Scholars have named numerous arguments as to why the so called more democratic Roman Republic evolved and was eventually replaced by the Principate. Changes in land reforms and tax collection are just two reasons why the system of government changed so rapidly. Each leader had different legislation when faced with what to do with landless veterans and the poor. Some chose to pass laws that helped the poor who were in need, while others chose to do what was most beneficial for the wealthy and elite. The responsibility of collecting taxes switched hands many times throughout the course. Towards the beginning, governors were dealt this task, then the publicani, then legates from the provinces themselves when the first two options were plagued …show more content…
Governors were responsible for handling tax collection in the beginning. This lead to “actively fostering greed” as governors (and generals) would steal money to repay their debts for their campaigns (Holland 39). After the Latin war, a law was passed that prevented senators from participating in activities such as tax collecting. This gave equestrians the opportunity to advance and accumulate more wealth, which lead to acquiring more influence in politics, without having such an active role such as the senators. The equestrians had the “necessary expertise”, and so were assigned the responsibility of tax collecting (Holland 39). This was done in hopes that the prominence of corruption and selfish incentives would go down. The publicani, or public contractors that were primarily from the equestrian class, took over collecting taxes and held this responsibility the longest. Things went smoothly until the publicani began to act selfishly, overbid, and eventually fall into debt. The publicani generated a sizeable amount of the Roman government revenue, so much so that the government depended heavily on it. To control their operations too closely “would only prove self-defeating” (Boatwright 106). Caesar was eventually forced to pay one third of the debt the publicani managed to accumulate. When Augustus came around, he wanted to avoid bailing out the publicani like Caesar …show more content…
This is probably because the Roman Senate had more power and because public officials were voted into office. With the Principate, the Senate’s power was drastically reduced and the dictator would appoint public officials instead of holding frequent open elections. However, it should be noted that the Roman middle class and urban poor had no less power in the Principate than in the Republic. This means Livy does slightly skew how democratic the Republic is. Regardless of how democratic the Republic actually was, scholars still argue why the Roman government switched from the Republic to the Principate. Two of these numerous reasons are changes in land reform and tax collection. Many leaders had to decide whether taking land from the rich and redistributing it to the poor would be advantageous. As mentioned earlier, fewer laws on land reform that benefited the poor were passed with each coming year. The responsibility of collecting taxes also changed drastically as the Roman government began to evolve and shift. At first, governors and the publicani were held liable for this job, but as instances of corruption began to increase, another actor would replace the corrupt one. By the time Augustus was dictator, procurators were responsible for collecting
Rome was kind of a democy it had it’s flaws but by its voting system it makes it a democy. In document C only 2% of Roman’s voted and these votes by the people even though it was few that makes it a democracy. In document C you had to be in Rome to vote which is far because they wouldn’t want an outsider to vote on things that were going on in Rome. In document B poor rich and the freed slaves could vote and for it’s time that is amazing that the poor and the freed slaves could vote. Rome definitely had it’s flaws but for it’s time it was a good democracy but in our fews we don’t think the Rome Republic was a good democy at all.
How was it possible that under the dictatorship and after the deification of Julius Caesar the Roman republic fell, when it had been structurally sound for four centuries before? When the republic was established around the end of the 6th century B.C.E., the Romans made clear that they wished to avoid all semblance of the monarchy that had ruled for two centuries before. (T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995; p. 215) The rule of the Republic was to be split into powers of the senate and consuls, a system that worked for over four centuries. The republic would face problems with the rise of the first triumvirate in 60 B.C.E., involving Julius Caesar, Crassus and Pompey. The triumvirate gained power that was intended to be in the hands of the senate and Roman assembly. This paved way to a situation in which a single man could sweep up the political power that previously belonged to the entire senate. Julius Caesar would use this tactic, following his campaigns of Gaul and Britton, to take sole dictatorship over Rome. While there were previous cases which individuals had been appointed as dictator, usually by the senate to serve for six months in a time of war, Caesar was appointed dictator three separate times.. After declining his first dictatorship, Caesar was awarded two more reigns as dictator for one and ten years, respectively. At this point Caesar was praised by the Roman people for his various military victories and had been awarded several awards and honors by the senate. Having conquered much of the surrounding territories, spanning from northern Africa to Greece, and enacting several reforms, Caesar was in the pro...
The Roman Republic was a political system which was stamped and swayed, but it was not by parties and programmes which we are so familiar with which is a modern and parliamentary variety. And it was not swayed even by the powerful opposition between Senate and People, Optimates and Populares, nobiles and novi homines. The main locomotive force of politics was the strife for power, wealth and glory. (ref: Syme, Ronald 1960 The Roman Revolution, Oxford University Press) [1]
During the last century of the Roman republic, the system of government was drastically changed and eventually fell apart, not only because of Marius and his military reforms, but also because of the dictatorship and proscriptions of Sulla, seven consulships of Marius, political alliances of the first and second triumvirates and the growing corruption and ineptitude of the senate.
The Political Decay of the Roman Republic The fall of the Western Roman Empire was the first example in history on the collapse of a constitutional system which was caused by the internal decay in political, military, economics, and sociological issues. The government was becoming corrupt with bribery. Commanders of the Roman army turned their own army inward towards their own Constitutional systems, fueled by their own ruthless ambition. This paper will talk about how the violence and internal turmoil in 133 B.C.-27 B.C. was what provoked the economic stagnation in the city of Rome and to the end of the Republic and the many corrupt politicians and generals who only thought of nothing more than personal gains and glory. The senate lost control of the Roman military and the reason they rose against the senate was because the senate were no longer able to help manage the social problems or the military and administrative problems of the empire.
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
They were originally established with the intent to give most of the power to the people. The power to vote for the leaders and settle issues professionally. Both forms of governments had senates, which represented the people and helped the nations succeed, by not allowing one person to gain complete power like a king or emperor would. They both did not want kings ruling the entire kingdom, so they gave the people more power by allowing them a voice with some form of voting. Power was also given to representatives and officials in the republic and democracy. The Athenians were able to vote for legislation and bills, while the Romans elected officials to vote on the people’s behalf. The Roman’s established an aristocratic republic controlled by only wealthy people, so the power was not shared equally in society. On the contrary the Athenians allowed anyone to be in government as long as they were a male citizen. A form of the executive branch emerged from both systems; Rome had two consuls elected by council and Athens had a council of five hundred men. They both had different regulations on who was able to be a citizen. The Athenians only granted citizenship to native born males, while the Romans gave half citizenship to Italians allowing them to have full rights, but were not able to
The Roman Republic began approximately around 509 B.C. when the nobles drove the King and his family out of Rome. This monumental incident helped shape the start to the transformation of the monarchy into a republican governmental system. This is known to have begun by that of the Roman nobles trying to hold their power that they had gained. The Republic was “[a] city-state [which] was the foundation of Greek society in the Hellenic Age; in the Hellenistic Age, Greek cities became subordinate to kingdoms, larder political units ruled by autocratic monarchs” (Perry 105)
The government of Ancient Rome, the Roman Republic, has influenced American government. The Roman Republic influenced the laws, republican form of government, branches of government, and balance of power. However, the Republic was different from American government. For instance, the Romans had two leaders as consuls of the empire. What was taken from Rome to America, was the idea of a ruling senate that controlled what laws were passed. Consuls had supreme power in both civil and military matters. In the city of Rome, the consuls were the head of the Roman government. They would be the head of the senate and the assemblies. The republic was a large democratic system structured under the rule that no one could hold too much power. Also, people's assemblies were elected by the people to represent the lower classes of Rome. The military was controlled by elected officials. Their terms only lasted for one year! However, it was not a perfect democracy. The Romans did not have a sense of human rights. The city held m...
Rome's Republican era began after the overthrow of the last Roman King Tarquin Superbus by Lucius Brutus in 509 BC(1), the Senate was ruled the by the people of Rome. The Roman Republic was governed by a largely complex constitution, which established many checks and balances, so no man could have complete control. The evolution of the constitution was heavily influenced by the struggle between the patricians and the other prominent Romans who were not from the nobility. Early in Rome’s history, the patricians controlled the republic, over time, the laws that allowed these individuals to dominate the government were repealed, and the result was the emergence of a the republic which depended on the structure of society, rather than the law, to maintain its dominance. This is similar to the creation of the American system of government. Starting with the over throw of t...
The Roman Republic was founded in 509 BC after the ruling Tarquins abused their extensive power as monarchs and were overthrown. The goal of the Roman Republic was to have a strong government, governed equally by the patricians and the plebians, and to avoid another Roman Monarchy. For years Rome was guided by great men, such as Cincinnatus and Scipio Africanus, who led the Republic through hard times, conquering such enemies as the Etruscans and the Carthaginians. Large-scale war united Roman society in its common goals. However, after Scipio’s victory at Zama in 202 BC, a new Roman world began to take shape. Roman soldiers returned home from their victory to find that they could not pay for their farms, becoming “squatters” on their own lands after having to sell them to richer men. The Senate became corrupted, and despite the Gracchi brothers’ best efforts, the rich patricians soon monopolized nearly all aspects of the Republic, from trading and “farming” to governing the people. After marching on Rome, Sulla became dictator in 82 BC. After Sulla, the First Triumvirate: Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar, owned virtually all power in Rome, yet each had his own desire to defeat the other two and become Emperor. When Crassus died in battle, Caesar had his chance. He defeated Pompey and marched on Rome, victorious. After declaring himself Dictator for Life, Caesar was assassinated, and another Civ...
The political system of both Roman empires was based on virtue and the republic was founded with the Senate as the center. The magistrates were elected annually and also had control of the armies. The key to Roman superiority was the patriotism and training and drills.