Reform the Roman republic

Many threads are about the question how to save the Roman republic. Now my questions is: how, when and by whom?

Some thoughts...

In 43 BC, Caesar is dead and Octavian hasn't the power to enforce his demands. The republic has two consuls with a decent army; Mark Antony is beaten at Forum Gallorum and than at Mutina. Now, imagine that Hirtius and Pansa survive the two battles, while, with some luck, Octavianus could die... The legions of the senate, controlled by republicans, can now chase Mark Antony and defeat him, even if he merges with Bassus and Lepidus, whereas the senate can rely on Decimus Brutus and his forces. Mark Anthony is ultimately made prisoner, brought to Rome and judged as a traitor to the res publica.

Of course, this isn't the solution. New powerful imperatores can rise at any points, the Caesarians have stil many supporters. But I think that if the senate can regain the control of the empire and the legions, he can enact the necessary reforms without facing armed resistance. Thus, he can get rid of the actual causes of the problems of the republic.

Now, my question is, were there some visionary politicians having ideas which could solve this problems? And what could they propose? What could be adopted by the senate?

Any thoughts?

If you look at the flurry of legislative activity in the late republic, it was being reformed. You saw real efforts to make the courts as immune to bribery as possible (I believe the latest legislation basically made them chosen by lot from pre-selected groups the day before the trial, or something along those lines). There's also the lex pompeia de provinciis of 52 BCE that placed a 5 year interval between a magistracy and going out to govern a pro-magistracy province and disallowed people from doing what Cicero did after his consulship, which is give up their province and allow someone else to take it instead (hence why Cicero had to go govern Cilicia in 51). This at the very least shows that the Romans were starting to look at governing provinces less as a spoil of electoral victory and more of a duty.

There's other legislation that escapes me, but you get the idea. The most important thing the Republic needs is time. They expanded so rapidly and haphazardly that they never had the time to adapt their governing system, which lead to the turmoil between 130-30. Give them time, and I think they can sort things out.

slydessertfox said:

If you look at the flurry of legislative activity in the late republic, it was being reformed. You saw real efforts to make the courts as immune to bribery as possible (I believe the latest legislation basically made them chosen by lot from pre-selected groups the day before the trial, or something along those lines). There's also the lex pompeia de provinciis of 52 BCE that placed a 5 year interval between a magistracy and going out to govern a pro-magistracy province and disallowed people from doing what Cicero did after his consulship, which is give up their province and allow someone else to take it instead (hence why Cicero had to go govern Cilicia in 51). This at the very least shows that the Romans were starting to look at governing provinces less as a spoil of electoral victory and more of a duty.

There's other legislation that escapes me, but you get the idea. The most important thing the Republic needs is time. They expanded so rapidly and haphazardly that they never had the time to adapt their governing system, which lead to the turmoil between 130-30. Give them time, and I think they can sort things out.

Click to expand...

This. The Roman Republic was a city state system that ended up in charge of an empire.

slydessertfox said:

If you look at the flurry of legislative activity in the late republic, it was being reformed. You saw real efforts to make the courts as immune to bribery as possible (I believe the latest legislation basically made them chosen by lot from pre-selected groups the day before the trial, or something along those lines). There's also the lex pompeia de provinciis of 52 BCE that placed a 5 year interval between a magistracy

Click to expand...

Other reforms?

I think that the Romans should have maintained the new rules Sulla introduced for the tribunes - if the tribunate becomes a political impasse, ambitious policticians can't abuse it for their military ambition.

But again: What to do about the professional and standing army?

slydessertfox said:

and going out to govern a pro-magistracy province and disallowed people from doing what Cicero did after his consulship, which is give up their province and allow someone else to take it instead (hence why Cicero had to go govern Cilicia in 51). This at the very least shows that the Romans were starting to look at governing provinces less as a spoil of electoral victory and more of a duty.

Click to expand...

I think he had to accept the province government because there were no other possible candidates meeting the new conditions.

slydessertfox said:

There's other legislation that escapes me, but you get the idea. The most important thing the Republic needs is time. They expanded so rapidly and haphazardly that they never had the time to adapt their governing system, which lead to the turmoil between 130-30. Give them time, and I think they can sort things out.

Click to expand...

So, about the time, could a victory of the senate in the Post-caesarian civil war do it?

Sulemain said:

This. The Roman Republic was a city state system that ended up in charge of an empire.

Click to expand...

So (since all big empires of the ancient world were absolutist monarchies) there is no chance to save the Roman republic...?

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:

Other reforms?

I think that the Romans should have maintained the new rules Sulla introduced for the tribunes - if the tribunate becomes a political impasse, ambitious policticians can't abuse it for their military ambition.

Click to expand...

