ROM Lecture 4The Romans' legends about their kings were largely, if not completely, invented. But (as a famous Classical scholar has often been heard to say) legend by its very nature contains a kernel of historical fact. Archaeological evidence indicates that Rome's earliest years were spent under some sort of Etruscan hegemony, just as the legends suggest. It is similarly likely that Rome's earliest rulers possessed a strong authoritarian streak, to judge from the Romans' utter refusal to let one man exercise too much power for any amount of time.
The "distributed" form of government instituted under the Republic, with its CURSUS FREAKIN' HONORUM, one-year term limits, and confusing array of legislative assemblies, worked well enough for many years. The [Senate] provided the stabilizing force behind the Republic, while the rights gained by the plebeians in the Conflict Of The Orders allowed the upward mobility necessary to maintain the Republic's vitality. If Rome had not become an empire, the Republic may well have functioned indefinitely.
One complication of empire was that Rome itself became a bigger nation. A larger population required larger government, and more magistrates had to be elected each year. Complicated internal and external affairs required more and more legislation. As citizens moved from the countryside into the city, the legislative process itself became more tangled. Yet the Romans dealt with this challenge fairly well.
Much more problematic was the question of how to rule and/or assimilate her conquests. The Mos Maiorum afforded no help; disposition of Ager Publicus and the enfranchisement of captured cities was always done on a case to case basis. Eventually the Romans arrived at a system of provinces ruled by [promagistrates], that is, ex-consuls and/or ex-praetors given sole imperium over the province for one to three years. Theoretically, the promagistrates were responsible to the Senate, but in fact they tended to live down to all the traditional Roman stereotypes about kings. | 