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

[Dayve]

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...

[MSB]

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.

[Tuuvi]

Off topic

[MSB]

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.

[fallen851]

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.

[MSB]

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

[Dayve]

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.

[MSB]

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

[Zaknafien]

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.

[fallen851]

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.

[NeoSpartan]

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.

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.

[Discoskull]

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...

[MarcusAureliusAntoninus]

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.

[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.

[snevets]

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).

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[Wardo]

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. .............

[Dayve]

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?

[Divie]

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