[MB.]

I'm wondering what is the best primary source on the period 100 to 0 BC: I've seen Lucan's poem, the writings of Cicero, Lives by Plutarch and the beginning of the 12 Ceasars which covers this era, also the end of Livy and the Annals of Tacitus.

What else is there in terms of primary sources, or even secondary sources for the period of the Roman Republic, in particular, its final collapse?

[Potemkin]

What else is there in terms of primary sources, or even secondary sources for the period of the Roman Republic, in particular, its final collapse?

The writings of Julius Caesar and the writings of Cicero. Lucan wasn't really a primary source; he lived in the time of Nero. However, you should bear in mind that the Romans themselves did not really understand the historical processes they were living through - Cicero ascribed the collapse of the Republic solely to Caesar's arrogance and lust for power, for example. The primary sources are therefore useful mainly for historical facts and as an insight into what people at the time thought was happening and why. Working out the real reasons for these events is a rather more difficult task, and is still an area of ongoing historical research.

[Oxymoron]

The writings of Julius Caesar and the writings of Cicero. Lucan wasn't really a primary source; he lived in the time of Nero. However, you should bear in mind that the Romans themselves did not really understand the historical processes they were living through - Cicero ascribed the collapse of the Republic solely to Caesar's arrogance and lust for power, for example. The primary sources are therefore useful mainly for historical facts and as an insight into what people at the time thought was happening and why. Working out the real reasons for these events is a rather more difficult task, and is still an area of ongoing historical research.

It was very obvious that as soon as Rome started to become multicultural its doom was bound to happen. Once the emperors started hailing from Africa and Syria the Empire was lost.

[Paradigm]

It was very obvious that as soon as Rome started to become multicultural its doom was bound to happen. Once the emperors started hailing from Africa and Syria the Empire was lost.

It appears you're not following the discussion, which is about the collapse of the Roman Republic. The Empire lasted for hundreds of years after that in the West, and nearly 1,500 years in the East (ending right around the time of the Renaissance in the West).

[Rugoz]

Working out the real reasons for these events is a rather more difficult task, and is still an area of ongoing historical research.

Is it difficult though?

It seems obvious to me that The Republic, which was a city-state politically, was incompatible with maintaining an empire. At some point the Roman soldiers had no connection to the body politic anymore.

[Saeko]

It was very obvious that as soon as Rome started to become multicultural its doom was bound to happen. Once the emperors started hailing from Africa and Syria the Empire was lost.

I don't think you understand at all how Roman society worked.

The Roman ruling class was not at all multicultural. The African and Syrian emperors were born to, raised, and taught by other Romans who lived in those places. There's absolutely no way that they would have given the title of emperor to a foreigner.

[JohnRawls]

I'm wondering what is the best primary source on the period 100 to 0 BC: I've seen Lucan's poem, the writings of Cicero, Lives by Plutarch and the beginning of the 12 Ceasars which covers this era, also the end of Livy and the Annals of Tacitus.

What else is there in terms of primary sources, or even secondary sources for the period of the Roman Republic, in particular, its final collapse?

Sallust has some decent/biased works, specially on the Catiline conspiracy. He is severely pro-Caesar thought so take his works with a grain of salt when it comes to Caesar.

[right to left]

It appears you're not following the discussion, which is about the collapse of the Roman Republic. The Empire lasted for hundreds of years after that in the West, and nearly 1,500 years in the East (ending right around the time of the Renaissance in the West).

When I started reading Roman history in a little greater detail, I started thinking that the Republic was turning into a republic-in-name-only after they consolidated the territories in Italy and moved out around the Mediterranean. Because that's when Rome becomes a slave-based economy that starts going to war for profit motives only...seizing more lands, enslaving the locals, looting their resources...especially the gold and silver in the mountains of Spain. The Patrician class get filthy rich from all this ill-gotten gain, while the Plebians are reduced to status not much above slavery. It was only a matter of time before a successful military leader would declare himself emperor, so did Julius Caesar turn Rome from a republic into an empire, or was Rome already an empire waiting for an emperor to arrive?

