Cornelius

There are, ofcourse, many theories as to why the Roman Republic fell. Some people blame Augustus, as he marched on Rome twice and created the Principate. Some people blame Gaius Julius Caesar, as he betrayed his country by starting a civil war in order to protect his dignitas, and made himself dictator for life. Some people blame Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who was the first Roman ever to march on Rome - which he did twice. Some people blame Gaius Marius, as he effectively - and unintentionally - made the Roman legions loyal to wealthy and popular generals instead of to the Senate and People of Rome(admittedly, the boni played a large role in this). But I blame no single person. I blame an institution, an institution called the Tribunate of the Plebs.

In the early days of the Republic, the Tribunate of the Plebs was created by the plebeians in order to protect them from the patricians, who held most if not all of the power at that time. During the centuries that followed, the plebeians accumulated enormous wealth and power, and by the last century BC, being patrician meant little else than having finer blood than a plebeian. However, the Tribunate of the Plebs continued to exist and flourish. Every year, ten Tribunes of the Plebs were elected by the comitia plebis tributa, also known as the concilium plebis or the Plebeian Assembly. They had the power to veto laws, magistrates(even the consuls) and other Tribunes of the Plebs, and they could also convoke the Plebeian Assembly(which had the power to pass laws). Furthermore, they were sacrosanct, i.e. violence could not be used against them. As such, they were enormously powerful. The real problem, however, was that many of the Tribunes of the Plebs sold themselves like prostitutes, which allowed ambitious men to use their services.

In 133 BC, a man called Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was elected Tribune of the Plebs. He wanted to give large portions of the ager publicus, i.e. land owned by the state, to the Head Count(the poorest citizens of Rome), and limit the amount of land any one man could own. The mos maiorum, tradition and custom, demanded that motions be approved by the senate before they were brought before an Assembly, in this case the Plebeian Assembly. However, the senate refused to approve of Tiberius's suggestions, which caused him to ignore tradition by going straight to the Plebeian Assembly - a huge offense against the mos maiorum. By the end of his term, he stood for office one more time, which was also forbidden by tradition(rather than law), but failed to get in.

Ten years later, Tiberius's younger brother, Gaius, did basically the same thing, even though his proposed legislation was far wider. Unlike Tiberius, Gaius was elected Tribune of the Plebs a second time, but failed to get in a third time - after which he comitted suicide.

Some fifteen years later, Gaius Marius bought the services of a Tribune of the Plebs called Lucius Appuleius Saturninus. Marius had Saturninus legislate(in the Plebeian Assembly) a bill that granted land from the ager publicus to retired soldiers(some years earlier, Marius had opened up the legions for the Head Count, but as soldiers received only a very, very small pension from the senate, these poor men relied on Marius to give them an adequate pension). The senate furiously opposed this, but Marius/Saturninus managed to set a precedent by procuring land for his soldiers. Ever after, Roman soldiers looked to their generals for large pensions, which virtually made their loyalty shift from the Senate and People of Rome to individual generals.

In 88 BC, Lucius Cornelius Sulla was elected senior consul. He was granted the command in the war against Mithridates the Great by the senate, but then Marius bought another Tribune of the Plebs(one Publius Sulpicius Rufus), who took the command of Sulla and gave it to Marius(in the Plebeian Assembly). Outraged, Sulla marched on Rome, exiled Marius and left for the East. While Sulla was away, Marius returned and had Sulla's allies slaughtered. Before Sulla could return, Marius died. A bloody civil war between Sulla and Marius's allies followed, which Sulla won. He then made himself dictator indefinitely, in the process setting a precedent for others to follow.

If it wasn't for the Tribunate of the Plebs, it is highly likely that: 1, The brothers Gracchi had never breached the mos maiorum. 2, The loyalty of the legions hadn't shifted from the Senate and People of Rome to wealthy and popular generals. 3, Sulla had never marched on Rome. 4, Caesar wouldn't have been able to start a civil war due to lack of precedents and legions that were loyal to him rather than to the Senate and People of Rome. 5, Augustus wouldn't have been able to create the Principate. 6, The Roman Republic wouldn't have fallen(as soon or at all).

What I'm saying is that the Tribunate of the Plebs allowed ambitious men to gain immense personal power, which eventually undermined Rome's unwritten constitution to the point of inevitable collapse. It may have been Caesar/Augustus/Marius/Sulla who brought down the Republic, but it was the Tribunate of the Plebs that made it possible for them to do so.

So, now I'm curious to see what you think about this little theory of mine?

gaius valerius

I think you're simply ignoring the reason why the common man had a political representation in the form of the Tribunate. That you're ignoring the real issues that were at stake, namely the very very very very real socio-economic issues that were ripping the old Roman society apart and to which the patricians didn't do a lot to alleviate (and which certainly weren't caused by the presence of the Tribunate). Regardless of their motives which weren't any less then those of the optimates, at least those of the popularis were honestly for the good of the people. It's without a doubt that the Roman system as a whole was becoming more and more corrupt and the Tribunate no less, that however has little to do with the Tribunate an sich as with the whole Roman society that was having some serious issues.


In short: I fully reject this theory of yours. It has no historical substantiation whatsoever.


