How To Preserve The Roman Republic
- Thread starter SlyDessertFox
- Start date
IMO the best way to preserve republican government in Rome is to somehow turn it from one Italian city state enforcing an hegemony over other Italian cities into something more akin of a federation, something akin to the Aetolian League in Hellenistic Greece. A possible POD for this is the lead-up to the Social War.
Additionally, the Marian reforms must be taken one step further with a fully professional army paid by state money. The reactionaries screwed themselves over when they refused to do that in the OTL.
Additionally, the Marian reforms must be taken one step further with a fully professional army paid by state money. The reactionaries screwed themselves over when they refused to do that in the OTL.
the legions end up being dependent of their generals mostly because the first triumvirate made a law in 59 BC in order to guarantee Pompey's veterans some of the lands they conquered. this was the example that led many Caesar's soldiers to depend more on him than to the republic itself. the line of thought was pretty simple, in the end
he leads, we win - he rules, we get land - he doesn't rule, we might not get land
apply this on a lower level for plebeians eager for land, but also for optimates eager for a position of power, and you'll have the answer
marius' reforms might have had a role in this situation, but it suddenly become uncontrollable with the land grants
Soooooooo, why not have the legions granted lands by the senate regardless of the general?
amphibulous
Banned
Soooooooo, why not have the legions granted lands by the senate regardless of the general?
Because people keep confusing a partial solution with a cause: the Senate was greedy, unrealistic, unresponsive to the needs of the non-elite and incompetent. Marius's reforms were a brilliant solution to the problems the Senate had created and the land grants he rammed through were the only sane course of action.
You can't expect an unreformed Roman political system to behave sensibly - the Senate will always give the land to the senatorial class and knightly investors rather than veterans unless they are bullied by a powerful general, And blaming Marius for replacing the immediate fall of the Roman state with the eventual fall of the Republican is rather unfair...
this. word for word. generals could count on the soldiers' (and on the people's!) support because, even if optimates themselves, to the non-elite they looked more interested in the lower classes than those sitting in the senate
This strengthens the sense that the Republic is structurally fatally flawed whether Marius's reforms do what they did or not.
A friend of mine who happens to be an archeologist and historian specialised in ancient Rome is convinced that the only way the Roman Republic could have been saved in the long run would have been to carry out the land reforms proposed by Tiberius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus, because the situation they tried to alleviate by their reforms, especially the illegal appropriations of ager publicus (public land) by greedy members of the small, but powerful senatorial class for their own purposes (to be used as plantations worked by slaves), displacing the free farmers living there, had a multitude of negative impacts on the future stability of roman society and thus the sustainability of the Roman Republic.
First it created a lot of corruption, after all those appropriations were illegal and the responsable civil servants had to be bribed to look the other way, and this corruption, once established did not only not disappear later, but prospered and grew steadily over time. Second the displaced farmers moved to the major cities, where they formed the volatile and easily susceptible (panem et circenses) urban proletariat, enabling ambitious' men like Caesar's rise to power and subsequent dismanteling of the republic. And third and maybe most important the shrinking amount of free roman farmers also led to a shrinking base from which to raise legions of citizen soldiers truly loyal to the republic, not the mercenary types of later centuries of increasingly barbarian origins, loyal only to their generals from whom they received their pay at least as long as they did receive it.
First it created a lot of corruption, after all those appropriations were illegal and the responsable civil servants had to be bribed to look the other way, and this corruption, once established did not only not disappear later, but prospered and grew steadily over time. Second the displaced farmers moved to the major cities, where they formed the volatile and easily susceptible (panem et circenses) urban proletariat, enabling ambitious' men like Caesar's rise to power and subsequent dismanteling of the republic. And third and maybe most important the shrinking amount of free roman farmers also led to a shrinking base from which to raise legions of citizen soldiers truly loyal to the republic, not the mercenary types of later centuries of increasingly barbarian origins, loyal only to their generals from whom they received their pay at least as long as they did receive it.
amphibulous
Banned
Yes. That's why I said that the most sensible hope would be a federal structure with broader political representation. Membership of the Senate was for life, so there was very little reason for Senators not to make a career of corruption, cronyism and, ummm, something else being with "c" that I'll think of later. Umm.. constipation? Does that work?
Last edited:
amphibulous
Banned
I think that wouldn't be enough. Without more political clout for these people this will simply be a one-time boost and only delay their extinction.
amphibulous
Banned
Oh - and on top of those three existential wars with other people, the Romans also had a real inter-Roman civil war (as opposed to the Civil War, which was with the Italian Allies.) A big one, with lots of proscriptions and Rome's best first or second best living general going into exile, leading the Spanish against Rome, and getting killed.
amphibulous
Banned
Possibly we're thinking of the same guy -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Sertorius
- you've perhaps got the spelling mixed up with Suetonius (of The 12 Caesars)? Anyway, he holds Spain against Rome for eight years using an alliance of tribal forces, and the generals he face - who lead first division Roman troops - include Pompey.
Both the Spanish and Plutarch consider Sertorius to be worth comparing to Hannibal:
http://www.bostonleadershipbuilders.com/plutarch/sertorius.htm
Sertorius though was a client and adherent of Marius and his adventures were a direct consequence of the general crisis of the Cimbrian War, Social War and the Sullan-Marian Wars. By the point he came on the scene Marius had militarily blackmailed the Senate and Sulla had marched on Rome. The Republic was doomed, he can only be regarded as a symptom of the Republics collapse.
The challenge is to save it and imho that comes around the Cimbrian War. Have it go slightly less badly for the Republic and the immediate manpower crisis is lessened and have a different set of "Marian" reforms enacted by a different man where the focus is on restoring the Roman "yeoman class" rather than creating a semi-professional army. The essential problem of latifunda and demographic changes aren't going to go away but they can be lessened. Some form of conflict with the Italian allies is pretty much inevitable but it can be won without having to open up the Legions to the Head Count providing Mithridates stays at home, which shouldn't be too hard has he had the Scythians and Parthians on his borders.
Without the Mithridatic War Rome doesn't acquire Anatolia and without the Setorian War it remains practically confined to the eastern littoral of Spain. While the Citizen Legions are going to have trouble defending that it is within the bounds of possibilty and without a Head Count force and vast (and wealthy) provinces ambitious Generals aren't going to become a threat to the Republic.
In addition the Social War offers the opportunity to rejuvenate the "yeoman class" without impinging on the Senate as new small farms could be carved out of the ager publicus of the defeated Italian towns.
The challenge is to save it and imho that comes around the Cimbrian War. Have it go slightly less badly for the Republic and the immediate manpower crisis is lessened and have a different set of "Marian" reforms enacted by a different man where the focus is on restoring the Roman "yeoman class" rather than creating a semi-professional army. The essential problem of latifunda and demographic changes aren't going to go away but they can be lessened. Some form of conflict with the Italian allies is pretty much inevitable but it can be won without having to open up the Legions to the Head Count providing Mithridates stays at home, which shouldn't be too hard has he had the Scythians and Parthians on his borders.
Without the Mithridatic War Rome doesn't acquire Anatolia and without the Setorian War it remains practically confined to the eastern littoral of Spain. While the Citizen Legions are going to have trouble defending that it is within the bounds of possibilty and without a Head Count force and vast (and wealthy) provinces ambitious Generals aren't going to become a threat to the Republic.
In addition the Social War offers the opportunity to rejuvenate the "yeoman class" without impinging on the Senate as new small farms could be carved out of the ager publicus of the defeated Italian towns.
Last edited:
Yes, he is the one. Pompey had a lot of trouble with him, and IIRC threatened to march on Rome if the senate didn't allocate him more troops to stop him. I believe he wasn't ever defeated, correct? He was killed by his own men IIRC.
Not only a large army,but a fast moving one as well;and in as much fast the "muli Mariani" could move,they would never match the speed of a fast moving multi-mission capable cavalry which could cover distances approacing 70 klm/day;that of course,legion oriented Roman army never had and would never create due to lack of tradition and will to create one.
Slyderfox,
This is a B.... of a question;I answered that...I00 years ago, I think,but the answer here must necessarily be different:in plain language,you cannot save something that doesn't exist;republic or democracy or what have you in Rome was a sham.They went to Athens to study and copy institutions and what they did was to copy the private law aspects and "adapt" the constitution to "serve" Roman needs(unfortunately we don't have the name of the b......s who did it...a cold-blooded ruthless oligarchy of the worse kind and they were...proud about the "Law of The Twelve Tables"(451 BC).
In other words:They stripped the powers of Areopagus(for Romans vide commitia Curiata-Kensores) and gave to a new Comitia,the Centuriata,the election of the Consuls and Praetors,heads of army and judiciary by and large and ex-officio members of the senatus upon termination of duty.Dominus Novus gives you roughly the machination of voting that was convoluted in such a way that a few governed the many in Rome.
After that they claimed that they tried to maintain the "Concordia Ordinum"
and start the Triumvirates;it was a lost battle for the so called republic.
Marius and Sulla,Ceasar and Pompei,Octavian and Antony...ending in the Principate.
100 BC was the Tribunate of Saturninus,the man who introduced street fights in the consiliums(with clubs and chairs).
The time frame for voting for the Comitias and the birth of latifundia(great plantations) created the Patron-client system which was evolved into the feudal system of the middle ages.
If you want to save the "republic" give the Kensores increased powers and curb the powers of the centuriata regarding voting and appointing the chief officers of state in such manner.Any changes in the powers of the comitias(don't forget we also have the Comitia Tributa) should be effected by the Senate;Consilium Plebis to approve the election of Senators;
That would put the government in a more democratic basis and save it from upstarts.
The Consuls should command the army,since their rank is the final in the ladder of Cursus Honorum...
Hoist40
Banned
How about banning slavery or greatly restricting it? Possibly caused by a major slave revolt?
This would greatly cut down the amount of money the generals could get by conquest and enslaving the losers which would make them less independent of Rome.
It might also slow down the rapid expansion of the empire because if there is less wealth to be found in slaves there is less reason to conquer and more reason to develop lands they already have with Roman freeman.
It would also stop the flooding of Rome with slaves which drove lower class Romans from their farms and other jobs and prevent them from becoming dependent on politicians and generals who promised free food.
This would greatly cut down the amount of money the generals could get by conquest and enslaving the losers which would make them less independent of Rome.
It might also slow down the rapid expansion of the empire because if there is less wealth to be found in slaves there is less reason to conquer and more reason to develop lands they already have with Roman freeman.
It would also stop the flooding of Rome with slaves which drove lower class Romans from their farms and other jobs and prevent them from becoming dependent on politicians and generals who promised free food.