Tiberius Cornelius Brutus

Haha no way...I totally forgot that that was a part of that movie! Good call, sir. Marcus Aurelius was a student of philosophy, and as far as I know he was a proponent of decentralized power in government.

I think I agree with you...even though Cato is right in some respects. It is a Roman's obligation to kill those who conspire against the Republic, but the Republic as everyone knew it was collapsing around them. Caesar did everyone a favor by taking control. And even with his heightened sense of self, I believe that he would not have become king, but instead established himself in a position similar to Augustus's, essentially becoming the first emperor. Could be wrong though!

I think you may be contradicting yourself. You are a strong advocate of the fact that Rome itself would change, in culture and appearance, over time. This will be true to an extent, but I think that Roman culture as a whole would remain largely unchanged. Given, its society would change over the centuries, as any society does. But look at Italy today, and especially the city of Rome - the culture is ENORMOUSLY influenced by that of Rome. Mussolini even tried to return the "glory of the empire" to Italy once again. The Catholic Church speaks Latin, and even the Italian language is very similar to Classical Latin. Not to mention the hundreds of monuments and structures that still stand as a testament to the glory of Rome. My point is that the culture of Rome has had a huge influence on most of the European countries it occupied, especially Italy. Do you really think it would have changed beyond recognition in a few thousand years? The Egyptian civilization has been around for more than 9,000, and their traditional culture still remains deeply rooted in their history. The same can be said for many of the eastern peoples, China specifically. Although the face of China may have changed physically with modernization, the culture has remained largely traditional. So is it really so far-fetched to think that Rome would remain as Roman as it ever was? Politically, I think there is some fault in your argument. Of course the east would never want to revert to Republicanism - it didn't have nearly as many problems as the west did. The booming eastern trade kept Byzantium's coffers full, and they could generally throw money at many of their problems (especially the barbarian ones). So if the culture of Rome would have changed so much, how could you think that politically, the Roman people would want a republic that was based on their previous one? There would have to be great changes, and nobody denies that. Things would be better, considering the Rome of 200 AD was much more powerful than that of 200 BC. Rome had a more powerful military, an established legal code, and established provincal governments. After all, it took the French several times to get Republicanism right - Rome wouldve definitely tried a new system. The prospect of the Roman empire surviving under a Republican is not merely sentimental. Romans may have said the same thing during the Punic Wars, when Hannibal was in striking distance of the jugular of the republic, but the fact is that it happened. And the survival of Rome past the 5th century could've very likely happened as well.

I'm not sure what Clodius' logic is, but here are the reasons I would tend to agree with him... Even before the civil war broke out, Caesar had practically godfathered Brutus and considered him a very close friend. However, Brutus still chose to take arms against Caesar's legions, although he did eventually apologize. Caesar accepted Brutus' apology and pardoned him in 48 BC, despite the traitor's death Brutus deserved after being a key member in Caesar's opposition the year before. Caesar's mercy and love for Brutus was further demonstrated when in 46 BC he appointed him governor of Gaul, and again appointed him praetor in 45 BC. My problem with Brutus is not especially that he joined up with Pompey initially - many people were uncertain about Caesar's intentions before the war broke out. However, even after Caesar had given him endless mercy and even helped to restore his honor and status, Brutus was still seduced by the other conspirators, and by the illusion of his family history. Yes, his ancestor helped overthrow the last Roman king, but Caesar was no king - or at least he had little desire to be one, as far as we know. When it comes down to it, Brutus' weakness caused the death of one of Rome's greatest leaders, and then he ran rather than face the judgement of the people. He is a coward, and not a man.

I stand corrected! Maybe they shouldve given Sui the imperial throne instead of Theodisius - if only he were alive then At any rate, China sure is a frontrunner for competition with the West nowadays...

Haha yes. touche

Who do you think was the greatest Caesar? In terms of improving the welfare of the empire, I would argue either Augustus Caesar, Vespasian, or Trajan. But then again, Nero did a great job of pinching the Rome out of their dream of security! Its up to you all! ~ T. Cornelius Brutus

Brutus could have been a good man and a good Roman, but he chose to betray one of his closest friends, not to mentions relatives, in Caesar. A man without loyalty and honor is no man at all in my book.

If you look at a map, the size of the empire at its peak seems similar to our great American republic - and we seem to be doin alright!

A tantalizing thought indeed. It's interesting that you bring up China, also - I would almost wonder if Rome wouldve kept to its half of the hemisphere and would eventually have competed with a strong eastern nation such as China? It seems possible for China to have gained greater strength at an earlier point in time without the interference of the imperial European nations. Also, sort of going along with what Cato said, I think that the fact that we think no republic or government can last forever is largely based on the failure of the greatest nations in history, Rome being one of them. If the republic had survived, it would take much of the bulk of that prenotion that we all know today. I think it would probably eventually die out, either by war, environmental factors, or its own instability, but just long long it would take before this happened is a point of interest for me.

