Were the Roman warlords responsible for the fall of the republic, or w

[Drosam]

At the moment I am doing research for a personal study on, what extent the Roman warlords were responsible for the fall of the republic. The specific time period I am looking into is from around 133BC (with the Gracchi reforms) to 23BC (Early Years of Augustus’ Reign)

I would be grateful of any information or views of this area you could provide me with, even a reading list would be massively beneficial.

The thing that will be of greatest importance to me is views and opinions on who or what was responsible for fall of the Republic.

[Onasander]

If you can put the blame on anyone one individual, it wouldn't be Pompey, Caesar, or Mark Anthony, or even Augustus.... 

 

I'd have to say it was Cicero. No other man is more responsible for smashing the republican into bits. He began, and hardly without cultural consequences as the leading intellectual of his age, the process of introducing and exploring how to deify a great messianic leader into a Godking. He started humbly and innocently enough with his daughter. Then he brought Scipio Africanus into his myths.... making him just such a Godman.

 

Pompey went first, testing the waters. The Caesar. Mark Anthony became a God Pharoah.... well established tradition. Augustus showed considerable hesitancy, playing to the conservatives in Rome. He hardly banished the short lived tradition, but refused most flattery outright to himself and his grand children, but allowed a easy path to deification once he passed away, were the threat of a assassination mattered considerably less.

 

You can't have a republic of virtues, independence, shared social commitments, and restraint as best idealized in the tension of the republic with living gods holding political office and intentionally tossing every caution and legal safeguard to the wind when they feel like social climbing. 

 

Sulla and Marius Gaius did alot to destabilize the republic, but we see in modern times class struggle doesn't necessarily lead to a collapse of a republic, they can carry on as banana republics just fine with change of command between feuding personalities.

 

The handful of those who most supported the republic, such as Asinius Polloi, knew very well the game was up, and were very Machiavellian about which faction they backed, out of self interest.... prior and during the actual collapse. They managed to insert themselves, still quite human, as familiar deputies much loved and cherished, retained for their intelligence and administrative skills.

 

You skip ahead a few generations, a administrator like Pliny the Younger greatly resembles Pollio. That's how subtle the change was between republic and empire. In the Romans case, it came down to theocracy as the defining characteristic of their bond to the state. 

 

The "how" must inform a "why", and our "why" needs to be able in be inverted sociological to similar societies who came near, flirted and turned away, or took a similar yet different plunge. Most obvious modern example, Cezar Chavez turning into a little angelic bird....

 

How did the Roman Republic fall into such a narrow minded mess, and why was Cicero so destructive?

Well.... I would have to say, the Roman underclass was superstitious, and already prone to this under the Tarquin.... one king even tried to deify himself. The Greeks to the South, and Alexander looming large in everyone's mind certainly nudged them.... but the Romans seemed collectively jealous enough to remain paranoid and hostile. Carthage likewise never took that plunge, despite Hannibal. Scipio built a awesome propaganda machine to bring the Romans nearly to Total War, idealized like a son of Jupitor, like Hercules. Marius and Sulla merely took notice in their war and instituted the best methods of the cult of the leader. General MacAuthur did no worst.

 

It wasn't the land reforms, or the pride or greed, or the pogroms. Many republics, like Russia, do just that. US fought a war over Slaves.... property, concept of wages vs slavery..... we sit into two well functioning republics, not into a Imperium. 

 

So I can't help but point to Cicero. For the entirety of the republic, it behaved like a monarchy without a king. They maintained their class divisions, and merely self appointed their ministers.... their religion remained monarchical, their priesthood remained as such.... I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did.

 

It shows both Rome and Carthage began to succumb to the cult of the divine ruler the Greeks and Egyptians had roughly the same time. Both Hannibal and Scipio seemed similarly disposed and equally aloof to such a interesting alien concept. The Romans were the victors, and they ultimately took that plunge.

 

Both Rome and Carthage were making inroads to Greek philosophy at this time as well. 

 

Such seems to be the motivations of history.

 

A good question to ask is, why would Cataline conspiracy fail, yet be endlessly emulated? Why would Severus Alexander become a Christian, and be killed for looking weak? Why were the most troubled years of Rome thereafter be linked to Pagan insurgencies and revolts, and upsurpations of power, and just why was Marcus Aureus, with his Syrian Sun Cult, and Constantine, with Christianity..... cause so much relative calm and renewal? Why was Julian tolerated yet forsaken? Why did kingship in feudal Europe dance around such topics, and what made it so attractive to Pagan rulers to convert?

 

Runs back to Cicero.... and his unique ability to collapse the republic. 

 

It seems alien to secular republics, as our modern mindset is oriented there now.... but that evolved out of it, and is still deeply tainted by it..... it's still a very powerful force in modern times.

 

A look into how Romans viewed the afterlife, such as Manes, family progress via Genius to ever higher heavenly status will be a real eye opener. 

Edited October 22, 2014 by Onasander

[caldrail]

 

 

At the moment I am doing research for a personal study on, what extent the Roman warlords were responsible for the fall of the republic. The specific time period I am looking into is from around 133BC (with the Gracchi reforms) to 23BC (Early Years of Augustus’ Reign)
I would be grateful of any information or views of this area you could provide me with, even a reading list would be massively beneficial.
The thing that will be of greatest importance to me is views and opinions on who or what was responsible for fall of the Republic.

I cannot stress this enough - the Republic did not fall. SPQR was still technically a republic as late as Constantines reign (an inscription declares it so). What happened was a change of political balance caused by the rise of those powerful warlords as ambitious individuals. Remember that Rome before Augustus had an empire, and that Rome after Augustus was still a Republic.

 

You might find this useful...

http://www.unrv.com/forum/topic/17782-republic-and-empire/

[Onasander]

Republic fell when dynastic generissimos conquered it, repeatedly without avail or respect to the elected republican institutions of the state, when it's offices were pillaged and given into nepotism, when every personal vice and mortal sin of those in power was looked away from, or even applauded as being the frivolties of a dictorial class or even of a divinity, when the membership in the senate could be expanded or contracted dramatically, to fill the demographic and political needs of aatyrant.

 

Have no doubt, let me lay this to rest right now, the Republic fell, but not in one push as a collossus, but piecemeal, one triumph at a time.

 

However democratic England is, it can't be considered a Republic anymore, not since Cromwell. I don't expect any member of a monarchy to grasp just how fundamental of a distinction this is, it's not symmantics, it effects the outlook and morals of everyone in a society in either case.

 

Kyklos Cycle governs the transitions between one state to the next.

 

Soviet Union was at every stage still a republic, never even under stalin gave into corruption of nepotism, maintained merit in advancement, held election. Was definately despitic at times.... North Korea isn't a Republic however, despite the name. They clearly have a dynastic monarch, the constitution is a joke, and the political parties are follised relics, anachronisms, of a earlier era full of yes men that officials are only occasional drawn from.

 

The republics of Northern India had kings, sometimes even dynastic, but were voted in, had constitutional restraints, checks on power.... before Chanakya conwuered them. Carthage was a republic, even under mighty Hannibal.

[caldrail]

The Republic did not fall in any way whatsoever - the idea that it did is a popular misconception caused by historical categorisation and emphasis on the antics of certain Caesars. The fallacy that it fell is easily overturned when one takes the trouble to realise that nothing about the Republic actually stopped or was dismantled - all it was was a significant political change, with powerful individuals acting as sponsored advisors, or in some cases, self important tyrants. There was no job description for the role of Caesar, no constitutional means of providing for a succession, and the Caesars themselves were not absolute rulers - even Caligula is known to have asked the Senate for permission to stage games. The poers of a particular Caesar were provided by the Senate, not the job, although whether popularity or lots of soldiers were the cause of this provision is another matter. Remember that not until the reign of Commodus diod the Romans accept that a Caesar had been "born to the purple", or in other words, succeded his father in monarchial succession.

[Thurinius]

There was no golden age of the republic, just like there was no golden age of the 50s in the UK. It was invented nostalgia. It was an oligarchy with the same families dominating every major position from one generation to the next.

If you keep this up eventually you need new blood, new ideas. Augustus brought a load of new men into power like the talented Agrippa, partly due to necessity because of the deaths during the civil wars admittedly.

