The Roman Republic's Constitution in Practice

How the Workings of Ancient Rome Compared to Polybius' Theory

Sep 2, 2009

In theory, political power in Republican Rome was divided between magistrates, the Senate, and the common people. But in practice, the constitution favored aristocracy.

Polybius' Histories describe the workings of Republican Rome during the second century BC. Polybius, a Greek living in Rome, claimed that Rome had a mixed constitution, in which elements of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy were balanced.

According to Polybius, Rome had a mixed constitution because the state had a supreme official who ruled by popular consent, was also ruled by an elite of experienced administrators, and yet at the same time was ruled by the people. But the Republic's constitution may not have worked so ideally in practice.

Rome's Mixed Constitution in Action

The consuls represented the monarchical element in Rome under Polybius' theory. They conducted embassies to the Senate and referred business to it, oversaw the operation of the public assemblies, and had supreme authority over the military. The consuls, in addition, had unlimited access to public funds.

However, the consuls were elected annually by the people, so that no one man held this high post for any extended period of time. Furthermore, consuls would be unwise to act in such a way as to alienate the Senate, as former consuls were often made senators – a lifetime appointment.

The Senate, the aristocratic part of Roman government, was responsible primarily for public finances. It initiated investigation into all serious crimes. All diplomatic matters – from the allotment of foreign aid to dispatching and receiving foreign embassies – were also handled by the Senate. The Senatorial class, made up rich former office-holders, must also have had considerable unofficial power and influence.

Finally, the average Roman citizen also had a distinct role under the Republic's constitution. Polybius says that the people alone controlled “rewards and punishment in the state.” (6.14) The people were responsible for judging criminal trials. But most importantly, they elected the officials of the state, and voted to declare war or peace, ratify treaties, or to pass legislation into law.

Problems With Democracy in the Roman Constitution

However, the power of individual citizens (outside the Senatorial class) was limited in practice. For instance, it was impossible by Polybius’ time for all citizens to vote. Even if citizens living outside Rome could reach the Forum to vote, there wasn’t enough room for them. Modern estimates gauge the possible size of the assemblies at no more than 40,000 people, while there may have been almost two million citizens by the time of the later Republic. (MacMullen, 454-455)

Since assemblies of the people were called by the magistrates, presided over by them, and even debated by them, all that remained for the average citizen to do was vote in favor of one or another “aristocratic” opinion. He could never run for any office without a considerable amount of property and ten years of army experience. He could never directly initiate anything himself.

Yet the people had tribunes that could promote their interests without being subordinate to the consuls. And, whichever people did in fact turn up to vote remained the subject of elaborate displays and entreaties by candidates and other upper-class citizens.

Was Polybius Right to Say the Roman Constitution was Mixed?

In the Roman Republic, each part of the state had power, and limitations on that power. By no means was any part supreme for any extended period of time. Instead, each portion wielded different executive powers, making Rome an undeniably mixed constitution.

In practice, though, political power was not equally allocated. The theoretical power of the people checked the power of the Senatorial class. But since the Senate was such a small proportion of Rome's citizenry, individual senators wielded much more power than the average citizen. Thus Polybius' mixed constitution still had a bias toward aristocracy.

Polybius. The Histories. Translated by Mortimer Chambers. Twayne Publishers, (1966).

J. A. North. ”Democratic Politics in Republican Rome.” Past and Present 126 (1990).

Fergus Millar. “The Political Character of the Classical Roman Republic, 200-151 BC.” Journal of Roman Studies 74 (1984).

The copyright of the article The Roman Republic's Constitution in Practice in Roman History is owned by Luke Arnott. Permission to republish The Roman Republic's Constitution in Practice in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.