I put this topic out here for those of you who (hopefully) have a lot more knowledge of Rome than I do. I've always wondered if the Roman Republic was doomed to become an empire. Is there a good POD that would have kept the Republic going? If there is, what would it eventually look like? It's hard to imagine it going on unchanging for centuries. From what I've read of it, the Republic had some cumbersome rules; two each of the highest leadership, choosing a dictator in times of emergency, etc. If the Republic had endured, would the rules have become more streamlined?
Roman Republic endures
- Thread starter David Howery
- Start date
Quite a few possibilities here.David Howery said:
Perhaps they do worse in the Social Wars, and have to concede more to the other cities. Though, as it was, they gave citzenship to everyone south of the Po...
Or, if they don't expand as quickly, so that they can adjust to some of the social problems that contributed to the creation of the Empire.
Also, the Plebians would occasionally (3 times in the history of the Republic) just plain leave the city until the Patricians granted them some more say in the gov't. Perhaps something can be done with this.
Another idea would be to have the Gracchi brothers be more sucessful. They tried to solve one of the big problems with Roman society. Only land owning citizens were eligible to serve in the military. However, there was no limit to their tour of duty, it lasted as long as the campaign. So, while they were gone, their estates would go bankrupt, and be bought by wealthier people. They'd come home, only to find that they had no home. The mob of Rome grew, and the number of eligible citizen soldiers shrank.
Anyway, Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus tried to solve this with land reforms, tour of duty limits, extension of citizenship, and other legislation. It got them killed. Though, in all fairness, they tended to think themselves above the law when the Senate decided to get rid of their pet laws, and they'd try to force their reforms through illegally. So, have them be successful in the first place.
The best way to go about it is to make sure that the two "political parties" of the Late Republic don't form. You have the optimates and the populares. The populares would appeal to the people's interests, while the optimates would appeal to the ideal of the Senate and to hell with the people. Dictators tended to be populares, and Senators tended to be optimates. So, the people didn't really have a problem with someone shoving around the guys who shoved them around.
So, you have to get the society more egalitarian. The Gracchi reforms would be a good step in that direction. More power in the hands of the tribunes (plebians in the senate, essentiall) would also help. The ideal would be for the tribunes to totally dominate the Senate, resulting in a legislature where any citizen could be elected.
A few points-
First of all, there was no way the Roman Republic could have lasted in its traditional form. Imagine a situation where the Republic of Boston is set up after the revolutionary war. Only citizens of Boston can vote. All elections take place in Boston, so if you are a citizen living outside you have to make a long journey to vote. The Republic of Boston dominates North America. Each year, Boston town councillors travel to administer the other parts of America. They've got to got to make three fortunes from the state they govern- one to cover the bribes they paid to get elected, one to live on, and one to bribe the jurors when they return to Boston and are prosecuted for extortion. Bostonian politicians increasingly angle for profitable governorships and military commands. With lengthy campaigns over the whole continent, the old militia idea is a dead letter. You've got a professional army which looks to its commander to find it farms and gratuities after the campaign is over. A hopelessly unstable situation. Of course this didn't happen- America began from a totally different starting point. But with Rome, the story of the rise to power of a single town, you couldn't have such things as states' rights, provincial assemblies, etc- totally outside their mindset.
DN- I don't recognise your portrait of late Roman politics. Populares and Optimates were not political parties in our sense. Dictators tend to be populares? Well, the dictatorship was revived by the optimate Sulla after almost a century and a half. The Senate wasn't a legislature. In theory it was a consultative body. Power rested with the assemblies. In the late Republic, it was the tribunes who tended to initiate legislation. In theory any Roman citizen could be elected to office, providing he was old enough and in the case of the Consulship, had previously been Praetor. The major exception was the Tribunate, only open to plebians. Incidentally, a majority of senators would have been plebians. The old Patrician families tended to run to seed. Caesar's family had fallen into semi-obscurity from which they were rescued by marriage alliance with Marius and Sulla, though a Cornelian, lived in poverty in his early days.
First of all, there was no way the Roman Republic could have lasted in its traditional form. Imagine a situation where the Republic of Boston is set up after the revolutionary war. Only citizens of Boston can vote. All elections take place in Boston, so if you are a citizen living outside you have to make a long journey to vote. The Republic of Boston dominates North America. Each year, Boston town councillors travel to administer the other parts of America. They've got to got to make three fortunes from the state they govern- one to cover the bribes they paid to get elected, one to live on, and one to bribe the jurors when they return to Boston and are prosecuted for extortion. Bostonian politicians increasingly angle for profitable governorships and military commands. With lengthy campaigns over the whole continent, the old militia idea is a dead letter. You've got a professional army which looks to its commander to find it farms and gratuities after the campaign is over. A hopelessly unstable situation. Of course this didn't happen- America began from a totally different starting point. But with Rome, the story of the rise to power of a single town, you couldn't have such things as states' rights, provincial assemblies, etc- totally outside their mindset.