Similarly under the Emperors you at least get a bit of different blood if only because proximity to the emperor meant power hence the elevation of imperial freedmen and their subsequent descendants.

[Onasander]

Republic did fall, and there is no such thing as "Logical Fallacies", the idea is preposterous.... there isn't anything wrong with the human brain, we all evolved to think.

 

Again.... Caldrail, your from a Monarchy, it's been shoved down your throat since birth a Monarchy isn't that big of a deal, infact, all the pagentry and honours, and silliness, not to mention the tax blackholes for a few families that everyone has to pay into, is perfectly natural and commonsense.

 

People born into freedom don't accept this silliness.

 

The Romans under the heart of the republic were just such a people, they would be utterly disgusted at such a provocative insult against their values and political orientation.

 

In one system.... the Republic, state institutions were reigned in and empowered by the people.... they knew ultimately they were in charge and had no one but themselves to answer to, except Gods and tradition.

 

In a monarchy, the people are the ones who get reigned in, like worthless dogs to their masters leash. Senators yabbering and jabbering "serve" at the consent of their overlords.... sometimes competently, sometimes farcical. In Rome, too often farcical.

 

The only advantage the British Monarchy has is it's learned to give up political power piecemeal in exchange for the furtherance of it's exploitation of wealth. It gives up a little now and then, in balance for something else. It's a dying monarchy, but I won't put it in the hospice just yet, or expect to see the Republic of the English declared any time soon.

 

In a republic, they people know they are infact incharge. The orientation and style of debates differ. You can tell when a republic starts slipping into a tyranny when it starts to hold a individual in awe and high respectability outside the normal scope of said office, or when a Monarchy is about to turn republic, when they stop caring to give courtesy to such baffoons and send them merrily on their high and mighty way.

 

Have no doubt, under any circumstances, do not get list in fruitless semantics or confused linguistics, know with all certainty,beyond any reasonable doubt.... the Roman Republic did fall. There is no place to debate this with reasonable assertion, as the argument is of the same class and caliber as "Did the Flavians invent Jesus".

[caldrail]

If the Republic 'fell' as you put it, where is the evidence? Why don't the Romans say so? They had no reason to deny it or invent a different history. Why was there no legal ruling confirming the end of SPQR, which was maintained until the 5th century? Why is there no evidence of the Senate being in dissolution? Why is there mno stories of Senators being arrested en masse for public e3xecution and exile? Why was Augustus so frightened of making himself the sole ruler in Rome? Why did the legions not intervene? Why is there no supporting evisdence for your contention whatsoever?

 

You say that in a republic the public know they're in charge. That;'s a fallacy. They might have a periodic say in who rules them, but in charge? Participating democracies were a greek idea and as far as I know, the only time that such communal rule has ever worked on a larger scale than a village. In fact, the Roman republic was nothing like your modern conception of the republic. The upper classes ruled Rome as a plutocracy, with enough democracy included to prevent a rebellion such as that mentioned by Livy, the one that spawned the Twelve Tablets. In fact, there was no such thing as 'one man, one vote' in ancient Rome. Voting was done on a block principle, so the say of the individual citizen was very limited.

 

All you're doing is perpetuating a popular misconception. The Roman Republic was not dismantled when Augustus came to power, and officially, he gave power back to the Senate (though he did retain his influence by design). It was the Senate that officially decided who was the senior Roman administrator, be it Consul or Caesar, and please note that the lack of constituional reform to establish succession meant that Caesars came to power by all means.

 

Why do you think Nero was declared an enemy of the state by the Senate? Surely if Nero was a monarch, all he had to do was abolish a powerless Senate and be done with it? He couldn't. They were too powerful, part of the Roman social order, and he deliberately (and nastily) sponged them for cash when his regime could not afford the damage caused partially by a great fire, his own efforts to rebuild Rome as Neropolis, not to mention supporting his own grandeur, and look what happened. A Senate that according to you should have no constitutional reason to exist declared him an Enemy of the State. The Romans had done that before to a guy called tarquin Superbus. That was when the Republic was originally founded. Think about it.

 

 

 

There is no place to debate this with reasonable assertion, as the argument is of the same class and caliber as "Did the Flavians invent Jesus".

