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.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No the Republic was hopelessly unstable by the First century BC and any circumstance where it doesn't turn into an empire would have resulted in the Roman State falling apart.
Certainly not, the Republic was an unstable mess towards the end, the only way to have stablity was to centralize power in one person and even that didn't help entirely with all the usurper emperors and such.
Nah, the mechanics of overexpansion and the developments outside the Roman territory would have been the same for a Republic.
Empire was inevitable. The republican system was pretty much begging for a powerful consul to take over.
The Republic could have lasted into the new millennium if Pompey had won the Civil War, thus leaving Octavian without an inheritance or a name for himself that was worth something. Pompey would probably end up murdered by hard-liner Populares, and even the Optimates were only on his side out of convenience. Mark Antony was a problem, but with a Pompey victory we don't really get an ending for him which doesn't end up with him face down in the mud somewhere. While Cicero and Cato still held power and didn't have to worry about Antony or Caesar, the Republic would still exist. The Republic would need to get more authoritarian and crack the whip more than a few times to discourage power grabs, but it could theoretically make it to 0AD.
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).
Not entirely impossible is the restoration of the Republic after Caligula died. If the Senate had decided to grow a pair and stand up for themselves, or Claudius decides against his drawn out plan to become Emperor, it's possible the Empire could have ended there and then, with 2 out of it's 3 Emperors being widely considered tyrannical. Since nobody alive actually remembered what the Republic was like by that point, it's very possible we end up with a Rome that has the methodology of the Principate, but with the Senate in control. Again, only the butterflies know how long it would last.
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).
Not entirely impossible is the restoration of the Republic after Caligula died. If the Senate had decided to grow a pair and stand up for themselves, or Claudius decides against his drawn out plan to become Emperor, it's possible the Empire could have ended there and then, with 2 out of it's 3 Emperors being widely considered tyrannical. Since nobody alive actually remembered what the Republic was like by that point, it's very possible we end up with a Rome that has the methodology of the Principate, but with the Senate in control. Again, only the butterflies know how long it would last.
Probably. But I do wonder where this powerful consul comes from.
Sulla became dictator through the chaos of the Social Wars. Pompey's rise also arose through that conflict.
Caesar gained a great deal of fame, power, and loyalty via the conquest of Gaul. Its hard for me to imagine his march of Rome occurring without loyal legions who had served with him for years and the glory of conquering an entire province.
If the Republic limps into BC 20 or so-where will the military victories come from for an ambitious consul to seize power with? An invasion of Britain? Germany? Putting down a few rebellions?
I just wonder if, as the age of great Roman military expansion winded down, it wouldn't become harder to follow in Sulla or Caesar's footsteps and seize power through military might. Which might still mean the Republic dissolves but it dies to something like the Catilinarian conspiracy. Or if men like Crassus takes more power via oligarchic means (which may be easier to do within the Republican system.)
Closer on topic-I don't know if the Republic, even if we assume for the sake of argument it was more stable or competent than the late Empire, could have handled the strain of all the barbarian or Arab invasions either. Both the Western and Eastern Empires faced very serious military challenges in the 4th-7th centuries.
Last edited:
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.
Last edited:
Which 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.
I think I quoted a little more than I should. I think it should be obvious what I meant from my post, but I edited the quote just in case.
Ah okay. No worries.
Yeah, the Republic's borders were at the point where further expansion were a straight up death sentence, unless infrastructure improved (possible over a few centuries) or made drastic changes to the way it operated (which again, would take a century at least). But, if the Republic could hold it together for that long without totally collapsing (losing a few provinces wouldn't crush Rome in it's entirety), long term survival wasn't completely impossible. After that, butterflies.
Yeah, the Republic's borders were at the point where further expansion were a straight up death sentence, unless infrastructure improved (possible over a few centuries) or made drastic changes to the way it operated (which again, would take a century at least). But, if the Republic could hold it together for that long without totally collapsing (losing a few provinces wouldn't crush Rome in it's entirety), long term survival wasn't completely impossible. After that, butterflies.
I think you are right about that. Marian reforms changed the nature of the Roman legions from citizens army towards standing professional military which is primary loyal to it´s generals. There were significant benefits n these reforms as well. This is from Wikipedia:
Regarding the Republic there was always a question that were the Roman legions more loyal towards their commanding generals or the Republic. Ambitious generals who shared hardships with their troops were much more respected among the troops than senators in Rome. Ambitious generals knew that and they used that knowledge ruthlessly.
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
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.
Well yeah the Republic lasting as long as the Empire would have to be powered by moonrocks, but that doesn't mean it's not fun/useful to imagine the situation that would lead to the SPQR Saturn V breaking orbit.
Wars are the main reason for innovation. A SPQR lasting into the 21st century would probably mean a united world or atleast europe,africa,and the americas being united under one flag and probably not many reasons for war and therefore not many reasons for a space race.
the empire, for all its faults and its problems "settling in" was a superior system to the late days of the republic.
the Roman Republic, for all its virtues, couldn't run its empire very well. It was like using a town hall meeting to run the USA.
the Roman Republic, for all its virtues, couldn't run its empire very well. It was like using a town hall meeting to run the USA.
Oh yes, writing, the printing press, the steam engine, all were invented because of wars. And of course all the agricultural, architectural and domestic inventions. Why improve the yield of your fields if there is no war to motivate you?
People invent new things mainly because these inventions improve their lives. In a peaceful, united republic, there would still be enormous pressure to gain higher farming yields. There would still be demand for new luxury goods, better transport and better communication. In fact, I would say innovation would be higher, as trade is very important for the spread of technology. With a safe empire, long-distance trade would flourish and enable the spread of local inventions to other areas.