I've been reading Polybius, 'The Histories' (or according to Penguin Classics, 'The Rise of the Roman Empire'). A second century BC Greek historian, he detailed how Rome came to dominate the world during the Hellenistic period, i.e. the age of Alexander. At one point I was looking for a book that covered exactly this, why and how did the Roman Republic become so powerful, and eventually settled on just reading the ancient source of much of what we know.
A few aspects make Polybius fun and useful to read, even today. For starters he sought to create a comprehensive or universal history, providing context on the different groups involved (Rome, Macedonia, Carthage, the Greek leagues etc.), often deviating from his main thrust, so that the events could be thoroughly understood. He worked extremely hard, traveling the world and interviewing people, finding monuments with details and more, to verify what he was writing, instead of simply relying on second or third-hand knowledge and oral legend, common methods of 'history' at the time. As a contemporary of much of his work, and only a generation later than the rest, he could actually do this kind of digging. He was also highly opinionated and builds narratives throughout, making him far more interesting than most ancient primary sources as a lay reader. Now not everything he wrote has survived to modernity, but what we do have is good stuff. I don't regret diving in.
As said before, Polybius' main goal was to explain the rise of Rome as a world power. He did this with the Greek world as his audience, as they no doubt struggled understanding their own sudden fall from grace. The first few books (how he breaks up his history) were setup, explaining the First Punic War between Rome and Carthage, fought in Sicily (so many lost ships!), and the wars with the barbarian Gauls, or Celts, in the third century BC, as well as a few events in Spain, Illyria and Greece, like I said, to provide full context. Then he begins the big one, the Second Punic War or the 'Hannibalic War' (218-201 BC). This is the war where Hannibal Barca, the Carthaginian general, sets out from Spain, crosses the Alps with war elephants, invades Italy and defeats the Romans several times on their home soil, including at Cannae where a massive Roman army was annihilated. This would've been the end for many civilizations, and indeed Hannibal expected Rome's allies to abandon them and Rome itself to crumble before his onslaught.
Polybius pauses here to explain the strengths of the Roman constitution (maybe more accurately their system of government, I don't believe this was a written document like ours) and why Rome didn't collapse. He starts with a discussion of how basic political systems develop and cycle with time (something the ancient Greeks would be very familiar with), laying out three concepts: rule by one (kingship), rule by several (aristocracy) and rule by many/all (democracy). And that each of the three can and will become corrupted and turn into a much less desirable form. His cycle is that kingships (the default beginning) become tyrannies become aristocracies become oligarchies become democracies become mob rule. The steps are explained in much more detail than I'm going to cover, but I want to go through his description of what happens in a democracy. The following paragraph was the impetus for this post and is a must read. Reminder, this was written in the second century BC, i.e. more than 2100 years ago.
Book VI, 9.
'The truth is that whenever anybody who has observed the hatred and jealousy which are felt by the citizens for tyrants can summon up the courage to speak or act against the authorities, he finds the whole mass of the people ready to support him. But after they have either killed or banished the oligarchs, the people do not venture to set up a king again, for they are still in terror of the injustices committed by previous monarchs, nor do they dare to entrust the government to a limited class, since they still have before their eyes the evidence of their recent mistake in doing so. At this point the only hope which remains unspoiled lies with themselves, and it is in this direction that they then turn: they convert the state into a democracy instead of an oligarchy and themselves assume the superintendence and charge of affairs. Then so long as any people survive who endured the evils of oligarchical rule, they can regard their present form of government as a blessing and treasure the privileges of equality and freedom of speech. But as soon as a new generation has succeeded and the democracy falls into the hands of the grandchildren of its founders, they have become by this time so accustomed to equality and freedom of speech that they cease to value them and seek to raise themselves above their fellow-citizens, and it is noticeable that the people most liable to this temptation are the rich. So when they begin to hanker after office, and find that they cannot achieve it through their own efforts or on the merits, they begin to seduce and corrupt the people in every possible way, and thus ruin their estates. The result is that through their senseless craving for prominence they stimulate among the masses both an appetite for bribes and the habit of receiving them, and then the rule of democracy is transformed into government by violence and strong-arm methods. By this time the people have become accustomed to feed at the expense of others, and their prospects of winning a livelihood depend on the property of their neighbors; then as soon as they find a leader who is sufficiently ambitious and daring, but is excluded from the honours of office because of his poverty, they will introduce a regime based on violence. After this they unite their forces, and proceed to massacre, banish and despoil their opponents, and finally degenerate into a state of bestiality, after which they once more find a master and a despot.'
I continue to be blown away by this. Polybius here describes how human nature results in the downfall of democratic systems and what he says is as applicable today as it was back then. People haven't changed all that much. Personally I feel like we in the United States are pretty far along in that paragraph and it's not a good feeling. Mob rule, when large law-breaking groups are permitted and become ever-more intimidating and violent in order to force change, cannot be allowed to fester.
Our historian goes on to explain the advantages of the Roman system, which combined aspects of the three types of rule. At the top were the consuls, who had vast powers in war but couldn't survive without the support of the Senate, plus they only served a year at a time generally. The Senate implemented most of the government at home, as well as all diplomacy, but was at the mercy of the people, who were in theory ultimately in charge. Does this sound familiar? The Romans had a durable system of government that effectively combatted devolution into the corrupt forms mentioned above.
The period when Polybius is writing is considered the 'Middle Republic' and is when Roman government worked best (before the military dictators and its eventual overthrow by Julius Caesar). In the end what he's describing was a successful utilization of separation of powers, and checks and balances, long before Enlightenment thinkers like Montesquieu and Locke, the men we study in civics classes, rediscovered them a couple thousand years later. Once again it's ridiculous to contemplate how wise and advanced the civilizations of classical antiquity were (Rome most of all), and how much we owe them.
For more on why an enemy army (like Hannibal's) couldn't deliver a knock-out punch, check out this lengthy blog post on Rome's manpower, logistics and strategic depth. These were the other Roman superpowers. I'm really enjoying Mr. Devereaux, and it helps that what he's been writing has gone in parallel to what I'm reading in book form.
Until next time.
Comments