Are you serious? There is centuries worth of academic study to fall upon as well as histories written by the Romans themselves. I've seen this tactic before - but asserting something is mysterious merely confirms you don't know enough about it.

Edited October 26, 2014 by caldrail

[Onasander]

You are being banal and foolish, falling for propaganda designed for synophants in every age.

 

The Novgorad princes couldn't get rid of the boyars "easily", but that doesn't mean they couldn't. The institutions of the Roman Republic grew out of the ministries of the Tarquins. Romans, Byzantine, Russians, and a few other groups maintained, emulated, and developed mixed parlimentry systems.... all very much MONARCHIES. The US House of burgesses developed from such a system. Yet were were educated and well read enough even in the colonial era to call the farce your pretending to.... we didn't declare ourselves a republic till we booted your kings from our soil.

 

The evidence? Every author from Augustus reign on.... fuck, I just watched a English documentry this morning (Amazon Prime just got activated with my new kindle)called "Rome: Order From Chaos/ Years of Trial"..... every british historian in that say exactly the oposite of you.

 

Go and prove your national peers wrong, grow your hail long, and chain yourself like Sampson to the pillars of a university, and cry out to the astonished crowd the Roman Republic did not fall.... it was merely hiding underneath the Emperors Silks and Behind their Throne.... and that the Roman Republic infact exists to this day, perched upon the Popes Head, under that big old hat, hidden from history....

 

The Roman Senate was a Vestigial Organ, sometimes indulged and reappropriated by clever emperors for good causes, but too often by syncophants who's only occupation it seems was to secure their position by raining down praises. It was highly elastic..... sharply contracting and expanding at times, the target of pogroms from Marc Anthony to Sejanus.... all too often the central spectacle of disturbing mental disorders and vices by emperors seeking verification of their delusions of grandeur.

 

I'd like to believe the senate was also a object of emulation for the senates in cities across the empire. Only evidence I can find for this unfortunately are these petite senates offering flatteries to the Emperors birthday or longevity. They apparently didn't much care for the big senate in Rome beyond the governors insistence and dictates.

 

Many countries call themselves a republic, that are not republics. I already used North Korea as a example, but pointed out the Soviet Union was... but the Soviet Union wasn't a Democracy. It's not necessary to be a democracy with universal sufferage to be a republic.... as even the US excludes some residents from vote and participation. You need a senate.... that votes. That senate can come from most anything.... but it generally is representative and partisan in relation to aspects of society.

 

Your arguments are horrible, and shows a deep susceptibility to buying off the flimsiest propaganda given. If Hitler said he was the friend of the Jews, would you believe him? Or do you have enough awareness of facts beyond the rhetoric to pick up on the con game?

 

Your own countrymen, your historians, your peers.... made a documentry that backs the near universal concensus. Rome became a dynastic monarchy. Thats the very words they used, check it out.

 

That means..... NOT A REPUBLIC. The Senate was purged way too many times and filled with yes men.

 

And all Nero had to do was strike the Senate first. He could of easily of done it. The boy was clearly mad, and everyone knew it. He didn't, cause he was a mad duck. The Senate was still a circle of near peers to the imperial family, even without much meaningful state power, all the rich and influential people in society would still be in the senate, or trying to get in. When the emperor goes mad, it had a history of government and men who wrre of a higher esteem and education than your average member of the mob.

 

As I pointed out on this site in the past, an emperor would be absurd to not rely and grow the senate in capacity. It originated as a Monarchial instrument, and the empire was just too big. Sadly, many emperors didn't do this.

 

As to why SPQR survived in name (and largely name only).... vestigial organs in government survive all the time, and morph in meaning. The state of Delaware here in the states has all but abolished the office of sheriff, the courts won't even allow him to files police reports.... but he is still the only elected police officer in the state elected by popular vote. Perhaps you should visit the sheriffs office, sit with him and tell him of your theory, then the two of you can press your faces against the window and look out as the real "unconstitutional" police drive by.... Or you can pick up a copy of Ibn Khaldun's history, read it, and understand a society changes, but leaves vestigial elements of older orders behind. Doesn't mean they are that old system. My town still has a masdive steel mill standing, doesn't make us a steel town anymore.

