How to save the Roman republic?

[Fabius Maximus]

How are you defining the power of "the Senate" as far as being a "mere advisory council"?

Legally speaking, he's correct -- the Senate's decisions weren't technically binding, and it had no independent capacity for action (it couldn't meet unless summoned by a magistrate, for example).

Practically speaking, by the second century BC its influence was so great that it was arguably the most important body in the state.

One could say that the constitutional crisis of the late Republic was caused by the populares trying to restrict the senate to its strict legal role, and the optimates trying to maintain or expand its customary role.

 

[Fulano]

It could sound deterministic, but the Empire was the natural step to go after the Republic, imho. Rome was ruled like some kind of city-state since the start of the Republic, and with that way of government is really impossible to rule all the territories the Empire had. Either it had to be reformed in one way or another, or the whole system would have collapsed way before.

 

[Thoresby]

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.

The Republic was already toast when Caesar was a child, the civil wars between Marius and Sulla and their respective followers left the institutions of the state crippled and it was just a question of what replaced it.

 

[NedStark]

It could sound deterministic, but the Empire was the natural step to go after the Republic, imho. Rome was ruled like some kind of city-state since the start of the Republic, and with that way of government is really impossible to rule all the territories the Empire had. Either it had to be reformed in one way or another, or the whole system would have collapsed way before.

Or, limit its expansion.

 

[TheHandsomeBrute]

The Republic was already toast when Caesar was a child, the civil wars between Marius and Sulla and their respective followers left the institutions of the state crippled and it was just a question of what replaced it.

The institutions were more suppressed then crippled after Marius and Sulla's civil wars. In fact their recovery after Sulla's death speaks more about a flexible resilience than anything else; for example, the Tribunes power and prominence which Sulla were immediately restored.

 

[Hearkener]

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.

Prolifically employing mercenaries and being a militarized society are not opposites. Macedon was very fond of mercenaries and also a thoroughly militarized society.

Carthage was more less aggressive than Rome and Macedon because they had a way lower manpower pool. At the height of the empire, there were ~500,000 Phoenicians within its borders. Ruling over ten times that number of Greeks, Berbers, Iberians, Gauls and Italics. Even with their mercenaries, Carthage was not able to raise the kind of army that would have been necessary to establish dominance over the Mediterranean. That isn't to say they didn't try though - they tried really, really hard, their military just wasn't that great.

On the subject of the Dutch Republic, trying to expand would have been demented. Anyway they turned, they would run into a bigger and stronger neighbor. France, the HRE, Spain. This was the main motivation for being quiet and peaceful on the European theater - in the colonies they were quite aggressive.

I just don't think that merchant states are inherently more peaceful than big agrarian states. Note that the steppe empires, from the Xiongnu to the Timurids, could all be classified as mercantile states. The primary goal of their expansion was the securing of important trade cities.

 

[Thoresby]

The institutions were more suppressed then crippled after Marius and Sulla's civil wars. In fact their recovery after Sulla's death speaks more about a flexible resilience than anything else; for example, the Tribunes power and prominence which Sulla were immediately restored.

The appearance of the institutions was restored with the Tribunician veto restored and the method of elections reverting to the pre Sulla position but a Roman politician had used the Assembly to strip a military commander of his office (Marius to Sulla), a mob had murdered political opponents en masse (Marians to Sullans in Rome), a Roman General had marched a Roman Army on Rome (Sulla), slaves and Gladiators had been freed to fight Romans (Marius), the Dictatorship had been revived (Sulla), Proscriptions had been used to carry out a massive internal purge/revenue raising exercise (Sulla) and the Assembly had granted an extraordinary military command to a private citizen who wasn't even a Senator (Pompey). The mos maiorum was toast and with it the ability of those institutions to function as designed. The Republic was circling the drain.

It all makes contemporary (Roman inspired) US concern about the "constitutional guardrails" and "political norms" look very small beer.

 

[marktaha]

Nobody wanting to be Emperor?

 

[octoberman]

Nobody wanting to be Emperor?

asb

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Carthage was more less aggressive than Rome and Macedon because they had a way lower manpower pool. At the height of the empire, there were ~500,000 Phoenicians within its borders. Ruling over ten times that number of Greeks, Berbers, Iberians, Gauls and Italics. Even with their mercenaries, Carthage was not able to raise the kind of army that would have been necessary to establish dominance over the Mediterranean. That isn't to say they didn't try though - they tried really, really hard, their military just wasn't that great.

To be fair, Carthage did better than almost anyone else -- most of the Hellenistic Successor States folded after one big defeat against the Romans; Carthage waged several multi-decade wars and did surprisingly well even in the Third Punic War.

I just don't think that merchant states are inherently more peaceful than big agrarian states. Note that the steppe empires, from the Xiongnu to the Timurids, could all be classified as mercantile states. The primary goal of their expansion was the securing of important trade cities.

Also the European colonial empires of the 16th-20th centuries were mostly driven by trading concerns. Given that this includes the literal largest empire in world history (yes, I know Britain was/is a kingdom, but the monarch was basically a figurehead by around 1800), I don't think it really supports the idea that mercantile states aren't expansionist.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

A more politically savvy a long-lived Scipio Africanus becomes frontman for his son-in-law?

 

[Hearkener]

A more politically savvy a long-lived Scipio Africanus becomes frontman for his son-in-law?

