Essay On The Fall Of The Roman Republic

Chalking up the fall of the Roman Republic to a decline in traditional Roman morality, while not false, sells the events and changes that were the causes for the fall of the Republic short. At the end of The Third Punic War with Carthage we arguably see the Republic at its height. However in only a decade things begin to change, we see events that send Rome as a Republic past a point that Rome could not recover. Gaius Marius’s military reforms, specifically that of allowing for the captive cencsi, men who owned no property, and the creation of professional soldiers is the true catalyst for the downfall of the Republic. By enacting these reforms Marius opened up military duty to Rome’s largest group of citizens, however it created unforeseen issues, such as what to do with these men once they returned from battle. These reforms opened the door for military generals like Sulla and Caesar to gain the unquestioned support of their troops, in many instances gaining more respect from the soldiers then they had for the Roman state itself. These military reforms are a constant through line through the fall of the Republic, touching large political issues such as the conflicts between the Populares and the Optimates, or the rise of The First Triumvirate; socioeconomic issues such as the rise of Roman aristocracy, development of a slave based agriculture system to the profits from war. The complexity in which these reforms help lead to this immoral Roman state is complex and has been

The roman republic came into existence at the termination of the Roman kingship in 507 B.C.E. The last king of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, was expelled by Collatinus and Brutus, as a result of his arrogance involving the matter of one of his relations raping the wholesome Roman matron Lucretia and her subsequent suicide. The rape of Lucretia was really a representation of the frustration that the roman citizens felt regarding the kingship. The later kings had little regard for roman values and the roman populus, which they used as something of a slave labor force. Brutus and Collatinus became the first Roman Consuls, elected by popular vote.

The Roman Empire is known as one of the strongest empires in history, due to their advanced technology, strong military leaders, and republican government. As the empire started to expand, so did their power. However, after years have gone by, the Roman Empire started to fall. Their fall may have been caused by political reason, such as the empire being just too much to handle, Diocletian splitting the territory in half, and their government corruption.

The fall of the Roman Republic was caused by the expansion of Rome, and it’s class tension, the ruling of Julius Caesar, and all things that followed Julius Caesar’s

Arguably the greatest contribution to the eventual downfall of the Roman Republic was the institution of Gaius Marius' popular, yet dangerous reforms, and his repeated usage of questionable political tactics to achieve his underlying personal goals. By undermining the power of the senate through illegal political conduct, and by introducing reforms that created the open potential for abuse of military power, Marius paved the way for future military monarchies, civil conflict and the eventual downfall and segregation of the Roman Republic.

The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire highly differ in their political structures. The republic: created in 509 BCE. was a form of representative democracy. It consisted of 2 consuls of which were appointed by the senate and then voted on. These consuls were the head officers and the were appointed for one year. The senate was one of two legislative bodies comprised of 300 senators and 10 tribunes who were all patricians. The other body was knows as the tribal assembly and was made up of plebeians who met in a forum to vote on things such as consuls.

There are many contributions to the fall of the roman republic. Three of the main ones can be linked to the Actions and legacy of Sulla, Caesars military campaigns and Caesars dictatorship. The decline of the Republic began in the middle of the second century B.C. with political, economic, and social events. These events in addition to the burdens of civil war on Rome, lead to the inevitable failure of the Republic.

How was it possible that under the dictatorship and after the deification of Julius Caesar the Roman republic fell, when it had been structurally sound for four centuries before? When the republic was established around the end of the 6th century B.C.E., the Romans made clear that they wished to avoid all semblance of the monarchy that had ruled for two centuries before. (T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995; p. 215) The rule of the Republic was to be split into powers of the senate and consuls, a system that worked for over four centuries. The republic would face problems with the rise of the first triumvirate in 60 B.C.E.,

Subsequently, the system was corrupted because weak or vulnerable individuals were associating with men in power; in exchange of support, and loyalty, for the sake of protection, which broke the Democracy. Socrates said, “Democracy elevates men to positions of authority not because of their wisdom or their fitness to govern, but because of their ability to sway the masses with empty rhetoric. In Democracy, it is not truth that matters; it is public relations.” That is exactly what it was happening in the Roman Republic.

As Rome became independent from the Etruscan ruling, its government walked away from having a monarch and transformed into a Republic as a way to avoid the tyranny that many times comes with an absolute autocrat. Rigorous precautions were taken from the start in order to keep the power balanced. Moreover, the structure of the government was meant to be resilient to bad judgment. The structure of the Roman Republic with its government and law provided for a more just system.

Many anthropologists and historians have speculated about the different causes and effects of the fall of the Roman Empire. Some have even stated that Rome did not fall but instead, was merely transformed. However, there were many causes that did end this prodigious empire. Many seemingly small decisions made by powerful emperors over the course of just over a century lead to its destruction. In this paper it will be established that the Roman emperors, in an effort to save their political power, made adjustments to warfare/treaty practices and made political changes which over time lead to the inevitable collapse of the realm, this caused a drastic regression in the living standards of the Roman citizens, implying that the Empire did indeed collapse and not transform.

As Rome was facing attacks from the outside there was an even deeper problem happening from within and it was their economy. Rome’s constant war and overspending in building its empire was becoming costly. As their treasury depleted they decided to impose hard taxation to account for the new expense they were generating. Which actually caused many people who were apart of the upper class to move to the countryside to avoid the oppressive taxes(Andrews) . Another economic problem is that inflation began to occur. Marcus Aurelius increased the copper content of the silver coins and then after that there was even more severe inflation on it way(Starr 144-145). A third problem with the economy, also politically, was that there was an ever growing expansion of bureaucracy. The expansion of their government caused more and more officials to have to be paid. Not to mentions cities already were having a hard

After 50 thousand deaths, it was clear, Rome was seen, as a declining empire and a sinking world. I think the fall of the Roman Empire was due to Military weakness, weak leadership, and disasters and diseases.

Riots and violence of any kind that history tells us, and whose members of the plebs are negligible actors, manipulated by the nobility. Uprisings are ultimately acts of emotional release that have no influence on the course of history. Gruen thinks that it is particularly wrong to consider the last decades of the Roman Republic as a revolutionary period. In that case, what causes the fall of the Roman Empire. Raepsaet-Charlier states, “Must we really conclude from this review that "the civil war causes the fall of the Republic and not the opposite." And even if so, in my view it is relocating the problem”. I agree on her position, Gruen decided to write a book about the last generation of the Roman Republic but does not answer an essential question. What causes the fall? His book is highly detailed, but his conclusion is clearly inferior compared to the rest of it. It should have been the title, “The Political System in the Last Generation of the Roman Empire”.

Since its collapse, historians have attempted to explain the struggle for power and control over both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire that followed. To explain the complexities of the Roman Republic, the Empire, and their political complexities can be a daunting task. For nearly ten centuries Rome would rule most of the known world before the fall of the Western Empire (Byzantine) in 476 C.E. Before that fall occurred, a fundamental change would take place that would transform the original Republic into the Roman Empire. Many factors would be directly and indirectly responsible for this transition. These would