 

The Roman Republic fell..... thus sayeth history.

[Onasander]

And for anyone (including Caldrail) who isn't aware, my position is a very Roman concept, adapted from the Kyklos Cycle.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyklos

 

It is still actively disgussed to this day, mostly by those who favor republics vs Nietzscheans who want prides of supermen ruling over slaves.... it's a theory that never died out, just don't think Caldrail has any idea what he is actually trying to assert here, the repercussions, and which party his sets himself up in.

 

Every era had a different take on it. It wasn't until the republic fell that the Romans and later ages started taking stock in just how a republic sits in this.

 

Know Caldrail holds no reputable position in this argument, it's extreme foolishness, and if your reading this thread, and adopt his arguments, don't be surprised if you fail that paper. No self respecting historian will ever make the claim the republic survived. It's ludicrous. Has no place in honest history.

[Onasander]

From the Roman Republic wiki, Caldrail.... your welcome to go and rewrite it however you deem fit, just don't be surprised when you become a outcast for trying something so obviously wrong.

 

Roman Empire can be a matter of interpretation. Historians have variously proposed Julius Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BC, Caesar's appointment as dictator for life in 44 BC, and the defeat of Mark Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. Most, however, use the same date as did the ancient Romans themselves, the Roman Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian and his adopting the title Augustus in 27 BC, as the defining event ending the Republic.

 

 

 

 

 

I'm reminded of the scene from Starwars when Palpatine declares the empire..... you can go argue as Moff Caldrail all you want to the Rebel Alliance and the Jedi the Sith and their death star is indeed the true galactic republic, and that it never went away.

 

Let me know when you finally win the wiki wars, extending the roman republic up to Constantine. I'll be checking the arguments and how well everyone is taking your arguments. You gotta be able to walk on water to win this one.

[caldrail]

I'm not rewriting history at all. That's why ultimately you've had to resort to insults. Augustus became the state advbisor - the Romans say so. Power was officially handed back to the Senate. The Romans say so. Augustus was jeered for not letting senators make decisions. The Romans say so. The Senate continued to ratify and honour Caesars as well as consuls. The Romans say so. SPQR was still part of their commemorative art and literature in the late empire. The Romans inscibed it. In fact, the only difference is that from Augustus onward the Romans had interesting characters to write about, so they concentrated on that.

 

Look at it like this. How many senators can you name? There were hundreds of them at any stage in Roman history and they continued to convene senate meetings after the accepted end of the western empire in 476 when Rome was a barbarian kingdom. The trouble is of course the average senator wasn't trying to get into the spotlight whereas Caesars did. So the record is biased to a considerable degree, and you ought to be able to recognise that.

 

Or can you pinpoinmt the actual ruling or event when the Republic officially ceased to be and the Empire began? The Romans never saw any such change. It's merely a convenience for historians emphasised by the colourful antics of powerful individuals in the Principate.

[Onasander]

Exactly... you can't pinpoint it. Why? Cause the Senate survived until the Latin invasions of the Roman capital of Constantinople.

 

It went through repeated purges, over and over again. It wasn't a republic anymore, anymore than Saddam Hussein's Iraq was a republic. He purged too, changing from a democracy to a dictatorship.

 

I really don't know how you can seriously take this ludicrous "Flat Earther" argument, one you utterly lack any reasonable stance in, to pretend the republic went on for centuries after it very clearly ceased to be, and blame Constantine of all people for it's disappearance.... the Senate in Rome continued on long after that. Just wasn't a republic anymore under the Emperors or the Goths.

 

 

Reason it's so hard to pinpoint is because the dictators themselves made it purposely obsfucant. It was very clearly their design to make it look like they were protecting Rome and it's institutions.... but they were also recording smashing them into bits and holding them as trophies, ejaculating and outright ignoring them.... at times toying with them. The Senate of Cato wasn't the Senate of Claudius, or even that of Marcus Aurelius.

 

If the Senate mattered, it was because a Emperor wanted to make them matter. They purged it unashamedly too many times. It was a forum of yes men.... not the ruling, leading organ of state. And no, they never quite developed a balanced set of mutually independent yet interdependent systems of checks and balances.... Emperor was ultimately charge of all.

