Would rome have lasted longer and expanded farther as a republic than it did as an empire considering that most of the roman expansion occured in the republican era.
Would rome have lasted longer and expanded farther as a republic than it did as an empire considering that most of the roman expansion occured in the republican era.
Empire was inevitable. The republican system was pretty much begging for a powerful consul to take over.
Thats what got me thinking (the ambitious generals part).Beyond that and we go into butterfly land. The Republic would need some serious reform in the way it operated if it wanted to last as long as the Empire did. It would have to do away with elected leaders leading armies, which would be a very difficult premise for the Senate. Arguably, the Republic could have conquered more than the Empire ever could if it managed to drag itself along for even half as long as the Empire did - having one ultra-ambitious leader was no match expansion-wise compared to having several ultra-ambitious generals (who often needed juicy new lands to invade so they could pay off their debts).
This is a massive point against the republic lasting as long as the empire did. Rome had already expanded about as far as it could without imploding upon itself, and even then it could only hold onto its borders for so long because of its neighbouring client states doing most of the fighting against the enemy barbarians. I've read that one of the early emperors specifically told his successor not to conquer any more land because the empire wouldn't be able to handle it.Arguably, the Republic could have conquered more than the Empire ever could if it managed to drag itself along for even half as long as the Empire did - having one ultra-ambitious leader was no match expansion-wise compared to having several ultra-ambitious generals (who often needed juicy new lands to invade so they could pay off their debts).
This is a massive point against the republic lasting as long as the empire did. Rome had already expanded about as far as it could without imploding upon itself, and even then it could only hold onto its borders for so long because of its neighbouring client states doing most of the fighting against the enemy barbarians. I've read that one of the early emperors specifically told his successor not to conquer any more land because the empire wouldn't be able to handle it.
Empire was inevitable. The republican system was pretty much begging for a powerful consul to take over.
The first, and most obvious result, was the improvement in the military capability of the army. No longer, when war threatened the Republic, did a general have to hastily recruit a citizen army, train it to fight and obey military commands and discipline, then march it off to do battle, raw and un-blooded. This fact alone was instrumental in the growth and success of the Roman military machine and resulted in the continued success of the Romans on the battlefield.
Another benefit of the reforms was the settlement of retired legionaries in conquered land. This helped to integrate the region into a Roman province and "Romanise" its citizens, reducing unrest and revolt against Roman rule.
However, loyalty of the legions shifted away from the Roman state, i.e. the Senate and People of Rome, and towards the generals who led the army. It became alarmingly common for a general to prolong his Imperium by using the army to influence the senate and consolidate his power. Some even went as far as to declare war on their enemies (see Roman civil wars).
This led ultimately to the destruction of the Republic and its transformation into an Empire under the rule of an Emperor in all but name.
There is no way to separate high military offices from political appointment as these are intrinsically linkedWhich point? In the case of the latter, yes. In the case of the former (ie, the Senate getting it's shit together and separating the military from political appointment), then no.
There is no way to separate high military offices from political appointment as these are intrinsically linked
If the army generals are pushed outside the political establishment, they'll just revolt and seize power for themselves
Are we considering the Romans travelling to the Moon as well?If we're talking about situations where the Republic could have survived as long as the Empire did (which is already a long shot), then we have to consider the possibility of politics and military being separated.
Are we considering the Romans travelling to the Moon as well?
Wars are the main reason for innovation.