I'd tend to agree. Christianity arose in a time of less advanced cultures ideal-wise, and some people still found justification in scripture - the same way slave owners in the south did during the 19th century. It would be interesting to see how Stoicism would have affected the Roman Empire had it become predominant over Christianity, though.

You bring up some good points Cato. If there was one good thing about the Imperial era, i suppose it is that loyalty to the emperor was not a huge problem within the legions - ironically, it was the Praetorian Guard who were the most disloyal! But anyways, you are right that a new republic would have to find a way to secure the loyalty of both legionaire and general alike. The one thing that I had not thought of before was the issue of slavery, and I'm glad you brought that up. It is definitely likely that by the 15th century, the ideals of freedom would have to advanced enough to include basic human rights, and therefore challenged the Roman slavery system. But who knows? The Renaissance thinking that spawned widespread belief in human freedom may not have appeared in a Romanized Europe. This is unlikely though, considering the spread of Christianity that would surely happen. At any rate, I'm sure that the need for slave labor would eventually lapse due to industrial advancements by the Romans. A "Roman" industrial revolution could even have replaced the European one of the 18th and 19th centuries and preceeded it by hundreds of years, especially considering that the technological void that occured in the Dark Ages would probably have been prevented.

The reason I say a Republican Rome would survive better is pretty simple - By the end of the 2nd century and the reign of Commodus, the empire was in decline anyways. Since the monarchy had already been rejected by the people, and Rome had enjoyed some of its greatest prosperity as a republic in the 2nd and 3rd centuries BC (besides, of course, the Pax), a republican form of government seems most logical to me if the government of Rome were to again switch in the 2nd or 3rd centuries AD. As for how Rome itself would change, I would fully expect it to evolve as you mentioned with Britain and such. Thats why I posted this - I was curious how everyone thought HOW is would change! And also, I don't claim that the Roman empire would stop the spread of Islam, or even the Ottomans - but I do admit the possibility that if they lasted that long, they would have been in a good position to do so. If the Palestinians never occupied Judea, the present day conflict between them and the Israeli's wouldn't exist over posession of Jerusalem. It is events like this that I suggest, and I welcome your thoughts. Perhaps in the end it is invalid, but it is sure worth thinking about.

At some point in time, any curious scholar of Roman history asks that ultimate "what if" question - what if the Roman empire, in all its glory and splendor, survived? Of course, the city of Rome survived several terms of barbarian rule and centuries of invasions throughout the Middle Ages, mainly thanks to the stability of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. However, for kicks and giggles, lets think along different lines. Suppose Marcus Aurelius, or any of the later emperors, succeeded in returning Rome to a true republic, as it had been in the first century B.C. With the stabilization of infrastructure within Rome, the de-mercinization of the army could occur, and the East-West split never would have occurred. The population of Rome could have remained strong, especially since they would still be receiving royalties from the booming eastern trade, instead of Byzantium. With all these factors, 476 A.D. couldve marked a decisive defeat of the Visigoth tribes instead of the end of the Western Empire. From this point on, I leave it up to you to decide - what wouldve, couldve, or shouldve happened? A timeline I devised is as follows - - With a still strong military, Rome could have kept its posession of Judea, eliminating the need for and of the Crusades - Another conquest of Germania could have Romanized the whole north of Europe, eliminating centuries of history that would have later fueled Hitler's ideals of German supremacy. This same Romanization of Germany could have prevented the Reformation and the beginning of Protestant faiths. - Roman power, lasting well into 14th and 15th centuries, could have prevented both Moorish invasions of Spain and Ottoman invasion of Turkey, and maybe even the holy land. Conflict over Jerusalem may have never happened, both then and now. Hard to imagine, huh? - In the age of exploration, Roman influence could have been extended throughout Africa and into the New World. In other words, we would all still be speaking Latin!!! - As mentioned above, the absence of Hitler and the Nazi regime could have prevented WWII. And most importantly...SPQR would have won the 2006 WORLD CUP!! BOOOH!! Of course, I am only scratching the surface of endless possibilities, so this is what I ask you now - what if Rome had returned to a Republic, and survived the barbarian invasion of 476 AD? Would SPQR and her posessions still be on our maps today? I'm very interested to see what you guys have to say! ~ T. Cornelius Brutus

I think the answer to this question may be less obvious than it would seem at first, because there are a number of families that forever changed Rome, for better and for worse. However, I think there is still a clear-cut answer, and that is the Julii family and the Julio-Claudian line. After all, it was Marius who advocated reforms in the army, turning military service into an actual profession rather than an obligation of citizens. Then, of course, there is the great Julius Caesar, who conquered Gaul for the glory of Rome (and his own). He also was the biggest cause of the collapse of the Roman Republic. Octavian, Caesar's nephew, would later establish the Principate and declare himself Caesar Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome. From then on, the Julio-Claudian emperors all had an everlasting and often debilitating effect on the empire, from Tiberius to Nero. Can this really be said about any other family line throughout Roman history? In my opinion, certainly not! T. Cornelius Brutus