Was the Fall of the Roman Republic inevitable?

Authors Avatar


The Roman Republic enjoyed reasonable success in its early stages, the conquest of Italy and overseas territories lead to rapid expansion and a surge in population, wealth and culture. However, as this essay will demonstrate this growth of population and increase of wealth was not sustainable; the allies with which Rome went to battle were not fairly rewarded and demanded citizenship, powerful men grasped at the chance to win power in Rome creating political conflict and foreign powers jealous of Rome’s success would conspire to her downfall. In order to assess whether the downfall of the Roman republic by the turn of the century was inevitable, this essay will look at each major personality and decide whether the republic would have fallen in their absence or whether we can discern a clear point of no return in the politics of the republic. In order to do this and despite the lack of sufficient contemporary sources, this essay shall utilise the findings and musings of modern academic debate to answer its question. Ultimately, we shall conclude that the lion’s share of problems in the republic were due to its unprecedented growth, system of government and mass of opportunity for ambitious political figures rendering the decline therefore unavoidable. This paper will start with the detailing the beginning of the end for the republic, which commences with the character of Tiberius Gracchus in 134 and the efforts of his brother Gaius. Then we shall look at the long consulship of Marius and the ‘dictatorship’ of Sulla as the turning point which lead to the increasingly despotic rules of Pompey, Caesar and Augustus.

In order to determine whether the failure of the republic was predetermined by the way in which it was structured we must look at its failure from a chronological point of view and note any key events which may have signalled a ‘point of no return’. The start date of the ‘Crisis of the Republic’ is open to interpretation but this essay will take it to be the date of the ascension of Tiberius Gracchus as Tribune of the plebs, as Gracchus was the first real controversial reformer of the republic.  Gracchus believed that the economy would be better served if land ownership was to be limited and the excess land to be redistributed between poor settlers and thus he proposed a land reform, although some contemporaries would attribute this reform to Gracchus’s want for popularity or pressure from his influential backers. As we know, the senate consisted of the wealthiest men in Rome whom this would affect severely, knowing this; Gracchus used the power of the Consilium Plebis to bypass the senate. Gracchus had broken with tradition and angered the senate who employed tactics to stop him. A political tennis match of vetoes and laws ensued but bloodily ended with the senate accusing Grachuss of aspiring to one man rule or regnum. In fact, as Plutarch muses, his intentions were most probably honourable in that he wanted to legislate against the oligarchy and restore some power to the oppressed people. Gracchus and his followers were brutally murdered in the streets of Rome in an event which even contemporary observers were shocked to see. (Ungern-Sternber, 2004, p. 91). This event is important to this essay for two reasons; the first is that this is the first documented major break with the senate and tradition, Gracchus had unwittingly been the first proponent of popular politics, the same style which later on will cause more unrest. Secondly, it was also as one contemporary described it ‘the beginning of civil bloodshed and of the free reign of swords in the city of Rome.’ (Paterclus, II.3.3). The ultimate order of death from the senate set the tone for the rest of the republic that murder can be the solution for unpopular reform. In some ways this can be seen as the turning point, as it paved the way for the actions of the proceeding hundred years and also showed that through the popular courts a man could gain power. However, at this point no irreversible damage had been done, the tradition of senate rule was still strong and it would take the combined ambition of the next 3 figures to be discussed to overturn that tradition.

Join now!

Gracchus’s brother, Gaius, was the next Tribune to create tension within the republic; he acted much in the same way as his brother. However in order to avoid the same grim demise as his sibling, Grachuss II based his legislation on more than one issue. Not only did he support his brother’s land reform bill but also a regulation of the grain prices which were being deflated due to new overseas markets. Grachuss II also made the justice system more transparent and fair by reducing the proportion of senators who could sit on juries. All of this legislation, made capable ...

This is a preview of the whole essay