Did Rome fail the republic, or did the republic fail Rome?
I guess a bit of both. Wasn't the downfall of the WRE (and the total united empire in the first place) simply due to overextension? When the vandals, goths, huns whatever finally realized this it was game over.
How off am I? I'd love to learn more.
>>883777
Only thing I know is those are some mad holy trips.
>>883777
There's a number of factors in the fall. I personally lean on Dialectus and the Formation of the Tetrarchy as the catalyst for fragmentation.
>>883777
WRE died due to a lot of reasons, some of the groundwork going back literally centuries earlier to actions that allowed the empire to form in the first place.
A lot of people like to take a reductionist approach to try and simplify the demise of Rome to a few key issues that usually serve as reinforcement of modern ideological convictions. In reality, Rome's fall could have been just as much due to political changes as it was barbarian invasions or something as simple as drought in key food-supplying regions of the Empire.
>>884309
This. There was no one single reason the WRE fell.
There was a host of reasons and poor decisions that created a cascading system failure.
>>883695
Plebs failed the republic
>>884862
Patricians failed the Plebeians.
>>884862
>>884883
The rampage of Hannibal wrecked the agricultural lands of Italy, displacing all of those farmers who returned from battling to the smoking ruins of their farms. All of those farmers ended up in Rome, causing social upheaval as they fought with the aristocracy for rights and recognition and proper addressing of their needs, a revolution that would end in military dictatorship under Julius Caesar.
>>884862
Perhaps if the Patricians had taken a moment, and moment, to look out for the interests of the Plebians. When moderate reformers among the Populares like the Gracchus brothers are beaten to death on the senate floor with the legs of chairs for suggesting that the lives of the Plebs be made more bearable, sustainable, and productive, there can be no mistake that the corruption of the Patricians ran to the very core of their class. The only tragedy of the "republic" falling was that the Tiber did not run red with the blood of the Patricians on the day the Empire was declared.
>>884892
>Gaius Julius Ceaser was able to seize power because of Hannibal
>>884929
That's not that far off in the long term actually.
The second punic wars opened up a lot of land.
Land which was grabbed by wealthy aristocrats.
Land worked by slaves won in the war and bought after.
This created a fuck ton of poor plebs.
Plebs with no land and no work.
This is the environment Sulla and Marius stepped into. Is it any surprise that when Marius offered them an alternative, they were more loyal to generals rather than to Rome?
>>884959
My proffessor dismissed the idea of displaced farmers, I think he though it was just a rise in population creating alot of urban poor.
That said I think the situation marius and sulla took advantage of was created my universial Italian citizenship. Rome was a city, which was governing an empire, with most of its citizens not living in the city and thus not really participating in the roman state except by military participation
>>884965
It wasnt farmers that were displaced so much as never being allowed to have existed in the first place.
Without the ability to buy land or even work it, they had few options. That's the point. The arguments aren't contradictory.
>>883695
>Sulla
>Marius
>First Triumvirate
>Civil War
>Second Triumvirate
>Civil War
Republic failed and corruption build up especially with the equestrians and Senatorial classes heading Rome not more then a few decades after the 3rd Punic War.
>>884959
As I understand it, the real displacement happened when poor land owners joined the legion, fought for years in Germany and other far off places, and then returned to find that an aristocrat had stolen your land and is now working it with the slaves you acquired for them in war.
>>884862
>Plebs failed the Republic
Bullshit. Assassination of popular tribunes representing the plebeians and common classes, rampant corruption of the Senate and the neglect of the regular layman in the Republic is why men like Sulla and Caesar became so powerful and factions like Optimates came into existence in the first place.
The Senate was a failure. That is why Octavian transformed Rome from a Republic into a Principate. And he brought new life and functions to the Senate on top of that.
>>884995
It also does not help that extremely rich and aristocratic equite or equastrian Romans tended to be elected as military tribunes, legates, and commanders who acquire said common man Roman-soldier as clients who relay on them for financial aid after war.
>>884993
>the equestrians
Killed off by the german invasion, had been an essential balance in the republic
>Marius
The senate gave him control of the military, and the generals never gave it back
>Civil War
Although the Romans had won wars against German and Hannibal it had caused them huge casualties. Although these could be made good in a couple of decades, the net effect was concentrating power into a reduced amount of patricians and warlords, leading almost by evolution, to civil war, and eventually empire, where all power was concentrated in one family.
The Republic won the war, but lost the battle for power
>>885005
>equestrians
>killed off by the german invasion
No.
Romans were a weak cuck people. It got cucked by Attila. At the end Romans were sending their princesses to Mongol Khans for marriage. Last remnant of Rome were vassal cucks to Mongols.
>>885026
Thanks for the post, Aplsan.
Rome failed the Republic.
t. the cult of personality
The senate served the aristocrats, not the people. Caesar had the support of the people because he often resisted the aristocrats and actually cared about maintaining some support among the people.
This is why democracy is so important. No matter how much one can "buy votes", the fact that they must get votes from even the poorest person forces the elites to give a damn about the people.
>>885624
Arguable.
>>885507
That cult of personality was the only way for the voice of the people to be heard. Senators knew that if they killed a popular Caesar then they themselves would be rounded up and killed.
>>883777
fucking kill yourself and never come back on this board
>>883695
The fundamental problem of Rome, which is what led to the failure of the republic and later the empire, was the fact that their core traditions were incompatible with each other. Roman government was based on the idea of civil duty, conservatism, modesty and honor. You were expected to protect the state before yourself or your family. But on the other hand, Roman society was based on organized, even sacred nepotism. The client system, the way appointments were based on relationships, the complicated arrangement of clans and families, all of these were opposite of the idea of being completely loyal to the state. When Rome was small and poor, this wasn't as big a deal, but once it got wealthy and started adding senators from Italy and then other provinces, the system became to bloated and corrupt.
>>885815
>tl;dr - the bourgeoisie ruin everything.