DN- I don't recognise your portrait of late Roman politics. Populares and Optimates were not political parties in our sense. Dictators tend to be populares? Well, the dictatorship was revived by the optimate Sulla after almost a century and a half. The Senate wasn't a legislature. In theory it was a consultative body. Power rested with the assemblies. In the late Republic, it was the tribunes who tended to initiate legislation. In theory any Roman citizen could be elected to office, providing he was old enough and in the case of the Consulship, had previously been Praetor. The major exception was the Tribunate, only open to plebians. Incidentally, a majority of senators would have been plebians. The old Patrician families tended to run to seed. Caesar's family had fallen into semi-obscurity from which they were rescued by marriage alliance with Marius and Sulla, though a Cornelian, lived in poverty in his early days.
Prunesquallor,
Good point about the voting in the Republic. Perhaps the Roman Republic would have lasted longer if they put polling places in areas w/ lots of citizens. Elections might take longer, but in my estimate, things would work better in the long run.
You said such a thing was "totally outside of their mindset." But wouldn't Roman citizens settled elsewhere be Romans too? Therefore, as "citizens of the town" whose necessary-to-the-State employment made it hard for them to come to Rome to vote, wouldn't the creation of some sort of absentee-ballot system be logical within that mental framework?
By the way, do you like "Gormenghast"? I think Prunesquallor is a character in that book (the old man in charge of rituals who hurts Steerpike when the latter assassinateshim).
Good point about the voting in the Republic. Perhaps the Roman Republic would have lasted longer if they put polling places in areas w/ lots of citizens. Elections might take longer, but in my estimate, things would work better in the long run.
You said such a thing was "totally outside of their mindset." But wouldn't Roman citizens settled elsewhere be Romans too? Therefore, as "citizens of the town" whose necessary-to-the-State employment made it hard for them to come to Rome to vote, wouldn't the creation of some sort of absentee-ballot system be logical within that mental framework?
By the way, do you like "Gormenghast"? I think Prunesquallor is a character in that book (the old man in charge of rituals who hurts Steerpike when the latter assassinateshim).
I posted a scenario just like this in the archive.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi?pg=next&topic=4&page=1797
Basically, Tiberius Gracchus avoids getting killed by an angry mob (he tried to get himself re-elected to the office of tribune) of Senators by an insider in the Senate (almost OTL, believe it or not). He manages to escape Rome and gets enough support and a civil war ensues that lasts from 133-128 BC. Gracchus' camp wins the civil war and forces the Senate to enact a series of reforms that redistributes land to the poor veterans, gains citizenship to the Italian allies (many of whom served in legions under Gracchus), and changes representation in the public assemblies so that the middle classes get equal share of the votes as the upper class.
More reforms follow later. The Senators try several times to repeal the laws but it doesn't amount to anything, so that by 119 BC, the "Sempronian Reforms" become accepted as doctrine and Roman politicians from that point increasingly campaign to appeal to popular sentiment.
Marius appears on the political scene later and introduces his military reforms, which are simply reflective of the nature of a more egalitarian republic. After 90 BC, one gets a hint that Rome will gradually admit more provinces as citizens, which will allow them to serve on legions, which will expand Roman power until...? The limits I'm not sure, but probably not far beyond their OTL boundaries.
What's different is that there is no cycle of political violence, despotic emperors, and oppression. The Republic, while considerably changed from OTL, survives the entire length of its life, until is eventual collapse around 700 AD.
https://www.alternatehistory.com/cgi-bin/discus/discus.cgi?pg=next&topic=4&page=1797
Basically, Tiberius Gracchus avoids getting killed by an angry mob (he tried to get himself re-elected to the office of tribune) of Senators by an insider in the Senate (almost OTL, believe it or not). He manages to escape Rome and gets enough support and a civil war ensues that lasts from 133-128 BC. Gracchus' camp wins the civil war and forces the Senate to enact a series of reforms that redistributes land to the poor veterans, gains citizenship to the Italian allies (many of whom served in legions under Gracchus), and changes representation in the public assemblies so that the middle classes get equal share of the votes as the upper class.
More reforms follow later. The Senators try several times to repeal the laws but it doesn't amount to anything, so that by 119 BC, the "Sempronian Reforms" become accepted as doctrine and Roman politicians from that point increasingly campaign to appeal to popular sentiment.
Marius appears on the political scene later and introduces his military reforms, which are simply reflective of the nature of a more egalitarian republic. After 90 BC, one gets a hint that Rome will gradually admit more provinces as citizens, which will allow them to serve on legions, which will expand Roman power until...? The limits I'm not sure, but probably not far beyond their OTL boundaries.