 

It's how it is. Feel free to challenge me on any point, but for your sake I can't let you professor carry on with this silliness. Consider yourself lucky it was just me cursing and not a thousand peers responding to a lecture or book by you.

 

If you want to see what a purge looks like, watch the first 20 minutes of "The House of Saddam" as he systematically wipes out the opposition in the Baath Party in Iraq.... you honestly can claim the electorate from that point on laid in the voters, or Saddam's whims? How did that fear and obedience differ from other dictators, Like Mao or Pinochet? Do you buy Qaddafi, his argument.... that Libya was a bona fide Anarchist state? That was pure paradoxical bullshit of the highest order, but that is exactly what the Libyan propaganda claims.

 

Some Tyrants run with themes. In Rome, Augustus and Tiberius ran with a Stoic theme, gave a level of toleration to dissent directed at the emperor in the small circle of peers.... as long as it was words, and not actual threats against their body or capacity to assert. Nero was some sorta gangster hedonist manchild. Some of the best moments in Cynic Philosophy occurred when Cynics would stand up and denounce flippant actions of officials in these forums.

 

Alot of stuff afloated, and different takes were taken on just how, and which, aspects of the old republican democracy could be resurrected and participated in the real.... but these were few occasions... and we only know about them from the scandal they provoked. Boethius supposedly reaching out to support the Eastern Emperor and being executed is a late case. The senators and the republican faction fleeing to Africa before being hunted down is a early example. Mostly just candle in between. I wish more records survived... I'd like to see how the Senate morphed under each Emperor to the next. How often they were subordinated as part of the imperial administration, how often they gained instances of independence, so on and so on.... even in tyrannies a legislator can evolve into a interesting and useful bureaucratic entity.

 

What makes Rome so interesting to me is whereas such Tyrannies burn out rather fast, a few years to few generations in the modern world.... they dragged this out for a thousand years, from Caesar to the Fall of Constantinople to the Latins. Infinite time to morph. But at no point did the Senate reexert independence. At no point in this 1000 year period did the Republic reemergence. It was always under a imperial house from that point on..... and that 100% disqualifies it from being a republic. In the same sense England isn't a republic, even if in England's case it seems to be slowly evolving in that direction.

[caldrail]

 

 

It was always under a imperial house from that point on..... and that 100% disqualifies it from being a republic. In the same sense England isn't a republic, even if in England's case it seems to be slowly evolving in that direction

Your reasoning is markedly naive. The mechanics of Roman government hadn't chaged. All that happened was that Rome adopted a practice of sponsoring, allowing, or tolerating a senior administrator instead of the consular positions. The position of Caesar was not absolute ruler in any way, however much some of them seem to behave like one.

 

After all, when Caligula got killed, who was there to replace him? The conspiracy was out to murder the entire family, and the Senate only grudgingly accepted Claudius as Caesar because the Praetorians told them it was going to happen. In any event it doesn't matter. Imperial succession was never formally instituted and would always remain a populist or opportunist career choice for the less restrained. The Romans, as I said, declared that Commodus was the first Caesar to get the job merely because he happened to be the previous Caesar's son. All the rest had to earn the position in some way, be it faction building, assassination, coup, or simply writing out a large promise note. There is very little evidence of any real imperial succession.

[indianasmith]

I'll admit that the interpretation adopted by Colleen McCullough in her MASTERS OF ROME series has probably colored my thinking a bit, but I think the end of the Republic (if it indeed did end as most conventional histories say it did, in 31 AD with the accession of Augustus) was greatly hastened by none other than its chief "defender", Marcus Porcius Cato.  If Cato and his cronies had not set out to destroy Julius Caesar, he would have returned from Gaul, celebrated his well-earned triumphs, served another term as Consul, and then gone off to fight the Parthians.  There is no indication that he ever intended to become a dictator for a single, constitutional 6 month term, much less dictator for life.

 

Cato with his paranoid hatred of Caesar became a self-fulfilling prophet:  He predicted Caesar would destroy the Republic, then left Caesar with no honorable alternative but to do so.

Cato is probably the one person in Roman history that I would go back and take out, if I could.  His irrationality brought untold misery on the people of Rome and created a civil war that

need not have happened.