Login

05-20-2004, 02:20 PM

Which dictator in your view had the greatest impact on the fall of the republic. and if you want discuss the reasons in a post or something<FORM method=post action="http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.processVote?topicID=979.topic"><table border=0 cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 width="55%"><tbody><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="1">Gaius Marius</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="2">Lucius Cornellia Sulla</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="3">Pompeius Magnus "Pompey"</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="4">Gaius Julius Casear</td></tr><tr><td><input type="radio" name="choice" value="5">Fall of the republic inevitable no man could have stopped it</td></tr></tbody></table><input type=submit value="Vote"></form><a HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/fromanarmytalkfrm1.showMessage?topicID=979.topic&pollResults=on>Show results</A>

05-20-2004, 02:26 PM

i believe that the fall of the republic was actually set in motion by the graccius brothers before the time of gaius marius as they gave more power to the people who could be used as a tool for getting things done

JRSCline · 05-20-2004, 02:29 PM

Hey, great poll, but the Round Table forum is for discussion of the board, new member intros, and talk about our website, RomanArmy.com. Let's move this and your other thread to the Roman History & Archaeology forum. 
 
Cheers 
Jenny Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=jrscline>JRSCline</A> at: 5/20/04 4:31 pm

05-20-2004, 02:34 PM

sorry about that, I did not know that those type of things were supposed to go to the roman history place, what subjects should be discussed in the round table area.

05-20-2004, 04:00 PM

I think the fall of th Republic was pretty much inevitable, because the structure of the Republic and its military foundation (a citizen militia of property-owners led by its native aristocracy) was fundamentally inconsistent with Rome's imperial ambitions. Sooner or later, professionalization of the army had to take place on some level, given the sprawling nature of Rome's growing empire. In turn, it only makes sense that those professional soldiers are going to have a tendency toward shifting their loyalty toward their immediate benefactors (their commanders) and away from the abstract, Republican institutions. 
 
Perhaps some way could have been created to get those professional soldiers to have more loyalty to the institutions than to individual commanders... but I can't think of how myself. 
 
Aaron

Goffredo · 05-20-2004, 08:31 PM

Nothing in history is inevitable! If that is too strong a statement then let me say that there is no way to prove an "inevitability theory" other than to put it to the test. But it is not sufficient to analyse a past episode. If it is not possible to predict future events (we don't live long enough to stay around and watch what happens; in other words History is not a science where experiments can be performed to test what theory fits best), at least one should make the effort to search for "similar situations" and try to make a case. But the arguement would never be water tight unless there is a consensus on that is intended by "similar situations". 
 
A-posteriori analysis are sometimes cute and even fascinating but that doesn't prove them true. The burden of some form of proof is on who claims to have understood why things happened the way they did. 
 
But without taking things too deeply what one needs to do is to humbly sit down and consider the single things that could have gone differently: Marius and his professional soldiers could have been beaten by the Teutons or Cimbri starting all kinds of reactionary tendencies and maybe even the premature stifling of the growth of Rome, Sulla might have been assassinated, or young Ceasar might have been eliminated by Sulla or years later he might have been defeated by the Nervi or at Alesia. 
 
The assesment of possible mechanisms, even the listing of things that could have gone differently is not easy and is precisely where the fascination for history resides. Where does one put the threshold between what is important (major event) and what isn't (things would have proceeded anyway)? 
 
Inevitability theories certainly take all the fun out of history, and in my opinion stink of poor philosophy.

05-20-2004, 11:07 PM

Well, I don't know; maybe inevitable is too strong, but I do think that in hindsight we can say that the end of the Republic seems like the most likely outcome of Roman imperialism. There is a fundamental contradiction involved in a Republic, purportedly run and defended by amateur, civic-minded citizens, and Rome's clearly evident imperial ambitions. "Republic" and "empire" are simply fundamentally incompatible institutions and mindsets. 
 
As to the specifics of your "possible alternate outcomes," I see the defeat of Marius' professional army by the Teutones or Cimbri an unlikely outcome, since Rome's growing professionalism was clearly a superior military system. Even if it had occurred, the tendency toward professionalism wasn't just the invention of Marius; he merely got the credit for it, since he was the most famous, charismatic commander at the time when it was reaching fruition. Even if his army had been defeated, I don't see the invaders as being any more than a "flash in the pan," perhaps slowing Rome's growth, but Rome's empire was already huge, (relatively) young and growing. The most likely outcome of Marius defeat seems to me to be the rise of a new, equally charismatic commander. (Perhaps an earlier rise of Sulla?) I can't think of how, long-term, Rome's rise could have been stopped. The bottom line is this: 
 
1. They clearly had the best military system. 
2. They clearly had the will to use it to expand their empire. 
3. They clearly had the resources to support this army, replenish it, and even take several devastating blows in a row and continue to keep fighting. 
 
As Luttwak put it, when push came to shove, Rome simply had an "escalation dominance" that no other nation (or military system) could match, and the will to dominate. But that will to dominate was inconsitent with the old Republican institutions. 
 
Perhaps an extremely principled man who could out-general the ones who continually eroded the Republic could have saved things. Maybe if Brutus and Cassius had been geniuses (or perhaps if perhaps their young understudy, Horace, had been more interested in soldiering than in poetry...) 
 
