Originally published June 5, 2026 for our weekly Issue of Mindful Intelligence Advisor. Subscribe to get weekly issues.
By Paul Gordon Collier, Editor
“… Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion…” – Tacitus, The Annals, Book 1
NOTE: We understand this report is significantly longer than our regular reports. We considered breaking the report into two parts, with the transition coming in section F, The Final Transition Form.
However, we have so many bellwether events around us that we feel we must minimalize what we call our Evergreen reports, reports not directly connected to current events (such as our Hope Exit Reports). This is why we created the publishing schedule you can find on the last page of this issue.
Our next Evergreen report is scheduled for July 24. It is on the latest developments of 3D printing, also called additive manufacturing.
Because of this, we are publishing the full report, as is, despite it being nearly twice as long as our standard maximum. We can assure you this will be an exception to that principle, not a new standard.
We recommend you divide the reading in half, with the first half ending when you get to section F, which will give you the full historic outline. The second half is comprised of the analysis sections, the comparisons of institutions between the Republic and the Empire, and a Final Assessment of that transition.
INTRODUCTION
The story of Rome does not begin as a republic, it begins as a Kingdom. There were seven Kings of Rome. The last seven kings were, at least in part, Etruscan, the then-traditional enemy of Rome. The last King, Tarquinius Superbus, was killed in 509 BC. His death marked the birth of the Roman Republic. For over three centuries, the Romans were able to keep a Republic in working order, largely operating on unwritten precedent, civic code, to prevent the consolidation of power.
Starting in the early 140s BC, the divide between the plebians and the patricians was such that demands by plebians for reforms were becoming increasingly bellicose. Into that environment, the Gracchi brothers would emerge, patricians seeking to create political power by satisfying the rage of the plebians.
They would start the unwinding of that civic code that prevented political action from becoming violent.
It would culminate with the death of the last great champion of the Republic, Marcus Tullius Cicero, whose death on December 7, 43 BC marks the end of any serious effort to restore the Republic. The Republic fell with the declaration of Julius Caesar as Dictator for Life in early 44 BC, but it died with Cicero.
Before his death, the civil war that followed had factions still hoping for a restoration of the republic. After his death, it became a contest between future Emperors, with Julius Caesar’s adopted son, Gaius Octavius, destined to be the last man standing.
His crowning as Emperor Augustus Caesar, along with his “reforms” marks the final transition from the Republic to the Empire.
By the end of the transition, new unwritten civic codes were established, but none that would be as effective as the Republic’s at preventing civil wars and final collapse.
THE GRACCHI BROTHERS
The Gracchi brothers rose to power and fell during the 130s and 120s BC. They came from the patrician class. They were oligarchs in the making who chose to side with the lower classes.
Their major reforms were settled around land ownership, state subsidization of grain (hints at the welfare programs to come), and generally seeking to create more power for the lower classes.
To accomplish their goal, the Gracchi brothers decided to break with precedent. For instance, while they should have run for consul rather than Tribune of the Plebs, they still ran for the office intended to be filled by a member of the plebian classes.
Some historians assert the Gracchi brothers’ breaking with unwritten codes created the precedent-breaking precedent the oligarchs would follow. Other historians suspect the reforms themselves would have triggered the same unprecedented response from the oligarchs even if they passed through precedent-preserving means.
Despite both being murdered for their troubles, many of their changes stuck, and the reforms that didn’t stick continued to be political issues until the republic itself came to an end.
TIBERIUS GRACCHUS – In 133 BC, Tiberius Gracchus was elected Tribune of the Plebes. Using his position, he attempted “reforms” intended to lessen the power of the oligarchs (patricians) and increase the power of the lower classes (plebians).
The oligarchs fought back, however, and before the year was over Tiberius was murdered by the oligarchs, the Senators.
The Senators, led by Tiberius’ own cousin, along with their clients and supporters, armed themselves with clubs, surrounded Tiberius and beat him and 300 of his supporters to death. They threw his body into the river Tiber.
The murder of Tiberius marks the first time in the history of the republic (which had existed for over three centuries at this point) that political violence was used.
GAIUS GRACCHUS – The little brother of Tiberius, Gaius Gracchus, sought revenge through reforms. He was elected Tribune in 123 BC. He immediately set about attempting to enact not only the reforms of his slain brother Tiberius, but also even more radical reforms, including subsidizing grain.
He won the tribunate again in 122 BC but failed to win a third time. After his loss, the new tribune moved to strike down Gaius’ reforms. Gaius Gracchus’ supporters rioted in Rome, leading to at least one death among them.
In response, the Senate gathered and hastily approved a Final Decree (Senatus Consultum Ultimum) against Gaius and his supporters.
After the Final Decree was publicly posted, a Senator named Opimius assembled a large force to attack Gaius and his supporters. When it became clear they were losing the battle, Gaius retreated to the Temple of Diana, hoping to receive sanctuary. But Opimius attacked, killing many of Gaius’ supporters.