- And the brother of Tiberius didn't commit suicide because he wasn't elected consul a 3rd time (there weren't any emo's yet) but because they were going to kill him and he killed himself (or had himself killed by his slave, that's the way it often went) as to keep his honour.

markdienekes

Interesting theory. Personally, I believe it can be traced as far back as the Second Punic War, and part of Hannibal's legacy - I will explain this however in a current essay I'm writing which will hopefully be finished sometime next month!

During the Second Punic War, important changes occurred in the powers of the magistracies which freed them from the hampering control of a colleagues vote - also, the lasting economic effects from the distraction of the peasantry from their farms to the camp was another factor. Essentially they had been driven to think outside Italy (Spain, Africa and Greece), war and diplomacy taking precedence over their economic problems...

arras

Partly because of the weakens in constitution.

Republican constitution demanded that all respect unwritten tradition which was that Senate, which was purely advisory body without ANY legislative power, is one to propose law, which will then be passed down in to one of the many Roman assemblies (which were essentially different garterings of same people) and then voted in to the power or not.

Once this unwritten tradition was broken by Gracchi brothers (to reach perfectly constitutional goal) whole system fell apart. Any ambitious politician could use any assembly to pass law without senate. Example was set to follow.

There was second reason which worked in combination with first in creation of professional army by Marius. As long as Rome had conscript citizen army, it was republic. Once it was professional, any ambitious commander could use it to gain power.

Cornelius

Maybe I wasn't clear enough in my first post, but I'm not saying that the Tribunate of the Plebs holds the sole responsibility for causing the fall of the Republic. Ofcourse there were other factors. Like you say, the gap between rich and poor was an issue, as was the wide-spread corruption. However, I'm merely pointing out that the Tribunate of the Plebs allowed ambitious men to take advantage of the situation, which certainly played a large role in the fall of the Republic. So without saying that the Tribunate of the Plebs was the only reason behind the fall of the Republic, I conclude once again: If it wasn't for the Tribunate of the Plebs, the Roman Republic might not have fallen(so soon or at all).

You may reject it all you like. My theory is very much based on historical facts - and while it may not be water-proof, to say that it has no historical substantiation whatsoever is ludicrous.

I assume you mean Tribune of the Plebs, not consul. You know, I didn't say that he comitted suicide because he didn't get in a third time, I just said that he comitted suicide after he failed to do so. To put it short, I never specified a reason.

arras

I do not think you are right for these socio-economic divisions and tensions were always present in Roman society. And those were the ones responsible for creation of Republic in the first place.

So how would it be possible that the same forces which created republic than tore it apart?

There must have been something else which changed. And I agree with Cornelius, it was mos maiorum (way of the ancestors -means tradition) cornerstone of Roman society, which was not incorporated in to constitution correctly.

Once tradition was ignored, republican constitution ceased to work way it should.

arras

Problem was not in Tribunate itself. Problem was it was misused the way it newer was intended to work. However way it was supposed to work was not properly specified in written constitution. It was simply assumed everyone will respect tradition.

That is why I say it was weak constitution.

You have to take in mind what Roman constitution was and how it was created. It was basically rag-tag collection of different pieces from different periods. Periods as long as hundreds years apart. Senate itself was for all we know ancient advisory body of kings for example.

Tradition was very important piece of this process, it was what held those pieces together. However it was newer properly incorporated in to constitution. Nobody ever thought tradition can be ignored. For Romans tradition -mos maiorum (way of the ancestors) was THE SYSTEM. That is how they called it!
At last until Dominate.

Cornelius

Yes, it was misused. Nevertheless, I feel that the Tribunate itself was a problem, because it granted too much power to one single man(well, ten men). On a side note, I believe that Lucius Cornelius Sulla agreed with me - after all, he stripped the Tribunes of the Plebs of most of their powers.

arras

Well exactly, it was not one man. And therefore in order to be missuses, you needed intimidation and assassination (more than one tribune was assassinated in front of the assembly and many were intimidated by bands of hired thugs).

So I would not put so much blame on institution of Tribunate itself. You have to look at it in context of whole system.

gaius valerius

No your theory holds no ground. Sure you got the facts more or less right, but I can't agree with the conclusion - that the Tribunate ultimately sealed the fate of the Roman Republic - you draw from that. Yes, the Tribunate was instrumental in the political/institutional struggles of the Late Republic yet the whole constellation of the Republic had become rotten and that goes far beyond the Tribunate. Regardless, like I said, what the Gracchi did was for the greater good, it would've actually helped people. Don't say they did it for personal gain cause that's a non-argument: of course they did it for personal gain. Personal gain, the gathering of "auctoritas" to be the primus inter pares was the single driving factor of each Roman individual of note, whether he was of the optimates or populares. Ever since at least the 2nd Punic War as Mardienekes has already mentioned Rome was slowly deraily socio-economically due to the sinews of war and empire. What the Gracchi did was to try to alleviate this situation and in this they were blocked by a Senate which in that way was no less corrupt then what you make the Tribunate to be.

This is why your theory holds no ground, facts are there, but your conclusion is not defendable (as argued above).

And that is a terrible thing to read for it does give the suggestion that he was an emo . No seriously, it's only adding 2-3 words and shazam, the context is all right again. And yes, my bad, tribune not consul.

I didn't even specify which socio-economic tensions and suddenly you know what I'm talking about? I don't see how the sinews of empire from the 2nd Punic War onwards are in the slightest related to the creation of the Republic...