Would Rome have lasted longer if it had stayed a republic?

I know we have a lot of good historians here and i've been thinking about this all day. We've seen through history that governments allowing one single man infinite power (dictatorships) is perhaps the worst form of governing a nation, or if not the worst then definately one of the worst, and usually results in the country eventually decaying into a mere shadow of what it used to be.

So, if Caesar had been defeated, and the power continued to be shared between like a hundred men (the senate) then do you think Rome would have survived as an empire for much longer than it did? I mean, it makes sense... Plus, when the senate ruled Rome, the armies seemed to be loyal to the Rome and the senate... But later on they became loyal to whatever general could give them the most loot, and had no problems fighting against other Romans for their general, even if their general was a madman wanting to seize power for himself from a decent emperor...

Probably not. It would have ended up been ripped apart by rival senators and generals anyway. What Rome needed was one strong leader who could manage everything rather than many rowdy politicians who would just argue while the republic fell. The Marius reforms actually were the real cause of the end of the republic. As generals gave soilders their pay and their pention they were more loyal to them than the senate and the people.

Off topic:oops:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

That sounds a lot like what is happening to the U.S. today, North Korea has missles aimed at us, There are whole armies of crazy arabs that want us all dead, and all the politicians seem to be doing is lying and arguing to get votes. Then add the moral decline in our society and the fact that all people want to do is brainwash themselves in front of the tv and argue about stupid stuff like gay rights and abortion makes me think that america is pretty much doomed. Not that I care about america, but I would rather be (somewhat) free than dead or ruled over by some crazy dictator.

---

:focus:

You are free the moment you chose to be.

John Warry has written some good stuff on exactly this, I'll post it up later.

Essentially he states that Rome was no longer a Republic when Caesar defeated Pompey, but rather it was a nation whose power was not based on electing officials, but on military superiority, which is of course, not a Republic. Thus the "Republic" was Pompey's army, so it wasn't a Republic, more like a military dictatorship. The defeat of Pompey exchanged one dictator for another.

Why is every single topic turning into a political debate today!!!!!!
Arrrrrrrrggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

That sounds a lot like what is happening to the U.S. today, North Korea has missles aimed at us, There are whole armies of crazy arabs that want us all dead, and all the politicians seem to be doing is lying and arguing to get votes. Then add the moral decline in our society and the fact that all people want to do is brainwash themselves in front of the tv and argue about stupid stuff like gay rights and abortion makes me think that america is pretty much doomed. Not that I care about america, but I would rather be (somewhat) free than dead or ruled over by some crazy dictator.

---

I would say America isn't even close to defeat. N. Korea's doesn't have the technology yet to put nuclear warheads on their missles, in fact their nuclear weapons aren't even ready to be dropped from a plane Hiroshima style... Plus their missles can reach as far as Alaska, hardly anything there worth wasting an expensive missle on... Plus China and Russia aren't against America in the current problems with Korea, they are on our side...

As for the crazy muslims... All they got is IED's and cold war kalashnikovs... Nothing to worry about.

I am getting sick of all this politics in an EB forum! I'm going to PM a mod.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

I would say America isn't even close to defeat. N. Korea's doesn't have the technology yet to put nuclear warheads on their missles, in fact their nuclear weapons aren't even ready to be dropped from a plane Hiroshima style... Plus their missles can reach as far as Alaska, hardly anything there worth wasting an expensive missle on... Plus China and Russia aren't against America in the current problems with Korea, they are on our side...

As for the crazy muslims... All they got is IED's and cold war kalashnikovs... Nothing to worry about.

