History of Europe

SPQR! I will thoroughly explain the Senate, which can be called Rome itself!

It is the existence of the Senate that can be said to be particularly foreign in the history of ancient Rome.

In ancient nations, oriental tyranny was common, and even with democracy, Greek nations do not have an organization like the Senate.

What is Rome?

Rome is not just a country centered around the city of Rome today.

Rome is the Senate. That would not be an exaggeration.

There is the word "SPQR".

Is it an acronym for "Senatus Populusque Romanus" and could mean "senate and Roman citizens"?

This word has been engraved everywhere in Roman territory and in the hearts of the people.

The word "Senatus" is still used to describe the Senate in the United States and France, and even in the Meiji era, the Senate was established in Japan.

This time, let's take a look at the "Senate", which can be called Rome itself!

Senate during the royal system

The Senate already existed in 753 BC, when Romulus founded Rome.

The role of the Senate during the royal system was to advise the king.

"It was Rome's strength to assimilate the loser."

As the word suggests, it can be said that Rome had its social characteristic of absorbing other peoples as well.

The Roman spirit was a "tolerant" spirit, a liberal society with no exclusivity. Therefore, in the second king Numa, the Etruscan king, who is already from the Savigny tribe rather than the Latin people, and can be said to be a hostile country, has taken the place.

"Reigns but does not rule"

This word was evaluated for the reign of Queen Victoria in England, but in a sense it could be said that her ancestor was Roman.

The king, of course, has authority, but in fact he was doing politics by reflecting the intentions of the Senate, a parliament formed by Patrician (nobles), in national affairs.

It is well known that Britain studied Roman history well during the transition to democracy after the Glorious Revolution, resulting in the birth of famous Roman historians such as Edward Gibbon.

Roman Kingdom seems to have been a regime close to the current constitutional democracy.

Senate in the Roman Republic-Before the Punic Wars-

Rome, which exiled the last Roman king "Tarquinius Superbus", changed from a royal government to a republican government.

Around this time, it seems that he made a lot of trial and error on how to manage the nation while sending a delegation to Athens, and while absorbing the good points of Athens' democracy, Rome created its own regime.

Specifically, it was to carry out oligopolistic politics with the Senate as the highest decision-making body. The actual affairs are two consuls (consuls) who are elected every year for a one-year term, and this consul not only controls internal affairs but also goes to actual battles as a commander. There would have been a big feature.

In the early Roman Republic, only aristocrats could become consuls, but this changed with the "Sextian-Licinian method" that appears in history textbooks.

The law allows even commoners to get to the Consul, Rome's highest to best. It seems that the essence of the country of Rome lies in the fact that this law was passed by the majority of humans of many aristocratic classes.

In Rome around this time, the aristocratic class did not become a vested interest, but the whole country united with the priority of maintaining a community called "Res Publica (later the etymology of the Republic or Republic)". I can tell you what happened at this moment.

The "○○ method" tends to be an existence that only afflicts examinees, but considering its importance, it is also convincing that it appears in textbooks.

Rome will evolve further, and the Hortensius law, which will be the Roman law if it is decided by the Plebeian Council, will be passed.

This Hortensius method, however, will be abused later.

It can be said that this regime has demonstrated its usefulness by defeating Carthage, a great power that has multiplied its national power.

Although Carthage also had famous generals including Hannibal, it can be said that he was defeated by the strength of the Roman side's will to protect the country, and Rome also defeated Carthage just as Athens defeated Persia.

Senate in the Republic ~ After the Punic Wars ~

However, the Senate class after the Punic Wars has become a vested interest.

The Senate will do everything in its power to crush the reforms of the Gracchi brothers who tried to correct it.

The reforms of the Gracchi brothers sought to unravel the twists of society after the Punic Wars.

After the Punic Wars, Rome, whose territory was expanded, was unprecedentedly widened by the Latifundia system, in which some humans own large lands.

The Hortensius law restricted land ownership, but in fact the Senators were doing it in the name of freedmen. What rich people and powerful people do is the same in all ages.

The Gracchi brothers were killed with a scalpel there.

The corruption of the country led to the weakening of the army.

The Roman army, which had always been victorious, often suffered defeats, such as the Germanic invasion (Cimbrian War), the Jugurthine War by the king of the friendly Numidia, and the so-called "Crisis of the Romans". We are entering the era of "a century".

Until now, Rome has won the foreign war, but in the first century of this civil war, the character of an internal war is strong, especially the clash between the hero Marius of the Cimbrian War and the hero Sulla of the Mitridates war. It develops to the point where Rome is dyed with blood.

In this situation, the Senate becomes more and more corrupt.

After Sulla's death, Rome continued to expand, with senators becoming more usury in the expanding provinces, the richer and richer, and the more and more the citizens who weren't.

It was Julius Caesar who tried to put an end to such a situation.

Caesar sought to prevent the spread of rich and poor by enacting the "Agricultural Land Act" that restricted the possession of large land that the Gracchi brothers had frustrated.

As a result, he was assassinated.

It is said that as many as 40 senators participated in the assassination of Caesar.

