An irony of Polybius’s writings is that he complimented Rome on its balanced constitution which had the appearance of holding all these forces at bay (the consu

An irony of Polybius’s writings is that he complimented Rome on its balanced constitution which had the appearance of holding all these forces at bay (the consuls with limited monarchical powers, the senate representing the aristocracy, the tribunes the people and army etc), but he stopped writing at the exact moment the tide began to turn. With Amazon Prime’s new Roman series I’ve just been rereading Tacitus, who sees the collapse as equally inevitable: That old passion for power which has been ever innate in man increased and broke out as the Empire grew in greatness. In a state of moderate dimensions equality was easily preserved; but when the world had been subdued, when all rival kings and cities had been destroyed, and men had leisure to covet wealth which they might enjoy in security, the early conflicts between the patricians and the people were kindled into flame. At one time the tribunes were factious, at another the consuls had unconstitutional power; it was in the capital and the forum that we first essayed civil wars. Then rose C. Marius, sprung from the very dregs of the populace, and L. Sulla, the most ruthless of the patricians, who perverted into absolute dominion the liberty which had yielded to their arms. After them came Cn. Pompeius, with a character more disguised but no way better. Henceforth men's sole object was supreme power. Legions formed of Roman citizens did not lay down their arms at Pharsalia and Philippi, much less were the armies of Otho and Vitellius likely of their own accord to abandon their strife. They were driven into civil war by the same wrath from heaven, the same madness among men, the same incentives to crime. That these wars were terminated by what we may call single blows, was owing to want of energy in the chiefs.