The Roman Republic in History

**J.Alco** · 08-26-2008, 01:03

In most (if not to say all) history books I've read, the Roman Republic is generally portrayed, or described, as unstable and corrupt, ruled by a senate packed with petty, jealous money-grabbing landowners which generally trampled on the lower classes (specifically the plebs). The appointing of governors in foreign provinces is mainly described as wealthy senators giving a pal of theirs a sweet job so that they could milk the provinces out of as much cash as they could while generally contributing little to the overall stability and economic growth of said region. The wealth and military success accumulated by the Republic are usually juxtaposed with a corrupt government that was unstable and ultimately dethroned by dictators such as Caesar and Sulla, not just because they won the battles, but because the republic had already destroyed itself from within, as it were.

Now I don't claim much knowledge of Rome on this period of history, but I do know that the first thing any government established after a civil war or coup d'etat must do is tell everybody "Hey! Remember how bad things were before we (or I) got here? Let me tell you just how many things the last guys did wrong! Aren't you glad that now I'm in charge?". Justifying your siezing power to the people is essential in these cases, especially if the people are the ones who provided the bulk of your support during the seizure of power. It seems to me that, 2000 years after its overthrow, the Roman Republic is still being given the 'Imperial Treatment' by history: That is to say, the weakness and failings of the Republic are emphasized, as are the successes of the Empire (until the reign of Commodus, that is).

The Republic doubtless must have done alot of things wrong to be overthrown and ultimately replaced, but considering that several extremely bloody civil wars were fought in the name of preserving, and overthrowing, the Republic, and that there were men ready and willing to give their all for the Republic and its ideals (Cato and Brutus come to mind), I can't really see how a system of government could have conjured up such seemingly strong support comprising notable figures of the time.

Of course, there is the argument that the rich in power were out to protect their money, and that's always a good reason to fight, but consider: Brutus was renowned for his honesty and Cato for his modest lifestyle. Brutus appears to have genuinely believed in the principles of the Republic while Cato was known for his proximity to the plebs, despite his conservative beliefs. Perhaps they were the exception to the overall rule, but in my opinion they couldn't have been the only ones.

My question: Was the Republic really as weak, corrupt, and inefficent as I've read? Did it really 'need' to be replaced with the authoritarian government of the empire? Could it really not have survived any longer? Was its rule really so unpopular? I have a bit of a hard time accepting that the answer to all these questions is 'yes'. Surely there must have been something done right in the 400+ years of Republican rule in Rome? Is the 'Imperial' version of history regarding the civil wars still being taught? Or was the Republic really as bad as all that, and needed putting down, as it were?

Basically, I'm looking for a little historical revisionism, or if not, then a balanced answer from anyone interested explaining why the Republic was truly such a complete apparent failure. Thoughts, anyone?

**teh1337tim** · 08-26-2008, 01:12

there was some capable senators within the republic senate but as most senators are given there rank by inheriting it and already the class above equites they are very rich and doesnt rly care about anything unless it affects them directly or indirectly somehow

the person that went at pahlava and got owned at that one battle (forgot that battle)
but lets just say there was a lot of greedy money wanting bastards within the senate
hell the third punic war was fought because senators wanted carthage out of the business of trading and wanted there land for more orcchards farms etc

**Warmaster Horus** · 08-26-2008, 01:16

Depends what kind of books you read, but in my opinion (which is that of a 17 year old fan of Rome), the problems with the Republic started when it grew too far. Ruling Italy couldn't have been that hard, and adding Sicily shouldn't have been too hard either, but once there was Iberia, north Africa, Gaul, Macedonia, Asia Minor, there was just too much.
Which is where the idea of a professional army came, and how Marius reformed the army. The problem then was that the soldiers were basically an extension of the General: he could treat them kindly, give them large bounties, let them pillage and raid, and then they would be his, literally. After that, human greed for money and power came into motion. Civil wars and eventually the time when the Senate was nearly entirely corrupt.
The Republic lasted 400+years, but the majority of that time was spent in Italy. Sicily was only added to the Republic near 250BC, and the Principate started in 27BC. You can do the math.
It was strong, because power was always divided. Consuls mean "those who go together", and that was what made the Republic a good government. The only problems arose when there was waaay too much to govern.

Of course, that's the way I see it. It's possible that Senators were always somewhat greedy, but it was relatively limited, before the Republic's major expansion.
And BTW teh1337tim, the guy that went against Parthia was Marcus Cornelius Crassus, who got owned at Carrhae by a General named Surena in 53BC (I think that's the date).