I don't know a lot about the Scipii, but weren't they also engaged in their own private mud-slinging contest with the Senate? If memory serves me well, they were a little anti-Republican themselves.

 

[NedStark]

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

I mean a mercantile/maritime-oriented Rome not expanding beyond Italy. Their priority would have been the sea, not Gaul, Britannia, Pannonia, Germania, maybe not even mainland Greece, Egypt...

as the Mediterranean was undergoing a process of consolidation either Rome expanded or it would have be swallowed up.

Thing is, assume that Rome is somehow butterflied away, no other contemporary powers were capable of pulling the same feat as Rome. Carthage was the most well-positioned and had the most potential, but its priority was not conquest - and its manpower was still well behind Rome. The Etruscans were never powerful enough would have been hard pressed by northern barbarian tribes. Ptolemy Egypt was in decay, the Seleucids had the Parthians behind their back, Macedonia lacked the manpower, while other Greek polities were too small. Also, most Greek States tended to head eastwards.

 

[Thoresby]

Thing is, assume that Rome is somehow butterflied away, no other contemporary powers were capable of pulling the same feat as Rome. Carthage was the most well-positioned and had the most potential, but its priority was not conquest - and its manpower was still well behind Rome. The Etruscans were never powerful enough would have been hard pressed by northern barbarian tribes. Ptolemy Egypt was in decay, the Seleucids had the Parthians behind their back, Macedonia lacked the manpower, while other Greek polities were too small. Also, most Greek States tended to head eastwards.

I think it's a bit too deterministic to say no one else could consolidate the entire Mediterranean shore into a single polity though the fact that no one has done it since Rome suggests you might be right. But consolidation doesn't have to mean going all the way. Carthage could have consolidated the Western Med including Rome while the Hellenistic States could have consolidated further.

 

[octoberman]

Carthage could have consolidated the Western Med including Rome while the Hellenistic States could have consolidated further.

it didn't not have the manpower to do so and it focused on controlling import trade routes, ports and their surrounding regions

 

[Thoresby]

Reply

it didn't not have the manpower to do so and it focused on controlling import trade routes, ports and their surrounding regions

That's like looking at Britain in 1700 and saying they don't have the manpower to conquer India, something that is objectively true but didn't prevent Britain being the major power in the Indian subcontinent a century later and controller of the entire sub continent by the 1860's. By the start of the First Punic War the Carthaginians had all ready mastered the art of using conquest to fuel conquest by recruiting soldiers from your prior conquests to carry out the next one. Just as the British acquired footholds like Bombay or Calcutta initially to trade and then expanded out by making client states of the inland polities the Carthaginians had done the same thing in Hispania and Mauretania. There is nothing special about Latium that would stop the Carthaginians from doing the same thing there.

 

[octoberman]

That's like looking at Britain in 1700 and saying they don't have the manpower to conquer India, something that is objectively true but didn't prevent Britain being the major power in the Indian subcontinent a century later and controller of the entire sub continent by the 1860's. By the start of the First Punic War the Carthaginians had all ready mastered the art of using conquest to fuel conquest by recruiting soldiers from your prior conquests to carry out the next one. Just as the British acquired footholds like Bombay or Calcutta initially to trade and then expanded out by making client states of the inland polities the Carthaginians had done the same thing in Hispania and Mauretania.

you missed the elephant the room Britain was centuries ahead of of India in weapons technology and military organisation but carthage wasn't and it's weapons were inferior to greeks and organisation was very lacking.

There is nothing special about Latium that would stop the Carthaginians from doing the same thing there.

Before punic wars it didn't focus on large tracks of land like Latium

 

[NedStark]

military organisation but carthage wasn't and it's weapons were inferior to greeks and organisation was very lacking.

Except that its navy was much stronger than individual Greek States. And by the time of the Punic Wars, it was very clear that both sides fought on a different tier of military strength and manpower compared to the Eastern Monarchies.

it didn't not have the manpower to do so and it focused on controlling import trade routes, ports and their surrounding regions

The purpose of making TTL Rome a mercantile republic is to make them a middle ground between OTL Rome and OTL Carthage. The POD is not that hard, just have Rome being found further down the Tiber or at the location of OTL Ostia - which are more natural locations for trade - but Rome's more aggressive neighbours would still necessitate a sufficiently strong army to handle other Italian factions - just not strong enough to conquer everything. A Roman Republic with smaller territory could have easily survived as a republic. Oh, and given the fact that OTL Rome was fucking clueless about economics (an area that Carthage was actually very good at), having a faction knowing how to handle money in power would have helped a lot.

 

[octoberman]

Except that its navy was much stronger than individual Greek States. And by the time of the Punic Wars, it was very clear that both sides fought on a different tier of military strength and manpower compared to the Eastern Monarchies.

Except that navy doesn't conquer largen tracks of land

 

[Thoresby]

you missed the elephant the room Britain was centuries ahead of of India in weapons technology and military organisation but carthage wasn't and it's weapons were inferior to greeks and organisation was very lacking.

I wouldn't she with that at all. It's land forces were different to the Hellenistic forces of the Eastern Med, but not inferior, any more than the Romans were inferior. It was certainly more sophisticated then the Hispanians or the Southern Gauls.

Before punic wars it didn't focus on large tracks of land like

It acquired suzerainty over large tracts of Hispania in exactly the same way the British expanded in India. Seizing coastal trading ports and going from there. There is nothing fundamentally different between Latium and Andalusia.