Anaxagoras
Banned
Was the fall of the Roman Republic in the 1st Century BC inevitable, or could the Republic have survived?
Was the fall of the Roman Republic in the 1st Century BC inevitable?
- Thread starter Anaxagoras
- Start date
I voted no, because there still was the possible of reform rather than renewal; that the Republic could be saved. Of course, that's likely my idealism talking, but whatever.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Nothing in history is inevitable. To prevent this, however, requires a set of very specific butterflies involving changes in social systems. At a bare minimum there must either be actual, significant land reform (Crack!TL), or averting the emergence of private armies (meaning changes in the Jugurthine War (difficult but neither ASB nor a Crack!TL).
The problem with the Roman Republic was that it was a flawed system since the beginning. It was inherent problems within the Republic which finally exploded in the 1st century, leading to civil wars and its eventual fall.
To stop its inevitable fall, there would need to be several major POD's which are ASB/impossible. One small step would be getting rid of the entire Pleb and Patrician class system, since that system caused problems until the Empire cam about.
To stop its inevitable fall, there would need to be several major POD's which are ASB/impossible. One small step would be getting rid of the entire Pleb and Patrician class system, since that system caused problems until the Empire cam about.
You'd need some kind of POD around the Gracchi to begin with. You need them to achieve some degree of success (difficult) without alienating the upper classes (incredibly difficult.) Perhaps a more cautious early program that redistributes some of the public land, followed by the brothers being stricken down with disease? You need a way to ensure that they are remembered neither as matyrs of the poor or archenemies of the Senate.
Then once you have at least a theoretical framework for reform, maybe Marius or someone is more successful at getting the State to pick up the bill in the Jugurthine war so you avoid the rise of warlords?
Then once you have at least a theoretical framework for reform, maybe Marius or someone is more successful at getting the State to pick up the bill in the Jugurthine war so you avoid the rise of warlords?
MAlexMatt
Banned
The problem with looking at the Gracchi is twofold:
1. Their land reforms actually went through. They created tens of thousands of small family farms. It was their judicial reforms opening the judiciary to plebes that didn't happen.
2. The Republic as a social system was already essentially broken by the time of the Gracchi, as the Gracchi themselves prove. They had no respect for the forms or institutions of the law, they were nakedly ambitious men willing to do whatever was necessary for power. It was they and men like them who eventually took down the institutions of the Republic over the course of the next century.
IMO to really have a chance of saving the Republic you need to go back before the First Punic War. Well, to really be sure you have to hit up the period around the Seige of Veii.
^ This
The Gracchi incidents simply brought violence into the already corrupted social & political system. It was the first time that violence was used in Roman politics.
The Gracchi incidents simply brought violence into the already corrupted social & political system. It was the first time that violence was used in Roman politics.
PhilippeO
Banned
the goal just to preserve the Republic, there is no need to land reform or fixing roman social system. a lot of corrupt oligarchy managed to survive even now, like Indonesia or Philipines. the problem is loyalty of soldier towards its general.
It could be fixed by the Senate, ensuring stable permanent legion instead army that raised by individual general, Senate appointment of junior officer, constant move of centurion from one legion to another legion, payment of wages and pension by senate civilian appointee instead of general.
if the troop didn't feel that they need to support the general political ambition to receive land grant they will less likely to support their general marching to rome.
It could be fixed by the Senate, ensuring stable permanent legion instead army that raised by individual general, Senate appointment of junior officer, constant move of centurion from one legion to another legion, payment of wages and pension by senate civilian appointee instead of general.
if the troop didn't feel that they need to support the general political ambition to receive land grant they will less likely to support their general marching to rome.
This explains why the Byzantines had so many coups. Wait, it doesn't.
Wanting to protect the existing system means there has to be something getting in the way of those who can tear it down, and judging by the Byzantines - who were better at avoiding coups, but still had them - a professional, standing army isn't it. Alone, at least.
