Book Six covers the Roman constitution, and his thoughts on government in general, the Roman constitution, and other constitutions in comparison was THE reason I read the book.
The other books/chapters cover the history of how the Roman republic came to dominate the entire Mediterranean world. Polybius starts from the beginning of the first Punic war (war between Rome and Carthage), and gets to Hannibal’s invasion and Rome’s defeat at Cannae. The rest of the writings have been lost.
Polybius outlines three kinds of political systems: kingship, aristocracy, and democracy; the best would incorporate some of each of these constitutions. There are also negative versions of each of these.
Kingship refers to monarchy which has the subjects’ consent and which governs by rational principles rather than fear and coercion.
Aristocracy- rule of the best, is presided over by a select group of supremely moral and wise men.
Democracy is where the majority prevails, but retains the traditional values of piety, care of parents, respect for elders, and obedience to laws.
The opposites to these are tyranny, oligarchy, and ochlocracy, or mob-rule.
In a natural course of events, the first to arise is monarchy. In the face of human catastrophes, humans band together, and under these circumstances, someone with exceptional strength and mental daring will assert command over the others. The rest will assent to this and follow the most aggressive and strongest. After a while, group feelings of kinship and intimacy form ideas of right and wrong, good and bad, based on the importance of duty. If the ruler consistently supports the good and right, and his subjects see his rule as appropriate, they stop being frightened and accept his rule. They will work together to support him and defend him against assaults and schemes. From then on, his descendants will find favor not by their physical prowess, but by their application of wisdom and judgment.
What naturally happens in descendants is that once society is secured and adequate supply is obtained, rulers are tempted to indulge their appetites and set themselves apart, which arouses people’s disgust and hostility, which in turn sways the kings against the people and just rule becomes tyranny. Those most noble and high-minded are the first to feel the insolence of the ruler, and so conspiracies to replace the ruler come from them.
The common people will first accept these high-minded men as champions against the unjust tyranny, which brings about a new era of aristocracy. At first, these men made the common good their top priority, and managed affairs responsibly and properly. But their sons, with no conception of hardship, and just as little of political equality or the right of citizens to speak their mind; and being surrounded by their father’s powers and privileges, change aristocracy into oligarchy.
Sooner or later, someone will speak up against the ruling oligarchs and notice that the majority of people are with him. Knowing that past monarchs have gone bad, and the current ruling class has shown them that government can’t be entrusted to a few, the remaining principle is to rely on themselves. So democracy is instituted.
The first generation, familiar with oligarchic excess, will be fully committed to equality and the right of every citizen to speak. But by the third generation, the principles of freedom and equality are too familiar to be important, and some will want to get ahead of others. They will squander fortunes on bribery and corrupting the general populace in all sorts of ways, in the longing for power. The common people, greedy for largesse and willing to accept it, then overthrow democracy and replace it with violence. Once people are accustomed to eating off other’s tables and expect their daily needs to be met, them, when they find someone to champion their cause, a man of vision and daring rises, they band together and set about murdering, banishing, and redistributing land, until they are reduced to a bestial state and once again, a monarch arises over them.
Lycurgus of Sparta (8th or 9th century BS, but perhaps even mythical) had recognized this tendency and set about to take the best elements of all three in order to prevent any of them growing beyond the point where it would degenerate into its congenital vice. Kings were prevented from becoming overbearing by the fear of the citizen body, who were assigned a fair share in the government; the common citizens were deterred from disrespecting the king by fear of the elders, all of whom were bound to cleave constantly to justice, because the criterion for selection for the council of Elders was virtue.
The Roman constitution was arrived at more by trial and error, but the result was the same.
The three areas of the Roman constitution are the consuls, the Senate, and the common people.
1) While the consuls are in Rome, before taking their armies out into the field, they are responsible for all matters of public concern, since all their officers are subordinate and carry out their orders.
The consuls draw up the agenda of issues requiring the Senate’s attention, and they’re responsible for carrying out the Senate’s decrees.
It is the consuls’ responsibility to see that all matters of state require validation by the people in the sense that they convene assemblies, present bills, and preside over the people’s decision making.
When it comes to war, the consuls’ power is nearly unlimited.
2) The Senate’s most important role is that it controls the treasury; it is responsible for all state revenues and almost all expenditure. With the exception of money withdrawn for use by the consuls, questors must gain formal Senate permission to spend money for any particular purpose.
All crimes committed in Italy require public investigation and fall under the jurisdiction of the Senate.
The Senate sends delegates outside Italy to arbitrate disputes, etc. When delegations from abroad arrive in Rome, it is the Senate’s job to decide how to treat them, etc.
3) The people’s part may seem small- they control rewards and punishments. The people weigh in on the political decisions, and ultimately decide whether treaties are ratified, the nation goes to war, legislation is assessed positively or negatively. Negative assessments will always come back on those that propose things the people don’t like, so it acts as a check and balance to the overall political work.
A consul, after setting out with his forces, would seem to have absolute authority, but in fact he still needs the Senate and people. He is incapable of concluding his business without them. He needs a constant stream of supplies, which requires the Senate. His initiatives will come to nothing without Senate support. The Senate can also thwart, or obstruct, his plans and projects. The Senate can award, or deny, a triumph.
The people also have a say over his treaties because they have the power to ratify or not. Consuls also have to undergo audits by the people while in office.
The Senate too needs to defer to the people in its political sphere. The people validate the Senate’s decrees. The people can decide whether or not to pass laws depriving the Senate of some of its authority. If one of the tribunes of the people vetoes the Senate’s deliberations, it may not be allowed to even assemble or vote at all.
The people likewise depend on the Senate and must defer to it. All the properties that fall under the control of the Roman state are managed by members of the general populace.
Polybius then spends a lot of time detailing how the Roman military works, which I won’t recap here.
He closes out the book/chapter comparing the Roman constitution to others. He particularly mentions two that were believed to have excellent constitutions: Thebes and Athens. But Polybius notes that Thebes ‘glory’ was due not to their constitution, but the excellence of a few men at the time, after which the state declined precipitously. He makes a statement with regard to Athens that I found interesting: “the best analogy for Athenian democracy is a ship without a captain. On such a ship, the crew do their duty outstandingly well as long as fear of the open sea or the threat of storm induces them to cooperate with one another and obey the helmsman. But when there is no cause for alarm, they start to ignore their superiors and to fall out with one another.”
He then looks at the governance of Sparta and Crete, but notes: “It is my view that every state is the product of two factors, which determine whether its institutions and constitution are good or bad. These factors are customs and traditions. When customs and traditions are good, they make private citizens respectful and restrained, and give the state an equitable and fair character, but when they are bad, they have the opposite effect. Therefore, just as we can confidently infer that the citizens of a state with good customs and traditions will themselves be good and will have a good system of government, so it also makes perfect sense to conclude, when we came across a state where individuals are rapacious and public policies are unjust, that the traditions, local customs, and entire system of government are bad.”
He dismisses Plato’s ideas on government since they were only theoretical and never put into practice. It would be inappropriate for discussion to compare it to the real world until it proves it can act in the real world.
While the Spartan constitution proved excellent in Sparta, it fell apart with Spartan military ambitions. At that point it proved it couldn’t scale up. For this reason, Polybius considers the Roman constitution superior and more dynamic.
He addresses the Carthaginian constitution, saying it’s original form was good: the suffetes were kings, the Council acted as the aristocrats, and the common people had their own areas of responsibility.
The particular area of comparison is in warcraft. Carthage concentrated on naval power, and ignored their infantry. The reason is because Carthage uses foreign mercenaries. This means Carthaginian freedom always relies on the commitment of mercenaries.
One further note worth recounting is Polybius’ concern with cultural approaches to money. In Carthage, nothing that leads to profit is considered disgraceful, whereas in Rome, nothing is more disgraceful than accepting a bribe or seeking profit from shady transactions.