So let's say, with a divergence of no earlier than around 100 BC (give or take a few years) how could you have the Republic survive? Is there anyway to let it survive in a form that doesn't involve a princep or some authority figure above the consuls, controlling it?
How To Preserve The Roman Republic
- Thread starter SlyDessertFox
- Start date
You'd have to change its structure. The Roman Republic was effectively an oligarchy, which allows powerful figures within that oligarchy to become preeminent - starting with Marius and Sulla and then moving on to Caesar and Pompey.
You'd also have to establish civilian control of the military, probably by the Senate and temporarily appointed dictators. If the army is actually loyal to the Senate in more than name, then you've got yourself a ballgame. Otherwise, the Republic will eventually disintegrate.
Those two things are immensely difficult, though. I can't think of any good PODs right now.
Cheers,
Ganesha
The whole 'appointed temporary dictators' thing has the potential to fail quickly. Cincinnatus aside.
Not particularly. It was remarkably effective for nearly 300 years in dealing with all sorts of crises, from Mauretania to Hispania to Hannibal to the invasion of Greece.
As long as the Senate feels it is more in their interest to limit a dictator's power rather than re-elect them, the Republic will not be threatened.
Cheers,
Ganesha
What you really have to do is prevent the Marian reforms. While from a purely military perspective they were brilliant the political consequences were catastrophic. The pre-Marian army was a genuine citizen force made up of people who were part of and benefited from the Republican system, i.e. members of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th classes who could afford their own equipment. The post-Marian army was made up of the landless and the poverty stricken who didn't have farms and businesses to go home to at the end of the campaign. On the plus side that massively increased the endurance of the Roman legions and enabled them to maintain standing forces outside Italy for years at a time (e.g. the Gallic campaign), on the downside precisely because the legionaries were now so poor they had much less to lose from civil strife and were much more dependent on the goodwill and political success of their General. If you constrain the Marian reforms to altering the doctrine and organisation of the Legions without altering the make-up of them then while the conquest of Gaul etc. will be impossible the Republic will continue to have a reliable army rather than a ticking time bomb waiting for the first General to promise his men pensions at the Senate's expense.
The issue that needs to be addressed is why the armies felt no loyalty to the Senate and the Republic in comparison to their generals.
The army had representation in the Republic through the Centuriate Assembly. The problem with the Centuriate Assembly is twofold: They were divided by wealth into 5 classes with equal voting rights, and they voted in order of wealth. Since the soldiers of the Marian army were generally poor, the vast majority of the army was in the lowest class of voting units, meaning that the majority of army controlled 20% of the vote, while the minority controlled 80% of the vote. And that 20% never even got to vote anyway, since all matters were determined before they even got to their votes.
So, change the system up, and the army will be more interested in and more capable of having their issues addressed through the constitutional system.
Oh, having some stake in the elections while they're out on campaign wouldn't hurt, either.
The army had representation in the Republic through the Centuriate Assembly. The problem with the Centuriate Assembly is twofold: They were divided by wealth into 5 classes with equal voting rights, and they voted in order of wealth. Since the soldiers of the Marian army were generally poor, the vast majority of the army was in the lowest class of voting units, meaning that the majority of army controlled 20% of the vote, while the minority controlled 80% of the vote. And that 20% never even got to vote anyway, since all matters were determined before they even got to their votes.
So, change the system up, and the army will be more interested in and more capable of having their issues addressed through the constitutional system.
Oh, having some stake in the elections while they're out on campaign wouldn't hurt, either.
The issue there is that all Roman voting was done that way. For the elections for posts like praetor and quaestor they would gather on the Campus Martius, divided into 100 groups by class and wealth - the top few groups had only a few people each, while the bottom 10 contained 90% of Rome's population. Since voting proceeded from 1-100 and stopped once a majority was reached, most people never voted.
Changing the military system would get people thinking about changing the civilian voting system as well, which is why so many upper-class Romans were so firmly opposed to it.
Cheers,
Ganesha
Certainly true. But, of course, the military system happened to include the guys that ended up toppling the Republic anyway, so...
True. Really, the entire structure was unsustainable and built, as others have pointed out, upon constant expansion and was thus able to tolerate extreme levels of corruption. The Republic was almost bound to fall eventually, the only questions being when, how, and what replaced it.
Cheers,
Ganesha
The Republic was a political system suited for a small city-state, not a very extensive territorial empire, which required a large standing army and allowed military leaders to assume positions of great power and circumvent the traditional democratic machinery. As Rome acquired its empire, the Republic was doomed to terminal instability which eventually rendered it obsolete. A new form of government was necessary as an adaptation to a very different set of conditions, hence the eventual establishment of the Principate.
So I guess, if you want the Roman Republic to survive, it has to remain at the very least confined to Italy and nearby regions: Dalmatia, Sardinia + Corsica, perhaps southern Gaul, basically anywhere that can be controlled directly from Italy without a large standing army.
So I guess, if you want the Roman Republic to survive, it has to remain at the very least confined to Italy and nearby regions: Dalmatia, Sardinia + Corsica, perhaps southern Gaul, basically anywhere that can be controlled directly from Italy without a large standing army.
amphibulous
Banned
..This rather misses the real problems. Which were
1. The Senate was militarily incompetent - the Marian reforms were needed because huge, huge numbers of old style soldiers had been killed through amazingly bad generalship
2. The Senate was politically incompetent - the tax farming system guaranteed revolts, governors fought harmful wars for personal profit - and then there was the Civil war
3. The Senate was economically incompetent - the old soldiers were also being wiped out economically
Marius's response was the only one possible without either profound political change or learning to speak German. Prevent his reforms without solving the problems he worked around doesn't save the Republic but destroys Rome entirely.
...To give you some idea of how desperate Rome was when Marius's reforms were allowed, it had to fight THREE existential wars, each on a huge scale. And this period started these with what is arguably the greatest disaster in Roman military history - the loss of TWO consular armies on a single day, together almost 100,000 strong - and that's just in Roman troops. Oh - and they'd lost another consular army even before that. What were they supposed to do if not enlist the Head Count - use tanks?
I understand and agree that the Marian Reforms were militarily brilliant and in the short term absolutely necessary, as you said the Cimbrian invasion coupled with crippling loss of manpower meant Rome had no other option.
However if you avoid Arausio (which isn't hard) then the situation is far less dire, and the incredibly radical Marian Reforms aren't enacted, or a much reduced version of them is brought in. The Manipular Legion was already disappearing and it's replacement with the Cohortal Legion was pretty much inevitable but Marius's opening up of the Legions to all citizens was not. With the Cimbrian migration diverted or relatively bloodlessly defeated and without Arausio the Roman army remains restricted to the property owning and thus voting classes and the Legions remain loyal to the Senate rather than their Generals. Rome isn't going to acquire the Empire it did in the real world, it's simply won't be able to support the sort of forces necessary, but you would have a much more stable polity without the disruptive effects of massive amounts of loot completely unbalancing the economy, Generals with tame armies dependent on supporting their General against the Senate in order to get a pension, a precedent of using military force and blackmail to ignore the Constitution (Marius's multiple consulships) etc.
Rome can either have a massive Empire with a Marian Army or the Republic can continue with a citizen army, not both.
I think that this is the key. A huge empire needs a large standing army to control. That gives enormous amounts of power to the generals, inevitably one of them will be able take power and the republic will fall. To prevent that either the legions need to be loyal to Rome first and their general second or a smaller empire and army could be kept under control by the Senate.
To have a smaller empire Rome needs to suffer a defeat in one of its early expansionist wars. Ideally a long protracted and bloody struggle that results in the status quo anti bellum. Such a defeat could lead to discontent and riots back in Rome. If they are severe enough the Senate might introduce reforms. Giving the republic a more stable footing.
amphibulous
Banned
Not quite. I did make point of saying there were three existential wars - Arausio was a single battle in just the first of those wars.
But you still have the endemic problems that created Arausio. And the destruction of the smallholder class. And two more major wars to fight. I think you're confusing the moment when the problem became obvious with the problem itself. Losses in the Civil War that followed were mind boggling - they made the war with the Germans look like a cakewalk, so you can't prevent exhaustion of the reserves of old style soldiers by simply eliminating Arausio.
The Roman Empire was already incompatible with a non-professional force. Look at the third of those existential wars, the Pontic War, and the territory they were defending. And it was years too late for imperial loot not to disrupt Rome!
amphibulous
Banned
There is a way to prevent the end of the Republic and have an empire: modify the voting system so that the smallholders have enough political power so they don't get wiped out and let the Italian Allies have citizenship without war. The Dutch managed to build quite an empire witha republic after all! You'd need the Romans to adopt a federal structure and to replace or augment the Senate rather like the House Of Commons. These are not impossible things, especially if the changes happened over a couple of centuries.
Pretty much the Second Samnitic War.
The problem is that the Sammites are not in a position to act as a rival to Rome. What I was thinking was a power that would go to war with Rome when Rome tries to expand. The most likely candidates are Carthage or Macedonia.
Maybe the republican form of government would survive if Rome stayed as a city state. Or if they build an empire of alliances like the Dorian league with Rome acting as Athens did. In order for that to happen I think Rome would need to be a maritime-mercantile power.