Would the Roman Republic pass a 'Caracalla' edict?

Assume that the Roman Republic continues in a relatively recognizably Republican form into the 2nd-3rd centuries AD (yes, that is incredibly vague, I know). Assume also that the territory encompassed in the Republic is comparable to the Roman Empire at that time, and that it has been roughly as territorially stable as the Empire was (yes, huge leap there, I know).

Under those circumstances, would the Republic ever consider something so drastic as expanding citizenship to all freeborn men within Roman territory?
 
Assume that the Roman Republic continues in a relatively recognizably Republican form into the 2nd-3rd centuries AD (yes, that is incredibly vague, I know). Assume also that the territory encompassed in the Republic is comparable to the Roman Empire at that time, and that it has been roughly as territorially stable as the Empire was (yes, huge leap there, I know).

Under those circumstances, would the Republic ever consider something so drastic as expanding citizenship to all freeborn men within Roman territory?

In principle, no way. Such an expanded civic body would be unthinkable in a context where being citizen still entails substantial political rights.
However, the Republic would have to undergo very massive changes, becoming effectively unrecognizable from it 1 century BC self, just in order to survive this long, and this might create a (difficult to foresee) situation where this is conceivable. it would probably take longer than under the Empire.
Assuming something analog to OTL's Third Century Crisis, a Roman Republic is significantly less likely to survive it in one piece. If it does, however, a greatly expanded citizen base could be the outcome of the crisis. So, think perhaps a tentive time of about 280 AD for a "Caracalla"-like extension of citizenship.
 
Why not extend Citizenship but limit the political influence to the provincial level. So proconsuls etc still get nominated by Rome and the Roman Senate but the British Senate acts in a similar way to the Roman one when considering laws for Brittannia.

A bit like Dominions in the British Empire. In theory a provincial citizen could become a Senator of Rome but hey would need to meet the requirements of the Roman Senate to qualify (which would prevent most citizens of the Republican provinces from gatecrashing the Senate). They would also need to be in Rome to attend the Senate which in effect makes them Roman immigrants not provincial visitors.
 
This is unthinkable for the mindset of the Roman Republic. Not just for the elitism of the Roman citizens at the time, or any time, but for other reasons also. These new citizens will need to be distributed into various Tribes for their voting rights (as every citizen gets a vote for magistrates who will then go on to become Senators) and even then it would be a nightmare to conduct such a bureaucratic overhaul and set up many new posts for the government to deal with these regions.

When they were allowed to become Roman citizens the Italians were all stuck in one tribe that had very little effect on overall votes in comparison with the older Tribes. Roman Government was already at breaking point before the Republic collapsed due to the inability of the government to effectively run its own empire.

During the Empire voting for the magistrates was virtually non-existent and so it could be easily ignored by Caracalla.

Taxation is another reason. There were different tax methods for the Republican non citizens. It was an easy way to make a fortune and abuse non citizens and gouge them of their wealth and enslave those who could not pay. This "Tax farming" as it was known largely stopped in the Empire, but was so open to abuse that anyone who was accused of abusing their roles got off after making some well placed bribes. There was even one Governor, Rufinus I think, in Asia Minor who was tried for abuse by his enemies because he would not let them abuse the locals and steal their money. He had not abused his position so he hadnt the money to bribe anyone and ended up living in exile in Asia Minor as the people there loved him.

Many public works and Gaius Gracchus' land redistribution was funded by severely skewed taxation abuse that was conducted in the non citizen provinces of the Republic. Attempt to take away some easy revenue and you are going to end up with a knife in your back like Livius Drusus.

Lets not forget Rome was almost destroyed due to its overwhelming reluctance to give the Italians citizenship resulting in the murder of Livius Drusus who had recommended the new law and then in the Social War right after his murder. This war almost destroyed Rome and forcing the Roman Republic to back down in the face of an overwhelming threat.

Augustus set the ball rolling in the whole First Citizen role he created for himself, intervening in corrupt local authorities and establishing his role as the protector of non Roman citizens of the Empire. Even Nero would make proclamations to protect towns from abuse by local Legionary Garrisons who had no one to turn to but the Emperor. Without an untouchable leading figure there would be no reason to try to reach out to people who cant vote and any Roman Senator would either end up booted out by his voters or murdered for trying to introduce such a sweeping law.
 
Last edited:
The whole social war compromise is the basis of the provincial citizenship - citizenship in name and and in legal rights but not in voting rights or political influence (unless you move to Rome).
 
The whole social war compromise is the basis of the provincial citizenship
Exactly. It was a compromise. Faced with utter annihilation they dangled that compromise of law before the Etruscans and Umbrians joined the rebellion to ensure that they would not be totally surrounded. Without such a dire threat staring them in the face, from soldiers who knew exactly how they fought and how to counter their tactics, they backed down.

Why would the Senate, as a whole, vote overwhelmingly to bring in so many new voters and needlessly complicate their system of government?

Why would they rid themselves of lucrative investments like money lending to non citizens, enslaving non citizens, taxation without representation to non citizens?

Look at any government and you will always have self interested lobby groups vying for political sway. Its easy to pass sweeping laws as a Dictator or First Citizen, but when you are up against powerful organisations like a collective of well funded Slavers or Money Lenders you will end up against a powerful group of politicians or dead in an alley. It is illegal to lend money with interest to a Roman Citizen. It is illegal to enslave a Roman Citizen. It is illegal to humiliate or punish a Roman Citizen without appeal (The Lex Porcia, the only one I can recall at the moment). If you have all of these legal rights for Citizens how are you going to make any money from them?
 
Last edited:
(as every citizen gets a vote for representatives in the Senate)

I agree with a lot of what you say, but this part is flat out wrong: the Senate was never an elected body (and nor, for that matter, did it actually have any formal power to do anything). Voters would elect magistrates and these magistrates would, following the expiry of their term of office, become enrolled in the Senate.
 
I agree with a lot of what you say, but this part is flat out wrong: the Senate was never an elected body (and nor, for that matter, did it actually have any formal power to do anything). Voters would elect magistrates and these magistrates would, following the expiry of their term of office, become enrolled in the Senate.

Bah your right I was thinking of the just Tribune of the Plebs. Will correct it.
 
Last edited:
But you wouldn't actually need to allow a practical vote by the non-Roman citizens (just as the Italian citizens were rarely influential in Roman politics)

My understanding of the Senate is that the entry requirements were based on land / wealth. Magistrates were always elected to the Senate but you could be in the Senate and not have been a magistrate. It would not be too difficult to constrain the eligibility to the Roman Senate to a land requirement in Rome (or Italy)

The Roman Senate sets the laws for Rome and nominates the Republican proconsuls / governors in each province. The provincial Senate is comprised of the provincial magistrates and wealthy classes and considers decisions by the magistrates in that province only (that are within their remit).

If a provincial Senator wants to play in the Major League in the Roman Senate he needs to move to Rome and satisfy the Roman Senatorial requirements.

It's not fair but it does give a semblance of a Republican Rome with universal citizenship. The tax rules and the citizen rights would need to be reviewed but its not beyong the realms of possibility for such a system to get off the ground.
 
You underestimate one major factor that afflicts many governments when it comes to these kinds of sweeping laws.

Apathy.

Why would they give people Roman citizenship? If you are a trying to pass a law to make everyone in the Empire a citizen you need to sell it to people whose interests you are going up against. Nations with two (or more) tiers of citizenry have existed for millennia and still do to this day.

Are Palestinians awarded the same legal protection as Israelis? Is it still bad for your karma to be in contact with the Untouchables in India? 30 years ago were black Africans given the same rights as the Afrikaaners in South Africa?

Legal systems based on oppression have little desire to change unless pressure is exerted on them from other sources either from above or internationally. There is no Emperor whose word is law in this case and no international community to condemn the practices of the Senate and People of Rome.

So why change anything? Why give the people you conquered a say in your government?

They are your subjects not your citizens.

Roman Government may have been Republican but it was still an Imperial Power. There is not going to be a sudden desire to give everyone the same rights if the system has become entrenched in the abuse of its subjects and rewarding its citizens.

What point is there given legal protection to people you can take money from freely and who have no avenue of complaint in your government. They have no voice why should listen to them? Let them run their own authorities at a local level but you will always have the last say in who rules as Pro consul or governors. When they rebel kill them, enslave them and get re-elected as that guy who won the campaign.

Citizenship was rewarded to people throughout the Republic for various personal reasons, but with very constraining legal implications to keep their numbers small (such as ensuring that BOTH parents must be citizens to produce further citizens and given there was very little reason to give a woman Roman citizenship she would have had to be born into a family that were already Roman citizens etc).
 
My understanding of the Senate is that the entry requirements were based on land / wealth. Magistrates were always elected to the Senate but you could be in the Senate and not have been a magistrate. It would not be too difficult to constrain the eligibility to the Roman Senate to a land requirement in Rome (or Italy)

Augustus made reforms that made this the case, but prior to Augustus, Senatorial status wasn't heritable. Men over a certain wealth limit that opted not to pursue a political career were equestrians, those who did get elected became Senators. So, no, prior to the reforms of somewhere around 4BC (iirc), it was impossible to be in the Senate and not have been a magistrate.
 
You underestimate one major factor that afflicts many governments when it comes to these kinds of sweeping laws.

Apathy.

Why would they give people Roman citizenship? If you are a trying to pass a law to make everyone in the Empire a citizen you need to sell it to people whose interests you are going up against. Nations with two (or more) tiers of citizenry have existed for millennia and still do to this day.

Are Palestinians awarded the same legal protection as Israelis? Is it still bad for your karma to be in contact with the Untouchables in India? 30 years ago were black Africans given the same rights as the Afrikaaners in South Africa?

Legal systems based on oppression have little desire to change unless pressure is exerted on them from other sources either from above or internationally. There is no Emperor whose word is law in this case and no international community to condemn the practices of the Senate and People of Rome.

So why change anything? Why give the people you conquered a say in your government?

They are your subjects not your citizens.

Roman Government may have been Republican but it was still an Imperial Power. There is not going to be a sudden desire to give everyone the same rights if the system has become entrenched in the abuse of its subjects and rewarding its citizens.

What point is there given legal protection to people you can take money from freely and who have no avenue of complaint in your government. They have no voice why should listen to them? Let them run their own authorities at a local level but you will always have the last say in who rules as Pro consul or governors. When they rebel kill them, enslave them and get re-elected as that guy who won the campaign.

Citizenship was rewarded to people throughout the Republic for various personal reasons, but with very constraining legal implications to keep their numbers small (such as ensuring that BOTH parents must be citizens to produce further citizens and given there was very little reason to give a woman Roman citizenship she would have had to be born into a family that were already Roman citizens etc).

But during the Republic they did extend their citizenship. The mere fact that freed slaves become citizens automatically extended the citizen body. The mere fact that a Sabine clan like the Claudians could move his clan to Rome in 504 BC and be enrolled as patricians immediately would indicate that they are open to outsiders. (Even if legend, the mere fact that the Claudian clan had it would indicate that there was no shame on you having non Roman origins even for Roman aristocrats).

First to all of Latium after the Latin War of 338 BC, then to the elected magistrates of the municipalities. Even before that, they gave citizenship to freed slaves, something that nobody, not even Athens, ever did. Any Roman citizen could create citizens by the expedient of buying slaves and freeing them! And many did so, if only to increase the number of clients and people who would vote for them.


They gave citizenship to Latins who moved to Rome, they gave full citizenship to various Italian municipalities, like Arpinum, Formiae, and Fundi in 188 BC, and others too like the lowland Sabines in 268 BC.

Then they invented half citizenship as a midway step to full citizenship, for even more people.

And during the late Republic, men like Marius and Cicero, from Arpinum, which only gained citizenship in 188 BC, were elected consuls. So did Pompeius Strabo and his son, from Picenum.

Then there is the Social War. The fact that they gave in eventually to the Allies' demand tells us that there was already a sizeable portion of the Roman citizens who were in favor of giving citizenship to the Italians, like Drusus, if only to give them large clientage to vote for them in elections.

Then there is the fact that Latins and allies could form part of citizen colonies, and in doing so, became full citizens if they left the colony and moved to Rome.

And many many more.

Compare Rome to the citizenship policy of Athens, or Sparta.

To answer the thread, yes they could gradually extend citizenship in a continuing Roman Republic. First is to give citizenship to retiring auxiliaries as a cheap method of payment. That would ensure the growth of Roman citizens in Frontier areas. Then settle citizen legionnaires among the provinces to further buff the numbers. Then create more citizen colonies in the provinces, and give citizenship to children of Roman fathers and native mothers, like was already done during the second century BC.

Then give citizenship to all elected magistrates of cities, and extend this to tribal leaders, like what was already done during the Republic. That would give the citizenship to provincial aristocracies, who would be clients of various Roman senators.

And give citizenship to people who would directly purchase it like what happened in real life.

Then enslave en masse the rebels, or prisoners of wars during its conquest, sell those slaves to Roman citizens, and when they or their descendants become free, they would be citizens.

By the second and third century, there would be so many Roman citizens in the provinces, that it would be easy to give them en bloc. First to Southern Gaul, Mediterrean Spain, etc.

All of the above would simply be an extension of trends that happened during the Roman Republic. Citizenship would go from Rome, to Latium, to Central Italy, to all Italy south of the Po, to Cisalpine Gaul, to Narbonese Gaul, Sicily, etc, if not form official state action, then from migration, establishment of colonies, granting of citizenship to elected magistrates, retiring from auxiliary regiments, freeing of slaves, enlisting as legionnaires (non citizens who enlisted in the legions would automatically be given citizenship to keep the legions 100% citizen), purchasing citizenship from corrupt officials, and other methods.

It won't really affect politics in Rome, since a voter need to be actually in Rome to exercise his franchise.
 
Last edited:
They gave citizenship to Latins who moved to Rome, they gave full citizenship to various Italian municipalities, like Arpinum, Formiae, and Fundi in 188 BC, and others too like the lowland Sabines in 268 BC.
Granting Roman Citizenship to whole towns largely stopped after 188bc as the Empire grew and citizenship became far more valuable. In fact they began to really crack down on it after Carthage was destroyed. As Sallust and Livy stated the period of moral decline, selfishness and greed really kicked in after that event. Marius was reprimanded by the Senate for granting Citizenship to his Marrucuni soldiers after the war with the Cimbri and it was rescinded. There were no further sweeping grants and even one city (Praeneste) that refused the grant of citizenship, amazingly.

Laws began to be put into action restricting Roman citizen numbers greatly and sweeping Grants. Laws like the Lex Licinia Mucia in 95, which resulted in the eviction from Rome of any Italian posing as a Roman Citizen and did little but antagonise the Italians further, the Lex Minicia which stripped citizenship from parents of mixed citizenry and ensured that any children from other mixed marriages would not be citizens.

Gaius Gracchus and Fulvius Flaccus attempted to give full citizenship to the Latins and promised that the Italians would have the rights the Latins had had in 122bc as part of his land reform (though the Italians would have no say in the fact that most of the land redistributed to Roman Citizens was actually theirs). The Senate and the People repudiated it after passing several laws expelling any non Roman voter from within 5 miles of the city and a further law by one Pennus to expel the Italians from Rome overall. Gracchus was then murdered.

