important later on - but certainly weren't in the 5th century.

(Rome is supposed to have hosted three original tribes as well, but it's hard seeing what's part of a more or less genuine historicity, and what could come from a PIE tri-functionality (or non-functional triade) as much as genuine organisation.
As said above, there's no evidence for tripartition in ancient Roman society, and this particular three tribes = three functions theory ended up being abandoned by Dumezil himself.

The three tribes are certainly not Proto-Indo-European. Rainer considers the curiae (from co-viria, associations of men; consider also quirites) to be the original organization of the Roman state. Membership in the curiae was determined by affiliation to a gens, instead of the territorial criterium used for the tribes. Also, the curiae had religious functions, while the tribes hadn't (AFAIK). The tribes were created only later to organize the Roman military (each tribe supplying 1,000 men). It is likely that the number of 30 curiae was permanently fixed when the tribes were instored -- the organization into three tribes and thirty curiae is obviously artificial. This is also reflected by the names of the curiae, who are sometimes named after gentes and sometimes after persons. Thus, the tribes weren't part of the primitive organization of Roman society, and could only have been established when the Roman state was already solidified.

We don't even know when the Roman kingdom fell, as records were destroyed with the Gallic sack of Rome. But the records we have are wrong, as conveniently, according to them Rome turned into a republic literally a year year before Athens, which means Rome can call itself the first democracy. It's a little too convenient.
Unlikely, given that the Republic wasn't actually a democracy as the ancients understood the term, and, far from calling themselves the first democracy, Romans generally looked down on Athenian-style constitutions for being too open to demagoguery and mob rule.

The point is that the Athenians got rid of their tyranny in 510, when the Spartans overthrew the tyrant Hippias. So it would have been tempting for a Roman historian to set the overthrow of the Roman monarchy* in 510/9, to make sure that Rome doesn't "rank behind" Athens. And the dating of the beginning of the republic is really quite conjectural. Bringmann writes that in 304 BCE, 204 nails were counted in the temple of Jupiter, so it was calculated that the temple had been dedicated in 509. The inscription on the temple mentionned Marcus Horatius Pulvillus, who had been eponymous magistrate in 378, when the temple was renovated. Since M. Horatius accidentally shared his name with one of the mythical founders of the Republic, the Romans deduced that the Republic had been founded in 510/9 BCE.

However, it is likely that the Roman overthrew their last king around 500 BCE, even if the precise date is impossible to determine.

*You might object that the Romans overthrew their king, while the Athenians did the same with their tyrant. But some argue that the Roman Kingdom was a tyranny to some extent, at least if you consider the policies of the Etruscan kings. The mythical Servius Tullius replaced the curial and tribal organization of the military with the organization by centuries, thus weakening the power of the gentes and patres. This is in line with the common action of Greek tyrants, who underminded the rule of the aristocrats by strengthening the hoplites. Therefore, it's hardly surprising that the Romans despised the monarchy as much as the Greeks hated the tyranny.

The tale on both Tarquinus rise of the throne could be interpretated by meddling from neighbouring Etruscean cities on Rome, meddling that would have more or less annoyed Roman aristocracy. One could argue that there's as much mentions of fight between Etrusceans kings and their neighbours. Rightly so. But I think what could be relevant are the mentions of a treaty (treaties) passed with Etruscean cities.
The problem would be eventually less about having a foreigner as a king (which was common enough), but having someone that is not seen as incarnating the interests of one city on behalf of "foreign" people (which could be either newcomers into aristocracy or neighbours).
It's also worth considering just what an "Etruscan regime" or "Etruscan domination" would entail. The Etruscans, of course, weren't politically united, so if Rome was dominated by an external Etruscan polity this would presumably entail being made subject to a nearby Etruscan city-state. But Rome's size during this period was already enough to put it in the top tier of Italian cities, so it's unlikely that any other city would be strong enough to subjugate it for a full three generations. The other situation in which it would make sense to talk of an "Etruscan regime" would be if the Roman ruling class were deposed and replaced by Etruscans, who then formed the dominant power-group and confined native Romans to the lower classes. Needless to say, there's no evidence for such a situation, either in the ancient historians or in inscriptions or the archaeological record.

I think we can agree that even a politically disunited culture like the Etruscans can extert some form of "domination". In fact, the foundation of the Roman Republic took place in the context of the end of the Etruscan predomination in Italy. Aristodemus of Cumae had defeated Etruscan armies (led by Porsenna) twice; in 474, Hiero of Syracus defeated an Etruscan fleet at Cumae; the mountain tribes were gaining in importance, and in 424, the Samnites took Capua from the Etruscans. The Greek colony Cumae was conquered by the Oscans in 421. These events heavily limited the Etruscan influence in Latium and Campania, and might be the background of the beginning of the Roman Republic.

The precise reasons for the end of the Roman monarchy are uncertain, but conflicts between the Etruscan king (with an absolutistic conception of monarchy) and the patres certainly played a role. Some also suspect that Tarquinius Superbus lost a war against a neighboring city. The Roman historiography assumed that Tarquinius and Porsenna were allies, but this is doubtful for at least two reasons: First, there are hints that Porsenna actually conquered Rome in 508, but he didn't restore Tarquinius to the throne (even if this was the mythical reasons for his war against Rome). Second, Tarquinius was later allied to Aristodemus of Cumae, an old enemy of Porsenna - Porsenna and Aristodemus fought against each other in 508, according to Roman historians. So you could imagine that Tarquinius lost a war against Porsenna, that Porsenna conquered Rome and that his triggered the end of the Roman monarchy.

Interestingly, if you look at the Fasti, the Romans elected consular tribunes for a lot of the years preceding 367. So maybe the progression was something like: the Republic started out with two magistrates, called praetors or consuls or possibly both, but over time they came to the conclusion that two magistrates weren't enough, and experimented with electing more praetors/consuls/consular tribunes instead. Later they came to the conclusion that this didn't work either (maybe having so many people with veto power over each other made it difficult to get things done? That's just speculation, though), so they decided to reinstitute the dual magistracy, but with a third person under them to take care of the city while the other two were away campaigning.

I just re-read Bleicken's book about the Roman Constitution (I hadn't done it for years) and I realized that I misrepresented his theories. As I wrote above, he is of the opinion that the first Roman magistrate was the Praetor Maximus, and that collegiality developed only quite late (compared to tradition). But he gives reasons for this, reasons that I omitted in the description of this theory. Again, this theory seems to be a favorite of germanophones historians, while English-speaking historians mostly reject it. Like I said, the proponents of this line of thought assume that the rex wasn't replaced by a dual supreme magistracy, but only by one praetor maximus or magister populi. This might be the successor of an older office, the magister populi, who had led the army during the monarchy. As stated above, the only source for the existence of a praetor maximus is the ambiguous law mentionned by Livy; but replacing the king by one magistrate, with a term limitted to one year (annuity), is more logical than instoring annuity and collegiality simultaneously. Also, the Roman army of the time was not so great that it would have needed two commanders.

The century following the end of the monarchy saw some experiments with the number of the supreme magistrates. According to Bleicken, the praetor maximus received two colleages, and this had two reasons: the patricians had to give plebeians acces to a major position, without taking the risk that a plebeian might become praetor maximus. Also, the Roman army had become to large that it was necessary to divide it into two legions, so that each of the consules commanded one of it. After some time, the consuls became the more important part of the college (due to their military duties), and the former praetor maximus became the subordinate praetor urbanus. Other historians take into consideration the existence of consular tribunes in the fasti. After 450, the praetores may have been replaced by Military Tribunes (the attribute with consular power was likely added by later historians, to distinguish them fron the Military Tribunes of their time), for two reasons: the wars on several fronts and the necessity to allow some plebeians to exert some office, without risking that a plebeian might become praetor maximus. Just that the Romans didn't return to their old order in 367 (as Roman historians assume), but that a new organization was created, with two consuls and one praetor urbanus.