[Potemkin]

so did Julius Caesar turn Rome from a republic into an empire, or was Rome already an empire waiting for an emperor to arrive?

It was a little bit of both. In an important sense, the Republic was already dead by the time Julius Caesar reached maturity - the immiseration of the plebeians following the end of the Third Punic War, combined with the Gracchi brothers' populism and their brutal suppression, and finally the dictatorial antics of Marius and Sulla, had already effectively killed it. Julius Caesar was simply trying to give it a decent burial. The institutions of the Republic still existed, but the Republic as it had originally been - a semi-democratic community of citizen-soldiers united by a shared identity and a shared purpose - no longer existed. The Roman soldiers were recruited from the ranks of the plebeians, who had been stripped of their land and property by the patrician class in the aftermath of the Punic Wars, and they had no connection any more with the institutions of the Republic, nor with the patrician class who had immiserated them. They were willing to follow any populist general who felt like the title 'Dictator-for-life' would suit him. After all, why should they feel any loyalty to a Senate comprised of a bunch of snobbish parasites who had stolen their parents' farm while their dad was away fighting those damned Carthaginians? Weren't they rather going to feel loyalty to the brave and patriotic general who had just saved their lives by winning the latest epic battle against Rome's enemies? Didn't he deserve to lead Rome to further glory? The 'Republic' existed in name only, and the ordinary citizen-soldiers felt no connection with it and had no loyalty to it. And can anyone blame them?

Julius Caesar's genius was that he could see this, and had the military and political genius to be able to seize power and transform the institutions of the Republic into a monarchy, which is what Rome needed at that time. His assassination was caused by his haste (he was already past 50 by the time he took power), and by his failure to see the need to conceal his monarchical ambitions behind republican rhetoric. Fortunately, his adopted nephew Octavian, who was a mediocre general but a brilliant and devious politician, was able to complete the job. Octavian hid behind the rhetoric of republicanism - he always claimed to be 'restoring' the Republic - but made Rome a monarchy in all but name. The monarchical system he created was so successful that it lasted half a millennium in the West and another millennium beyond that in the East. The connection between the citizenry and the institutions of the state was restored, mediated through the person of the Emperor, and Rome's Golden Age began....

[Rugoz]

@Potemkin

Class conflict existed throughout the history of the republic, in fact the Republic would not have developed without it. While the Gracchi brothers were brutally suppressed, tribunal power was fully restored approx. half a century later. So I'm not sure that can fully explain the transition to an empire.

What I see as far more crucial is the professionalization of the military. From citizen-soldiers to a professional standing army with 20-year terms. In addition, more and more soldiers were recruited from Roman allies. The soldiers consequently were loyal to their military leaders instead of the Republic. Sulla marched on Rome several decades before Caesar did (in support of the Optimates).

The connection between the citizenry and the institutions of the state was restored, mediated through the person of the Emperor...

Eh...that's a rather silly thing to say. The connection between the citizenry and the institutions was simply abolished. Of course for the subjects of the empire this made no difference whatsoever, since they had no say in the republic anyway. In fact an emperor was probably more likely to act in their interest than the senate and the people of Rome.

[Potemkin]

What I see as far more crucial is the professionalization of the military. From citizen-soldiers to a professional standing army with 20-year terms. In addition, more and more soldiers were recruited from Roman allies. The soldiers consequently were loyal to their military leaders instead of the Republic. Sulla marched on Rome several decades before Caesar did.

But why did this process of professionalisation occur? It occurred under Marius' reforms because the immiseration of the citizen-soldiers, who had been the military backbone of the early Roman Republic, had rendered them unable to pay for their own armour or weapons. After all, they had no land to farm (the patricians had grabbed it and were using slave labour to farm it) and they had no jobs available in Rome itself, due to the huge influx of slave labour following the end of the Punic Wars. This led to a catastrophic decline of the Roman military, which actually posed an existential threat to the survival of Rome itself. The patrician class, of course, were completely unconcerned by this - after all, they had never been richer. Marius, however, knew that Rome was still surrounded by a sea of enemies, and that something had to be done. So he reformed and professionalised the Roman army, against the wishes of the Senate be it noted.

