Good article. When it comes to living standards, it is worth mentioning that there was a more equal wealth distribution after the fall of Rome which made it impossible for medieval nobles to finance large armies. This meant that wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then before and after. Also slavery disappeared from Europe, except for Spain. For an everyday normal person in western Europe living around the year 800-1300 was probably better then during antiquity. Early modernity was pretty bad compared to that period too. (witch trials, 30 year war…)
> Overall the various Romans who contemplated reform were in a way hindered by the tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rather than the tendency of systems.<p>I'm not convinced the two are separable. One important virtue in a republic is self-restraint, the ability to see an opportunity to enrich or empower yourself at the cost of the republic, and refrain from exploiting it. A self-indulgent people will find it hard to preserve the systems that comprise the republic.
When talking about living standards, it must always be pretty nice living on the Mediterranean, drinking your wine with fresh fish, rustic bread and olive oil etc. Got to be great compared to the guys freezing their butts off in Northern Europe eating pickled turnips in the snow.
Super interesting. One point about living standards: at this point the world is in the Malthusian equilibrium, so living standards are rather decoupled from technology. (Whenever technology raises your living standards, you have more children, and average GDP per head returns to subsistence level.)<p>Malthus has had a big comeback in the theory of economic growth over the past couple of decades.
> a magistrate would convene the senate and pose a question<p>This is a good reminder of the democracy of the Republic. I had forgotten that Magistrates had powers such as these. Popular press and film concentrate on the Senators, (and Emperors for post republic stories) but the magistrates, like the tribunes, were elected by the plebs (populace) into a government with some separation of powers. In fact it might be better to consider the roman Senate more like the UN Security Council: all countries are equal but de facto some countries are more equal than others, so there is some structure for focusing and constraining them.<p>And do not forget that those with political ambitions (like Gaius, who came from and old but minor patrician family, the Julii, through a cadet Caesar branch) started out by being elected a Tribune by the plebs, even if the objective was Senatorial rank and a generalship.<p>Since the Reagan era at least the US has seemed in the thrall of the same disease that afflicted the patricians of the roman republic. It's no surprise major biographies of Cicero appeared in the late 90s and early 20th century. The philosophy (as described in the article "tendency of Roman elites to think in terms of the virtue of individuals rather than the tendency of systems" afflicts the analysis today. I value my individualism and don't want government telling me what to do, but I also recognize the value and function of community (whether taxes, volunteering, speed limits, or vaccination). Rome (in all of royal, republican, and imperial times) was far more atomized and organized around families than most people realize today and that was ultimately its weakness. Though there was a doctrine of "civis romanus sum", the reality was that too much power remained in the patrician houses, enough to permit essentially continuous civil war once the republic was de facto gone.