To sum up, the point of the theory is that collegiality wasn't a consequence of the end of the monarchy, as tradition suggests. It became necessary only later, to manage the increased size of the Roman army, and to manage the settlement between patricians and plebeians (respectively, to prevent that plebeians seize power by administering the supreme magistracy (praetura maxima)).The only direct impact of the overthrow of Tarquinius Superbus was annuity.

The existence of the dictatorship isn't really a counterargument, because the dictator was (originally) immune to provocation and to tribunician intercession. So even if a praetor maximus existed, a dictator could have been necessary at some times, because the praetor was subject to control by provocation and interecession. Only the dicator could exert truly unlimited power.
 
Last edited:
The same goes for the fasti, which are reliable after 367, and somewhat factual between 450 and 367. Everything before is most likely legendary. For example, the early fasti (until around 480) are full of interpolations staging plebeian families who become important later on - but certainly weren't in the 5th century.

That seems a bit hyper-sceptical. The Romans of the historical period had an eponymous dating system, and as far as we know this had always been the case; and such a dating system, of course, implies the keeping of a list of eponymous magistrates so that people could know when a given event had happened. As for the idea that certain families "certainly weren't [important] in the 5th century", our knowledge of fifth-century Roman politics really isn't detailed or secure enough to justify such a sweeping conclusion.

The point is that the Athenians got rid of their tyranny in 510, when the Spartans overthrew the tyrant Hippias. So it would have been tempting for a Roman historian to set the overthrow of the Roman monarchy* in 510/9, to make sure that Rome doesn't "rank behind" Athens.

The date of the establishment of the Republic was worked out by looking at the fasti and counting back. There is some variation among the historical sources as to the precise date, probably due to scribal errors (when you're copying a long list of names, it's not surprising if some get missed off accidentally), but there's no evidence of anybody fudging the numbers to make the Republic older than Athenian democracy, or indeed of any ancient Romans making a big deal of this supposed fact.

As stated above, the only source for the existence of a praetor maximus is the ambiguous law mentionned by Livy; but replacing the king by one magistrate, with a term limitted to one year (annuity), is more logical than instoring annuity and collegiality simultaneously.

More logical in what sense? It's less of a change, but deciding that a change to annuity would be fine whereas a change to annuity plus collegiality would be a step too far seems more than a little arbitrary.

Also, the Roman army of the time was not so great that it would have needed two commanders.

The ancient sources say that the collegiate magistracy was introduced so that one consul could act as a check on the other, not so that they could each command half of the army. Plus, there are other ways of making use of two senior magistrates that don't involve splitting the army: for example, the Spartan system of leaving one man in charge of the city itself whilst the other leads the army on campaign.
 
That seems a bit hyper-sceptical.

I really see your point, but this appears to be a difference between scientific culture in Germany and in the Anglosphere. What you consider hyper-sceptical is pretty much standard here. To quote from an average German university textbook:

"It's impossible to draw a precise picture of early Roman history from historical tradition. Livy, Dionysius of Halicarnassus and other ancient historians are giving an account of the opinion of the Augustean Era about the foundation of Rome and the development of the city in the following centuries -- but according to our present knowledge, there was no direct historical tradition from the early period of the city to Livy. The beliefs about Rome's foundation, the Roman monarchy and the early republic originated in a long process of myth-making, which was completed in the late 3rd century BCE by Fabius Pictor's work on Roman history. Fabius Pictor gave the form of serious historiography to the myths about the Roman past and thus decisively influenced later ancient historians. However, there was no actually reliable historiographic record about early Roman history available to Fabius Pictor. Therefore, it is hardly possible to exploit the books of historians like Livy as report about Rome's first years."

As to the reliability of the fasti and the records of the pontifices, they are addressed some paragraphs later: Livy himself admits that the these annals (or, for that matter, other sources) aren't available for early Roman history. He believed that the records had been destroyed after the Gaulish sack of Rome. Cicero too was very critical of the historical tradition: he affirms that genealogy, triumphs, and consulates had been invented by families to embelish their past. So even the Romans understood that you can use Livy and the fasti only very prudently, and only after considering the archeological evidence too. Which reminds me of another subject the textbook deals with:

But Rome's size during this period was already enough to put it in the top tier of Italian cities, so it's unlikely that any other city would be strong enough to subjugate it for a full three generations.

Rome, in 500 BCE, was a very young city. The Romans extended their history into the past to create a connection to Trojan and Greek myths, but archaeological evidence of urban structures are available only for later times (in contrast to other traces, which are considerably older). As tradition suggests, the temples on the Capitol were built at the end of the 6th century. But such buildings were in no way extraordinary, and nothing suggests that Rome exerted a hegemony over Latium. Rome was a minor city with a small territory between Etruscan and Latin territories. In 500 BCE, Rome wasn't yet in the top tier of Italian cities.

This is confirmed by tradition, which tells us about the war between Clusium, led by Porsena, and Aricia, supported by Cumae, lead by Aristodemus. It speaks volumes that Aricia asked Cumae for help, and not Rome. Apparently Rome wasn't a very powerful city at this point, and thus Porsena might very well have conquered it in 508. Rome only became a major power in central Italy when it conquered Veii at the beginning of the 4th century. Before the conquest, Rome had a territory of only 250 km². This changed after the conquest, since Rome annexed Veii's 560 km². The victory against Veii was also a turning point im Etruscan history, since no Etruscam city had supported Veii against Rome: after Veii's defeat, Rome was able to seize a dominant position in central Italy.

The date of the establishment of the Republic was worked out by looking at the fasti and counting back. There is some variation among the historical sources as to the precise date, probably due to scribal errors (when you're copying a long list of names, it's not surprising if some get missed off accidentally), but there's no evidence of anybody fudging the numbers to make the Republic older than Athenian democracy, or indeed of any ancient Romans making a big deal of this supposed fact.

No, the date of the establishment of the Republic was
established as described in an earlier post: counting the nails in the temple of Jupiter, determining that the temple had been dedicated by a republican magistrate (which really isn't certain), and deducing that the Republic had been founded in the same years as the temple had been consecrated.

The fasti consulares of these days aren't recorded. Either they never existed, or they were destroyed in the Sack of Rome, as Livy suggests. The fasti coming down to us were probably made up, partly reproducing historical reality, partly serving the aspirations of some families striving for a glorious past.

And the Romans very much cared what the Greeks thought about them. Fabius Pictor wrote in Greek for Hellenistic readers, and used myths to connect Roman and Greek history (via the Trojan War).

The ancient sources say that the collegiate magistracy was introduced so that one consul could act as a check on the other, not so that they could each command half of the army.

Well, the ancient sources also suggests that the Military Tribunes (with Consular Power) were created to deal with multiple fronts, so that might true for the Consuls too.

for example, the Spartan system of leaving one man in charge of the city itself whilst the other leads the army on campaign.

Yes, because their army was so small that it hadn't to be organized into two divisions.

That's the reason for the Roman organization adopted in 367 BCE: two consuls, each of them commanding one half of the army, and one Praetor Urbanus staying in Rome.
 
Last edited:
I really see your point, but this appears to be a difference between scientific culture in Germany and in the Anglosphere. What you consider hyper-sceptical is pretty much standard here. To quote from an average German university textbook:

Well, what can I say? German academia is just weird. :p

As to the reliability of the fasti and the records of the pontifices, they are addressed some paragraphs later: Livy himself admits that the these annals (or, for that matter, other sources) aren't available for early Roman history. He believed that the records had been destroyed after the Gaulish sack of Rome. Cicero too was very critical of the historical tradition: he affirms that genealogy, triumphs, and consulates had been invented by families to embelish their past. So even the Romans understood that you can use Livy and the fasti only very prudently, and only after considering the archeological evidence too. Which reminds me of another subject the textbook deals with:

We actually know that at least one official document, the Annales Maximi, survived the sack, because Cicero refers to an eclipse recorded therein, which we can date to June 21, 400 BC. We know from Servius that said Annales consisted of a list of the consuls (or other eponymous magistrates) for each year, plus a list of the major events of their term "per singulos dies" (probably meaning that the day on which these events fell was also listed). If Cicero could read about the eclipse in the Annales, he could have read about the names of the consuls, and so could other interested Romans.

Rome, in 500 BCE, was a very young city. The Romans extended their history into the past to create a connection to Trojan and Greek myths, but archaeological evidence of urban structures are available only for later times (in contrast to other traces, which are considerably older). As tradition suggests, the temples on the Capitol were built at the end of the 6th century. But such buildings were in no way extraordinary, and nothing suggests that Rome exerted a hegemony over Latium. Rome was a minor city with a small territory between Etruscan and Latin territories. In 500 BCE, Rome wasn't yet in the top tier of Italian cities.

Actually, by the fall of the monarchy the site of Rome had been settled since at least the ninth century, and the various villages seem to have coalesced into one city around the mid-seventh century, judging by the archaeological evidence. As for the size of Rome, the old regal pomerium (which was remembered for religious and legal purposes long after the actual city had outgrown these bounds) enclosed some 285 hectares; by way of contrast, the average size of a Latin city was around 20-30 hectares, and Veii was about 195 hectares. To find a significantly larger city in Italy, you'd have to go to Magna Graecia, to places such as Agrigentum (450 hectares) or Tarentum (510), or else to Greece itself, where Athens plus the Piraeus was 585 hectares in size. So, Rome wasn't yet the biggest city in Italy by any means, but it was the biggest in the area, and the biggest in Latium by some distance.

nothing suggests that Rome exerted a hegemony over Latium.

There's the sixth-century treaty with Carthage, in which the Carthaginians pledge, inter alia, "not to injure the people of Ardea, Antium, Lavinium, Circeii, Terracina, or any other city of the Latins who are subjects of Rome. As for the Latins who are not subjects, they shall keep their hands off their cities, and if they take any such city they shall hand it over to the Romans unharmed." Now Terracina is the furthest of the cities named from Rome, and is about 100km south of Rome on the Mediterranean coast. So the treaty clearly suggests that Rome exercised a direct hegemony as far as that, and seems to recognise the rest of Latium as in Rome's sphere of influence, which they promise not to transgress.

Rome only became a major power in central Italy when it conquered Veii at the beginning of the 4th century. Before the conquest, Rome had a territory of only 250 km². This changed after the conquest, since Rome annexed Veii's 560 km². The victory against Veii was also a turning point im Etruscan history, since no Etruscam city had supported Veii against Rome: after Veii's defeat, Rome was able to seize a dominant position in central Italy.

I'm going to ask for a source for these figures, both because it makes Rome's territory way smaller than any previous source I've read, and because it seems unlikely, if Rome was really less than half the size of Veii, that the Romans would have been able to conquer the enemy city in the first place.

No, the date of the establishment of the Republic was
established as described in an earlier post: counting the nails in the temple of Jupiter, determining that the temple had been dedicated by a republican magistrate (which really isn't certain), and deducing that the Republic had been founded in the same years as the temple had been consecrated.

Livy implies that the nail-hammering ceremony had lapsed by the mid-fourth century, so Romans of that time and after wouldn't have been able to use that method. That said, the two ways aren't actually exclusive: it would have been quite possible for some people to count the nails, and others to look over the Fasti. Counting the names on the Fasti is such an obvious method of working out the period of time between two events that it would be quite astonishing if people didn't do so.

And the Romans very much cared what the Greeks thought about them. Fabius Pictor wrote in Greek for Hellenistic readers, and used myths to connect Roman and Greek history (via the Trojan War).

I know the Romans cared what the Greeks thought in general; I'm less convinced that they cared what the Greeks thought on this particular topic, or whether the Greeks themselves cared for that matter.

Well, the ancient sources also suggests that the Military Tribunes (with Consular Power) were created to deal with multiple fronts, so that might true for the Consuls too.

It might be, or then again it might not.
 
We actually know that at least one official document, the Annales Maximi, survived the sack, because Cicero refers to an eclipse recorded therein, which we can date to June 21, 400 BC. We know from Servius that said Annales consisted of a list of the consuls (or other eponymous magistrates) for each year, plus a list of the major events of their term "per singulos dies" (probably meaning that the day on which these events fell was also listed). If Cicero could read about the eclipse in the Annales, he could have read about the names of the consuls, and so could other interested Romans.

In addition to this, there's reason to suspect that the Gallic sack was considerably less destructive than Roman tradition makes out. There's no archaeological evidence for the kind of destruction claimed by (e.g.) Livy, and the Romans would have been able to move important state documents to Caere along with the citizens, sacred objects, etc. It's likely that the comparative dearth of early documents is simply due to the fact that running a city-state produced less paperwork than running a whole empire, and that the notion of the Gauls destroying all the early records was simply some historian or annalist's attempt to solve a problem that didn't really exist.
 
There's the sixth-century treaty with Carthage, in which the Carthaginians pledge, inter alia, "not to injure the people of Ardea, Antium, Lavinium, Circeii, Terracina, or any other city of the Latins who are subjects of Rome. As for the Latins who are not subjects, they shall keep their hands off their cities, and if they take any such city they shall hand it over to the Romans unharmed." Now Terracina is the furthest of the cities named from Rome, and is about 100km south of Rome on the Mediterranean coast. So the treaty clearly suggests that Rome exercised a direct hegemony as far as that, and seems to recognise the rest of Latium as in Rome's sphere of influence, which they promise not to transgress.

The treaty really confirms an early Roman hegemony over Latium, which I would willingly accept. But, alas! Bringmann and Co. have their reserves. The question is not wether the situation described by the treaty existed, but how to date the treaty. According to Polybius, the treaty was concluded in 509. A second one, with very similar regulations, is recorded in 348. However, both Livy and Diodorus write that the first treaty between Rome and Carthage was concluded in 348, thus contradicting Polybius. Due to the general evidence, which indicates a weak early Rome, Bleicken (Geschichte der Römischen Republik*) doesn't accept Polybius' chronology and pleads in favor of a late treaty between Rome and Carthage. The treaty of 509 is likely fictitious, and can't be used to prove the Roman domination over Latium.

A second treaty of disputed dating is the Foedus Cassianum between Rome and the Latin League. According to ancient historians, it was concluded in 493 and renewed in 359. Since the treaty treats Rome as a power equal to all Latin cities, it would undoubtedly indicate a Roman hegemony over Latium. According to Bleicken, a major problem arises here: The treaty was allegedly concluded by a Consul Spurius Cassius Vecellinus. But the Cassii were plebeians, and the plebeians had no access to public offices at this early date**. The logical solution to the problem is that the Foedus was in fact concluded in 359, or some decades before (after the Gallic invasion).

Hence, these treaties indeed describe a Roman hegemony over Latium, but both the treaties and the hegemony were established only in the 4th century, and not already in the 6th century as the tradition suggests. At the beginning of the Republic, Rome was still a minor power.

I'm going to ask for a source for these figures, both because it makes Rome's territory way smaller than any previous source I've read, and because it seems unlikely, if Rome was really less than half the size of Veii, that the Romans would have been able to conquer the enemy city in the first place.

Sadly, I have only secondary sources on the subject. Bringmann (Geschichte der Römischen Republik*) speaks of 822 km² and 15,000 - 20,000 inhabitans (citizens, women and children) for the 5th century, before the conquest of Veii. After Veii, he gives the number of 1500 km². Another estimate is given by Helmuth Schneider (Geschichte der Antike): 250 km² for the 5th century, 560 km² for Veii, thus ca. 810 km² for Rome after the conquest of Veii. I found the same number in a historical atlas (Historischer Atlas der Antike), which agrees with the territory of 250 km² before and 800 km² after the conquest of Veii.

But I'm very interested in your figures, and maybe they are more reliable than those given by my sources.

In addition to this, there's reason to suspect that the Gallic sack was considerably less destructive than Roman tradition makes out. There's no archaeological evidence for the kind of destruction claimed by (e.g.) Livy, and the Romans would have been able to move important state documents to Caere along with the citizens, sacred objects, etc. It's likely that the comparative dearth of early documents is simply due to the fact that running a city-state produced less paperwork than running a whole empire, and that the notion of the Gauls destroying all the early records was simply some historian or annalist's attempt to solve a problem that didn't really exist.

Here I completly agree with you. I also read that the consequences of Gallic sack have been exaggerated, i. e. that the Gaulish army took the city and a large amount of tribute, but didn't burn it to the ground as Roman historians reported. They just needed a good reason for the lack of information, so they assumed that they had been destroyed when Brennus took the city. Gallic sack or not, Roman historians had very little records to work with. They admitted it themselves. That's why they mainly reproduced myths -- and that's exactly why many modern historians don't trust their tales about the first centuries of Roman history. Unless they are backed by archeological evidence or more reliable sources.

If Cicero could read about the eclipse in the Annales, he could have read about the names of the consuls, and so could other interested Romans.

That doesn't help if the order of the consuls makes no sense within the broader and certain historical context. And since you can't change the latter, you have to conclude that the former is corrupted.

* Two different books.
**This is one reason why the Fasti are considered unreliable for early Roman history. Plebeian consuls during a period in which plebeians fought so hard to gain access to the supreme magistracy? Well, if it was so easy for a plebeian to become consul, what was the Struggle of the Orders about? That makes no sense. A plebeian consulate so early in time is most likely an interpolation. Even Romans recognized this. Just consider Cicero's statement I mentioned above:

For it was customary in most families of note to preserve their images, their trophies of honour, and their memoirs, either to adorn a funeral when any of the family deceased, or to perpetuate the fame of their ancestors, or prove their own nobility. But the truth of history has been much corrupted by these laudatory essays; for many circumstances were recorded in them which never existed; such as false triumphs, a pretended succession of consulships, and false alliances and elevations, when men of inferior rank were confounded with a noble family of the same name: as if I myself should pretend that I am descended from M'. Tullius, who was a patrician, and shared the consulship with Servius Sulpicius, about ten years after the expulsion of the kings. -- Cicero, Brutus 62. (Translation at attalus.org)

It seems that I quite critical assessment of the Fasti was written by a British historian (John Pinsent, Military Tribunes and Plebeian Consuls, the Fasti from 444 V to 342 V). There is a review of it on the net. Maybe it is worth a read?
 
Last edited:
The treaty really confirms an early Roman hegemony over Latium, which I would willingly accept. But, alas! Bringmann and Co. have their reserves. The question is not wether the situation described by the treaty existed, but how to date the treaty. According to Polybius, the treaty was concluded in 509. A second one, with very similar regulations, is recorded in 348. However, both Livy and Diodorus write that the first treaty between Rome and Carthage was concluded in 348, thus contradicting Polybius. Due to the general evidence, which indicates a weak early Rome, Bleicken (Geschichte der Römischen Republik*) doesn't accept Polybius' chronology and pleads in favor of a late treaty between Rome and Carthage. The treaty of 509 is likely fictitious, and can't be used to prove the Roman domination over Latium.

That Polybius' treaty is real is, as far as I'm aware, accepted by all the relevant scholars. The debate is instead over whether the treaty really belongs to the first years of the Republic, or whether Polybius misdated it. The latter possibility is unlikely, because Polybius notes that the language of the first treaty was archaic and difficult to understand, whereas he doesn't mention any such difficulty with the second treaty, suggesting that a considerable amount of time had passed between the first and second treaties. As for Livy, the situation is more complicated: he speaks of the treaty between Rome and Carthage being renewed "for the third time" in 306 BC, so it's possible that he was aware of the original treaty, but that he didn't think it important enough to include or that his mention of it slipped out of the manuscript tradition.

Due to the general evidence, which indicates a weak early Rome,

I'd be interested to hear what this general evidence would be, since as I mentioned above the city of Rome was by some distance the biggest city in Latium, and since there have been several large monumental buildings uncovered by archaeologists, none of which is consistent with the picture of a weak and insignificant city.

Sadly, I have only secondary sources on the subject. Bringmann (Geschichte der Römischen Republik*) speaks of 822 km² and 15,000 - 20,000 inhabitans (citizens, women and children) for the 5th century, before the conquest of Veii. After Veii, he gives the number of 1500 km². Another estimate is given by Helmuth Schneider (Geschichte der Antike): 250 km² for the 5th century, 560 km² for Veii, thus ca. 810 km² for Rome after the conquest of Veii. I found the same number in a historical atlas (Historischer Atlas der Antike), which agrees with the territory of 250 km² before and 800 km² after the conquest of Veii.

But I'm very interested in your figures, and maybe they are more reliable than those given by my sources.

I was going by the figures from Cornell, who suggests an area of around 822km at the start of the Republic with a population of between 25,000 and 40,000. 250km seems too small, because, as I said above, it's not plausible that Rome could have conquered and assimilated a city over twice as big as itself.

**This is one reason why the Fasti are considered unreliable for early Roman history. Plebeian consuls during a period in which plebeians fought so hard to gain access to the supreme magistracy? Well, if it was so easy for a plebeian to become consul, what was the Struggle of the Orders about? That makes no sense. A plebeian consulate so early in time is most likely an interpolation. Even Romans recognized this. Just consider Cicero's statement I mentioned above:

Whilst in the later Republic the term "plebs" meant anybody who wasn't a patrician, there's good reason to suppose that this wasn't the case in the early Republic. For one thing, there's the evidence of the Fasti, which as you note contain non-patrician names; for another, there's the fact that, if the conflict of the orders had really been a conflict between the nobility and everybody else, it wouldn't have lasted two days, let alone two centuries; finally, it seems that in official archaic formulae the plebs was contrasted, not with the patricians, but with the populus, a term that originally meant either the army or specifically the heavy infantry. So it's likely that the plebs were originally just a subset of the non-patricians, and that the "plebeian" names in the Fasti wouldn't have been considered plebeians by their contemporaries.
 
I was going by the figures from Cornell, who suggests an area of around 822km at the start of the Republic with a population of between 25,000 and 40,000. 250km seems too small, because, as I said above, it's not plausible that Rome could have conquered and assimilated a city over twice as big as itself.

Since I can't assess whether these figures are right or not, I think I'll leave the discussion as it is.

But beware that the theory about the plebs you presented is contradicting tradition in many points, and I don't think it's worth to completely change the definition of plebs, patricians and populus just to save the fasti:openedeyewink:
 
But beware that the theory about the plebs you presented is contradicting tradition in many points, and I don't think it's worth to completely change the definition of plebs, patricians and populus just to save the fasti:openedeyewink:

Well, given that the tradition itself is self-contradictory on this point (no plebeian consuls vs. plebeian names on the Fasti), any solution is going to end up contradicting the tradition somehow. But I would dispute the notion that I'm "completely changing the definition of plebs, patricians and populus": the original meaning of the term populus, at least, is well-attested (and also survives to a degree in Classical Latin, in words such as populari, to ravage with an army), and I'm not at all changing the definition of patricians. Whilst the notion that the plebs were originally just a subset of non-patrician citizens has less direct support (though there is the plebs vs. populus contrast mentioned above; since AFAIK nobody's suggested that populus was ever synonymous with patricians, it follows that the plebs weren't originally defined in contrast to the patricians, as they were later on), it still makes better sense of the evidence than any of the alternative theories, IMHO.
 
Top