Quote Originally Posted by cmacq
I actually think the Roman government fell apart several times. First, after the end on the monarchy 510/09 BC; second, after the Gauls ransomed it 387/86 BC; third; after the final Late Republican Civil Wars and establishment of the Julio-Claudian Empire 49-27 BC; et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Very good points.

Obviously Octavian preserved the republican forms which eased the pain of monarchy, but it was a significant regime change in that the senatorial class was purged. Their were bloody episodes from the time of the Grachhi right through to the Antonines but Octavius oversaw the most thorough bloodletting.

The early republic is obscure of course, but I agree with the thesis that has Lars Porsena driving out the Monarchy and leaving a temporary regime in the form of 2 Consuls. Thats a radical change from the old monarchy, although it may have been just a change at the top.

I reckon the way Rome resolved the struggle of the orders (and I feel the gallic sack was a spur in that process) was the key to their Imperial success and a truly radical reform. Just by allowing plebs into the existing cycle of public careers changed an aristocracy into a meritocracy, with all the morale benefits that entails, but avoiding liquidating the propertied class as often happens uin a revolution.

I guess the reforms of Diocletian, Constantine and Justinian represent a recognition of changes if not the institution of new syystems. Somne of them were just reforms on paper I guess.