Why the Roman Republic never came back?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve!

Edited December 8, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

Mainly because Augustus manage to turn the army into a conservative element who was loyal to the emperors.

 

And much more importanly the Senate in imperial times was nothing more than a bunch lapdogs for the emperors and this was in sharp contrast to the republican senate.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Mainly because Augustus manage to turn the army into a conservative element who was loyal to the emperors.

 

And much more importanly the Senate in imperial times was nothing more than a bunch lapdogs for the emperors and this was in sharp contrast to the republican senate.

Was then the Republican Army non-conservative (progressive or liberal)?

 

What changed the Republican Senate into lapdogs?

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

What changed the Republican Senate into lapdogs?

 

The Republican Senate had the freedom of speech, they worked as a governmental body and were able to make decisions and oppose other factions decisions with out fearing for their lives, where as the Senators of Imperial times knew that if they made a stand and opposed the Emperors idea's then firstly, they would stand alone and secondly, it would surely have resulted in their deaths

[ASCLEPIADES]

Did the Roman people ever demand the restoration of the Republic?

[caldrail]

Mainly because Augustus manage to turn the army into a conservative element who was loyal to the emperors.

 

And much more importanly the Senate in imperial times was nothing more than a bunch lapdogs for the emperors and this was in sharp contrast to the republican senate.

 

Lapdogs? Not really. Certainly the majority of senators were happy at being wealthy and powerful and rather liked the idea of staying alive, but then many emperors were wary of the sharks hiding in the senate. Remember Commodus in the arena, waving a dead ostrich head at the senators sat above him? Claudius hiding in the praetorian barracks? The execution of Didius julianus? It may well be that the reason Augustus exiled his daughter was because the silly girl was telling them everything they wanted to know.

 

The army was not loyal to the emperor, nor Rome. Each legion was sworn to obey and was loyal to the commander. Many legions persuaded their commanders to assume the title of emperor (successfully or not), whilst other legions followed their respected and beloved leader (Like Septimius Severus for instance). In fact, keeping the army sweet was essential to a long and happy rule. Loyal? Not even close. If the army became disgruntled for any reason, you were in for a rough time. Hadrian for instance assumes power by controversial means, and although he wasn't a natural soldier with territorial ambition in any way, he made sure that army discipline was tightened and that they were kept busy.

 

Although the republican senate was the pwer in rome, was it any more than the senate of imperial times? In some ways yes, given their aristocratic oligarchy, but in other ways, politics was essentially the same. You supported the stronger man of choice, you put weaker men in your pocket. That went on in imperial times just as much as the republic despite the loss of executive power.

Edited August 19, 2007 by caldrail

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Although the republican senate was the pwer in rome, was it any more than the senate of imperial times? In some ways yes, given their aristocratic oligarchy, but in other ways, politics was essentially the same. You supported the stronger man of choice, you put weaker men in your pocket. That went on in imperial times just as much as the republic despite the loss of executive power.

 

True, but apart from the fact that in Imperial times the final decision came down to one man and one man alone, the Emperor made the final decision and the Senate went along with it whether they fully agreed or not.

[caldrail]

No, that depended on how powerful the emperor was. Augustus was very cautious in his dealings with the senate and that even with his reputation as a benign ruler. Didius Julianus on the other hand pleaded with the senate, who viewed him with utter contempt.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Senate ruled Rome effectively for half a millennium and was able to conquer the known World; how was it possible that it was never able to regain its power from the emperors?

 

There are two separate (but related) issues here: Why was the republic not restored? and Why did the Senate fail to regain its power?

 

I think the chief reason that the republic was not restored was that the men capable of running it were not republicans, at least not predominantly. The natural allies of the republic were the tribunes and the senate. Yet after Augustus, tribunician power had passed to the emperor himself and the senate comprised the emperor's most favored lackeys rather than the elected representatives of the people. Why would a magistrate and senator--who had achieved his position for free--want to replace the system with one that made the magistracies more expensive for him? Dispensing with elections would have seemed a boon to the senators, even had they had republican sympathies.

 

Why did the Senate fail to regain power? Because the emperor wasn't about to hand it to them, and unlike the emperor, the senate had no secret police, no palace guard, and no armies. Armies were the hands of regional governors, whose rebellions were fought for their own power and not the power of the Senate or people. Their was simply no mechanism whatever for the Senate to attain power.

[Maladict]

And much more importanly the Senate in imperial times was nothing more than a bunch lapdogs for the emperors and this was in sharp contrast to the republican senate.

 

 

I don't know, but when senators start supporting usurpers, at times even putting up imperial candidates from their midst, and inscribing their allegiance in stone on the forum for all to see, that doesn't really sound like a bunch of lapdogs to me. But I could be wrong.

Edited August 19, 2007 by Maladict

[DecimusCaesar]

The Senate ruled Rome effectively for half a millennium and was able to conquer the known World; how was it possible that it was never able to regain its power from the emperors?

 

Why did the Senate fail to regain power? Because the emperor wasn't about to hand it to them, and unlike the emperor, the senate had no secret police, no palace guard, and no armies. Armies were the hands of regional governors, whose rebellions were fought for their own power and not the power of the Senate or people. Their was simply no mechanism whatever for the Senate to attain power.

 

A good point. A few generations after the fall of the Republic, many Romans had no understanding of life under the control of a senate. Also as the years passed the Emperors and their guards held an even greater amount of power...even if an emperor was assassinated the Praetorians and the army would make sure that power passed to another Emperor and not to the senate. As the centuries passed the power base of Emperors got larger and that of the senate got smaller, till by the reign of Diocletian the emperor no longer had to pretend that he was just 'first among equals' like Augustus, but that he was a divine monarch.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Was all a matter of money?

Edited December 8, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Segestan]

<<<<The Senate ruled Rome effectively for half a millennium and was able to conquer the known World; how was it possible that it was never able to regain its power from the emperors?

 

What do you think?>>>>

 

The -Senate- that ruled effectively , as you say; was Roman.... Not Italian , Latin or Greek . After Caesar came to power Rome was a blend of Roman, Latin and Italian. Italian meaning

[M. Porcius Cato]

The -Senate- that ruled effectively , as you say; was Roman.... Not Italian , Latin or Greek . After Caesar came to power Rome was a blend of Roman, Latin and Italian. Italian meaning

[cornelius_sulla]

I think that the death knell of the republic was signalled when the senate allowed Gaius Marius to enlist legionnaries from the ranks of the capite censi. Thereafter, the legions increasingly gave their first loyalty to their generals. Witness the Fimbriani, who even after fighting for Sulla and Lucullus, still referred to themselves as the men of Fimbria, their first general. No army of the early republic would have crossed the Rubicon with Caesar because they did not owe their generals that degree of loyalty. Gaius Julius Caesar's legions, however, relied on him for spoils, for land, for their share in the glory of Rome.

Thus, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar etc could strong arm the senate with the threat of their armies marching on Rome. Sulla did it became Emperor in all but name. Caesar did it and became Dictator Perpetuus.

On the other side of the coin, the Optimates, led by Cato, Bibulus, etc, adhered so doggedly to the mos maiorum that they were willing to cut off the nose of the Republic to spite it's face. They abhorred change, even change for the better, and refused to give an inch to Caesar, who after all, only wanted his due.

Finally, the systems of the Republic itself were woefully inadequate for governing the extensive conquests of Rome. The Senate and the People were no longer in charge of a city state, but practically the European World. Caesar and Augustus after him saw that power needed to be centralised.

Kia Ora!