Rome Inc.: The Roman Empire Was Like a Multinational Corporation!
Today, I was inspired by the book Rome Inc.: The Rise and Fall of the First Multinational Corporation. Written by Gil Schwartz, a contributor to the well-known economic magazine Fortune, the book was published under the pseudonym Stanley Bing. It humorously draws parallels between the Roman Empire and a modern multinational corporation.
Just like corporations, institutions often start with a strong idea, grow by meeting specific needs, expand by offering more, and operate with the goal of being successful and pleasing their leaders. From its inception, Rome had a straightforward objective: to turn everyone it conquered and brought under its control into Romans. In other words, anyone who became part of the “company” of Rome was no longer an outsider but one of “us.” Essentially, Rome was selling citizenship to the world. For people who were struggling with poverty, trying to survive in a harsh world, this was a highly attractive offer!
As Homer depicted, everything began in the city of Alba Longa, founded by Aeneas and his followers after the fall of Troy. Rome itself was founded in 753 BC by the twin brothers, Remus and Romulus. These orphaned and oppressed twins proposed the idea of a central government. Romulus, taking charge, ensured security and order. He had a grand vision for Rome’s future and, in his ambition, went as far as killing his own brother. Their story also features a cruel uncle, and they were raised by a she-wolf. The story has many similarities with the tales of Dede Korkut or even the plot of The Lion King.
Just as entrepreneurs like Edison, Ford, and Jobs created lasting brands during the Industrial and Digital Revolutions, Romulus carefully decided every aspect of Roman life—what they wore, ate, felt, and how they lived. According to the author, Romulus skillfully balanced the forces of creation and destruction.
Romulus displayed the traits of a true leader: he was intelligent, strategic, energetic, and daring. However, he was also neurotic, easily angered, overly ambitious, determined, creative, rigid, unethical, lacked humor, and was intolerant.
If you’re interested in diving deeper into Roman history, let’s explore the pages together. But keep in mind, I might use “Roman Empire” and “Company” interchangeably!
The company’s first major M&A (merger and acquisition) involves the Sabines. Our author considers the abduction and subsequent forced marriage of Sabine women to the Romans as the first corporate merger: Titus Tatius from the Sabines begins to co-rule Rome with Romulus. However, shortly after, the Sabine king loses his life, and Romulus continues to rule the kingdom alone. It’s almost like today’s corporate mergers, with the stronger entity taking over the management post-merger. After Romulus, although Rome had successful leaders or CEOs who established cultural superiority and maintained the Company’s ethos, no charismatic leader emerged to consolidate all powers and fill the presidency. In the end, new generations failed to lead the company effectively, and as the book puts it, the “Republic” was born in Rome.
Now, Rome had a senate, much like a publicly traded corporate entity with an independent board of directors. The Latin term ‘Senatus’ means ‘old men,’ and the book translates ‘senate’ as the assembly of ‘boomers,’ akin to our council of elders, that is, the council of the chosen ones or the “Aqsaqals” (Wise Elders).
The book describes the differences between “patricians” and “plebeians” and the struggle of the plebeians to gain rights as follows: Plebeians were individuals without distinguished family origins. In other words, anyone not born into the aristocracy was considered a plebeian, regardless of their wealth.
The plebeians rebelled and withdrew to a hill near Rome, effectively staging the first recorded “strike” in history. After the war with the Gauls, Rome formed alliances with Latin cities. Think of Rome as a holding company and the Latin cities as its subsidiaries. From that point forward, Rome kept a formidable army and remained vigilant, ensuring it never had to defend itself again by always being the aggressor. Much like the later established “Ottoman Family Company”!
The author then explains how Rome, with its republican governance, increased its power by conquering surrounding lands and granting Roman citizenship, or “eman,” to the people living there, effectively making them Romans or Roman citizens. The Umayyads, during their time, established their dominance over the known world, excluding China, with similar strict rules.
After numerous exhausting wars, the Roman Company transformed into an empire, or a multinational corporation, by conquering Italy, Greece, Spain, Macedonia, and Gaul. The company’s sole product was “Roman citizenship.” Those who were bestowed with this became superior and prosperous. Decisions on war and peace were made by Rome, the corporate entity—essentially, a company whose main line of business was war. Despite this, there were many cities in the region we now know as Anatolia, like Aphrodisias, that lived in peace for centuries, even up to 600 years.
The Roman company was now in pursuit of major acquisitions. The author narrates how Rome conquered well-established and powerful states such as Greece, Carthage, and Macedonia with determination. To sustain the strategy of rapid growth through aggressive acquisitions, more talented managers were needed—intellectually advanced individuals with military skills, commercial acumen, and political intelligence; some even wrote poetry.
During the Roman Republic era, the corporate entity couldn’t abandon its growth and expansion strategy; it was relentless. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire engaged in wars with unwavering determination, even when defeat was inevitable and led to its collapse. The book explains this by referring to the “bigwigs” who thrived on war, with harsh criticism. This period might indeed be considered the time when Rome could be seen as a “multinational corporation.”
The company faced a strategic issue: maintaining peace was impossible without ongoing war. In reality, Rome reveled in the conflict and the way it engaged in it.
Future strategies based on this bloody, perpetual state of war had different effects on the minds of the managers. To run the company in such a state, one had to be insane.
In Rome, individuals with careers in the military, administrative, or commercial sectors could advance in any of the other fields. To be an effective manager, the following qualities are essential:
– Annihilating or enslaving the entire population of small countries, or enterprises, that were previously operational.
– Crucifying or destroying your enemies en masse.
– Negotiating with colleagues you later planned to annihilate.
– Marrying and divorcing women for political reasons.
– Desiring a position so intensely that you were justified in believing it would likely result in your suicide or brutal murder in a short time.
– Living in places that felt just like Rome.
– Imagine yourself as the governor of an ancient and impressive civilization like Egypt or Syria, despite having no right to rule and knowing very little about it.
– Assigning people to erect your statue.
As the Roman Republic declined, society split into left and right factions, leading to intense conflict and even animosity between them.
On the right, there was a corrupt and entrenched Senate, deeply attached to its power and privileges, willing to do anything to maintain the status quo. These were the patricians, the conservatives. Those known as the left gained their power and wealth not through inheritance but through their own efforts, and the blood of their sons and ancestors. They were the popular, people. Both classes were rulers.
As history progressed towards the end of the Republic and the rise of the Empire, there was a corporate bureaucracy filled with treacherous sycophants, madmen, and chaos, save for a few idealistic conservatives like Cicero and Cato, who were so dedicated to their ideals that they would rather die than see the fall of the Roman state. There was also Julius Caesar, extraordinarily successful but perhaps for that reason, murdered by a group of traitors. Every bigwig aligned with a side for opportunistic reasons. This was not a struggle between the rich and the poor, but a war between the rich and the even richer.
After over a century of this, the takeaway is clear: The bigwig, in the end, views himself as a victim beneath his own arrogance, believing he’s someone worthy of empathy, attention, and care. Part of this is paranoia or self-pity, feeling like everyone is out to get him. Ultimately, this is the cry of the little child within every great leader, a child who was never adequately nourished, respected, or loved enough to become a normal person.
In a mentally sound society, such individuals are regarded as unwell and in need of treatment, and they receive appropriate care. In contrast, in a society that has lost its mental equilibrium, these pathological leaders ascend to prominent positions, are granted authority, and earn respect. Sooner or later, both individually and as a group, they self-destruct and transform into a new breed of leader. However, the entrepreneurial bigwig, who identifies himself with the state and the state with himself, can hold immense power over the lives and dreams within the company culture that sustains him. The author continues: In our corporate story, one cannot help but wonder what trait inherent in the Roman character turned murder into a business tool in upper management over generations.
At this point, one might think of Ottoman sultans, grand viziers, and pashas strangled or poisoned. While the book draws comparisons between modern management philosophies and Rome, similar patterns are evident in the Umayyad and Abbasid states that followed Rome, as well as in the Ottoman Empire, established 1,300 years later.
In the author’s view, after the Republic, Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, the new dictator, leveraged military power for personal gain and eliminated anyone who did not adhere to his directives. The succeeding leaders were neither different nor more successful than Sulla. In a decaying bureaucracy, discerning one’s true interests were challenging, as personal power-driven motives often dictated actions. According to the author, Caesar foresaw that the prevailing corporate culture was inadequate for governing the vast multinational Rome, making the restoration of the monarchy and the collapse of the so-called representative government inevitable from his perspective. Caesar’s assassination was driven not only by the entrenched interests of the class he sought to overthrow but also by the character of this great man himself. In his final days, his ego had so completely overshadowed his other traits that it became the sole visible aspect of his persona, akin to a prominent goiter. The author identifies that the qualities driving Caesar to become an intense workaholic align perfectly with the traits that achieve the highest success in today’s cutthroat corporate environment: “Ambitious, devoid of sentimentality, extraordinarily brave, strategic and cunning, excessively proud (!)”
When top executives start to lose control, something often happens: the emergence of foolish, unsuccessful, pleasure-seeking, or even unstable emperors or CEOs, surrounded by a group of people hovering around to sustain their own roles and livelihood by unconditionally endorsing the leader’s every word. Touchiness and vindictiveness also characterize this form of narcissism. The illustrious Caesar fell victim to his own arrogance, though it remains unclear whether these traits were inherent to him from the outset or developed later in life.
Among his successors, Antonius was ambitious and dynamic, but the author contends he lacked the qualities of an effective CEO. In contrast, his rival—initially known as Octavianus and later Augustus—possessed the traits of a successful CEO. Having been closely associated with Caesar from a young age and receiving commendation, Augustus was adopted by Caesar and designated as his heir.
Octavianus achieved a lasting peace, and Augustus went further by freeing around eight hundred thousand rebels, offering them land in return for their loyalty, and assisting them in founding new cities where they could prosper and fully integrate as Romans. The incorporation of Egyptian territories into the Roman Empire is seen in the book as a “merger of conglomerates.”
In the author’s view, every corporate transformation necessitates a thorough cleanup. You are often surrounded by former allies who have become obstacles, along with ineffective individuals who contribute little but create disruption. Coexisting with them while they undermine and conspire against your efforts is not viable; it leads to failure. Augustus is seen as having effectively executed this critical “mass cleanup phase.” Additionally, as an exemplary leader, he created lasting value for all citizens, refining his approach to establish a global corporate empire capable of enduring peace and harmony if properly managed. The author provides a detailed account of how Antonius, a prominent figure during Augustus’s era, was personally and politically weakened by his relationship with Cleopatra, which also undermined the substance of his leadership.
The only thing Augustus failed to achieve was selecting a suitable successor. The next in line was Tiberius, Livia’s whiny, perverse, and immoral son. The successors were even worse. The ones that followed were no better…The author asks, “How did this great corporate entity manage to survive for so long despite its own top management?”
Incompetent CEOs lead to the worsening condition of a company. It was impossible for Rome Inc. to revert to its original state when it was first established. Rome had to relocate its headquarters to the other side of the world and completely overhaul its infrastructure, transitioning from a secular organization to a religious one. It was now Christian.
What bound the Romans to Rome was the promise of peace and prosperity they would achieve in old age, once retired. The prospect of reaching such an ideal life was highly appealing not only to the wealthy but also to many working individuals, and even those who had once been slaves.
The Christian faith differed from the old Pagan beliefs that the people were accustomed to. For instance, worship of the emperor and oaths of allegiance to him had become common. This approach meant recognizing something above the state and its divine leadership, which was unacceptable to the old Romans. As a result, the company split in two, and the new headquarters remained in place for a long time. Constantine adopted Christianity and introduced new rules; he was a superior leader in many respects, concerned with the spiritual and political development of his subjects.
Throughout history, another company posed a significant threat to Rome Inc.: the Huns. Led by Attila, unlike the surrendering Carthaginians, they were relentless, winning several battles and sometimes losing, but each time getting closer to their goal. In 451, nearly half a million troops passed through France, heading straight for the aging company’s weakened, decayed heart. They ravaged and looted some of Europe’s major cities. Attila, capable of laying siege to a city, if necessary, deviated from the usual barbarian preference for swarming attacks. They were victorious everywhere. However, while planning his final campaign against Rome in 453, which would have ended in victory, Attila died at the age of forty-seven.
At the end of the book, the author argues that the Roman Empire did not collapse but rather transformed: The Roman Empire did not collapse; instead, it adapted in the way that all enduring corporate entities do, reinventing itself into a highly organized, spiritually cohesive, politically charged, and extraordinarily affluent global entity that persists in growth and development, even up to this day. This entity is known as the Roman Catholic Church. Its reformation began in the 4th century when Constantine elevated Jesus to the status of the new Jupiter and shifted the company’s headquarters from the west to the east. The governance, once managed by military-based CEOs, was subsequently assumed by priests.
I’m not sure if you agree, but it feels somewhat contrived to me.
Certainly, Western civilization today can be traced back to Roman paganism and draws inspiration from ancient Greece and Egypt. I believe all of this stems from the desperation arising from the difficulty in accepting a corrupted (distorted) form of Christianity.
It’s also important to remember that throughout human history, not limited to Rome but before and after, there has been no other group of high and mid-level executives that combined the desire to kill people by every means available with oppression and usurpation for such a long period. Today, do many top executives possess this mixture of powers? Is it true that if you’re not sufficiently feared to inspire dread, you can only handle things temporarily, but it won’t be enduring? Not necessarily. Long-term stability and rational behavior offer genuine security. However, as commonly recognized, “spreading goodness and preventing evil” is valued both in this life and the next, leaving a lasting, positive legacy. #makehappybehappy
How did Rome endure for so long? According to the author: Rome survived because it was endowed with many highly effective, creative, and malevolent leaders.
When considering the continuity of the state and institutions we refer to as Rome, how do we encompass all these phases—pagan Rome, the dictatorship, the Republic, the monarchy, the fusion with Egypt, Christianity, Eastern/Western Rome, and the Catholic Church—as a single entity? Why don’t we include figures like Genghis Khan and his successors, Kublai Khan, and the Chinese dynasties, or consider the sixteen Turkish states together as well?
Today, the almost certain obstacle to a company’s collapse is not the state but the relentless demand for continuous growth and the scrutiny it undergoes each quarter from its diligent followers. Stock markets pressure every company today: either you grow, or you lose your appeal to investors. Yet, growth brings with it risks. While positive steps serve as lifelines for businesses, driving growth and wealth, poor decisions act as parasites draining resources. Should we heed Kemal Tahir’s notion that “the Ottoman Empire was a diamond, while the West was just a stone, and the diamond was shattered upon collision,” or Mehmet Akif Ersoy’s view that “civilization is a one-toothed monster”?
———–
(*) Stanley B., Roma AŞ; İlk Çokuluslu Şirketin Yükselişi ve Çöküşü [Rome Inc.: The Rise and Fall of the First Multinational], Translated by Rana Alpöz, Koç University Press, Istanbul 2016.
(**) (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabinler)
