How would a surviving roman republic carry on?

[eliphas8]

I’m a fan of Mary Beards argument that the Emperors were created by the empire, and in specific the extension of the way the provinces were ruled to Rome itself. There was no really worthwhile way to transfer the institutions of the roman republic into the governing system of the entire Mediterranean which also sustaining the provinces as a source of riches and a place to be exploited in the interests of Rome. In essence the only way to sustain a republican rome in the sense we understand it would be to radically transform the nature of roman republicanism, and to do away with the imperial nature of the Roman Empire.

Otherwise I don’t see the situation of a single republican city ruling over ruling over the whole Mediterranean sustaining itself as a republican system. The contradiction between the way power worked in the provinces with how it works in the city of rome is just too much to be resolved in any way other than the destruction of that original republicanism.

 

[DominusNovus]

I’m a fan of Mary Beards argument that the Emperors were created by the empire, and in specific the extension of the way the provinces were ruled to Rome itself. There was no really worthwhile way to transfer the institutions of the roman republic into the governing system of the entire Mediterranean which also sustaining the provinces as a source of riches and a place to be exploited in the interests of Rome. In essence the only way to sustain a republican rome in the sense we understand it would be to radically transform the nature of roman republicanism, and to do away with the imperial nature of the Roman Empire.

Otherwise I don’t see the situation of a single republican city ruling over ruling over the whole Mediterranean sustaining itself as a republican system. The contradiction between the way power worked in the provinces with how it works in the city of rome is just too much to be resolved in any way other than the destruction of that original republicanism.

Rome had a pretty good system going on with the Socii in Italy. They just couldn’t export it to the rest of the mediterranean well enough.

Roman Italy was basically a classical League of City States that maintained complete autonomy in matters other than foreign relations - all the allies had to do was supply troops. Not only that, but they all technically grew more prosperous as the League grew larger, since the burden could be shared among more cities, while the conflicts moved further away. When Sicily was conquered, however, Rome decided that the cities there were best brought in by substituting that levy with taxes paid to Rome - and ultimately collected by Romans.

Interestingly, thats the same thing that corrupted the Delian League - members started to send funds rather than ships to the League, atrophying their own militaries while strengthening that of the leading city, Athens. Sure enough, as the wealth of the provinces started to pour into Rome, the Romans started to exploit that. However, Rome never did that to Italy, and actually went the exact opposite direction as Athens with regard to their fellow members of their League, extending rights and privileges, rather than dominating them.

Ideally, Rome would gradually extend Socii rightd across its territories. It would be a kludged together solution, and it wouldn’t be ideal until the Romans figure out a solution to the whole ‘you have to physically be in Rome to vote’ rule for a far flung empire, but its an improvement.