A broad, general question. After it became an empire, could it have went back to its Republican roots? When would be the best time to do this?
Can the Roman Empire turn back into a republic?
- Thread starter MrNumbahOne
- Start date
Very much depends on how we define a republic.
If you mean could the constitution Augustus crafted come undone, then yes definitely.
If you mean could Rome revert to how it was circa 133 BC or so, then no I don't think it could. Some form of dynastic/military rule was probably inevitable even if it would not exactly be like the Empire we knew. The republic was in more or less permanent crisis for at least the last half century of its existence.
If you mean could the constitution Augustus crafted come undone, then yes definitely.
If you mean could Rome revert to how it was circa 133 BC or so, then no I don't think it could. Some form of dynastic/military rule was probably inevitable even if it would not exactly be like the Empire we knew. The republic was in more or less permanent crisis for at least the last half century of its existence.
The old republican constitution did simply not work for an mepire of this size. And the romans knew that. A more constitutional monarchy with increased power of the senate might have been possible. As earlier you start, the better. Latest with Vespasian, who was the first emperor, who got one integrated imperium containing all the different rights of an princeps, I see no chnace anymore.
Not really much like China. Rome was never really a dynastic state, and the principle of inheritance was never particularly strong.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
The turning point is surely the accession of Claudius - there is the last opportunity to truly restore the republic (as a fact, not as a form - formally, the empire was a republic until... 1453). After 41 AD, a restauration is very very unlikely. The ruling, senatorial class has aranged with the new state and the emperor can rely on a strong but dependent order of knight.
The question is now: there is the end? If the Roman empire crumbles in 476 and 1453, as OTL, you'll certainly never see a new republic. But if you decide to prolong the empire's existence (as a strong and united block), technological, economical and social progress will maybe form a new middle and ruling class (e.g. merchants trading with India and the Americas and later factory and mine owners) wanting to take part in the state's administration and legislature. If the emperor (or the court if you some Japanese-like shogunate governing the empire instead of the empire) is cooperative, it might end up in a constitutional monarchy as OTL Britain or Belgium, slowly evolving into a popular state with universal suffrage - but if the old elites are obstructing the process (like in France), radical elements can grew in power, overthrow the emperor and create a new republic.
I think that it is very likely that the imperium of the Tiberius, Caliguka, Claudius etc. was also granted by a lex de imperio. These laws just aren't preserved until today.
Lucius Verus
Banned
The main problem was one of shareholders, the early Roman wars in the time of the Republic used landholders as soldiers. With the gradual depletion of landholders in the Roman wars and various reforms recruiting plebeians military loyalty was essentially transferred to generals who paid for the troops. Now it might be possible for the military to be more loyal to the government if the Senate agreed to pay for the armies instead of leaving them at the care of individual generals, problem is that the same senators which wanted war for profit also didn't want to pay for it. Really the Roman military was the only option left for Rome if it intended to keep expanding.
How large does it have to be to qualify? One city of the Western Empire that was never conquered maintained a Republican government all the way until the Napoleonic Era: Venice.
One major problem is that there were very few ancient confederated Republics, so most Republics would be city states. The Lycians were a notable exception, but they weren't exactly independent.
One major problem is that there were very few ancient confederated Republics, so most Republics would be city states. The Lycians were a notable exception, but they weren't exactly independent.