Constitution of the Roman Republic
Politics of ancient Rome |
---|
Periods |
|
Constitution |
Political institutions |
Assemblies |
|
Ordinary magistrates |
Extraordinary magistrates |
Public law |
Senatus consultum ultimum |
Titles and honours |
The constitution of the Roman Republic was a set of uncodified norms and customs which,[1] together with various written laws,[2] guided the procedural governance of the Roman Republic. The constitution emerged from that of the Roman kingdom, evolved substantively and significantly – almost to the point of unrecognisability[3] – over the almost five hundred years of the republic. The collapse of republican government and norms beginning in 133 BC would lead to the rise of Augustus and his principate.[4]
The republican constitution can be divided into three main branches:[5]
- the Assemblies, composed of the people, which served as the supreme repository of political power and had the authority to elect magistrates, accept or reject laws, administer justice, and declare war or peace;[6]
- the Senate, which advised the magistrates,[7]acting primarily not on legal authority per se, but rather with its influence, and
- the magistrates, elected by the people to govern the republic, exercising religious, military, and judicial powers, along with the right to preside over and call upon the assemblies.
A complex set of
The republic's constitution, while malleable and evolving, still had substantive entrenched norms. Institutions such as the consuls, the senate, and tribunes evolved significantly in the early republic but remained relatively stable from the fourth century BC. Starting from a period of
The late republic saw a breakdown in elite cohesion which led to its loss of control over the state to a limited number of powerful dynasts within the elite.[13] The resources of the provinces and a growing culture of political violence heightened competition within the Roman elite while weakening republican political norms that maintained cohesion.[14] The increasing legitimisation of violence and centralisation of authority into fewer and fewer men would, with the collapse of trust in the republic's institutions,[15] put it on a path to civil war and its transformation by Augustus into an autocratic regime cloaked with republican imagery and legitimacy.[16]
Assemblies
In Roman constitutional law, the assemblies were a sovereign authority, with the power to enact or reject any law, confer any magistracies, and make any decision.[6] This view of popular sovereignty emerged elegantly out of the Roman conception that the people and the state (or government) were one and the same.[17] With a single law, the people – properly assembled – held the authority to override the norms and precedents of the republic as well as ancient laws long unchanged.[18]
There were two necessary components to any assembly: (1) the convening magistrate and (2) the citizens in the assembly itself. Assemblies did not participate or discuss matters laid before them, they heard the speakers put forth by the presiding officer. And after such discussion, the presiding officer could call for a direct up or down vote.[19] Without a magistrate, there would be nobody to legally call upon the assembly; and without the citizens – or at least those who represent the citizens divided into voting blocks – there is naught but a magistrate.
Assemblies did not consist of the whole Roman people (
Even after the massive expansion of the citizenry in the aftermath of the Social War, however, the Romans made no efforts in republican times to make voting easier or make the assemblies more representative.[23] Votes were never called on the market days on which rural citizens might be present in the city; arcane and time-consuming procedures persisted unchanged.[24] This was in part because the Romans did not view legitimacy to rest in the people qua multitude,[25] but rather, in the few people assembled as a structured assembly observing the rules of procedure and symbolically representing the will of the people.[26]
Procedure
There were three types of gatherings, the comitia, the concilium, and the
The third type of gathering, the convention (
Assemblies and councils operated according to established procedures overseen by the augurs. The assemblies did not possess a right of legislative initiative of their own, instead being convened by magistrates and voting only on matters put before them by the presiding magistrate.[32] The power granted to a magistrate was such that he could reject votes given by a voting block and request that it reconsider its choice.[33] Over the years, laws were passed which mandated a written ballot, attempted to reduce voter intimidation, and established procedures to watch over voting and prevent voter fraud.[34] For elections, it was not a matter of who received the most votes, but rather who could first be approved by a majority of the voting blocs.[35] All votes had to be completed within a single day and had to be done again if interrupted or abandoned.[36]
Assembly types
Roman citizens were organized into three types of voting units: curiae, centuria, and tribus or tribes. These corresponded to three different kinds of assemblies: the curiate assembly, the centuriate assembly, and the tribal assembly. Each unit (curia, century, or tribe) cast one vote before their assembly.[35] The majority of individual votes – all given by male citizens[37] – in any century, tribe, or curia decided how that unit voted.[35]
In legislative matters, the assemblies very rarely rejected bills put before it, serving more as a legitimising symbol than a deliberative body.[38] In the middle republic, only a few bills (most famously, war with Macedon in 200 BC, which was passed when the centuries were recanvassed shortly thereafter) were rejected, mostly due to counter-mobilisation from other politicians.[39] Still in later periods, laws were rejected only rarely and under special circumstances, reflecting division within the elite and resulting mobilisation of opposition.[40]
Curiate assembly
The curiate assembly (
Centuriate assembly
The centuriate assembly (
Tribal assembly
The tribal assembly (
Plebeian council
The plebeian council (
The assemblies all retained theoretical judicial functions. The comitia centuriata was the only place where capital charges could be brought, with the comitia tributa and concilium plebis hearing still serious charges with punishment usually by
Senate
The senate was the predominant political institution in the Roman republic. The senate's authority derived primarily from custom and tradition.[7] It was also one of the few places in which free political discussion could take place.[62] Because of this, and the fact that basically the entire political elite were senators with procedural influence allocated to the influential ex-consuls, the senate had substantial influence on the current magistrates. Even without the official right to create law, senatorial opinion – enshrined in a senatus consultum (pl. senatus consulta – was largely deferred to.[63] In that role, the senate resolved disputes between magistrates and oversaw the allocation of public resources and responsibilities, including provinces, to magistrates.[62] Some of its responsibilities were enshrined in specific legislation, such as the lex Caecilia Didia which gave the senate power to declare a law invalid.[64]
During the monarchy, the senate consisted of persons selected to the position by the king. In the very early republic, senators were primarily chosen due to their birth,[65] but by the late republic, and especially after Sulla, membership in the senate became predicated on having previously held a magistracy.[66] The plebiscitum Ovinium of the late 4th century BC required the censors to enrol meritorious men into the senate; this, by c. 300 BC was taken to mean having served as dictator, magister equitum, consul, praetor, or curule aedile.[65] Some time between 122 and 102 BC tribunes were enrolled as well, with membership extended to quaestors in 81.[67] In line with the censor's duty to protect morals, senators could be expelled if they were not of good character, found guilty of a criminal offence, or tainted with infamia.[68] During the republic there was no evidence of any kind of property qualification.[69] The senate consisted of around 300 prior to the dictatorship of Sulla, but after his dictatorship, it consisted of somewhere over 500 men.[65]
The senate met in inaugurated spaces (
Many magistrates had the power to summon the senate, including the consuls, praetors, and tribunes. After religious preliminaries, the presiding magistrate gave a speech which needed not be neutral. After establishing facts, the president then outlined the issue asked of the senate, and debate started.[71] The first to speak was the princeps senatus, followed by ex-consuls in an order decided by the president. If there was a consul-designate, it was customary to ask him first. After querying the ex-consuls, the ex-praetors were queried. This continued through all magisterial ranks.[72] Unimportant matters could be voted on by a voice vote or by a show of hands, while important votes resulted in a physical division of the house,[73] with senators voting by taking a place on either side of the chamber. Any vote was always between a proposal and its negative,[74] but the senators could demand joined questions be divided up for separate votes.[75] Since all meetings had to end by nightfall, a senator could talk a proposal to death (a filibuster) if he could keep the debate going until nightfall.[72] A motion could be vetoed by a consul or one of the plebeian tribunes.[75] If it was not vetoed, it was called a senatus consultum; senatorial opinions which were vetoed were instead termed senatus auctoritas and so recorded.[76] The results were was transcribed into a document by the presiding magistrate; the results were recorded in the aerarium (the public treasury) and sometimes published in a gazette.[77]
In the late republic, the senate claimed – and was generally accepted to have
Executive magistrates
The magistrates were elected by the people in competitive elections, with successive offices generally having more responsibilities and power.[51] There were two broad categories of magistrates, the ordinary magistrates such as the consuls, products of the republican constitution, and the extraordinary magistrates such as the dictators, remnants of the monarchial constitution and reserved primarily for emergencies.[82] Each magistrate held potestas, the authority to exercise the office's powers conferred by custom or statute.[83] The most powerful magistrates, such as the extraordinary magistrates, consuls, and praetors, held a kind of authority known as imperium, the authority to command in a military or judicial sense.[84]
The various magistrates were not required to work together. They largely acted as individuals pursuing their own policy goals and ambitions. Successfully administering the republic required substantial cooperation brought about by non-binding policy direction from the senate.[66] Deference to the senate, ingrained in aristocratic social norms,[85] therefore was necessary for the state to maintain any sense of coherent policy.[66]
