How to save the Roman republic?
- Thread starter Vabasion
- Start date
Except that expanding more increased the exposure to barbarian tribes in the North.
Except that using hired guns allow you to avoid the militarization of the society - Britain was able to limit its standing army by doing so for centuries.
Carthage might not be peaceful at all, but it aggression was nowhere near Rome or Alexander the Great.
The Dutch fought a war of independence and on land they were defensive most of the time and only went on offensive on the sea - where there were profitable colonies to grab. In Europe they resisted southward territorial expansion even when they were strongest - the reason is that blockading Antwerp was more profitable for the Armsterdam regenten than reconquest (while Stadholder William II wanted to conquer Spanish Netherlands).
I think Jonah your point is a good one- a VERY good one. But- how could you have restrained the Re-
public from embarking on the imperialist road it chose to go on?
If so then why was Caesar bringing his Land Reform Bill to the Peoples Assembly such a big deal then if it was just a advisory council? If it was just a advisory council then why did it have control over the distribution of all public funds? Why were they allowed to veto the proposed actions of a appointed dictator? That seems like an awful amount of respect and responsibility for what you are calling a mere advisory council.
octoberman
Banned
quaestors, praetors, and prefects had control over the distribution of all public funds
tribune had veto power
it advised magistrates but it was the magistrate's choice to act upon
octoberman
Banned
prevent legion from developing without it samnites cannot defeated and republic is contained in latium
octoberman
Banned
they were aggressive about controlling trade in western med and that policy start conflict with merchant controlled but rome doesn't have the resources of the whole of italy and it's islands to build a fleet on par with carthage or survive hannibal
octoberman
Banned
germans will invade italy regardless because huns will push them out of eastern europe and germany
And the vast majority of the time these people were also Senators and beholden to it so what's your point?
No idea what exactly you mean here. While Magistrates could choose to act independently the Senate was fully capable of recalling them if they displeased. Theirs a reason Caesar marched across the Rubicon you know
Yeah so what? The Senate was still the place where the vast amount of legislation was signed and was responsible for formally appointing Governors. I'm not sure how a single check on their power makes them just an advisory council.
octoberman
Banned
but their control of public funds came from their magistracy
senate could only advice other Magistrates to recall them
senate actually wanted peace and was unwilling to act against Caesar. Consul's actions caused Caesar to march across the Rubicon you should know
you are confusing direct power to indirect influence senate was very influencial because it consisted of former Magistrates
Except that the barbarian movements would have been far more different in a world with independent Gaul, independent East/Greece, possibly independent Spain and Carthage, and Roman Italy. Defending Italy alone from get go should be doable - if anything they would have benefited from not being overextended.
Last edited:
Not really as ITTL the troops could concentrate on a short front - most likely Northeastern Italy, which is much easier to defend than the entire Rhine. Just properly fortify the Alps and you would be fine. Also, unlike in Gaul/Dacia/Thrace/Pannonia, in Italy the army could rely on naval support.
Last edited:
It's a chicken and egg scenario. Regardless of the written law of the Roman constitution the Senate as an entity was extremely powerful in a practical sense because unless you were a Sulla/Marius/Pompey/Caesar with a large enough army to ignore the Senate if as an individual Roman nobleman you pissed your fellow governing elite off enough to lose a censure vote in the Senate you were politically and legally doomed, a case would be found against you and you would be exiled. Yes it wouldn't have been the Senate per se that would have exiled you, merely Senators acting as Jurors on your trial but you're still heading to exile.
As to the OP it is essentially impossible to "save the Republic" if by that you mean the political constitution of Rome post 287BC and the Lex Hortensia. It was a system of government that was workable for a City State and it's surrounding territory and could not be made to work for a large Empire and as the Mediterranean was undergoing a process of consolidation either Rome expanded or it would have be swallowed up.
However I do think it would have been possible that the replacement would have been a broader based oligarchy rather than the Monarchy that took over in OTL. The key thing is you need a relatively early PoD, certainly pre Marius and Sulla and probably pre the Gracchi.
Last edited:
octoberman
Banned
if rome would not have expanded beyond latium if they didn't develop the legion if they did they would defentily expand beyond italy so fortifiny the Alps is not possible
The most obvious way the Republic could have survived is if Cato and his followers weren't hellbent on destroying Caesars political career no matter the cost and Caesar hellbent on continuing his political career no matter the cost.
One could have easily come up with some type of compromise for both parties if the civil war wasn't fought over the extermination and the preservation of one man career.
One could have easily come up with some type of compromise for both parties if the civil war wasn't fought over the extermination and the preservation of one man career.