Overview

Rome went from being one of many city-states in the Italian Peninsula to being the center of the
most powerful empire in the world between the fifth century BCE and the first century CE.
During the Republican period of Rome, political offices and institutions were designed to prevent
any one man from becoming too powerful. These systems began to break down in the first century
BCE.
Rome was able to gain its empire in large part by extending some form of citizenship to many of the
people it conquered.
Military expansion drove economic development, bringing enslaved people and loot back to Rome,
which in turn transformed the city of Rome and Roman culture.

Political institutions

How did Rome go from being one of many city-states in the Italian peninsula to being the center of
the most powerful empire in the ancient world? Part of the answer lies in the political institutions
that Rome developed early in its history. As Rome expanded its influence over more and more areas,
its political institutions proved both resilient and adaptable, allowing it to incorporate diverse
populations.
According to Roman tradition, the Republic began in 509 BCE when a group of noblemen overthrew
the last king of Rome. The Romans replaced the king with two consuls—rulers who had many of the
same powers as the king but were elected to serve one-year terms. Each consul could veto, or reject,
the actions of the other consul. Although the office of consul probably did not exist in its final form
until around 300 BCE, the idea behind this change—to prevent any one man from becoming too
powerful—was present early on in Roman thought and shaped many of Rome’s political institutions.
Roman political institutions reflected Roman society, which was divided into two classes: the
patricians, wealthy elites, and the plebeians, the common people. Initially, only the patricians were
able to hold political office and make important decisions. For example, plebeians could not join the
Roman Senate—an advisory body unable to create laws on its own but whose recommendations
were taken seriously by the consuls. To become a senator, a Roman had to have held a political
office, and plebeians could not. Over time, however, the plebeians were able to gain more influence
in the political system.
Between the years 494 and 287 BCE, new political offices for plebeians were created and access to
higher office, including the consulship, was opened to them. Voting assemblies and councils were
established that gave plebeians more say in the politics of Rome. In 287 BCE, a law removed the last
barrier to plebeian political participation by abolishing the requirement that proposed laws had to
be approved by patrician senators before the Plebeian Council could consider them.
The Plebeian Council had real power and influence in Roman politics and some plebeians gained
power and wealth under these new arrangements, but many remained poor. One reason that
political rights did not lead to major changes was that the Comitia Centuriata—the main voting
assembly that elected consuls and other important officials—was organized based on wealth. Each
century—or voting group—had one vote, but the wealthy were split into smaller groups than the
poor, giving the vote of a wealthy Roman more influence.
In what ways did the Romans limit the political power of any one man?
How did Roman political structures limit the influence of the poor?
Military

Although the voting system might appear a deliberate strategy to empower the wealthy, it was
actually a reflection of the Roman military structure. The Comitia Centuriata was named for the
century—literally a group of 100 soldiers, though in practice the division was never so exact—which
was the standard Roman military unit under the kingdom and most of the republican era. Men were
divided into classes based on their wealth because soldiers had to provide their own equipment.
Only wealthy Romans could afford high-quality weapons and armor, which made them more
effective soldiers. Men without property were not eligible for military service and these poorest
Romans, though the largest class in numbers, were placed into the smallest number of centuries for
voting.
Part of the reason that the Romans saw no problem with allowing the wealthy to have greater
political influence was because they believed that those who had the most wealth also had the most
to lose from Roman defeat, so the wealthy had better motivation to be good soldiers and a better
sense of what was good policy for Rome.

Foreign policy and expansion

The Romans did not set out any deliberate plan to build an empire. Instead, Rome expanded as it
came into conflict with surrounding city-states, kingdoms, and empires and had to create ways to
incorporate these new territories and populations. The Romans did not try to turn everyone they
conquered into a Roman. For the most part, cities and regions that came under Roman control were
allowed to maintain their existing cultural and political institutions. The only major requirement that
Rome imposed on its defeated enemies was that they provide soldiers for military campaigns. In the
ancient world, military victory usually meant a share of the loot taken from the conquered, so
participating on the winning side of a conflict offered incentives to Rome’s new allies.
Most conquered enemies were offered some level of Roman citizenship, sometimes with full voting
rights. Because a person had to be physically present in Rome to vote, the extension of voting rights
beyond the population of the city itself did not drastically alter the political situation in Rome.
However, the offer of citizenship did help to build a sense of shared identity around loyalty to Rome.
In order to manage the new territories that came under their influence, the Romans created formal
provinces and appointed former political officeholders to manage them. Given the distance between
most provinces and Rome, these governors often had considerable power and flexibility in dealing
with local issues. The Romans tried to create a balance between giving governors enough power to
control their provinces and preventing governors from becoming so powerful that they could
challenge Rome’s authority.

Economic development

Although Rome had little interest in managing the daily affairs of its allies, it had to adapt as its
influence spread. Roads were a way to extend Roman military and economic power; they made the
movement of both soldiers and goods easier and faster. The Romans also minted coins as their
influence spread, and in 211 BCE they introduced a small silver coin called a denarius, which became
the standard unit of currency for much of the Roman period.
A standardised currency facilitated trade across the growing Roman world. Coins could be
exchanged for any goods or services and were easy to transport. Currency made it easier to relocate
and direct resources, and this in turn encouraged more economic interactions.
The Romans also engaged in trade across the Mediterranean Sea. Their network of trading contacts
expanded along with their political influence since trade relations were usually dependent on good
political relations. The combination of fighting piracy, building roads, minting coins, and extending
military protection over an increasingly large area created many opportunities for economic
interactions and growth.

Like all ancient societies, Rome’s economy was based on agriculture, which was incredibly labor
intensive. As Rome fought more foreign wars, many small landholders were away serving in the
military for longer periods. If they failed to return or their farms went bankrupt in their absence,
wealthy Romans bought their land, creating larger and larger farms, known as latifundia. Further, it
was common practice to enslave and sell war captives; the increasing number of military conquests
brought many enslaved people into the Italian peninsula. Because of economies of scale and
because enslaved people could be be made to work longer and harder than free Romans, this trend
further increased economic production. The increased income from expansion supported
development by creating demand for greater supplies of agricultural produce. Some owners of large
farms even switched from growing staple grains to high-value crops, such as olives and grapes, or
raising animals—this wouldn’t have been an option for small family farms.

Overview

The Roman Empire began in 27 BCE when Augustus became the sole ruler of Rome.
Augustus and his successors tried to maintain the imagery and language of the Roman Republic to
justify and preserve their personal power.
Beginning with Augustus, emperors built far more monumental structures, which transformed the
city of Rome.

Augustus and the empire

The Roman Republic became the Roman Empire in 27 BCE when Julius Caesar’s adopted son, best
known as Augustus, became the ruler of Rome. Augustus established an autocratic form of
government, where he was the sole ruler and made all important decisions. Although we refer to
him as Rome’s first emperor, Augustus never took the title of king or emperor, nor did his
successors; they preferred to call themselves princeps, first citizen, or primus inter pares, first among
peers. This choice of title maintained the appearance of limited power that had been so important
under the Republic.
Augustus did not expand Rome’s territory during his rule—when he came to power, Rome already
controlled much of the territory it would hold at its greatest extent. However, many of the reforms
enacted by Augustus and his successors had a deep and lasting impact on the internal political and
economic structures of Rome.
Pax Romana—literally “Roman peace”—is a term often given to the period between 27 BCE and 180
CE during which Roman rule was relatively stable and war less frequent. There were conflicts, such
as provincial revolts and wars along the frontier—see map below showing extent of Roman
control—but Rome experienced nothing like the civil wars that dominated much of the first century
BCE. The emperors and the Senate took over most elections and simply chose who they wanted for
office, so there were fewer elected political offices to fight over.
Augustus—who, it should be pointed out, came to power through victory in a civil war—ended a
string of damaging internal conflicts. Internal stability had positive effects on foreign relations.
Because the political and social structures of the empire that Augustus established remained largely
unchanged for several centuries, Rome was able to establish regular trade with India and China,
further increasing its material wealth through more peaceful means.
Why did Augustus use the title “princeps” and not emperor?
What factors might have made the Roman Empire more stable than the Roman Republic?