Last edited:
PhilippeO
Banned
byzantines can not be used for comparison
First, it have weak senate and strong emperor. being an emperor give enormous advantage even to already rich and successful general.
Second, the byzantine emperor is a single leader from single family, a coup for many is just change of ruling family, while senate as a whole would have vested interest to prevent single leader arise above them.
the goal is to make Republic Senate as strong as Polish Sejm or Venice Great Council, with no single individual or single family able to defeat it. so no ambitious pompey or sulla had ability to march to rome and become dictator, instead they accept to just become rich and powerful senator.
Beside coup did become more frequent when there are major family in Anatolia with large private armies, instead of strong centralized army.
First, it have weak senate and strong emperor. being an emperor give enormous advantage even to already rich and successful general.
Second, the byzantine emperor is a single leader from single family, a coup for many is just change of ruling family, while senate as a whole would have vested interest to prevent single leader arise above them.
the goal is to make Republic Senate as strong as Polish Sejm or Venice Great Council, with no single individual or single family able to defeat it. so no ambitious pompey or sulla had ability to march to rome and become dictator, instead they accept to just become rich and powerful senator.
Beside coup did become more frequent when there are major family in Anatolia with large private armies, instead of strong centralized army.
On an extremely technical note, I vote no: the collapse of the Republic was not inevitable in the first century BC. However, given the fundamental social structures of the Republic and its power over the Mediterranean region, it is almost as certain as anything can be in human affairs that some victorious general would impose his will on Rome by force, and the rest follows from that. In other words, it might not have happened in that century, but it was going to happen eventually. The Republic simply did not have the institutions necessary to check the threat of imposed despotism.
The problem is that a single, strong leader could and take charge of the state by force. And render the Senate what was rendered to it OTL.
The Byzantines are picked as the reality of Rome after it developed a professional army that was not tied to the upper classes except in them providing officers. They still had coups - not all successful, but I can't think of many emperors who didn't have to worry about them.
The problem is that if someone is in control of a large body of armed men, who for whatever reason are loyal to them...which is going to be difficult to prevent without crippling generals in the field, an ambitious general is sooner or latter going to use that power for his own purposes.
And if the people don't feel the Senate is serving their interests, at least in a basic way, a general who promises that those who follow him will be rewarded has a card to play even if the standard package of pay and land grants is governmental.
MAlexMatt
Banned
They did it more or less successfully for centuries.
Seriously, you can't just dismiss the rise of a professional army dependent on successful generals for pay and retirement as 'for whatever reason'. If the Senate had stepped up and been willing to take responsibility for making sure that the new professional armies were compensated out of the state treasury and with state lands, there's no real reason the late republic couldn't have limped on for quite some time.
The better argument is that the Senate wasn't going to and couldn't do this because the cultural and political incentives had changed. Running for office had become so god awfully expensive that ambitious noblemen on the political make in Rome NEEDED to acquire the land and wealth won in foreign wars in order to be able to even hope to pay back the immense debts they had accrued attaining office. And they NEEDED to attain office because they had it drilled into them from a young age that you weren't worth a damned thing unless you were nationally honored and beloved and powerful.
The century and a half of war that followed the First Punic War essentially broke the social system that had supported the pre-war Republic and there really wasn't any putting it back.
I should have been clearer. The situation as it stood is providing very good reason to follow a general over the Senate. But even if you reformed it as PhilippeO suggested, men who are loyal to the general over the republic "for whatever reason" still give him a force to overthrow it with.
Sure, you'd need such a reason to exist, but its not unheard for charismatic generals to inspire their men to follow them "anywhere", and that's a start - and a fair step more than that if the general nature of Roman society doesn't encourage devotion to the existing order as particularly desirable.
I should note I don't see it as inevitable - something going horribly wrong, yes. The end of the republic as it happened OTL, no.
Can't argue with that. It reinforced all sorts of things that shouldn't have been.
Last edited: