Party Politics and the Death of Rome

The Death of Marcus Porcius Cato has long served as one of the defining moments of Roman history. Having seen the republican forces defeated at Thapsus (in north Africa) by a Caesarian army in 46 BC, Cato found himself holed up in the port town of Utica, a short distance from the battlefield. On the night of his death, Cato calmly retired to his bedroom and began reading Plato’s “On the Soul” — before plunging a sword into his stomach. As his attendants burst into the room and tried to save him, Cato continued to injure himself — and finally succumbed to his wound.

For many, Cato died as he had lived. Known for his deeply conservative views and traditional values, Cato embodied the Roman belief in personal responsibility and civic duty. At the height of a civil war that would engulf the Roman Republic, and faced with certain defeat, Cato chose to take his own life over living under the dictatorship of Caesar.

In death, Cato would display the values that he had espoused as leader of the Optimates — a conservative faction that would come to dominate the Roman senate in the later years of the republic. Party politics was an important aspect of Roman political life, with rivalries between public figures leading to the formation of competing senatorial factions — each vying for power and prestige for their adherents.

In the late Roman Republic (70–50 BC), two powerful factions — the Optimates and the Populares — would come to dominate the political scene, and eventually contribute to the republic’s destruction. Whilst terms like ‘political parties’ and ‘party politics’ conjure up notions of modern political parties, with an organized bureaucracy and a formal membership system, the political factions of Rome had a very different feel to them.

The ‘Good Men’ of Rome

The Optimates — led by Cato himself — saw themselves as the boni, or the good men, of Rome. As a conservative faction, the Optimates looked to control the senate and protect the state from what they perceived to be a growing threat of populist led tyranny. They were known to protect the interests of the wealthy and to insist on a strict adherence to established political customs.

Members of the Optimates counted themselves as the true Roman elite — consisting of members of the most prestigious families that made up the traditional ruling class within Rome. During the late republic, this included figures like Quintus Hortensius (the foremost lawyer for much of this period), Lucius Licinius Lucullus (a renowned commander who fought against Mithridates) and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus (Cato’s own son-in-law).

If the Optimates saw themselves as the protectors of Roman values, their opponents — the Populares (or populists) — saw them as an oligarchy. The Populares positioned themselves as the defenders of the urban city dwellers, taking up popular causes through the tribal assembly as a means of winning political popularity.

The Populares faction could trace its history back to two populist tribunes of the 2nd century BC — the brothers Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus — who introduced controversial land reform bills before being killed by mobs of enraged senators. Populist politicians figures such as Julius Caesar, Publius Clodius Pulcher and Mark Antony would brand the Optimates as an oligarchy that worked solely in the interests of the wealthy and that wished to enslave the Roman people under their control.

Understanding Party Politics in the Late Republic

Although the Optimates and Populares divided themselves into two distinct factions, these two groups were nothing like our modern day conception of a political party. Neither group stood on an ideological platform as would be expected by a modern day politician, with both sides having no formal membership system — instead relying on a personalized system of patronage. Through their contests in the senate, neither side looked to implement a set of clear policies or ideas, and instead used their party as a means to further their own careers.

In essence, Roman political parties concerned themselves with who should run the state, and not necessarily how it should be run. Furthermore, no class difference existed between the two factions. Whilst the Populares may accuse the Optimates of representing a wealthy elite, both factions were members of an exclusive aristocracy that competed to control the city and enhance their own prestige.

Image by edoardo taloni from Pixabay

Furthermore, membership of each faction was not fixed — with politicians on both sides regularly forming new factions across party lines. For example, Marcus Licinius Crassus, the wealthiest man in Rome, undoubtedly saw himself as a blue blooded member of the Roman elite. However, frustrated at his lack of political advancement, in 60 BC he joined Pompey the Great and Caesar to form a political alliance known as the first triumvirate — putting him at odds with Optimates such as Cato.

Cato himself was not immune to breaking party lines. On one occasion, he brought accusations against Murena, an officer of his brother-in-law and fellow Optimate Lucullus. During the affair, Cato had described the war against Mithridates, which Lucullus had previously celebrated a triumph for his victory, as a war against women. Ultimately family links, patron-client relationships and simple self interest would regularly cause politicians to cross the divide and face off against their former allies.

Political Parties and the Fall of the Republic

In the contest for supremacy in Rome, Optimates and Populares alike would constantly attempt to block and disrupt the advancement of opposing politicians as a means of furthering their own reputations. As the reputations of military men such as Pompey and Caesar continued to grow, this obstructionism would eventually push the Roman state towards civil war. The two groups would play out their struggles in a variety of settings. Optimate and Populares politicians would clash in the senate, the law courts and even on the battlefield in an attempt to gain supremacy over the other side.

A striking example of the lengths each side would go to can be found in Caesar’s consulship of 59 BC. As consul, Caesar had introduced an agrarian reform bill in the senate that looked to provide land for military veterans — which was opposed by his fellow consul Bibulus (himself an Optimate). Discussions in the senate were heated, and the conflict culminated in Cato being forcibly removed from the Forum alongside Bibulus, who saw the fasces of his lictors (the symbolic representation of consular power) destroyed. In the end the bill was passed, but the Populares were forced to resort to physical violence to get their way.

The continual conflict between the Optimates and the Populares even contributed to the civil war that would usher in the end of the Roman Republic. By 50 BC the Optimates, who had managed to drive a wedge between Pompey and Caesar, now stood hand in hand with Pompey — and demanded Caesar hand over his troops in Gaul and return to Rome. Pushed by the Optimates, Pompey was unable to back down from the ensuing conflict with Caesar — even when Caesar himself offered to lay down his arms if Pompey agreed to do the same.

As civil war broke out in Rome, Caesar’s justification for his crossing of the Rubicon in 49 BC was that he was liberating the Roman people from the clutches of Cato’s oligarchy. Faced with such a partisan atmosphere, it is not surprising that Cicero remarked that there were no longer any good men in Rome.

Compared to the political systems of today, many aspects of Roman party politics will appear alien to the modern reader. Roman politicians saw politics as the individual pursuit of power and prestige — with Roman political factions serving primarily as a tool for personal advancement. The Roman elite did not run for office on a party platform, nor did they self identify as members of a formal political organisation.

However, the political significance of these factions should not be overlooked. Even when faced with the prospect of civil war, both the Optimates and the Populares found themselves unwilling to back down in the battle for supremacy in the senate. Whether it be the uptight conservatism espoused by Cato on his deathbed, or the populism embodied by Caesar, party politics would continue to drive conflict within the Roman Republic right up until its death.