Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Roman Republic
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Rule_Britannia (U2429840) on Thursday, 19th October 2006
Heres a nice wah tif for Roman biffins out there.
If, at a later time, the Roman Empire had become a republic again, say, before the empire was slit in half, would the empire have lasted longer?
The only reason i can think this would be better is no mentaly ill emperors or cival wars over the thrown.
Any thoughts? -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 19th October 2006
In 212 A.D. Caracalla gave the Roman citizenship to every person born within the Empire irrespective of his origins. Would a hypothetic after 212 A.D. Republic imply that all these millions of vastly different populations would have the right to have a say? Personally I think the next day you would see the Empire split in 200-300 states fighting each other.
-
Message 3
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Friday, 20th October 2006
The whole reason why the empire worked was because the senate couldn't be trusted with the army. I think it was Antoninus who made a serious offer to relinquish authority back to the senate, which was flatly refused on the grounds that the only safe system was to have one individual in charge of all the armies.
Ultimately one must remember that the office of 'Imperator' was a military rank and this becomes most obvious under diocletian, who, through tetrachic system, regionalises the officeso that frontline commanders isolated from the centred carried the weight of imperator in their pronouncements. Bureaucratically the Roman system plodded along in parallel to the military for most of the period, and in the erly empire political authority was actually farmed out to local bigwigs in the provinces, to Roman appointed oligarchies.
The move of Caracalla is significant because it marked a shift from the system of 'franchised' governance that had gone before to a more centralised version whereby Rome took a more direct role in the governance of the provinces, and as such the citizens of the provinces had more of a voice in Rome. -
Message 4
Posted by yankee014 (U3352255) on Friday, 20th October 2006
I think the Empire was much better suited to control vast territories. It was much more stable militarily. The Republic consisted of factions, each controlling their own legions. Under tense times, the military during the Republic was not always reliable. Idealy, the Republic's armies were controlled by two appointed consuls, but this was not always the case. The Empire had much more control of the army. The Republic would not be able to hold the empire intact for long.
-
Message 5
Posted by DopeyFrances (U6235658) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
That is an interesting what if.
But perhaps it was the sick emperors who dared to do things others would have hesitated at, that made Rome great. -
Message 6
Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 22nd October 2006
Under the Republic you would have quickly disintergrated back to civil war. A new Consul every year, Generals appointed by the Senate and then refused trimuphs or having their treaties rendered invallid by their political opponents.
The Republican Empire is why Rome became Imperial Empire. Too many men with large ego's vying witheach other to become 1st Man in Rome and then having their acheivements pulled down by those rivals. Then you have two competing camps each with access to loyal troops who havent been given the land promised them.
No the Imperial Empire of Rome preserved that Empire far longer than the Senate run Empire could ever hoped to have had -
Message 7
Posted by jonsparta (U3871420) on Tuesday, 24th October 2006
this is a very simple view but the democratic Athens appointed 10 new generals ever year and in the end they lost to Sparta. simple i know but the republic would never have coped with a Empire.
-
Message 8
Posted by jacobitematt (U3577576) on Monday, 30th October 2006
No, it would have disintegrated quicker. Judging by the late Republican period (Caesar, Sulla, Pompey et al) there would have been more civil war, not less.
-
Message 9
Posted by ElistanOnVacation (U3933150) on Monday, 6th November 2006
My initial reaction to this what if was to dismiss it as impossible and/or unfeasible, and to assume that because of the way the empire was structured that it could never have been so.
However, if we consider the impact that the Marian reforms of the military had on the late republic, and in particular the reliance of the troops upon a specific general for their pension fund, there is no logical reason that a latter day reform by say Antonninus or Marcus Aurelius (as two emperors with enough personal gravitas to force it through) could not have restructed the military's relationship with the body politic. A decent pension scheme and the centralisation of wages and benefits would have revert the alleginace of the soldiery to the facelss committee of the body politic in general, rather than allegiance on a personal level to extent that would march on their paymaster for their general.
So, if a modern democratic army structures had been hit upon in the period of the 'Five Good Emperors' would it have been possible for Marcus Aurelius (say) to create a military capable of, and willing to, defend the empire in the third century?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.