In Italy, as in Greece, the state took the form of an urban community, and urban unions began to emerge early. Rome was also such an urban community. The original inhabitants of Rome were divided into three tribes, which indicates the formation of Rome from communities that were previously independent. These tribes, in turn, were divided into curiae, of which there were ten in each tribe, and each curia consisted of separate clans. All clans, curiae and tribes had their leaders ("fathers", curions, tribunes), who were leaders in war and representatives before the gods, because each such part of the people had its own gods. Members of the same clan bore a common name, indicating descent from a common ancestor. Individual families of each clan were under the unconditional authority of their fathers. House owner he had an unlimited right to dispose of both the person and the property of all family members, he could sell them into slavery and execute them. The paternal power ceased only with the death of the householder, and adult sons, even if they were married and had children themselves, were in complete subordination to him. When the father died, the sons themselves became householders and received the right of custody of the mother and unmarried sisters: women were legally dependent until the end of their days. The home cult was also in the hands of the householders. Only the fathers of families could participate in the popular assemblies, which took place in the curiae and were therefore called the gatherings of the curiae or curiate comitia.

The first two and a half centuries of Roman history (753 - 510 BC) fell on the so-called royal period... The head of the state was the king (geh), who was, as it were, the father of the entire state, its high priest, military leader and judge. The king's power was for life, but it was not inherited. After the death of the king, the new ruler was also elected as a special deputy to the king, interrex, after which he was approved by the people. The tsar consulted about all important matters with a meeting of tribal elders (or "fathers") called the Senate; according to the number of genera in the Roman Senate, there were three hundred such "fathers". This assembly could be convened only on the initiative of the king, and his decisions were not binding on the kings, mainly the rulers listened to the decisions of the senate. The kuriat comitia were also convened by the kings, but they could only give answers to the proposed questions, without entering into their discussion. Ancient Roman sources numbered 7 kings, including the legendary founder of Rome, Romulus. However, almost all information about these kings belongs to the field of legends, and not reliable history. The second king after Romulus from the Sabines (Numa Pompilius) was perceived by the Romans as the founder of a religious cult, it was believed that it was he who established the rituals and established the priestly colleges of pontiffs, augurs and vestals. The following three kings (Tullus Hostilius, Ancus Martius and Tarquinius Priscus) were credited with the conquest of Alba Longa and other Latin cities, as well as the erection of the first large buildings in Rome, etc.

Initially, only the descendants of the first inhabitants of the city were considered full citizens of Rome. However, already in very ancient times, many immigrants from other places lived in Rome, who were forced to become under the protection and patronage of any Roman clan, at the same time becoming, as it were, part of this clan and even taking its common name. Such people were called clients("Obedient"), and in relation to them, each patron was like a father, patron... Over time, when the number of settlers increased, and the Romans subjugated the population of the rural districts closest to the city, the population of the state community disintegrated into full citizens ( patricians) and free, but powerless people ( plebeians). The plebeians, apparently, were considered clients of the king, but the plebs probably included clients of patrician families. In any case, the plebeians stood outside the state community, i.e. did not participate either in the kuriat comitia or in the senate, could not hold any posts, depended on the patrician court. In Rome there were communal lands, which were administered by some patricians; only from them could plebeians gain access to these lands, who wanted to cultivate the field or keep livestock. The plebeians were required to carry military service and pay taxes.

In the middle of the VI century. BC NS. the first known to us attempt was made to regulate the mutual relations between both parts of the population of Rome. It is associated with the name of King Servius Tullius, who was considered the sixth from the founding of Rome. His reform was similar to the legislation of Solon, because it was based on the division of the population into property classes regardless of origin, the distribution of responsibilities among them in accordance with wealth and the granting of more rights to the more prosperous. The entire nation was divided into five classes (with property of 100 thousand, 75 thousand, 50 thousand, 25 thousand and 12 thousand ases). Both patricians and plebeians together, each in his own class, were to participate in new popular assemblies, the so-called centuriate comitia... This name is associated with the division of the people into 193 centuries (hundreds), of which 98 were in the first class, 20 for the second, third and fourth, 30 for the fifth, 4 for artisans and one for all the poor (proletarians), completely exempt from service and taxes. Decisions at the centuriate comitia were taken by a majority vote, with the majority of votes in each century being considered as the general vote of that comitia. Consequently, there were 193 total votes in the centuriate comitia, and the majority was always secured by the first class, which had 98 votes. Thus, the plebeians were included in the composition of the citizens and gained access to the popular assembly. At the same time, the rich plebeians could belong to the first class, and the impoverished patricians - to one of the lower.

By creating new organization Servius Tullius, however, did not destroy the old one and did not equate the plebeians with the patricians in rights. As before, only patricians could hold the highest government positions. They also retained the right to dispose of state lands. Marriages between patricians and plebeians were prohibited.

In 510 BC. NS. royal power in Rome was abolished. The last Roman king, Tarquinius the Proud, according to legend, seized power illegally, killing his predecessor. Roman sources report that Tarquinius the Proud was a tyrant, which led to his expulsion, which occurred, apparently as a result of a conspiracy of the nobility. Sources also report that after the expulsion of Tarquinius the Proud, the Romans decided not to elect a king anymore, but to transfer the highest state power to two consuls, who were elected for a term of one year.

Rome period of the republic

The abolition of royal power in Rome in 510 is reminiscent of the changes that took place in the Greek cities. The structure of the state and the rights of citizens remained the same, but the royal power was divided among the dignitaries. The power of the consuls differed from the royal power in that there were two consuls, they were elected only for one year and after the expiration of the term they were subject to responsibility. It should be noted that the consuls could use practically unlimited power (empire) in all its volume only in a military campaign, in Rome itself and its environs (at a distance of a thousand steps from the city wall) they could neither execute nor subject to corporal punishment. In addition, religious duties were separated from their posts.

Consuls were equal in their rights, and one could always prevent the other from acting, this was called the right intercession... Gradually, the powers of consuls were reduced, and part of their functions began to be transferred to other magistrates (magistrates are elected dignitaries). In case of great danger to the state, on the instructions of the Senate, one of the consuls could appoint a dictator with all the rights of the previous tsars, but the term of such a dictatorship could not be more than 6 months. The dictator appointed himself an assistant in the person of the chief of the cavalry, the rest of the magistrates did not act at that time.

After the abolition of royal power in Rome, the importance of the Senate increased. The magistrates who served their term became senators for life. A list of senators ("album") was compiled annually, in which they were arranged in descending order of importance of the previously held elective posts. The first on the list were consulars (former consuls). The first on the list ( princeps Senate) was the person who held the consular office the most times. As for the comitia, apart from the right to elect, they only had the right to accept or reject proposals made to the people without any discussion, which remained the privilege of one senate. The foreign policy of the state was also concentrated in the hands of the Senate.

The most important phenomenon in the internal history of Rome in the 5th and 4th centuries. BC NS. there was a struggle between the patricians and the plebeians. This struggle dragged on for a very long time and was distinguished by great tenacity on both sides. After the abolition of royal power in Rome, all power in the state was concentrated in the hands of patrician families. Just as it was in Attica before Solon's reforms, commoners were very often in unpaid debts to the nobility, and the debt law in Rome was extremely cruel. The debtor pledged not only his property, but also himself: the creditor had the right to put him in chains or lock him in prison, or force him to work for himself. The natural consequence of this situation was the struggle of the plebeians for their rights, which, of course, met with strong resistance from the patricians.

In 494 BC. e., returning from a military campaign, the plebeians who were in the Roman army, refused to return to Rome and retired to the Sacred Mountain located near Rome with the intention of building their own, special, plebeian city. The Senate, frightened by this decision, made concessions. The patricians agreed for the plebs to get their own organization under the command tribunes... The plebeian tribunes, of which there were at first two (later their number reached ten), could be chosen only from the plebeians and only by the plebeians at special meetings - tributary commissions... Tribe comitia also had the right to consult on plebeian affairs and make decisions on them ( plebiscites), which could then be presented to the Senate in the form of petitions. Thus, alongside the patrician comitia on the curiae and the general comitia on the centuria, there were purely plebeian comitia on the tribes. The duty of the tribunes was to provide members of their class with assistance and protection in cases where they were oppressed. The tribune could not spend nights outside the city and the doors of his house had to be always open. Within the city limits, the tribunes soon won the right to prohibit the adoption of laws and regulations that violate the interests of the plebeians. To do this, the tribune was enough during the discussion of the draft resolution in the Senate to utter the words "Veto"(I forbid). The tribunes were recognized as sacred and inviolable, aediles, also elected plebeian officials who disposed of a special treasury, out of fines for misdemeanors against the plebs. Thus, the state community of Rome was, as it were, divided into two different communities - patrician and plebeian, and this division was decisive for the entire subsequent struggle between both estates.