Gaius escaped the melee and fled across the river Tiber where some accounts claim he killed himself and others claim he had his slave kill him, then the slave killed himself.
This was the second major act of political violence in a little over a decade after going centuries without a single major incident. The Final Decree could also be viewed as a shadow of what was to come with Marius and Sulla, the proscription lists, lists of people condemned by the state OFFICIALLY to exile or death, without a trial.
MARIUS AND SULLA
The power struggles between two men, a “New Man” in Marius and a patrician in Sulla, would break most peacekeeping precedents that had held for centuries. Two major precedents were broken, the official declaration of death to citizens without a trial and the use of a personally loyal military for personal power.
Marius’ military reforms in large part made Sulla possible. Marius rose to power appealing to the weak to protect them against the strong while Sulla rose to power appealing to the strong to protect them from the weak. These are the same narratives that played out during the tumult under the Gracchi brothers.
One of the support characters in this struggle between Marius and Sulla was Gnaeus Octavius. He was the support consul and ally of Sulla. In 87 BC, He would become the first head of Rome to be assassinated by his own citizens, mainly Marius allies.
MARIUS’ RISE – Two wars would create an opportunity for a plebian to become a consul. The plebian was Gaius Marius, the wars were the Jugurthine War and the Cimbrian Wars. Both wars began with catastrophic defeats for the Romans, and a series of corrupt, incompetent, patrician generals failing to bring either rebellion to heel.
The Jugurthine War elevated Marius to the position of consul in 107 BC. Sulla also received glory for his part in the Jugurthine War, and Marius resented it, claiming his contributions were exaggerated.
Marius took the consulship as a New Man. A new man is someone who comes from a family that has never held the consulship. Marius came from the plebian class, but his family was well-off, though not wealthy. What was said of Marius is he knew no Greek, which was an insult meaning he was not properly educated, which meant he lacked the gravitas needed to lead.
As soon as Marius took office, he immediately implemented major military reforms, such as opening the army up to all citizens. Only landowners who could provide their own war gear were part of the Republic’s army up to this point.
Marius professionalized the army, creating a standing army that would train year-round, ready for battle when the need arose. This was not possible when your only soldiers had to go home to plant and harvest.
The landless soldier was very different than the land-owning soldier, for this soldier owed no allegiance to the Senate. The soldier would come to be loyal to their General more than to the state as a whole.
The Cimbrian Wars during Marius’ consulship helped propel him to an unprecedented four consulships in a row (104-100 BC). In 101 BC, Marius ended the Cimbrian Wars with a final decisive battle.
Marius left the consulship with the republic appearing to be relatively stable, but underneath the surface, something was brewing, a social war.
SULLA’S RISE – The Social War of 91-88 BC would be for Sulla what the Jugurthine Wars were to Marius. The Social War was a struggle between the Romans and their former Italian allies, who wanted more rights. Like Marius’ two wars, this one started badly for the Romans. Unlike Marius, Sulla had to share glory with Marius and Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo.
However, Sulla received more glory than Marius, and that did not sit well with Marius, who felt his efforts were more impactful than Sulla’s were. While Marius managed to glean the greatest glory in the Jugurthine War despite Sulla’s efforts, here, Sulla’s faction won the day.
While the Romans won the war, the Italians won enfranchisement, meaning they now had real political power in Rome. This meant more bodies in Rome for political days, more mobs to fear, assuage, or cultivate.
In 88 BC, Sulla was elected consul of Rome. A year before, the King of Pontus rebelled from Rome, leading to the first Mithridatic War.
SULLA’S PURGES – As the newly elected consul, Sulla fully expected to be assigned to the Mithridatic War, but machinations by Marius and his allies led the command being switched to a by-now aged Marius.
However, Sulla would have none of it. He initially fled Rome, but only to rally his legions. In 88 BC, Sulla marched on Rome, the first time a General had marched troops into the city. This starts the First Civil War (88- 85 BC).
Marius and his allies were declared outlaws by Sulla. This began a purge that killed thousands. Sulla created new laws intended to strengthen the Senate before he left to fight King Mithridates VI.
Marius escaped, however, and would bide his time until Sulla left for the East. This was a shadow of what would eventually become the proscription list, a list condemning you to death or exile without a trial.
MARIUS’ PURGES – In 87 BC, Marius returned to Rome with his principle ally Lucius Cornelius Cinna, the former co-consul with Sulla from the year before. Marius and Cinna marshalled their own legions and marched on room, quickly taking control of the city.
It is during this time that Gnaeus Octavius, the joint consul with Sulla, was assassinated after Marian forces captured him. Octavius was defending the Janiculum Hill when he was captured. Marius had him beheaded in his consular insignia. He had his head displayed in the Rostra of the Forum.
As mentioned, this was the first time a head of state was killed by his own citizens while in office.
