The Last Of The Seven...
This article continues the narration of the Rome's history. In previous chapter, we reviewed the Seven Kings of Rome period, and now, we have to step back, and discover what the reason of the end of the King's epoch...
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, brief overview
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the 7th king of Rome was a son (or grandson) of Tarquinius Priscus, 5th king of Rome, and had been married to Tullia, daughter of Servius Tullius.
According to Livy (Ab Urbe Condita I.46), Tullia and Tarquin conspired to seize power
š āTullia, having driven over the body of her murdered father, was the first to salute her husband as king.ā, Livy (Ab Urbe Condita I.46)
Tarquin seized the throne after assassinating Servius Tullius, the sixth king of Rome.
The path he chose seemed to predetermine his fateā¦
Such acts commonly led to executions or the exile of opponents. The question remains: did he refuse to consult the Senate, or was the Senate itself ruled by fear? Perhaps it was a mixture of bothāshaped by the kingās unpredictable behavior, or by his own fear of public dissent.
Let's clarify subjects of the above events.
About murdering the 6th King...
- Tarquin (Lucius Tarquinius Superbus, the 7th king of Rome) did indeed kill Servius Tullius. According to Livy (Ab Urbe Condita, I.48), Tarquin entered the Senate with armed supporters, seated himself on the kingās throne, and when Servius Tullius arrived to protest, Tarquin physically hurled him down the steps of the Curia. Accounts differ on whether Tarquin himself struck the killing blow or whether his wife, Tullia Minor, ordered her men to finish Servius off in the street.
But, is the murderer really married to the victim's daughter?..
- Yes, Tarquin was married to Servius Tulliusās daughter, Tullia. Each had originally been married to a more āmildā spouse (Tullia to Tarquinās more gentle brother, and Tarquin to Tulliaās gentler sister). According to Dionysius (IV.28ā30), Tullia and Tarquin conspired together, murdered their respective spouses, then married each other. The infamous episode of Tullia: after Servius was murdered, Tullia is said to have driven her chariot over the body of her father lying in the street, spattering herself with his blood ā a deed remembered as parricidium (a crime against parent and kin) of the worst kind. This earned her the nickname Tullia Cruenta (āBloody Tulliaā).
Do we have any facts?..
- It is all legendary tradition rather than hard contemporary evidence. Rome of the 6th century BCE left no written records. Livy (late 1st c. BCE) and Dionysius (a Greek writing at Rome around the same time) are our main sources, both relying on oral/annalistic traditions. They present it as fact within their narrative, but modern historians stress that it reflects a remembered moral tale of tyranny, not verified history.
But in which way did the 7th King of Rome take power, and violate the legal rights to even become Rome's King?..
Tarquinius Superbus and the Senate
- After the murder of Servius Tullius, Tarquinius seized royal power without election or Senate approval. Livy (I.49) states that he refused to allow the Senate its traditional advisory role (consilium). He is said to have reduced the Senate by executions and exclusions, cutting down its numbers and filling it only with men loyal to him. Dionysius of Halicarnassus (IV.67) adds that Tarquin ruled through terror and informers, sidelining consultation and suppressing opposition. Thus, the Senate ā once a central partner in the monarchyās balance of power ā became a powerless assembly under his reign, operating only at his command.
Usurpation in the Greek Sense
- In Greek political thought, the word ĻĻĻĪ±Ī½Ī½ĪæĻ (tyrannos) did not originally mean a ācruel rulerā but an individual who seized power without legal or hereditary right. Later, ātyrantā became loaded with negative moral connotations.
By this definition, Tarquinius Superbus is Romeās clearest example of a tyrant/usurper:
- He came to power by violence and conspiracy, not by lawful election of the comitia curiata. He concentrated all authority in himself, ruling without Senate counsel, and refused to recognize the customary checks on the kingās power. He exercised arbitrary justice and executions, a hallmark of tyranny in Greek political theory.
Rights Tarquin Took for Himself
- No consultations with the Senate, no ratification of decrees. He declared wars and concluded treaties on his own authority. Tarquin judged capital cases without appeal, suppressing the traditional provocatio (appeal to the people). Though not formally altering religious offices, he manipulated priesthoods for his control. In essence, Tarquin embodied the Greek tyrantās role transposed into the Roman context: not an elected king, but a ruler who seized and held power through fear, violence, and the stripping away of collective rights.
Revolution as definition, we may encounter from here...