Eh...that's a rather silly thing to say. The connection between the citizenry and the institutions was simply abolished. Of course for the subjects of the empire this made no difference whatsoever, since they had no say in the republic anyway. In fact an emperor was probably more likely to act in their interest than the senate and the people of Rome.

...In other words, their connection to the institutions of the Roman Empire were mediated through the person of the Emperor. The Senate could not be trusted to act in anyone's interests but their own.

[Rugoz]

But why did this process of professionalisation occur? It occurred under Marius' reforms because the immiseration of the citizen-soldiers, who had been the military backbone of the early Roman Republic, had rendered them unable to pay for their own armour or weapons. After all, they had no land to farm (the patricians had grabbed it and were using slave labour to farm it) and they had no jobs available in Rome itself, due to the huge influx of slave labour following the end of the Punic Wars. This led to a catastrophic decline of the Roman military, which actually posed an existential threat to the survival of Rome itself. The patrician class, of course, were completely unconcerned by this - after all, they had never been richer. Marius, however, knew that Rome was still surrounded by a sea of enemies, and that something had to be done. So he reformed and professionalised the Roman army, against the wishes of the Senate be it noted.

Lowering the wealth requirement for soldiers by itself did not lead to professionalization. It just meant that the state had to provide the equipment. Under professionalization I understand the following:
- Soldiers are recruited by generals at young age.
- They serve 20 years in some province far away from Rome.
- At the end of their term they receive a piece of land in a province, assigned to them by their general.

The professional Roman soldier likely never participated in a Roman assembly in his entire life*, thus his entire political influence in Rome was "reduced" to that of his general. Needless to say this was true anyway for soldiers recruited in places far away from Rome (unless they were wealthy enough to travel to Rome on a regular basis) and for those who received Roman citizenship for their service. The Marian reforms were aimed at increasing the recruitment base, lowering the wealth requirement was only one part of it.

All that said, the Marian reforms were necessary to secure to vast territory the Republic had acquired. That's why I said the end of the Republic was inevitable.

* The Plebeian Assembly had real political power in Rome. In particular in the late Republic it pushed through laws against the will of the Senate, evidence for that is for example the massive increase of the "welfare state". E.g. tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher had a law passed that made grain free to all Romans (58BC). When Ceasar seized power ~320k (male citizens) in Rome received the free monthly grain handout, which might have fed up to a million people.

...In other words, their connection to the institutions of the Roman Empire were mediated through the person of the Emperor. The Senate could not be trusted to act in anyone's interests but their own.

What I meant to say is that a government loyal to the city of Rome, its people and its oligarchy, was maybe less inclined to act to the benefit of the entire empire. But ultimately Ceasar terminated the Republic because he had the power to do so (he arguably also had some legitimate reasons to be angry at the Senate), not because he had the mandate of the empire.

[JohnRawls]

@Rugoz @Potemkin

Lowering the wealth requirement for soldiers by itself did not lead to professionalization. It just meant that the state had to provide the equipment. Under professionalization I understand the following:
- Soldiers are recruited by generals at young age.
- They serve 20 years in some province far away from Rome.
- At the end of their term they receive a piece of land in a province, assigned to them by their general.

The professional Roman soldier likely never participated in a Roman assembly in his entire life*, thus his entire political influence in Rome was "reduced" to that of his general. Needless to say this was true anyway for soldiers recruited in places far away from Rome (unless they were wealthy enough to travel to Rome on a regular basis) and for those who received Roman citizenship for their service. The Marian reforms were aimed at increasing the recruitment base, lowering the wealth requirement was only one part of it.

All that said, the Marian reforms were necessary to secure to vast territory the Republic had acquired. That's why I said the end of the Republic was inevitable.

* The Plebeian Assembly had real political power in Rome. In particular in the late Republic it pushed through laws against the will of the Senate, evidence for that is for example the massive increase of the "welfare state". E.g. tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher had a law passed that made grain free to all Romans (58BC). When Ceasar seized power ~320k (male citizens) in Rome received the free monthly grain handout, which might have fed up to a million people.

