If Rome had remained a Republic

What if Julius Caesar had had ROme remain a republic? Would it have survived longer? Perhapd even to today?

Pyth said:

What if Julius Caesar had had ROme remain a republic? Would it have survived longer? Perhapd even to today?

Click to expand...

Nope is the answer I think will be flooding you. I think Rome would have remained as unstable as it already was. But Julius Caesar didn´t really abolish the republic. He became a dictator but the fundamental system was still around when Augustus turned himself into an emperor.

Fabilius said:

Nope is the answer I think will be flooding you. I think Rome would have remained as unstable as it already was. But Julius Caesar didn´t really abolish the republic. He became a dictator but the fundamental system was still around when Augustus turned himself into an emperor.

Click to expand...

Julius Caeser was not even the first dictator, as he was only following the example that had earlier been set by Marius and Sulla. The Republic had far too many basic structural problems by the time Julius for it to survive in its current form.

Check the link in my sig. The TL is a long way from done, and I haven't worked on it in a while, but I had to go clear back before the Gracchus brothers to prevent Rome from becoming a dictatorship.

Chengar Qordath said:

Julius Caeser was not even the first dictator, as he was only following the example that had earlier been set by Marius and Sulla. The Republic had far too many basic structural problems by the time Julius for it to survive in its current form.

Click to expand...

I agree, waiting for Julius Caesar is too late. The Republic' death warrant was written when the Marian reforms were adopted. The Marian reforms created a situation where the loyalty of soldiers was transferred from the Roman State to the individual generals who commanded them, because the soldiers depended on their generals to make sure they were taken care of when it came time to retire (usually through land grants in conquered territories, or by booty gained while on campaign). The generals were quick to figure this out, and began using the army to fight their political opponents back in Rome, resulting in three major civil wars (Marius vs. Sulla, Caesar vs. Pompey, Octavian vs. Antony) and several smaller ones in less than a century.

Unless the Marian Reforms are accompanied by some system to retain the loyalty of soldiers to the State rather than to their generals...perhaps via some sort of state-funded retirement system for former soldiers...the Republic was doomed in the long run no matter what Caesar did.

In my TL, all Roman citizens are required to serve a period in the military. This has the secondary effect of strengthening the voting tribes, and giving Rome the nucleus of a representative system.

One factor leading to the fall of the republic was that provinces - which became richer and more influential particularly when the Greek world was conquered - did not have adequate representation in the Senate. This led to imbalances in the power situation within Rome.

Caesar actually enrolled provincials in the Senate (from Gaul and Spain mainly IIRC) though he did so to increase his own power rather than to spread representation. If this process could be extended, so that the majority of the populace had a stake in maintaining the republic there is a chance it could have existed for longer.

However as previously pointed out the generals would have required reining in. Furthermore the size of the empire (in those days of slow communications) would always tend to encourage border generals to try their luck at establishing a dictatorship.

It isn't in my timeline yet, but eventually Rome will have a form of representative government in the provinces, while reigning in the "Imperial" rights of the governors, in an attempt to set up checks and balances after the Oriental Wars. Maybe I should update sometime, huh?

robertp6165 said:

Unless the Marian Reforms are accompanied by some system to retain the loyalty of soldiers to the State rather than to their generals...perhaps via some sort of state-funded retirement system for former soldiers...the Republic was doomed in the long run no matter what Caesar did.

Click to expand...

Could Caesar have returned that loyalty to the State?

(would he have to undo the Marian Reforms, or could he simply modify them?)

Keenir said:

Could Caesar have returned that loyalty to the State?

(would he have to undo the Marian Reforms, or could he simply modify them?)

Click to expand...

The Marian Reforms were necessary to govern the expanded territories Rome was governing. Barring a radical restructuring of the entire Roman system, which not even Caesar would be willing or able to do, the legions would continue to be run along Marian lines. Caesar, in my opinion, would be even more likely to duplicate Augustus' reform of the legions.
I think at that point, even if Caesar had the full intent of restoring Republican government, it was too late. In my opinion, the Gracchus brothers set in place the precedent of mobocracy and rule by force that Marius and Sulla took advantage of later. At this point, there was nothing to stop another Roman from attempting to repeat Marius and Sulla's feats.

The Bald Imposter said:

The Marian Reforms were necessary to govern the expanded territories Rome was governing.

Click to expand...

If the reforms had included the proviso that the Senate - rather than the recruiting general - was responsible for providing for the legions once they were discharged via some sort of pension or land allocation then perhaps Rome could have enjoyed the benefits of an expanded supply of soldiers along with greater political stability.

After all, that rather reduces the incentive for soldiers to support their general against the Senate. It in fact encourages them to support the Senate and hence the republic.