The Eternal Republic?

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

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

[phil25]

Why should A republican Rome have been more capable of surviving than an imperial/monarchical Rome? That idea along smacks of modern political correctness and would have been anachronistic for any period before the C16th at the earliest.

 

Second, even if the empire had survived - and others (including the Spanish, British, Holy Roman, Hapsburg and Russian etc) have not - it would be no more the empire of the first few centuries AD than Britain is now the Britannia of Agricola, the England of Alfred or William of Normandy or even of Henry VIII. Countries change, evolve.

 

This sort of idea is OK as the basis for a Harry Turtledove novel, but won't stand scrutiny as an historical "what if".

 

Even a more recent example - what if the American War of Independence had never happened? In my humble opinion things would probably not be very different. Like India, the US would by now be a self-governing, probably independent country. It might like Australia or canada still have a monarch as titular head of state, but would more likely be a republic, and perhaps a member of the Commonwealth.

 

But the economic realities, the balance of power - even dare I say, the "special relationship" between the US and UK - would, I suspect, be little different from today.

 

On what basis do you claim the the Roman Empire survived would have prevented the rise and impetus of Islam; or held the Mongol hordes better than did the Europeans; held the east better than did the Byzantines; or blunted the Ottoman incursions better than Charles V? Your case requires special pleading, I think, to be in any way valid.

 

Phil

 

Phil

[M. Porcius Cato]

An intriguing question Brutus. Yes, I think if the republic had been restored, the Roman world might have survived to the present day IF (and it's a big if) they managed to find solutions to the problems that most vexed the republic.

 

First, they would have had to have found an equitable means for protecting the provinces from rapacious governors who could use the provinces as bases from which to launch rebellions (like Sulla and Caesar) and from disaffected provincials yearning for vengeance (like the Goths)

 

Second, they would have had to have found a mechanism to place the military firmly under senatorial control, most likely via the power of the purse, so that the loyalty of troops were primarily to the republic and not to the commander.

 

Third, they would have had to have dealt with the economic and moral problem of slavery. We're talking about a long period of time, and it's entirely possible that a non-slave owning society would emerge as a rival to Rome. In the same way that the northern US quickly surpassed the southern slave-owning states, Rome could have been eclipsed by a freer society or suffered civil war.

 

Fourth, they would have to prevent the new Christians from spreading to the point that the whole Roman world was under the grip of unelected bishops and parasitical monasteries that did nothing for Rome but remove weak-minded fools from the gene pool.

 

These are the top four reforms that would have helped keep the restored Roman republic on sound footing. There are more, but I think these make the point that even had Marcus Aurelius attempted to restore the republic, he would still have had a great deal of work ahead of him in keeping it.

 

Why should A republican Rome have been more capable of surviving than an imperial/monarchical Rome? That idea along smacks of modern political correctness and would have been anachronistic for any period before the C16th at the earliest.

 

The kings who ruled Europe were fools and scoundrels who never attained the levels of advancement acheived by Romans. The Romans rose because they were a republic, and the republic lasted longer than the principate or the dominate (and both) because the republic had a mechanism by which one administration could peacefully take over from next.

 

Hereditary monarchies are simply the means by which inbred fools can bumble their nations into poverty before the dynasty wears out and plunges the whole society into civil war. This is why Europe never managed to acheive Roman levels of material comforts until the Industrial Revolution.

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

Why should A republican Rome have been more capable of surviving than an imperial/monarchical Rome? That idea along smacks of modern political correctness and would have been anachronistic for any period before the C16th at the earliest.

 

Second, even if the empire had survived - and others (including the Spanish, British, Holy Roman, Hapsburg and Russian etc) have not - it would be no more the empire of the first few centuries AD than Britain is now the Britannia of Agricola, the England of Alfred or William of Normandy or even of Henry VIII. Countries change, evolve.

 

This sort of idea is OK as the basis for a Harry Turtledove novel, but won't stand scrutiny as an historical "what if".

 

Even a more recent example - what if the American War of Independence had never happened? In my humble opinion things would probably not be very different. Like India, the US would by now be a self-governing, probably independent country. It might like Australia or canada still have a monarch as titular head of state, but would more likely be a republic, and perhaps a member of the Commonwealth.

 

But the economic realities, the balance of power - even dare I say, the "special relationship" between the US and UK - would, I suspect, be little different from today.

 

On what basis do you claim the the Roman Empire survived would have prevented the rise and impetus of Islam; or held the Mongol hordes better than did the Europeans; held the east better than did the Byzantines; or blunted the Ottoman incursions better than Charles V? Your case requires special pleading, I think, to be in any way valid.

 

Phil

 

Phil

 

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.

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

These are the top four reforms that would have helped keep the restored Roman republic on sound footing. There are more, but I think these make the point that even had Marcus Aurelius attempted to restore the republic, he would still have had a great deal of work ahead of him in keeping it.

 

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.

[Ursus]

I think the original Star Trek had an episode like this. Captain Kirk lands on a parallel earth where Rome never fell. There are efficient roads everywhere. The World Wars never happened. Slavery is an institutionalized part of a welfare state. And gladiator games are broadcast over TV.

 

Yeah, sounds about right.

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

Even without Christianity, the emphasis of Stoicism on the universal possession of reason and human rights at least had the potential to undercut slavery. Though it is remarkable to me that both the Christians and the Stoics seemed to have no problem with the institution.

 

Ursus--I'd like to see that episode of Star Trek!

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

Even without Christianity, the emphasis of Stoicism on the universal possession of reason and human rights at least had the potential to undercut slavery. Though it is remarkable to me that both the Christians and the Stoics seemed to have no problem with the institution.

 

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.

[miguel]

It is quite an interesting idea. But you have to consider...

1. The Western empire fell in 476, but the the Eastern. Some what do you think about the left behind Byzantine Empire?

2. Inner political system, economy, invasions of barbarians and other matters brought the empire to an end; would they not happen to a republic?

3. The Roman Empire, actually, had doomed for many years though apparently it still existed. That means the goverment was very weak at that time. Would it splited up like Europe nowadays, without a real word "destroyed" - as in fact it was?

4. Imagine if it survived, the history afterwards would be completely different. Perhaps no Feudalism, no Renaissance, no Revolutionary time, no USA ( ), no Napoleon, no imperialism (or yes, maybe), and surely, no WWI, WWII and Cold War. With a world that is totally different, well, I dare not to imagine. Just think about your very own life; you are from USA, right? Perhaps there would be no you?! Or maybe you are in Europe and speak Latin and Greek ? And about me, I am from Hong Kong. Perhaps there would be no Britain to colonize Hong Kong and - ah, very luckily - still a happy city in China , perhaps?

 

and um...what if there is no World Cup?

Italia cannot win?!?! /__\"

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

I got a better question: If the Republic was still around, perhaps Caesar would never die! Then Cato here would go mad.

 

But seriously, perhaps with some major reforms a large republic like that would have worked. One reason the Republic failed was that under it's current system it grew too large. However, even if the Republic lasted, realistically it probably wouldn't survive. With all governments, big or small, strong or weak, they don't last forever.

Edited August 29, 2006 by Antiochus of Seleucia

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

To be honest i'm pretty glad it didn't happen because from a personal point of view i dont think a toga would do me any favours what so ever and as for transport horses are ok but they tend to leave big piles of s*** everywhere :horse:

 

 

You would need a seriously big poopa-scoop

Edited August 29, 2006 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[M. Porcius Cato]

even if the Republic lasted, realistically it probably wouldn't survive. With all governments, big or small, strong or weak, they don't last forever.

 

Why not? It seemed like slavery was a normal part of human existence, too, but today even Ebay doesn't sell slaves (and where would you put one anyway?). Maybe the Eternal Republic is impossible, but I'd need better proof than simply the fact that republics have historically been difficult to maintain.

 

(BTW, if Caesar were alive today, I'd chain him to an oar.)

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

You'll probably win Cato , but from my limited knowledge, the republic failed because it was designed for a nation the size of Italy. They made it work for a while, but ambitious men started finding it's weaknesses and the system finally declined. The Republican system was great and could be even more so if it could have adapted.

 

What strikes interest is that a Roman Republic the size of the Imperial state could be easier to rule if they had better communications. Today a republic of that size could easily function.

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

Imagine if it survived, the history afterwards would be completely different. Perhaps no Feudalism, no Renaissance, no Revolutionary time, no USA ( ), no Napoleon, no imperialism (or yes, maybe), and surely, no WWI, WWII and Cold War. With a world that is totally different, well, I dare not to imagine. Just think about your very own life; you are from USA, right? Perhaps there would be no you?! Or maybe you are in Europe and speak Latin and Greek ? And about me, I am from Hong Kong. Perhaps there would be no Britain to colonize Hong Kong and - ah, very luckily - still a happy city in China , perhaps?

 

and um...what if there is no World Cup?

Italia cannot win?!?! /__\"

 

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.

[Tiberius Cornelius Brutus]

What strikes interest is that a Roman Republic the size of the Imperial state could be easier to rule if they had better communications. Today a republic of that size could easily function.

 

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!

Edited August 29, 2006 by Tiberius Cornelius Brutus