Sulla's tribune reforms rightly were discarded. It was a standard reactionary move and all it did was piss off the Roman people. Not only could it stand in the face of popular pressure, nobody really wanted it to stand. The legislation restoring the tribunes' powers was proposed by, if you go by the standard optimate vs. populares definition (which is badly wrong but that's beside the point), would have fallen squarely in the optimate camp. The tribunes were useful to all sides, and the fact that there were 10 of them and every one of them could veto the other, it made them normally impotent. They would usually be used in the late republic for ambitious young men to just propose popular legislation to gain the people's favor (usually well aware it would be shot down) and then revert to a normal, more conservative career in the senate.

I don't think getting rid of the tribune's powers is essential to the survival of the republic. The only time I can think of any tribunes of note post-Sulla is Clodius (Who just used it to embark on an ambitious legislative program and briefly exile Cicero, hardly anything endangering the state) and Curio, who already entered the tribunate in an explosive situation to begin with.

But again: What to do about the professional and standing army?

Click to expand...

A good start would be having the state pay and equip the soldiers, rather than the general. Other than that, it's important to note it took extraordinary circumstances for the armies to march on Rome. In Sulla's case, it was a combined loyalty to their commander, complete paralysis in Rome, and the fear that Marius would raise different troops and disband them, and those new troops would reap the spoils of war. The latter is eliminated if armies are raised and equipped by the state through a treasury specifically , as Augustus would do.

Under most circumstances, you need an army that has intense loyalty to their commander, complete paralysis in Rome, a senate willing to go to such lengths to risk open civil war with a guy with an army, and of course, the willingness of the commander. You won't find those combinations often during the republic.

I think he had to accept the province government because there were no other possible candidates meeting the new conditions.

Click to expand...

Well yes, and because he had not taken a pro-consulship after his consulship. Which was now forbidden (unless the senate made the decree). And, of course, some wanted him out of Rome for a year.

So, about the time, could a victory of the senate in the Post-caesarian civil war do it?

Click to expand...

After Caesar wins, I doubt it. But during the civil war? Sure, that's the latest point though.

Reforming the Comitia Centuriata to accurately reflect the demographics of the military would help greatly. The majority of the military had no representation in the elections and that only got exponentially worse when Marius reformed the legions and let the proles enlist.

slydessertfox said:

A good start would be having the state pay and equip the soldiers, rather than the general. Other than that, it's important to note it took extraordinary circumstances for the armies to march on Rome. In Sulla's case, it was a combined loyalty to their commander, complete paralysis in Rome, and the fear that Marius would raise different troops and disband them, and those new troops would reap the spoils of war. The latter is eliminated if armies are raised and equipped by the state through a treasury specifically , as Augustus would do.

Click to expand...

But how many generals marched on Rome AFTER Augustus? And later that on Constantinople?

slydessertfox said:

Under most circumstances, you need an army that has intense loyalty to their commander, complete paralysis in Rome, a senate willing to go to such lengths to risk open civil war with a guy with an army, and of course, the willingness of the commander. You won't find those combinations often during the republic.

Click to expand...

Maybe the social standing of the soldiers should be improved by the senate to secure their loyality to the republic (a special republican cult could maybe help?)

Reforming the Comitia Centuriata to accurately reflect the demographics of the military would help greatly. The majority of the military had no representation in the elections and that only got exponentially worse when Marius reformed the legions and let the proles enlist.

Click to expand...

They actually had been reformed before (even if we didn't exactly know HOW). Also, the more democratic assemblies (Comitia tributa and Concilium plebis) were already very powerful.

But those assemblies did not elect the Consuls. "Vote for me and we'll get lots of loot" is less harmful than "march on Rome with me and we'll get lots of loot."

DominusNovus said:

But those assemblies did not elect the Consuls. "Vote for me and we'll get lots of loot" is less harmful than "march on Rome with me and we'll get lots of loot."

Click to expand...

But, aside from Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus, are there Roman politicians who REALLY want to reform the republic making a real democracy out of it?

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:

But, aside from Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus, are there Roman politicians who REALLY want to reform the republic making a real democracy out of it?

Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure they did. But there's an undeniable problem with not giving your army a vote when you're a Republic.

Mind you, it doesn't have to be a 'one soldier = one vote' arrangement. The voting centuries could still be skewed in favor of the elite. Just... not as much. Gradually shift the votes over time.

G.Washington_Fuckyeah said:

But how many generals marched on Rome AFTER Augustus? And later that on Constantinople?

Click to expand...

You're talking about a completely different scenario. There's one man rule. A single emperor. There's a higher goal to strive for for generals. And even then, I should point out that until the third century crisis, there were only 2 brief periods of 1 year civil war during the principate.

Maybe the social standing of the soldiers should be improved by the senate to secure their loyality to the republic (a special republican cult could maybe help?)

Click to expand...

The soldiers never thought they were destroying the republic, nor did they want to. Remember, the Romans still saw the principate as a continuation of the republic, just in a different form.

They actually had been reformed before (even if we didn't exactly know HOW). Also, the more democratic assemblies (Comitia tributa and Concilium plebis) were already very powerful.

Click to expand...

The plebeian assembly was powerful because of the power of the plebeian tribunes.

DominusNovus said:

I'm not entirely sure they did. But there's an undeniable problem with not giving your army a vote when you're a Republic.

Mind you, it doesn't have to be a 'one soldier = one vote' arrangement. The voting centuries could still be skewed in favor of the elite. Just... not as much. Gradually shift the votes over time.

Click to expand...

A good start would be to have the poorer centuries vote first, rather than last (which, I believe they did at some point, so it's not unprecedented). Roman elections tended to have a bandwagon effect, and, of course, once you reached a certain number of centuries in your favor, there was no point in counting the others. So if you have the poorer centuries vote first, it gives them quite a lot of say in elections.

Another thing with the tribal assembly is to add more tribes rather than incorporating everyone into the standard 35.

This would be an abomination for most romans, poor ones included since most poor citizens revered the nobles and were dependant on them.

Matteo said:

This would be an abomination for most romans, poor ones included since most poor citizens revered the nobles and were dependant on them.

Click to expand...

Except it was the case at one point, so it does have precedent. I'll have to check The Crowd In Rome In The Late Republic to clarify, but it's not impossible.

slydessertfox said:

A good start would be to have the poorer centuries vote first, rather than last (which, I believe they did at some point, so it's not unprecedented). Roman elections tended to have a bandwagon effect, and, of course, once you reached a certain number of centuries in your favor, there was no point in counting the others. So if you have the poorer centuries vote first, it gives them quite a lot of say in elections.

Another thing with the tribal assembly is to add more tribes rather than incorporating everyone into the standard 35.

Click to expand...

Well, they did try to reform the tribal assembly in just such a fashion, I believe (but don't quote me on that, I'm not looking at my sources right now), but it was very modest.

As for the order, I agree, though I think simply randomizing the order, as the tribal assembly did, would work well enough.

Another evolution might be the estaablishment of some sort of police force in rome a la the urban praetors and vigiles of imperial times. Not sure how you can bet that to work in a republic though.

slydessertfox said:

The most important thing the Republic needs is time. They expanded so rapidly and haphazardly that they never had the time to adapt their governing system, which lead to the turmoil between 130-30. Give them time, and I think they can sort things out.

Click to expand...

Pompeius law was nice. But the real important changes were never approached. Like division of powers (not in a modern sense) in the provinces, establishing a huge independent buerocracy, disempowerement of the comitia as a legislation, taxation without publicani, or a military reform with clear pension schemes. This all was against the interests of the aristocratic class. You can't let the wolves herd the sheeps.

It needed a dictator like Caesar, in order to get rid of these exploiting publicani in Asia and the principes to do the rest. Because the principes were not interested in the profits of the aristocrats, but in a profitable empire.

I don't say, it is impossible, but so far I have not found any realistic approach to let the aristocrats reform themselves.

The problem is, that the roman republic was an aristocratic republic. And that was fully right, because the aristocratic class was the most powerful class. They had to open up and share their power with the nobiles of the socii during the social war, and I am convinced, that they must also share the power with the equites and the nobiles of the provinces. Even if just to get the manpower to administrate such an empire.

So in order to rescue the republic, you have to strengthen and to a certain extent enlarge the ruling class: the nobiles. But on the other hand, these guys have to decide to restrict themselves, in order to not ruin the empire longterm. A monarch could do that. But how and why should aristocrats do it?

slydessertfox said:

I don't think getting rid of the tribune's powers is essential to the survival of the republic.

Click to expand...

I fully agree. As long as the roman aristocracy was balanced, united, and performed as usual, these tribunes had no power at all. They just have been instruments of the senate and another career path. Especially very important for patricians to bypass the expensive office of an aedil.

The key issue is not the tribunate. The problem is direct democracy. Give the legislative power to the senate, like Tiberius finally did and nobody can bypass the senate anymore via the comitia.

Let the comitia still elect tribunes. Nothing more! Let the tribunes need a 50% majority before a veto is valid and let them participate in the senates meetings. And because the comitia are not a legislative anymore, tribunes have to submit their laws to the senate. Et voila, here is a kind of 2 chamber system with at least the tribunes elected like usual in a representative democracy.

Actually, in the late republic tribunes attended meetings of the senate and usually tribunes discussed about a veto with their colleagues and tried to get a majority. Just in order to avoid, that a veto was rejected, because illegal or not formally correct. But also in order to get more political backing. So it is not a big step from every tribune can veto, to the majority of the tribunes can.

Well there are a lot of other functions of the tribunes you must regulate. And finally the tribunes are still aristocrats. Most of them not interested in representing the plebs. The even more cruicial problem is, that the plebs itself got no clue what representation means.