**burn_again** · 08-26-2008, 01:48

I'm also no expert in ancient history, but as far as I know it is not taught in universities that the republic was an utter failure that needed to be replaced by an authoritarian empire.
The mere fact that Rome was a republic for such a long time shows that it wasn't a failure at all.
There were several reasons for the downfall of the republic, like social issues or corruption, but there is probably none that can be singled out as the main factor.
One important point might be the expansion of Rome and its increasing influence and interventions throughout the Mediterranean. I've read historians pointing out for example how over time military leaders were given more and more power, at least in the name of their imperium (imperium in the sense of mandate or mission). I don't remember the exact technical terms, but it was suggested that the imperium M. Antonius Creticus received against the pirates and later the powers Pompeius received through the Lex Gabinia were deceisive steps that led to the shift of power from the senate to single figures.

**satalexton** · 08-26-2008, 01:50

just look at humans now, certainly they cant be that much different then. There's a few good ones, a few mad ones, while most just want to reap a big pile of cash/power some way or another.

**We shall fwee...Wodewick** · 08-26-2008, 02:07

Every single politcal system has it's flaws and under the right(or this case wrong) circumstances it can or will fall, as every politcal system will eventually.

The flaws of the late republic would have been it's vast size, and that too much power would be vested in single men. I.e Marius, Sulla, Caesar. There was also tension between the classes with an imbalance of power established from the start, followed by ambitious(and possibly sincere) men attempting to undermine the senate trhough the assemblies and resulting in assainations and murders which would only hope to fuel the fires.

The several civil wars that followed just saw solitary figures with their loyal troops(as mentioned earier) taking on a government that had no stability and that had been wracked by inefficeincy and overstrecth. Eventually a figure whom didn't stand for the ideals of the republic would build a base from which it could never return.

It's not to say the republic was useless. It expnaded Rome from a provincial backwater and a nation with a sphere of influence barely encompassing Central Italy and ended with land from Gaul, Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor, Iberia, Africa, Greece, Macedonia.... and one of the greatest cities of the ancient world. It just wasn't designed to govern the area it conquered or handle the greed and ambition of it's members when the money it dealt with reached the levels it did.

**Gaivs** · 08-26-2008, 10:54

@ OP, thats a simplistic view. I study Republican Roman history at a second year university level (so im still only basically a newbie) but i can say this. Rome is not being given the Imperial treatment in the ancient texts at all, the very most basic fact was the Republic failed. It was corrupt, the Senate was a bunch of greedy haughty petty old men, and the system simply couldnt support the empire. The sole reason for the empires arrival can be pinned on the failing of the senate to address the man power issue. They didnt wanna give up their land, in fact i am in the middle of writing an essay on whether or not the manpower shortage contributed to the fall of the republic. I've only done around 500 words, but basically (This is my opinion on what happened, i know of several historians who disagree), the Romans did not face a manpower shortage, but a senate-engineered manpower crisis. The senates refusal of change was so characteristic, they were so steadfast in not changing anything, and always keeping things how they were in the old days was in fact what ended the republic. By allowing the army to degrade and letting Marius create a client army (which lead on to Sulla and Caesar having loyalty over the state etc), they effectively ended the republic they were so desperate to keep.

**konny** · 08-26-2008, 11:40

Originally Posted by Gaivs

By allowing the army to degrade and letting Marius create a client army (which lead on to Sulla and Caesar having loyalty over the state etc), they effectively ended the republic they were so desperate to keep.

That's in fact the story behind the end of the Republic. The old army was composed of owning class citizens who had no interesst in prolonging their military service by fighting private wars for their commander, nor was they anything the commander could offer them in reward, like land, what their did not already posses and run in danger of losing it when staying longer with the army.

The new armies were composed of men who were very much interessted to serve as long as possible, because they had no other business to return to. They were willing to follow their commander in every military adventure he might think of, as long as he gave them employment and the promise of a reward in the form of land afterwards.

The failure of the Senate was that it allowed powerfull citizens to raise private armies (for which in the end the state had to pay for) but failed to raise a regular standing army of this type loyal only to the Senate and the legaly elected magistrates. Of course, the condotteri of the Roman Republic were also important members of the Senate and (usually) legaly elected magistrates, what made matters even more complicated.

Augustus solved the problem by making himself the only owner of Legions, but that was only temporary. Later rebellious characters had no problems in using the professional army against their government and against each other. So this issue did not only cause the downfall of the Republic, it was also responsible for many severe crisis of the Empire and did a good deal to the downfall of that too.

What is said of the poor government of the Republic in her provinces is true in general - but does apply to more or less all larger states in pre-industrial times (and even to some modern too).

**Gaivs** · 08-26-2008, 11:51

Yeh i know, in fact what you wrote is in pretty much my essay (id post it but its on my laptop), its good to see that what i write is backed up elsewhere! Thats always a plus sign. You touched on Augustus there, i did an essay in first year on his relationship with the army, he really was quite an incredible person.

**Megas Methuselah** · 08-27-2008, 03:38

Originally Posted by WH

And BTW teh1337tim, the guy that went against Parthia was Marcus Cornelius Crassus, who got owned at Carrhae by a General named Surena in 53BC (I think that's the date).

I thought it was Marcus Licinius Crassus.

In the book I read, it was stated that the failing was that the Republic was meant to govern a small village(early Rome), but failed badly when it came to govern such vast lands. Besides, to effectively govern their provinces, there should have been a provincial representative(a senator?) to help in the governing of the Republic, which would have been quite an improvement, but it was quite difficult to do this because of the large distance to Rome.

This is largely the explanation offered by my book. Please note that my memory may be leaky.

**Apgad** · 08-27-2008, 05:49

Originally Posted by Methuselah

it was stated that the failing was that the Republic was meant to govern a small village(early Rome), but failed badly when it came to govern such vast lands

Well, remember that for a couple of centuries Rome was ruled by kings (of a kind, as they were elected), and by the time the Republic was established they controlled a bit more than just a small village. IIRC by then it was a fair-sized city-state (though still confined to central Italy).

**QuintusSertorius** · 08-27-2008, 09:14

Originally Posted by konny

That's in fact the story behind the end of the Republic. The old army was composed of owning class citizens who had no interesst in prolonging their military service by fighting private wars for their commander, nor was they anything the commander could offer them in reward, like land, what their did not already posses and run in danger of losing it when staying longer with the army.

The new armies were composed of men who were very much interessted to serve as long as possible, because they had no other business to return to. They were willing to follow their commander in every military adventure he might think of, as long as he gave them employment and the promise of a reward in the form of land afterwards.

The failure of the Senate was that it allowed powerfull citizens to raise private armies (for which in the end the state had to pay for) but failed to raise a regular standing army of this type loyal only to the Senate and the legaly elected magistrates. Of course, the condotteri of the Roman Republic were also important members of the Senate and (usually) legaly elected magistrates, what made matters even more complicated.

Augustus solved the problem by making himself the only owner of Legions, but that was only temporary. Later rebellious characters had no problems in using the professional army against their government and against each other. So this issue did not only cause the downfall of the Republic, it was also responsible for many severe crisis of the Empire and did a good deal to the downfall of that too.

What is said of the poor government of the Republic in her provinces is true in general - but does apply to more or less all larger states in pre-industrial times (and even to some modern too).

While this is entirely true, I'd say the seeds of that shift go back further than Marius - to Tiberius Gracchus. Specifically in creating, for the first time, a "class consciousness" not simply for plebians in general, but the very poorest in particular. It was this which Marius was able to draw on to recruit and his one-time ally Saturninus was able to whip up and nearly topple the Republic.

**Cimon** · 08-27-2008, 13:28

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

While this is entirely true, I'd say the seeds of that shift go back further than Marius - to Tiberius Gracchus. Specifically in creating, for the first time, a "class consciousness" not simply for plebians in general, but the very poorest in particular. It was this which Marius was able to draw on to recruit and his one-time ally Saturninus was able to whip up and nearly topple the Republic.

I agree with you here Quintus. The Gracchi are really the beginning of the end.

From the Gracchi onward, all the senators knew what type of legislation needed to be passed in order to stabilize the various situations that threatened the stability of the Republic, but the Republic was really viewed as a zero-sum game by those in the upper echelons of power. If one senator got the credit for something, then that meant no one else did. One of the major failings of the late Republic is the senators' inability to look past the desire to be primus inter pares to the fact that, without solving any of the Republic's problems, the first among equals was actually going to be an emperor, and the "equals" were not going to be equals at all.

**QuintusSertorius** · 08-27-2008, 14:07

Key thing is after the Gracchii, the senatorial elites, and young men on the make began to realise that the tribunate could be a route to power. Having lived through Saturninus and other demagogues, that's one of the reasons why Sulla was so keen to neuter the office. Even though it's very existence had been a pressure valve on the frustrations of plebians.

If Saturninus had succeeded in his coup, the history of the Republic, and indeed the world could have been very different indeed. Or even if the Gracchii had got what they wanted, although neither of them actually sought revolution.

**cmacq** · 08-27-2008, 16:34