What if Rome had remained a Republic

Jlinker613 · Oct 17, 2011

What if Julius Caesar remained a general and never took over the Roman Empire? The Empire frequently suffered civil wars over who the rightful emperor should be, but as a republic this issue would not take place and Rome would be in a more secure position.

Would Constantinople (or some other major city) still be built on the site of Byzantium?
Would the empire expand into some territory like Arabia, the Caucuses, or the rest of the British Isles?

wcv215 · Oct 17, 2011

Jlinker613 said:
What if Julius Caesar remained a general and never took over the Roman Empire? The Empire frequently suffered civil wars over who the rightful emperor should be, but as a republic this issue would not take place and Rome would be in a more secure position.

Would Constantinople (or some other major city) still be built on the site of Byzantium?
Would the empire expand into some territory like Arabia, the Caucuses, or the rest of the British Isles?

Rome was headed for despotic rule regardless of what Caesar did. If he didn't Pompeii would have. Sulla already had taken power by force. Without Caesar the question doesn't become what if Rome remains a republic. It would be more correct to wonder, does Rome survive. It could easily have torn itself apart while the Republic was failing.

Daylight Savings · Oct 17, 2011

wcv215 said:
Rome was headed for despotic rule regardless of what Caesar did. If he didn't Pompeii would have. Sulla already had taken power by force. Without Caesar the question doesn't become what if Rome remains a republic. It would be more correct to wonder, does Rome survive. It could easily have torn itself apart while the Republic was failing.

For some reason your post just gave me the idea of the Julian civil war splitting Rome into east and west three centuries early. I feel like that would be fun to explore.

Don_Giorgio · Oct 17, 2011

wcv215 said:
Rome was headed for despotic rule regardless of what Caesar did. If he didn't Pompeii would have. Sulla already had taken power by force. Without Caesar the question doesn't become what if Rome remains a republic. It would be more correct to wonder, does Rome survive. It could easily have torn itself apart while the Republic was failing.

Agree... Once the loyalty of the legions went over to the victorious Generals and not the Senate then its game over for the Republic... Sulla and Caesar just showed Romans how it is done...

Arafeel · Oct 17, 2011

wcv215 said:
Rome was headed for despotic rule regardless of what Caesar did. If he didn't Pompeii would have. Sulla already had taken power by force. Without Caesar the question doesn't become what if Rome remains a republic. It would be more correct to wonder, does Rome survive. It could easily have torn itself apart while the Republic was failing.

I really doe not believe that determinism is the best way too look at this. While the last century of the res publica was unstable, it is in my view very much fare from a give that republic would end. Sulla sized power too stop the decline, and if Pompy and Crassus doe not combine forces, they will not be able to tear down his constitution as quickly. If we remove Caesar this might be the case. There are plenty of other men that could rule. The lack of a galic adventure would also be a good thing.

wcv215 · Oct 17, 2011

Arafeel said:
I really doe not believe that determinism is the best way too look at this. While the last century of the res publica was unstable, it is in my view very much fare from a give that republic would end. Sulla sized power too stop the decline, and if Pompy and Crassus do not combine forces, they will not be able to tear down his constitution as quickly. If we remove Caesar this might be the case. There are plenty of other men that could rule. The lack of a galic adventure would also be a good thing.

Maybe, but once the precedent had been established that a general could march on Rome, take power, and get away with it. No matter what his intentions might have been, the Republic was doomed. Sooner or later a general would have come up with the same idea, and taken power, probably sooner rather than later.

Don_Giorgio · Oct 17, 2011

wcv215 said:
Maybe, but once the precedent had been established that a general could march on Rome, take power, and get away with it. No matter what his intentions might have been, the Republic was doomed. Sooner or later a general would have come up with the same idea, and taken power, probably sooner rather than later.

True... if not Caesar then somebody else would dare to challenge the Senate... All you need is ambitions and an army that loves u...

Arafeel · Oct 17, 2011

The fact that the army could be used to gain power does not mean that republic is doomed. There were failed revolts after Sulla and before Caesar, and there were a loads of them after Augustus as well. If anything the period post Augustus was more unstable than the end of the republic.