You misunderstand a lot, due to missing the historical relevance and context at the time.

Lowering the wealth requirement for soldiers by itself did not lead to professionalization. It just meant that the state had to provide the equipment. Under professionalization I understand the following:
- Soldiers are recruited by generals at young age.
- They serve 20 years in some province far away from Rome.
- At the end of their term they receive a piece of land in a province, assigned to them by their general.

The professional Roman soldier likely never participated in a Roman assembly in his entire life*, thus his entire political influence in Rome was "reduced" to that of his general. Needless to say this was true anyway for soldiers recruited in places far away from Rome (unless they were wealthy enough to travel to Rome on a regular basis) and for those who received Roman citizenship for their service. The Marian reforms were aimed at increasing the recruitment base, lowering the wealth requirement was only one part of it.

Marius did create a professional army. As you mentioned he needed not only increase the quality but also the size of the army which he tackled with his reforms. The sheer numbers of Cimbri and Teutones that he need to fight was overwhelming, considering that those barbarians tribes already defeated Rome in several battles before. (Much like Hannibal i guess, but farther away from Rome)

The ability to recruit from the plebs along with government providing him the resources allowed Marius to create a professional army of a good size. They were still outnumbered but Rome had the training and equipment to fight them. And in the end, Marius won and had several consequitive counselships which technically was very illegal.

* The Plebeian Assembly had real political power in Rome. In particular in the late Republic it pushed through laws against the will of the Senate, evidence for that is for example the massive increase of the "welfare state". E.g. tribune Publius Clodius Pulcher had a law passed that made grain free to all Romans (58BC). When Ceasar seized power ~320k (male citizens) in Rome received the free monthly grain handout, which might have fed up to a million people.

The Plebeian Assembly and the Tribunes of the plebs were to a large degree Puppets of the senate. Every large party in the senate had their Tribunes of the plebs. This was used to buy popularity and votes in the long run. The institution itself had no way to change legislation and just voted yes or no for it. The Tribunes of the plebs could introduce legislation in the senate but they were puppets of the Senators in the senate so nothing very drastic was ever introduced without the consent of their senator benefactors.

You mention Clodius, but do you understand that Clodius is Ceasars puppet basically? Since he slept with Ceasars wife, Ceasar had him by the balls and basically appointed him there. Ceasar needed popularity for his land reforms and general councelship and not to mention, to fuck over Bibilus so this massive expansion of grain supplies to Rome is merely Ceasars way of buying plebeian votes.

[JohnRawls]

@Potemkin

Cesar worship

Also Potemkin is a bit biased about Ceasar because he technically was the first Communist before communism was invented. He managed to pass through a massive land reform which his other reformer colleagues were not able to do for 50 or so years. It had its benefits obviously and the whole point of the reform was to reduce the strain on Rome due to impoverished farmers moving in to the cities since the Mega-plantation were just buying land and farming them with slaves.

On top of that, he was severely popular with the plebs due to his shananigans as Adile and having many Tribunes of the plebs on his payroll. Not to mention he was the Pontifix Maximus which greatly describes Communist understanding of religion being "Opiate for the masses".

[Rugoz]

You misunderstand a lot, due to missing the historical relevance and context at the time.

You have to be more specific than that.

The Plebeian Assembly and the Tribunes of the plebs were to a large degree Puppets of the senate. Every large party in the senate had their Tribunes of the plebs. This was used to buy popularity and votes in the long run. The institution itself had no way to change legislation and just voted yes or no for it. The Tribunes of the plebs could introduce legislation in the senate but they were puppets of the Senators in the senate so nothing very drastic was ever introduced without the consent of their senator benefactors.

You mention Clodius, but do you understand that Clodius is Ceasars puppet basically? Since he slept with Ceasars wife, Ceasar had him by the balls and basically appointed him there. Ceasar needed popularity for his land reforms and general councelship and not to mention, to fuck over Bibilus so this massive expansion of grain supplies to Rome is merely Ceasars way of buying plebeian votes.