---

:focus: :focus: :focus: :focus: :focus:

Go to the forums at Military.com to discuss this and related topics. Or any other news or politacal forum. PLZ..
this is EB... EB... Look it up.

not likely, the republic was very sick in the 1st century BCE, and the prize of lucrative commands in the east would eventually have brought its downfall regardless of Caesar. On the other point, I would heartily disagree as many modern and ancient historians have pointed out that democracy is in fact the worst form of government and an enlightened autocracy is the best. Augustus was clearly a leader worthy of the Republic and a ruler who governed both efficiently and well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignator

That sounds a lot like what is happening to the U.S. today, North Korea has missles aimed at us, There are whole armies of crazy arabs that want us all dead, and all the politicians seem to be doing is lying and arguing to get votes. Then add the moral decline in our society and the fact that all people want to do is brainwash themselves in front of the tv and argue about stupid stuff like gay rights and abortion makes me think that america is pretty much doomed. Not that I care about america, but I would rather be (somewhat) free than dead or ruled over by some crazy dictator.

---

Actually, on this one particular point, I'd argue that one of the reasons Rome started to deteriorate because it was getting more moral, rather than less. Stupid Christians.

And I care about America. I live here.

Anyshways, back to topic...

The senate probably couldn't rule over the large areas of the expanding roman world. The senate worked well for a single city, maybe the pennisula, but the 'empire' became too big. They were forced to resort to federalism which undid them.

Why multiple threads on the EB public forum are turning into critiques of modern society I don't know. Please keep topics germane guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Teleklos Archelaou

Why multiple threads on the EB public forum are turning into critiques of modern society I don't know. Please keep topics germane guys.

---

It's because we're bored and waiting for 0.8...

Give us something new to discuss... Like one of those preview threads...

Regretably the key problem with democracies is their total inability to function when there isn't a popular will to stay together (religious, social freedom, patriotism, ethnicity- whatever it might be) - if the people don't want to, and if its up to them, it falls apart. More and more what we can see through the Marian reforms is the transfer of power to the people- even with the tribunes the Plebs were gradually withdrawing their favor from the senate. What I'm trying to point out is that the Marian Reforms someone above mentioned were the end of the senate because they gave the power to the people and exemplified the abandonment of popular support for the legislature. If Caesar hadn't taken the oppportunity someone else would have, and as things degraded that person probably wouldn't have needed to be as talented (thus the Roman empire would have broken apart under that rulership sooner).

Some historian once wrote that the basis behind both the Roman social structure and in effect Roman politics was warfare.

The idea is basically this: like all states in early stage of development the only way to gain wealth was simply by taking it away from others, the Romans themselves didn't have much else than their farms and to 'make a decent profit' they used to take it from their neighbours. So far nothing unusual, this practice amounted to the institution of a form of client tribes bordering the Romans paying some tax but not much since those tribes didn't have - like the Romans - too didn't have much else except their farms.

But what this did gain the Romans was this: more soldiers, larger armies. And as the only significant way of enriching the state and thereby gaining social status was to be victorious in war, succes on the battlefield became a key too succes in politics.

However, due to the fact that this practice also created a lot of unemployed (the proles) - because the powerfull senators started to buy all of the land in Italy from the local farmes, financed by the loot they had received when commanding armies, and those farmers couldn't get a job because, as, in the same time, slaves started to be used instead - political reforms were needed. (Remember those civil wars Livius told about in Ab urbe condita?) Those reforms gave the people much more influence in political disicions, through offices like Tribunus Plebis and the fact the from now on one consul had to be memeber of the common people (or plebs in Latin).

This resulted in the practice where Senators started to buy votes from the people, to get elected for an office. But since that portion of the people that didn't have a job, else than being a soldier in times of war, kept on growing, it became more and more expensive to get elected. Once elected all your worries were over, you 'simply' started another war against some small/medium sized tribe and cashed. But as soon as you lost, this nearly always meant a financial bankrupt.

That amounted to a state where politics was an nearly impossible enterprise, if you wanted to achieve something. Only those who were extremly rich and had very rich or very popular (among the electorate, of course) friends, could then effectively get into a certain position which enabled them to wield nearly absolute power as long as their alliance remained intact. This basically was how the First and Second Triumvirate worked.