Imperial institutions

Augustus and his successors worked hard to maintain much of the image of the Republic while in
practice they exercised something close to absolute power. Under the Republic, power was shared
among many officeholders and limited to short terms. Augustus altered this system by taking many
of the offices and their powers for himself while maintaining the idea that these were still separate
offices that could, in theory at least, be transferred to someone else. For example, he was the
Pontifex Maximus—high priest—and also took over the role of censor—overseer of censuses for
purposes of taxation—but he never got rid of the the offices themselves.
A major component of Augustus’s new power was his control over the military. Under the Republic,
the elected consuls served as military commanders during their one-year terms. This occasionally
changed in practice, especially during the civil wars of the first century BCE, but the general idea that
a military command was always temporary was important to the Romans. So, rather than claiming
military power outright, Augustus took control as the stand-in governor of the most dangerous
Roman provinces,where the majority of the Roman legions were stationed. This was a clever move
because it gave Augustus control of the army while at the same time making it appear that he was
doing a favor to the people of Rome.

Currency

Under the empire, Roman currency was not just an economic tool; it was a political tool, as well.
Julius Caesar, Augustus’s adopted father, had been the first Roman to put his own portrait on coins,
and Augustus continued this practice. Prior to Caesar, only dead Romans or gods were shown on
coins. Placing the current emperor’s portrait on coins reinforced the connection between economic
power and the emperor and also helped to shape the popular image of the emperor among the
Roman people. Emperors would also use imagery on coins to popularize other family members,
political allies, and especially their chosen heirs.
Roman coins depicting the emperor wearing a laurel wreath, which was a symbol of honor and
victory; the phrase “DIVVS IVLIV(S)” implies association with the gods.
Roman coins depicting the emperor wearing a laurel wreath, which was a symbol of honor and
victory; the phrase “DIVVS IVLIV(S)” implies association with the gods.
Roman coins depicting the emperor wearing a laurel wreath, which was a symbol of honor and
victory; the phrase “DIVVS IVLIV(S)” implies association with the gods. Image credit: Wikimedia,
Classical Numismatic Group, Inc., CC BY-SA 3.0
In a time without photography, newspapers, or television, why might Roman emperors have used
currency to spread certain messages about themselves?
Infrastructure

Much of the technology used by the Romans remained relatively similar between the Republic and
the Empire. However, Augustus altered the systems for overseeing public works, including roads,
aqueducts, and sewers. He made permanent the positions of those who oversaw construction and
maintenance of these projects; this new system helped improve accountability in overseeing
projects. It also provided a way for the emperor to reward his supporters with important and secure
jobs.
Monumental building

Augustus directly commissioned and indirectly encouraged the construction of multiple temples, a
new forum, bathhouses, theatres, and he erected a monumental arch and the famous Ara Pacis,
altar of Augustan peace. These projects helped to solidify Augustus’s power and also served the
more concrete purposes of beautifying the city and reducing fire hazards—stone buildings were less
susceptible to fires, which had been a frequent source of property damage throughout Roman
history. Like many important and affluent Romans before him, Augustus lived in a typical Roman
house on the Palatine Hill in the city of Rome, adding to the illusion that he was just another wealthy
citizen. Later emperors took up residence on the Palatine and built an imperial palace on the hill.
The Flavian emperors—Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian—came to power in 69 CE after a brief civil
war, and built and restored several temples, a stadium, and an odeum—a building for performing
music and plays. The Colosseum was commissioned by Vespasian. Domitian built a larger palace on
the Palatine Hill and also constructed many monumental works, including the Arch of Titus—a
monument to Titus’s military victory in Jerusalem. Many of these projects were funded by loot taken
in the Jewish War, in which Vespasian and his son, Titus, had been the Roman commanders.
Ruins of the imperial palace on the Palatine Hill in Rome, right; the track from the Circus Maximus is
visible below the palace, left.
Ruins of the imperial palace on the Palatine Hill in Rome, right; the track from the Circus Maximus is
visible below the palace, left.
Ruins of the imperial palace on the Palatine Hill in Rome, right; the track from the Circus Maximus is
visible below the palace, left. Image credit: Wikimedia, Laurel Lodged, CC0
How might the building of monuments have influenced the Roman people’s view of their emperors?
Foreign policy

