AHC: Save the Roman Republic

What would you have to do to prevent the spiral of corruption and dictatorship that destroyed the Roman Republic OTL.\? What reforms could possibly be made?

It would probably need more serious reform and it would help if the Senate would stop murdering all those who tried.

Keep the republic from growing so large in such a short span of time. A large part of the problem was Rome expanded to be so large in such a quick time span, that they were never able to adjust their institutions accordingly or figure out how to effectively manage their newly won empire. There were attempts at the very end-such as the lex pompeia that would have put a 5 year interval between getting a praetorship/consulship and getting a pro-praetorship/consulship province to govern. Since candidates would no longer expect to make all their money back with a rich province the next year, they would spend considerably less on campaigning-this would also reduce the extortion of the provinces that was endemic.

But really, make Rome expand slower, and probably not as much as they did (Spain, N. Africa, and Greece being a nice limit)/

Save M. Livius Drusus from being knifed. You're not going to free the republic of political turmoil- but his reforms would have at least laid the foundations of a constitutional settlement, whether immediately or as something to be turned to later.
But you also need someway of reconciling the need for a professional army with politically minded generals- that means passing some kind of program which guarantees rewards for soldiers will be distributed by the Senate, not their commanding officer.

SenatorChickpea said:

Save M. Livius Drusus from being knifed. You're not going to free the republic of political turmoil- but his reforms would have at least laid the foundations of a constitutional settlement, whether immediately or as something to be turned to later.
But you also need someway of reconciling the need for a professional army with politically minded generals- that means passing some kind of program which guarantees rewards for soldiers will be distributed by the Senate, not their commanding officer.

Click to expand...

Drusus would have to work some sort of miracle to get the Senate to agree to give the Italians the citizenship rights they coveted. Even after they rose in rebellion, the Romans (with Sulla leading the way) tricked them into essentially accepting second class citizenship-leading the civil war between Sulla and Marius to become essentially a second Social War once the Italians realized that they had been duped.

Either way though, this isn't going to accomplish much. The Roman Republic has still expanded/is expanding far too fast. Having Jugurtha, the Cimbri/Teutones and Mithradates VI put them in their place and (in the case of Mithradates at least) cut them down to size is I think the last realistic POD to prolong the Roman Republic indefinitely (as opposed to on life support for an extra couple generations).

The fox speaks true. In the span of thirty years Rome went from a city-state barely dominating Latium to a city ruling half of Italy, then all of Italy, then half the Mediterranean, then all the Mediterranean.... Its expansion occurred way too quickly for society and the economic system already in place to adjust themselves or to be adjusted. As late as 100 BC (with Rome owning Spain, provincial Gaul, Italy, Dalmatia, Greece, Macedonia, the western coast of Asia Minor, and North Africa), there were still armies that campaigned for years composed of farm-owning citizens. With them away, those farms went into disrepair and the soldiers' wives and sons reduced to beggary in the cities.

Perhaps a POD of ultraconservatives (like Cincinnatus) coming into power (instead of progressives such as Scipio Africanus was) and declining to rule the world is in order. But then, of course, you have unprotected Roman commercial interests abroad; there can't be tribute kings and chiefs and ethnarchs, either, because a smaller Rome doesn't have the military power to project itself so far. Since Rome's economy depended greatly upon trade, and Roman traders can't succeed in faraway lands without protection (pirates are serious business), and Senators can't succeed unless they support the traders (equestrians/Second Class), this POD might actually be impossible.

There can't be a smaller Republic, therefore the Republic is doomed due to its size. Thoughts?

Lars Porsenna said:

The fox speaks true. In the span of thirty years Rome went from a city-state barely dominating Latium to a city ruling half of Italy, then all of Italy, then half the Mediterranean, then all the Mediterranean.... Its expansion occurred way too quickly for society and the economic system already in place to adjust themselves or to be adjusted. As late as 100 BC (with Rome owning Spain, provincial Gaul, Italy, Dalmatia, Greece, Macedonia, the western coast of Asia Minor, and North Africa), there were still armies that campaigned for years composed of farm-owning citizens. With them away, those farms went into disrepair and the soldiers' wives and sons reduced to beggary in the cities.

Perhaps a POD of ultraconservatives (like Cincinnatus) coming into power (instead of progressives such as Scipio Africanus was) and declining to rule the world is in order. But then, of course, you have unprotected Roman commercial interests abroad; there can't be tribute kings and chiefs and ethnarchs, either, because a smaller Rome doesn't have the military power to project itself so far. Since Rome's economy depended greatly upon trade, and Roman traders can't succeed in faraway lands without protection (pirates are serious business), and Senators can't succeed unless they support the traders (equestrians/Second Class), this POD might actually be impossible.

There can't be a smaller Republic, therefore the Republic is doomed due to its size. Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Well you really don't have to change Rome's political system as much as you have to change the strength and staying power of the enemies they fought. Paradoxically, it would go a long way in having Hannibal fail miserably and quickly-a lot of senators, particularly of the longstanding aristocratic families, died in the 2nd punic war-paving the way for large numbers of new men to come into power and shake up the political system (and also to cause fear amongst the bona that their power would be usurped by some upstart new men, such as Marius).

Anyway, back to my original point: Have a Phillip V that doesn't royally screw up in his dealing with Rome. Have an Antiochus The Great that doesn't suddenly forget everything he's learned about military tactics and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory at Magnesia (or in his Greek campaign). Prevent a second punic war analogue in the way it unfolded, so Rome doesn't feel the need to destroy Carthage as a power (A good idea might be to have the First Punic War end in a stalemate whereas Sicily is split up into 3 spheres of influence). Don't have wealthy asian kings suddenly bequeath their kingdom to Rome in their wills. The problem was Rome was able to steamroll their enemies they faced largely because of mistakes made from their enemies. You don't need to change the Romans as much as you need to have their enemies become more formidable opponents.

You can easily have a smaller republic, one that never expands into Asia or manages to get a foothold in North Africa.