Among the reasons for the discontent of the plebeians was their exclusion from the use of state land. Among the patricians themselves, there was a man who took the side of the plebeians and proposed in their favor the first agrarian law, as the laws on participation in the use of state lands began to be called in Rome. It was the consul of 486 BC. NS. Spurius Cassius, whom the patricians were not slow to accuse of seeking to seize royal power. The consul was summoned to the court of the curiate comitia and executed. At the same time, the Plebeev Senate reassured them with a promise to give them part of the state lands for use, but the successors of Spurius Cassius did not even think to fulfill this promise. Thirty years later, the tribune Genutius brought all the consuls who ruled after Spurius Cassius to the plebs' court, but the patricians got rid of the energetic tribune by means of murder.

One of the most important requirements of the plebeians was the drafting of laws, since judicial functions were performed only by patrician magistrates, relying on customs and their own ideas about justice. The discontent of the population was so great that the patricians were forced to make concessions. In 451 BC. NS. a commission was formed to write laws decemvir(ten husbands), who received consular authority for the period of work on the drafting of legislation; even the position of tribunes was temporarily abolished. In 450 BC. NS. the commission's powers were continued, and several plebeians were included in its composition. When the laws were finally ready and carved out on twelve copper boards, the decemvirs retained power for some time on the pretext that the laws drawn up by them and adopted by the people needed more additions.

The laws of the XII boards, or tables, drawn up by the decemvirs formed the basis of everything further development Roman law. Their content was civil and criminal laws, as well as various orders of a police nature, concerning the improvement of the city with its district and the customs of the inhabitants. The laws of the XII tables especially protected property rights: a thief caught at night could be killed with impunity, and if he began to defend himself, then it was allowed to kill him during the day, debt obligations still entailed bondage, but the amount of interest on the debt was limited. Likewise, marriages between patricians and plebeians were still prohibited. Consuls were now obliged to be guided in their sentences by certain rules, i.e. legality was introduced into the court area. Copper plaques with laws were exhibited at the forum for general acquaintance, and the trial itself was carried out at the forum also publicly.

The main obstacle to admitting plebeians to be elected to consuls and to allowing marriages between plebeians and patricians was the patrician religion, participation in the rituals of which was available only to members of the old clans, as was the case in Greece. In 445, the tribune Kanulei managed to achieve a law establishing the right of plebeians to enter into legal marriage with members of the patrician class and to be elected to the highest office in the state. Making the last concession, the patricians, however, negotiated for the senate the right to replace, when he found it necessary, the election of consuls by the election of military tribunes with consular authority and only to admit plebeians to this office. Over the course of forty years, consuls from some patricians and about twenty military tribunes were chosen about twenty times, but since the election was carried out in the centuriate comitia, where the main importance belonged to the richest class, it was only in 400 that a plebeian was elected to this position for the first time. ... Foreseeing, however, that sooner or later this could still happen, the patricians as early as 443 separated from the consulate in the exclusive possession of their class a new position of censor, or appraiser of citizens' property for their distribution by centuri and classes, i.e. to determine their political rights. There were two censors, and they were first elected for a five-year term, respectively, with a period of revaluation of property, but then their tenure in office was limited to 18 months. The position of censors has taken on enormous importance. They not only distributed citizens by classes, but also observed their morals, their fidelity to their national traditions and customs, their way of life, and could even punish for deviations from moral norms. For such a violation, censors could even deprive senators of their posts.

As the class barriers fell, property distinctions began to gain more and more importance, on which the division of citizens into five classes was based, with varying degrees of their participation in the centuriate comitia. Wealthy patricians and plebeians began to draw closer to each other, to become related through marriages, to support each other. The election of magistrates in the centuriate comitia depended only on them, and only they could take upon themselves the gratuitous administration of difficult and responsible posts of consul, praetor, etc. Gradually, almost all the main positions, and with them the seats in the Senate, became the property of a certain number of families that formed a new aristocracy. nobles, i.e. eminent people, otherwise nobility... It was no longer a tribal nobility, consecrated in the eyes of the people by religious legends: it was an official nobility, the entire value of which, except for wealth, was kept in the occupation of state positions.

First Punic War. The Punic Wars got their name from the fact that the Romans called the Carthaginians Punians. The reason for the first war between Rome and Carthage was the disagreement over the administration of Sicily, which occupied a convenient position in the Mediterranean Sea.

At the end of the IV century. BC NS. in Syracuse, a violent coup took place, which brought power to the tyrant Agathocles, who, with the help of mercenary troops, achieved recognition of Syracuse's hegemony on the entire island, with the exception of the western outskirts, held by Carthage after a rather stubborn war. Having accepted the title of king, Agathocles even began to provide protection and patronage to the Greek cities in southern Italy. After his death, disagreements began in Syracuse, which were used by the Campanian mercenaries who were in his service, the so-called Mamertines, and took possession of the city of Messana at the strait separating Sicily from the mainland. Soon after this, King Pyrrhus also appeared in Sicily, Syracuse and other important cities joined with him, and the enterprising Epirus leader, declaring himself king of Sicily, renewed the war with Carthage. Having quarreled with his allies, he, however, soon left Sicily. The new ruler of Syracuse, Hieron, attacked the Mamertines, they turned to Rome for help, which found it necessary to intercede for these "Italics", and Hieron, for his part, turned to the mediation of Carthage. When it came to the attention of the Romans, they sent their army to Sicily and captured Messana. Carthage responded by declaring war. Thus, the beginning of the Punic wars was the intervention of the Romans in the affairs of the island, which had long been the arena of the struggle between the Greeks and the Carthaginians.

The war began in 264 BC. NS. The Greek cities and the native population of Sicily took the side of Rome, and the Romans pressed the Carthaginians in Sicily, but the Punians with their fleet attacked the shores of Italy. In order not to fear the naval power of Carthage, Rome, of course, needed to have its own fleet. The Romans energetically set to work, set up large penters (ships with five rows of oarsmen), trained their soldiers in advance to work with oars, arranging special devices for this on land, and most importantly - adapted their new fleet to hand-to-hand combat with the help of drawbridges, on which the warriors could easily move from their ships to enemy ships. On land, in Sicily, the preponderance was, in general, on the side of Rome, on the sea, Carthage was victorious. In total, the war lasted twenty-three years, exhausting both sides. When in 241 BC. NS. the Romans won a naval victory at the Aegate Islands, Carthage made peace with Rome, leaving Sicily behind him and agreeing to pay a large indemnity. Sicily (with the exception of the dominion of Hiero) was the first Roman conquest outside Italy, the first Roman province. The peace between Rome and Carthage was only a truce, but 23 years passed between the first and second wars, i.e. as long as the first war lasted. Both sides continued to make conquests at this time and prepared for a new struggle between themselves. The Romans captured part of Northern Italy, built several fortresses there and built a military road that connected Rome with the Po Valley. In addition, they cleared the Adriatic Sea of ​​Illyrian sea robbers and even subjugated a part of Illyria, thus taking a position on the Balkan Peninsula.

Hannibal's victories over the Romans ... The Second Punic War lasted 17 years (218–201 BC) and was at first very unfortunate for Rome. The Romans thought to wage war in Africa and Spain, but the Carthaginian general Hannibal brought it to Italy, appearing there from the side from which he was not expected. According to Hannibal's plan, a Carthaginian squadron was to sail to the shores of Sicily and Italy, while he himself was supposed to unite in Northern Italy with the Gauls just conquered by Rome and invade Central Italy from there. Carrying out this plan, Hannibal moved from Spain to Italy through the Pyrenees, Southern Gaul and the Alps, which took him about six months. The crossing through the Alps was especially difficult, where there were no roads and we had to go in the fall, when it was already snowing in the mountains. People, horses, pack animals fell down and died. Others died from exhaustion and disease. To top it off, the mountain dwellers greeted Hannibal's army extremely unfriendly, blocking its path or dropping stones from above on the soldiers passing below. Of the 60 thousand that were withdrawn by Hannibal from Spain, only twenty thousand infantry and about five to six thousand cavalry survived. However, the Roman consuls (Publius Cornelius Scipio and Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus) were defeated one after another at the rivers Titinus and Trebia, which flow into Po. At Lake Trasimene, the Romans suffered their third defeat. The road to Rome was open, but Hannibal himself was in dire need of rest in order to replenish and rebuild his army. Meanwhile, in Rome, Quintus Fabius Maximus was elected dictatorship, who, however, also tried to avoid decisive actions, for which he received the nickname Kunktator, i.e. The procrastinator. Soon Hannibal bypassed Latium from the east and came first to Campania, and from there to Apulia. He brought the number of his troops to 50 thousand people, but the Romans also collected about 86 thousand. In 216 BC. NS. at Cannes (in Alulia, 15 versts from the coast of the Adriatic Sea), both Roman consuls (Lucius Aemilius Paul and Guy Terentius Varro) suffered the most terrible defeat in this entire war. The Roman infantry could not resist the African cavalry, and up to seventy thousand Romans fell on the battlefield. However, fortunately for the Romans, Hannibal's Italian allies acted extremely sluggishly, and the Carthaginian army could not take decisive action. The Romans showed extraordinary energy after the defeat of Cannes. The rich people at their own expense built a fleet, and the entire adult male population armed itself to save the fatherland; even from the slaves they recruited two legions of troops. Moreover, the Romans went on the offensive, attacking the allies who had betrayed them and punishing them for this betrayal. Hannibal was in southern Italy for several more years, no longer having the former forces to fight Rome. In vain he turned to Carthage for help. The Senate of the merchant republic did not even think to do anything for its commander. The affairs of the Romans soon began to recover, and all Hannibal's victories were wasted for Carthage. By 206 BC. NS. Rome managed to restore its power in Italy and Sicily, conquer the Spanish possessions of Carthage and force Macedonia to peace. This year Publius Cornelius Scipio himself returned with triumph to Rome from Spain, and in 205 BC. NS. he was elected consul. He took advantage of the popularity gained among the people to insist on the transfer of the war to Africa itself. In 204 BC. NS. at the head of a good army, he, appointed leader of this expedition, landed in Africa and soon defeated the troops of the Punes and the Numidians allied with them (203 BC), and then the Carthaginian Senate summoned Hannibal to Africa. In 201 BC. NS. the pune were finally defeated by Scipio, and in 201 BC. NS. Carthage made peace with Rome, while yielding to its rival the Spanish possessions and the islands of the Mediterranean Sea, giving him his fleet and pledging to pay a huge indemnity in 50 years.

Allied war. No sooner had the Romans escaped danger than in Italy itself a revolt of the allies broke out against them. The center of the uprising was the city of Corfinium (in the region of the people of Mars on the s. From Latium), in which the rebel allies organized a common government. The danger for Rome was great, and he began with the backslidden war, which was called the allied war (91–88 BC). The Romans managed to separate the interests of the enemies, making various concessions to them, and, in the end, get out of this dangerous situation with success.

War with Mithridates... Some of their neighbors took advantage of the difficulties of the Romans since the Allied War. Among them, Mithridates, the king of Pontus (along the southern coast of the Black Sea), who, having united with his son-in-law, the king of Armenia (Tigranes), undertook campaigns of conquest with the aim of founding a large state, to which he included, for example, part northern shores of the Black Sea (Bosporan Kingdom). He invaded in 89 BC. NS. to the Roman province of Asia (the former Pergamon kingdom), where he was sympathetically greeted by the locals, and ordered to kill Roman citizens and soldiers here. This command was fulfilled: about 80 thousand people were killed, and the Pontic king took possession of their property. The Asian and European Greeks looked at Mithridates as a deliverer from the Roman yoke, and willingly joined him, and Athens even became the center of resistance to the Romans in Greece. Sulla was placed at the head of the Roman army to fight Mithridates, who took Athens, destroyed Piraeus (which dealt an irreparable blow to the trade value of Athens), drove the invading Mithridates out of Greece and transferred the war to Asia Minor.

Rebellion of slaves and fight against sea robbers. After the death of Sulla, Gnaeus Pompey became the most influential person in Rome, who, by the way, had to pacify a dangerous slave uprising in Italy itself and cleanse the Mediterranean Sea of ​​pirates. One fugitive slave, named Spartacus, a Thracian by birth, gathered around him a small detachment of fugitive slaves, which quickly began to increase and finally reached a large figure - 120 thousand people. At first, the actions of the Romans were unsuccessful, but in the end, the slaves were defeated by Mark Licinius Crassus, and Pompey finally finished them off. The Romans entrusted him with the war with the sea robbers, who took advantage of the internal unrest in Rome to create their own fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, and set up fortresses on its shores. Their main nest was the island of Crete. Pompey with 500 ships and an army of 120 thousand people quickly fulfilled his assignment. Rome was again saved from the dangers that threatened it, and, in addition, the Romans took possession of Crete;

Conquest of Gaul. Upon his return from Asia, Pompey entered Rome into an agreement with the leaders of the political parties Licinius Crassus and Gaius Julius Caesar for joint rule over the Roman state (60 BC). By virtue of this triumvirate, as this union is called, Caesar, who turned out to be one of the foremost generals of antiquity, received control over Cisalpine and Narbonne Gaul. To the north of the latter, in a vast country between the ocean and the Rhine, numerous Celtic tribes lived in constant strife among themselves, who began to enter into relations with the Romans. The closest neighbors of the "province" (hence the name of Provence) were the Helvetians (in Switzerland), the Sequans (to the north-west of the Jura), the Edui (to the west of them) and the Arverni (to the north-west of the Seven), and when the Romans supported the Aedui against the Sequans, the latter called for the help of the Germans from across the Rhine. In order to intimidate the Celts who inhabited Britain, Caesar even crossed the strait that separates this island from the mainland. The conquest of Gaul was made easier for Caesar by the fact that the country was politically fragmented between separate tribal states, although they were united by a common religion, which had a developed and influential priesthood in the person of the Druids. In each such state, government power was badly organized, and the people were in serfdom depending on the rich and noble families. At the beginning of the war, Caesar met with strong resistance only from the Belgi, who occupied a large area between the Seine and the Rhine. Quickly - in just two years - having conquered the whole country, Caesar, however, had to then pacify the uprisings, here and there, and the rebels were subjected to severe punishment. For example, an entire tribe of Venets in Brittany was sold into slavery. In the Gaulish campaigns, Caesar created an exemplary army, developing in himself to the highest degree all the qualities necessary for a commander. Gallia, conquered by Caesar, was organized by him into a Roman province, and, finally, he himself, as a historian, described the conquest of this country in his famous "Notes on the Gallic War" (Commentarii de bello gallico).

The transformation of Egypt into a Roman province. During Caesar's conquest of Gaul, the triumvirate fell apart. Krasé died in a war with the Parthians, who founded a large kingdom in Mesopotamia, and Pompey, envious of Caesar, began to unite with his enemies. It came to an internecine war between the former triumvirs, which also engulfed the provinces. The victory remained with Caesar. In 48 BC. NS. he arrived in Egypt, intervened as an arbitrator in the dispute for the throne between the children of the just deceased king (Ptolemy Avlet), ten-year-old Ptolemy and his sister Cleopatra, in whose favor he decided this dispute. The population of Alexandria did not want to submit to such a decision and raised an uprising that threatened Caesar with great danger. For five months he with a small detachment had to withstand the siege, first in the royal palace, and then, when the palace burned down (and the library of Alexandria died with it), on the lighthouse island of Pharos, until the troops who came from Asia rescued him. With them Caesar undertook the conquest of Alexandria, and the city had to surrender. Cleopatra received the Egyptian crown from the hands of the winner and henceforth had to rule depending on Rome. This prepared the way for Egypt's appeal to the Roman province. When a few years later, after Caesar's death, a new internecine war broke out in Rome (between Antony and Octavian), Cleopatra sided, but was defeated, and Egypt had already turned directly into a Roman province (30 BC). ...

Organization of provinces. The provinces, of which Sicily was the first in time (241 BC), were considered the estates of the Roman people, their inhabitants were its subjects. All land in the provinces became the property of the Roman people, and for those plots of land that the local population continued to use, they paid a well-known rent to the Roman treasury as tenants. The Senate sent to govern the provinces of the former magistrates, called proconsuls and propraetors, and gave them on behalf of the Roman people sovereign power, or empires (imperium), over the population of the provinces. With these governors went to the Roman provinces quaestors who were in charge of treasury fees, legates, a kind of officials for special assignments, and a whole staff of scribes, lictors, etc. minor officials. The proconsul or propraetor also possessed the highest judicial power in the provinces, and each new governor, like the praetors in Rome, issued an edict determining the order of administration of the region. Unfortunately for the provincials, the governors changed annually, and neither they themselves nor their subordinates received a salary. Endowed with unlimited power for a very short time and not receiving the correct remuneration for their work, the Roman rulers outside Italy terribly abused their morals and directly robbed the subject population. It was said about many of them: "he came to a rich province poor, he left a poor province rich." Although in the middle of the II century. BC NS. in Rome, a special law was passed that allowed the provincials to complain about their rulers after the expiration of their term of office about the extortion they had committed, but in reality it was very difficult for the provincials to obtain satisfaction. The judges of the guilty governors were persons of the same position with them, of the same interests, and the guilty were either completely acquitted or punished with small fines. And in the provinces, the Romans also gave different privileges to certain localities or categories of persons, depending on the attitude they received from them when establishing their dominion.

Page 3 of 5

State structure of Rome in the III-II centuries. BC.

In the course of the struggle of the plebeians with the patricians in the conditions of the conquest of Italy by Rome, the social structure of Rome changed.

The important state significance of the assembly of plebeians by territorial districts - tribes (Roman territory was divided into 35 territorial districts - tribes, 4 urban and 31 rural).

Plebs was divided into urban, engaged in handicrafts and trade, and rural, representing the Roman peasantry. Together, these two strata made up Roman citizenship, i.e. collective of the Roman polis. In legal terms, citizenship was not uniform. It was divided into estates. The highest was the senatorial estate, the top of which was considered the most noble, and therefore was called the nobility. The second group of workers and landowners, actively participating in financial and commercial operations, but inferior in nobility to the first, formed the estate of horsemen. The third estate was the plebes. Unlike the upper classes, the plebeians had only active suffrage.

On the basis of the struggle that took place in the era of the early Republic and the regrouping of social forces, the Roman republican constitution was formed. Actually, there was no such document. But the description of the Roman state system as a whole and its individual elements was preserved in the works of ancient authors.

Quoting Cicero, we can briefly characterize the political direction of his works.

(XXX1V, 51) .... “If the state is guided by chance, it will perish as soon as the ship will perish if the helmsman gets up, appointed by lot from among the passengers. Therefore, if a free people chooses people to entrust themselves to them - and he chooses only the best people if only to take care of his own good - then the good of the state will undoubtedly be entrusted to the wisdom of the best people - especially since nature itself has arranged so that not only people who are superior to others in their valor and courage should dominate the weaker, but these latter willingly obey the first.

Wealth, nobility, influence - in the absence of wisdom and the ability to live and command other people - lead only to dishonor and arrogant pride, and there is no more ugly form of government than one in which richest people are considered the best. (52) And what could be more beautiful than the situation when the state is ruled by valor; when the one who commands others is not himself in bondage to any of the passions. When he was imbued with everything that he teaches and calls citizens to, and does not impose laws on the people, which he himself will not obey, but presents his own life to his citizens as a law? ”...

The state organization differs from the tribal organization in three features: the presence of a special apparatus of violence and coercion (army, courts, prisons, officials), the division of the population not by consanguinity, as well as taxes collected to maintain the army, officials, etc.

In Rome, a republican form of government (V-1 centuries BC) was approved after the uprising local population Rome (at the end of the V1 century), which liquidated the monarchy, it was established that the community would henceforth be governed by elders elected every year - magistrates.

The highest state body is considered to be the People's Assembly. The assembly of the people had three types - comitia (from the Latin word cometia - gathering);
- curiate;
- centrurial;
- tribune comitia.

Their functions were delimited quite clearly, which was used for their own purposes by the ruling elite of Rome, represented by the senate and magistrates.

Senate - controlled and directed the activities of the People's Assembly in the direction necessary for it, the composition of the Senate was replenished from magistrates who had served their term.

Only a rich man could be elected as magistrate. The highest magistrates were considered - censors, consuls and praetors.

consul - commanded an army.

praetor - sent the judiciary.

The magistrates and the Senate enjoyed virtually the entire completeness of state power in the Roman Republic, which acquired a pronounced aristocratic character.

Introduction

In my test work, I want to consider such a topic as "State structure of Ancient Rome."

Ancient Rome is one of the largest slave states, which left the brightest mark in the history of mankind. His cultural heritage has had a profound impact.

The state is one of the most perfect, complex and contradictory creations of human civilization. Most of what is known from the history of peoples is a picture that tells about the formation, collisions and death of state formations, about a sophisticated and fierce struggle for power, in which people did not spare either their own kind or themselves.

The duration of Roman history is estimated at 12 centuries. During such a long existence, the Roman state and law did not remain unchanged, they went through a certain path of development. It is customary to divide the history of Roman society and the state into 3 main periods:

• 1. Tsarist period (VIII-VI centuries BC).
• 2. Republican period (VI-I centuries BC).
• 3. Imperial period (I-V centuries AD).

The flourishing of classical slave relations continued at the beginning of the early Roman Empire. In the last centuries of its existence, the decay of the slave system was observed. Slavery became a brake on further development.

Literary data on the origin of Rome are legendary and contradictory. This is noted by the ancient authors themselves. So, for example, Diosinius of Halicarnassus says that "there are many disagreements both on the question of the time of the founding of the city of Rome, and on the identity of its founder." The history of the formation of the ancient Roman state is subject to study on the basis of existing myths, legends and traditions, which presents a certain complexity and subjectivity in the presentation of historical assumptions.

Roman society slave curia

The ancient settlement of Rome lived in clans ruled by elders. The clan was originally a close-knit collective, linked by a common origin, common ownership of the land, as well as the veneration of ancestors.

Over time, people appeared on the territory belonging to the clans who were not part of any of them. These were freed slaves or their descendants, foreigners, artisans and merchants, people expelled for violating clan customs, forcibly resettled from the conquered cities. These newcomers were called plebeians in Rome.

The original population, living in clans, was called patricians. The patricians were full citizens. They split into three tribes. Each tribe consisted of 100 clans. Every 10 genera formed a curia. The curiae formed the general popular assembly of the Roman community (curiae comitia). It accepted or rejected the bills proposed to it, elected all senior officials, acted as the highest court of appeal when deciding the question of the death penalty, declared war.

The main elements of the ancient state structure of Rome are the king, the senate and the national assembly.

The king (rex) is the supreme ruler of the state; all functions of state power are concentrated in his hands. He is both the supreme commander of the people, and the guardian of internal order, and the representative for the people before the gods. As a commander, he disposes of the military forces of the people, appoints commanders, etc. As the guardian of internal order, he has the right to judge and punish all citizens up to the right to life and death.

Rome is not, however, a dynastic monarchy. It is possible that in the prehistoric era, and Rome knew royal power, which was inherited in some way, but, in any case, from the very beginning historical era there can be no question of such heredity.

After the death of the king, at the time of the interregnum, the supreme power in the state passes to the Senate. The Senate elects 10 people from among its members, who take turns (5 days each) to govern the state until a candidate for the post of tsar is nominated. The next Senate proposes the intended candidate to the People's Assembly, which endows him with power. To acquire the right to communicate with the gods, the newly elected king also needs a special dedication.

In the exercise of his power, the king may appoint assistants to himself; but whether something like permanent master's degrees was already formed during the tsarist period is difficult to say. Undoubtedly, there were commanders of individual military units; it is possible that during his absence the tsar left someone in the city as his deputy, but the permanent judges for criminal cases, in all likelihood, date back to the era of the republic.

Next to the king is the senate (senatus), which was earliest time of all the clan elders, who were thus, as representatives of the clans, members of the Senate. Ha this indicates the already mentioned earlier coincidence of the number of senators with the number of clans according to Roman tradition, as well as the name of the senators "patres". Later, however, with a gradual decline in the importance of clans and with the strengthening of royal power, this principle of clan representation disappears and the senate is made up by the appointment of the king.

The role of the senate in relation to the tsar is purely deliberative: the senate discusses, at the suggestion of the tsar, certain issues, and its conclusions are of fundamental importance to advice, which is not legally binding for the tsar, but, of course, have enormous factual force.

In relation to the people, the Senate plays the role of guardian. But moreover, every new law adopted in the assembly of the people still needs to be confirmed for its validity.

The third element of the state structure is the national assembly, that is, the assembly of all adults (capable of carrying weapons), full citizens (i.e., patricians). The organization of these national assemblies is based on the division into curia, the National Assembly is convened on the initiative of the king, who submits his proposals there. These proposals are not debated in the assembly, but simply accepted or rejected by an open oral vote (simple "yes" or "no"). The majority of the votes in this curia gave the vote of the curia, and the majority of the votes of these latter gave the decision of the national assembly. The subjects of the department of people's assemblies can hardly be defined with sufficient clarity. It can be assumed that all the new laws that affected more or less substantially the legal structure of society were in need of the sanction of popular assemblies. In the national assembly, further, there is the acceptance of someone into the patrician, as well as some of the most important acts of private life - adoption and will.

Finally, probably, in the meetings, the most important issues of current domestic and foreign policy were also decided - for example, the issue of declaring war, concluding peace, etc.

But, in general, whether or not to hand over this or that issue to the decision of the national assembly depended entirely on the will of the tsar, for the national assembly itself could not take place without his will.

The patriarchal nature of the ancient Roman state system eliminates the idea of ​​any legal (constitutional) rights of popular assemblies in relation to the king. In fact, of course, the tsar in all the most important cases had to seek support from the people, but legally his personal will, his supreme power was not bound by anything.

Due to the availability of all three described elements, general character Roman government of this period is controversial. In view of the fact that the Senate and the National Assembly stand next to the tsar, the state structure may seem to be a constitutional monarchy; on the other hand, in the absence of any legal restrictions on the royal power, it can be understood as an absolute monarchy; finally, taking into account the elective nature of the royal power and the relative completeness of the powers of the later republican magistrates, especially dictators and consuls, one can also consider ancient Rome a republic, only with a dictator for life. Likewise, the internal nature of this structure is also controversial: some put the military element in the forefront in the royal power, others - the religious, theocratic element.

All these disputes find their explanation in the fact that all these elements are still included in the state structure of this period and that our current theoretical categories cannot be applied to the still unformed system. And if it is really desirable to give this system any general definition, then the most correct would be “patriarchal”.

Conclusion

The expansion of the power of Rome, introducing new elements into it, created two layers in the population - the dominant and the subordinate. Such dualism appears to us already in ancient, prehistoric Rome, manifesting itself in the antagonism between patricians and plebeians. The struggle between patricians and plebeians is a fact dominating the history of government, social life and legislation of ancient Rome.

The West Roman Empire ceased to exist. On its ruins, new states, new political formations arose, within the framework of which the formation of feudal socio-economic relations began. And although the fall of the power of the West Roman emperor, who had long lost its prestige and influence, was not perceived by his contemporaries as a major event, in world history 476 became the most important borderline, the end of the ancient world, the slave-owning socio-economic formation, and the beginning of the medieval period of world history, feudal socio-economic formation.

List of used literature

• 1. Krushilo Yu.S. "Reader on the history of the ancient world" Moscow 1980.
• 2. Struve V.V. "Reader on the history of the ancient world" Moscow 1975.
• 3. The third volume of the history of the ancient world. Moscow 1980
• 4. Reader on the history of Ancient Rome. Moscow graduate School 1987
• 5. Utchenko S.L. "Political teachings of ancient Rome III-I centuries BC" Moscow 1977
• 6. Kuzishchin V.I. "History of Ancient Rome" Moscow, High School 1982.
• 7. Skripilev E.A. History of the state and law of the Ancient World. Study guide - M. 1993
• 8. Krasheninnikova N.A. History of the state and law of foreign countries. Study guide - M., 1994

§ 13. Having become acquainted with the structure of the most ancient Roman society, we can better understand the structure of the most ancient Roman state. The paucity of sources allows us to present only a brief outline of this device.

The most ancient state structure consisted of three bodies: the king, the senate and the national assembly.

§§ 14-16. Tsar * (39)

§ 14. The foundation of the royal power. Was the royal power in Rome elective or hereditary? Our sources do not give a clear and reliable answer to this question. The most probable conclusion from them (supported by the comparative history of law) is that in ancient Rome, like other Indo-European peoples, the people maintained the belief that royal power should be hereditary. But in reality, this principle was often violated for various reasons: the king died without offspring; a powerful usurper seized power by force or thanks to other influences (wealth, intelligence, support of influential families). In this case, the king's power was based on choice. But who had the right to choose and in what order, this was hardly determined at that time as accurately and in detail as the Roman writers tell: the history of other peoples shows that even with a relatively higher degree of development of the people, the election of the head of state is not carried out in compliance with such detailed and the exact rules that were observed, according to the Roman writers, when the Roman king was elected. And from the story of the Roman writers themselves about the accession to the throne of individual kings, it is clear that these rules were almost never fully observed. Most likely, although some of them were observed, they were not considered necessary, so that a king who ascended the throne without observing them was still considered a legitimate king.

The election of the king, according to the stories of Roman writers, consisted of the following four acts: interregnum, creatio regis, inauguratio and auctoritas patram or lex curiata de imperio * (40). After the death of the tsar, ten of the senators were invested with the power to govern the state and take care of looking for a candidate for tsar. These ten sent their duty in turns (5 days each). After the expiration of the term, 10 new senators were appointed, etc. until the election of the king. These 10 rulers were called interreges, and the time of their reign was interregnum * (41). The Interreges were elected only from among the patricians.

By agreement with the senate, the inter-kings elected a candidate for kings, who was then selected by the kuriat assembly (creatio regis) * (42).

Upon the election of the king, the third act was performed: auspices, in order to find out if the gods approve of his choice. This act was called inauguratio * (43). The inauguration took place in the presence of a popular assembly.

Finally, some Roman writers say that there was a fourth act, which they call differently. Libya says that the chosen king was to receive another auctoritas patrum (1, 17.22.33), Dionysius - the approval of the patricians (2, 60), Cicero - the endowment of power through a special decree of the curiate assembly, the so-called lex curiata de imperio (Rep . 2, 13.1718.20.21). Whether this act existed during the election of the tsar and what it consisted of, this, due to the unsatisfactory sources, is impossible to find out.

§ 15. The power of the king. The royal power can be viewed from two points of view: its content, or, in other words, the objects of the department to which it extended, and its strength.

The content of the royal power is difficult to determine precisely. The reason for this lies not only in the scarcity of sources, but also in the very nature of the state life of the most ancient Roman society. This life has just begun; therefore, its elements could not yet stand out and stand in a definite position towards each other. From the tradition preserved by the Roman writers, we conclude that all aspects of state power, not being clearly distinguished by the popular consciousness, were in the hands of the king: he was the supreme commander, administrator, judge, priest, etc. * (44)

The strength of the king's power also cannot be accurately determined. To judge it, it is necessary to bear in mind the following generally known facts.

On the one hand, tradition often talks about the death sentences of the tsar, about his unlimited orders as a commander, about the conclusion of peaces, about the unaccountable disposal of the state treasury and public land, about the use of citizens for generally useful work.

