Senate

Was the Senate the actual government of Rome or a particularly distinguished and prestigious advisory council for the magistrates? 

Apparently this was a controversy in antiquity...Cicero called the Senate an eternal council (consilium sempiternum) in charge of the republic and the magistrates mere servants.  Many consuls like L Postumius Megillus, L Marcius Phillipus and M Popilius Laenas, not to mention Marius, Sulla and Caesar refused to be ruled.

Any strong opinions?
 

Both. The Romans were ambivalent in ploitics as much as anything else. Cicero did mention that civic duty demanded more courage than military service thus ambitions were somewhat dangerous, and it is noticeable that the vast majority of senators sought safety in numbers besides their privileged place. Even during the imperial period the Senate continued to do business and more than once came within a hairs breath of resuming control of Rome, but of course, the easiest way to get rid of a powerful individual is replace him with another, especially once the legions had made their choice.

The problem that the Senate encountered in the late Republic was that they were becoming used to the very same prosperity that conquest brought them. That's why many of them tacitly supported one powerful warlord or another, in that booty would eventually swell their own coffers, and also because it was easier to let prominent men take the blame when things went wrong.

I've always admired the separation of powers in the Roman Republic - it really was a remarkably advanced system for its day and time, and America's founders copies many of its institutions.  The Consuls came and went annually, while the Senate was there for the long haul. That gave them a greater amount of power overall.  But the Senate became corrupted by power and money, as all Republics tend to do.  I'm not a huge fan of Cato, but I do think that he rightly called out many Senators for putting their love of profit ahead of their love of country.  Caesar would not have been able to take over the Republic, no matter how just his grievances, if he had not had so many Senators and Tribunes of the Plebs in his pocket.

All true, and the separation of powers idea was remarked on by Polybius and was adopted as a fundamental principal by the American founding fathers.

But to be the devil's advocate  - what actual "powers" did the Senate really possess?  It could not legislate or declare war, it had no coercive power to enforce it's will, it could not even meet without being convened by a magistrate.

I've always admired the separation of powers in the Roman Republic - it really was a remarkably advanced system for its day and time, and America's founders copies many of its institutions.  The Consuls came and went annually, while the Senate was there for the long haul. That gave them a greater amount of power overall.  But the Senate became corrupted by power and money, as all Republics tend to do.  I'm not a huge fan of Cato, but I do think that he rightly called out many Senators for putting their love of profit ahead of their love of country.  Caesar would not have been able to take over the Republic, no matter how just his grievances, if he had not had so many Senators and Tribunes of the Plebs in his pocket.

all republics tend to be corrupted by power? That's a sweeping statement and one I don't agree with. I do concede there is a tendency in people to be corrupt when the opportunity exists but that's about ambitious individuals, not the system of government they work within. It is worth pointing out however that  the republican Senate was not all powerful. In order to prevent another rebellion by the plebs it had been forced to introduce voting assemblies which ratified senatorial decisions. Only in the imperial period from Tiberius onward was the Senate able to make decrees.

I think governments in general tend to become corrupted over time, be they democracies, republics, or dictatorships.

Money equals influence, and the common people are neglected.

Let's see - powers of the Senate?

They could craft legislation, although it had to be approved by the Assemblies.

They could also issue the "Ultimate Decree" in times of emergency.

And they could appoint a Dictator to reform the government or deal with a crisis.

No, The Senate could not issue decrees until the reign of Tiberius. For emergencies they called upon action from the Consuls, or if necessary, assigned a Dictator for six months or until the emergency was over - but this was giving Rome a temporary tyrant and was never done lightly, or indeed often. Understand this essential point of Roman republican politics - they were not avoiding tyranny, they managed it to avoid the consequences of excess.

Is there any statistics on the number of decrees that the Roman senate would issue per annum on average?

The high number of senators (600 and more) makes me believe that the number of new decrees won't be high.

In today's Russia we've got only 450 MPs vs 650 in the UK, plus 200 senators in Russia vs nearly 800 lords in the UK. This is despite the fact that Russia has more than twice the population of the UK. Nonetheless, in terms of productivity Russian parliament issues on average about 250 new laws per annum (while 500-600 drafts would be under consideration), while in the UK on average they would issue only about 25 new laws every year. 

-The Senate gathers three systemic functions.

1) It is a tribune of the oligarchy. The richest and most prestigious men from Rome sits in the Senate and talks about current affairs. We can see it because even if the senatus consultum was broken by a plebs tribune, the talk was recorded. The important was to know what the other members of the oligarchy thought about the issue. This aspect is very important. If you are isolated thinkingsomething, you will not act on your own unless you are Marius or Caesar.

2)  It is also a "Corps". A Corps is a group of people where all the member exert of pressure on each member to ensure its existence. Here, it is Warish affairs. The Senate had a routine (of war), they did war, they were prestigious, they just maintained themselves in this state because ... because it was the reason why their group existed !

This kind of "Corps" can be compared to the American Militaro-Industrial complex (military and cash-making routine),French "Corps d'Etat" (law-maker and statist routine), and English web of students from prestigious universities (Scom and prestigious pseudo-military routine). They do the politics on the long term beyond elections.