The Roman Empire reached its greatest extent in 117 CE under the emperor Trajan. When Trajan
died, much of the territory he conquered in Mesopotamia was quickly lost, but after this, Rome’s
frontiers became relatively stable. More stable boundaries led to a new focus on foreign policy.
Under the Republic and early empire, the military was often an expansionary force, conquering
territory and bringing back loot and enslaved people. In the later Empire, Rome’s legions were
stationed along the frontier and served a more defensive role, building fortifications and public
works and policing and regulating the movement of people and goods. Much of Roman foreign
policy under the empire focused on controlling the people living along its borders and interfering
politically, rather than militarily.
How did Rome’s use of the military change during the later imperial period?
Conclusion

Although Augustus fundamentally reorganised the way the Roman state functioned, few ordinary
Romans experienced much change in their daily lives. Augustus’s reforms made little difference to
social and economic structures. Although his massive building projects and increased foreign trade
brought increased goods, knowledge, and entertainment to the Roman people, these changes can
be viewed as the Roman people swapping their old patrician patrons for the emperor. That is, the
emperor became the patron of all Romans
Decline of Roman Empire
1. Invasions by Barbarian tribes
The most straightforward theory for Western Rome’s collapse pins the fall on a string of
military losses sustained against outside forces. Rome had tangled with Germanic tribes for
centuries, but by the 300s “barbarian” groups like the Goths had encroached beyond the
Empire’s borders. The Romans weathered a Germanic uprising in the late fourth century, but
in 410 the Visigoth King Alaric successfully sacked the city of Rome. The Empire spent the
next several decades under constant threat before “the Eternal City” was raided again in 455,
this time by the Vandals. Finally, in 476, the Germanic leader Odoacer staged a revolt and
deposed the Emperor Romulus Augustulus. From then on, no Roman emperor would ever
again rule from a post in Italy, leading many to cite 476 as the year the Western Empire
suffered its deathblow.

2. Economic troubles and over reliance on slave labor

Even as Rome was under attack from outside forces, it was also crumbling from within thanks
to a severe financial crisis. Constant wars and overspending had significantly lightened
imperial coffers, and oppressive taxation and inflation had widened the gap between rich and
poor. In the hope of avoiding the taxman, many members of the wealthy classes had even
fled to the countryside and set up independent fiefdoms. At the same time, the empire was
rocked by a labor deficit. Rome’s economy depended on slaves to till its fields and work as
craftsmen, and its military might had traditionally provided a fresh influx of conquered
peoples to put to work. But when expansion ground to a halt in the second century, Rome’s
supply of slaves and other war treasures began to dry up. A further blow came in the fifth
century, when the Vandals claimed North Africa and began disrupting the empire’s trade by
prowling the Mediterranean as pirates. With its economy faltering and its commercial and
agricultural production in decline, the Empire began to lose its grip on Europe.

3. The rise of the Eastern Empire

The fate of Western Rome was partially sealed in the late third century, when the Emperor
Diocletian divided the Empire into two halves—the Western Empire seated in the city of
Milan, and the Eastern Empire in Byzantium, later known as Constantinople. The division
made the empire more easily governable in the short term, but over time the two halves
drifted apart. East and West failed to adequately work together to combat outside threats,
and the two often squabbled over resources and military aid. As the gulf widened, the largely
Greek-speaking Eastern Empire grew in wealth while the Latin-speaking West descended into
economic crisis. Most importantly, the strength of the Eastern Empire served to divert
Barbarian invasions to the West. Emperors like Constantine ensured that the city of
Constantinople was fortified and well guarded, but Italy and the city of Rome—which only
had symbolic value for many in the East—were left vulnerable. The Western political
structure would finally disintegrate in the fifth century, but the Eastern Empire endured in
some form for another thousand years before being overwhelmed by the Ottoman Empire in
the 1400s.
4. Over expansion and military overspending
At its height, the Roman Empire stretched from the Atlantic Ocean all the way to the
Euphrates River in the Middle East, but its grandeur may have also been its downfall. With
such a vast territory to govern, the empire faced an administrative and logistical nightmare.
Even with their excellent road systems, the Romans were unable to communicate quickly or
effectively enough to manage their holdings. Rome struggled to marshal enough troops and
resources to defend its frontiers from local rebellions and outside attacks, and by the second
century the Emperor Hadrian was forced to build his famous wall in Britain just to keep the
enemy at bay. As more and more funds were funneled into the military upkeep of the
empire, technological advancement slowed and Rome’s civil infrastructure fell into disrepair.

