Who Was Responsible For Fall Of Republic

[pompeius magnus]

A couple of things here. First, there was no peasantry in the city of rome, there were the headcount who were the landless people of Rome. They were not allowed into the army because they could not afford to buy their own equipment relying on the patrician and plebians to make up the majority of the army. After several wars back to back the patrician and plebians were in short supply for the army, so Marius took matters into his own hand and thus his reforms happened. And with these headcount now having something to do it got them out of the city and after a certain number of years they got their own land to life on.

[dnewhous]

A couple of things here. First, there was no peasantry in the city of rome, there were the headcount who were the landless people of Rome. They were not allowed into the army because they could not afford to buy their own equipment relying on the patrician and plebians to make up the majority of the army. After several wars back to back the patrician and plebians were in short supply for the army, so Marius took matters into his own hand and thus his reforms happened. And with these headcount now having something to do it got them out of the city and after a certain number of years they got their own land to life on.

Plebians - by this do you mean non-nobles who had their own land? I didn't know that the landless were not considered plebians. I haven't specified what I meant by "peasantry" but I can hardly imagine that there were no farmers who had their homes in the city of Rome.

 

Like someone posted earlier, for some reason the land started to get bought up by the patricians and the equestrians and the family farmer started to disappear. Why did that happen? That is critical.

[longbow]

andI wasn't talking about racism at all. I am saying prisoners of war and people from conquered territories should never have been made slaves in the first place.

I am well aware that slavery has been with mankind since the beginning, but it wasn't until I learned about the Marius reforms that I realized how devestating it was to the common people of Rome.

 

My point is that if the peasantry was free - whether farmers, or paid, or even indentured servants, then letting common people into the army would not have been a problem.

 

You can't have democracy (or a republic) when the majority of your people are landless poor. It doesn't work. Ever.

 

The effects of this are a problem even now. Most people in England do not actually own the land upon which they have their home!

 

Unlike what some Europe loving leftist economists think, private property is the cornerstone of prosperity and freedom.

Well i live in england and i own my home and the land its built on . im confused about this statement?????Every one who owns a house owns the land too. L

[pompeius magnus]

Ok here we go. Plebians were below patricians. Plebians had a revolt that led to them eventually getting a part in the government. There is way too much information to describe here. I advise you read up on the beginning of Rome. Here is a good start: The Beginnings of Rome by TJ Cornell. this book gives and excellent base for how the roman institutions were set up and describes everything more clearly.

[dnewhous]

Ok here we go. Plebians were below patricians. Plebians had a revolt that led to them eventually getting a part in the government. There is way too much information to describe here. I advise you read up on the beginning of Rome. Here is a good start: The Beginnings of Rome by TJ Cornell. this book gives and excellent base for how the roman institutions were set up and describes everything more clearly.

Don't get condescending, jerk. Except for your book reference I already knew what you have written in this post. In an earlier post, you implied that the landless headcount of Rome were not plebians, but beneath them, which is something I had not heard before.

 

You also state "there was no peasantry in the city of rome." Since peasantry is not a well-defined term in the Roman world (perhaps I shouldn't have used it) I'd like you to explain exactly what you mean by it. What you mean by "peasantry" and what I mean by "peasantry" might be different.

[dnewhous]

Well i live in england and i own my home and the land its built on . im confused about this statement?????Every one who owns a house owns the land too. L

I was going by some unreliable sources for my information on England. Is it the same for rural, suburban, and urban residents?

 

Sorry for the error.

[dnewhous]

In Primus Pilus's description of the Marus reforms, he mentions that in the late Republic all the land was bought up by the patricians and equestrians leading to a dispossession of the family farmer. Why did that happen? His write up doesn't answer that.

 

There's something else that is ambiguous. Could a plebian who owns his own land but is not equestrian serve in the army? I suppose it's a question of whether they could afford to equip themselves. Something tells me this might have changed over time in the Republic, I have a mental image of the early Republic's army being somewhat irregular but the late Republic's army being fairly well equipped.

[Primus Pilus]

Hmm, part of the problem I think is the 'history' section is really intended as a complete story. Individual pages sometimes leave out part of the story if read alone.

 

Anyway, simplified here: the wealthy were buying up land while debt in the lower classes was at a ridiculous high. Small landowners could no longer compete with the large slave estate farms and they would sell out for 'pennies on the dollar' in order to pay off that debt or just to survive. In addition, the impact of generations of warfare left many small estates with too few male family members to work the farm at competitive or profitable levels. It was really a re-occurring theme since the end of the Punic Wars.

 

And yes, plebes (which includes the equestrian class) could serve in the army. Many land owners were plebes. Consider that very few Romans, by comparison to the total population, were high ranking Equestrians or Patricians. It would've been very difficult to field an entire army with just the highest classes.

 

As for 'peasantry' there were working and contributing (almost middle class) plebes, and there were the landless poor. There are examples, such as the Second Punic War, where the 'head count' was conscripted into emergency armies. Sometimes we paint Roman history with a broad generalization (and I am guilty of it too at times), but Rome never would've survived without occasionally dipping into their lowest classes for support.

[longbow]

Well i live in england and i own my home and the land its built on . im confused about this statement?????Every one who owns a house owns the land too. L

 

I was going by some unreliable sources for my information on England. Is it the same for rural, suburban, and urban residents?

 

Sorry for the error.

some arosticratic familys like lord bath own vast estates in the countryside,these eststes may have villages or small towns in them.But the people who live there rent there property of the estate so they dont actually own there homes/land. apart from cases like that u own the land your homes on. thx .L

[pompeius magnus]

Plebs were sometimes lower nobility, or a member of the higher lower class. The headcount were pretty much the lowest class of roman society. You will really get a better view of this type of thing by reading the book I mentioned. To correct myself a little bit on the patrician owned farms were run by peansant type people, however with various agricultural reforms, such as the Marius ones, a some of these were lost to the retired troops.

[P.Clodius]

One entry is sadly missing from the poll and that is the Senate itself. It was mostly responsible for its own demise.

[Maximus Caesar]

I think it was caused by oriental cults form within (meaning christianity in its infancy), barbarian armies from without, and stupid emerors and feckless imperial officials.

[P.Clodius]

" I think it was caused by oriental cults form within (meaning christianity in its infancy), barbarian armies from without, and stupid emerors and feckless imperial officials."

 

The Republic fell before Jesus was born and before there were any emperors. The emperorship was an alternative form of government formulated by Octavian. This was done after the fall of the Republic. Those responsible for the fall are none other than the Senate with its constant infighting and the immediate self gratification of its members

[Bombay211]

you really cant limit the fall of the repulic to one man. there were many reasons that led to the fall of the republic like the senate not having full control and marius reforms letting generals gain huge power in the army possibly leading to civil war. but also just human greed by the leaders like Gaius Julius Caesar and the senate was doomed to failure form the start. thus proving that no one single style govt can last forever

[dnewhous]

Julius Caesar was an egomaniac for sure, but he was also a genuine populist. The point that needs to be made - the reason the Republic fell is because there was no popular support for the senate. When Caesar invaded Italy the people sided with him. That's why the empire fell.