gaius valerius

I've already been over this: "symptomous" not "causal". The problems of the Republic were very real and would have erupted with or without the Tribunate, the way the upper most echelons of the Senate were neglecting the problems of many common Romans in the wake of the ever increasing imperial expansion ever since the 2nd Punic War had dislocated a large part of the Roman lower classes and only served to enrich those few of the wealthy classes. Are you suggesting that by having no Tribunate these problems would simply fade away? That's not believable at all. The problems were very real, the root of all the issues was not at all caused by the Tribunate. Like I said before, the Tribunate and its misuse was symptomous, just as the fact that men like Marius could gain power by popular support was symptomous of a popular lower class being seriously disgruntled.

Cornelius

No, I'm suggesting that by having no Tribunate of the Plebs, men like the Gracchi, Marius and Saturninus couldn't have used its destructive powers in ways that seriously undermined the unwritten constitution - which eventually led to the fall of the Republic. But I've already said that like three or four times. It would have been very possible to solve the problems you speak about without undermining the mos maiorum(for example, a large part of the Senate supported Tiberius Gracchus, but then turned against him when he ignored tradition by going straight to the Plebeian Assembly), and I don't think they would have erupted if it hadn't been for the Tribunate of the Plebs. Besides, the Marian/Sullan civil war, in which Sulla marched on Rome twice and set a dangerous precedent for men like Caesar and Augustus to follow, had nothing whatsoever to do with the dissatisfaction of the Head Count. The votes of the poor citizens in the Plebeian Assembly were utterly useless, as they(the citizens) were divided into the four enormous urban Tribes Esqulina, Suburana, Palatina and Collina. As such, the Plebeian Assembly was dominated by wealthy plebeian knights from the First Class, all of which had an income of at least 300,000 sesterces/year. Yet Sulpicius the Tribune of the Plebs managed to take Sulla's eastern command of him in the Plebeian Assembly, which, I repeat, had nothing whatsoever to do with the dissatisfaction of the poor or socio-economic issues. Without the Tribunate of the Plebs, this couldn't have happened, Sulla wouldn't have marched on Rome and thus started the first real civil war in the history of the Republic, and Caesar and Augustus wouldn't have had their precedents.

sylla1

You can't be serious ...

Without the Plebeian tribunate or any analogous institution, the Roman Republic wouldn't have been a democracy.
I.e., nothing to lose in the first place.
Just ask let say Polybios.

There were of course some relevant "socio-economic issues"; in a nutshell, the Roman Republic was not a perfect society; no Utopia, no Heaven on Earth.
It was just by far effectively the most democratic state of this Planet at the time of its demise; exactly what let say Mr. Churchill and most modern political thinkers would have recommended for any society at any time. Just that.

BTW, please review the sources: Roman land had been carefully managed by the Senate and People of Rome for centuries; unsurprisingly, it had often been given to landless poor Romans.

What C Marius, LC Sulla, CJ Caesar, C Pompeius Magunus, M Antonius, C Octavius and some more chieftains were explicitly asking for was some public land (not theirs, of course !!!) for their own partisan soldiers in their respective names.
All each one of them asked in return was the most absolute lavish loyalty of those soldiers.

I would love to be corrected here, but my impression has always been that there were still tons & tons of poor landless Romans even after the "evil" Republic was duly displaced by the "good" autocratic Empire (actually deliberately miscalled "dictatorship" at the beginning).

And of course, our Isoruku and other posters are absolutely right here; to be fair, the "Marian reforms" were just a part of a long process. However, ceding the absolute authority of your armed forces to any political adventurer with potentially unlimited ambitions has always been a terribly bad idea; just ask France 1799 or Germany 1933 ...

And aside of his fair tons of fans, of course good ol' CJ Caesar was largely to be blamed here; pretending in any way that he conquered the Imperial Roman Republic and that he was going to conquer anything else just in perpetual self-defense would be ... well, you already know what would that be ...

Last time I checked, there seems to still be some poor landless people all around this Planet, even within let say the US; some of them might even be or have been part of some army (again, let say of the US Army) ...
Here's the idea ... to solve the problem once and for all, just give me a legally enforceable life-or-death oath of absolute obedience from & over all of them (naturally surpassing their respective petty national loyalties).
Then, just call me Marius or Sulla (... well, you are just kind of already doing that )
Or even better, just call me CJ Caesar Jr Jr Jr ...
How about that?

Sargon of Akkad

I was always under the impression that the Marian reforms were the primary driver behind why the republic fell, as without actually having soldiers who were willing to march on Rome, the whole idea is unfeasible.

If you take the soldiers' loyalty away from the city and give it to the generals, then its just a matter of time, IMO.

Cornelius

Oh, I'm very serious. The Roman Republic wasn't a democracy, but rather a timocratic oligarchy. The Head Count, i.e. the poorest citizens, and the Fifth and Fourth Classes constituted the majority of the population of Rome, yet their votes in the three major Assemblies(the Plebeian Assembly, the Centuriate Assembly and the Popular Assembly) were utterly worthless. The poor were divided into centuries and tribes that contained thousands upon thousands of people, whereas the rich were divided into centuries and tribes that contained a few hundred people. It was only the vote of the century/tribe that counted - i.e. in the Plebeian and Popular Assemblies there were only 35 votes in total, and in the Centuriate Assembly the First Class(i.e. Senators and Knights) alone had almost 50% of the votes. Thus, the rich men of Rome reigned supreme(in fact, the Head Count didn't even belong to a Class, and as such they weren't allowed to vote in the Centuriate Assembly, which was the Assembly that elected Consuls, Praetors and Censors). Timocratic oligarchy, not democracy. Admittedly, it did resemble a modern democracy more closely than any other state at that time.

Moreover, the removal of the Tribunate of the Plebs wouldn't have made the Republic any less democratic. The People would still have elected their magistrates of choice, which is what democracy is all about. The removal of the veto-power would have made it so much easier for the Assemblies to legislate(which would have benefitted everyone). And most important of all, there wouldn't have been any demagouges with the power to undermine the Republican constitution.

But not to landless poor soldiers. Marius(with the help of Saturninus the Tribune of the Plebs) was the first general to do that, and it made the Roman legions more loyal to the general than to the Senate and People of Rome - which Caesar took advantage of when he crossed the Rubicon.

Consider yourself corrected, for you are absolutely right. I'm not sure if you were serious, but IMHO it was the Republic that was "good" and the Empire that was "evil".

Agreed. Ofcourse, the Tribunate of the Plebs in the persons of Saturninus and Sulpicius helped him(by making the legions more loyal to the general than to SPQR, and by causing Sulla to march on Rome and set a precedent that Caesar could follow).

Again, I'm not saying that the Tribunate of the Plebs holds the sole responsibility for bringing down the Republic, but it certainly played a large role in the process.