First post doing this but it’s better giving it a try anyways. I’ve always had the thought that the Roman Republic would have endured throughout if the campaigns in Gaul by Julius Caesar would have been unsuccessful and caused the defeat of the romans at the hands of the Gauls or on the other hand. The Gauls were defeated later on in a campaign. However I’m currently thinking to myself that would the empire have collapsed differently due to the prolonged lifespan of the Roman Republic. But what’s your thoughts?
What if the Roman Republic endured?
- Thread starter morsta99
- Start date
To be fair, there was a deep rooted problem with the senatorial system in Rome which caused families to just keep their power over the course of several generations - but it does depend on weather the generals want to keep the republic alive long enough until it either collapses due to infighting (image the Roman civil wars but more of them) or it totally collapses into disunity (which is likely because if the Roman republic exists to the point where Christianity becomes prevalent). We are gonna get a massively divided senate.
The fundamental problem is too large and too fast expansion - thus the Roman republican system - designed to govern a city state - did not have time to adapt to resulting social changes.
If we were to say that the senate would reform, it would be incredibly unpopular among many of the leading senators as it would severely hinder their power but I'm guessing if some reform would happen, it would likely happen after some internal conflict.
This is one of those questions that can't really be answered unless you know HOW it survived.
A city state confined to Latium
A league of city states / provinces
An autocratic, centralized empire that doesn't have a single 'emperor', but a group ruling it.
Very different outcomes.
A city state confined to Latium
A league of city states / provinces
An autocratic, centralized empire that doesn't have a single 'emperor', but a group ruling it.
Very different outcomes.
True but we are depending on whether the romans do manage to conquer Gaul. Therefore having the implications enlarged. However we do need to consider the later wars with the Persians as that could also lead to some Roman general coming out of it incredibly successful.
I’m guessing it depends if the provinces are granted more autonomy from Rome and the peoples within Rome aren’t actually consider barbarians from the outsiders. But the republic would inherently suffer from Romano-Greek schisms as the rising power of the Greek nobles as the empire becomes more eastern centric. But it is an interesting concept with multiple outcomes but i can’t honestly seeing the romans surviving past 400 CE
Would it be possible for them to have elected Provincial senates, who then chose senators to represent them in Rome?
I am aware that there were municipal governments based loosely on the Roman Senate.
I am aware that there were municipal governments based loosely on the Roman Senate.
To be honest I think so but considering the fuedal system hasn’t really enter fruition yet. I think it’d mostly stay the same prior to late antiquity/middle ages.
I mean it just depends how the tribes are actually represented throughout the republic, if they are consolidated and assimilated - they could become apart of a larger federalised system however if they don’t like irl. They will be likely subjected to a Rome-centric system.
The last real chance for the Roman Republic , IMO, was lost after the Gracchi brothers were targeted and either killed or forced to...
I do get your point, they did want to do what was best for the republic by allowing the plebeians to have more of the power rather than the aristocracy within Rome. However I don’t believe they could have stood past late antiquity due to internal divisions at the time such as the Hellenic/Christian conflicts that were happening at the time.
If the Roman Republic never expands beyond the Italian Peninsula - which already had good natural borders, preferrably without Sicily, then the Republic would survive as a smaller Rome should be able to adapt. Christianity might have never emerged without Roman Palestine ITTL.
Good point, however the threat of Carthage might be a bit greater considering Rome wouldn’t be expansionist. So it’s entirely possibly that they get erased by the carthaginians.
Carthage is more of a trade empire than an expansionist militaristic empire, plus pre-Punic War Rome already had a far larger population base. The Punic Wars might have been prevented if Rome opted to expand into the Po Valley instead of Sicily.
Wether it survived or not
The main question is how long could it go for
Sulla was nothing more than a symptom of a disease.
Cesar simply changed the operating table to help the state function differently
Without most of these guys we wouldn't really see the same all encompassing state that rome was.
Regardless if we picture the state of the republic had it managed to survive past the imperial Era then we have to understand the means by which the late Roman Empire was able to survive and even thrive in the post Cesar/Augustus era
Romes greatest strength was the citizenship/identity of a Roman
To be Roman or The Roman Way
This gave the empire a large swathe of population to recruit from and theirfore was one of the major reasons the empire lasted so long due to a lot of different people being able to take up the Mantle of Rome and either save the state or reforge the republic into a more deadlier weapon.
We see this happen multiple acords many civil wars and crisis
3rd century crisis
Year of the 5 emperors
Tetrachy civil wars
Bagaudae rebellion
And multiple multiple others
Many of these wars and revolts getting squashed by strongman military generals who would on many occasions clash with the senate.
Seeing a rome ruled only by thr senate would've made the future prospect of Roman hegemony as Questionable
Lastly and most importantly religion/Demographics
Rome was by in large a diverse pagan state, it accepted foriegn cultures and religions in droves and assimilated them just as quickly.
But the migration crisis and rise of Christianity in Rome basically broke the concept of what exactly a Roman was
"what exactly was a Roman, A goth, a Christian Phoenician, a Greek, a Celt, a German, a syrian"
The law said a Roman citizen was by in large a Roman but the Roman state was founded by Latin Hellenised conquerors who spread civilization.
Now their were Non Latin peoples learning and spreading a Non hellenic Religion across the state built by romans.
To the ethnic Latin populations in the empire (especially in Italy)
This definitely created a revanchist ethno religious line between the identity of a Roman and a "Barbarian"
Yet alot of these questions become more pronounced as the centuries went by and the germanic threat up north became more and more pronounced while Christianity (Which was seen as a subversive threat) systematically took control of more and more of the popualtion centre's in the empire
It went from a fellowship, to a philosophy I Greece to an institution in Rome.
Now the question is asked,
"How would the republic deal with this"
We saw much of the biggest and most Heinous methods used by the romans against the Christians simply didn't work and violence wasn't stopping the spread, more subversive and hush tactics used by the state was used In the later period to create ecumenical Discord to the faith yet still Rome couldn't stop the spread of Christianity Into the rest of the empire.
The identity of what a Roman was died with the coming of the Byzantines during Justinians age, with belasarius conquest of much of the Mediterranean.
We see then the Discord that must've floated up in the germanic occupied regions of western
"Imagine being a Frankish Roman living in Gaul and a Greek/Balkan general in the east says he is taking back Roman lands from barbarians"
Taking all this into consideration I'm wondering how even after all the crisis and wars, would the romans still manage to survive the Persians or worse
"The Rise of Islam"
The main question is how long could it go for
Sulla was nothing more than a symptom of a disease.
Cesar simply changed the operating table to help the state function differently
Without most of these guys we wouldn't really see the same all encompassing state that rome was.
Regardless if we picture the state of the republic had it managed to survive past the imperial Era then we have to understand the means by which the late Roman Empire was able to survive and even thrive in the post Cesar/Augustus era
Romes greatest strength was the citizenship/identity of a Roman
To be Roman or The Roman Way
This gave the empire a large swathe of population to recruit from and theirfore was one of the major reasons the empire lasted so long due to a lot of different people being able to take up the Mantle of Rome and either save the state or reforge the republic into a more deadlier weapon.
We see this happen multiple acords many civil wars and crisis
3rd century crisis
Year of the 5 emperors
Tetrachy civil wars
Bagaudae rebellion
And multiple multiple others
Many of these wars and revolts getting squashed by strongman military generals who would on many occasions clash with the senate.
Seeing a rome ruled only by thr senate would've made the future prospect of Roman hegemony as Questionable
Lastly and most importantly religion/Demographics
Rome was by in large a diverse pagan state, it accepted foriegn cultures and religions in droves and assimilated them just as quickly.
But the migration crisis and rise of Christianity in Rome basically broke the concept of what exactly a Roman was
"what exactly was a Roman, A goth, a Christian Phoenician, a Greek, a Celt, a German, a syrian"
The law said a Roman citizen was by in large a Roman but the Roman state was founded by Latin Hellenised conquerors who spread civilization.
Now their were Non Latin peoples learning and spreading a Non hellenic Religion across the state built by romans.
To the ethnic Latin populations in the empire (especially in Italy)
This definitely created a revanchist ethno religious line between the identity of a Roman and a "Barbarian"
Yet alot of these questions become more pronounced as the centuries went by and the germanic threat up north became more and more pronounced while Christianity (Which was seen as a subversive threat) systematically took control of more and more of the popualtion centre's in the empire
It went from a fellowship, to a philosophy I Greece to an institution in Rome.
Now the question is asked,
"How would the republic deal with this"
We saw much of the biggest and most Heinous methods used by the romans against the Christians simply didn't work and violence wasn't stopping the spread, more subversive and hush tactics used by the state was used In the later period to create ecumenical Discord to the faith yet still Rome couldn't stop the spread of Christianity Into the rest of the empire.
The identity of what a Roman was died with the coming of the Byzantines during Justinians age, with belasarius conquest of much of the Mediterranean.
We see then the Discord that must've floated up in the germanic occupied regions of western
"Imagine being a Frankish Roman living in Gaul and a Greek/Balkan general in the east says he is taking back Roman lands from barbarians"
Taking all this into consideration I'm wondering how even after all the crisis and wars, would the romans still manage to survive the Persians or worse
"The Rise of Islam"