Challenge: Roman republic ad Infintuium

how do we get it so the Roman republic does not collapse and turn into the emperor so make the Roman republic survive at the bare minimum a couple hundred more years and it can not be like it was durning the final days of the republic. It must be a stable republic and the People and the senate are not split like they were otl
 
Last edited:
Wow. Where to begin?

There's no universal answer to "Why did the Republic fall?", but I'll give you the two primary causes from my point of view.

1. The Roman patron-client system: This aspect of Roman society is often glossed over by armchair historians, but the patron-client system was the primary social institution which governed political behavior. For those that don't know, Roman patricians would essentially give money and food to plebeians in exchange for minor services and political support. The Romans were extremely socially conscious and patron-client relationships were often viewed as taking precedence over familial relations. While this was always important in Rome, the influx of poor farmers into Rome over the period of 146-133 BCE made it possible for populist patricians to suddenly gain huge swaths of clients for support in elections, etc, and the sheer speed of this amalgamation gave any moderately wealthy or ambitious senator the ability to assume a prominent role in Rome. This is what led to the meteoric rise of politicians from families which weren't traditionally powerful in the Early and Middle Republic. In fact, almost every populist that took part in the fall of the Republic came from an plebeian or obscure patrician family. In a society where the years were literally named after the consuls for that year, the impulse to gain rapid status was powerful, and the central role of the patron-client system made it possible for any decently wealthy, ambitious, or well-connected men to mold the political system to their designs. However, this wasn't the decisive problem on its own, rather the critical weakness was:

2. The imbalance of the Republican government: When the kings were overthrown and the Republic was established, the only real change was the length of terms in office. Consuls functionally had the same powers as kings, with the only real check on power being the presence of a second consul. However, there were no such limitations placed on proconsuls. Proconsuls did not have any strict term limits or formal institutional checks. Once they were in their province, the ex-consul functionally became a king, with no real limitations on their domestic powers and no real mechanism to prevent them from marching on Rome if they so choose. After 146 BCE, the Republic basically had no standing army, and every legion that was levied was (because of patron-client politics) personally loyal to the respective proconsul. At the end of the Republic, the senate only controlled Italy while each province was functionally an independent fiefdom. This flaw in the system was shone bare in 49 BCE when Caesar marched on Rome and the only thing the senate could do to stop him was flee into the arms of another powerful ex-proconsul.

The patron-client system on its own was not sufficient to bring down the Republic, nor was the executive supremacy of the consuls. But without a means to control the entire army from a central chain of command, there is no way to reign in the leverage held by proconsuls with their privately owned legions. It took the Republic 100 years to fall, but when it finally did, it stabilized under the rule of one man, and remained stable for another century to come. This was principally because Octavian was able centralize the legionary command structure. So, in my view, the only way for the Republic to survive would be to establish a large standing army in Italy, pledged to obey either the year's consuls or the senate as a whole such that proconsuls did not have the same amount of leverage. Now of course, a large military in Italy poses its own series of threats to the survival of the Republic, but so long as no one man is able to gain patronage over too many legionaries, the system might remain stable for a few more decades.
 
It really depends on the era you’re discussing, and you can come up with almost any idea, really. In the early Republic, what information we have indicates that the Romans, despite the stereotype of them as averse to innovation, tried loads of different arrangements of hkw to administer thsir state.
 
It really depends on the era you’re discussing, and you can come up with almost any idea, really. In the early Republic, what information we have indicates that the Romans, despite the stereotype of them as averse to innovation, tried loads of different arrangements of hkw to administer thsir state.
I am talking about Generaly when the fall of rural land owner in Italy happened and the massive estates formed
 
I am talking about Generaly when the fall of rural land owner in Italy happened and the massive estates formed

The "fall of the rural land owner" is a little bit romanticized in history. Those displaced poor couldn't have done anything without the politicians to enable their mob mentality. The root of the problem was the total lack of any balances to the powers of consul besides the tribunes. However, the tribunes themselves could not enforce this veto, and lo and behold, by the 120s BCE, tribunes were being killed in the streets over the use of their veto
 
Ironically more successive Popularis reforms might do the trick. Land reform and more welfare would check patronage, for one thing. Second, the popular magistrates could by veto exercise more control over the consuls and if land after service is guaranteed by the State then generals are going to have much more to lose by marching on Rome. Couple that with political reform making bribery harder and youve got a more stable system.

It is hard to get the ball rolling on this esp after 133 when sacrosanctity meant jack shit w/ scu but there are a few radicals--P. Rufus, maybe Clock is Pulcher or even Cataline if things take a different turn--who might have done it if they had the chance. Getting it to them is another issue.
 
Last edited:
The "fall of the rural land owner" is a little bit romanticized in history. Those displaced poor couldn't have done anything without the politicians to enable their mob mentality. The root of the problem was the total lack of any balances to the powers of consul besides the tribunes. However, the tribunes themselves could not enforce this veto, and lo and behold, by the 120s BCE, tribunes were being killed in the streets over the use of their veto
I was more using at as a placeholder so you people knew what era I was talking about
 
Couple that with political reform making bribery harder and youve got a more stable system.

IOTL there were numerous anti-bribery laws passed, but the nature of the Roman political system (cursus honorum, patronage, etc) meant that there was no real way to enforce them. Firstly, there wasn't really even a police force in Rome, and secondly, trials were laughably easy to manipulate. When the judge is a praetor up for consular election next year, and you're a powerful rich guy who could swing the election for him, why would he punish you for bribery when your bribes could get him elected to office?

