I've been working on this paper for Civ about political life under the Roman principate, but I've been having a hard time writing it. I think I've finally figured out why: I find this period of history really depressing. I'm not naive enough to imagine that the Roman republic was this wonderful system of representative government, that allowed all classes of society to affect the course of their government, that it was particularly fair, that it was even representative in the sense that we mean representative. Still, though, this system was more stable than the Athenian democracy and more representative than eastern dictatorships. Being a citizen gave you certain rights: the right to avoid torture and to appeal to the Senate in cases of judgement against you. Even the poor, through the power of the tribunes, had some say in the government. And it lasted 500 years. A system that produced a Cicero when it was almost spent must have had some good in it.

And the reign of Augustus is the beginning of the end of that. Whether he really meant for this to happen or not (and I don't think he did), the Roman Republic is gone and replaced with a system that I consider objectively worse. The system is less stable (or at least, will be in a hundred years), under Caracalla, everyone gets the citizenship and it becomes essentially meaningless as a distinction. The power of the people, such as it was, is replaced by that of the Senate, and is essentially destroyed by the power of the emperor. And what's left? A system that still pretends to be oligarchic; all aspirants to imperial office must get support of the Senate, but they get this support by military force. As Dio says, monarchy has returned to Rome.

I don't really think Rome could have survived as a republic. It had grown too large for the communications of the time to sustain this system. But that doesn't mean I have to enjoy reading about the end of the republic.