If the tribunes and the votes of the plebs had to be bought, how did they not have de facto power? The Marian reforms have already been mentioned as an example of a legisation that was rejected by the senate but approved by the plebs. From what I read this happened quite of few times. I must find more online sources.

By the way, I only said the plebs had real power in the Republic, not that they trumped the senate.

[Cookie Monster]

Eh...that's a rather silly thing to say. The connection between the citizenry and the institutions was simply abolished. Of course for the subjects of the empire this made no difference whatsoever, since they had no say in the republic anyway. In fact an emperor was probably more likely to act in their interest than the senate and the people of Rome.

...In other words, their connection to the institutions of the Roman Empire were mediated through the person of the Emperor. The Senate could not be trusted to act in anyone's interests but their own.

How much this resonates with what is happening in the United States, Russia, and perhaps in the EU at some point in the future.

On top of that, he was severely popular with the plebs due to his shananigans as Adile and having many Tribunes of the plebs on his payroll. Not to mention he was the Pontifix Maximus which greatly describes Communist understanding of religion being "Opiate for the masses".

For the Romans this was not an oddity. State and religious offices were in fact integrated. Pontifex Maximus was a political office, and one that proved vital for Caesar's efforts to expand and consolidate his influence.

[fuser]

It can resonate as much as one wants it to.

I have seen numerous times people saying that Roman Empire fell because "whatever the wrong they see with the current world". See Oxymoron's post for example.

[Cookie Monster]

It can resonate as much as one wants it to.

Indeed, it is the difference between looking and seeing.

I have seen numerous times people saying that Roman Empire fell because "whatever the wrong they see with the current world". See Oxymoron's post for example.

Yeah, that was a funny comment. Not that I agree with his statement but in his defence, reading and evaluating history has, in essence, always an element of anachronism, i.e. reading into the sources and events our own conceptions, biases, and preferences. This becomes more evident in scholarly work as time progresses (for example, how medieval scholars inserted their own world view in their interpretations of the classical world), this is also why the work of historians never finishes. In time, future scholars will find and refute our (liberal) biases in contemporary scholarly works on history.

[Potemkin]

I have seen numerous times people saying that Roman Empire fell because "whatever the wrong they see with the current world". See Oxymoron's post for example.

Indeed, but this thread is about the collapse of the Roman Republic, not the Empire (of which only the western half collapsed in the 5th century). There are no plausible parallels between the collapse of the western Roman Empire and the current world, but in my opinion there are significant parallels between the collapse of the Roman Republic in the 1st century BC and the current world order.

[JohnRawls]

You have to be more specific than that.

@Rugoz
This is merely an example and how i think about the situation. The consul of the plebs held power on paper. In reality it did pass some legislation that the Senate did not aproove but how it is done it is important. That is why i said historical context is important.

Okay, as an example we can take Ceasar, who used this loophole to pass his legislation.

First of all, you need to understand that Roman senate has always been a split institution. To summarise it a bit at his time, it was split between the "Reformist" Faction who ceasar was part off, Conservative faction whos leader was undetermined but usually considered to be Cato and other Neutral Factions who were usually lead by a powerful senator ( Crasus, Pompey, Cissero etc )

Ceasar created a powerful aliance with Pompey and Crasus which is known as the triumvirate. The problem is that was not enough to pass his legislation through regarding the land reform. The conservative faction, namely Cato, simply filibustered the bill non-stop and demanded to veto this legislation through their own Tribunes of the plebs.

What happened is that Ceasar simply went to the people and declared it as if Senate voted yes for it. He declared that the Tribune of the plebs has their 21 days to get aquinted with the bill and then vote on it. When the day of the vote came in the Tribune of the plebs, Conservatives did show up to veto it but they got linched by Ceasars Tribunes and plebs (Clodius and his ilk) so they couldn't veto it. This wasn't technically illegal but it was not how the Roman legislature worked. So as you see, Tribune of the plebs is merely an extention of the senate. The Tribune had power in a sense that it could be used like this but Tribune in itself never proposed legislature, laws nor did it usually veto laws by itself and instead the laws were vetoed by faction within the senate using their Tribunes of the plebs.