The Monarchy (753-509 bc)
(1) The Situation of Rome under the Monarchy
Rome developed on a promising site by the River Tiber, in central Italy. The river gave it easy access to the sea, and the city's position at a convenient crossing-point made it strategically important.
Rome was also built on higher ground, which aided defence.[7] The river was also a cultural boundary. Italy at this time was highly fragmented, both politically and culturally. Rome was part of Latium, which was occupied by the Latins, who were loosely allied and who spoke related languages. The Romans' language, Latin, is part of this language group. To the north, on the other side of the Tiber, lay Etruria, centred on modern Tuscany. Etruria was the home of the Etruscans, a confederation of independent city states. During this period, the Etruscans were the dominant culture in much of northern Italy, and Rome was strongly influenced by them. Elsewhere in Italy, other groups were to be found. Perhaps the most notable of these were the Greek colonies of southern Italy.[8] During the Monarchy, Rome became the dominant force in Latium, but was never more than a regional power during this period, and even beyond, into the early Republic. At this time:The wars between Rome and her neighbours were little more than scuffles between armed raiding bands of a few hundred men at most. It is salutary to recall that Fidenae (Fidene), against which the Romans were fighting in 499, lies now within the motorway circuit round modern Rome, and is all but swallowed up in its northern suburbs. Veii, the Etruscan city that was Rome’s chief rival for supremacy in the Tiber plain, is a mere 10 miles to the north-west.[9]
(2) The Nature of the Monarchy and the Role of the King
During this period, Rome was ruled by a series of kings. The first thing to be aware of here is that this was not a hereditary monarchy.
There was no sucÂcession from father to son, or anything like it. Indeed, there was a tendency if anything to choose kings from outside. Of the seven kings in the list accepted by later Roman writers, the majority of them are said to have been of non-Roman origin. This includes the final three, who were all said to be of Etruscan origin.[10]Details of how the king was appointed are uncertain. According to Roman historians, writing centuries later, Romulus had established a council of adviÂsors, called the Senate.[11] When the king died, his power devolved to the Senate, which appointed an interrex[12] to identify a successor. Once a suitable successor had been found, and had been approved by the Senate, the new king’s appointÂment would be ratified by an assembly of adult, male citizens, called the comitia curiata. The precise scope of the king’s powers is impossible now to determine. It is likely, though, that they were fairly broad, including administrative, military and religious matters.
One aspect of early Roman society[13] that is difficult for us to grasp from our modern standpoint is the nature of Roman religion and its role in public life. In the modern world, we take for granted the idea of members of the clergy as a distinct profession, and we are used to the concept of a separation of Church and state. We are also accustomed to religion having a great concern for quesÂtions of proper moral and ethical conduct. None of these things is true of early Roman religion. As far as we can tell, Roman religion was much less concerned with moral precepts and much more concerned with appeasement of the gods through ritual. Equally, there was no separation between religion and the state, and religious observance was a fundamental part of governance. This does not mean that early Rome was a theocracy; rather, the distinction between secuÂlar and sacred simply did not exist.[14] If it was the job of rulers to protect the well-being of the community, then appeasing the gods and determining their will through augury, haruspicy,[15] and the interpretation of omens and prodigies[16] were no less a part of this than military defence and the food supply.
Rather than religion being a distinct sphere of activity, which was the concern of a class of professional priests, priesthoods were special responsibilities undertaken by prominent men as part of their public role.Those outside the aristocracy were not entirely excluded from public life under this system, though any such role was limited. As explained above, each new king was confirmed in office by an assembly of adult, male citizens, called the comitia curiata. For these purposes, the Roman people were divided into three tribes,[17] and each of these was further divided into ten curiae. These thirty curiae were the voting units in the assembly.[18] While, however, the confirmation of the comitia curiata was a necessary part of the process of selecting a new king, it is unclear whether they had any real, practical role in choosing the king. It is also unclear whether the comitia played an important role in the political process at other times. Probably this depended on political factors as much as anything else: at times it would suit the king to put proposals before the assembly for approval; at other times, the king would feel himself to be in a secure enough position to do without this. Certainly, though, the scope for independent action by the assemÂblies was limited by two factors: the assembly could only meet when summoned, and could only vote to accept or reject the proposal put before it. The assembly could not amend the proposal or put forward proposals of its own. Even if the assembly nominally had a significant role, therefore, practical power of political initiative was retained by elite citizens and, particularly, the king.
By the late Monarchy, the comitia curiata had been superseded for practical purposes by a different assembly, called the comitia centuriata. As a citizen assembly, it had the same membership as the comitia curiata, and retained the characteristics of only being able to meet when summoned and only being able to accept or reject the proposal put before it.
It was, however, organised differently. In the comitia centuriata, the people were divided into five classes, based on wealth. Each class was further divided into voting units called centuriae, with the number of these disproportionately high in the wealthier classes and disproportionately low in the poorer classes. As in the comitia curiata, voting was by group rather than by individual. Votes were taken in order of class, so it would often be unnecessary to take the votes of the lower wealth classes.[19] As a result of these factors, the voting system was heavily weighted in favour of the wealthy.(3) The Seven Kings
Between the founding of Rome in 753 BC, and the fall of the Monarchy in 509 BC, there were said to have been seven kings. This is almost certainly incorrect, as can be inferred even just by looking at the average length of reign (a little under thirty-five years).[20] Historical scepticism about the first four kings (Romulus, Numa Pompilius, Tullus Hostilius and Ancus Marcius) is particularly justified. Romulus is very likely entirely mythical. Of the other three, the most that can be said is that there may have been kings by those names. Certainly, no reliance can be placed on stories of their particular actions and achievements. What we have in the sources is archetypes, rather than real people. Names, in particular, can be a convenient peg to hang character traits on. Thus, for example, Tullus Hostilius was said to be warlike (hostile, in other words). Numa Pompilius was said to have a particular interest in religious reforms (Numa is similar to the Latin word numen, which means ‘a divinity' and gives us the word ‘numinous'). In reality, the history of the early kings as we have it consists of half-remembered scraps, handed down over many generations and then stitched together to form a narrative.
The historicity of the final three kings (Tarquinius Priscus, Servius Tullius and Tarquinius Superbus) is somewhat more reliable, though there is still much we can never know.
There is an interesting change here: while none of the earliest kings had been related to each other, the final three were all related to each other by birth or marriage. Tarquinius Priscus was the father-in-law of Servius Tullius and the father or grandfather of Tarquinius Superbus. Tarquinius Superbus was also the son-in-law of Servius Tullius. This apparent shift to some form of dynastic succession may be a clue to the reasons for the ultimate downfall of the Monarchy, but this is speculation.(4) The End of the Monarchy
According to the traditional dating, the Monarchy ended in or around 509 BC. According to the Roman historians, this was brought about by the rape by one of the king's sons of Lucretia, the wife of a Roman noble, followed by her suicide. Outrage at this prompted the expulsion of the king and his family. The rule of kings was replaced with shared rule, by two annually elected magistrates, called consuls. Rome therefore became a republic.
Once more, how much truth there is in this story is hard to say. The view could well be taken that there is more going on here than simply dissatisfaction at the misbehaviour of an individual king and his family. After all, there is no reason why the expulsion of one king should lead to the establishment of a republic, rather than the appointment of another king. However, we have already seen that most of the kings were non-Roman, and so this development could plausibly be linked to anti-foreigner sentiment. Equally, there could be hints here of feeling amongst elite members of the community against the concentration of power in the hands of a single family and the abuse of that power.
D.