Republic's success led to its downfall?

[leilani12]

Hi, everyone, I'm new to these forums and have an undoubtedly obvious question which perhaps someone can shed light on for me. I've heard that it was the very success/victories of the Roman republic that drove it towards its downfall. I believe that in this particular case, the success refers to expansion and war, though I can't see how exactly this is. Does anyone understand what exactly this is a reference to or whether at all it is a true statement?

 

Thanks!

[M. Porcius Cato]

The theory goes that the republic's unending propensity to go to war--driven largely by aristocrats competing with one another for honor, glory, wealth, and power--finally led the armies of the republic to increasingly distant theaters and for longer periods of time. Due to the costs of long campaining on the smallholding farmers that made up the army, these wars (the theory goes) had the effect of undermining the social, economic, military, and civic fabric of the republic. That is, the conflict between the requirements of military service and the requirements of running one's farm, the theory goes, led the soliders of the republic to return from campaigning to find their farms ruined and families destitute, led them to agigitate for relief from the senate, and finally led them to turn to their generals as their political patrons in gaining this relief. Thus, by winning territory further and further from their homes, the soldiers found themselves dependent on their generals for their livelihood whereas their generals grew so monstrously rich that they could purchase whole elections and even topple the state. Or so the theory goes.

 

Recently, this theory (most notably advocated by P. A. Brunt) has been challenged on a number of grounds, including a misassessment of the requirements of family farms, a misassessment of the archaeological evidence regarding how widespread small farms were during the period of their alleged decline, and a misassessment of the mortality rate in the army and the life cycle of the farmer/soldier. Following this critique (most notably advocated by Nathan Rosenstein and Erich Gruen), the republic was largely healthy and functioning normally before, during, and after the period of Rome's greatest expansion.

 

So, basically, there are historians who agree with what you've been told and historians who--like you--are skeptical that the republic's success led to its downfall. Personally, I'm with you.

[Favonius Cornelius]

On the other hand, a healthy Republic would probably not have the ability to let generals march around the world with vast legions for decades either, nor let them keep the vast sums gained from such adventurism. Republics of the past kept this in check, but the later Republic could not.

 

Also, even if one can truly put aside all talk of small landholders etc, you still have to account for the nearness of the Gracchan and Sullan strife, which was of a nature and challenge I think different from classic Republican organization. When you kill off that many nobles in front of the eyes of the people certainly it has some sort of effect on the Roman consciousness.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Also, even if one can truly put aside all talk of small landholders etc, you still have to account for the nearness of the Gracchan and Sullan strife, which was of a nature and challenge I think different from classic Republican organization. When you kill off that many nobles in front of the eyes of the people certainly it has some sort of effect on the Roman consciousness.

 

Agreed, but that wouldn't be an example of the Republic's success leading to its downfall. That would be an example of constitutional violations leading to its downfall. And that, I contend, led to the civil war that re-established the monarchy.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Well, what about these men led to their being able to violate the constitutional norm? I think it's possible to say the money of Crassus and Pompey, and where did they get that from?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Well, what about these men led to their being able to violate the constitutional norm? I think it's possible to say the money of Crassus and Pompey, and where did they get that from?

 

There were men as rich (or richer) than these two (e.g., Lucullus), and it did them little good. It also wasn't Pompey's money that got him the lex Gabinia; it was the short-sightedness of the Popular Assembly.

[Virgil61]

The theory goes...

 

So, basically, there are historians who agree with what you've been told and historians who--like you--are skeptical that the republic's success led to its downfall. Personally, I'm with you.

 

Nice round-up. I'm not sure if I'm in either camp yet. There certainly were stressors in place due to the vast success of expansion and manpower demands. I think the Social War is one outgrowth; our allied legions helped you conquer much of the world and fight Hannibal now we want citizenship. I think the question should be not whether expansion was bad or good but whether the body politic of the Republic adopted to its demands and effects. Have to read the Rosenstein book though.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Well, what about these men led to their being able to violate the constitutional norm? I think it's possible to say the money of Crassus and Pompey, and where did they get that from?

 

There were men as rich (or richer) than these two (e.g., Lucullus), and it did them little good. It also wasn't Pompey's money that got him the lex Gabinia; it was the short-sightedness of the Popular Assembly.

 

Not all men are as ambitious as some, it just takes one eventually to show how the system is actually weak. In fact Lucullus is remarkable in the Roman world for being so capable and not continuing the political game at all after securing his riches. You're probably right, lex Gabinia did not come about by any riches by Pompey (though the spreading around of favors behind the scenes is hard to know in Roman history in general), but there are many aspects to a rise to power. Coupled to that increasing theme of centralized wealth is increasingly centralized power and fame too. As the empire grew, the republic failed to adopt to the nature of things and limit what men could do and have. When you consider of the balance of the early city republic (say 300-220) to the late republic, there is no compare.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Nice round-up. I'm not sure if I'm in either camp yet. There certainly were stressors in place due to the vast success of expansion and manpower demands. I think the Social War is one outgrowth; our allied legions helped you conquer much of the world and fight Hannibal now we want citizenship. I think the question should be not whether expansion was bad or good but whether the body politic of the Republic adopted to its demands and effects. Have to read the Rosenstein book though.

 

For the record, I have tremendous admiration for Brunt and his theory, which manages to integrate a wealth of data (much of it original) into one simple, coherent, and hierarchical explanation. That's an achievement in any field of scholarship, and it's even more impressive in ancient history, which has been studied for hundreds of years. (Compared to Scullard et al.'s "the Republic fell because of everything that happened before it fell", Brunt is a titan among dwarfs.) I also think that Rosenstein demolishes Brunt's theory, but I have to admit that it fails to go the extra step of offering an alternative explanation of similar scope, which Gruen does (though without actually challenging Brunt point-for-point).

 

You raise a number of good questions, and I'd love to see a work that addresses them within a single framework for understanding the middle to late republic. As far as I know, no such work exists as yet.

[CiceroD]

While I get the sense that this theory is being dismissed there is at least one way in which the Republic's success brought about its own demise.

 

With its expansion slaves became more numerous and affordable. Isn't it generally accepted that the displaced Proletarii were the seed of political turmoil?

 

Just a thought

What do you guys think?

[M. Porcius Cato]

With its expansion slaves became more numerous and affordable. Isn't it generally accepted that the displaced Proletarii were the seed of political turmoil?

 

When you say, "With its expansion", when do you mean? Rome was expanding for hundreds of years, yet the number of slaves did not rise proportionately if only because the high mortality rate of slaves would make it impossible.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

With its expansion slaves became more numerous and affordable. Isn't it generally accepted that the displaced Proletarii were the seed of political turmoil?

 

When you say, "With its expansion", when do you mean? Rome was expanding for hundreds of years, yet the number of slaves did not rise proportionately if only because the high mortality rate of slaves would make it impossible.

 

 

Did Rome of 340 BCE had exactly the same propotion of slaves as in the 1st century BC ?

 

"Between 200 and 91 the Roman territory stayed unchanged , which implies that population density increased by more than 50%. This increase refers only to free citizens, but the population of slaves has grown even faster" (Crawford 1993:46) .

 

"By the late Republic the numbers of assidui shrunk at an alarming degree, whereas the numbers of proletarii and slaves had experienced a massive growth."

 

"...To work the land they used the ever increasing numbers of slaves captured in Rome

[CiceroD]

I am speaking of the hundreds of years of military success.

 

Even though there would have been gluts and dearths in the market at certain points, Their population could have been sustained. According to Wikipedia "Roman Slave" Romans let their slaves have children in order to make an increase. So It sounds like the Romans could tide themselves over between conquests.

 

And the Romans had a lot of those