From these stories one might conclude that the king was an unlimited monarch. This is what some historians of our time do.

But on the other hand, we have evidence of a different kind. First, it is known that the life of the most ancient Romans passed under the strongest influence of their religious beliefs. All important acts of private and public life they tried to carefully harmonize with religious precepts. There is no doubt that the king, as a son of his time, was also strictly guided by these precepts. This was already a strong limitation of his arbitrariness. Secondly, tradition refers to the very beginning of the Roman state the existence of a council of elders, a senate, a Consilium regium, with which, according to custom, the king had to consult on all important matters. True, from the same legend it is clear that this was not absolutely necessary for the king. Tarquinius the Proud, for example, ruled without a senate. But this circumstance was, according to the same legend, one of the reasons for his overthrow. Thirdly, in the same way, in judicial matters, the tsar usually consulted with a special council. Finally, from the legend about the attempt of Tarquinius the Ancient to carry out some political reforms, it is clear that these attempts failed due to the resistance of some patrician families.

From all the above facts, we can deduce the following very likely conclusion about the strength of the royal power: in ancient Rome there were no institutions that would have been specially provided with some sides of the supreme state power, or at least participation in them along with the king. Therefore, in some cases, the tsar had the opportunity to act solely at his own discretion. But in general, religion, custom and tribal unions were so strong that in fact the king had to conform to public opinion, especially in the person of the Senate, the popular assembly and some religious institutions.

Special mention should be made of the legislative power of the king. The legend about all the kings tells that they created new or changed old institutions, i.e., in other words, they issued laws (leges regiae), that under Tarquinia Gordom someone S. Papirian compiled a collection of them, which was called jus civile Papirianum * ( 45). At the same time, it is sometimes said that these laws were approved by the people's assembly, sometimes the case is presented as if the king issued them alone. Hence, in the old days, it was concluded that the king could make laws by virtue of his own power, independently of any other institution in the state. Nowadays, everyone recognizes that the Roman king did not have legislative power. The main argument in favor of this view is that it has just been said about the factors that limited the tsarist power: any important reform concerning the private relations of citizens or the state system had to inevitably affect religious and tribal interests, which were so powerful that the tsar could not violate them without the consent of the influential classes of citizens. How to explain the undoubted existence of leges regiae, this will be discussed in the section on sources of law.

The external differences of the royal power were a purple mantle (later a toga trimmed with purple), a scepter with an eagle, a chair made of Ivory and a golden diadem; the king walked and rode accompanied by 12 lictors, who had bundles of rods and axes in their hands.

§ 16. Assistants to the king. For all the simplicity of management, which we must assume in the ancient Roman state, the king could not cope with various matters alone. He had secular and spiritual assistants, whom he entrusted with the closest management of well-known branches of government, retaining the general leadership. These assistants had no independent authority; they depended on the king, although there is reason to believe that some of the spiritual assistants had already at that time become independent.

The more important secular assistants were as follows.

Tribunus celerum - chief of the cavalry, purely military position, without political significance.

Custos, or praefectus urbis (or urbi) - a person to whom the king, during his absence from Rome, entrusted the protection of the city and the management of current affairs.

Duoviri perduellionis. The word perduellio was used to describe crimes against an entire state. The trial for such crimes was assigned to two citizens, whom the king himself appointed for each individual case. If their verdict was guilty, then the convicted person could file a complaint with the assembly of the people (provocatio).

Quaestores parricidii - officials who were supposed to investigate crimes that were collectively called parricidium. This word at first meant homicide in general (and not only parricide), and later - all crimes that, firstly, were investigated and punished according to the same rules as homicide, and, secondly, were directed against individual citizens, and not a whole state. Quaestores were a permanent office to which citizens were appointed by the king (not by the people).

Of the king's spiritual assistants, we are interested in those who had an impact on state life and on the education or application of law. These were the three colleges of fetials, augurs and pontiffs * (46).

The collegium of fetials (fetiales), which consisted of 20 members, assisted the king (and later the republican magistrates) in international relations; for example, they made a declaration of war, extradition to a foreign state of Roman ambassadors who violated international customs, generals who concluded a treaty at their own expense with the enemy, which the Roman government refused to approve, etc. All these international relations, according to the beliefs of that time, were under the auspices of the gods and therefore had to be accompanied by well-known religious rites. The performance of these rituals lay on the feces. This collegium did not play a particularly important role either under the tsars or during the republic.

College of augurs. All Italian peoples believed that Jupiter let them know about his will with the help of some symbolic signs, for example, celestial phenomena, especially lightning, the cry and flight of birds, etc. The Romans in particular developed a habit of recognizing the will of God in these ways, which was called auspicia. The questions with which the Romans addressed God were of a purely practical, so to speak, prosaic nature, i.e. not about the future in general, but about whether the deity favors the undertaking of a certain action in private or public life.

Every private person could ask God if it was a matter of private interest. In matters of statehood, this could only be done by the tsar (and in the republic magistrates). But the one and the other could not only question themselves, but also interpret the observed phenomena. However, the sincere (in ancient times) fear of misinterpreting the will of God and, thus, not achieving the practical goal for which the whole act was undertaken, forced the Romans to seek assistance from people who, for whatever reason, were revered as skillful interpreters. This explains quite naturally the formation of a special class of augurs. The homogeneity of their technical interests, the need for their constant assistance to public administration and the need to transfer their special knowledge to new generations should have led early to the arrangement of augurs in the form of a college.

The art of augurs gradually grew into a complex system, the assimilation of which was possible only for those who received access to the college. And since no important state act was undertaken without auspices, the augurs, on whom it depended to give the phenomena any interpretation, had to favorable conditions get a big impact on political life, which really happened during the republic. It is known, for example, that at the beginning of the republic, when only patricians had access to the college, augural art was often used to eliminate acts harmful to patrician interests. What was the degree of influence of the augurs under the kings is not known for certain; presumably we can say that it was less than in the republic.

Tradition also attributes the emergence of the college of pontiffs to the time of the kings. In the republic, this collegium played a primary role in state life and in the formation of Roman law, which will be discussed later. In the present period, it is unlikely that the tsarist power allowed her to significantly develop her influence.

What was the original purpose of the pontiffs is not known for certain. Judging by their later activities, one can think that they were educated people of their time, who possessed certain special knowledge that they used initially for religious purposes, for example, they kept track of time (calendar), participated in some legal acts (adoption, marriage ). In republican times, they were responsible for the supervision of various activities in the field of religion, for example, the timely offering of sacrifices, the observance of the established holidays, the correct spending of funds belonging to the religious department, etc.

The College elected from among its members the Supreme Pontiff (Pontifex Maximus).

Senate

§ 17. Tradition unanimously testifies that a special council called Senatus, patres took part in the administration of the state alongside the king from ancient times.

The legal position of the oldest senate was already outlined earlier in relation to the royal power: the tsar, according to custom, consulted with the senate in all important matters; but the decision of this latter was not binding on the king. The king could decide matters without even consulting the Senate. The Senate could not assemble itself without a call from the king (except in the case of an interregnum).

The actual value of the Senate, as already indicated above, was significantly greater than the legal one, i.e. the king in the vast majority of cases could not rule without the assistance of the Senate, if he did not want to risk his very position. The reason for this importance of the senate was that it relied on the force of the gentes, which was spoken of earlier. The oldest composition of the Senate points to this very reason.

The question of who consisted of the oldest senate cannot be clarified in detail. But the basic principle, i.e. the direct connection of senators with clans can be considered reliable, as can be seen from the following considerations. Roman tradition, speaking of the number of senators, always puts it in line with the number of curiae and clans. The normal number of senators was considered 300 * (47); it corresponds to 30 curiae, into which the Roman people were divided, and 300 clans, which were distributed among these curiae * (48). The Romans always represent the accession of new clans in connection with the appointment of some members of these clans to senators * (49).

The very name of the Senate (from senex) shows that initially the senators were elderly or even old people, which is quite understandable: in the simple way of life in which the most ancient Romans lived, wisdom was mainly due to personal life experience, which grew over the years * (50) ... Thus, we can argue that the oldest senate consisted of the oldest and therefore most influential members of the patrician clans.