5. Government corruption and political instability

If Rome’s sheer size made it difficult to govern, ineffective and inconsistent leadership only
served to magnify the problem. Being the Roman emperor had always been a particularly
dangerous job, but during the tumultuous second and third centuries it nearly became a
death sentence. Civil war thrust the empire into chaos, and more than 20 men took the
throne in the span of only 75 years, usually after the murder of their predecessor. The
Praetorian Guard—the emperor’s personal bodyguards—assassinated and installed new
sovereigns at will, and once even auctioned the spot off to the highest bidder. The political
rot also extended to the Roman Senate, which failed to temper the excesses of the emperors
due to its own widespread corruption and incompetence. As the situation worsened, civic
pride waned and many Roman citizens lost trust in their leadership.

6. The arrival of the Huns and the migration of the Barbarian tribes
The Barbarian attacks on Rome partially stemmed from a mass migration caused by the Huns’
invasion of Europe in the late fourth century. When these Eurasian warriors rampaged
through northern Europe, they drove many Germanic tribes to the borders of the Roman
Empire. The Romans grudgingly allowed members of the Visigoth tribe to cross south of the
Danube and into the safety of Roman territory, but they treated them with extreme cruelty.
According to the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, Roman officials even forced the starving
Goths to trade their children into slavery in exchange for dog meat. In brutalizing the Goths,
the Romans created a dangerous enemy within their own borders. When the oppression
became too much to bear, the Goths rose up in revolt and eventually routed a Roman army
and killed the Eastern Emperor Valens during the Battle of Adrianople in A.D. 378. The
shocked Romans negotiated a flimsy peace with the barbarians, but the truce unraveled in
410, when the Goth King Alaric moved west and sacked Rome. With the Western Empire
weakened, Germanic tribes like the Vandals and the Saxons were able to surge across its
borders and occupy Britain, Spain and North Africa.
7. Christianity and the loss of traditional values
The decline of Rome dovetailed with the spread of Christianity, and some have argued that
the rise of a new faith helped contribute to the empire’s fall. The Edict of Milan legalised
Christianity in 313, and it later became the state religion in 380. These decrees ended
centuries of persecution, but they may have also eroded the traditional Roman values
system. Christianity displaced the polytheistic Roman religion, which viewed the emperor as
having a divine status, and also shifted focus away from the glory of the state and onto a sole
deity. Meanwhile, popes and other church leaders took an increased role in political affairs,
further complicating governance. The 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon was the most
famous proponent of this theory, but his take has since been widely criticised. While the
spread of Christianity may have played a small role in curbing Roman civic virtue, most
scholars now argue that its influence paled in comparison to military, economic and
administrative factors.

8. Weakening of the Roman legions

For most of its history, Rome’s military was the envy of the ancient world. But during the
decline, the makeup of the once mighty legions began to change. Unable to recruit enough
soldiers from the Roman citizenry, emperors like Diocletian and Constantine began hiring
foreign mercenaries to prop up their armies. The ranks of the legions eventually swelled with
Germanic Goths and other barbarians, so much so that Romans began using the Latin word
“barbarus” in place of “soldier.” While these Germanic soldiers of fortune proved to be fierce
warriors, they also had little or no loyalty to the empire, and their power-hungry officers
often turned against their Roman employers. In fact, many of the barbarians who sacked the
city of Rome and brought down the Western Empire had earned their military stripes while
serving in the Roman legions.