What's different is that there is no cycle of political violence, despotic emperors, and oppression. The Republic, while considerably changed from OTL, survives the entire length of its life, until is eventual collapse around 700 AD.
Matt- I'm rather pissed, so I won't discuss history here. I've loved Mervyn Peake's books since I first read them-late 60's. Prunesquallor is the doctor in Gormenghast. You're thinking of Barquentine. I had the privilege of meeting Peake's widow and examining his manuscripts.
"Matt- I'm rather pissed, so I won't discuss history here. I've loved Mervyn Peake's books since I first read them-late 60's. Prunesquallor is the doctor in Gormenghast. You're thinking of Barquentine. I had the privilege of meeting Peake's widow and examining his manuscripts."
Way cool. I checked "Gormenghast" (whole trilogy) out of my university's library today. I'll probably get around to reading it soon...I've got a lot over the weekend.
Way cool. I checked "Gormenghast" (whole trilogy) out of my university's library today. I'll probably get around to reading it soon...I've got a lot over the weekend.
David Howery said:
The biggest problem which lead to the fall of the Republic was that the Roman army was allowed to become involved, and eventually become the decisive factor, in politics. Politicians were able to use the army to build a power base for themselves, and then, if the political winds went against them, to engage in civil war. Some sort of system which placed the military firmly under civilian control and which ensured that the loyalty of Roman troops was to the Republic rather than to their individual generals would allow the Republic to last much longer than in OTL.
Perhaps something along the lines of the system I suggested in my Egyptian timeline...the pay system is changed so that all pay (and awards of lands, booty, etc.) are made by a special department accountable to the Republic rather than by army paymasters accountable to the army commander, plus the enforced requirement that all Roman troops take a holy oath of loyalty to the Roman State.
Remember that in those times no message travelled faster than the fastest horse or ship, to get from the site to Rome and to get the decision back to site.
I'm afraid much of this argument strikes me as pointless, an attempt to label the past with tags from our own culture. Roman politics was essentially a struggle for power between factions. A very small group of people monopolised politics. This led to fantastically convoluted relationships over the years. Look at Brutus the assassin. His father was executed by Pompeius (after surrendering on terms) when he backed Lepidus (the father of the triumvir) in the abortive civil war of 77 BC. His mother, Servilia, was the sister of Cato (Caesar's most relentless enemy) and Caesar's mistress. He backed Pompeius in the Civil War (which surprised some), changed sides after Pharsalus, and governed Gaul for Caesar. He married Cato's daughter. And so on. This was small town politics- but with access to great resources.
All this stuff about "oaths of loyalty to the republic" is meaningless. Each military commander would claim he was trying to restore the status quo, follow the "mos maiorum", the eternal traditions of Rome, that he was acting as the guardian of the Republic. Sulla marched on Rome claiming that a violent faction had seized power and were acting in an unRoman fashion. Lepidus marched on Rome claiming that the powers of the Tribunate must be restored and Sulla's revolution reversed. Caesar marched on Rome claiming that a small clique had seized power and were unlawfully trying to destroy him. The army was under civilian control- that was the problem. Politicians saw it as quite natural to use the legions to intervene if they thought what was happening in Rome was unconstitutional. Rome had simply outgrown its political structure. It was only after the civil wars and proscriptions which removed virtually all of the major contenders and decimated the old ruling class that a new regime was possible.
All this stuff about "oaths of loyalty to the republic" is meaningless. Each military commander would claim he was trying to restore the status quo, follow the "mos maiorum", the eternal traditions of Rome, that he was acting as the guardian of the Republic. Sulla marched on Rome claiming that a violent faction had seized power and were acting in an unRoman fashion. Lepidus marched on Rome claiming that the powers of the Tribunate must be restored and Sulla's revolution reversed. Caesar marched on Rome claiming that a small clique had seized power and were unlawfully trying to destroy him. The army was under civilian control- that was the problem. Politicians saw it as quite natural to use the legions to intervene if they thought what was happening in Rome was unconstitutional. Rome had simply outgrown its political structure. It was only after the civil wars and proscriptions which removed virtually all of the major contenders and decimated the old ruling class that a new regime was possible.
Prunesquallor said:
All of what you say is true. However, when you look at it, there is really no obvious reason why you shouldn't have U.S. generals acting like Roman generals and running around making attempted coups d'etat on a regular basis. The things that prevent that are 1) all soldiers take an oath to preserve and defend the Constitution, and the Constitution specifies that the President is the Commander in Chief; and perhaps more importantly 2) American generals don't have the ability to buy the loyalty of their troops by increasing their pay or giving them lands or giving them booty from successful campaigns. So even if some army general strongly feels that the President is violating the Constitution and that a coup is justified to "preserve the Constitution," his men won't go along with him. If something similar could have been devised in Rome, I see no reason why the Republic could not have lasted much longer.
Actually this was tackled a while back when the possibility of a military coup against Roosevelt was brought up. My own view is that such a coup was quite possible. It didn't come about because of the lack of the human catalyst, a Cassius or a Von Stauffenberg, that I see as essential to any such venture. I caused some anoyance by my suggestion that the average American enlisted man of the '30s was rather less politically sophisticated than the Roman legionary of the 1st century BCE. If the troops were told to get on a truck and secure some position they wouldn't have thought twice about it. They'd simply assume orders are orders and there must be some good reason behind it.
Let's leave aside the question of how binding "oaths of allegiance" etc actually are. I regard them as worthless- humanity can always find some way of excusing breaking them. Think in terms of Rome. How would such a thing work? Whom do they take the oath to? The chief elected magistrates, the two consuls? When Sulla marched on Rome he was consul. He was supported by his colleague, Pompeius Rufus. The Roman Constitution? In the strict sense there wasn't one. What you had was a network of personal obligations carried on in a framework of a general consensus about correct procedure. When this consensus broke down, anything could happen. The Roman political system was incredibly complex. Custom was as important as any written law. If necessary, you could always find something somewhere to back up whatever action you wanted to perform. If you fancy giving yourself a headache, try looking at Julius Caesar's legal position in 49 BCE or the significance of the Senatus Consultus Ultimum.
Let's leave aside the question of how binding "oaths of allegiance" etc actually are. I regard them as worthless- humanity can always find some way of excusing breaking them. Think in terms of Rome. How would such a thing work? Whom do they take the oath to? The chief elected magistrates, the two consuls? When Sulla marched on Rome he was consul. He was supported by his colleague, Pompeius Rufus. The Roman Constitution? In the strict sense there wasn't one. What you had was a network of personal obligations carried on in a framework of a general consensus about correct procedure. When this consensus broke down, anything could happen. The Roman political system was incredibly complex. Custom was as important as any written law. If necessary, you could always find something somewhere to back up whatever action you wanted to perform. If you fancy giving yourself a headache, try looking at Julius Caesar's legal position in 49 BCE or the significance of the Senatus Consultus Ultimum.
Prunesquallor said:
Well, you and I disagree there.
Prunesquallor said:
Ah, cynicism.
Prunesquallor said:
Well, then, it sounds like one possible POD would be for the Republic to have a written Constitution with a clearly delineated separation of powers, as does the United States. Perhaps this could occur in 494 BC, when the plebeians withdrew from Rome and gained representation in the government, or in 450 BC, when the Law of the Twelve Tables was written (perhaps this will be a formal, written constitution).
And, all this ignores the second part and more important part of my proposal, which is to deprive Roman generals (Consuls) of the ability to buy the loyalty of their troops.
Rp6165-
1. I've always found it rather funny that people will waste time discussing things like America entering the European War in September 1939 but hastily dismiss the possibilities of a coup against Rosevelt.
2. Cynicism, eh? How does the marriage service go and how many marriages end up through adultery?
3. This is a bit like suggesting King Lear would have had no tragedy had there been a decent law passed on rights of inheritance. All this stuff about a written constitution for Rome in 494 or 450 BCE like America! The American Republic was devised by a bunch of largely legally educated intellectuals with a background in the European Enlightenment. The Roman Republic was set up (as far as we know) by a bunch of pragmatic soldier/farmers. And it wasn't simply a case of "buying" the loyalty of the soldiers. The support of the soldier for the politician-general was an extension of the client/patron relationship, a fundamental part of Roman society.
1. I've always found it rather funny that people will waste time discussing things like America entering the European War in September 1939 but hastily dismiss the possibilities of a coup against Rosevelt.
2. Cynicism, eh? How does the marriage service go and how many marriages end up through adultery?
3. This is a bit like suggesting King Lear would have had no tragedy had there been a decent law passed on rights of inheritance. All this stuff about a written constitution for Rome in 494 or 450 BCE like America! The American Republic was devised by a bunch of largely legally educated intellectuals with a background in the European Enlightenment. The Roman Republic was set up (as far as we know) by a bunch of pragmatic soldier/farmers. And it wasn't simply a case of "buying" the loyalty of the soldiers. The support of the soldier for the politician-general was an extension of the client/patron relationship, a fundamental part of Roman society.
Thing is, I don't think that there's more than a handful of Americans who would have the stomach to accept a coup. Its just so unamerican. The only accepted way to gain illegitimate power is to campaigning in a cemetary or other such shennanigans.Prunesquallor said: