Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Ancient and ArchaeologyΜύ permalink

During the last days of the Roman Republic

• Message 1.Μύ

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007

  the nation was rife with people who had armies loyal to their commanders and not necessarily to the Republic. The nation, as a unit, appeared to be on the verge of disintegrating into separate quarrelling factors that would eventually tear it apart. Civil war was rampant and had been for several decades.
  
  It's been said that it could not have continued as a republic and that it was essential that it become a monarchy if it were to survive as a sovereign state.
  
  What do you think ('you' being anyone)? Was its evolution into a monarchy inevitable for survival? Is this a logical destiny for all republics?

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007

  Hi Erik,
  
  I think if they had sorted out the big two problems of the agrarian issue and the disenfranchisement of the Latins and Italians, then they might possibly have managed to postpone the Republic being torn apart for some time. But I think in all reality, that it was probably inevitable.
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Coeur_de_Lion (U2789688) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007

  I dont think it was inevitable. The damning moment for the republic i think was the jugurthine war, Marius brought a professional army into place, which meant all future armies were loyal to THEIR commander, and not rome. This paved the way for crassus, pompey, caesar and sulla, and thus essentially, the empire.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by RainbowFfolly (U3345048) on Wednesday, 16th May 2007

  Hi Coeur de Lion,
  
  I was taking it for granted that the Romans would have had to have professionalised their army at some point; for one thing, the size of the Empire probably demanded it. If they had solved the major social issues and problems then the army could possibly have been professionalised without the excessive loyalty to their commanders, but as the Romans were infamous for their knee-jerk military quick fixes they would probably have made a hash of it.
  
  I suspect that the potential wealth and glory that the new provinces offered would have at some point created someone who would have damaged the Republic beyond repair in their lust for power.
  
  Cheers,
  
  
  RF
  
  p.s. So why the break for a year between posts?

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Sunday, 20th May 2007

  Why indeed?
  
  I thought this was a question interesting to historians and worthy of considerable discussion.
  
  I guess I was wrong.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message5

• Message 6

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Sunday, 20th May 2007

  The problem was indeed the power of a few individuals, backed by force. Violence and intimidation were endemic in the politics of the late republic and once this was allied with armies beholden to the commanders rather than the state, there was a certain inevitability about it. Not tat the Empire really changed that. Augustus did a good job of eliminating his rivals for power, but there were no long term solutions from that. The imperial succession often came down to who had the strongest army.
  
  Then again, Rome was not the only state this happeened to. In fact, the subservience of armies to political will is really only a few hundred years old in western Europe and is still not a global phenomenon.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message6

• Message 7

  , in reply to message 5.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 20th May 2007

  It's important to remember also that the Romans didn't think of themselves as being a 'republic' in the sense that we might use the term today. To them the 'res publica' was literally that - a thing of the people. It implied a departure from autocratic one-person rule but prescribed no one 'system' as necessarily better, and even went so far as to allow autocratic one-person rule when the situation demanded it in the role of dicator, albeit with a time limit (though even this wasn't set in stone, as history proved).
  
  Over the centuries since the abolition of the monarchy Rome had undergone many political developments, some through dint of its increasing population and size, and some through less gradual and more traumatic influences, be it response to a foreign aggressor or to aggression brewing within its own borders. But throughout all this it had managed to avoid ever defining itself to such an extent that would preclude a return to autocracy. Cicero - a die-hard republican traditionalist - in his "De Re Publica", written as the state was already on a relentless and bloody slide into a stark choice between perpetual dictatorship or anarchy, not only speaks about the ancient monarchy with fondness, but itemises several instances of how a return to monarchy would only be of benefit to the 'republic'.
  
  While this might seem very contradictory or heretical it in no way confused or enraged other republicans of the day. In fact it made perfect sense. As long as the commonwealth (in its strictest meaning) was preserved, then the presence of a monarch was not at odds with the notion at all. In other words a system that guaranteed fair rule, be it of a monarch or the senate, was republic enough to a Roman. The overriding consideration needed only to be the welfare of the citizen for it to fit the definition. This was why the fact that the citizenry might at times be split in its affinity to particular aspirant dictators did not in itself constitute a threat to the republic, even if the outcome was (as had become almost inevitable in Cicero's time) civil war. The character of those aspirants however meant much more.
  
  Marius or a Sulla for example, both of who behaved outrageously autocratically as dictators, were nevertheless assiduous in paying lip service to the institutions of state, and were therefore deemed to have been 'inevitable, regrettable, drastic but necessary hiccups' in the evolution of that state. Julius Caesar on the other hand showed contempt for the institutions of state by guaranteeing nothing. His political style of keeping everyone guessing with regard to his intentions (and, ironically, showing clemency where his predecessors would have dispensed merciless retribution) simply marked him out as a potential monarch of the worst kind, one who placed himself above 'res publica', and was therefore an absolute threat.
  
  It is worth noting therefore that the first emperors (and particularly the very first one) secured their position by acting as a guarantor that such a situation could never happen again. It might seem crazy to us, and especially when we know now what happened to the office of emperor, but the transition from republic to empire was - to the sensibilities of republicans such as Cicero (though he wasn't around to record the sentiment himself) - almost seamless. The 'res publica' existed still, but now had a protector in the form of an autocrat. In fact a case could even be made for the assertion that not only had the 'thing of the people' been preserved in the new order, but that its retention was what saved Rome from its emperors' worst excesses and abuses in that no emperor, however autocratic he might have behaved, was ultimately immune from deposition (ie. exceution) at the hands of a rival, and the rival would always claim to be acting in the interests of the people - not his own.
  
  This might appear to be splitting hairs, but it was this in my view that ensured Roman longevity as an empire, and meant that the transition to empire could never be dismissed as a mere 'descent into monarchy'. Anarchy did sometimes prevail in the revised version of the state ushered in by Augustus, but that it never could destroy the empire was testament to the lingering and deep belief amongst Romans themselves that Rome was still 'res publica', even if the emperor of the day was too ineffectual (or mad) to acknowledge it! The world of politics has rarely if ever thrown up such a hybrid - but potent - mixture of autocracy and 'people power' again.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message7

• Message 8

  , in reply to message 7.

  Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Friday, 25th May 2007

  Re: Message 7.
  
  Nordmann,
  
  thank you very much for this interesting view. It is a new approach for me and brought very logical. Thank you again. It's for such messages that I remain a dedicated reader of these boards. I hope that lol beeble will read it and gives some other valuable comments.
  
  As an aside: Each time that Tas starts a thread (as nearly each year) about democracy, I am so busy that I have no time to comment in depth. As now with my research for the French boards about the 18 days campaign in May 1940 in Belgium and the figures of Leopold III, Spaak, Pierlot in June 1940. Also still my "What if" France decided to fight further the 16 of June 1940.
  
  I know, I know I spent my time again with looking for carrier/messenger pigeons for Mick_mac .
  
  To come back to "democracy" what with democracy in Algeria, where a "democratic???" majority chose a "clerical" government? And was ousted or made not able to come into power by some "machinations"? That is only one of my questions and if I have time I come back on it in Tas' thread.
  
  With esteem,
  
  Paul.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message8

• Message 9

  , in reply to message 3.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Saturday, 26th May 2007

  
  Marius brought a professional army into place, which meant all future armies were loyal to THEIR commander, and not rome
  Μύ
  
  Only because the Senate and more importantly the Tresury refused to pay the professional armies. Senators fighting to prevent land being given to the vetrans in lieu of service under the Eagle. The Professional Army in itself was not the precursor to the likes of Sulla, Marius himself, Pompieus or any of the others. It was the states refusal to embrace the professional army that forced the commanders into the cycle that would eventually end up with civil wars that would see Octavian assume power.
  
  I'm not saying that the Republic could have lasted forever, I think that the presures of the rapidly increasing Empire would have forced some sort of administrative change, but the convulsions of the Sullan-Octavian era might have either been avoided or at the very least postponed

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message9

• Message 10

  , in reply to message 9.

  Posted by malacandran (U1813859) on Saturday, 26th May 2007

  Rome could have gone on as a democratic Republic, if it had kept the same people inside it.
  
  But it didn't, it let new people in from the east.
  
  And the new ones did not like democracy. They thought one man should be in charge.
  
  And the new ones soon became the majority, so their idea won, and the Romans found they had got one man in charge, ie, the Emperor.
  
  And look what followed.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message10

• Message 11

  , in reply to message 10.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 27th May 2007

  Rome was never a democratic republic in the sense you infer.
  
  At the time of the establishment of an emperor it was taking in 'new men' primarily from its Northwestern, Western and Southern acquisitions. Its Eastern policy was still primarily a 'client state' based notion, and therefore it did not inherit political ideology from that source. Those who it conquered were not included in the body politic in sufficient numbers to effect any deviation from the 'Roman' way of doing things. When it had done in the past (and especially when it absorbed the Hellenic world) it was, rather contradictorily to your assertion, the notion of 'democracy' that it adopted.
  
  What 'followed' its transition to empire was a rejuvenation of Roman expansionism, material acquisition and wealth generation.
  
  I think your view (or your compass) is seriously flawed malacandran!

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message11

• Message 12

  , in reply to message 11.

  Posted by Coeur_de_Lion (U2789688) on Tuesday, 29th May 2007

  Re msg 9. I feel i must disagree with you richie. The senate were unwilling to give up land to anyone, be it Tiberius Gracchus or Marius. The profesionalisation of the army allowed pompey to raise two legions to support sulla, it endeared marius to the mob (as he ended the jugurthine war) and subsequently gave him i believe 6 succesive consulships, which in the roman political system as you know is illegal and worrying. Marius attempted to have sulla removed as the head of an army destined for the east but the assembly sent to transfer command were stoned by his own troops. Subsequently sulla marched on rome which was unprecedented! He would not have been able to march on rome had the army been transferred over to marius. As such Marius fled rome and raised his own army in africa and marched on rome(one does lose the track of the number of marches on rome in this period! ), killed a few thousand people and became consul. These actions gave precedent to a whole host of other people to attempt to march on rome. The worrying trend with politicians in the first centurey BC is their insistence in raising their own troops for personal reasons.Crassus was ultimately killed as of it, he personally paid and equipped for his own troops to defeat spartacus also.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message12

• Message 13

  , in reply to message 12.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Wednesday, 30th May 2007

  Hi Coeur De Lion,
  
  The thing I keep coming back to whenever I look at this period of Romes history though is still this, Yes after the Marian reforms you now had a largely professional army, however, that army was made up of the unlanded and disposessed peoples of Rome. You still had the aristocracy and the, for a lack of a better term, Roman Middle Classes forming parts of the army but it is the mob that now form the majority of the soldiers. People who could not afford to buy their own armour or weapons, people who had no land to return to after a war had been completed. This was a totally new situation for Rome. Previously after the war had ended, you split the spoils, and the men went back to their farms. By refusing to sanction payments or land for these new styles of army the State was encouraging and forcing both the generals and the army into a symbiotic relationship. The men could not get paid if they did not support their general, and the general frequently in this period could not get his political will acheived without the support of his army. Pompey and Crassus are two extraordinary exceptions to this rule. Crassus was not first and foremost a General, his raising of an army to fight the Parthians was raised by his own capital because the state feared his going, Pompey could raise an army simply from his own fiefdom, this would and could be done regardless of the Marian reforms, the Marian reforms simply made it easier. Also the bulk of his soldiers would be already in his employ in some fashion.
  
  Sulla is a good example of a peniless general who used the system to futher his ends, but if the state paid the soldiers rather than Sulla (on the promise of future spoils) then when the delegation went to remove him, it might have suceeded.
  
  As it was, by making the army dependant on the largesse and the political clout of its general in order to either get money or land helped to create the instability of this period

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message13

• Message 14

  , in reply to message 13.

  Posted by eques_99 (U7027104) on Friday, 1st June 2007

  Hi
  
  Don't think you can say all republics will become monarchies on the basis of what happened in Rome.
  
  Three main factors made a mess of the Roman system which were particular to the era and situation.
  
  1) The unforeseen expansion of Rome from a minor city to a world straddling empire without any concomitant development of system of government. It would be like trying to run the world today from, say, Derby city council.
  
  2) The extreme conservatism of the Roman establishment who would countenance almost anything over changing the way Rome was run. In fact until people like the Gracchi, Marius and Caesar came along change did not even occur to them as a concept. Eventually something had to give but only at the cost of extreme trauma.
  
  3) The fact that, in the ancient world, military and political leaders tended to be the same people and that major wars were much more common, lending generals more prestige. Furthermore generals in the ancient world had control of every aspect of the campaign from supply through strategy to battle tactics. It was therefore easier for them to become "superstars" than today's generals, who are just cogs in a machine. The ancient economy was much more cash based then today so if a general conquered a city he could distribute booty straight to his grateful soldiers. It would be more difficult to, say, hand a modern soldier in Iraq shares in Haliburton.
  
  Anyway the Imperium was not a monarchy in the medieval sense (ie ordained by God and based on a feudal hierarchy). It was more of a dictatorship with some hereditary influence.

  Link to this forum: During the last days of the Roman Republic

  Report message14

Back to top