According to Appian the Laws Gracchus was pushing through would have endangered the favoured status of the Equestrians who used their superior position to push in on and extort favourable business endeavours of the Italians in the provinces due to their Roman Citizenship status.

Livius Drusus attempted to give Roman Citizenship to the peoples of Italia and was also swiftly murdered before his law was even presented.


Then give citizenship to all elected magistrates of cities, and extend this to tribal leaders, like what was already done during the Republic. That would give the citizenship to provincial aristocracies, who would be clients of various Roman senators.
The fact that chieftains and gentry of non Roman Italians regions were granted citizenship was another form of Divide and Conquer. It ensured that the local aristocrats were firmly in the Roman camp, thus ridding the threat of powerful leading figures should they rebel.

Then there is the Social War. The fact that they gave in eventually to the Allies' demand tells us that there was already a sizeable portion of the Roman citizens who were in favor of giving citizenship to the Italians, like Drusus, if only to give them large clientage to vote for them in elections.
The Social War was not a sign of changing minds. It was a stark warning. Much of Southern Italy had risen in open rebellion and many consuls armies had been annihilated by the Marsi, Aesirna had fallen allowing the southern rebels easy access to Latium with signs that the Etruscans and Umbrians were about to rebel.

The Senate knew that they couldn't fight them all and they received a proclamation from the Etruscans and Umbrians after they handed the Romans a defeat at around Faesculae demanding Citizenship or they would destroy Rome. So the Senate acquiesced with the Lex Julia in 90 that dangled the prospect of Citizenship for those nations that laid down their arms without a fight and allowed Roman generals to give citizenship to their non Roman soldiers. This was followed by the Lex Calpurnia in around 90/89 and then the Lex Plautia Papiria in 89 to close any loopholes that previous laws had caused.

The Senate did not just say 'Alright you can have Citizenship,' it was prised from their unwilling fingers. This does not sound like a government willing to just give over an esteemed position in its own hierarchical society. They fought tooth and nail to prevent any further grants of Roman citizenship until they were almost destroyed.

Overall these events point to a massive reversal of sweeping grants of Roman Citizenship and further entrenchment of a system of Us and Them
 
Last edited:
I agree with a lot of what you say, but this part is flat out wrong: the Senate was never an elected body (and nor, for that matter, did it actually have any formal power to do anything). Voters would elect magistrates and these magistrates would, following the expiry of their term of office, become enrolled in the Senate.
To add to this and go on a tangent of my own: it's interesting seeing how little power the senate actually had in the late republic. If not most, then at least a lot of the legislation in the post-Sullan years bypassed the senate completely and went straight to the tribal assembly. Hell, the senatorial appropriation of pro-magisterial provinces was practically rendered moot by the use of the tribal assembly to override those provincial appropriations and dole out their own provinces for the pro-magistrates.
 
Granting Roman Citizenship to whole towns largely stopped after 188bc as the Empire grew and citizenship became far more valuable. In fact they began to really crack down on it after Carthage was destroyed. As Sallust and Livy stated the period of moral decline, selfishness and greed really kicked in after that event. Marius was reprimanded by the Senate for granting Citizenship to his Marrucuni soldiers after the war with the Cimbri and it was rescinded. There were no further sweeping grants and even one city (Praeneste) that refused the grant of citizenship, amazingly.
***
Overall these events point to a massive reversal of sweeping grants of Roman Citizenship and further entrenchment of a system of Us and Them

Yes, but the question is whether or not a continuing Republic would continue to grant citizenship to whole communities like it did the Empire.

Any POD after 87 BC would indicate, that yes, they would. All of Italy were now citizens. Cisalpine Gaul would soon follow.

It may be true, but that was just temporary. It might be true that they were pried unwillingly, but do you think that Athens or Sparta would have given citizenship to helots or allies, permit them to go to their citizen assemblies and vote, even if those two cities would be destroyed? Athens did not during the Peloponessian War even after staring defeat in the face at Syracurse, Sparta did not after losing to Thebes. Rome did during the Social War.