And that meant that as soon as such an alliance was in pieces, Rome was in the midst of political, social, and military chaos. Realising the latter, it is no surprise that one man, who had gained himself absolute sway decided to put an end to this, and turned Rome into an centralised Empire. Which it sooner or later was meant to be. Constant warfare, without having a strong economy that creates tons of surplusses even if it is isolated from all possible trading partners, (which untill the Industrial Revolution didn't exist anywhere in the world) is only possible with a minimal chance of political or social upheavel. And therefore, only a state where internal strife for status is minimalised can achieve this.

The Roman Republic couldn't provide the needed stability, and therefore wasn't going to last anyway: even if Caesar and his friends didn't gain the later Empire for themselves, someone else would.

Sorry about getting political, what he said reminded me of america, and I get worked up over these types of things.

First, remember that Rome was NEVER ruled by a democratic system and no Roman ever said that there were egals.
Since the beginning of the Republic the non-egality is instituated on this basis: more you have rights, more you have duties.
The richest were the more commonly send to fight ( they can afford the armors and weapons and they have far more to loose), and have a total control of the legislation for this.

Plebeian and Patrician is NOT a distinction of wealth.
If all Patrician were richs, lots of Plebeians were also...the only difference is that the Patrician claim a genetic heritage of the first romans.

After the Second Punic War, everything changes.
Rome discover suddently that no one could challenge her, especially the hellenistic kingdoms, inheritors of the empire of Aleksander the Great...
And with victories came wealth.

Lots of.

After the Battle of Pydna, in 168, all form of direct taxation was suppressed for the roman citizens.
With that, the armies grew more and more professionnals, and no more " citizen defenses ", with soldiers who came under the arms in the hope of plunder.
So they became slowly more loyals to their generals than for Rome.

The Roman " Empire " under the Republic is awful.
The Senate simply don't know how to deal with a territory who grow larger every year.
Usually, the annexed pronvinces, outside the Italian Peninsula, were considered like huge coffins for the citizen of Rome and for the political ambitions of their pro-magistrates.
Corruption was generalized, at a very huge level.

There was only one response to revolt against this: death.

The Principat, the Augustean Empire, seems like a logic evolution.
It's the first real enterprise of controlling the whole thing.
Under the Republic, there was Rome, the socci ( allies of Rome in Italia ) and a whole world of vainquished.
After, it was no more Rome, but the imperium romanum.

It doesn't change everything, but it was a logic evolution of rationalisation.

So to get back to the topic, I don't think Rome would have live much longer without the creation of the principate.

At the time of the first Triumvirat, the situation was critical, and the civil wars waged for more than 50 years...when the ptolemaic court of Alexandria attack Caesar, they really think that Rome has no more than a few years to live.

The way I see it, I think that Rome started to fall when they tryed to capture Germania. After Tuentenborg, they decided to keep away from there. The way I see it, the Romans overexpanded, and was horribly stretched, causing unrest, therefore causing civil wars, and the Roman army slowly tore itself apart, until the Roman empire is nothing but a mere shadow of the days where the word "Rome" was feared by everyone.

In fact, Germania WAS conquered, for most of it's extense. The roman presence last for four centuries in the nearest provinces, and the Limes follow the Danube, not the Alpin moutains.
Under Marcus-Aurelius, roman legions rampaged through Germania and go as far as the Baltic Sea.

But Germania was never as rich as was Gauls, for exemple, and never worth the cost of a strong military presence.

Teutobourg is not the worst day of the Roman army, they lost only 3 legions, At Carrhaes, they lost 7 legions and all theirs Syrians auxiliaries against the Parthians and, later, against the Sassanids, three emperors were killed.

The empire doesn't collapse after this.

I think the reasons of the fall of an empire are quite numerous and specific, and can never be all apprehended.