Sulla and his allies now found themselves declared outlaws by Marius, which had no effect directly on Sulla, but led to thousands being killed. In 86 BC, Marius and Cinna won another consulship. For Marius, it would be his seventh. He would enjoy it for only 17 days before he died.
The proscription list was coming next.
THE DICATOR SULLA – Even after his death, the faction Marius created, the Marian faction, continued to hold power through Cinna, who stayed faithful to Marius’ reforms and continued to target Sulla’s allies. Sulla would end the Mithridatic War in 84 BC, returning to Italy to do battle with Marian forces. Cinna would be killed in a mutiny that same year while on his way to battle Sulla.
In 83 BC, the second civil war began, with the Marian faction still hoping to hold on to power. In 82 BC, Sulla was declared Dictator. This is when the general declaration of “outlaw” against your political opponent and their allies becomes formalized, detailed, and published.
Previously, the declarations were ad hoc, now they were systematic, organized, institutional, and not rare. Sulla’s lists were updated over the course of the year until all his opponents were dead or had fled outside the reach of power.
During his reign (81 – 80 BC), he passed numerous “reforms” that weakened many of the earlier Gracchi reforms, as well as some of Marius’ reforms (though not his major military reforms). In 79 BC, a relatively healthy 59-year-old Sulla suddenly announced his retirement. In 80 BC, Sulla suddenly died, possibly because of chronic heavy drinking.
CATILINE CONSPIRACY
There are two men at the center of the Catiline Conspiracy, Cicero and Catiline.
Cicero, like Marius, was a “New Man.” Marius had little Greek, while Cicero had much. Marius came from a well-off, but not wealthy, plebian family.
Cicero came from the equestrian class, meaning his family were landowners and could afford to send their men off to war with their own horses (or at least their family scions could). Cicero received a full Roman education while Marius did not.
As New Men go, Cicero came from “better stock,” but yet he was still a “New Man” and not a descendent of a scion of the patricians. The New Man, Marius, the plebian, would unintentionally accelerate the death of the republic. The New Man, Cicero, the equestrian, would become the symbol of the death of the republic, and its last effective champion, but also possibly its final straw.
This conspiracy begins with a patrician named Lucius Sergius Catilina (Catiline), who found himself on the losing end of a consulship election in 64 BC. His opponent was the New Man, Marcus Tullius Cicero. Catiline was a former ally of Sulla. Rumors of Catiline’s direct involvement in Sulla’s purges dogged his image and, consequently, his career.
In 63 BC, Catiline ran again. This time, he was soundly defeated, making it clear the people’s vote was no path to power for him.
After the campaign, Catiline found himself in debt and alienated from political power in Rome almost altogether.
It is at this point, Catiline began to draw around himself indebted men of power who could help him execute his plan in exchange for having their debt relieved after he took power.
The conspirators planned on murdering most of the top leaders, especially targeting Cicero for assassination. The conspirators seem to have done a poor job at security because Cicero was able to deliver to the Senate letters alleging Catiline and others meant to do them harm.
From these letters, Cicero was able to secure a Senatus Consultum Ultimum, Senate’s ultimate decree. This granted full powers to the consul. It was only granted during times of emergency.
When certain dates passed without predicted action by the conspirators, Cicero’s standing began to weaken among the Senators. The fact that he was a New Man did not help his cause.
As Cicero’s power was waning, however, a confirmed assassination attempt was made on Cicero’s life.
On November 8, 63 BC, Cicero convened the Senate, delivering his famous First Catilinarian Oration. In the speech, Cicero directly accused a present Catiline of being a traitor of Rome. When Catiline rose in opposition, all he could offer in rebuke was personal insults.
He was shouted down, with the Senators around him intentionally moving away from him.
The message had been sent, so Catiline fled to Eritrea (the former homeland of Rome’s first major rival, the Etruscans).
While he was gone, he was declared an enemy of the state. Cicero would oversee the detainment, arrest, and execution of numerous conspirators, all of which were executed without trial. Catiline himself would die on the battlefield in 62 BC.
Cicero was trying to save the republic but his actions continued to affirm the precedent of state punishment without a Roman trial. Had he understood how existentially essential this standard is to a republic, I doubt he would have done what he did.
From thousands of years later, this is much easier to see than it was during Cicero’s time. Had you or I been in his position, without the understanding of republics we have thousands of years later, we may very well have acted in the same way, in passionate defense of our republic.
The conservatives of America would do well to heed Cicero’s warning through failed example.
The Catiline conspiracy stayed with Cicero for the rest of his life, and most likely led to his own assassination on December 7, 43 BC. He wasn’t killed because of his actions here, but they were used as a character witness against him, sealing his fate.
We will come back to Cicero after we first witness the third assassination of a leader of Rome, Julius Caesar (remember Cinna, Marius’ co-consol, was the second). The Republic went over 300 years without a head of state being assassinated. Now, in the span of four decades, there were three such assassinations.
THE END OF THE REPUBLIC
In 49 BC, Julius Caesar, a patrician, would cross the river Rubicon, this time not in an attempt to just occupy Rome, but in direct opposition to the power of the Senate. During his rise, which was achieved through both military conquest and political gamesmanship, Caesar played both sides of the Roman political divide, those who appealed to the patricians and those who appealed to the plebians.
Upon entering Rome, he would receive his first dictatorship, but only for a brief time. In 46 BC, the Senate appointed him Dictator for 10 years. In 44 BC, he was declared dictator for life. Less than 3 months later, he would be assassinated.
After his death, a civil war broke out in which hopes of a restoration of a republic were still at play. That hope died on December 7, 43 BC, when Marcus Tullius Cicero was beheaded by Roman soldiers (more on this coming).
THE IDES OF MARCH – In late June to early February of 44 BC, Julius Caesar was declared Dictator for Life by the Senate. By February 15, historians know he was already declared Dictator for Life. On that day, an incident happened at the fertility festival of Lupercalia. It is called the Lupercalia Incident.
Caesar’s nephew, Marc Antony, publicly offered Julius Caesar the crown of kingship. Caesar refused the crown, not once, but at least twice, and possibly as many as four times.
The incident was either a way to show the public they need not fear the power of a dictator, for he is no King, OR it was a test to see how the crowd would react. Had they acted more enthusiastically, he might have taken the crown.
Let us remember the last Roman King, Superbus, was an Etruscan. Kingship was as much of a boogeyman to fear in the Republic’s culture as Hannibal had become. Hannibal was the Carthaginian General who denuded the Roman countryside of soldiers.
On March 15, 44 BC, the Senate would not be meeting at the Senate House, for it was being renovated. Rather, they would be meeting at the Curia of Pompey. This was fitting for the conspirators since the eponym, Pompey, was a bitter rival to Caesar.
Pompey’s death in 48 BC marked the end of the vestige of the first triumvirate, which included Caesar and Crassus (who was killed first in a battle with the Parthians).
When Caesar entered the curia, around 60 assassins who called themselves “Liberatores” were waiting for him. They all had hidden daggers under their togas.
The Liberatores were led by Gaius Cassius Longinus and Marcus Junius Brutus. Their aim was to restore the Republic.
Lucius Tillius Cimber was assigned the task of sending the signal to attack, as well as setting Caesar up for the ambush. At the right strategic point, Cimber suddenly approached Caesar with a plea to recall his brother from exile. He then pulled Caesar’s toga down and prevented him from leaving the pre-assigned space.
Publius Servilius Casca was the first to strike Caesar with a dagger. 23 more blade strikes followed, but only one, according to the physician Antistius, was fatal. Caesar is alleged to have said to Brutus, “you too, child?”
He also died at the feet of the statue of his past great rival, Pompey.
With the death of Caesar, what followed would have been uncertain to most Romans, but at least one man, Cicero, the man from the Catiline conspiracy, was still working to restore the Republic.
THE DEATH OF CICERO – After the assassination of Julius Caesar, Cicero publicly supported the Liberatores, the name the assassins had given themselves. Later, he hedged his bets, “acknowledging” they acted hastily, but he advocated for a general amnesty for the Liberatores in the well of the Roman Senate.
He was able to broker a compromise deal that saw Caesar’s reforms preserved, while the assassins were granted amnesty.
After Caesar’s nephew, Mark Antony, took control of Rome. Cicero turned to Caesar’s nephew, Octavius, for political aid. He is alleged to have commented on Octavian that he should be praised and honored while they need him, then disposed of when he ends his usefulness.
As it would turn out, Octavian was not the champion of the republic Cicero thought he was and was hardly a naïve politician.
While Octavian championed Cicero’s cause for a time, Cicero was busy writing and reciting a series of philippics against Marc Antony, calling him a threat to the republic. The Senate, with Cicero’s and Octavian’s influence, supported the war against Marc Antony.
The formation of the second triumvirate in November of 43 BC would be the death knell for Cicero. The triumvirate was a peace treaty between three factions, Antony, Octavius, and Lepidus. As part of the agreement, Antony demanded Cicero be placed on the proscription lists.
This is where Cicero’s involvement in the Catiline Conspiracy worked against him, for Antony and his allies used this as proof Cicero was not a champion of the republic. Furthermore, his actions were not done not to save the republic but to preserve his own power.
Ultimately, though, I suspect Octavius’ decision was purely based on personal power pursuit, nothing more, so even without the Catiline burden on Cicero, it was not likely that Octavian would have done anything other than what he did.
At best, the weight of that history made it harder for Cicero’s allies to find the zeal to defend him, while emboldening the zeal in his opponents, Anthony and his allies.
It is here where Octavius either made his final decision, to not work towards the restoration of the republic or where it became clear that was not his goal. Either way, Octavius agreed to the deal.
Cicero attempted to escape the death sentence, but he was eventually captured outside his villa in Formiae. He was alleged to have been broken in spirit when the Roman soldiers descended on his party. He ordered his litter to be let down before he bore his neck to a Roman soldier, saying “There is nothing proper about what you are doing, soldier, but try to kill me properly.”
The date was December 7, 43 BC, the unofficial death date of the Roman Republic.
BECOMING EMPIRE
“When after the destruction of Brutus and Cassius there was no longer any army of the Commonwealth, when Pompeius was crushed in Sicily, and when, with Lepidus pushed aside and Antonius slain, even the Julian faction had only Caesar left to lead it, then, dropping the title of triumvir, and giving out that he was a Consul, and was satisfied with a tribune’s authority for the protection of the people, Augustus won over the soldiers with gifts, the populace with cheap corn, and all men with the sweets of repose, and so grew greater by degrees, while he concentrated in himself the functions of the Senate, the magistrates, and the laws. He was wholly unopposed, for the boldest spirits had fallen in battle, or in the proscription, while the remaining nobles, the readier they were to be slaves, were raised the higher by wealth and promotion…” – Tacitus, The Annals, Book 1
Agustus’ first title was not Emperor, but “First Citizen,” Princeps. His second title was Augustus, the “revered.” He was given the “civic crown,” as well as an imperium proconsulare (proconsular power) for 10 years over “imperial provinces” with major legions.
He also held the annual consulship, which he would do for the first four years of his reign, from 27 to 23 BC. Having it renewed yearly helped sustain its outward appearance of continuing a republic’s tradition.
AUGUSTUS’ REFORMS – The reforms of Augustus happened in two major waves, the first wave maintained most of the institutions of the republic, with even Augustus’ power being derived from republican institutions.
The first round of reforms was called the First Constitutional Settlement. These reforms were ostensibly intended to “restore” the Republic by creating a symbolic representation of power being given back to both the Senate and the people.
His first round of administrative reforms was limited to Imperial provinces. The Senatorial provinces remained under the old administrative system.
The second round of reforms in 23 BC made the republic not only effectively powerless, but without a consul as well. That office had been replaced by the Imperium Maius, which is effectively where Augusts becomes the now-obvious Emperor of Rome.
Augustus was also given the title tribunicia potestas for life, which is tribunician power. This added office gave him all power over all major institutions.
The provinces were now entirely under the emperor’s control, as the whole Empire converted to an Imperial administrative system. The Senate was purged of “unreliable members,” which meant both political and presence unreliability, as some Senators hadn’t been seen in years.
It was now officially clear the Senate was the rubber stamp of the emperor, a de facto administrative branch of the Empire, with the emperor selecting and deselecting Senators according to his preference alone.
THE DEATH OF AUGUSTUS – If the Empire was to hold, the death of Augustus would have been its first major test. In 9AD, Augustus would mourn the loss of his Roman legions in a German forest. Those legions were led by Publius Varus. He was ambushed in the Teutoburg Forest, where three Roman legions were eviscerated by a German alliance led by Roman-trained Arminius.
The battle was a portent of future problems for the Empire, but also the culmination of the beginning of an era called the Pax Romana, an almost 200-year epoch where the majority of the Mediterranean basin would see minimal wars and uprisings.
While the Pax Romana begins before Teutoburg (with August’s ascension as Princeps), the depth of this catastrophe would not be felt again, and it was a brief anomaly in the Pax Romana age.
The Pax Romana would begin to unwind in the late 160s AD under the last of the adoptive Emperors, Marcus Aurelius. With Aurelius’ death, the pax Romana would come to an end, and a new transition would begin, this one leading to balkanization and the emergence of new nations.
With the death of Augustus, Rome would learn it was an Empire after all.
On August 9, 14 AD, Augustus prepared to die, having already secured his succession from his adoptive heir, Tiberius Julius Caesar. His last words were “Have I played my part well? Then applaud as I exit.”
Immediately after his death, the Senate duly carried out the wishes of Augustus and handed Imperial power over to his designated heir. The appointment of Tiberius in 14 AD establishes Rome as an Empire.
Beyond his administrative reforms, Augustus would also set the tone for the institutions to come, including cultural, social, and sacred ones. The Final Transition Form would emerge by the time of his death. As usual in transitions, parts of the previous state were retained in the new one, but there were many differences, and some of them profound.
THE FINAL TRANSITION FORM
NATIONAL STORY – The Republic’s national story was Cincinnatus, the Roman farmer who became consul to lead the defense of Rome against foreign invaders. After the enemy was vanquished, Cincinnatus gave up his power and returned to the plow.
Here was a man who had his own sword, his own shield, his own horse. He was a man who was growing his own food (for he worked the land himself), who put the interests of Rome above the interests of the pursuit of his own power.
It was a story of self-reliance in service of a virtuous republic. It was a story of the collective overcoming adversity while continuing to be comprised of self-reliant individuals.