I didn't mention it above, but this precise reason -- the lack of an independent judicial system -- is another big reason for the collapse of the Republic.
 
Last edited:
IOTL there were numerous anti-bribery laws passed, but the nature of the Roman political system (curses honor, patronage, etc) meant that there was no real way to enforce them. Firstly, there wasn't really even a police force in Rome, and secondly, trials were laughably easy to manipulate. When the judge is a praetor up for consular election next year, and you're a powerful rich guy who could swing the election for him, why would he punish you for bribery when his bribes could get you elected to office?

I didn't mention it above, but this precise reason -- the lack of an independent judicial system -- is another big reason for the collapse of the Republic.
Is there anyway for the Roman republic to survive the way it was formed after the overthrow the kings the basic of it
 
Is there anyway for the Roman republic to survive the way it was formed after the overthrow the kings the basic of it

Surprisingly yes, at least for a while. As I stated above, there was nothing especially wrong with the institutional framework as it was initially conceived (beyond the extreme inequality between the classes). It was the introduction of proconsular imperium that led to the breakdown of the Republican system. Giving huge armies to a individual men was anathema to the founding principles of the Republic, and was an incredibly unsustainable practice. You can see this breakdown as early as the Syrian War (literally right after the 2nd Punic War, Hannibal was even still alive at the time), when the Scipio brothers accepted a king’s ransom in bribes during the war’s aftermath and being totally acquitted by a tribune (whom was also a client, and the father of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus). This trend reached its fullest fruition in the forms of Sulla, Cæsar, and Antony, but the simple fact that the central Roman government had no direct control over the army meant that it was only a matter of time before someone marched on Rome and displaced the senate, whether it was Cæsar or anyone else
 
A quick fix! No slavery; no foreigners.

For the Italian peninsula: bar slave labor from all means of production (domestic servitude only); allow no foreign owned business. Maintain the cast system (patrician and plebeian) but make all production and commerce Italian owned, opening the door for plebeian rise to great wealth. In theory the Italian peninsula would have no unemployment and there would be no need for 'land reform' nor 'bread and games.' There would be no mob to manipulate, only invested citizens.

P.S. Yes that game is difficult and annoying
 
Is there anyway for the Roman republic to survive the way it was formed after the overthrow the kings the basic of it

What if Rome never expands?

The expansion of Roman territory was another major cause of the collapse. The influx of wealth from conquered provinces, plus the need for armies to be away from home for extended periods of time under the same commander, played a major role in the collapse.

If Rome had stayed a small Italian city state, their republic would probably have been fine.
 
That's a bit unfair. They didn't fall from within they got conquered by outsiders.
They did both : one could argue they were easy prey for Macedonians and Romans particularily because they had already declined.
Note that even if it was only a matter of being conquered, it's not like Rome lacked ennemies at her doors.

On the other hand, that cities and their local hegemony such as Rhodes' lived on until a late date, does point that it wasn't necessarily contradictory with being under a greater power's thumb, at least for some time.

Also, Pergamon did pretty well.
Not really as a republic or assembly rule, tough. It seems to have been hard for such states to really blossom on the long run during this period : it doesn't mean it's impossible or that it couldn't have lasted longer for Rome, but it seems to have been difficult.
 
Last edited:
A quick fix! No slavery; no foreigners.

For the Italian peninsula: bar slave labor from all means of production (domestic servitude only); allow no foreign owned business. Maintain the cast system (patrician and plebeian) but make all production and commerce Italian owned, opening the door for plebeians to rise to great wealth. In theory the Italian peninsula would have no unemployment and there would be no need for 'land reform' nor 'bread and games.' There would be no mob to manipulate, only invested citizens.

Just because there's no slavery doesn't mean income inequality will suddenly vanish. There will still be a massive underclass of poor workers (just like existed in the 19th century in Europe despite slavery being widely illegal) who will be just as easily manipulated by promises of grain. In addition, plebeians becoming wealthy is no solution to the collapse. After all, no less a man than Marcus Crassus (believed to have been the richest man in history up to that point) was a plebeian by birth (as was Pompey and Marius), and their wealth and stature did nothing to stave off the decline of the Republic (if anything, they made it worse).

What if Rome never expands?

The expansion of Roman territory was another major cause of the collapse. The influx of wealth from conquered provinces, plus the need for armies to be away from home for extended periods of time under the same commander, played a major role in the collapse.

If Rome had stayed a small Italian city state, their republic would probably have been fine.

I'd say this is essentially correct, although I think that, even by the time of the Second Punic War, they hadn't passed the point of no return yet. A Roman Republic that is in control of Italy and Sicily could probably avoid the downward spiral of dictators, at least for a while. There is a lot of credence to the idea that Rome became an actual empire around the time of the Middle Republic, and this was the critical factor that made the fall of the Republic more-or-less inevitable. In modern times, it is certainly more possible for large states with standing armies to remain republics, but given how simplistic Roman institutions were (compared to modern ones), a remedy being found retroactively seems unlikely.
 
Personal glory. Be Cincinatus, but that was a mythical figure, nough said.
Then I must be even more mythical because I elt my rivals take all my glory and refused massive bribes and let my junior officers take credit for the capture of a major enemy war leader so i will be very famous
 
Top