AHC: Democratic Rome

Make a democratic movement emerge in Rome among the Populares and make it strong enough to reform the Roman aristocracy not into a monarchy as OTL, but into a democracy based on the model of Ancient Athens.
 
The Roman Republic was already a pseudo-democracy (really a mix of democratic republic and oligarchy). It's not that big of a stretch to imagine full-democracy taking hold at some point, but that means seriously weakening the patricians' hold. Sulla did end up beating Marius, after all.
 
I totally disagree. Rome never came close to becoming an Athens-like democracy.

Rome was the model of aristocratic cities. Its ruling class always prefered integrating foreign aristocracies in order to strengthen its powerbase than risking losing control to what it called the mob.

That was the arcana imperii and that was the main reason that drove a city-State to become a world empire held through a network of client aristocracies.

And the Gracchi were not democrats.
 

tenthring

Banned
There have been no democracies in history that weren't city states. Rome was probably as representative as it possibly could have been during the Republic.
 
Rome in antiquity could not have been democratic unless Athenian flee there after Athens falls to Persia and form a society like that of lost Athens. But then this city is not Rome, it's New Athens.

The Roman Republic in the 19th century could have been a democracy, but that's a whole other story.
 
The Roman Republic's constitution, as it was, existed as a balancing act between aristocratic and popular demands. The renaissance political theorists, like Machiavelli and Guicciardini, argued the mixed constitution was the source of its success as it created effective long term government (which they felt could only be guaranteed by patricians) with the oversight and popular engagement that the plebeians provided.

If you look at the early Republic, position like the Popular Tribunes were created in response to the Secessions, while the Consulate was essentially a monarchical role albeit defanged by co-responsibility and annual term limits. The balance of these three elements-oligarchical, democratic and monarchical, was the reason the Republic lasted so long (longer than the monarchy or the Empire.)

It comes down to what you mean by democracy. If you mean regular elections and mas enfranchisement then yes, Rome was a democracy (ignoring women and slaves....)

If, however, you mean an Athenian-style democracy based on lot-drawing and popular sovereignty then it's not going to happen. Athens designed its democracy in order to guarantee against Tyranny. Athens wanted power spread out as much as possible because they feared another Peisistratus or Draco coming in, stirring things up and making himself Tyrant.

Rome, on the other hand, wanted to avoid monarchism and one man rule but wanted effective government. They didn't want any one man holding power indefinitely. They didn't mind a collective body holding absolute power (the Senate) and they didn't mind one man holding absolute power for a limited period of time (the Dictators); it was the mixture of indefinite and infinite jurisdiction they didn't like.
 
While I think everyone here is right about the mixed, and predominantly oligarchic, nature of the Roman Republic, I think the only reply which accepted the challenge given in the OP is fjihr`s, who proposed Athenian refugees as state-rebuilders. (And they would hardly qualify as "Populares".)

Rome changed IOTL, and it could have changed in different directions, too. The real problem is to make it happen at the hands of the Populares. They were basically populist, in the sense that they promised palpable advantages for the masses in terms of living standards (land reforms, debt cancellation, grain dole etc.) so that the masses would help them achieve positions of great power. Those who followed / supported them, likewise, were interested in this agenda, not in structural / constitutional reform, and there was little resistance to the concentration of power (, if it was in the hands of "friends of the people").

A structural reform would have to be a sort of Anti-Sulla, to strengthen the role of the Concilium Plebis and copy-paste the model across the Roman-dominated world, extend the reach and powers of the Comitia Populi Tributa to create a sort of federal assembly and have it take over most functions of the Senate, reduce the latter to merely ceremonial roles, change the voting regulations in the Comitia Centuriata to a more egalitarian mode. It would have to go hand in hand with economic reform, or else nobody would support it: dismantling latifundia and redistributing the land, cancelling debts. And of course games games games, and free grain. Which brings you into trouble with Sicily and Africa, where people could want the same, which would mean less grain for the Roman plebs, so that can`t be allowed, the Republic must remain highly imperialistic if it wants to maintain its huge capital.

Who could have propoed and pushed reforms like that? I don`t know anybody. One person would not be enough, he`d be assassinated and the plan would die with him. You`d need a whole school of thinkers. The Populares faction as it was IOTL won´t do, you must modify them. To achieve that, you need important democratic philosophers around. In the Hellenistic world, the latest who held out might have been the Rhodians. The problem is really that, after Alexander, much of the civilised world had turned towards monarchy, so Rome`s mixed one was already a pretty "progressive" constitution, and after the Carthaginians were defeated, the last other major player with a mixed constitution had been knocked out, so the political trends were headed for monarchisation.

If you remove Alexander, OTOH, then butterflies will be so numerous that you`ll never end up with a Populares faction.

Hm, I just realised that I haven`t accepted the challenge, either. Sorry!
 
My proposition is basically to get the Gracchi in power and to have them give more power to the equites (right to take part in jurys for example).

Once this Roman middle class is in power, politics radicalize even more and democratic reforms are viable.
 
My proposition is basically to get the Gracchi in power and to have them give more power to the equites (right to take part in jurys for example).

Once this Roman middle class is in power, politics radicalize even more and democratic reforms are viable.

They did get the equites on the juries. Gaius Gracchus successfully passed that legislation in 123 BC. Only equites could be jurors. Turned out the equites were very corrupt, since they always favor the publicani or tax farmers, since tax farmers were equites. Thus, things get even worst for provincials!
 
They did get the equites on the juries. Gaius Gracchus successfully passed that legislation in 123 BC. Only equites could be jurors. Turned out the equites were very corrupt, since they always favor the publicani or tax farmers, since tax farmers were equites. Thus, things get even worst for provincials!

So, how can we have a democratic Rome (AFTER the victory over Carthage, since a democratic Rome as a minor power is quite senseless in my eyes).
 
You can't, unless you want Rome to crash into turmoil and lost by the way control of its provinces and of most of Italy.

As I said, it's the aristocratic nature of the roman republic that held Italy with Rome and the provinces with Rome.

If Rome becomes a democracy, It Will want more money from the provinces and this Will caused a secession of the provinces and Italy the same way happened during the social war. The difference being that Rome came out victorious of the social war because It pissed of but half of Italy (not the other half nor the provinces).
 
So, how can we have a democratic Rome (AFTER the victory over Carthage, since a democratic Rome as a minor power is quite senseless in my eyes).
What about way after the republic?
The post-Alexandrian Hellenistic trend of small- to medium-sized oligarchies turning into large monarchies - which influenced not only Rome, but also, for example, India - was powerful and not quite easy to stop.
But, as the Romans experimented with their Augusti beginning with Octavian, they might have seen the flaws of concentrating power in one person more clearly once again. One mad emperor certainly wasn`t enough, but after various weak ones and usurpations and all the like, I indeed ask myself why no political philosophy emerged which denounced the Principate as dysfunctional and, looking back to various classical models, proposed broader participation of the populace.
Thing is, they`d have to develop a concept of "federalism" at the same time. It existed, in the various Greek "koina", but never quite as stable as the Roman imperial alternative.
 
What about way after the republic?
The post-Alexandrian Hellenistic trend of small- to medium-sized oligarchies turning into large monarchies - which influenced not only Rome, but also, for example, India - was powerful and not quite easy to stop.

The fall of the republic is due less to a philosophic trend and more to the fact that large empires need large armies, large armies need leaders, leaders of large armies tend to be very powerful and very powerful men tend to turn into powerful politicians.

But, as the Romans experimented with their Augusti beginning with Octavian, they might have seen the flaws of concentrating power in one person more clearly once again. One mad emperor certainly wasn`t enough, but after various weak ones and usurpations and all the like,

After Caligula's death, some senators (among them, the two consuls) wanted to restore the republic. But since the praetorians and the Roman populace claimed for a new emperor (and found Claudius as a fitting candidate), the senate had little choice and elected Claudius to Princeps.

This is the last POD I can imagine to restore the republic. But then - is democracy in the cards?

Or Augustus dies in 23 BC and the republic is subsequently restored by the consuls.

I indeed ask myself why no political philosophy emerged which denounced the Principate as dysfunctional and, looking back to various classical models, proposed broader participation of the populace.

Because the Principate wasn't dysfunctional - well, not that dysfunctional. While it's true that the republic had some advantages, the Principate was a far better system for the slaves, for the provincials (due to the imperial administration), for the Roman populace (due to the annona), for the equites (due to the new equestrian cursus) and for the economy in general (due to peace and stability).

The Principate worked very well under "good" emperors respecting the republican façade of the state: Augustus, Tiberius, Claudius, Vespasianus, Nerva, Traianus, Hadrianus, Marcus Aurelius...
Only "bad" emperors revealed that a monarchy has the huge disadvantage to turn into a nightmare if the inviolable monarch is a real asshole: Domitian, Nero, Caligula.

Thing is, they`d have to develop a concept of "federalism" at the same time. It existed, in the various Greek "koina", but never quite as stable as the Roman imperial alternative.

Augustus proposed to introduce absentee ballot for the decurions (the first class in the comitia centuriata) - if you extend that to the whole empire, the richest persons of the Empire can take part in the elections and form some kind of "democracy" of the wealthiest 1% (1% is more thann 600 senators or 1 man of 80 millions).
 
Top