The theme of grandeur et décadenceis a maxim of the ancients, not a very scientific point of view.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthius Julius

I am getting sick of all this politics in an EB forum! I'm going to PM a mod.

---

You act like people are forcing you to read it. Tattle Tale.

No, Rome wouldn't have lasted longer. It was an inefficient form of government for such vast territories and could only maintain authority by appointing people to large regions for a longer period of time, essentially bypassing the republican system revolving around the senate; in the end, this focusing of power in a small number of powerful and ambitious individuals would have to have detrimental effects and did, a large number of times. Under a single leader Rome regained the impulse it had been lacking under the bickering among leading aristocrats.

Only if they adopted the Lorica segmentata earlier and also some full body-armored cohorts, with arm and leg guards, pretty much a cathaphract on foot, a heavily armored men-at-arms.

Well, not really, but then we'd have some pretty cool Roman units to play with. :sweatdrop: :2thumbsup:............. :embarassed: :shame:

Thanks for all the very interesting responses so far everybody.

And Wardo - The Romans already have the 'coolest' and most fascinating units in the game to mess around with...

What good is a tired heavily armoured man at arms when there are thousands of cavalry archers galloping around firing 3000 arrows every 10 seconds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

First, remember that Rome was NEVER ruled by a democratic system and no Roman ever said that there were egals.
Since the beginning of the Republic the non-egality is instituated on this basis: more you have rights, more you have duties.
The richest were the more commonly send to fight ( they can afford the armors and weapons and they have far more to loose), and have a total control of the legislation for this.

---

True, but you've got to keep in mind that Consuls and Tribunes, by far the most powerfull men in the political system were elected. At the start patrician votes counted more than those of the plebeians, but after lots of civil strife this situation was reconsidered. From then on the man who could control the masses in effect controlled Rome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

Plebeian and Patrician is NOT a distinction of wealth.
If all Patrician were richs, lots of Plebeians were also...the only difference is that the Patrician claim a genetic heritage of the first romans.

---

True, but the majority of the plebs was relatively poor, and those rather poor people would become the key to political succes. By the time Caesar and Pompeius lived for example, they had grown so much in numbers that no one could afford to ignore them. Simply put: they were the group whose votes were the most easy to buy and the group which was the most easily stirred to take action against the patricians.

By the time this group really became the dominant factor in politics, and property requirements were gone: the first example of this new concept being Marius' army.

What's more important is the Roman system of Patronus and Cliens. Clientes were fanatically loyal to their Patronus. Those former farmers without a job, and there offspring were people who suddenly needed a Patronus, to get a job. This group turned to the most powerfull of the Populares for both that job and future protection of whatever they still possesed.

And so it became possible for someone really flush holding a political office to control the mob. He simply became their new Patronus, by giving them food, and offering some of them a job.

I Agrre with you.
But I don't think the term " fanatictly loyal to their patronus " is the good word. Make their voice sound the same way as the vote of their patronus was their duty as clients.

The power go to the mass only in the last decades of the Republic, when the population of Rome litteraly explode, but it was a power of violence, not in the legal system.
The mob gain more and more power by this way, but in the electoral system, the majority was every time for the richest citizens, because of the particular electoral system in Republican Rome:
The citizens were divided into censitar centuries ( don't know the proper english term, sorry ). Their was 190 centuries, divided into the different censitar class. For a vote, the simple majority was needed.

The first class was the equites, the richest, who ( on the origins ) were the ones who could afford a war horse. They have 18 centuries and then, on time of war, this censitar class must give 18 centuries of cavalry fighters, and have 18 voices in the comices centuriates.
After them came the first censitar class, with 80 centuries.
It's in this class that the heavier republican troops were conscripted.
The second class was given 40 voices...etc...and the final class the poorest citizens, the fifth if I remember correctly, was given 4 voices and have only to give non-fighting forces.