In the Empire, the story was of Aeneas. In this story, the Trojan hero Aeneas becomes the source of the Roman people, a source whose bloodline runs through Augustus’ family, Caesar.
It is a story, in microcosm, of Empire-building, which cannot happen without the self-sacrifice of Aeneas, who considers his own happiness secondary to serving for the glory of the state.
Where Aeneas’ service to the state is never over, Cincinnatus is given his season of homestead living in service of his own household once he has completed his duties.
The Aeneid was commissioned by Augustus, so it is essentially empire propaganda, though Virgil managed to weave in a counter-narrative about the heavy toll of empire building on innocent human lives.
The version of Cincinnatus we get is largely from Livy, who wrote of him during Augustus’ time, though evidence exists he was real, having existed probably around the late 500s BC.
The earliest preserved reference to Cincinnatus comes from Cicero, who wrote of him in the 40s BC. His version was a little different than Livy’s, who stressed Cincinnatus’ poverty and his contentment with poverty when returning to the plow.
Even one of the Republic’s national stories had been tweaked to align with the Empire’s cultural “values.”
The national story shift was profound. It was no longer Cincinnatus, or even Romulus for that matter. It was Aeneas. The Republic had a real man who exemplified personal self-reliance, civic excellence, and sacrifice in defense of Rome. The Empire had a fictional man who exemplified total self-sacrifice to the state, even at the expense of personal self-reliance.
The emphasis in the Empire’s national story was in building and sustaining empire with no expectation of personal glory or wealth; it was not in protecting the virtuous Republic while living your own self-determined, self-sustaining life at home.
The Roman soldier of the Empire was issued his sword; The Roman soldier of Cincinnatus republic might well have made it himself (though that was not common, yet it happened with rare regularity).
Cincinnatus and Aeneas do not live in the same worlds, even though they worship the same gods and know many of the same stories (even if through different lenses).
GOVERNANCE – There is no real preservation of the governance of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. When Tiberius became the emperor, a de facto administrative and prestige body had replaced a policy-making body, but both were called the Roman Senate. This was a similar pattern found throughout the Empire’s new governance, which was effectively centralized control by one man, the emperor.
The Republic’s governance fed off competition and balances of power that took centuries to break down. The Empire’s governance demanded unquestioning compliance with the demi-god emperor. This demigod leadership would make religion the new justifier of state power. The Republic’s justification came from the civic participation and approval of the people.
RELIGION – Here is where we see the most continuity from one system to another. In Greek and Roman mythology, the stories of the gods were mostly about internal struggles, not declarations that fundamentally challenged governance standards.
The Roman gods were mostly all the same by the time of Augustus’ death, though one was added, mainly himself. Augustus began this cult by putting Julius Caesar up as “the divine father,” but as his reign went on, the emphasis was more and more on his own divinity.
The creation of a demigod as head of state did change religion’s influence on governance, however, for it made divine right the ultimate justification for power, whereas under the Republic, power was justified by the people’s assent.
FOREIGN POLICY – The Republic became an accidental Empire, largely led by perceived and real external threats that made them feel as if expansion was needed to protect themselves against further invasion. They had no coherent foreign policy, treating every conflict on a case-by-case basis.
This is not to say they did not have any consistent strategies at all; for instance, the Romans of the Republic certainly knew how to play factions against each other in competing states.
Generally, their overall policy can be said to be one of expansion, with military excellence being the primary driver of that expansion, not geopolitical gamesmanship.
With the Emperor, foreign policy became coherent, consistent, and strategically sophisticated. This Empire could advance with more than just military excellence, though a quality military continued to be a top priority for the Empire.
No longer strictly expansionist, provinces became businesses that were expected to make profits. Where profit could not be made, territory would not be held.
PHILOSOPHY – The Romans were not known for developing philosophical thought. In the Republic, philosophical speculation was not common, nor was philosophical discourse, in general. Of all the Greek philosophies, stoicism started to get a foothold in the days of the Republic.
It was an early form of stoicism that became the Republic’s justification for war, though it did not get integrated with governance as a whole.
The Empire would see two major schools become religions among the oligarchs, epicureanism and stoicism. Neither philosophy challenged the nature of state authority as both were all about the individual’s approach to life in all circumstances, not about changing the circumstances themselves.
Philosophy was internally focused, not external world-changing-focused.
ECONOMY – As the republic grew, wealth grew from land and war booty. If you couldn’t lead legions, you could at least own lands. Slavery was highly profitable in this system, so slavery expanded rapidly, which increased the inequality between the patricians and the plebians.
Not even the Servile Wars, slave rebellions, would make slavery cost prohibitive. The industrial age would take away the profit of slavery.
While war booty was not a source for wealth in the Empire (outside of periods of rebellion and instability), land ownership was still essential for the Roman who hoped to have any power in Rome, or wealth at home.
Under the Empire, the economy became more directed, moving from a concentration of wealth economy to a managed slave-semi-welfare economy. It is not fair to call the Roman Empire a welfare state, but it relied on “bread and circuses,” in the cities at least, to primarily keep the peace.
The continuation of slavery as a profitable practice could not have happened had the Empire not shifted some of the profit to the people of the cities to assure the engines of their Empire’s trade, the cities and the roads, kept running smoothly.
The economy was formalized under the Empire, with a standardized currency being introduced by Augustus and the development of a professional civil service to collect taxes. The civil service helped the constituents in that they replaced the “tax farmers,” men commissioned to collect taxes for the republic.
These tax farmers would try to collect above the contract, for that is how they were paid.
This was also a path to wealth which men could use to create political power in Rome. The civil service ended this path for the individual who had such ambitions. Tax collection was now largely a professional imperial institution, one that did not offer a path to state power.
CULTURE – The biggest shift in culture from the Republic to the Empire is how Greek culture became integrated into the Empire, where under the Republic, Greek culture was useful, but not to be fully trusted.
In the republic, the Roman citizen was expected to honor the ancestral custom, mos maiorum, have manliness, virtus, and fulfill their civic duty. In the Empire, culture became more cosmopolitan. While Roman rituals and customs continued, the meaning behind them was lost, so that the Roman part of their living became increasingly performative.
The Empire’s citizen was expected to honor the emperor, pay their taxes, and be fed and entertained in return for their compliance. The Republic’s citizen was called to a life of restraint and duty, while the Empire’s citizen was called to be part of the magnificent spectacle of Empire’s rewards.
EDUCATION – In the Roman Republic, education was mostly house-based. It was reserved for those who could afford tutors. While education curricula varied, they were very similar.
The focus of education was in preparing your child to have a career in the Senate. Public competition is what the student was being trained for, so they concentrated on oratory, persuasion, and legal argument.
Roman education was Greek education, specifically Greek intellectual culture. This would continue and only deepen in the Empire’s education system.
While household schooling was still happening, schools of rhetoric began to appear under the Empire. Education became more broadly standardized. Its focus changed from preparing men for competition to preparing men to serve a fixed hierarchy with predictable expectations.
In other words, education became about training administrators subservient to a Ruler and not competitors hoping to one day have their time as ruler.
ASSESSMENT
In this transition, what is left of the Republic after the transition is only the languages, the gods and the labels, whose functions were exapted, turning republican institutions into imperial ones, without having to change the terms to do so.
Even their religion was fundamentally altered. While religion was an essential part of statecraft, it was never a legitimizer of it. Religious respect was a reflection of the will of the people, not an imperial decree.
The addition of the emperor as a god made religion directly political, a trait the West would indirectly adopt.
The underlying stability of the Republic came not from the rules on paper, but the tacit rules that were more significant in sustaining stability than any of the laws on paper ever could be.
First, they broke the civic code, the unwritten standards, then they broke law code. First the Gracchi brothers broke the unwritten code that patricians don’t run for Tribune, then they broke laws after a newly elected tribune legally nullified all the reforms they had just made.
The oligarchs responded by murdering the offenders, convicting and punishing these men with no trial.
The tensions that drove the dynamics of Roman politics were mostly between the very wealthy and the next-in-lines, the equestrians and the well-to-do plebians. It wasn’t a battle of the very wealthy versus the very poor, it was a battle between the two top classes.
The poor were at best mob machines variously manipulated by men seeing to be the next last man standing.
Not covered in this transition, except in passing, is the growing slave rebellions, which culminated in the Third Servile War in 73-71 BC, the last great slave rebellion.
Generally, even the poor supported the slave system, so Rome’s engagement with slavery, from top to bottom, was rarely challenged by anyone but the slaves. No one used the plea of the slaves to create political power for themselves as Roman citizens, not the poor, not the wealthy.
The justification for authority was outwardly based on the people’s approval, but the real justification was, to me, the continued demonstration of reasonable good faith when engaged in political decision-making. They had emerged from a couple of centuries of violence under Kingships that culminated with the rape of their one of their own women, the matron Lucretia.
The trauma of that cycle of violence kept the Romans in civic Republicanism for over three centuries. Perhaps they simply forgot the trauma, or perhaps more confident men than Roman Republicans imagined they could truly be the last man standing, the one to end the ambitions of all other men through a projection of pure violent power alone.
First, they claimed an emergency to justify ad hoc slaughtering of political opponents, creating an “exception” to the violation of the Roman standard of “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.”
When that garnered no backlash from anyone but the targets of the purges, and when those same targets willfully ALSO PURGED their opponents without trials, it was only a matter of time before an ad hoc practice became a new Rule of Law standard.
Now, leaders could declare you guilty and declare your sentence, without trial, just by putting you on their proscription lists.
If this sound like Imperial power, that’s because it is.
The moment when the standard of condemnation without trial could have been killed came with the Catiline Conspiracy. Cicero rightly recognized Catiline as a threat to the Republic, but his decision to essentially legitimize conviction without trial might have been the final straw that forever killed the power of the unwritten coded Republic.
If the Republic’s standards could not protect the Republic, then why have one in the first place?
If men could not defend themselves against accusations, the people could never affirm the state. The legitimization of power had to come from somewhere else, or the center would not hold.
When Augusts emerged as the last man standing, he didn’t immediately destroy all semblance of the republic, yet he effectively nullified their power. He existed in that liminality between “the people rule” and “the divine right of Kings.”
The Progressive Statist’s cries that “freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” is doing the same thing Augustus did, taking a Republican institution and turning it into a progressive one. The Progressive Statist might be cleverer, though, since plainly even Americans understand Freedom of Speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences.
But their consequences are corporate censorship, HR firings, and direct violence , consequences that render speech no longer free.
They started this path by claiming Nazis are a direct threat to “our Democracy,” therefore we are justified in using violence to silence their speech as long as its just citizens doing it, and not the government.
The progressive sustains the term “Freedom of Speech,” but with their definition tweaking, they effectively render it dead for anyone that accepts the definition change.
It is Augustus military power that largely preserves him initially, but had he not commissioned the Aeneid, one doubts if the transition from a republic to an Imperial Empire would have happened. It would have balkanized as challengers to an illegitimate power would have emerged, many most likely with radically different justifications for ruling over others.
The centralizing unity of Rome would have died with Augustus’ dying authority.
Yet even during and after the final transition, Augustus was still trying to restore republican values like moderation, self-reliance, and self-control. Where the Republic produced such spirits without laws, the Empire would fail again and again to restore such spirits with laws.
This is similar to Progressives pushing “Democratic values” within a system that affords no real opportunity for anyone outside of their orthodoxy to participate in that process. They’ll even attempt to pass censorship laws in the name of assuring “Democratic values” are preserved.
Apparently, dissent within a Democracy is undemocratic.
Like the Progressives who call their social caste authoritarian system a Democracy, Augustus clung to the old term, the Republic, calling it that until the day of his death. I suspect the Progressives would do the same even if they eventually pass laws banning non-progressives, even whites, from voting.
Augustus’ decision to exile his own daughter Julia for disobeying those same laws, serving as a symbol for the Empire’s failure to sustain the Republic’s self-reliant, self-sustaining, self-controlling, but also Republic-honoring and Republic-serving spirit.
The Empire would never be as loved by the people as the Republic was.
Virgil began work on the Aeneid before Augustus became Princeps. He was not finished until somewhere around 19 BC. By the time of Agustus’ Death in 14 AD, the Aeneid was the national story, establishing the new standard of the divine right of kings, a standard Western Europe would adopt on its own.
This has mostly been the standard of most human civilizations throughout human history.
As Republics first emerged in Western Europe, Monarchies would regularly go to war with them to kill the alternative model. Yet today, the standard legitimization for rulership in the West has once again returned to Rome’s, the will of the people, while the institutions of the West increasingly no longer reflect those values.
One does not sense the divine right of Kings might be coming back, but rather the truth through identity standard is coming back. This is the claim there is a mystical understanding of truth only accessible by truth-understanding classes of people. This means truth is justified by class, not data.
If truth is justified by class, then only the people in that truth-detecting class can be rulers. The state is legitimized by two things; the first is the claim that humans can perfectly understand the universal good AND design for outcomes to assure it, and the second claim is that only SPECIAL humans can understand the universal good and design for outcomes to assure it.
Still, in America, there yet exists a strong faction that assumes rulership is justified by the people’s approval, which is FUNCTIONING republicanism at its heart (as opposed to Augustus’ and Kim Jong Un’s Republics).
Rome began as a Kingship, but even those seven kings would have envied the concentration of power and demigod status of an emperor. One could argue the break from the King led to the dependence on an even greater tyrant, the emperor.
One could also argue the 300-plus year history of the Republic tells the story of a successful governance model that suffered the fate of all systems, entropy. The success of the model also enabled men to concentrate wealth, and thus power, at levels not seen until the end of the Republic’s days.
Here in America, we see a similar outcome with our Republic. It has produced opportunities for a concentration of wealth that was previously unprecedented. Men and women now have individual concentrations of wealth that dwarfs the yearly budgets of whole nations.
Elon Musk is the wealthiest of these people.
Perhaps the Roman Republic died at an old age, having given a whole people centuries of opportunity to grow. She lived a good life and died of natural causes. Would they say that about our Republic, America, should she not survive this crisis of unprecedented action we are now witnessing?
FURTHER RESOURCES:
The Roman Revolution – Ronald Syme
From the Gracchi to Nero: A History of Rome from 133 B.C. to A.D. 68 – H.H. Scullard
Rome in the Late Republic – Mary Beard
Civil Wars – Appian
The Lives of the Twelve Caesars – Suetonius
