Polybios and the Roman Republic – between constitution, networks and violence

Polybios, a major historian from ancient Greece, was originally a leading member of the Achaiian League. In 167 BC, after the end of the Third Macedonian War, Polybios was brought to Italy as a hostage with about a thousand other prominent Greeks as hostage. There he found a photo in the house of Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, a prestigious Romangeneral. His relationship with Scipio Aemilianus, the adopted son of the famous Publius Cornelius Scipio, who not only valued Polybios as a mentor, but also as a friend and intellectual conversation partner, became particularly close. Through this connection, Polybios gained access to the aristocratic and spiritual elite of Rome in the 2nd century BC and was able to gain in-depth insights into thewin Roman society.

Polybios’ history: A work for the Greek audience

Polybios wrote his famous “history” with the declared goal of making the rise of the Roman Republic to hegemonic power in the Mediterranean region within a period of just over a hundred years for an educated Greek audience within a period of just over a hundred years. He put the bare events at the center of his reflections less than he looked for the deeper onesConditions and structures that enabled Rome to unfold its enormous potential and rise to become a great power undisputed. Early on, Polybios showed great interest in structural history issues long before this discipline was given its own name.

The Roman mixed constitution: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy in balance

As a Greek educated, Polybios was of course familiar with the political theories of Plato and Aristotle. It was obvious to him that the performance of a state depended primarily on its institutional structure, the so-called Politeia. Plato distinguished three basic forms of politeia: monarchy, aristocracy and democracy. In the sixth book of hisHistories Polybios developed a model of the Roman state constitution that combined all three elements. The consulate appeared to him as a monarchical organ, the Senate embodied the aristocratic component and the participation of the people in elections and votes represented the democratic factor. The balance of these powers was decisive for Polybios: no elementDominated permanently, each limited the other and thus prevented a dangerous concentration of power. This balanced mixed constitution made Rome resilient and successful from his point of view.

The invisible forces of Roman society: networks and loyalty

But Polybios’ analysis had a blind spot: He focused heavily on the formal state structure, ignored those invisible tying forces that were not regulated in laws or constitutions, but still worked deep in society. This means informal close and loyalty relationships, which are both horizontally between equal and verticalcartridges and clients passed. These relationships were held together by the concept of Fides – unconditional loyalty and trustworthiness. The Fides united friends, acquaintances, but also people of different social ranks. It was a central resource in political competition that could decide the success or failure of entire careers.

Political career as network performance: the importance of Amici and clients

Political offices were rarely sought out in the Republic of Rome out of pure ambition. A candidacy was always preceded by intensive consultations with the circle of friends, the Amici. As soon as an application was considered promising, the friends activated their clients to secure their votes for the candidate. These clients, in turn, were obliged in their loyalty to follow the recommendations of theirto follow cartridge. Quintus Cicero, the younger brother of the famous orator, advised in his guide for election applicants to always be surrounded by many people. The relatives, tribesmen, neighbors and self-free and slaves formed the backbone of a candidate’s personal reputation. The social capital that manifested itself in these networks was at least like thatimportant as the formal course of elections and votes.

Backroom politics instead of open democracy

What Polybios identified as a democratic element of the Roman mixed constitution was in fact the result of an opaque interplay of numerous overlapping networks. The course for political decisions was rarely set at public assemblies, but in the run-up to the private houses of the influential families. These networks were mostly hereditary:Sons not only adopted their fathers’ wealth, but also political contacts, clientele and the authority they came with. A few families have secured their dominance in the political life of the republic for generations.

Voice purchase and the gray area of generosity

The boundaries between legitimate support and targeted vote-pulling were fluid in ancient Rome. Many citizens were dependent on regular donations in the form of grain, oil or money from wealthy patrons. Political loyalties could thus be consolidated according to the principle “one hand washes the other”. So-called divisors, mostly influential knights, played a major role,who controlled the distribution of the grants. The accusation that political opponents practiced votes through generous banquets or gifts was a common means in the political exchange of blows. Cicero, for example, accused Antonius of bribing voters with banquets and food spending.

The increasing violence in the late republic

With the decline of the Republican order, violence and intimidation as a means of political debate increased dramatically. Generalists like Sulla or Caesar also used their soldiers and veterans for domestic political purposes. Demogogues like Clodius had private thugs composed of slaves, freedmen and clients to threaten political opponentsor even eliminate. A notorious example of this is the collision on the Via Appia in 52 BC, in which Clodius himself died. His adversary Milo, who had deliberately sought the confrontation, was later defended by Cicero in court, who pleaded for self-defense and emphasized Clodius’ political responsibility for increasing violence. But the court followedCicero not, and Milo was found guilty.

The True Structure of the Roman Republic

In summary, Polybios made an important contribution to understanding the Roman Republic with his mixed constitution, but underestimated the enormous importance of informal networks and personal loyalties. The formal institutions were through a dense network of personal relationships, material donations and often violencesupplemented and superimposed. The Roman Republic was less an ideal-typical mixed constitution than a system in which a few families dominated the political stage with the help of their networks, their resources and their clients and secured their power from generation to generation.