Ordinary magistrates
Of the ordinary magistrates, there were two further divisions: the higher magistrates, composed of consuls, praetors, their prorogued equivalents, and the censors; and the lower magistrates, composed of the tribunes, aediles, quaestors and other minor positions.[5] These offices were held in order – the cursus honorum – from junior to senior, with exceptions for the tribunate and aedilate, normally without repetition or tenure of a junior office after a senior one.[51]
Consuls
The two
Praetors
The next magistrate was the praetor. Their number increased over the course of the republic: initially one in 367 BC, a second was added in 242; two were added in 228 and 198; by Sulla's time there were eight.[88][89] Also endowed with imperium, they were initially elected to military commanders – possibly to defend Rome while the consuls attacked – and as governors of provinces; only later would their main responsibility become to administer justice.[90] The late republican praetors, with their role overseeing judicial process, had a significant influence on Roman law. The praetors also had the right to introduce legislation, call the senate, and supervised certain religious festivals.[91]
Promagistrates
Over time, as Rome's empire grew, the two annual consuls and the limited number of praetors ceased to be enough to command its many armies in the field or administer its many provinces. To solve this problem, it became normal to prorogue the authority of current consuls and praetors beyond their normal terms so they could continue to command in the field.[92] Prorogation was a device which allowed the people, later the senate, to send someone to act in the place of another magistrate with imperium and auspicium while not holding that post.[93] Over time, however, with increasing need for competent generals and administrators, prorogation became the norm; and the device was used, increasingly by the assemblies, also to imperium to popular politicians.[94]
Censors
The two
Plebeian tribunes
The lower magistrates included the tribune of the plebs, who was elected by the plebeian council, and the aediles and quaestors, elected by the tribal assembly. The tribune was sacrosanct, ie inviolable, and protected the oaths sworn by plebeians to defend him. It was on this basis that the tribune could veto any political act or to protect any individual from an injustice committed by a magistrate, known as intercessio and auxilium, respectively.[100] They also had powers to convene the senate, preside over the concilium plebis in a legislative or electoral capacity, and to address the people in a contio. While the tribunician powers emerged from a revolutionary background, they were by the middle republic drawn largely from the same group of aristocrats as those which made up the senate, meaning such powers were little exercised. Only during the late republic were such powers reasserted.[101]
Aediles, quaestors, and the vigintisexviri
The aediles were in charge of various municipal tasks, e.g. the upkeep of temples, streets, and the water-supply.[102] They were also responsible for public games,[102] and some aspects of police work in the city.[103] The quaestors were elected administrators, which could be put in charge of the treasury, the granaries, or various administrative postings in Italy, with the consuls, or in the provinces.[104] In the late republic, election to the quaestorship became the basis for a life appointment to the Senate.[105]
Other minor magistrates, by the late republic called the vigintisexviri, had administrative duties relating to six boards: judging free or slave status, policing, coining of money, road maintenance in Rome, road maintenance near Rome, and administration of justice in Capua and Cumae. These junior posts were usually held before election to the quaestorship, and this became a requirement after the reforms of Sulla.[106][107]
Extraordinary magistrates
There were a number of extraordinary magistrates. First covered here are the dictator and the magister equitum (lit. 'master of horse').[108] Dictators were selected by the consuls to resolve some issue facing the republic that could not be dealt with by the ordinary magistrates.[109] The magister equitum was then appointed by the dictator as his lieutenant.[a][110] The dictator had summum imperium and supreme authority within the scope of his mandate.[111] The magister equitum had similar plenary authority, with parallel and somewhat subordinate authority to the dictator.[110]
In the early and middle republic, the dictatorship was largely a customary institution where the dictator's supreme authority was limited to the mandate (
The interrex was an extraordinary magistrate appointed when there were no curule magistrates – consuls, praetors, or dictators – in office. He was elected by the patrician members of the senate for a term of five days.[115] With the authority to summon the senate and, most importantly, the assemblies, a series of interreges – the first interrex, by tradition, could not hold elections[116] – was expected to hold elections as quickly as possible to restore ordinary consular government.[117]
Development
Conflict of the orders
The main literary sources for the origins of the Roman political system, Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, relied heavily on the Roman annalists, who supplemented what little written history existed with oral history. This lack of evidence poses problems for the reliability of the traditional account of the republic's origins.[118] Many modern scholars now view, however, the Livian and annalistic accounts to be a "literary creation of the late republic"[119] and that they broadly "cannot retain much value for... reconstructing early Roman history".[120]
According to this traditional account, Rome had been ruled by a succession of kings. The Romans believed that this era, that of the
The early republic of the literary accounts was dominated by the patricians, and those sources overwhelmingly focus on the conflicts between the patricians and the plebs, in what is known as the
Regardless, in 367 BC, with the Licinio-Sextian rogations, plebeians were allowed to stand for the consulship.[135] This date also marks the emergence of the classical form of the republic with the end of the consular tribunate (if it existed) and the creation of the praetorship and aedilate.[136] Traditionally viewed as emerging from the conflict of the orders, the settlement may also have emerged from a Roman need for more magistrates.[137] The consulship and praetorship were at this time not clearly separated: "scholars increasingly view the Sextian-Licinian Rogations as establishing a college of three (and only three) praetors, two of whom eventually developed into the historical consuls".[138] The lex Genucia some decades later in 342 BC went beyond allowing plebeians access to the consulship, and requiring at least one of the consuls to be a plebeian.[139]
As the privileged status of the old patrician elite eroded over time, a plebeian aristocracy developed whose status was based on merit and popular election rather than birth.[140] The late fourth century saw the emergence of the unified aristocratic class called the nobiles, which were both patrician and plebeian.[141] While the patricians retained rights from time immemorial, the pre-eminence of the nobiles over time became centred on winning elections to offices before the people rather than on their circumstances of birth,[142] producing a semi-open aristocracy which could incorporate elite families from outside Italy.[143] Any final dispute ended in 287 BC with the last plebeian secession. To end the secession, the lex Hortensia was passed, which gave plebiscites – decrees of the concilium plebis – the force of law.[59]
Developments through to Sulla
The middle and early late republics saw gradual change in the constitution. The
More dramatic through this period was the development of provincial administration and the
The senatus consultum ultimum, a senatorial decree advising the magistrates to use force to defend the republic (usually from internal uprisings), also emerged from 121 BC, with the senate exercising its traditional power to advise and magistrates following succinctly. The use of such power, though not challenged as per se invalid, was heavily debated.[146] However, the senate's institutionalised resorts to force augured poorly for the republic, setting a precedent to resolve disputes between citizens not by consensus and arbitration but rather by the elimination of enemies from the body politic.[147]
Sullan republic
The
His reforms created a series of law codes, enforced by expanded quaestiones perpetuae staffed senators drawn from an expanded senate.[149] The reforms also attempted to concentrate political power into the senate and the comitia centuriata, while trying to reduce the obstructive and legislative powers of the tribunes and plebeian council.[150] To this end, he required that all bills presented to the assemblies first be approved by the senate, restricted the tribunician veto to only matters of individual requests for clemency, and required that men elected tribune would be barred from all other magistracies.[151]
Sulla's reforms proved unworkable.
End of the republic
The long proconsular commands given to Caesar and Pompey in the 50s BC have been thought of as a rejection of republican principles.
The start of
See also
- Byzantine Senate– Political institution of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire from the 4th to 14th centuries
- Princeps senatus – First member by precedence of the Roman Senate
- Acta Senatus – Minutes of the Roman Senate
Notes
- ^ Lintott writes, "Once chosen, he could not be deposed, but his office ceased with that of his superior. In many respects he might function in parallel to the dictator, like a second consul, rather than as a direct subordinate. However, more spectacular stories about the office show that his subordination was a major issue".[110]
- ^ For clarification, Lintott explains that, 'It was not clear, for example, whether it was simple recommending a limited use of force to restore the rule of law or the extermination of those who are thought to have disturbed the peace'.[113]
References
Footnotes
- ^ Straumann 2011, p. 281.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 2.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 9.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 81.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. vii.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 40.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 66.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 202.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 83.
- ^ North 2006, p. 265.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 121–122.
- ^ North 2006, p. 256.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 168; North 2006, p. 260.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 168; Flower 2010, pp. 28–30; North 2006, p. 275.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 213.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 14; Beard 2015, pp. 353–355.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 24.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 63.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 46.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 72.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 71.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 41.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 57.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 57-58.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 58.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 50.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 42.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 43.
- ^ Taylor 1966, p. 2.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 64.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 80.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 40, 43.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 19.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 47–48.
- ^ a b c Lintott 1999, p. 48.
- ^ a b c Lintott 1999, p. 49.
- ^ North 2006, p. 261.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 61.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 59.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, pp. 60–61.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, p. 27.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, pp. 27–28.
- ^ a b c Lintott 1999, p. 55.
- ^ North 2006, p. 262; Lintott 1999, p. 56.
- ^ North 2006, p. 262; Lintott 1999, p. 57.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, pp. 42–43, also noting that the reform had to have taken place after the 35th tribe was created in 241 but before Livy's narrative resumes in 221 BC.
- ^ a b c Lintott 1999, p. 61.
- ^ Forsythe 2005, p. 183.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 50.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 51.
- ^ a b c North 2006, p. 263.
- ^ Taylor 1966, p. 7.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 140.
- ^ Forsythe 2005, p. 180.
- ^ Forsythe 2005, p. 180, citing Livy, 2.56.2, 2.58.1.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 53–54.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 54.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 121 (tribunes), 130 (plebeian aediles).
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 38.
- ^ North 2006, p. 261; Lintott 1999, p. 54.
- ^ North 2006, p. 261; Lintott 1999, pp. 147–62.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 86.
- ^ North 2006, pp. 266–67; Lintott 1999, p. 3.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 87.
- ^ a b c d Lintott 1999, p. 68.
- ^ a b c North 2006, p. 266.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 68–69.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 71-72.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 71.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 72–73.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 75–78.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 78.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 82–83.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 83.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 84.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 84–85.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 85, 137.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 90, noting that Caesar in BCiv., 1.7.5, did not contest the validity of the decree moved against him at the start of the civil war but rather its appropriateness.
- ISSN 1055-7660.
the so-called senatus consultum ultimum was not first used in 133... but rather in 121
- OCLC 842919750.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 91; Drogula 2015, pp. 122–23.
- ^ Abbott 1963, p. 151.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 95.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 96.
- ^ Mouritsen 2017, pp. 142 et seq.
- ^ North 2006, pp. 263–64.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 105–7.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 107.
- ^ North 2006, p. 264, noting that the number after Sulla ballooned to 16.
- ^ Drogula 2015, pp. 185–89; North 2006, p. 264; Lintott 1999, pp. 107–8.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 108–9.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 113.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 211.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 115.
- ^ North 2006, p. 264; Lintott 1999, p. 117.
- ^ North 2006, p. 264.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 119–20.
- ^ Drogula 2015, pp. 185, 67 n. 63.
- Sack of Romeby the Gauls in 387 BC having occurred shortly after the election of a suffect censor.
- ^ North 2006, p. 265; Lintott 1999, p. 33.
- ^ North 2006, pp. 265–66.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 131.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 132.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 133.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 136.
- OCLC 959667246.
- OCLC 959667246.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 110.
- ^ Wilson 2021, pp. 261–62.
- ^ a b c Lintott 1999, p. 112.
- ^ Wilson 2021, p. 157.
- ^ Wilson 2021, p. 333, 336.
- ^ a b Lintott 1999, p. 90.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 92.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 164.
- JSTOR 25010725.
Custom dictated that the first interrex not hold elections; the earliest possible time would fall under the presidency of the second interrex.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 75 n. 45, 164.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 27-28.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 8.
- OCLC 58043131.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 27, 31; North 2006, p. 259.
- ^ a b c Lintott 1999, p. 31.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 18.
- rex sacrorum and interrex.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 33.
- ^ Drogula 2015, pp. 33–34.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 32, 38.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 32.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 33.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 32, 34.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 36; Lintott 1999, p. 34–35.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 36.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 35.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 26.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 37.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 37; Lintott 1999, p. 36.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 38.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 41.
- ^ Drogula 2015, p. 40. "[T]he patterns in office holding do not support these statements but suggest that the... [r]ogations permitted plebeians to hold the consulship, while the lex Genucia required that one of the annual consulships be held by a plebeian".
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 39.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 39.
- ^ Forsythe 2005, p. 276; Flower 2010, p. 46.
- ^ Forsythe 2005, p. 276.
- ^ a b North 2006, p. 270.
- ^ North 2006, p. 271.
- ^ North 2006, pp. 272–73.
- ^ Flower 2010, pp. 86–87.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 96.
- ^ a b Steel 2014, p. 337.
- ^ Lintott 1999, pp. 210–11.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 124.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 130.
- ^ Flower 2010, pp. 139–140.
- OCLC 1090168108.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 140; Lintott 1999, p. 212.
- ^ Gruen 1995, p. 534.
- Metellus Pius, and Lucullus.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 212.
- ^ Gruen 1995, pp. 541–42.
- ^ Flower 2010, p. 16; Gruen 1995, p. 504.
- Caesar's assassination), 43 (Second Triumvirate), 42 (Philippi), 31 (Actium), 28 (1st Augustan settlement), 23 BC (2nd Augustan settlement), and AD 14 (accession of Tiberius) as suggested end dates.
- ^ Gruen 1995, p. 503.
- ISBN 978-0-19-938113-5.
[Caesar] had no plans for basic social and constitutional reform.
- ^ Gruen 1995, p. 504.
- ^ Vervaet 2020, pp. 34–35, 36–39.
- ^ Lintott 1999, p. 213. "The victorious command could then exploit the sovereignty of the assembly to create for himself a magistracy which went beyond republican bounds".
- ^ Morstein-Marx & Rosenstein 2006, p. 626.
Books
- Abbott, Frank Frost (1963) [1901]. A History and Descriptions of Roman Political Institutions (3rd ed.). New York: Noble Offset Printers Inc.
- Beard, Mary (2015). SPQR: a history of ancient Rome (First ed.). New York: Liveright Publishing. OCLC 902661394.
- Drogula, Fred (2015). Commands and command in the Roman Republic and Early Empire. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. OCLC 905949529.
- Flower, Harriet I (2010). Roman republics. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-1-4008-3116-6.
- Forsythe, Gary (2005). A critical history of early Rome. Berkeley: University of California Press. OCLC 70728478.
- Gruen, Erich (1995). The last generation of the Roman republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-02238-6.
- Lintott, Andrew (1999). The Constitution of the Roman Republic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-926108-3. Reprinted 2003, 2009.
- Mouritsen, Henrik (2017). Politics in the Roman Republic. Cambridge University Press. OCLC 1120499560.
- Rosenstein, N S; Morstein-Marx, R, eds. (2006). A companion to the Roman Republic. Blackwell. OCLC 86070041.
- North, John A. "The constitution of the Roman republic". In Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx (2006), pp. 256–77.
- Morstein-Marx, R; Rosenstein, Nathan. "The transformation of the republic". In Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx (2006), pp. 625–37.
- Tatum, W Jeffrey. "The final crisis (66–44)". In Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx (2006), pp. 190–212.
- Yakobson, Alexander. "Popular power in the Roman republic". In Rosenstein & Morstein-Marx (2006), pp. 383–400.
- Taylor, Lily Ross (1966). Roman Voting Assemblies: From the Hannibalic War to the Dictatorship of Caesar. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-08125-X.
- Vervaet, Fredrick (2020). "The triumvirate rei publicae constituendae". In Pina Polo, Francisco (ed.). The triumviral period: civil war, political crisis and socioeconomic transformations. Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza. pp. 23–48.
- Wilson, Mark (2021). Dictator: the evolution of the Roman dictatorship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. OCLC 1243162549.
Journal articles
- Steel, Catherine (2014). "The Roman Senate and the post-Sullan res publica". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 63 (3): 328.
- Straumann, Benjamin (2011). "Constitutional thought in the late Roman republic". History of Political Thought. 32 (2): 280–292. JSTOR 26225713.
Further reading
Primary sources
- Cicero. De legibus.
- Cicero. De re publica.
- Polybius. The Histories. Vol. 9–13.
Secondary sources
- Goldsworthy, Adrian (2010). In the Name of Rome: The Men Who Won the Roman Empire. Orion Books. ISBN 978-0-297-86401-1.
- Gowing, Alain M (2005). Empire and Memory: The Representation of the Roman Republic in Imperial Culture. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-54480-1.
- Von Fritz, Kurt (1975). The theory of the mixed constitution in antiquity. New York: Columbia University Press.