In 91 BC the Tribune M. Livius Drusus proposed a series of reforms to the late Republic. Specifically, public land would be redistributed to the populace and citizenship would be given to the Italian Allies. These laws were revoked and Drusus was murdered leading to the Social War, the rise of Sulla etc. The question is, if Drusus's laws had remained and Drusus had survived would the Republic have survived?
WI Drusus's Reforms Had Succeeded
- Thread starter mjwebb76
- Start date
Then no Social war. Marius would still try to gain command for the war against Mithridates, and having no army at his immediate disposal, Sulla could do little to oppose him. If Marius succeeds in being sent in the East, and OTL showed it was entirely possible, then he could die in the middle of the campaign of old age. Another commander, maybe Sulla, would be sent by the Senate, however it’s also possible, and perhaps rather probable, that Marius’ army could pick its own commander, like the Fimbrians did, opposing the central government’s decision. At Rome, Cinna could very well still be elected consul, thus repeating OTL’s events with the siege of Rome and its capture by the Cinnans, only this time Marius doesn’t lend his name and person to his cause. Cinna would then try to send a commander loyal to him, Lucius Valerius Flaccus in all probability, to gain command of the army East, or he could try to deal with that army’s new commander, who would probably be a man hostile to the optimates, or maybe, if Marius is still alive and in command, Cinna would simply swear allegiance to him and elect him consul in absentia as the Senate did at the time of the war against the Cimbri and Teutoni. All in all, Sulla’s dictatorship would be butterflied away. What Cinna’s plans with his government were exactly is difficult to assess, but probably we’d see an early rise of the people outside the noble and most prominent families. Men like Sertorius could hope to become consul. Pompey would stay friends with Carbo and, in due course, also become consul. Caesar, being the son in law of Cinna, would be particularly favored for a successful career. Crassus, however, would have no such luck, and I doubt that under Cinna he’d become as powerful as he was IOTL. Whether Cinna’s government would have collapsed beneath his feet, or endured and survived at least until his death, it’s impossible to tell.
I find all of this plausible with one exception. I am skeptical that there would be a siege of Rome by Cinna if Sulla had not first set the precedent by marching on Rome. It seems to me that this was the event that really ushered in the fall the Republic--namely generals marched on Rome or threatened to do so frequently after Sulla but never before. I would be interested in your reasons for asserting that Cinna would have committed this act of violence if Sulla had not set the precedent.
Because someone would set the precedent sooner or later, Sulla or no Sulla, so why not Cinna? He had plenty of Marian veterans itching to take up arms he could rely upon and I’m assuming he’d be as ambitious in this TL as he was in ours.
That's a fair point. I think it comes down to the question of whether we think Sulla was uniquely horrid (as in willing to do something no one else had done) or whether he was just a product of his age. Given that you are suggesting the later I suspect you believe the Republic still falls. In other words, am I right in concluding that you would say the lack of the Social War is insufficient to preserve the Republic.
Oh absolutely, at least in my opinion, Republic’s done no matter what by then. No hegemony spanning several territories in the ancient world could still keep a city state kind of government, and additional reforms would be impossible in a society like Republican Rome, unless the romans were to live in an ancient utopian world where people would be willing to work together and get along just out of the goodness of their hearts.
Pretty unlikely. Without the Social Wars to keep Rome busy is likely who Mithridates will wait for some other event who will keep Rome’s attention away from the East before attacking the Roman provinces so the conflict between Marius and Sulla will be fully butterflied as Marius will be dead before the start of the war against Mithridates. Cinna would never attack Rome and will be likely Consul but will never be dictator of Rome. Without Sulla (or Marius)’s example in marching on Rome is pretty likely who nobody will ever think to do attack Rome with an army ...
Mithridates was on the warpath in any case, the events concerning Manius Aquilius would still take place. As I said, Marius could die in 86, or not, I contemplated both options, and as I also said, if Sulla didn’t set the precedent, why couldn’t somebody else? Sulla was no more pragmatic than other Roman politicians, it could have and would have happened regardless, and why couldn’t it happen with Cinna? He proved to be a rather pragmatic dude in OTL.
Because Cinna here will not have neither the power, the means or the need to doing it
He could still be consul, dispossessed soldiers with nothing to do would still be around and Cinna never needed to do what he did even in OTL, he just did out of ambition.
I am not sure I agree with this. I think if the reforms of Drusus succeed that could create a dynamic where incremental change works and more important the principle that Rome should provide land for veterans becomes an established principle. This in turn breaks the dynamic of soldiers having more loyalty to the general than to the Republic. I am skeptical that someone else would have done it had Sulla not done so. My evidence for this is that Marius was not prepared when Sulla marched on Rome and tried to defend Rome with Gladiators. To be clear, I am not saying that the Republic would have suddenly become the EU. Rather, I am suggesting that a Republic made consisting of Italians would have rule the Mediterranean by co-opting local elites in the various provinces. In other words, it would have remained just as brutal and nasty in the provinces as it was and as it became in the time of the empire. Over time, these local elites may have gained Roman citizenship extending Republican notiosn to the provinces.
Marius was indeed caught by surprise, and of Sulla’s officers, none but Lucullus followed him in his endeavor, still, it doesn’t prove that he would have been the only one to do it, I personally think it was a rather inevitable act.
The thing is, senators won’t approve of reforms establishing provinces to provide for veterans, because this would have meant giving some senators the chance to gain prestige and power in spite of others, something that would have been unacceptable for the Senatorial elite. That’s why the senators were so hostile against Pompey’s land reforms and settlement of the East. They were all well planned and thoughtful, but they were decided by one man, and the senators staunchly opposed reforms made by one man because then all the soldiers and all the kings would have become the latter’s clients, which is exactly what happened in OTL. Drusus was no general, his reforms would have increased his network of clients and his prestige, but at least there was no risk of him calling up soldiers to fight for him, that’s why I’m assuming the senators accepted his reforms in this TL. Giving lands to veterans though? That’s a whole other thing.
Actually, life in the provinces was better under the empire. Sending procurators instead of publicani did a lot to make a better living for the provincials. Expanding Republican notions in the provinces was indeed an established policy, if for that we mean an oligarchy ruling over a city like in Rome, because that is what the Roman Republic was at the end of the day.
Last edited: