arras

It was all the same story through Roman history: hunger for land and its distribution (or redistribution).

gaius valerius

Well then that goes for a lot more then just Rome. Point is, it's the particular consequences from the 2nd Punic War onward that wrecked havoc among parts of the Roman citizenry.

Cornelius

Large parts of the political system were rotten and corrupted, yes. However, the Tribunate of the Plebs was a very powerful institution, in many ways more so than the senate - just look at what the Gracchi, Saturninus and Sulpicius did for proof of this. The society and government of Rome had been rotten and corrupted since the early days of the Republic, yet the Republic didn't fall until the Tribunes of the Plebs started to ignore the mos maiorum and use their considerable powers in ways that proved to be very harmful to Rome - which I have already motivated. Simply, the Tribunate of the Plebs was too powerful and too dangerous; one Tribune of the Plebs was all it took to breach the mos maiorum that first time(did you know that another Tribune of the Plebs, Marcus Octavius, vetoed Tiberius Gracchus, but then Tiberius had Octavius illegaly put out of office?). That the senate and other parts of the government were corrupted was a problem, yes, but a larger problem by far was the Tribunate of the Plebs - too much power for one corrupted institution.

This is why my theory holds ground, facts are there, and my conclusion is very much defendable(as argued above).

gaius valerius

So... the fact that the Senate and the optimates would destroy any effort to alleviate the burdens of the poor and landless by men like the Gracchi... that's... a positive thing?

Cornelius

Have I ever said that? If so, could you please quote that? The Gracchi may have wanted to make life easier for the poor citizens of Rome, but that is irrelevant in this context. It wasn't their proposed laws that were harmful to Rome(talking about the agrarian laws), but the method they used to implement those laws - like I have described in my first post.

gaius valerius

You miss the point, it has nothing to do with what you say, but with what you are not saying, namely the constructive role of the Tribunate, or at least, the constructive role it could play. If not a tribune, who would try to get alleviate the burdens of the lower classes (and like I said, the motivation as always is personal gain, that's the red line of Roman politics regardless of "faction", as there weren't really factions at all). Sure the Tribunate had considerable power, yet they alone can't be singled out in a political atmosphere were all were corrupt, and the blame for that can hardly be passed on the Tribunate.

Cornelius

The Tribunate of the Plebs played a very, very small constructive role during the Late Republic. Rather, it played a highly obstructive role, which, I suppose, comes automatically with the right to interpose a veto. And the Tribunate of the Plebs can most certainly be singled out(besides, I think you're exaggerating - not everyone was corrupt), as it played a prominent role in the downfall of the Republic. Mind you, I'm not blaming the Gracchi or any specific Tribune of the Plebs, but the Tribunate itself. If it wasn't for the Tribunate of the Plebs, Tribunes of the Plebs could never have misused its destructive powers.

gaius valerius

The fact that elections were more and more rigged, that Marius went as far as to take up arms against his enemies, that Sulla did the same, etc, has little to do with the existance of the Tribunate alone, this institution can not be singled out as the most problematic factor, certainly not the cause, perhaps (this I can concede) the misuse of it can be seen as the most problematic symptom, but a symptom is a manifestation of a deeper issue, not the issue itself.

Cornelius

Marius had gone crazy by the time he slaughtered Sulla's allies in Rome. Besides, the Tribunate of the Plebs was the root of this problem, since Sulpicius took Sulla's lawful command of him in the Plebeian Assembly and gave it to Marius. Sulla then marched on Rome in response, exiled Marius and so on... Without his tame Tribune of the Plebs, Marius couldn't have done that, and Sulla would never had marched on Rome. The symptom, abuse of power, was indeed a manifestation of a deeper issue: the existence of the Tribunate of the Plebs.

Anyhow, I feel that we're not getting anywhere. You have your opinion, and I have mine.

Isoroku295

I believe it was the Marius Reforms making the Legions loyal to a general and not the Senate