However, on the basis of the given data, one cannot go further, as some do. modern writers, claiming that each genus had its own representative in the Senate. On the contrary, it can be argued with greater certainty that the appointment to senator was made at the discretion of the tsar. This is indicated by the expression legere in patres, coming from ancient times, to elect senators, and some of the Roman writers directly say that this lectio was performed by kings. The right to be elected senators * (51), which belonged to the consuls at the beginning of the republic, also prompts the conclusion. Of course, in view of the strength of the clans, the kings had to take their compatriots from among the influential relatives, but they could deviate from this rule. Thanks to this, they could subsequently introduce plebeians into the Senate.

As for the subjects of the department of the oldest senate, i.e. questions on which the tsar, according to custom, had to confer with the senate, then nothing reliable can be said about this.

National Assembly

§ 18. The third member of the most ancient state structure was the assembly of the entire people, and, moreover, not in the form of a formless crowd, but distributed in the curia, which is why the assembly was called comitia curiata.

The subjects of the department of this assembly and the degree of its influence on state administration during the tsarist period is very difficult to determine due to the extreme unsatisfactoryness of our sources. Most of the answers to both questions will only be probable.

The subjects that were subject to the conduct of the curiate collection were partly religious, or at least in contact with religion, partly secular. Of the religious, we will point only to inauguratio regis and the making of wills. It has already been said above that the inauguration took place in the presence of all the people. Twice a year, the Romans could present their wills before the assembly of the people, i.e. make orders in case of death if they wished to change the usual order of inheritance * (52). In these and other similar cases, the people, apparently, were convened in a special way, namely by means of a nationwide announcement of an appointment. This method of convening was designated by the verb calare, and hence the assembly itself was called comitia calata * (53).

The participation of the people in the affairs of the comitia calata was, apparently, purely passive: he listened to what the king, priest or citizen, who made orders in case of death, announced to him * (54).

More interesting for us, but also more doubtful, are the secular subjects of the department. One of the ancient historians, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, claims that since the time of the first kings, the curiate assembly was given the election of magistrates, the approval of laws, the declaration of war and the conclusion of peace * (55). However, comparison with other information forces us to recognize this evidence as unreliable. Dionysius transferred to the curiate assembly those rights that in the republican period belonged to the centuriate assembly. It is more likely that the participation of the popular assembly in government under the tsars was very limited, as will be seen from the following analysis of its department subjects.

1. Arrogatio, i.e. that type of adoption, when an independent citizen (paterfamilias) gave himself up under the paternal authority of another citizen. If the adopted child had a family whose members were under his authority, then she, with all the property, passed under the authority of the adoptive parent, who accepted all these new household members into his family religion. In ancient times, this adoption took place, probably, when the last representative of an endangered genus, not hoping to have offspring of his own, wanted to support the existence of the genus in an artificial way. At the same time, the property, religious and personal interests of at least two, and sometimes many, clans were affected. Therefore, it is very likely that the approval of the adoption depended on the curiate meeting, in which all members of the clan took part * (56).

2. Cooptatio, i.e. adoption of foreign births among the patrician. This right of assembly for the tsarist period is not attested by sources; but it is probably for indirect reasons: the word "cooptatio" indicates acceptance by the genera themselves; in the republic it was required for this act jussus populi * (57); finally, the interests of the Roman gens were thus affected so strongly that these gens could hardly be excluded from participation in the cooptatio.

3. Creatio regis, i.e. the election of the king at the proposal of the inter-king. The degree of participation of the people in this act was small: they could only accept or reject the proposed candidate. Members of the National Assembly had no right to nominate their own candidate. This right to elect a king can be seen as the embryo of the future right of the people to elect the officials of the republic (magistrates).

4. Lex de bello indicendo, i.e. the right to decide on the declaration of an offensive war. However, this right was granted to the people by the king himself, when he found it necessary * (58), therefore, it did not belong to him on his own.

5. Likewise, the tsar himself, when he found it necessary, provided the people's assembly with a criminal court for crimes that fit the concept of perduellio * (59). We have already seen that the initial verdict was decided by a special commission appointed at the discretion of the king, and then, at the request of the convicted person, the case was transferred to the final decision of the national assembly. If the tsar himself took it upon himself to pass the sentence, then provocation to the people would have been impossible. Thus, the criminal court in the tsarist period did not constitute an independent right of the people. However, we can regard both of the latter cases as embryos for the future independent rights of the people's assembly.

6. Finally, as regards the legislative power of the people, with the exception of the above passage of Dionysius, nothing in the sources indicates its existence in the first half of the royal period. On the contrary, Roman writers, talking about the first kings, the organizers of the Roman state, portray them as acting autocraticly. Of course, we cannot recognize historically reliable events in these stories, but we can conclude from them that the legend has not preserved memories of the legislative activity of the people in the first centuries of its existence. This conclusion is confirmed by more general considerations: the earliest Roman institutions were created, like any young people, by a slow and imperceptible way of custom, therefore, without the participation of a popular assembly, and then, until the kings tried to significantly change these institutions, i.e. until they affected the related interests of the entire people, for this latter there was not even a reason to strive to participate in the legislative branch.

But when, beginning with Tarquinius the Ancient, the kings began major state reforms, they had, for the sake of the strength of these latter, to secure the consent of the interested people to abolish the old and introduce new institutions. In this way, apparently, the legislative power of the people's assembly was born. It is also indicated by the word that was used during voting in the congregation to reject a new sentence: antique, i.e. antiqua probo. In any case, even in the second half of the tsarist period, the legislative activity of the assembly was hardly a normal, non-accidental phenomenon.

The external order of the meetings was as follows. They were convened by the king. Apart from his will, the meeting could not take place. All citizens were called by name, and in the comitia calata by means of a popular announcement. The meeting place was the comitium. The king proposed a question (rogabat populum) to which the assembly could only answer "yes" or "no" (utirogas or antiquo). None of the members of the meeting had the right to modify the proposal or replace it with a new one. The casting of votes was done by curiatim. Each curia had one vote. Within each curia, voting was carried out without exception (viritim), and the opinion of the majority was taken for the opinion of the curia, just as the opinion of the majority of the curia was for the opinion of the entire assembly.

From the analysis of the objects of the department of the curiate collection, we could be convinced that the degree of its participation in public administration was insignificant. It turns out to be even smaller if we take into account the just indicated normal constraints, i.e. that the people could not, without the will of the king, form a legal assembly and did not have the initiative in proposing issues for solution. For all these reasons, one cannot agree with the view of those scholars who recognize the supreme power (sovereignty) in the people's assembly of the tsarist period.

Army

§ 19. The most ancient Roman army represented in miniature an exact imprint of the entire people with its units. The legion (originally probably the only one) consisted of 3,000 foot soldiers (pedites). All ten curiae of each tribe were to supply 1000 people. The cavalry (equites, celeres) consisted of three hundred (centuriae). Each of the three tribes had to supply 100 riders. Clients also served in the military; but it is not known what their service was; in any case, they played a secondary role in the army. The main burden of military service lay with the patricians, which we must bear in mind for a better understanding of subsequent events.

Similar information.

State structure of the Roman Republic

In the course of the struggle between patricians and plebeians, the Romans developed a stable, durable state order. The great ancient historian, the Greek Polybius, believed that it was thanks to their excellent state structure that the Romans conquered the world. The Roman republic had three main powers: the assembly of the people, the senate, and the magistrates (i.e. chiefs, rulers).

People's Assembly (comitia). In Rome, as in Greece, the people were considered the master of the state. The popular assembly passed laws and elected magistrates of the Roman Republic. The people possessed great power, but used it in moderation: as a rule, ordinary plebeians trusted their elected leaders and obediently voted for their proposals. During the elections, the people gave their votes to the most prominent citizens - patricians and famous plebeians: the Romans, like the Greeks, believed that noble and experienced people should rule the state.

