The Roman Republic, where did it all go wrong?

[Horatius]

I think the Republic went wrong when Caesar was outlawed, some Tribunes had a track record of corruption, but Mark Antony looking out for Caesar's interests doesn't mean he wasn't also concerned about the people. The same goes for other "corrupt" Tribunes.

I also think it is worth questioning the theory of wealth and power destroying the Republic, because there was plenty of late republican development that was clearly beneficial, Citizenship was granted to Italy, more allies elsewere, in contrast to the Dominate corruption trials and trials for offenses like bribery happened regularly enough so there had to have been at least some deterrent for those without any connection to Cicero, Hortensius and other top orators, the status of women improved to a level that wasn't seen again untill relatively recently, the Roman State began giving cheaper bread and housing to the poor, I could go on.

In the end whatever the shortcomings, however wealthy ambitious men used their money to undermine it's democratic value, or how much the Tribunes slept on the job the only way for the Republic to fall was through a civil war involving armies.

The best conclusion I think is the Senate just didn't have a plan for keeping the loyalty of the new armies of the late republic, and as a result it collapsed, like any government that raises an unlimited number of soldiers without bothering to make sure they would serve the government. It may sound rediculous, but take a look at all of the horrible governments in the world today that make the Roman Republic seem saintly, none of those ever collapse so I'm not convinced the Republic collapsed for those reasons.

[CountArach]

I think the Republic went wrong when Caesar was outlawed

That takes an extreme apologist vision of Caesar - there is a perfectly good case for the senatus consultum being justified. Surely you can accept that the Sullan and Marian civil war through the 90s and 80s laid the foundations for the rise of personal vendettas and showed that the state had lost a monopoly on force? As such wouldn't it be possible to say that the Republic had already gone wrong at least half a century earlier?

I also think it is worth questioning the theory of wealth and power destroying the Republic, because there was plenty of late republican development that was clearly beneficial, Citizenship was granted to Italy, more allies elsewere, in contrast to the Dominate corruption trials and trials for offenses like bribery happened regularly enough so there had to have been at least some deterrent for those without any connection to Cicero, Hortensius and other top orators, the status of women improved to a level that wasn't seen again untill relatively recently, the Roman State began giving cheaper bread and housing to the poor, I could go on.

But the ultimate reasoning for those reforms, and the methods by which they were attained, were for the personal gain of a handful of the Senatorial class. The appeals to the plebs fueled the rise of the use of violence as a valid tool of political statement - running concurrently with the populares reforms was the rise in street gangs (See Clodius and Milo for example). Now, even if you think this was a valid way to make a statement, you can surely accept that it had destabilised the Republic?

[Horatius]

That takes an extreme apologist vision of Caesar - there is a perfectly good case for the senatus consultum being justified. Surely you can accept that the Sullan and Marian civil war through the 90s and 80s laid the foundations for the rise of personal vendettas and showed that the state had lost a monopoly on force? As such wouldn't it be possible to say that the Republic had already gone wrong at least half a century earlier?

They definitely did, losing the loyalty of the army became the Republic's fatal flaw, but following the retirement and death of Sulla the Republic went back to operating, the Tribunes of the Plebs once more began to do their "jobs" of disrupting whatever they thought was unjust, the Senate returned to it's informal position of influence, and the Magistrates returned to power once more elected every year. The ultimate show of a stable government (a functioning Court System) was also very heavily restored and an endless number of trials flooded Rome. It doesn't matter how just or unjust, democratic or oligarchic the Late Republic was it did function well enough to need another Civil War to bring it down.

Also regarding the Senatus Consultam it clearly only had theoretical merit, Caesar had an army fully loyal to him, precedent from Marius and Sulla that it would follow him, and it is clear he was more powerful then the state, and it is even clearer that he was a better tactician then Pompey the Great. All Caesar needed to march on Rome was an excuse/provocation that he could show his men and the Senatus Consulta gave exactly that. It was a miracle that the Republic outlived the earlier civil war, but the Caesar vs Pompey one became it's death in my opinion.

But the ultimate reasoning for those reforms, and the methods by which they were attained, were for the personal gain of a handful of the Senatorial class. The appeals to the plebs fueled the rise of the use of violence as a valid tool of political statement - running concurrently with the populares reforms was the rise in street gangs (See Clodius and Milo for example). Now, even if you think this was a valid way to make a statement, you can surely accept that it had destabilised the Republic?

That did destabalize the Republic, but it wasn't enough to have that large of an impact, after the death of Clodius came the prosecution of Milo and restoration of the state. It took Legionaries to bring down the Republic, although violence by the Senatorial Class against itself did help. It also should be kept in mind that the term "vice" in the hands of Augustan moralists is not what we consider vice. The evil changes money brought to Rome according to Livy and Valerius Maximus included greater female independence (more emphasized then all others put together), greater rights of the lower orders, greater willingness of the upper orders to negotiate their place, the rise of the first legal professionals (jurists), immodest display of wealth, adultery by women, I could go on but you get the picture. None of the "vices" so hated by ancient moralists had any effect on the state, the most frequently hated vice is independence and adultery of women which had absoloutly no effect on anything at all (unless you could provide proof that the leading of armies against the state was done by women instead of men).

No matter what fault the Republic had, the root of it's destruction will always lead to Julius Caesar, and the root of the civil war will always lead to the Senate providing him with a way to keep his men loyal enough for a march on Rome and giving him an excuse, vice is especially unconvincing because women were cives sine suffragio who had no impact at all on the state, and the only example of an aristocrat uninterested in politics the moralists came up with was Lucullus (who was actually defeated politically).

[rotorgun]

Regardless of how it was that Julius Caesar rose to power, he never desired to destroy the republic or it's traditions. Even if he did wish to become dictator for life, he wasn't out to obliterate the senate or political institutions of Rome. He was trying to give some stability to a system that was unable to keep up with the pace of social changes wrought by it's own successes. It was the selfish act of his assassination that led to the true destruction of the republic IMO. The conspirators never really looked beyond their act to the consequences. What was their plan beyond assassination? Who stood to gain from this act? Who was to become the new leader of the Romans from among them? I doubt their motives were any more pure than Caesars. The powerful among the senate behind it just would not share power. What if Caesar had been allowed to live? Perhaps he would have ushered in a new form of Monarchical Republic-one more suited to the expanding empire.

[Horatius]

Regardless of how it was that Julius Caesar rose to power, he never desired to destroy the republic or it's traditions. Even if he did wish to become dictator for life, he wasn't out to obliterate the senate or political institutions of Rome. He was trying to give some stability to a system that was unable to keep up with the pace of social changes wrought by it's own successes. It was the selfish act of his assassination that led to the true destruction of the republic IMO. The conspirators never really looked beyond their act to the consequences. What was their plan beyond assassination? Who stood to gain from this act? Who was to become the new leader of the Romans from among them? I doubt their motives were any more pure than Caesars. The powerful among the senate behind it just would not share power. What if Caesar had been allowed to live? Perhaps he would have ushered in a new form of Monarchical Republic-one more suited to the expanding empire.

You mentioned your answer for the assasins, they didn't want a monarch. As far as civil wars go the Dominate was as bad if not worst than 20th century Latin America, the Principate saw the Year of the Four Emperors, The Year of the Five Emperors, The Deserters War, the Republic saw the Social Wars, the conflict between Marius and Sulla, conflict between Caesar and Pompey ending in the defeat of Pompey's sons, conflict between the assasins and Second Triumvirate, and Octavian vs Antony.

Note that nearly all the Republic's civil wars are localized after the outlawing of Caesar, considering everything else it was that act that could be said to bring down the republic. It is clear the Republic wasn't brought down by women gaining much higher status as Livy and Sallust hypocritically claim, it was done in by a couple of decisions by a small click of nobles who hated each other to death.