Who killed the Republic?

[M. Porcius Cato]

As I say, I'm not a fan of Sulla--abolishing the tribunate was dubious, the proscriptions were beyond the pale--but one of his lasting reforms was a good one: automatic elevation of all magistrates to the senate. This had been almost a de facto policy, but making it de jure strengthened the tie between the people and the senate, which was a sound move.

[Julius Ratus]

Everyone wants to point to Julius, or Sulla or whoever, but if we take it from the point where the Republic could no longer be restored in any shape or form, I would have to give the title to Augustus.

 

I voted with you (and as of yet am the only other one). While I believe that the Republic's fall started with the Gracchi, who started the revolutionary period, it was little 'Thurinus' who pulled the trigger.

[CEB]

Capitalist Agriculture

[M. Porcius Cato]

Capitalist Agriculture

I'm sure the collectivization of the farms would have been just wonderful for the republic LOL.

[Mosquito]

Capitalist Agriculture

I'm sure the collectivization of the farms would have been just wonderful for the republic LOL.

 

 

LOL!!!!!!

 

 

Wrong forum CEB.

 

Try thisone:

 

http://www.soviet-empire.com/

Edited March 28, 2007 by Mosquito

[CEB]

Capitalism v. Communism ......Opposite means to equal ends. Both in their pure form kill private ownership and strangle free enterprise.

 

The Roman economy was ag based. The rise of large slave labor based plantation style farms fueled the rise of the irresponsible oligarachy that eventually lead to the end of the Republic.

Edited March 28, 2007 by CEB

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Roman economy was ag based. The rise of large slave labor based plantation style farms fueled the rise of the irresponsible oligarachy that eventually lead to the end of the Republic.

 

Are you aware that archaeological evidence of Roman agriculture completely contradicts this hypothesis? That demographic evidence suggests that the opposite is true? That the only way to make this hypothesis feasible is to assume rates of death, birth, and fertility that are completely unrealistic?

 

EDIT: Ooops! I just realized that bourgeois science might be too much for your proletarian sensibilities.

Edited March 28, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[Gaius Octavius]

CEB, perhaps you might have said state or oligarchic or monopolistic capitalism vs state communism. 'Pure Capitalism' neither stifles enterprise nor competition. Nor does voluntary communism.

Edited March 29, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[Skarr]

The Republic, I think, eroded itself over time, as Rome grew too rich and too powerful, for its own boots.

 

The roots can be traced back to the policy of conquest, the expansion of the empire, the influx of slaves and of course, the main culprits - land, overpopulation and the growing problems with the economy, grain supplies and other matters which came to a head during Caesar's brief dictatorship.

 

Any large body of government, without proper rules and procedures, would find it difficult to function / make decisions when there is an overwhelming crisis developing on different fronts on a daily basis. When there is a large body of citizens to be appeased and there are problems so basic (like food to survive), any slowness in decision making can affect how the government performs.

 

The people would naturally look to one source, one voice of power that can eliminate at one stroke, any problems they perceive and this was something that a large body like the Senate could not assure, because of the inherent nature of that institution.

 

So, in my opinion, the fall was inevitable, as the Senate did not take steps to manage / resolve how they were going to decisively tackle all these internal and external issues that faced the Republic. The institutions like the courts we have today, the police, army, treasury etc. simply did not exist at the time and although Rome did have a Treasury and some form of bureaucracy, there was a lot of arbitrary stuff too and the list of public officials elected as well as the overall leaders (the 2 consuls), simply did not have the authority, wherewithal or the proper mechanisms (adminstrative, bureaucratic and other functions) to get the job done and get it done quickly.

 

However, people like Caesar and others found it more efficient to consolidate all these functions in their absolute authority and thereby, with a single order or edict, the entire administrative might of the Republic could bear down on a particular problem and effectively resolve this.

 

Therefore, the Republic was doomed from the time Rome began to expand its territories as they did not have the tools to manage their growth / expansion by developing institutions. This in turn, led the way for individuals to assume supreme command and I think you cannot lay the blame on Sulla or Caesar.

 

My 2 c.. on this topic

[Gaius Octavius]

I think that the government had the tools, but not the wits to use them. Avarice, particularly that of the 'better people', was their primary mover.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Any large body of government, without proper rules and procedures, would find it difficult to function / make decisions when there is an overwhelming crisis developing on different fronts on a daily basis. When there is a large body of citizens to be appeased and there are problems so basic (like food to survive), any slowness in decision making can affect how the government performs.

 

What I find so frustrating about a post like this is the lack of any consideration of the details of the period. To take just one counter-example that readily springs to mind: prior to the second Catilinarian conspiracy, Caesar and Crassus proposed to annex Egypt, to bring rich shipments of grain from Egypt, where Caesar would have been made governor. When the proposal was brought before the people, they were uninterested--having already been supplied richly with grain by Pompey--and Caesar and Crassus had to abandon their proposal.

 

Far from the government being unable to meet the people's temporary needs, many politicians were fairly stumbling over each other to supply the people with grain (even Cato) from all quarters of the empire, and they were so successful that the people were finally disinterested in this form of appeasement.

 

The suggestion that a minor disruption in the food supply in 64 led to the downfall of the republic simply doesn't fit the facts.

[Segestan]

The Blame for the Fall of the 'Roman Republic' should be placed in the hands of Slave trading capitalist. The Gracchi brothers merely tried to re-establish land laws that kept the farm in the hands of citizens. The Gracchi' were all murdered throw in the Tiber by the ruling elitist party. Human trafficing was BIG business. Whole towns would be enslaved by the payed-raiders looking for human merchandise. War was BIG business.

Greed had everything to do with the social decay that is today defined as the Fall of the Roman Republic.

[Julius Ratus]

The Blame for the Fall of the 'Roman Republic' should be placed in the hands of Slave trading capitalist. The Gracchi brothers merely tried to re-establish land laws that kept the farm in the hands of citizens. The Gracchi' were all murdered throw in the Tiber by the ruling elitist party. Human trafficing was BIG business. Whole towns would be enslaved by the payed-raiders looking for human merchandise. War was BIG business.

Greed had everything to do with the social decay that is today defined as the Fall of the Roman Republic.

 

The social decay argument goes way back but I don't think it was a moral deficiency which killed the Republi, it was a political issue. I likewise do not see how slavery destroyed the Republic. Had Spartacus overthrown the state and set up his own government then maybe salvery could be credited for its fall. Rather, slavery was a part of the culture of Rome, and indeed of most of the Mediterranean. While the issue of slavery is distasteful to us modern folk, in Rome it was part of life.

 

The murder of the Tiberius Gracchus was what set off the fall of the Republic. The Senate decided to use violence when they couldn't with through votes, so the Populares copied this tactic. Sulla took the violence to a whole new level, so Marius and Cinna followed in step.

 

I do not think the fall of the Republic was entirely inevitable, but the Republic needed much more maintenence than it was being given. Murdering Tiberius Gracchus set of a chain reaction, which could have been cut at anytime, but wasn't.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I do not think the fall of the Republic was entirely inevitable, but the Republic needed much more maintenence than it was being given. Murdering Tiberius Gracchus set of a chain reaction, which could have been cut at anytime, but wasn't.

 

I agree that the 'fall' of the Republic was not entirely inevitable, but the 'chain reaction' metaphor certainly suggests a kind of deterministic inevitability. If we look just at the events immediately following the murder of Ti Gracchus, it's clear that the faction in the Senate responsible had completely overplayed its hand, and the rest of the Senate did everything they could to clean up the mess (e.g., in supporting Livius Drusus). Moreover, between G. Gracchus and the Marian slaughter, there was a very long period of time without political violence in Rome (which, again, doesn't support the 'chain reaction' metaphor).

[Julius Ratus]

I do not think the fall of the Republic was entirely inevitable, but the Republic needed much more maintenence than it was being given. Murdering Tiberius Gracchus set of a chain reaction, which could have been cut at anytime, but wasn't.

 

I agree that the 'fall' of the Republic was not entirely inevitable, but the 'chain reaction' metaphor certainly suggests a kind of deterministic inevitability. If we look just at the events immediately following the murder of Ti Gracchus, it's clear that the faction in the Senate responsible had completely overplayed its hand, and the rest of the Senate did everything they could to clean up the mess (e.g., in supporting Livius Drusus). Moreover, between G. Gracchus and the Marian slaughter, there was a very long period of time without political violence in Rome (which, again, doesn't support the 'chain reaction' metaphor).

 

There were a number of flare-ups of violence between the death of Gracchus and the "Marian slaughter". T. Gracchus died in 132 BC. In 121 BC Gaius Gracchus was killed, after some violent acts of his own. In 100 BC there was the fight between Saturninus and the Senate, which Marius had to put down bloodily, costing him an ally. In 91 BC Livius Drusus was assassinated and then the blood bath of 91-88 took place. In 88 BC Sulla illegally marched on Rome. Then in 87-86 BC Marius returned to aid the Consul, Cinna, regain power. In about half a century there were six major outbreaks of violence. Furthermore, the episodes of violence got bigger on each occasion.