It is not going to be easy, and there is substantial need for reform, but a Rome that keeps to the ideals of the Sullan constitution and does not conquer territories to fare away from the med should have an easier time of it. (As well as lessen the military burden, and that would have massive implications). Making the payment of the army and their pension an Senatorial task would help, and it might happen. Not all the generals were Caesar. So actually did have a sens of civic duty.

Don_Giorgio · Oct 17, 2011

Arafeel said:
The fact that the army could be used to gain power does not mean that republic is doomed. There were failed revolts after Sulla and before Caesar, and there were a loads of them after Augustus as well. If anything the period post Augustus was more unstable than the end of the republic.

It is not going to be easy, and there is substantial need for reform, but a Rome that keeps to the ideals of the Sullan constitution and does not conquer territories to fare away from the med should have an easier time of it. (As well as lessen the military burden, and that would have massive implications). Making the payment of the army and their pension an Senatorial task would help, and it might happen. Not all the generals were Caesar. So actually did have a sens of civic duty.

Well the Senate didnt lead the armies to victory and booty... Generals did... And Generals tend to have ambitions... However even if the General doesnt have ambitions he could be forced to challenge the Republic by its own soldiers... In Roman history there were several incidents where soldiers proclaimed Emperors against their own wills...

Constantinople · Oct 17, 2011

Constantinople being chosen as a new capital was far more of a crapshoot than everyone likes to remember. Yes, "its surrounded by water on three sides!! Crossroads, man!" But remember it has a fully undefended land side with flat nice hinterland for a few hundred miles. No one seriously used the place for like a thousand years. Yes, land walls, BUT land walls like the nice ones we have today are expensive and huge and hard to maintain...

Pachac · Oct 17, 2011

Constantinople said:
Constantinople being chosen as a new capital was far more of a crapshoot than everyone likes to remember. Yes, "its surrounded by water on three sides!! Crossroads, man!" But remember it has a fully undefended land side with flat nice hinterland for a few hundred miles. No one seriously used the place for like a thousand years. Yes, land walls, BUT land walls like the nice ones we have today are expensive and huge and hard to maintain...

No one? Bystantion was a large booming town.

Tangerine · Oct 17, 2011

By the 1st century BC, the necessary expansion and professionalization of the Roman army meant that the Republic was already angling naturally towards rule by a small group of powerful generals/statesmen. If the Roman state was not to split violently into multiple parts, the only logical next step was rule by a single individual.

Jlinker613 said:
The Empire frequently suffered civil wars over who the rightful emperor should be, but as a republic this issue would not take place and Rome would be in a more secure position.

As unstable as the Empire proved to be, it was rock-solid compared to the late Republic. For the last 75 years of its existence the Republic was almost constantly embroiled in civil war, not to mention the acute social crisis brewing under the surface.

Cuāuhtemōc · Oct 17, 2011

Constantinople said:
Constantinople being chosen as a new capital was far more of a crapshoot than everyone likes to remember. Yes, "its surrounded by water on three sides!! Crossroads, man!" But remember it has a fully undefended land side with flat nice hinterland for a few hundred miles. No one seriously used the place for like a thousand years. Yes, land walls, BUT land walls like the nice ones we have today are expensive and huge and hard to maintain...

Besides from being ransacked by the Crusaders and (obviously) captured by the Ottomans, you would find that it was very difficult for the vast majority of Byzantium's opponents to actually take the city.

Cymraeg · Oct 17, 2011

You'd need a POD that's far earlier than Caesar. Perhaps a better constitution that isn't, erm, enthusiastically pruned/altered by successive consuls and tribunes. The Legions don't really start going out of control until the time of Marius and his Head Count units recuited from the Roman poor instead of smallholders. Which means that you'd need a differently-run Rome. Hmmm. Perhaps more realistic laws for the manning and paying of the Legions? As Rome's overseas possessions grew then its Legions spent more and more time abroad, so many of the smallholders couldn't take care of their families and crops, often losing both. That led to larger estates for the aristocrats and eventually the attempts by the Gracchi to remedy the situation - which got them both horribly murdered of course.

Arafeel · Oct 17, 2011

Don_Giorgio said:
Well the Senate didnt lead the armies to victory and booty... Generals did... And Generals tend to have ambitions... However even if the General doesnt have ambitions he could be forced to challenge the Republic by its own soldiers... In Roman history there were several incidents where soldiers proclaimed Emperors against their own wills...

Yes, and they were all after the fall of the republic, that was the point.
Most generals in the republic were in the senate. As long as the republic is still there you don`t actually need to march on Rome to satisfies your ambitions. Consuls are elected each year, and there are 2 of them. After Augustus you really have to take power whit the army. After Sulla`s second march on Rome, nobody did so successfully before Caesar over 30 years later. And Sulla was only dictator for about a year. It is Caesar that changes things, and it is not that hard to remove him after all.

Don_Giorgio · Oct 17, 2011

Arafeel said:
Yes, and they were all after the fall of the republic, that was the point.
Most generals in the republic were in the senate. As long as the republic is still there you don`t actually need to march on Rome to satisfies your ambitions. Consuls are elected each year, and there are 2 of them. After Augustus you really have to take power whit the army. After Sulla`s second march on Rome, nobody did so successfully before Caesar over 30 years later. And Sulla was only dictator for about a year. It is Caesar that changes things, and it is not that hard to remove him after all.

Removing Caesar wont change anything... Soon another General will pop out and claim power... Simply because Rome was getting more lands and Generals acquired more gold and personal prestige... It is impossible that all Generals would be devotedly loyal to the Senate, somebody would make a start even a failed one... But this would be the doom of Republic since the first one who tried would show the others how it is done...
In Sulla's time Republic was already dying... Republic died with Caesar while Augustus kept it "alive" to cover his own regime... The "burial" of the Republic happened during Dominate times when Diocletian did away with its remnants...

Technically speaking Rome indeed remained a Republic till Diocletian times...

Arafeel · Oct 17, 2011

Why? The republic did survive larger expansions in territory than those seen during its last century. And between Sulla and Caesar there were attempts at coups, they just weren't successful. For over 30 year Sulla was an exception, and more military capable men than Caesar did not try, and they are not the ones one could call unambitious. It might be fruitful to remember who actually came up whit the " Rome was doomed to suffer dictatorship" theory when we discuss this. It might very well happen, but it does not mean that a dictatorship will turn into a monarchy like otl, and it is fare from a give that it MUST happen.

Cymraeg · Oct 17, 2011

Arafeel said:
Why? The republic did survive larger expansions in territory than those seen during its last century. And between Sulla and Caesar there were attempts at coups, they just weren't successful. For over 30 year Sulla was an exception, and more military capable men than Caesar did not try, and they are not the ones one could call unambitious. It might be fruitful to remember who actually came up whit the " Rome was doomed to suffer dictatorship" theory when we discuss this. It might very well happen, but it does not mean that a dictatorship will turn into a monarchy like otl, and it is fare from a give that it MUST happen.

Yes, but during this time the Roman Republic was steadily falling apart. There were a succession of average or even useless consuls, some of whom were specifically told to stand in order to satisfy certain political interests. A good example of this is the fact that by the time of Caesar the calendar was hopelessly out of sync with the seasons due to political idiocy. The rise of the political street gang also caused widespread damage (Clodius vs Milo).
It would have needed superb political leadership from someone to restore the Republic to its previous strength and keep it as a viable political system.
Pompey could have done what Sulla did, but he was a political idiot - lots of money, little actual political nous.

Don_Giorgio · Oct 17, 2011

Cymraeg said:
Yes, but during this time the Roman Republic was steadily falling apart. There were a succession of average or even useless consuls, some of whom were specifically told to stand in order to satisfy certain political interests. A good example of this is the fact that by the time of Caesar the calendar was hopelessly out of sync with the seasons due to political idiocy. The rise of the political street gang also caused widespread damage (Clodius vs Milo).
It would have needed superb political leadership from someone to restore the Republic to its previous strength and keep it as a viable political system.
Pompey could have done what Sulla did, but he was a political idiot - lots of money, little actual political nous.

I agree... Also the Senate brought end of the Republic faster by passing laws like the "Lex Gabinia" and others giving almost unlimited powers to Generals...

Cymraeg · Oct 17, 2011

Don_Giorgio said:
I agree... Also the Senate brought end of the Republic faster by passing laws like the "Lex Gabinia" and others giving almost unlimited powers to Generals...

Very true! Giving Pompeius Magnus that much power was sheer stupidity!