Roman Republic
- Thread starter Socialist
- Start date
Then we would read about the dictatorship of Pompey, which "re-established" a Roman monarchy. The problem was, Rome was pretty far gone by that point. Hell, you'd stand a better chance of saving the Republic by having Caesar NOT getting assassinated...
I can think of tons. The question is--why? If it's out of some mistaken belief that this would further the development of democracy, then allow me to state, you're barking up the wrong tree.
This. The Roman Republic was dead. The only real question was who would systematize the replacement, which Augustus did, not Julius Seezer.
I don't know if you can butterfly away the decline of Roman Republican institutions without butterflying away the Roman Republic's military success. Its like asking how the US can still be a global power in the 21st century but also a highly decentralized Jeffersonian agrarian republic. Answer: it can't.
The POD having most probability of success would be: no Hannibal
The last POD which could have some (not many) probabilities od success would be: Sulla's reform of political career really enforced
How no Hannibal would butterfly stronger Republic? A stronger Rome- I see. but why it would affect the Inner-Roman system?
It would butterfly away the expansion.
Thus less power to the military and less idealized figures being "exceptional" because their war efforts.
heck, the very "emperor" title would be affected and would remain the seldom-awarded military honorific it was in the origin.
On the other hand, more stable power in the hands of the Senatus, which slowly progress in its colonization of the padan valley. ok you have to scuffle with a few gauls to do that, but it is not such a great enterprise to burn the village of some half-starven lousy barbarian.
Land-based aristocracy. Good old values to preserve and all that.
Typo
Banned
Because he dealt the first and strongest blow to the system of yeomen farmers the Republic depended on
depend what you mean for "nice"
the situation would be a repressive oligarchy jealous of its power trying to remain immobile and repressing any reform attempt aimed at a wider representation in the government, just as the roman republic of the origins was
To call the Roman Republic a starter of democracy is a farce. Remember the struggles between patricians and plebeians?
That's largely mythological, with a good chance that the Patricans early on engaged in a great deal of historical rewriting to make themselves even more prestigious than they already were, with the wars being written in as a sort of backlash, and to explain why some of these annoying Plebeians were so damned powerful. (I also suspect the Patricians redefined Plebeian from what it meant originally to mean instead 'everybody who's not Patrician,' thus making the noble Plebeian families seem less distinguished. But it's also only a suspicion.)
To my mind, a more damning indictment of the Roman Republic as a democratic form of government is the fact that votes were distributed proportionately by wealth--the rich tribes got more votes, and they got to vote first. So by the time things rolled around to the proles, matters had usually already been decided...
Which pretty much established that it was an oligarchic republic, which would continue as the dominant republican form of government until the 18th century.
Yep. Honestly--there are concepts in the Roman model that will lead to modern democracy. But not enough to make preventing the Empire particularly desirable.
I will confess, most of them involve Rome getting its ass completely kicked early on by one of its more formidable opponents.
I think trying to find the moral pros and cons of a continued republic is kind of a waste of time. It can be argued, yes, that the republic wasn't democratic as people like to imagine etc. etc. But that was the age it was in.
And as for the empire, well, besides political stability (at least at first), I very much doubt life was much "freer" for your everyday Joe Toga.
The switch from oligarchical republic to autocracy affected the ruling class most. Inasmuch as the ruling class was also the officer class.
Which brings me to my point, which someone already made, that the republic is destined for some kind of self-destruct.
Its entire system was to percolate the best of the best further and further to the top, and creates a sense of competition that I do not think we can really imagine. So, ultimately, if you have a finite arena (the Mediterranean) and a group of people who all have to outdo each other. Conquests get greater and greater. Booty must be more and more. Provinces are abused and pillaged further and further.
All that said, yes, you could have a republic....but it would have to stay small, always hemmed in by external forces. In this way the "nobiles", as the Romans called their multi-class aristocracy, have someone to fight but never reach that critical mass that sees the era of over-mighty generals who, in their glory, can command loyalty unto themselves instead of the state.
And a necessary part of the above, of course, is the maintenance of the yeomen. Without that....the system breaks down. Voting, loyalty, worth, obligation, citizenship...it was all tied into being a co-owner of land. All landed men, rich or poor, are literally stakeholders in the republic and have a reason to be loyal to IT instead of HIM (general, emperor, etc.).
I try to remember when reading about these ancient states that, in a sense, these things came from the mists of time. It wasn't like, say, the U.S., sitting down and deciding to formally create a nation-state, drafting it all up and thinking about it abstractly. For the primitive Latins on Rome's hills, the world at large was out to get them. Only by banding together and common defense could they survive. "My property is safe only if I agree to not mess with yours, and if a Sabine rolls in we will both fight him." Hence the landless had no part in it. If they chose to live in the city, all well and good, but the "public thing" -the republic- has no obligation to take care of them. (Until later when it was do or die, but that's another issue)
There are some good books on the subject of identity, civic integrity and the roman concept of the republic out there. I'll try and find the names. Several scholars have noted that in archaic times, the Roman legal system literally took the stance of inside the walls is the nation, outside the walls is "war", chaos, nothing. Or something to that affect. I will try and find the book and quote it more properly.
And as for the empire, well, besides political stability (at least at first), I very much doubt life was much "freer" for your everyday Joe Toga.
The switch from oligarchical republic to autocracy affected the ruling class most. Inasmuch as the ruling class was also the officer class.
Which brings me to my point, which someone already made, that the republic is destined for some kind of self-destruct.
Its entire system was to percolate the best of the best further and further to the top, and creates a sense of competition that I do not think we can really imagine. So, ultimately, if you have a finite arena (the Mediterranean) and a group of people who all have to outdo each other. Conquests get greater and greater. Booty must be more and more. Provinces are abused and pillaged further and further.
All that said, yes, you could have a republic....but it would have to stay small, always hemmed in by external forces. In this way the "nobiles", as the Romans called their multi-class aristocracy, have someone to fight but never reach that critical mass that sees the era of over-mighty generals who, in their glory, can command loyalty unto themselves instead of the state.
And a necessary part of the above, of course, is the maintenance of the yeomen. Without that....the system breaks down. Voting, loyalty, worth, obligation, citizenship...it was all tied into being a co-owner of land. All landed men, rich or poor, are literally stakeholders in the republic and have a reason to be loyal to IT instead of HIM (general, emperor, etc.).
I try to remember when reading about these ancient states that, in a sense, these things came from the mists of time. It wasn't like, say, the U.S., sitting down and deciding to formally create a nation-state, drafting it all up and thinking about it abstractly. For the primitive Latins on Rome's hills, the world at large was out to get them. Only by banding together and common defense could they survive. "My property is safe only if I agree to not mess with yours, and if a Sabine rolls in we will both fight him." Hence the landless had no part in it. If they chose to live in the city, all well and good, but the "public thing" -the republic- has no obligation to take care of them. (Until later when it was do or die, but that's another issue)
There are some good books on the subject of identity, civic integrity and the roman concept of the republic out there. I'll try and find the names. Several scholars have noted that in archaic times, the Roman legal system literally took the stance of inside the walls is the nation, outside the walls is "war", chaos, nothing. Or something to that affect. I will try and find the book and quote it more properly.
Agree, even if I would correct as much more something like "we choose each year a smaller city/village/tribe to raid, and rob them lousy foreigners of their cows"