The chain of events in context:
The Scandal: Sextus Tarquinius & Lucretia (c. 509 BC)
- Sextus, son of the king, raped Lucretia, wife of Collatinus. She revealed the crime to her husband and father, then committed suicide. Her death became the spark for revolution: Lucius Junius Brutus and Collatinus rallied the people against the Tarquins. The outrage at this crime was used to frame not just Sextus, but the entire Tarquin dynasty, as morally corrupt and tyrannical.
A tyrant overthrown by collective action:
- The Romans themselves remembered it as the moment when an unjust ruler (rex) was expelled not by another monarch, but by a movement led by aristocrats and backed by popular outrage. Lucretiaās suicide became the symbolic cause, uniting nobles (Brutus, Collatinus) with the Roman people. And by the crowd the seventh King of Rome was led to the act of expulsion of the Tarquins, the abolition of kingship, and the establishment of the first Roman 'Res Publica'.
Ancient historians frame it as a model revolution:
- Livy presents it as Romeās foundational story of liberty versus tyranny. Cicero later calls it a liberatio patriae (āliberation of the fatherlandā). Dionysius even compares it with Greek tyrant-overthrows, like the expulsion of the Peisistratids from Athens.
Butā¦ āhistorical recordā caveat:
- The events are legendary in detail ā our sources are written centuries later. Still, the narrative itself is the first historical memory of a Roman revolution, preserved as a paradigm for later ages.
The āNo-Powerā Period (Interregnum)
Now weāre diving into the āinterregnumā or no-power period between the fall of the king and the establishment of the first consuls in 509 BC, as well as how early Republican institutions organized assemblies and governance.
Time immediately after the expulsion of Tarquinius Superbus, when Rome had no king and no consuls yet. The duration of the period is considered very short ā typically a few weeks to months, enough for Romans to organize leadership and elections.
But what reasons led Roman citizens to reestablish power to govern the city? As social creatures, humanity undergoes a common evolutionary-based hierarchy approach that helps to maintain order. In the described historical context, the goals were:
- Prevent chaos after a tyrantās expulsion.
- Avoid the power vacuum becoming another monarchy.
- Establish legitimacy for the new system.
Who Governed During This Period
- 'Interrex': temporary ruler(s) appointed to manage affairs between kings. Each interrex served 5 days. The interrexās role was mainly to call the Centuriate Assembly (comitia centuriata) to elect consuls. The office alternated among patrician senators, ensuring no single family dominated.
The role of the Senate, although almost neglected previously, was significantly modified at this time:
- Provided continuity and advised the interreges.
- Decided the procedures for elections.
- Ensured military and civil matters did not collapse.
Election Procedure During Interregnum
Nomination of Candidates:
- Leading patricians were chosen by the Senate.
- Criteria: loyalty to the revolution, military leadership, family prestige.
Brutus and Collatinus were natural candidates due to their roles in overthrowing Tarquin.
Calling the Assembly:
- Comitia Centuriata summoned by the interrex.
- Citizens divided into centuries (military/wealth groups).
- Each century had one vote; the majority within the century counted.
Voting Procedure:
- Voting began with the wealthiest centuries (they held more influence).
- Candidate receiving the majority of centuries elected consul.
- Procedure repeated for the second consul.
Formal Approval:
- Results ratified by the interrex.
- Senate formally advised consuls on their duties.
Actions to Organize the People
š¢ Summoning the Assemblies:
- Heralds called citizens by public announcement (nuntiatio). Citizens assembled at the Campus Martius (common meeting area). Centuries were physically grouped according to class and wealth.
š¢ Voting & Procedure:
- Interrex supervised the order of centuries. Each century voted internally, majority chosen, voice proclaimed publicly. Voting was sequential ā early centuries influenced the outcomes of later ones.
š¢ Senate Role:
- Ratified results after counting. Presided indirectly through interrex oversight. Advised consuls once elected.
Outcome of the No-Power Period
š¢ Successful Election:
- Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus were elected as the first consuls.
š¢ Transition Completed:
- Interreges retired. Senateās advisory authority and citizen assemblies were now recognized as foundations of the Republic.
š«± Key Principle:
- Authority derived from the people (assemblies) and Senateās guidance, not from a single ruler.
š Livy I.59: āInterreges were appointed to maintain the state, to summon the people to vote, and to conduct the election of consuls.ā
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Interrex | Only temporary; no imperium outside election authority |
| Duration | 5 days per interrex, rotated until consuls elected |
| Authority | Summon assembly, announce candidates, conduct voting |
| Checks | Limited to procedure; Senate oversight; term strictly brief |
| Military matters | Limited; generals appointed by Senate if immediate defense required |
| Civil administration | Minimal; routine governance handled by senators collectively |
| Religious rites | Interreges could perform auspices to legitimize elections |
Now, the authors invite our honorable readers to explore a comparison between the fundamental principles of early Roman democracy and the well-developed democratic systems of Ancient Greece, as understood in their contemporary context.
Athens emphasized egalitarian direct voting, Rome was mixed constitution (aristocracy + limited citizen influence).
| Aspect | Greece (Athens) | Rome (Early Republic) | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Citizen Participation | All male citizens (18+) could vote in the Ekklesia (Assembly) | Voting through Comitia Centuriata (military/wealth-based centuries), Comitia Tributa, Concilium Plebis | Athens: Aristotle, Politics II.1; Rome: Livy I.59āI.60 |
| Principle | Direct democracy, one citizen one vote | Weighted voting; richer centuries had more influence; combination of aristocratic and popular elements | Same as above |
Rome institutionalized emergency powers (dictator) more formally; Athens relied on collective accountability and ostracism.
| Aspect | Greece | Rome | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leaders / Executives | Strategoi (generals) elected annually, could be re-elected; Archons in early Athens | Consuls: two elected magistrates with imperium | Athens: Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War I; Rome: Livy I.59 |
| Checks on Power | Strategoi accountable to Assembly; could be ostracized; Archonsā term = 1 year | Consuls = 1 year; mutual veto; post-term accountability | Same as above |
| Temporary Absolute Power | No exact equivalent | Dictator: 6 months max during crisis | Livy II.6 |
Both systems had council + assembly, but Romeās councils were aristocratic, Greek councils lot-based and rotated, emphasizing equality.
| Tool | Rome | Greece | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senate / Council of Elders | Senate (patricians, advisory, controlled finances and foreign policy) | Boule (Council of 500, chosen by lot, oversaw agenda for Assembly) | Rome: Livy I.59āI.60; Greece: Aristotle, Politics II.1 |
| Assembly / Voting | Comitia Centuriata, Comitia Tributa, Concilium Plebis ā elect magistrates, approve some laws | Ekklesia ā all citizens could vote on decrees, declare war, elect generals | Same as above |
| Executive Summons | Interrex called assemblies during no-power periods | Assembly meetings called by Archons; agenda prepared by Boule | Livy I.59; Aristotle, Politics II.1 |
Both emphasized checks on executive power, Rome via formal institutional veto, Athens via social/legal mechanisms (ostracism).
| Tool | Rome | Greece | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecution / Accountability | Former consuls could be prosecuted post-term; tribunes could veto magistrates | Strategoi and officials could be held accountable by Assembly; fines, exile | Livy I.60; Aristotle, Politics II.1 |
| Checks on Abuse | Veto (consul vs consul, tribunes vs magistrates), interrex oversight | Ostracism for 10 years; voting by all citizens | Same as above |
Greek democracy prioritized equality of opportunity, Rome prioritized stability and aristocratic control.
| Aspect | Greece | Rome | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
| Method of selection for councils | Random lottery (sortition) for Boule; rotated yearly | Senate = former magistrates / patricians; assemblies weighted by centuries (wealth/military) | Aristotle, Politics II.1; Livy I.59 |
| Principle | Equality of citizens, all eligible for office by lot | Aristocratic bias, wealth/military determined influence | Same as above |
Let's slightly step aside from the topic, and dilute the content with speculative injection. From the above narration, we may notice some closely related approach in the modern United States electoral schema to early Roman Republic political design principles. This deviation from the topic will be very useful to understand the United States electoral approach, and nevertheless, contextually out of topic, some of the authors insist on the inclusion exactly here...
the modern U.S. electoral and republican system draws conceptual inspiration from the early Roman Republic, though adapted to a very different context. Hereās a structured overview:
Centuries / Weighted Voting Principle
š¢ Rome (Early Republic):
- Citizens were divided into centuries based on wealth and military class.
- Each century had one collective vote in the Comitia Centuriata.
- Wealthier centuries voted first, so they held more influence over outcomes.
- This system balanced popular participation with aristocratic influence, preventing full direct democracy.
š¢ Modern U.S.:
š” - Some scholars see a conceptual parallel in the Electoral College:
- Citizens vote within states, which each have a set number of electoral votes (House + Senate representation).
- Each state casts its collective electoral votes for a presidential candidate (winner-take-all in most states).
- States with smaller populations can have disproportionate influence due to the Senate-based component.
- Like Roman centuries, individual votersā influence is mediated through a unit vote (century or state delegation).
- States, not individual citizens, cast collective votes for President.
- Smaller or more influential states can have disproportionate weight (via the combination of Senate + House representation).
The system is not identical, but both systems distribute voting power through intermediary units rather than purely direct votes.