In gratitude, eminent people had to testify to their respect for the autocratic Roman people. Once a year, before the elections, candidates for a particular position “courted” the people: walking around the Forum, they shook hands with their voters, with the help of special prompting slaves called them by name, humbly asked for their support. Anyone who neglected this custom or showed pride had no hope of success. Once a noble candidate, shaking the calloused hand of a peasant, jokingly asked: "Why do you have such rough hands - are you walking on them?" These words immediately flew around the Forum, the plebeians were offended and thwarted the joker.

Since the time of Servius Tullius, when the Romans began to vote in the popular assembly in hundreds of centuri, the votes of the wealthy citizens prevailed over those of the poor. And from the beginning of the Republic, citizens sometimes voted in tribes - territorial districts. In the popular assemblies in terms of tribes, the villagers had an advantage over the townspeople, since each tribe had one vote, there were 35 districts in total, and only 4 tribes in the city. Thus, in both popular assemblies, the poor and landless citizens had almost no influence.

The military hundreds-centuria voted on the Champ de Mars, outside the city. The tribes gathered at the circus, at the Capitol, at the Forum, where 35 wooden "corrals" were set up for them. In Latin, popular assemblies were called comitia, and the platform at the Forum, where they met most often, was the Committee.

Consuls. The rulers of the Roman state were called magistrates. They were elected for a period of one year and several people for one position. The oldest Roman magistrates were two consuls who replaced the exiled kings. They possessed royal power - an empire, which gave them the right to command an army and administer judgment; they also drew up lists of Roman citizens and senators. The consuls inherited the royal signs of power: the curule chair and 12 lictors. As for the purple, it no longer covered all of their clothes, but only part of it: they had red boots and purple-edged togas.

Praetorian, Emperor and Tribune

Lictors wore fasci on their shoulders - bundles of rods with axes stuck in them. These weapons meant that the consuls had the right to whip and execute Roman citizens. But the axes were stuck in the fasci only outside the city wall, where the military laws were in force. The city was considered a peaceful area, where a person sentenced to death could demand a people's court. Therefore, inside the city, the lictors removed the axes, and the consuls bowed the fasci in front of the popular assembly as a sign that the power of the people is higher than their power.

Over time, the Romans began to elect magistrates, to whom part of the consular duties passed: they began to lead the court praetors, and the census of citizens and the assessment of their property - this assessment was called census- produced censors.

Praetors. Praetors, like consuls, sat on the curule chair and possessed an empire. But their empires were considered younger than the consular, so they obeyed the consuls and had only six lictors. In Rome, praetors presided over the courts, and when the Romans conquered the overseas countries, they were sent there as generals and governors ("governors"). During the struggle between the patricians and plebeians, there was one praetor judge, after the annexation of the overseas regions to Rome, there were six praetors.

Censors. The former consuls were usually the censors. Censorship was considered the most honorable position: the censors not only sat on the curule chair, but also donned the royal purple togas. The censors evaluated both the property and the customs of Roman citizens. If someone squandered his father's good, or showed cowardice on the battlefield, or had the glory of a carousel and reveler, the censor imposed a penalty on such a citizen: if it was a senator, he was expelled from the Senate, if a rider, they took away a horse, if a simple plebeian - put on the infamous list of the worst citizens. The Romans chose the most respectable citizens as censors and respected them as guardians of good morals: they say that when the strict censor Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus passed the city streets in the evening, citizens hastily put out the lights in their houses so that he would not suspect them of late feasts.

There were two censors as well as consuls. They were not elected every year, but every five years.

After censoring, compiling lists of senators and equestrians, the censors performed the sacred rite of purification of the Roman people. It was believed that crops, health and well-being of the Romans depend on the correct conduct of this rite.

Dictator. If the state was in extreme danger and there was a need for “ strong hand”, Then a dictator was appointed. This magistrate was no different from the tsar: he was the sole ruler of the state, all authorities, including the consuls, obeyed him, the tribunal "veto" had no force against him. The dictator was accompanied by 24 lictors, who carried fasci with axes even within the city. The formidable dictatorial power was limited only by the term - it could not last more than six months.

"Honorary" magistrates. All of these magistrates were called supreme, and their positions were “honorary”, since they were given by the people and the service was free. There were also lower, but also "honorable" magistrates elected by the people - tribunes of the people, treasurers-quaestors, city governors-aediles. The latter were in charge of the city of Rome, monitored the prices and cleanliness of the streets, arranged festive games for the people at their own expense. "Honorary" magistrates after a year of service were entered by the censors into the list of senators.

Senate. The Senate was the most powerful state body of the Roman Republic. It was replenished with former "honorary magistrates" - both patricians and plebeians. The title of senator was for life, but the censor had the right to delete from the Senate list the name of an unworthy person who had somehow stained himself. Almost until the very end of the Republic, the Senate consisted of 300 "Fathers." The old Senate insignia are known: striped tunics and togas, a gold ring, red boots. But in the days of the Republic, only those senators who held senior positions in the past and sat on the royal throne - the curule chair - had a purple-bordered toga and red shoes. More modest senators from the lower “honorary” magistrates (tribunes of the people, quaestors, two aedile mayors) wore light togas and black shoes. When discussing cases, senators in red boots expressed their opinions aloud, while senators in black boots silently “voted with their feet,” that is, diverged in different directions. The Senate met either in a special building - curia, that stood at the Forum, or in some temple, most often in the temple of Jupiter on the Capitol.

The consuls, as before the kings, convened the Senate in order to consult with him. However, under the Republic, the Senate Councils meant much more than under the kings, because the consuls and other magistrates commanded for only one year, and the Senate ruled state affairs constantly. In fact, the Senate councils to magistrates were equal to orders. The Senate announced the recruitment of troops, determined the number of soldiers and money for the war, received foreign ambassadors, introduced or prohibited the veneration of new gods. All the most important state affairs were considered in the curia. Consuls, praetors, censors rarely dared to argue with the senate. It was also unprofitable for them, since they themselves became senators at the end of their service.

Cicero makes a speech against Catiline in the Sennate

(painting by Cesare Maccari 1882-1888)

Horsemen. All Roman citizens were equal before the law, but still there were estates- large groups of people with special rights and insignia. Under the kings, patricians and plebeians were considered special estates, under the Republic they stood out two upper classes- senate and equestrian.

Roman horseman (reconstruction)

The richest Roman citizens who had at least 100 hectares of land were called horsemen.

In the army, horsemen served as cavalrymen and officers; in peacetime, only they had the right to seek "honorary" posts, which opened the way to the Senate. This right was the main difference between horsemen and ordinary plebeian citizens. The equestrian estate was called the "hotbed of the senate." As people with the opportunity to become magistrates and senators, the equestrians wore almost senatorial insignia: gold rings and tunic shirts with purple stripes, but narrower than those of senators.

Many senatorial and equestrian families were related to each other. Both of them belonged to the class of wealthy landowners, but some of the horsemen were also engaged in trade, usury and other lucrative financial affairs. Senators, as representatives of the noble class, were prohibited from such occupations by law. All incomes and crafts, except for agricultural ones, were considered low in ancient Rome.

Republican nobility and its dominance in the state. The Greek historian Polybius in the VI book of his "General History" described the Roman state system as the best in the world. He believed that the Romans reasonably combine three powers: the royal - which is possessed by the highest magistrates, the aristocratic - which is represented by the Senate, and the democratic - which is exercised by the popular assembly. In fact, the authority of the Senate outweighed all other authorities, and not all senators were real aristocrats.

In the era of the kings, patricians were the aristocracy, or nobility, and under the Republic, plebeians were also considered noble, who happened to sit on the curule chair and wear royal purple. After the plebeians achieved the right to be elected to all positions, a new nobility gradually formed in Rome: it consisted of several dozen patrician and plebeian families, whose members from generation to generation held senior positions.

The descendants of the high magistrates kept the wax masks of their famous ancestors at home, and at the funeral of members of their family they showed these masks to the people, remembering in the eulogy the merits of both the deceased and all his grandfathers and great-grandfathers. The people knew well the owners of noble names and gave them their votes in the elections.

In the curia, simple senators in black boots supported the opinions of distinguished senators in red boots. It turned out that the Senate ruled the Roman state, and the patrician-plebeian nobility ruled in the senate. Thus, not by law, but in fact, the Roman Republic was an oligarchic state, i.e. one in which few ruled.