Would Greek city states give citizenship to freed slaves?

And the fact that before 188 BC they were so willing to give their citizenship to allies and afterwards they were not so much tells me one thing.

Rome's politicians have always been divided into three camps with regards to these.

1. One would like to restrict the citizenship to Romans of Rome. (Those would be the one who assassinated Drusus).

2. The second would be willing to give citizenship, whether half, or full, to allies and deserving population. (This would be the faction of Marius and Drusus).

3. Those who don't care either way.

So from the Latin War until 188 BC, those who would give the citizenship to whole towns etc held the ascendance.

Then from that time on to the Social war, those who would restrict citizenship numbers prevailed.

Then the Social War discredited those would think that only Romans from Rome should be citizens, and those who would grant them to ever more people were in the ascendant, and never relinquished it.

So in a continuing Republic, the two factions may have a tug of war. When the first faction would be in power, no more new citizens would be formed. But the process of creating citizens by means of freeing of slaves, purchasing the citizenship, retiring auxiliary troops, giving citizenship to magistrates, etc would continue even when those in the exclusive faction were in power.

When the second faction is in power, they would grant even more people the citizenship. They would grant it to whole communities.

And guess what? If the first faction came back to power, they would not be able to reverse the citizenship grants made by the second faction when they were in power!

Eventually, the process would continue until more and more people get the citizenship, until giving it to all free born inhabitants would not be that that shocking or revolutionary.
 
Last edited:

Abhakhazia

Banned
To add to this and go on a tangent of my own: it's interesting seeing how little power the senate actually had in the late republic. If not most, then at least a lot of the legislation in the post-Sullan years bypassed the senate completely and went straight to the tribal assembly. Hell, the senatorial appropriation of pro-magisterial provinces was practically rendered moot by the use of the tribal assembly to override those provincial appropriations and dole out their own provinces for the pro-magistrates.

I think you're thinking of during Caesar's consulship when the Senate deliberately did everything in their power to block anything Caesar did, so he just forced legislation through the Popular Assembly (I watched Crash Course World History and just cringed when the guy gave a shout out to the Roman Senate for "doing something, unlike the American Senate" because Caesar's relationship with the Senate make Obama's relationship with the Republican Senators look like a best friendship). However, using the popular assembly to push through legislation was not often used, more often a person would just seize dictatorial/near dictatorial powers to accomplish stuff when the Senate was being a particular thorn in the side.

Yeah, so I don't think powerless is a good word for the Late Republican Senate more like "will relentlessly block any legislation that we don't like".
 
I think you're thinking of during Caesar's consulship when the Senate deliberately did everything in their power to block anything Caesar did, so he just forced legislation through the Popular Assembly (I watched Crash Course World History and just cringed when the guy gave a shout out to the Roman Senate for "doing something, unlike the American Senate" because Caesar's relationship with the Senate make Obama's relationship with the Republican Senators look like a best friendship). However, using the popular assembly to push through legislation was not often used, more often a person would just seize dictatorial/near dictatorial powers to accomplish stuff when the Senate was being a particular thorn in the side.

Yeah, so I don't think powerless is a good word for the Late Republican Senate more like "will relentlessly block any legislation that we don't like".
No, I'm not referring specifically to Caesar's consulship. I would like to post more in depth on this, but I have a research paper I really need to stop procrastinating on, so I'll just leave here by citing The Crowd In Rome In The Late Republic as my main source for my statement.
 
It is worth noting that the political definition of Italy seemed to be a major determining factor of how citizenship was expanded during the late Republic.

If we were to posit a scenario in which Italy is expanded to, at minimum, our modern conception (to the alps, sicily, corsica, and sardinia), and then outward on a case by case basis, at what point would the tipping point hit where the government just says "okay, everyone else, too?"
 
Top