Who Was Responsible For Fall Of Republic

[Sulla]

I think it all started (the beginning of the end), with Gaius Marius. He essentially created an army that would do anything for him, and he became to made with power (after six consulships), so he marched on rome to get more (including to take command off Sulla in the east). It was even Marius who catapulted Sulla to march on Rome. So in my opinion, the Republic fell because of Gaius Marius.

[dnewhous]

Gaius Marius did what he had to do. He was responding to events. The consequence of not doing what he did would have been worse.

[haimore]

My personal opinion is that you can't blame one person or event for the fall of the Republic...it started I think we all agree...with the Grachii...and I think most will agree that when Sulla marched on Rome it was pretty much the death of the Republic...if one group of people are to bear the brunt of the blame it has to be the Senate itself...or for that matter...the people of Rome.

[Octavian]

Gaius Marius did what he had to do.  He was responding to events.  The consequence of not doing what he did would have been worse.

 

i agree...without marius's actions rome may have lost a lot more than the republican form of government but he did pave the way for legions who would always side with the richest and strongest. -but this also prevented much bloodshed in the "revolution".

 

Many people had an enormous influence in the fall of the republic which seems to be in agreement. But instead of looking at who may have had the crucial role in its fall, look at individuals who could have prevented the fall but did not. When people like sulla, caesar, and augustus had the power available, they could not refuse to push for more. its this nature of the roman aristocracy that led to the fall of the republic but it seems to me rome never really had a legitimate trace of democracy and may have been better off without it.

[dnewhous]

The Roman army seams to have operated as an ani-poverty program for the poor. Julius Caesar was murdered in part because he was a populist and the patricians hated him for it. Julius's anti-poverty program - invade backwards Europe, murder and displace the natives, and replace them with impoverished Roman colonists. In addition to being unethical the territory conquered was undeveloped and didn't contribute much to the empire.

[M. Porcius Cato]

It's after you get greed on an epic scale that the teams of slaves and bondsmen start working huge estates. It became cost efficient to keep and move around teams of specialized men to work larger areas than resident slaves or freemen. Patronage shifted from services to currency when tax farming in the eastern empire made coins more important than grain to the mega-rich. Hence, grinding agricultural slavery became normal instead of family servitude.

 

So, patronage was smarter than slavery until coin became more important than grain or service. At least that is my understanding, as always...there is room for error.

 

I think there might be a couple of errors here.

 

First, I don't think factors like "greed on an epic scale" explains anything--it's vague, it's unfalsifiable, it's probably a part of human nature that's unchanging (so why would it only have an effect at time X?), and so on.

 

Second, teams of slaves working vast estates are economically sub-optimal for many reasons, most importantly because their use inhibits the widespread adoption of labor-saving devices with non-agrarian benefits. Leasing one's holdings to tenant farmers is generally more lucrative in the long-run because tenant farmers offer both a source of wealth and a market for higher-margin livestock and manufactured goods (e.g., iron goods). I think it's important to note that Romans did not justify slavery by its supposed economic benefits--slavery was a luxury and something to impress one's friends.

 

Third, I don't think that tax farmers ever formed much of a political base in comparison to other economic groups, so it's unlikely that the expansion of tax farmers led to the expansion of slavery.

 

It's interesting to note that the bad economics of slavery were pretty well understood during Rome's rule, leading many to free their slaves as an investment, and it took public laws (sponsored I think by Augustus) to slow down the decline of the peculiar institution.

 

So much for Augustus--or Julius Caesar for that matter--being a friend of the poor!

[Favonius Cornelius]

Third, I don't think that tax farmers ever formed much of a political base in comparison to other economic groups, so it's unlikely that the expansion of tax farmers led to the expansion of slavery.

 

Well...tax farming legislation ebbed and flowed through the history of the Republic. I think they probably did indeed carry notable political clout, but I agree I don't see how they could have affected slavery.

[pompeius magnus]

Be careful on your thoughts towards the importance of slavery, or how big an issue it was to the Romans. Roman and Greek society were very different in this respect. Slavery was never much of an issue to the Romans, often times, especially in the early to mid republic the farm hands were all those not classified as patricians.

[sullafelix]

Third, I don't think that tax farmers ever formed much of a political base in comparison to other economic groups, so it's unlikely that the expansion of tax farmers led to the expansion of slavery.

 

Well...tax farming legislation ebbed and flowed through the history of the Republic. I think they probably did indeed carry notable political clout, but I agree I don't see how they could have affected slavery.

 

 

Indeed they carried huge clout and here is how. Tax farmers (publicani) were from the equestrian class. Various different Republican politicians gave the equestrians greater powers. But it was the times that they were allowed onto the juries (Gaius Gracchus) that they gained the most clout. Then they could and did prosecute Provinical governors for various kinds of corruption. The favourite trick was if they came up against a governor that was refusing to allow them to turn the screw really hard in a province they would bring a trumped up charge against him and have him ruined. So they had considerble clout

[tribunician power]

I would certainly agree with the idea that the fall of the republic was inevitable simply because of the Romans constant glorifications of which ever man strikes their fancy and the rewards and power in which they showered these lucky individuals. I myself voted for Marius and his reforms of the legions though I could easily be swayed toward any time previous to that when more power was granted to the generals which happened over and over.

[Guest Consul Scipio]

I blame Cato.

Edited December 1, 2005 by Consul Scipio

[M. Porcius Cato]

I blame Cato.

All right guys, take your shot. How was Cato, who had no armies and never served as consul, MORE responsible for the fall of the Republic than the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Catiline, Clodius, Caesar, and Octavian? This I've got to hear.

[Primus Pilus]

I blame Cato.

All right guys, take your shot. How was Cato, who had no armies and never served as consul, MORE responsible for the fall of the Republic than the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Catiline, Clodius, Caesar, and Octavian? This I've got to hear.

 

Only by failing to offer any sort of compromise in order to allow Caesar to return to Rome with honor rather than disgrace. While its certainly an attitude that helped push Caesar towards civil war, its hardly the ultimate cause. Caesar had the ability to fall on the sword to preserve his honor rather than march across the Rubicon, but he chose the alternative.

 

I find them all to carry a burden of responsibilty (unless one considers the Republic a failed institution in which case there is no need to carry a burden), the Gracchi for their demagoguery, Marius, Sulla and Cinna for their well attested destructive rivalries, Caesar for his personal ambition to outshine Alexander, the 'Optimates' for failing to understand that compromise was necessary to save the Republic, even the Assassins for failing to have a plan once Caesar was dead, Cicero for playing Octavian against Antonius and actually helping to increase his support and popularity, Antonius for being a brutish political fool.......

[Virgil61]

All right guys, take your shot. How was Cato, who had no armies and never served as consul, MORE responsible for the fall of the Republic than the Gracchi, Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Catiline, Clodius, Caesar, and Octavian? This I've got to hear.

 

What Primus said...

 

Cato may not have responsibity outshining the combined total of those you've listed, but in the immediate months and weeks before the crossing of the Rubicon Cato, by convincing a large number of the Senate to refuse a compromise with JC, partially out of pure spite and a love of the Republi-- as in a feeding trough for optimates--holds a large portion of the blame.

 

I'm not sure why you're shocked, Cato's intrasigence and contribution to the civil war has been commented in much of the literature about the end of the Republic.

[M. Porcius Cato]

What Primus said...

...

I'm not sure why you're shocked, Cato's intransigence and contribution to the civil war has been commented in much of the literature about the end of the Republic.

I agree with Primus too, and I don't doubt for a moment that Cato contributed to the civil war: he contributed to it in exactly the same way that the intransigence of a policeman contributes to a shoot-out with a criminal who is resisting arrest. Obviously the policeman could let the criminal go if he weren't so 'obstinant', but the rule of law demands obstinancy.

 

Whatever mistakes Cato made (e.g., he should have condemned Milo), his lifelong love of the Republic and hatred of dictatorship (which btw predate his grudge against Caesar) was of *some* value in preserving the first and preventing the second. With the possible exception of the Gracchi, I don't think the same could be said of anyone else on this list, which is why none of them were controversial choices and almost all have received votes.