Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: The Roman Republic, where did it all go wrong?

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #6
    Senior Member Senior Member Quintus.JC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,572

    Default Re: The Roman Republic, where did it all go wrong?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cultured Drizzt fan View Post
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by The Wizard View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Quintus.JC; 02-14-2010 at 11:55.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO