AHC: Save the Roman Republic.

[John Fredrick Parker]

There were very deep and very strong forces pushing towards a monarchical power. Such an empire strongly needed some kind of monarch if it wanted to stop the awful mess it had become. The risk for Rome was losing the empire if it did not adopt a strong and organized government that was contrary to republican ideals.

It might help the whole thread if we all work off a single definition of "republic" and "republican ideals" here; if by "monarch" you mean "strong executive", I can see little reason that a republic couldn't still thrive with a little bit of reform and evolution. Just because Rome needs a stronger executive position to run their "empire", doesn't mean they need an empire no longer accountable to the Senate or other republican institutions.

 

[DominusNovus]

I've been bouncing an idea around in my head: What about reforming the office of Dictator? Up until the 2nd Punic War, it was used with surprising regularity for all manner of reasons; it wasn't just 'oh Jupiter, here come the barbarians,' but mundane stuff like 'We need to hold an election in unusual circumstances,' or 'We want to throw some really awesome games.'

It really wasn't until the office of Dictator faded into disuse and came back in the 1st century BC that there were problems with its execution.

So, lets say that the Republic continues to proclaim dictators when it was felt needed (a likely POD would be Fabius not getting second guessed and having his dictatorial powers curtailed, defeating the entire point of the office). When the Romans come to the conclusion that a strong singular executive is needed, might they adapt the office of Dictator to fill that role?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

What about reforming the office of Dictator?

It's a cool idea; not sure it's the best route after 100 BC, but otherwise I'd say it counts.

 

[Agricola]

I am convinced that the roman republic was doomed to fail after the punic wars, due to expansion. There are lots of reasons, why the roman republic fell, but still no communis opinio. I will just ask a few questions in the context of these reasons:

1. How do you avoid the accumulation of wealth after the punic wars or how do you control potenates?

2. How do you control magistrates with undivided monarchic power in their provinces?

3. How do you avoid, that soldiers become too loyal to their commander?

4. How do you implement the neccessary huge military commands, but avoid that this army marches against Rome?

5. How do you implement something like a constitution, which is not just another law everybody can remove easily?

6. How do you avoid instrumentalizing the comitia and bypassing of the senate

8. How do you implement non-political judges and courts?

9. How do you convince a bunch of roman aristocrats that it needs a huge independent buerocracy to govern an empire?

10. How do you teach romans, that it is corruption, if not even high treason, to do everything to increase the wealth and honor of you yourself, your family, your clients and your friends, no matter how?

If you convince me, that you have a working solution, compatible with the ancient roman mindset, for just 1 of these issues in the roman world, you are my hero! In any case, 100 BC is way too late. Just for a fundamental change of roman province- and military-administration (question #2) you better start with the provincialisation of Sicilia or latest of Hispania.

PS: btw, some of these issues were never solved and led to the fall of the empire 500 years later; plus some new ones.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

3. How do you avoid, that soldiers become too loyal to their commander?

4. How do you implement the neccessary huge military commands, but avoid that this army marches against Rome?

There was a good suggestion here:

[R]educe the influence of powerful generals. Regularising the discharge system (as Augustus would end up doing) would be a good start, since troops would no longer be dependent on their generals to get a good settlement after the war was over. Maybe the Senate could also introduce a system similar to that used in several modern countries, whereby everybody has to serve a few years' military service, after which they could choose either to become full-time soldiers or to enter the reservists, in which case they'd have to go to training camps every so often but wouldn't be called up except in cases of emergency. That way, if a general did go rogue, the Senate would have a ready-made defence force, and wouldn't have to resort to playing off powerful warlords against each other as in OTL.

9. How do you convince a bunch of roman aristocrats that it needs a huge independent bureaucracy to govern an empire?

Well, the Empire OTL never really developed one, did it? (Aside from the army, of course, which the Republic already had.)

 

[Matteo]

I've been bouncing an idea around in my head: What about reforming the office of Dictator? Up until the 2nd Punic War, it was used with surprising regularity for all manner of reasons; it wasn't just 'oh Jupiter, here come the barbarians,' but mundane stuff like 'We need to hold an election in unusual circumstances,' or 'We want to throw some really awesome games.'

It really wasn't until the office of Dictator faded into disuse and came back in the 1st century BC that there were problems with its execution.

So, lets say that the Republic continues to proclaim dictators when it was felt needed (a likely POD would be Fabius not getting second guessed and having his dictatorial powers curtailed, defeating the entire point of the office). When the Romans come to the conclusion that a strong singular executive is needed, might they adapt the office of Dictator to fill that role?

Well, I disagree on that point. Munzer again (really one of the greatest historians) found and demonstrated that there was a good reason why Rome stopped using the office of dictator in the late republic : the Servilian clan abused the office. The Servilii were not strong enough to build some kind of tyranny, but the roman aristocracy decided to prevent any such abuse : that's probably why this Serviliusnwzs the last dictator before Sulla.

Let's also aknowledge that after the second Punic war, the best infiormed roman aristocrats knew that Rome would not be in such a danger that would require appointing a dictator.

Last point : the office of dictator was not always used for vital issues. It was often used for internal troubles in performing electoral duties. There were dictators for special tasks : "res gerandae causa".
And it was a tool in the hands of the upper aristocracy. It was the Senate (read leading Senators) that decided that a dictator was needed. And in such conditions, the Senate easily had a decisive influence on the choice of a dictator.

You need to avoid the risk of'anachronism : the office of dictator until the late 3rd century was not the same as the monarchical distorsion Sulla and Caesar devised under the same name of "dictator". The roman aristocracy just could not accept the idea that the republic would have some kind of head of State.

 

[DominusNovus]

Well, I disagree on that point. Munzer again (really one of the greatest historians) found and demonstrated that there was a good reason why Rome stopped using the office of dictator in the late republic : the Servilian clan abused the office. The Servilii were not strong enough to build some kind of tyranny, but the roman aristocracy decided to prevent any such abuse : that's probably why this Serviliusnwzs the last dictator before Sulla.

Let's also aknowledge that after the second Punic war, the best infiormed roman aristocrats knew that Rome would not be in such a danger that would require appointing a dictator.

Last point : the office of dictator was not always used for vital issues. It was often used for internal troubles in performing electoral duties. There were dictators for special tasks : "res gerandae causa".
And it was a tool in the hands of the upper aristocracy. It was the Senate (read leading Senators) that decided that a dictator was needed. And in such conditions, the Senate easily had a decisive influence on the choice of a dictator.

You need to avoid the risk of'anachronism : the office of dictator until the late 3rd century was not the same as the monarchical distorsion Sulla and Caesar devised under the same name of "dictator". The roman aristocracy just could not accept the idea that the republic would have some kind of head of State.

I specifically noted a large portion of those very points in my initial post.

 

[Agricola]

Well, the Empire OTL never really developed one, did it? (Aside from the army, of course, which the Republic already had.)

There are estimations, that the pool of apparitores of the republic was just a few 100 men strong in total. Every governor got a few apparitores and often they went back with him to Rome after his period of service. The staff of a republican governor was mainly based on amici and freedmen/slaves of his household. Apparitores were not really buerocrats, which are long time serving for a specific function and region. Apparitores were more a kind of sinecure and therefore Augustus avoided them fully with his new provincial organisation. Because they were not the appropriate tool to ensure continuity and loyality of the administration.

The principes introduced the procuratores (procuratores fisci, ... patrimonii, ... provinciae) with their permanent civil staff (Freedmen and slaves of the famila caesaris). Additionally the procurators office included detachments of soldiers from their own auxilia or experts from legions of neighbour provinces. So the governors of the imperial provinces had no longer access to the finances and the public properties. With Vespasian this was extended somewhat to the senatorial provinces, too. The emperors also introduced a larger central administration (a rationibus, a libellis, ab epistuli, ...), which did not exist in republican times. They also impemented offices for the City of Rome (praefectus urbi, praefectus vigilum, praefectus annonae, curator operum publicorum, curator aquarum, ...) with a much larger permanent staff than the temporary aediles ever had.

So one key-success factor of the emperors of the principate was buerocratization and the foundation of a larger, permanent and new staff beside the old, always temporary republican one. These buerocrats were permanent staff and their numbers somwehere in the middle between republic (3-400) and late empire. In the late empire the number of buerocrats are estimated about 30.000-50.000. Which was still a pretty lean organization compared to e.g. Prussia in the 18th century.

The roman aristocrats were always against further buerocratization, because this would jeopardize the patron-client relations the aristocratic power of the republic was based on. Therefore it will become hard to convince a republican senate to introduce a larger buerocracy. Cicero proposed something like that in de re publica and de legibus, but nobody cared.

Until Augustus. But Augustus was a princeps. He did not abolish the omnipresent roman patron-client-system. He simply implemented himself as super patron in parallel. Patron of the army, patron of the buerocrats, patron of the plebs and every other inhabitant of the empire and even patron of senators and equites looking for a career. This way he marginalized the aristocratic patrons of the former republic. I wonder, how this should work in a republican system, because a roman republic without patrons is not longer a roman republic. And no roman aristocrat would ever agree to any measures which weakens the patron-client-system and therefore their aristocratic power.

 

[Agricola]

There was a good suggestion here:

Originally Posted by Fabius Maximus View Post
[R]educe the influence of powerful generals. Regularising the discharge system (as Augustus would end up doing) would be a good start, since troops would no longer be dependent on their generals to get a good settlement after the war was over. Maybe the Senate could also introduce a system similar to that used in several modern countries, whereby everybody has to serve a few years' military service, after which they could choose either to become full-time soldiers or to enter the reservists, in which case they'd have to go to training camps every so often but wouldn't be called up except in cases of emergency. That way, if a general did go rogue, the Senate would have a ready-made defence force, and wouldn't have to resort to playing off powerful warlords against each other as in OTL.

Augustus' professionalization of the army with a clear career path, salary and pension was surely a big step, in order to stabilize the military organisation. Nevertheless, the roman legions were very aware, that they had made this princeps and that they are able to make the next one. And every roman legate was a senator with the appropriate social status to apply for princeps himself. It already started with the revolt against Tiberius, which escalated not further due to the loyal behaviour of Germanicus and Drusus controlling the huge armies in Germania and the Illyricum. However, professionalisation of the army did not solve the issue, that civil wars were anytime possible.

The idea of a military service of let's say 3 years for every 17 year old sounds promising. But I have to point to some issues with that.

This has to be implemented instead of the Marius Reforms. Later the roman citizens will not agree to serve in the army again.

3 years is not that much for ancient times. More would hamper the roman economy. A new roman legionary (tiro) had a 4 month basic training in his legion and afterwards he was still a rookie for years. New established legions ( see de bello gallico) were never the most performant forces. So you still need a majority of longterm professional soldiers in every legion. Do we really believe, that a few cohorts of such conscripts could restrict the professional and more experienced rest of the unit? Well, perhaps a bit.

Perhaps it makes sense to use them as a kind of limitanei to man forts at the border, but this was already the role of the auxilia and would lead to a dramatic organizational change in the very traditional legions and the structure of a provincial exercitus. You would now have border troops based on recruits and a core exercitus (e.g. in Vetera and Montogiacum for Germania) with professional legions and auxilia, similar to the late empire comitatenses. I doubt these limitanei could stop the comitatenses to do what they like to do. However conscripts are a bit cheaper than professional soldiers. So you could have a larger army than the 28 of the principate, which was definately not enough.

I like the idea, but I doubt it is enough to solve the problem. A successful general after a long camapaign would still be able to convince his legions to march against Rome. And vice versa, an army which is not willing to leave their homeland to fight at another frontier or simply hopes for better donativa would still be able to enforce their commander to usurp.

So we need more measures than just professionalization and conscripts in the roman army. But both will help if introduced early instead of the Marian reforms.

 

[DominusNovus]

Again, the Marian reforms really do mess up the Centuriate assembly terribly. Where the unlanded voting centuries had a pathetically small fraction of the votes for Consul, that was fine when there were few unlanded soldiers. Once they comprised the overwhelming majority of the military, it suddenly didn't work. The assembly really needs to be reformed.

This won't solve the problem of troop loyalty to their commanders, but it will provide a more civilized outlet for it: You don't have to march on Rome to support your commander, you can just vote for him in the consular elections.

 

[Agricola]

The comitia are indeed another major issue of the republic. De iure the roman republic was a direct democracy, but with an unbalanced voting structure, which allowed the aristocracy to control the comitia. But de facto the roman republic was a timocracy, where the aristocratic class represented by the senate ruled executive, legislative and iurisdiction.

This huge gap between constitution and political reality opened the door for bypassing the senate and the aristocracy and destabilized the republic. This did not happen for centuries except from some less dangerous episodes, as long as the aristocracy was roughly balanced in political power and wealth. But when potentates arose after the expansion, willing to use every opportunity to accumulate power and wealth, the misconstruction of the roman constitution became fatal. And the comitia were instrumentalized, whenever needed, even against the majority of the senate.

The problem is, that the roman aristocracy was highly resistent to constitutional changes. Just look at Sullas changes, which were'nt that bad, and should have helped, in order to stabilize the republic. Almost every measure of Sulla was revised. The roman aristocrats did not like measures, that prevented them to increase their honor and wealth. Even not for the price of a non-functional constitution. I have read Gruens book, where he praises the flexibility of the roman constitution. Of course you could change it easily. But this was often more of a disadvantage than an advantage. If it comes to the badly needed fundamental changes, there was no flexibility at all, due to the mindset of the aristocracy.

So my conclusion is, that you cannot change the roman constitution without changing the mindset of the aristocracy and/or the social structure of the roman society. Augustus and his successors did it. But how do you do it in a republican system without a princeps? A Dictator did not work twice.

 

[Russian]

Secondly, reduce the influence of powerful generals. Regularising the discharge system (as Augustus would end up doing) would be a good start, since troops would no longer be dependent on their generals to get a good settlement after the war was over. Maybe the Senate could also introduce a system similar to that used in several modern countries, whereby everybody has to serve a few years' military service, after which they could choose either to become full-time soldiers or to enter the reservists, in which case they'd have to go to training camps every so often but wouldn't be called up except in cases of emergency. That way, if a general did go rogue, the Senate would have a ready-made defence force, and wouldn't have to resort to playing off powerful warlords against each other as in OTL.

Well, with the assistance of extraterrestrial flying mammals we could give Rome a modern republican democratic constitution. You know, house of representatives, independent court of law, executive branch, system of checks and balances, free mass media, president elected for five years, you know, stuff like that.
National Guards serving as home troops in Italy near Rome against aspiring generals from provinces would be nice as well.

But I am afraid that even if we created all the above improvements to the Roman republic with the help of ASB that won't work.

Whatever changes you do you cannot change the nature of the Roman army:
there is always a huge army somewhere (let's say at the German border) and a general there has a series of marvelous victories against the invading barbarians. The grateful army proclaims him the head of the state and in a sweeping motion he moves his army into Rome in a few weeks - to "restore republic and protect it against corruptive politicians".
And we have Empire.

Republican Rome just cannot hold in Italy an army equal to that on the border with Germany/Dacia. So any Italian republican army is bound to be crushed by the troops from the borders.
And you cannot quickly conscript an army in Italy to protect the republic - you might have only 2-5 days before you see the provincial rebel army before the walls of Rome. That's not enough time. Especially against the best general of Rome at the head of the seasoned veterans.

Actually that's not a problem of republic only.
That was a problem of Empire as well - any successful general might be proclaimed an emperor and appear before the walls of Rome with a huge army in a week or two to challenge the emperor to be.

 

[Basileus Giorgios]

Quick post here, after scanning the thread.

The Roman Republic as it existed in about 100BC is most likely doomed, due to its own structure and Roman customs and identity blocking seriously sweeping reforms.

It's worth bearing in mind, though, that after about 25BC, you're going to start running into the laws of diminishing returns for generals. People aren't going to be able to do a Marius/Sulla/Pompey/Caesar/Augustus after this point, because there aren't enough seriously wealthy enemies left to conquer once the Ptolemies are gone. Potentially, if you get the Republic through the tricky 75-25BC period with a lot of luck, then things might get a little easier thereafter.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

It's worth bearing in mind, though, that after about 25BC, you're going to start running into the laws of diminishing returns for generals. People aren't going to be able to do a Marius/Sulla/Pompey/Caesar/Augustus after this point, because there aren't enough seriously wealthy enemies left to conquer once the Ptolemies are gone. Potentially, if you get the Republic through the tricky 75-25BC period with a lot of luck, then things might get a little easier thereafter.

OK, so what if Pompey wins at Pharsalus, and he reforms Rome enough to delay threats from generals for at least another 25 years. Where does the Republic (and its "empire) go from there?

 

[Agricola]

Quick post here, after scanning the thread.

The Roman Republic as it existed in about 100BC is most likely doomed, due to its own structure and Roman customs and identity blocking seriously sweeping reforms.

It's worth bearing in mind, though, that after about 25BC, you're going to start running into the laws of diminishing returns for generals. People aren't going to be able to do a Marius/Sulla/Pompey/Caesar/Augustus after this point, because there aren't enough seriously wealthy enemies left to conquer once the Ptolemies are gone. Potentially, if you get the Republic through the tricky 75-25BC period with a lot of luck, then things might get a little easier thereafter.

The situation would not be different than during the empire. And we got a major civil-war whenever a dynasty died out. Not counting all the minor usurpations. Why do you think, in a republic we would have less usurpations and civil wars? Without a strong emperor you will get even more usurpations. And there are still enough funds to misappropriate available, in order to finance a march on Rome.

 

[DominusNovus]

It's worth bearing in mind, though, that after about 25BC, you're going to start running into the laws of diminishing returns for generals. People aren't going to be able to do a Marius/Sulla/Pompey/Caesar/Augustus after this point, because there aren't enough seriously wealthy enemies left to conquer once the Ptolemies are gone. Potentially, if you get the Republic through the tricky 75-25BC period with a lot of luck, then things might get a little easier thereafter.

You still have Parthia, they're quite rich. And Dacia isn't too bad of a target, either (by no coincidence, I'm sure, they were #1 and #2 on his list of places to conquer). Britain wasn't too poor, either, and there's *huge* prestige in conquering an island beyond the edge of the world. And there's probably decent prestige for any general that can conquer a sizable chunk of Germania.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

You still have Parthia, they're quite rich. And Dacia isn't too bad of a target, either (by no coincidence, I'm sure, they were #1 and #2 on his list of places to conquer). Britain wasn't too poor, either, and there's *huge* prestige in conquering an island beyond the edge of the world. And there's probably decent prestige for any general that can conquer a sizable chunk of Germania.

I'd heard, prestige aside, Britain was about as loot-less a conquest as Rome ever made ("the people there make quite poor slaves"). As far as Parthia is concerned, Lincoln's advice to Joe Hooker comes to mind here...

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The situation would not be different than during the empire. And we got a major civil-war whenever a dynasty died out. Not counting all the minor usurpations. Why do you think, in a republic we would have less usurpations and civil wars? Without a strong emperor you will get even more usurpations. And there are still enough funds to misappropriate available, in order to finance a march on Rome.

Yes, that was because that was the only way to ascend to the purple if you weren't in the imperial family. There's no emperor dying here to trigger a civil war. Even then, remember until the third century there were a grand total of 2 years of civil war during the Principate.

You still have Parthia, they're quite rich. And Dacia isn't too bad of a target, either (by no coincidence, I'm sure, they were #1 and #2 on his list of places to conquer). Britain wasn't too poor, either, and there's *huge* prestige in conquering an island beyond the edge of the world. And there's probably decent prestige for any general that can conquer a sizable chunk of Germania.

The Romans aren't going to conquer Parthia. Even Dacia, actually, is a stretch. Trajan did have trouble there and Trajan is an extraordinary leader Rome doesn't get all that often. I'm skeptical even Caesar could have beat Burebista to be honest. As for Germania, sure, but again, there's diminishing returns here-after Germania, Thrace/Illyria, and Britain, what else is left? As BG said, you reach the point where there's few military endeavors left that are worthwhile.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

We always say this, but what was it about the Republic specifically that made it unsuited for administering a large territory?

Aside for the oft-cited point about extraordinary commands, it wasn't really possible for the Senate to oversee the provincial governors' activities, and given the corruption in the courts it was often pretty hard to convict someone for maladministration. Hence governors were more or less absolute monarchs within their provinces; and of course, once somebody's got a taste for absolute power, it's very hard to wean them off it...

Also I think the individualism of Roman politics didn't really help. Because whoever proposed a reform got all the credit, people were often reluctant to support them because (a) they'd get no personal benefit and (b) the reformer might gain too much influence. One of the reasons the enfranchisement of the Italians took so long was that, under Roman custom, all of the new citizens would become clients of whomever put forward the enfranchisement bill, which would catapult that individual so far in front of everyone else that normal Republican government would be impossible.

It might help the whole thread if we all work off a single definition of "republic" and "republican ideals" here; if by "monarch" you mean "strong executive", I can see little reason that a republic couldn't still thrive with a little bit of reform and evolution. Just because Rome needs a stronger executive position to run their "empire", doesn't mean they need an empire no longer accountable to the Senate or other republican institutions.

FWIW the Roman word respublica means something like the English "commonwealth", that is, a state run for the good of the people as a whole. So since a strong executive can run the country for the common good, the Romans saw no inherent contradiction between having one ruler and having a respublica.

Augustus' professionalization of the army with a clear career path, salary and pension was surely a big step, in order to stabilize the military organisation. Nevertheless, the roman legions were very aware, that they had made this princeps and that they are able to make the next one. And every roman legate was a senator with the appropriate social status to apply for princeps himself. It already started with the revolt against Tiberius, which escalated not further due to the loyal behaviour of Germanicus and Drusus controlling the huge armies in Germania and the Illyricum. However, professionalisation of the army did not solve the issue, that civil wars were anytime possible.

The idea of a military service of let's say 3 years for every 17 year old sounds promising. But I have to point to some issues with that.

This has to be implemented instead of the Marius Reforms. Later the roman citizens will not agree to serve in the army again.

3 years is not that much for ancient times. More would hamper the roman economy. A new roman legionary (tiro) had a 4 month basic training in his legion and afterwards he was still a rookie for years. New established legions ( see de bello gallico) were never the most performant forces. So you still need a majority of longterm professional soldiers in every legion. Do we really believe, that a few cohorts of such conscripts could restrict the professional and more experienced rest of the unit? Well, perhaps a bit.

Perhaps it makes sense to use them as a kind of limitanei to man forts at the border, but this was already the role of the auxilia and would lead to a dramatic organizational change in the very traditional legions and the structure of a provincial exercitus. You would now have border troops based on recruits and a core exercitus (e.g. in Vetera and Montogiacum for Germania) with professional legions and auxilia, similar to the late empire comitatenses. I doubt these limitanei could stop the comitatenses to do what they like to do. However conscripts are a bit cheaper than professional soldiers. So you could have a larger army than the 28 of the principate, which was definately not enough.

I like the idea, but I doubt it is enough to solve the problem. A successful general after a long camapaign would still be able to convince his legions to march against Rome. And vice versa, an army which is not willing to leave their homeland to fight at another frontier or simply hopes for better donativa would still be able to enforce their commander to usurp.

So we need more measures than just professionalization and conscripts in the roman army. But both will help if introduced early instead of the Marian reforms.

Well, the early Roman legions were re-raised every campaigning season, so it's not like short terms of military service were unprecedented. Still, I agree that reservists won't be able to just pick up a sword and fight regular troops on an equal basis. I was thinking more that they could act as garrison troops to slow down the rebel army (Caesar's rapid conquest of Italy wouldn't have been possible if he had to besiege or storm every town he came across) whilst the Senate raised a field force to drive them out (which would be easier and quicker than IOTL because the men in the army would already have some military experience).

Well, with the assistance of extraterrestrial flying mammals we could give Rome a modern republican democratic constitution. You know, house of representatives, independent court of law, executive branch, system of checks and balances, free mass media, president elected for five years, you know, stuff like that.
National Guards serving as home troops in Italy near Rome against aspiring generals from provinces would be nice as well.

But I am afraid that even if we created all the above improvements to the Roman republic with the help of ASB that won't work.

Whatever changes you do you cannot change the nature of the Roman army:
there is always a huge army somewhere (let's say at the German border) and a general there has a series of marvelous victories against the invading barbarians. The grateful army proclaims him the head of the state and in a sweeping motion he moves his army into Rome in a few weeks - to "restore republic and protect it against corruptive politicians".
And we have Empire.

Republican Rome just cannot hold in Italy an army equal to that on the border with Germany/Dacia. So any Italian republican army is bound to be crushed by the troops from the borders.
And you cannot quickly conscript an army in Italy to protect the republic - you might have only 2-5 days before you see the provincial rebel army before the walls of Rome. That's not enough time. Especially against the best general of Rome at the head of the seasoned veterans.

Actually that's not a problem of republic only.
That was a problem of Empire as well - any successful general might be proclaimed an emperor and appear before the walls of Rome with a huge army in a week or two to challenge the emperor to be.

I think you're somewhat overestimating the movement speed of ancient armies, particularly if every town of note has a force of reservists to act as a ready-made garrison.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

The question is, will those reservists actually resist? The freshly raised Pompeian forces in Italy had a tendency to desert the second they came into contact with Caesar. Why would these be any different?