3) Finally, the Senate is the head of the city in times of crisis. Look at the Senatus Consultus Ultimum, which was a decree by the Senate. In order to "save the patria", anybody could kill the threat. Traditionnaly, a group of senators lead roman knights (equestres), scribs and tresor tribune armed with batons to kill the dangerous man.

-In practice, they were able to edit the laws passed by the people, but this edit could be broken by the intercessio of a plebs tribune, which could be broken itself by the veto of another tribune. These edits had no legal force in pactice but they were followed by all magistrates and citizens because of the auctoritas of the Senate. A Senatus consultum voted by a too incomplete Senate was usually ignored and crushed the day after.

-And how did you enter the Senate ? You had to be rich AND prestigious, you were excluded from the Senate by the censor if you were not prestigious not rich. But roman knights (rich people and prestigious too) were not automatically senators. You had to occupy a curule magistrature, that is to say one from the cursus honorum, questor, praetor, edil and consul.

-Who was influent in the Senate ? Before the Punic Wars, the one who were dictators once and ancient censors. They were the only one who truly talked, the other shut up and walked to the man they backed. After the Punic Wars, with the disparition of dictatorship, consulars (the one who were once consuls) became the dominant group of talkers.

____________

It could in fact meet without the magistrate. This condition was just a formal one, and the magistrate ran to the Senate when there were senators in it. You can read Marianne Coudry thesis "Le sénat, pratiques délibératives". Mommsen was wrong.

It could de facto declare wars. The Senate was the one who decided of international affairs.

Beware the notion of separation of powers ! It did not exist in ancient Rome. People in Rome had no specific filed of action. The Senate had particularly universal competence. They could talk and take decisionsabout narly everything ! The key notion for the Roman Republic is not the separation of powers but the actual balance of powers between three poles, The People (democracy), The magistrates (linked to monarchy for the Roman because they hold the powers the king formerly gathered), the Senate (oligarchy). The were all dependent upon the others. The people elected magistrats and gave its auctoritas to the Senate, the magistrates are the actual "men of action" in Rome (so that they are needed by both the people and the Senate) and the Senate is the assembly of the elite of the People and they can take many decisiosnabout magistrats and the People. But they need to be backed by the people and magistrats (who are senators-to-be) because they have no "legal" power.

Unfortunately the very serious flaw in senatorial politics was their adversarial debating, internal factions both large and small, and vested interests driving their motives. Having the power to make decisions in politics is fine except they represented an elite that did not like sharing power. Hence early on the people of Rome staged a walkout because the Senate would not give them a say, hence they were forced to set up the popular voting assemblies. The very same problem still existed in the late Republic, hence the Social War, caused by the Senate refusing or diluting the requests of the Italian Allies for a share in booty, rights, and decisions as equal members of Rome's informal federation. It was worse still by that time because the post of Princeps Senatus had fallen into disuse, so the Senate had no internal leadership. it resulted in constant bickering, feuding, and lack of resolution as various checks and balances simply cancelled out initiatives.  Indeed, Julius Caesar allowed the Senate to increase to over a thousand members to make the situation as bad as possible. Yes, once as Dictator Perpetuo he was polite and respectful toward the Senate, but with so many riff-raff among them and many deliberately placed supporters, opposition to his rule was not going to worry him overly.

What evidence is there that the senate could meet without being convened by a magistrate?

-From an exterior point of view, for antic autors, what counted was the senators, not the magistrate, whose role was minor.Tthe senatus consultums (consulta ?) are usually identified by the name of the senator who pronounced a decisive sententia, not by the name of the magistrate who "presided" the Senate. When the name of the magistrate is quoted, it is an exceptional and historic intervention ! Usually, he is just quoted to have the year of the SC. In the same way, if the debate involves anonymous senators only, the magistrate's name is neither quoted. Finally,  in the sources (among wihc Ciceronian texts and Appien), the magistrate usually plays no actual role in the debate.

-From an intern point of view now, we know that the convocation by the magistrate (by a relatio) is only a legal formality, nothing more. Many examples when the senators asked the magistrate to convoke the Senate, and the magistrates accept to do so in most of the cases (even if he had no legal obligation to do so), even if the magistrate is the consul, the highest rank ! The normal attitude for a magistrate was to submit himself to the demands of the Senate for a relaton.

And even better, the Senators could gather theselves in the building to have an informal debate (the decision was hence taken) and only THEN they ask to the magistrate to convoke an official seance to ratify the result of the debate. The preliminary informal talk BEFORE the seance was paramount.

-This issue is representative of what you have to understand about Rome. In Rome, the law is not paramount. Formalism is not paramount (except for religious issues which can be used in politics, that's right). What counts is the reality of the games of power.

IN THEORY, the senators cannot issue a SC without his relation. IN PRACTICE, he is submitted to them. And their decision can already be taken before the official seance.

In modern politics, formalism is much more respected in order to hide more efficiently to the people the true games of power. For example, in France, officially, the Parliament is very important. In practice, the government is the only one who decides, joint to Conseil d'Etat (a Council of Judges and Administrators whose members control the day-to-day technicality of politics).