Why Rome Fell

Decline and Fall, or Drift and Change?

Michael Arnheim

• Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781119691389
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: History

Explore an insightful and original discussion of the causes of the fall of the Roman Empire

In Why Rome Fell: Decline and Fall, or Drift and Change?, celebrated scholar of Roman history Dr. Michael Arnheim delivers a fascinating and robust exploration of the causes of and reasons for Rome's fall in the West. Steeped in applications of elite theory to the later Roman Empire, the author discusses several interconnected issues that influenced the decline of Rome, including monarchy, power structure, social mobility, religion, and the aristocratic ethos.

Incisive comparisons of the situation in Rome to those in the Principate and the Byzantine Empire shed light on the relative lack of "indissoluble union and easy obedience" (in Gibbon's phrase) in the later Roman Empire. Instead, the book reveals the divided loyalties of a fractured society that characterized Rome in its later years. Why Rome Fell also includes:

• A thorough introduction to the transition from the ancient to the medieval world, including discussions of monarchy, Diocletian and his relationship to the aristocracy, and Constantine's reforms
• Comprehensive explorations of the rise of the Roman Christian empire and Constantine's role
• Practical discussions of conflicting theories of what caused the fall of the Roman empire, including the Pirenne thesis, the malaria hypothesis, Gibbon's 'decline and fall' theory, and the role played by religion

An indispensable resource for students, scholars and the general reader with an inquiring mind about history, Why Rome Fell deserves a place on the bookshelves of anyone with an interest in a sophisticated and original take on historical continuity and change.

Part I
Transition from the Ancient to the Medieval World and Beyond

1
Rome From Monarchy to Monarchy

This chapter is an analysis of the power structure of the Roman state from its foundation, traditionally dated 753 BCE, to the accession of the Emperor Diocletian in 284. The chapter is divided into two sections. Section A is an analytical narrative, while Section B is a discussion of some of the main discordant views propounded in modern writings.

My own view is that the early monarchy, on which there is very little reliable evidence, was replaced around 509 BCE by a “republic” dominated by an oligarchy or aristocracy. Thus far, the power structure of the Roman state conforms to a universal pattern that I identified in my Two Models of Government, first published in 2016: monarchy succeeded by an oligarchy or aristocracy. By “oligarchy”, I mean government by an elite minority, and “aristocracy” refers to a hereditary oligarchy.

The accession of Julius Caesar’s heir, known to history as Augustus, replaced the republican oligarchy with a thinly disguised monarchy that was able to satisfy, or at least placate, all sectors of society and to provide a stable form of government that lasted for some three hundred years.

Section A. From Romulus to Diocletian

In the beginning, Rome was a monarchy. According to tradition, Rome, whose conventional founding date was 753 BCE, was first ruled by a succession of seven kings, starting with the eponymous Romulus, who, if he existed at all, must have been named after the city rather than the other way round. The whole period of the monarchy is extremely shadowy. Our main authority for it is the Roman Historian Titus Livius, or Livy, whose great Roman History, titled Ab Urbe Condita (“From the Foundation of the City”), was written some 500 years after the fall of the monarchy, which is commonly dated to 509 BCE. Livy felt obliged to relate traditional tales and legends about the early history of Rome, but he also had access to earlier historical accounts, and he actually provides a list of no fewer than a dozen authors’ names, the earliest being Quintus Fabius Pictor, whose history of Rome, written in Greek in around 200 BCE, survives only in fragmentary form.

The monarchy appears initially to have been not hereditary but elective, with the king being chosen by the Senate, an aristocratic council, and confirmed by the citizens meeting together in the Assembly known as the Comitia Curiata. The last three kings, Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius, and Tarquinius Superbus (“Tarquin the Proud”), were reputedly Etruscans, and the monarchy seems to have become hereditary at that time, as the two Tarquins were either father and son or grandfather and grandson, and Servius Tullius was supposedly the younger Tarquin’s father-in-law.

Livy’s account of the last period of the monarchy paints a very confused picture, with Tarquinius Superbus initially cultivating the support of the Senate against Servius Tullius, his father-in-law, portrayed as a populist king, distributing conquered lands to the whole populace and enjoying widespread popular support. (Livy 1.46.1). Servius Tullius is even said to have been physically attacked by his son-in-law and murdered by Tarquin’s entourage. (Livy 1.48). Once ensconced in power, we are told, Tarquin “…killed the leading senators who he believed had favored the cause of Servius.” (Livy 1.49.2.1). This may indicate aristocratic opposition to his rule, which rather contradicts his earlier stance.

What, then, was the power-structure under the Roman monarchy? If the earlier kings really owed their position to election by the Senate, an aristocratic body, then that may point to an aristocratic regime from the start, with the king as essentially primus inter pares (first among equals). The last three kings, however, may possibly represent a period of Etruscan domination over Rome. So, the uprising that ended the monarchy may then be interpreted as the reclaiming by the indigenous Roman aristocracy of their previous pre-eminence against foreign domination. The only thing that appears to contradict this interpretation is the tradition that Lucius Junius Brutus and his co-conspirator Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, who were chiefly instrumental in overthrowing Tarquin the Proud and would become the first two consuls of the new Republic, were both related to the king, and that Brutus had two of his sons put to death for siding with the ousted king. If there is any truth in this picture of a family feud, then it may be that Tarquin’s overthrow was the result of internecine conflict within the Roman aristocracy.

---

Relics of Monarchy

Long after this time, there were some telltale signs that Rome had actually been a monarchy. These included the position of interrex and that of rex sacrorum. The rex sacrorum (literally, “king of the holy”) was the patrician holder of the highest-ranking but largely ceremonial priesthood in the Roman state religion, who was in practice subordinate to the Pontifex Maximus (chief priest). The rex sacrorum, then, may be a relic of the religious functions originally carried out by the kings.

During the Republic, an interrex was elected by the Senate for five days only in order to hold elections when for some reason the consuls had been unable to do so. This office may possibly hark back to a time when there was a gap between two elective kings, causing an interregnum.

---

“Republic” and Democracy

The English word “republic” is a translation of the Latin res publica. The Latin adjective publica is a contraction of the non-existent *populicus, from populus, “the people.” So, res publica means, literally, “the people’s thing, the people’s business,” hence “public or civil affairs, public or civil administration, public or civil power,” and hence “the state, commonwealth, republic.” (Lewis & Short.) It generally refers to the Roman state, as against foreign states, for which the word civitas was preferred, and from which (via the French) we have the English word “city.”

It is important to note that, in referring to the Roman state, res publica did not identify any particular form of government and was still used to refer to the Roman state long after the Roman Republic had ceased to exist and when Rome was ruled by emperors. For example, in the dedication by Pliny the Elder (23–79) of his Historia Naturalis (Natural History) to the future Emperor Titus, he congratulates Titus on his service to the state, this term being expressed by res publica, written in 77, more than a century after the end of the Roman Republic. (Pliny, Natural History, 3.)

The term res publica clearly, therefore, carries no implication of democracy even though it is based on the word populus, meaning “the people,” The acronym SPQR, for Senatus Populusque Romanus (The Roman Senate and People), a corporate designation of the Roman state, likewise carries no implication of democracy and is also not associated with a republican form of government. In fact, it is first encountered only in the late Republic and continued to be used well into Imperial times. Both the Arch of Titus, dating from 81 (CIL VI 945), and the Arch of Septimius Severus, constructed in 203 (CIL VI 1033), were dedicated to the memory of these emperors by The Roman Senate and People, the latter well over two centuries after the demise of the Roman Republic.

From One Brutus to Another

Whatever the precise explanation may be for the overthrow of the monarchy, there can be no doubt about the nature of the republic which replaced it. Far from being a democracy, it was controlled by a hereditary aristocracy that gradually morphed into an oligarchy. “Oligarchy,” from the Greek, means literally “the rule of the few,” whereas the literal meaning of “aristocracy,” also of Greek origin, is “the rule of the best.” Aristotle (384–322 BCE) used both terms to refer to minority rule, aristokratia being the “good” form and oligarchia the “bad” or “perverted” form. (Arist. Politics III.7.) My own usage of these terms is rather different. Aristocracy refers to rule by a hereditary elite and also to the membership of that elite, while “oligarchy” is used to refer to a non-hereditary ruling elite. And it is worth noting the Latin term res publica or respublica (republic) did not refer to the type of government or power structure but was a much more general term meaning essentially “the Roman state.” (See sidebar).

According to our sources, the Latin word rex (king) and the whole idea of monarchy were taboo in the Roman Republic (and long afterward), which makes perfect sense because what an oligarchy dreads most is a strong ruler supported by the masses. But, as the history of the late Republic demonstrates, it would be a mistake to assume that this fear of monarchy was shared by the populace at large. Indeed, in times of crisis, the ordinary people would look to a strong leader to champion their cause against the oligarchy.

The Republican constitution, meaning the creation of the ruling oligarchy, was carefully constructed so as to prevent power from being concentrated in the hands of any one person. One of its main features was collegiality, or shared power, together with short terms of office, and rotation. The chief offices and institutions of state included the following:

• Consuls: The king was replaced by two consuls with equal authority elected for a year at a time, each with the right to veto the other’s actions. They alternated in holding supreme power imperium (supreme power) month by month. According to tradition, the consuls (possibly originally called praetors) had to be patricians until the Lex Licinia Sextia of 367 BCE threw the consulship open to plebeians as well, and the Lex Genucia of 342 BCE, which reserved one consulship for a plebeian every year but permitted both consuls to be plebeians (Livy 7.42.), The Lex Genucia also laid down the rule that a ten-year gap had to be left before an office-holder could be elected to the same office for a second term, but this was repealed in 217 BCE. (Livy 27.6.7.)
• Other magistracies: All other regular executive magistracies, such as the praetorship, aedileship, and quaestorship, were similarly collegiate, being shared by several office-holders at the same time. They were elected for a year at a time and could be re-elected but only after a gap of ten years.
• Tribunus plebis (Tribune of the plebs): An important office, traditionally said to have arisen out of the conflict between patricians and plebeians, known as the Conflict or Struggle of the Orders, which ended after about two centuries in 287 BCE. The tribunes, 10 in number after 457 BCE, were elected by the Concilium Plebis, an assembly of all Roman citizens except patricians. Tribunes could convene this body and preside over it. By the third century BCE, the tribunes also had the power to summon the Senate and put proposals to it. Provocatio (appeal against execution or flogging without trial) could be addressed to a tribune, but details are sketchy. A really important power held by tribunes was intercessio, the power to veto the action of any magistrate and even acts of the Senate, but no magistrate could veto the act...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• About the Author
• Preface
• Introduction
• PART I: TRANSITION FROM THE ANCIENT TO THE MEDIEVAL WORLD AND BEYOND
• PART II: CONFLICTING THEORIES
• PART III: ENVOI
• Glossary
• List of Primary Sources and Abbreviations
• Select Bibliography
• Index
• End User License Agreement