Senate in Roman Empire-Principate-

Octavian, who succeeded Caesar, proceeded carefully and carefully so as not to irritate the Senate anyway.

Octavianus ended the civil war and was given the honor of Augustus by the Senate, but he himself called himself "Principate", which represents the first citizen of Rome, and it is said that it is the Senate and the Roman citizens who carry out politics to the last. Politics was carried out under the premise.

His successors took over this line of the first emperor Augustus.

However, because of that, the emperor who did not agree with the Senate was assassinated without question.

This would be because the Senate did not have the power of a "confidence plan" in modern politics and could only have achieved a change of chief by assassination.

It is said that half of the Roman emperors have died by assassination, and nearly half are due to the Senate.

Some are as obvious as Caligula, but many assassinations, such as Domitian, are suspected of being related and have no evidence.

The authority of the Senate

By law, the Senate was also an institution that advised national affairs.

However, it was before the construction, and there were many times when the Senate was actually in politics.

Elderly sect often exercises power in its history.

Typical examples would be the "final recommendation of the Senate" and the "record erasure sentence".

It is well known that Julius Caesar said "Alea iacta was thrown" when he crossed the Rubicon, because Caesar had received the "Final Recommendation of the Senate" from the Senate and it was activated. The person will be recognized as an enemy of the nation.

In Caesar's opinion, the Senate is not authorized to make "final recommendations." It is said that this is the result of legal interpretation in the Senate and has no original legal authority.

Caesar is famous as a military man and a politician, but at the same time he was a Pontifex maximus and a lawyer. He has left behind literary excellence and is truly a versatile genius.

Another record-erasing sentence is to literally erase all the records of the person from the official records of Rome, which is targeted at some Roman emperors.

And above all, it can be said that the strongest authority is that only those who have been approved by the Senate are legitimate emperors since they became imperial.

Including the assassination, even the emperor could not go against the Senate.

Senate during the time of the military emperor

From the early days of the Empire, the relationship between the Senate and the military had deteriorated significantly. This became noticeable during the time when the military had power, which is called the Barracks emperor era, and when the phenomenon that the emperor itself did not depend on Rome occurred, the Senate was neglected and its authority was greatly reduced.

Senate in Roman Empire ~ Dominates ~

It was during the time of Emperor Diocletian that the fall of the Senate was certain.

Emperor Diocletian was the emperor who ended the barracks emperor era, divided the empire into four, ended Principate, who respected the Senate, and started the dominated monarchy.

At that time, the Senate did nothing and had no authority as it was said to be the role of signaling the start of chariot racing.

Furthermore, when he became Emperor Constantine, he built a new city, Constantinople, to replace Rome, and established the Senate of Constantinople separately from Rome.

The Senate of Constantinople acted as an advisory body to the emperor, whose role was limited to providing literal advice.

The Roman Empire was divided into east and west after Emperor Theodosius, but the Roman emperor lived in Ravenna instead of Rome, and the power of the Senate was not restored. Instead, it was the bureaucrats who had the power, and Rome would perish under the bloated administration.

Senate after the fall of Rome

The Byzantine Empire's Senate Constantinople survived until its destruction in 1453 as an advisory body to the emperor.

The Western Roman Empire is said to have died in 476, but the Senate actually remained.

This is because both Odoacer and Theodoric maintained the politics themselves. The Senate regained its role by the hands of its greatest enemy, the Germanic people.

Therefore, there is an opinion that the Roman Empire was not destroyed in 476. This is because Rome is the Senate and the Senate is Rome.

But it was the Byzantine emperor who ironically survived that ended Rome.

Justinian reigned and devastated Rome. In the process, the Roman Senate was disbanded, and when the Lombards ruled Rome, the shadow and shape disappeared.

Senate seats and qualifications

The Roman Senate initially had 300 seats, but was increased to 600 by Sulla, who appeared in the first century BC, Caesar increased it to 900, and Augustus returned it to 600.

Senators are not hereditary until their position, but are given seats to the Senate when they experience important positions elected by elections, specifically Consul, Praetor, and Quaestor.

The new Senator is called "Homo Nobile," and Japanese world history textbooks seem to interpret this as the emerging aristocratic class "Nobiles."

There is an anecdote that Pompey had to be over 30 years old to get a key position, and was not yet a senator because he was just 30 years old when Pompey ended the Mithridates War.

Thinking about the Roman Senate

In Hollywood movies, the Senate-led republic is often ideal, and Rome's largest historian, Tacitus, is also a republican follower.

Even in the modern political system, it is based on this Roman era led by the Senate, and its influence should be immeasurable.

However, it has inherited its harmful effects, and corruption of the parliamentary class is constant in each country.

British politician Whiston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst politics, except for all the non-democracy political regimes that have been tried so far." There would be no words to describe politics or the Senate.

Even so, there is a foundation that Western nations have experienced parliament and democracy since BC, and I think that democracy does not fit into Japan without that foundation.

After all, the Japanese are still "government consciousness" even in the 21st century, and they are still familiar with the oriental tyranny.