Kosmo Posted August 24, 2007 Report Share Posted August 24, 2007 The republican institutions lost power not to the emperor, but to the army and to the head of the army. Probably the citizens after the Civil Wars were much less interested by political rights then the plebs of the Republic and were not used and could not defend their rights manu militari. The profesionalization of the army it's the main factor of the fall of the Republic and of keeping the imperial institutions. I don't think that the emperors wer better administrators then the Republic. After all the conquest of the world was made by the Republic, so they could administer what they were able to conquer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 The republican institutions lost power not to the emperor, but to the army and to the head of the army.Probably the citizens after the Civil Wars were much less interested by political rights then the plebs of the Republic and were not used and could not defend their rights manu militari. The plebs were as interested (or not) before and after the change to empire. The profesionalization of the army it's the main factor of the fall of the Republic and of keeping the imperial institutions. I don't see it that way, although it did allow the generals of the late republic a standing army to enforce their own political ambition, which brings us to the real cause. It was the rise of a number of individuals who decided to bend the laws and obtain power for their own ends. The republic was a political failure in the end (after a long period of success), not a military one. It was the lack of loyalty of the genrals to the state that allowed one of them to bring in an imperial dynasty. The army by and large did what it was told, the occaisional mutiny aside. I don't think that the emperors wer better administrators then the Republic. After all the conquest of the world was made by the Republic, so they could administer what they were able to conquer. Some were good, some were hopeless. The same was true of senators although the average of their opinions and actions meant that many of the potential disasters were avoided, though rule by commitee is never perfect either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 We simply can't evaluate the degree of loyalty of the republican generals before the "Marian" reforms; they didn't have a choice! What are you talking about? How did their choices increase after the Marian reforms? If anything, their choices decreased. Initially, there was no sacramentum. Then, the sacramentum was restricted to the vow not to abandon formation in battle. Finally, after Marius, the sacramentum was expanded to obey one's legates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 We simply can't evaluate the degree of loyalty of the republican generals before the "Marian" reforms; they didn't have a choice! What are you talking about? How did their choices increase after the Marian reforms? If anything, their choices decreased. Initially, there was no sacramentum. Then, the sacramentum was restricted to the vow not to abandon formation in battle. Finally, after Marius, the sacramentum was expanded to obey one's legates. Indeed, the Marian reforms did nothing other than reform the legionary structure. As a side effect it may have given the perception to the legionary that he was dependent upon his legate for his well being and retirement therefore increasing loyalty, but this dependency was not necessarily true either. The Republic still did much to pay, equip and retire military veterans. Regardless, men still had choices. Before the Marian reforms, Scipio Africanus could have called upon his veterans to help him against political enemies, but he did not. There are countless examples, one simply needs to pick a victorious (imperator) to see the choices they had. There was a different culture regarding the fulfillment of personal ambition among generals and magistrates prior to the Marian/Sullan civil war, but the Marian reforms did not force any of the notorious generals to behave the way they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted August 31, 2007 Report Share Posted August 31, 2007 Sequitur The text you quoted is mine, not MPC's just for purposes of clarity... I know this keeps getting rehashed, but I think it is quite important to understand the difference between the effects of the Marian reforms (allowing extreme loyalty to a general) and the main cause of civil war (personal ambition). While the Marian reforms may have done just what I indicated in the quoted text above (essentially making the loyalty of the head count to rogue generals a problem for the Republic, though I am also remiss in that text by not pointing out that such loyalty had occurred prior to the reforms and that it was still personal ambition of imperators that manipulated that loyalty for personal gain), it does not mean that the generals did not have choices to make regarding the use of that loyalty and their duty to the state. The reforms themselves did not make civil war inevitable, but rather the changing culture of ambitious generals just prior to and just after Sulla and Marius. The Marian reform was both a necessity at the moment, due to issues with available manpower following multiple defeats to the Cimbri and Teutons and the recent war with Jugurtha, while it was also a great boon for Marian ambition. Like Scipio Africanus in an earlier era, or Crassus and Lucullus after the Marian reforms, any of the imperator generals could've retired their armies and returned to normal political life or retired from service entirely. That they chose not to was not because of the reforms and the loyalty of their armies but because of personal ambition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 1, 2007 Report Share Posted September 1, 2007 I just can't believe there was no case of resolute personal ambition among absolutely all the republican generals antedating the Marian reforms. No one is endorsing the idea that ambition was born in the last century of the republic. The claim is that the Marian reforms were not themselves sufficient to create civil war. At most, the civil wars after Marius demonstrate only that the reforms were necessary for the proceeding unrest. Moreover, I continue to think the issue of personal ambition is a red herring. Ambition is the very lifeblood of the republic--as long as it is realized within the bounds of LAW. What distinguishes a Lucullus and a Scipio from a Catiline and a Caesar isn't ambition--they were all ambitious men. The distinguishing factor is their loyalty to the rule of law. Without the rule of law, not even a republic led by the laziest "fish-ponders" could endure for long. Petty corruption is merely treason on a smaller scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.