But everytime I look at these scenerios, I still think these alternative outcomes unlikely and an evolution (though gradual) toward an absolutist system run by those who control the legions seems to me by far the most likely outcome. 
 
Aaron. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aglarsen>AGLarsen</A> at: 6/13/04 2:45 am

NightHunter24 · 05-20-2004, 11:33 PM

Avete omnes, 
 
Interesting points. Seriously I can't say much about the inevitability part. No one person was really responsible for the 'fall of the republic'. Actually ALL were responsible for the eventual transition from republic to empire. 
 
Call me crazy, but let me state what I do believe. The Roman Republic in a sense did come to an end in the wake of imperialism. Now let us look at what is said by 'imperialism'. Imperialism, to me, denotes constant expansion. Technically Rome was an empire right after the defeat of Carthage, which is when I believe is when they started their aggressive expansion. Now, on the other hand, did the republic truly die with the advent of imperialism? Not really. Even as far as the reign of Hadrian, when the empire was already an established norm, many Romans were looking back with fondness at the republic and its ideals. Hadrian it is said tried to style himself as another Augustus. We all have read that after the death of Gaius Julius Caesar and the subsequent civil wars had ended, Augustus trapped the 'monarchy' with the guise of bringing back the republic. So an odd fussion of the Republic with it's ancient institutions and the complete autocracy of the Emperors coexisted side by side up until the very end of the Empire. Just a humble opinion. 
 
Vale 
NH24

05-20-2004, 11:51 PM

Actually, the empire arguably started earlier; the Punic wars seem to me to be the direct result of the competing interests of two competing empires. (Note that Rome already controlled all of Italy and Carthage had extensive possessions as well and the conflict started at about the time that the two spheres of interest began to meet.) 
 
I definitely agree that no one person was involved. Perhaps they could have pulled away from empire and preserved the Republic; it just seems like Rome's "will to power" was way stronger than its republican principles. 
 
Aaron

05-21-2004, 02:00 AM

Marius is perhaps most responsible, by making the army open to all citizens as a career path but not specifying payment of troops out of government funds, left the door open for generals to pay their own troops therefore essentialy making mercinary legions, loyal to the interests of their generals !!

05-21-2004, 12:46 PM

Like i stated earlier I believe the republic's downfall was not one man's fault but the result of many men making changes. To agree with the guy who stated that nothing in history is inevitable, that is absolutly true, even though a few events in history were very close to it, for example world war one in my view. Certain changes could be made to change the fate of the republic, but that leads to to many what if's which is what this is turning in to. Many people have theories about events in history, but they can not be proven, history is a study of what did happen, not what will happen. Nothing is for sure. Even though getting into the what if's isn't fun, it can be, but it always turns into a big discussion that will never end, because if you change one thing than you must change ten things just for that one, and than each of the ten things will result in a changing of ten things each, it never ends.

05-24-2004, 01:17 PM

I am very surprised to not see Sulla getting any votes. He was the first in a long string of generals to invade rome with his army of loyal soldiers. He added to the fire by severly weakening the power of the plebs and increasing power of the senatorial patricians. Granted the plebians were given their power back after sullas death. Not saying he is totally to blame, but he I feel is more at fault than Marius is, even though marius did invade and then went insane at start of his seventh councilship. Sulla was the first.

05-24-2004, 03:35 PM

I would place the bulk of the blame on the Senate and the senatorial class generally. Their self-seeking, greed and corruption caused much of the discontent of the times, especially when they wanted to withhold the settlement of veterans on the public lands. Not because, as they claimed, the lands belonged to the Roman people as a whole, but because they were already using them for a paltry rent, reaping vast wealth at no expense to themselves. There were many other instances, but this one made them particularly loathsome to the army, always a bad move.

Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus · 06-01-2004, 02:59 PM

If I had to choose one person who maybe started the chain of events that led to the fall of the republic, I would give it to Gaius Marius. The way he became consul throught he plebian assembly was not good for the republic as it found ways to get around the senate. Also his creating an army of head counts loyal to him started a bad trend, that would be used by Sulla, Pompeius magnus, and of course Gaius Julius Caesar as well as others. Was there any way to get around using the head count to counter the germans in Marius days, or was that the only way to solve the problem, as the number of elite in Roman society was depleted. Another thing that marius did that was bad, was the way he get to his seventh councilship. My intent is not to lay blame on Marius, he is one of my faviorite Romans, but to say that maybe he set in motion a chain of events, that could have been stopped during their happening, but stupidity by several senators helped pull down the republic.

06-03-2004, 01:59 PM

Him who's name we are not allowed to mention on RAT? 
 
hehehehehe 
 
M.VIB.M. 
V COH II 
LEGIO X GEMINA 
EX GER INF

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread		Author	Replies	Views	Last Post
	Who was this person?	Gladius Hispaniensis	3	1,430	01-03-2011, 10:43 PM Last Post: Paullus Scipio
	Roman expansion (was "...greatest impact on fall of Rep	Anonymous	2	1,483	05-31-2004, 08:09 PM Last Post: Anonymous