and/or bribed, the support they needed and were elected consul.
Pompey’s base of power was in the plebs and true to his base he favored the Assembly over the Senate. Crassus, riding the wave of popularity, went along, though hedging a bit with the Senate should the tide of fortune change. Once in office they set about to undo Sulla’s reforms, including restoring power to the office that had caused such problems in the past, the Tribune of the Plebs.
In Rome’s stroll into the desert, the Republic was by now well past the point of no return. While the facade of democracy remained, it was no more real than a Hollywood set, and a rundown set at that. In reality Rome was no longer ruled by a democratic vote of the people, but rather by powerful men who were the real powers behind the scenes. It was no longer governed by law and tradition, either. For these men, law and tradition were nothing more than tools to be manipulated in their quest for power.
While the true power was behind the scenes, it was still fractured and divided. By the end of their consulship Pompey and Crassus were at odds with each other. But neither had amassed enough power to do without the other, nor were they the only power players in Rome.
When their consulship ended both went their separate ways. Pompey’s power was grounded in his military successes, and so after taking on and disposing of the pirates that were troubling shipping, he set off to the east to quell some trouble that had arisen, and to conquer more territory, including the conquest and sack of the city of Jerusalem.
Crassus, on the other hand, had his true base of power in his wealth, which was prodigious. Thus Crassus sought out and supported promising young men, helping them out in times of financial trouble, the most notable being a promising young nephew of Marius, Julius Caesar.
Some, like Crassus, sought power for the wealth and security it brought. Some like Pompey were just so talented that they seemed to drift into power, as boats drifting in the current. With such men, a facade of democracy is certainly no hindrance and can actually be beneficial. So the democratic facade was allowed to continue. But it was only a facade and it would just be a matter of time until some new crisis, or some ambitious person came along to whom the facade was a hindrance. When that happened, it would be torn down completely.
The first attempt occurred a few years later in 62 B.C. when another of Crassus’ promising investments, Catiline, became impatient with the pace of things and planned to simply seize power. His attempt failed, ending in Catiline’s death along with many of his supporters, though two of his known associates escaped formal implication, if not suspicion: Crassus and the young Caesar.
In 60 B.C., Caesar, now a political force in his own right convinced Crassus and Pompey to settle their differences and the three of them formed an alliance of mutual support. Caesar lacked only one thing to make his power base complete: an Army. Unlike Catiline, Caesar was very patient, and used his power to secure command of an army in Gaul, modern day France. Over the next ten years while keeping a close eye on Rome, he led his army to victory in Gaul and even a brief excursion into Britain, earning himself the solid loyalty of his troops in the process.
By the time Caesar’s military service in Gaul was up, the alliance of three had become two, Crassus having died. Pompey, with no real ambition, was not seen as a threat. But Caesar’s ambition was strong, and he planned to return and run for consul. He was a force to be reckoned with before, now he was a military force as well. His opponents feared he would be unstoppable. But there was one way to stop him.
While serving as Governor in Gaul or as consul in Rome, Caesar was immune from prosecution. The problem for Caesar was that there would be a gap of several months from the time his Governorship ended till the elections for consul. Normally, this would not have been a problem. There were several ways to manipulate events to maintain his immunity. But two could play at this game, and his opponents were blocking his every move.
In all this political maneuvering, his opponents had two key advantages, first they were in Rome. Caesar’s power base was in the masses, but out of sight, out of mind. Second, his opponents had by this time managed to turn Pompey against Caesar. In the end there was no way for Caesar to keep his immunity. Nor was it likely that he could win in court, which by this time had ceased to be a source of justice and was little more than just another tool to be used to attack political opponents, or to protect political allies, depending on who was in power at the moment. Then again there was the problem that Caesar had played a little fast and loose with the law in any event. Like so many others of the time, the law for Caesar was simply another tool to be manipulated when possible for one’s own political purposes.
So if he left his command and returned to Rome, he faced certain conviction and the end of his career, if not his life. But if he did not return to Rome, the center of all political power, his career was over anyway. For Caesar to continue his power, there was just one way that remained open to him. So in 49 B.C., Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the river in northern Italy that at the time marked the end of Gaul and the beginning of Italy, and came to Rome. But he did not come alone. He came with his army, bringing down for the last time the remaining facade of a democracy that had lasted for 460 years.
Parallelomania?
There are two big dangers whenever we try to learn from past events. The first would be to focus on the similarities and see too many parallels. When early scholars of religion began to compare the different religions of the world they started to see parallels between them. Out of this came a number of theories on the interrelationship of religions which they began to pursue. They found that the more they looked, the more parallels they found. For several decades they believed they had discovered something truly significant, and continued to search even deeper until they started seeing parallels everywhere, even between things that could not possibly have any connection.
The noted Jewish scholar Samuel Sandmel began to set things straight in the early 1960s in an article, entitled Parallelomania5. The main flaw in parallels is that they are selective and thus superficial. They are selective in that they take only those things that match, and ignore differences. This is what leads them to be superficial in that the mere appearance of a parallel however weak is taken as a parallel. The net result is that you can find meaning and significance where it does not exist. For example, consider all the parallels that have been noted between the assassinations of Presidents Lincoln and Kennedy.6
So the easiest way to go wrong would be to claim that American democracy is going to fail, ‘just like Rome.’ One could certainly find parallels between Rome and America. For example parallels could be found between Gaius Gracchus and Franklin D. Roosevelt. Both, when frustrated in their political aims, tried to increase the size of the institution blocking them in order to stack it with their own people. Gaius Gracchus tried to increase the Senate, and FDR the Supreme Court. Both would also go on to break the tradition that limited their terms. But while perhaps interesting, this ultimately has little significance in and of itself. While one can always find such parallels, there are also lots of differences. History rarely if ever repeats itself in that way.
The other danger, equally flawed, would be to focus on the differences and claim that American democracy is so different from Rome, or the other earlier attempts, that we have nothing to learn, and that American democracy will always exist. Now it is true that the parallels, in and of themselves, are irrelevant, as are the differences. They tell us little about what will actually happen to American democracy.
But there are some important and valuable lessons to learn here. A more reasoned approach would be, rather than looking at the superficial parallels and differences, to look at the underlying factors and conditions that led to the demise of the Roman Republic. While events and situations change, people in large part remain the same.
There may be little similarity between the threats Rome faced during the time of Marius and Sulla and the threats faced by America
