Polybius and the Roman Constitution - Assignment Example

Name Course Lecturer Introduction A Greek by birth, Polybius had come to be a great admirer of the Roman republic. Polybius chronicles the rise of the Roman Empire to his Greek audience and goes to great deal to show how Hellenic virtues were the foundation of Roman success (Pelling, 49). Polybius accounts for roman history between the period 220 BC and 167 BC (Walbank C, 181). In Book VI of his work he compares the powerful nations of his time to Rome and asserts that Rome is a pre-eminent culture. Polybius painstakingly describes the division of power in the Roman republic, showing how each institution checked the other. In the views of Polybius the Roman Empire was mighty as its people had a deep desire to do good, they loved virtue, observed their customs and traditions, they respected their parent and revered their gods. Therefore, it can be argued that Polybius is trying to sensitize his Greek audience on the need for virtues in their society. Polybius uses the structure of the Roman republic to show how an ideal republic should be. In this paper we follow how Polybius described the structure of the Roman republic to his Greek audience and explained its stability due to its foundation on individual integrity. According to Polybius account of the Roman constitution, it was divided into three arms each having sovereign power (Davidson, 12). In the views of Polybius power between the people, the senate and consuls as the elements of the Roman state was finely balanced with regard to equality and equilibrium (Richardson, 5). The Roman Constitution Consuls were in charge of administering the Roman republic when they were in Rome. Other magistrates in the Roman republic were under the orders of Consuls, except the Tribunes. Polybius describes the roles of the Consuls as introduction of foreign ambassadors to the senate, tabling matters of discussion before the senate, executing the decrees of the Senate (Davidson, 20). Consuls would make proposals and present them to the people who would approve them or oppose them; once the proposals were approved it lay upon the Consuls to execute them. Polybius points to the despotic power of consuls during wartime; during preparation and administration of war campaigns; Consuls had absolute power. Consuls were able to impose whatever levies they deemed fit of Roman allies in funding military campaigns, Consuls also appointed Military Tribunes and recruited soldiers who they deemed fit to serve. To show the despotic powers of Consul, Polybius dwells on the absolute powers of Consuls to inflict any punishment including death on all those who are under their command during active service (Davidson, 16). Polybius also comments on the powers of the Consul to spend as much public money as he chooses in his campaign (Richardson, 5). From these powers of the consul Polybius argues that an observer would conclude the Roman constitution was despotic and Consuls were royalty. Polybius then proceeds to describe the powers of the Senate. He first notes that, the Senate was chiefly in control of the treasury and regulated receipts and disbursements in the whole republic. Any public money issued by Quaestors had to be decreed by the senate, however money for the service of a consul was exempt from Senate approval (Pelling, 49). This point further indicates the despotic powers of the consul. Polybius speaks of the largest and most important expenditure in the Roman republic, a sum paid every five years for the repair and construction of public building. Censors could only obtain these funds if they were approved by the Senate. The Senate also tried serious crimes such as treason, poisoning, conspiracy or wilful murder committed within Italy ( Pelling, 49). The Senate also assisted individuals in Italy or other Italian allied states to settle controversies, it also assessed if penalties are just. Outside Italy, the senate could send emissaries to reconcile conflicts, remind warring communities of their duty to Rome, or receive the submission of these communities. It was also the Senates role to proclaim war on the enemies of Rome. Furthermore, the Senate received foreign ambassadors who had been sent to Rome and returned answers to their nations. Therefore, the Senate had far-reaching powers in the absence of the Consuls from Rome. Most times the Consuls were leading their legions in far-away regions and thus an observer would conclude the Roman Republic was a complete aristocracy. According to Polybius most Greeks entertained the idea that Greek was an Aristocracy (Derow, 18). Even the Kings of other Nation’s also believed that Greek was fully controlled by the Senate, as any business they transacted with Rome was handled by the Senate. Polybius seeks to dissuade the Greeks of this notion that the Roman constitution was an aristocracy. According to Polybius the most important part of Roman politics was left to the people (Davidson, 20). He describes the people as the fountain of honour and punishment. And here, Polybius asserts lies the foundation of a great community. Polybius argues that in communities where a sharp distinction between honour and punishment are drawn both practically and in theory then any undertakings can be properly administered (Derow A, 75). Polybius argues that societies where good and bad are held in the same honour must be dysfunctional. He seems to be is targeting the Greek society that was characterized by corruption and greed. It was thus left upon the people to decide in matters of Life and death, their also assessed the penalties especially when such penalties included huge sums of money and the accused person’s were of higher Magistracies. Polybius dwells on the subject of the Roman punishment system that enables men who are at trial for their lives to escape to exile ( Derow A, 78). If a person’s trial was at the voting stage and one of the tribes had not voted to ratify the sentence. The convict could leave Rome openly and go on voluntary exile. In towns like Naples, Praeneste or at Tibur such a person would be safe. Again, the people bestowed office of the most honourable as deserving reward for their virtue. They also had the final say of laws and could also repeal existing laws (Walbank, 41). Most importantly, matters of war had to be brought before the people. For example when terms of alliances were being made, treaties, or suspension of hostilities, it is the people who ratified or reversed them. From these considerations, Polybius came to the conclusion that the Roman constitution was also a democracy. According to Polybius, the ability of the Roman republic to remain great lay in the way the powers were distributed between the various parts of the state (Pelling, 49). For a Consul his campaign would not succeed without the support of the Senate and the People. The Senate decrees for the supply of food, clothes and pay to Soldier who are serving in the Consul’s campaign. Therefore, the Senate has the powers to hamper and frustrate the Consul’s campaigns if they so wish. At the end of each year the Senate send another Consul to replace one who had fell out of favour with the It. The Senate also adds distinction and glory to the successes of Consuls once they return home (Walbank B, 120). Even where Consuls presented their “triumphs” directly to the people they had to be celebrated with proper pomp and it was only the Senate which could set aside the necessary money for such celebration.     The Consuls could also not neglect the support of the people. The Consuls depended on the people to ratify or refuse peace or treaties (Derow, 18). Furthermore, when a time comes for a Consul to leave office he must present an account of his administration to the people. The Senate on the other hand is accountable to the people in most of their decisions. For example, the Senate could not execute the death penalty without the people ratifying the sentence. While dealing with laws directly affecting the senators like diminishing the senate authority, or denying Senators some privileges, it is the people who had the final say in the matter (Davidson, 20). However, the most important check on the power of the Senate was Tribune’s power to veto senate decisions. The Tribune could decree the Senate from passing a law, or prevent the Senate from meeting at all. The Tribune carried out the will of the people, meaning that the Senate was in awe of the People at all times. The People also were not independent from the Senate, and more often than not the decisions of the Senate affected the people individually and collectively ( Pelling, 49). The Senates biggest expenditure was towards construction of public building. Censors gave the contracts for these projects after obtaining the funds from the Senate. The Senate also had oversight over the collection of revenue from the people. Almost every Roman citizen was engaged in the contracts awarded by Censors. The Senate assumed absolute control over these contracts and could extend contract periods or relieve contractors of their obligation if they are unable to carry them out their contract. Furthermore, most judges in serious matters were drawn from the Senate; this further increased the people’s fear of the Senate (Walbank A, 41). Thus, the people knowing what they may need from the Senate were thus afraid to oppose or resist its will. Furthermore, the wishes of the Consul were respected by the people as they we aware that they may be one day come under his absolute authority in one of his campaigns. Polybius in his analysis of the forms of Government seeks to show the superiority of the Roman constitution to others (Derow, 18). First, Polybius draws a distinction between an Oligarchy and an Aristocracy when discussing the powers of the senate. According to Polybius, only the most honourable people were appointed to the senate by the people as reward for their virtue, and therefore the senate was made up of honourable people. Polybius thus distinguishes the Roman aristocracy to other forms of representative government that soon fail. He also distinguishes Roman democracy from mob-rule, noting that a democracy can only operate in societies where people obey rules, observe traditions and habits, respect their parents and show reverence to the gods. Polybius draws a distinction between the kingship form of government and tyranny. Polybius refers to the powers of Consuls as kingship not tyranny. In the views of Polybius, royalty to Consuls came as a result of choice to follow him rather than force and fear (Walbank, 41). Furthermore, Polybius owes the strength of the Roman Republic to its foundation on honour and the love for virtue. Conclusion Polybius presents Roman politics to the Greeks as the ideal community and the reasons why Romans were the dominating civilization of the time. Polybius particular focuses on Roman honour and the love of virtue as the foundation of great and just society. Polybius goes on to describe the Consuls, the Senate and the People as the main part of the Roman constitution that gave rise to three forms of government; despotism, aristocracy and democracy Each arm was thus able to check the other. It would be difficult to decipher whether the roman constitution was aristocracy, democracy or despotism. If for example if one regarded the constitution in terms of the power possessed by the Senate them one would conclude the state was an aristocracy. However, since the Romans people possessed equal power, the constitution could equally be regarded as democracy. In reality, the Roman constitution comprised of a finely balanced democracy, aristocracy and despotism. Polybius supposes that Rome’s protracted period of stability and failure of Consuls to become tyrants, or the Senate to become an Oligarchy, or the power of the masses to decay into mob-rule lay in Roman virtues. Polybius asserted that Roman obey laws, observe traditions and habits, respect their parents and elders and show reverence to the gods and that is why their form of government did not decay so easily.   Works Cited Derow, Peter. "Historical explanation: Polybius and his predecessors." Greek Historiography, Oxford (1994): 73-90. F.W. Walbank A. “Polybius” in T.A. Dorey, (ed.) Latin Historians (London 1966), 39- 63

 F.W. Walbank B. A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1957-79) F.W. Walbank C. “Polybius and the Past” in Polybius, Rome and the Hellenistic World (Cambridge, 2002), 178-92 with other essays in this volume
 J. Davidson. “The Gaze in Polybius’ Histories” JRS 81 (1991) 10-24
 J.S. Richardson. “Polybius’ View of the Roman Empire” Papers of The British School at Rome 47 (1979), 1-11
 P. Derow. Polybius,Rome and the East” JRS 69 (1979) 1-15
 Pelling, Christopher. "The Greek Historians of Rome’." in J. Marincola (ed.) Blackwell’s Companion to Greek and Roman Historiography (Oxford 2008), 244-58
 Read More