Note that in this system, The equites plus the first censitar class have the absolut majority, and so, usually, they were the only citizens to vote, because they have strong insterests in common and they disagree extremely rarely.

This system deperished little by little, because of the demographic croissance, and then, they were generally replaced by the comices tributes, wich were composed of a member of every tribe of Rome.
Twelve in total, if I remember correctly.
The little trick was that their was only 4 tribes for the city of Rome herself, the eight others were " rural tribes ", ia: the tribes of the owners of villa and latifundias in the Latium.
The richest citizens, again.

And, last but not the least, a consul has the legal power of stopping a vote and making him begin again, simply because he have the role of haruspice, and could them interpret a " very defavorable sign of the gods "

The Tribun plebeian were the only ones magistrates elected by the Plebe ( in the sens of the poorest citizens ) and have effectualy very great powers, protected by sacred laws as if they were Jupiter himself for the duration of their mandat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

The Tribun plebeian were the only ones magistrates elected by the Plebe ( in the sens of the poorest citizens ) and have effectualy very great powers, protected by sacred laws as if they were Jupiter himself for the duration of their mandat.

---

Most of these tribunes were people that had no concern for the people at all. They were simply "puppets" of the particians and the senate. Although the tribunes of the plebs had godlike power during their terms they were not allowed to stand for tribune again in their lifetime. This caused problems for the senate because if a tribune did care for the people (e.g. Tiberius Graccus) they could not get rid of him or have him arrested during his term.

I'm not sure that the two Graccus brothers were " for the people ".
They were pure optimates who wants to preserve the old roman system, by recreating a class of famers who own their proper lands ( and who were initially the members of the first and second class )

Nevertheless, their godlike status doesn't save them :/

For the puppets plebeians tribunes:Yes.

But in Rome, the people was the upper and medium class of the society.
The poorest were considered as a bunch of stupid cowards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dayve

What good is a tired heavily armoured man at arms when there are thousands of cavalry archers galloping around firing 3000 arrows every 10 seconds?

---

Of more use than a tired unarmoured man at arms when there are thousands of cavalry archers galloping around firing 3000 arrows every 10 seconds :idea2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pelopidas

But in Rome, the people was the upper and medium class of the society.
The poorest were considered as a bunch of stupid cowards.

---

That's true. However there were some pleb generals so they can't have been considered that stupid and cowardly by the senate and the patricians.

But half of the senates was Plebeian !

I speak in term of wealth, some plebeians were extremely rich...

I remember only of two generals of very humble origins, it's Cato ( the first ) and Marius.
Both were poor.

And they are the two only mens of so humble origins who came so far.

The Roman Empire wouldn't have lasted longer as a republic.
The rivalry between the senators were just too big.
Not to mention the bribery and assassination between them.
How can a group of men that kill and bribe each other rule an empire as big as the roman empire?
Like stated before: it could work well for one city but not for the whole empire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreatEmperor

Like stated before: it could work well for one city but not for the whole empire.

---

The senate was originally set up to rule just a small little insignificant town called Rome anyway. How the senate managed to build up the republican empire in the first place with all that backstabbing I will never know. Also I will never know why the republic didn't fall apart because of Sulla and Marius.

It is also important to note that pleb generals often misused their power often either becoming corrupt or trying to give the people a larger voice (that sort of thing caused the patricians and the senate to get tetchy). Marius was actually an lower class equestrian who was on the border line between becoming a pleb and becoming an equestrian, any claims that his father was a labourer were false.

:laugh4:

Remember that film called The Godfather. At some point the big guys meet at a table and settle things down for a bit. That's much how it was like 2050 - 2700 years ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

:laugh4:

Remember that film called The Godfather. At some point the big guys meet at a table and settle things down for a bit. That's much how it was like 2050 - 2700 years ago.

---

Yeah then at the end of the movie, the son of one of the big guys at the table had the rest of the big guys at the table shot dead.

That's one of my favourite movies of all time BTW. :laugh4: