The Roman Republic, where did it all go wrong?

[Quintus.JC]

The decline and fall of the Roman Empire seems to attract much attention and debate, fuelled by Gibbon’s book on the issue. However, the disintegration of the Roman Republic doesn’t appear to be discussed as much. Recently Shadeswolf’s topics on the impacts of the Gracchi brothers and the Marian reforms triggers the question whether these two movements did sown the seeds for the decay of the Roman Republic. Did the rise of demagogues such the brothers Gracchi really trigger the chain events leading to the eventually civil war, or maybe it’s the personal ambitions of individuals that are to blame? Perhaps it’s the need for stability and a strongman to sweep aside the bickering, ineffective, and corrupt politicians. Many historians have often cited the social wars as the underlining factor for the civil war; with the Optimate faction trying to keep power within the elite class, while the Populares used the tactics to appeal to the common people, further dividing the people and classes into seemly warring factions. The question I’m wondering here is whether the Roman civil war was truly inevitable. And if so, was the fall of the Republic genuinely due to a revolution within the state? Lets not forget that the Roman Republic, though flawed in many ways, was nonetheless still one of the most successful civilizations in the ancient world, successfully conquering all of the Mediterranean and beyond. Yet within a century all of its existing structures and institutions were swept aside and replaced by a new form of government. The once supreme Roman Republic, where did it all go wrong?

[Beskar]

Caesar wasn't Cincinnatus and the heirs of Caesar were at odds with the Senate.

[Cultured Drizzt fan]

Personally I feel that the republic's fall was inevitable. The problem was, that the very reforms the republic found necessary to keep itself a strong and powerful also made the rise of strong independent dictators with soldiers loyal only to themselves. To keep competitive with other civilizations and keep its territory under control they slowly eroded the foundation of the republic itself. But that is just me.

[The Wizard]

Nothing in history is inevitable. There are a gazillion different outcomes that could have happened instead of Augustus taking absolute control over the Republic's institutions (which remained in place deep into the 4th century; officially, the Roman "empire" was still the Roman Republic right up to the point Diocletian established the Dominate. Yeah, that kind of changes your outlook, when you think of the Roman empire as a military dictatorship, eh?).

Still, AFAIK (and I'm no expert), the Republican civil wars were the eventual result of centuries of conflict between the patricians and the lower classes over political power, something which eventually split the ruling class and subverted the Republic itself.

[Centurion1]

The fall was almost guaranteed by the kind of culture the romans created. also i believe their expansion and reception t great conquerors did not aid them.

[Quintus.JC]

Personally I feel that the republic's fall was inevitable. The problem was, that the very reforms the republic found necessary to keep itself a strong and powerful also made the rise of strong independent dictators with soldiers loyal only to themselves.

Sallust, a contemporary historian, said this about Marius and his reforms: - "He enrolled soldiers not from the propertied classes in accordance with tradition, but accepting anyone who volunteered – members of the proletariat for the most part.... indeed if a man is ambitious for power he can have no better supporters than the poor; they are not concerned about their own possessions as they have none, and they consider anything honourable for which they receive pay." It is commonly accepted that Marius’ reforms of the recuritment into the army of men without land proved a key element in the civil wars of the late Republic. The loyalty of the soldiers was to the individual commander who raised troops for a particular campaign and not to the senate or state. Awards of money or land to veterans depended on the commander’s position in Rome. The soldier themselves were easily persuaded to fight or even to march on Rome on his behalf to secure their own pensions. Which is precisely what the likes of Marius, Sulla, and later Ceasar have done.

Still, AFAIK (and I'm no expert), the Republican civil wars were the eventual result of centuries of conflict between the patricians and the lower classes over political power, something which eventually split the ruling class and subverted the Republic itself.

Yes there has been centuries of social conflict between the Patricians and the Plebeians. The Plebs want more political power and the patricians obviously wanted to hold on to the powers themselves. But the outcome of the civil didn't hand more power to the ordinary people. The installation of the monarchy, and the change from the republican to imperial governance meant that eletions for magistrates and many other posts were transfered directed to the emperor. So the transition from Republic to empire actually greatly reduced the power of the ordinary people. Does this mean the Plebs have lost the social conflict?

[The Wizard]

I'd say it's more akin to two dogs fighting over a bone and a third one ending up walking away with it.

And as said, nothing is inevitable. One could just as easily speculate that Cicero and his party, or Brutus and Cassius, or any of the other major players could have won the civil war, and that the infighting could have continued for another century or more, until some powerful foreign enemy either swept in and crushed everything or unified the squabbling Romans, or perhaps even until their empire collapsed. Octavian really was an unlikely victor. Hell, who's to say Sulla might not have clung to power and established the empire then and there?

It's all meaningless speculation, really. Interesting, certainly, but it serves no other purpose (besides entertainment) than to point out that what actually happened wasn't a predetermined outcome.

[ShadesWolf]

Sallust, a contemporary historian, said this about Marius and his reforms: - "He enrolled soldiers not from the propertied classes in accordance with tradition, but accepting anyone who volunteered – members of the proletariat for the most part.... indeed if a man is ambitious for power he can have no better supporters than the poor; they are not concerned about their own possessions as they have none, and they consider anything honourable for which they receive pay." It is commonly accepted that Marius’ reforms of the recuritment into the army of men without land proved a key element in the civil wars of the late Republic. The loyalty of the soldiers was to the individual commander who raised troops for a particular campaign and not to the senate or state. Awards of money or land to veterans depended on the commander’s position in Rome. The soldier themselves were easily persuaded to fight or even to march on Rome on his behalf to secure their own pensions. Which is precisely what the likes of Marius, Sulla, and later Ceasar have done.




Yes there has been centuries of social conflict between the Patricians and the Plebeians. The Plebs want more political power and the patricians obviously wanted to hold on to the powers themselves. But the outcome of the civil didn't hand more power to the ordinary people. The installation of the monarchy, and the change from the republican to imperial governance meant that eletions for magistrates and many other posts were transfered directed to the emperor. So the transition from Republic to empire actually greatly reduced the power of the ordinary people. Does this mean the Plebs have lost the social conflict?

you can add to that also the soldiers would influence the people back home while away on conflict, therefore the enlarged family would do the generals bidding while he was away. Putting presure on the peoples tribunes etc.,