N/A

The Republic died with the Grachhus brothers. I would even argue it was doomed without pretty heavy re-structuring after the end of the Second Punic War.
 

MrP

Banned
The Republic wasnt totally dead. Theres still Cicero, Scipio, Cato etc. But i can see more and more generals marching to Rome. Like good ol Sulla and Marius.

IIRC, it's generally agreed that the Republic is pretty buggered as a result of it failing to see past its nose and agree o the reforms of the Gracchi. Soldiers, lacking a state pension, became wholly dependent on their general to ensure their retirement fund. So if their generals became unpopular or ran low on cash (both in GJC's case), then the soldiers had no loyalty to the Republic. There's a whole series of generals, ending IOTL with GJC. If he gets killed, the Republic will potter on for a while longer. The Senate might see the value of a sensible policy on military control, but many of its members were blinded by obstinacy or greed, so it could well blunder on until the next Caesar decides to march on Rome.
 
the Gracci were the last hope 2 save the republic but wasn't Caesar implementing sum of their reforms so if Caesar inst assassinated we might see a new republic
 

Typo

Banned
Grachus introduced political violence into Rome, but it was the Marian reforms and Sulla which made the army so important in Roman politics.
 

MrP

Banned
Grachus introduced political violence into Rome, but it was the Marian reforms and Sulla which made the army so important in Roman politics.

Surely cruel to blame the Gracchi when the Senate came out en bloc, beat them to death, then chucked their bodies in the Tiber! Or whatever they did, it's a while since I took that course with the somewhat left-leaning tutor.
 
no the gracci sought only 2 help the republic while the senators were worried that they would be overshadowed much like what happened to Caesar
 
Grachus introduced political violence into Rome, but it was the Marian reforms and Sulla which made the army so important in Roman politics.


The Gracchi didn't introduce violence, they were the victims of it.

But then again, they were the first to really break the rule of law. Both Tiberius and Gaius had a thing for playing fast and loose with the Roman constitution.

EDIT: Also, while Marius and Sulla were both components to the rise of the army, it was only the scramble for the Emperorship that occurred after Nero's death which cemented the army's role as sole arbiter of power in Rome.
 
Last edited:
no the gracci sought only 2 help the republic while the senators were worried that they would be overshadowed much like what happened to Caesar

I doubt they 'only' sought to help the republic - they remained members of the Roman elite, and would be something more than unique to have acted without a (pretty big) motivation to get themselves as high upon the ladder as possible. That they saw an opportunity which, in the end, would have benefitted the Republic does not make them any different to the remainder of the Senate.

Or is that too cynical?

I don't think Pompey would have declared himself dictator for life - he was altogether too conventional - he wanted to be the architypal Roman, preferably first amongst equals, but conventional. However, I can't see the Republic surviving for long - as has been said, the need for reform was too great.
 
It seems the question to ask is not "Could the Republic survive?", but "Are there any reforms that (a) would do enough to repair the political structure at this late point, and (b) may plausibly have been passed by the politicians of the day?

It also should be noted that if Pompey supports these reforms, (b) becomes an easier hurdle.
 
First the Gracchi weren't some proto-democrats murdered by the ev0l Senators, they were playing fast and loose with the (unwritten) constitution and set the precedent for other like Saturnius to follow, though they did have some good ideas. Just like the rest of the Roman elite they wanted to get to the top and while Sulla or Caseaer used inspired Generalship and an Army to get there the Gracchi used popularism and the mob. Sulla did a lot of good things for the Republic like helping Marius conquer Africa and defeating Mithridates, he also did a lot of bad things like marching on Rome. The Gracchi were no different.
The real problem was the Marian reforms. By opening up the Army to the landless poor Marius enabled the Romans to go conquering thanks to an effectively limitless pool of manpower, but thanks to Senate intransigence they were wholly dependent on booty from campaigns for their pay and their Generals to get them a demob bonus. This set up a very unstable dynamic and made for an Army which was both a.) exceptionally aggressive and b.) more loyal to their Generals than the State.
Add in the monumental ambition of your average Roman Senator (who all had military experience thanks to the cursus honorum) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Having Pompey beat Caesar or simply butterfly Caesar away isn't going to solve the basic issues of powerful armies dependent on their Generals and amoral and ambitious politicians. However to change that you need such a complete change in the political culture and structure that the Republic as Cato knew it would not exist afterwards.

Edit: Re: Pompey he was a novus hominem, a new man and just wanted to be accepted by the Roman elite as one of them. Caesar was a descendent of Venus and didn't care what people he viewed as his inferiors thought of him. For Casaer outside the Julian clan and the Fabii he had no equals in terms of sheer aristocraticness
 
Last edited:
However to change that you need such a complete change in the political culture and structure that the Republic as Cato knew it would not exist afterwards.

Well, there's one idea there -- WI, after Pharsalus, Cato's imperial reforms were implemented?
 
Top