Was the fall of the Roman Republic in the 1st Century BC inevitable?

Was the fall of the Roman Republic in the 1st Century BC inevitable?

  • Yes, it was inevitable

    Votes: 33 40.7%
  • No, it was not inevitable

    Votes: 48 59.3%

  • Total voters
    81

MAlexMatt

Banned
I should have been clearer. The situation as it stood is providing very good reason to follow a general over the Senate. But even if you reformed it as PhilippeO suggested, men who are loyal to the general over the republic "for whatever reason" still give him a force to overthrow it with.

Sure, you'd need such a reason to exist, but its not unheard for charismatic generals to inspire their men to follow them "anywhere", and that's a start - and a fair step more than that if the general nature of Roman society doesn't encourage devotion to the existing order as particularly desirable.

PhilippeO's suggestions would actually go a very long way towards fixing the situation so that armies are loyal to the Senate instead of individual generals.

Charisma is one thing. Being the guy who pays the bills is a whole nother thing. In general, having charisma and being the guy whom you depended on for pay and land gave later Roman generals huge amounts of power over the state. Having one or the other was never enough. A charismatic general who nevertheless wasn't the prime source of income, both present and future, for the legionaries isn't going to be able to overcome the cultural inertia present amongst the general populace.

Even as late as Sulla, a group of his officers refused to enter the city the first time he took it by force of arms from the Marian partisans.

I should note I don't see it as inevitable - something going horribly wrong, yes. The end of the republic as it happened OTL, no.
 
PhilippeO's suggestions would actually go a very long way towards fixing the situation so that armies are loyal to the Senate instead of individual generals.

Charisma is one thing. Being the guy who pays the bills is a whole nother thing. In general, having charisma and being the guy whom you depended on for pay and land gave later Roman generals huge amounts of power over the state. Having one or the other was never enough. A charismatic general who nevertheless wasn't the prime source of income, both present and future, for the legionaries isn't going to be able to overcome the cultural inertia present amongst the general populace.

Even as late as Sulla, a group of his officers refused to enter the city the first time he took it by force of arms from the Marian partisans.

A charismatic general who promises great things for those who follow him, however...

But yes, the existing system is giving the generals far too much power - cutting that down makes it a lot harder to sell unless you have a lot to offer.

More a threat of particular individuals (Caesar OTL might be one anyway, for instance - just for discussion's sake) than the entire general class being potential usurpers just by being de facto rulers far too far.
 
The problem with looking at the Gracchi is twofold:

1. Their land reforms actually went through. They created tens of thousands of small family farms. It was their judicial reforms opening the judiciary to plebes that didn't happen.

2. The Republic as a social system was already essentially broken by the time of the Gracchi, as the Gracchi themselves prove. They had no respect for the forms or institutions of the law, they were nakedly ambitious men willing to do whatever was necessary for power. It was they and men like them who eventually took down the institutions of the Republic over the course of the next century.

IMO to really have a chance of saving the Republic you need to go back before the First Punic War. Well, to really be sure you have to hit up the period around the Seige of Veii.

On the contrary, the Gracchi grasped one thing that their counterparts in the Senate did not: the emergence of the Latifundia imperiled the continued existence of the Republic. They were in the long term going to hollow out the armies of the Republic and their citizen-soldier ethos. The Senate blinkeredly refused to admit the problem existed so it naturally had no solutions. The Gracchi's methods were not the best, yes, but it's hardly clear that the ostrich method preferred by the Senate would have changed things.
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
A charismatic general who promises great things for those who follow him, however...

But yes, the existing system is giving the generals far too much power - cutting that down makes it a lot harder to sell unless you have a lot to offer.

More a threat of particular individuals (Caesar OTL might be one anyway, for instance - just for discussion's sake) than the entire general class being potential usurpers just by being de facto rulers far too far.

The thing is charisma just isn't enough: It has to be backed up by something. IOTL, soldiers were dependent on the political patronage of their generals in order to get land and pay for their service, for instance. Pair that dependence with charisma and you've got dangerous. Without that dependence, charisma isn't enough: Like I pointed out, even as late as Sulla army officers were extremely hesitant about breaking their oaths to the republic in order to enter Rome under arms.

A Republic with PhillipO's reforms wouldn't last forever, mind, but with them you would have cleared out the immediate problems.
 
The thing is charisma just isn't enough: It has to be backed up by something. IOTL, soldiers were dependent on the political patronage of their generals in order to get land and pay for their service, for instance. Pair that dependence with charisma and you've got dangerous. Without that dependence, charisma isn't enough: Like I pointed out, even as late as Sulla army officers were extremely hesitant about breaking their oaths to the republic in order to enter Rome under arms.

A Republic with PhillipO's reforms wouldn't last forever, mind, but with them you would have cleared out the immediate problems.

Something likepromises made to reward one's supporters? Or even just being more loyal to the general than the existing ruler/s for whatever reason happens to be the case?

Is the existing situation much worse? Sure. Is it removing that ambitious men are ambitious? Not in the least.

As stated, the Byzantines did have the army reformed so as to be dependent on the state, but any reasonably popular general could at least attempt a coup.

And its not because speaking Greek makes your loyalty to the state waver.

I'm not saying the reforms are useless, just insufficient.
 
yes, the republic couldnt sustain itself with its current system for much longer...if the civil wars never happened, or were further spaced out and more reforms happened with consuls less interested in personal power, it couldve stayed viable for longer...but inevitably, it wouldve fallen
 
I voted no--but simply because of the date. There was no way that the Republic could be maintained indefinitely. And frankly, it probably shouldn't have been...
 

MAlexMatt

Banned
Something likepromises made to reward one's supporters? Or even just being more loyal to the general than the existing ruler/s for whatever reason happens to be the case?

Is the existing situation much worse? Sure. Is it removing that ambitious men are ambitious? Not in the least.

As stated, the Byzantines did have the army reformed so as to be dependent on the state, but any reasonably popular general could at least attempt a coup.

And its not because speaking Greek makes your loyalty to the state waver.

I'm not saying the reforms are useless, just insufficient.

The Byzantines are a bad example because the Byzantine Empire was a monarchy. All the general had to do was replace the guy already in charge.

The Roman state was a Republic, where one general was not able to place himself in any position legally sufficient to reward his supporters and make them immune to retribution from political opponents.
 
The Byzantines are a bad example because the Byzantine Empire was a monarchy. All the general had to do was replace the guy already in charge.

The Roman state was a Republic, where one general was not able to place himself in any position legally sufficient to reward his supporters and make them immune to retribution from political opponents.

The problem is that a general could overthrow the republic. Rome needs something making that more difficult.
 
The problem is that a general could overthrow the republic. Rome needs something making that more difficult.

For that, you need to change the political-social structure and conventions of the Roman people. Young Roman needed to make a name for themselves so they could have a good start for a political career. Being a part of the military and achieving great victories was the best way to do this. Which led to powerful politicians using their victories to further their own political agenda. Hence, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, etc.

To stop this, you need to have a system like today, where a person cannot be both a politician and a general. Impossible in Rome.
 
To go back to the OP the fall of the Roman Republic was probably inevitable by c. 150 B.C. and completely inevitable after Marius. However I do think it could have staggered on through luck rather than skill until 0 B.C.
 
Top