Why roman republic fell

Little more than a hundred years later it was governed by an emperor. This imperial system has become, for us, a by-word for autocracy and the arbitrary exercise of power.

At the end of the second century BC the Roman people was sovereign. True, rich aristocrats dominated politics. In order to become one of the annually elected 'magistrates' who in Rome were concerned with all aspects of government, not merely the law a man had to be very rich.

Even the system of voting was weighted to give more influence to the votes of the wealthy. Yet ultimate power lay with the Roman people. Mass assemblies elected the magistrates, made the laws and took major state decisions.

Rome prided itself on being a 'free republic' and centuries later was the political model for the founding fathers of the United States. By 14 AD, when the first emperor Augustus died, popular elections had all but disappeared.

Power was located not in the old republican assembly place of the forum, but in the imperial palace. The assumption was that Augustus's heirs would inherit his rule over the Roman world - and so they did.

This was nothing short of a revolution, brought about through a century of constant civil strife, and sometimes open warfare. This ended when Augustus - 'Octavian' as he was then called - finally defeated his last remaining rivals Mark Antony and Cleopatra in 31 BC and established himself on the throne.

Why did this revolution happen? Painting dated depicting a young Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus with their mother, Cornelia. Many Romans themselves put the key turning point in BC. This was the year when a young aristocrat, Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus, held the office of 'tribune' a junior magistracy which had originally been founded to protect the interests of the common people. As one ancient writer put it, this was when 'daggers first entered the forum'. The course of events is clear enough.

Gracchus proposed to distribute to poor citizens stretches of state-owned land in Italy which had been illegally occupied by the rich. But instead of following the usual practice of first consulting the 'senate' a hugely influential advisory committee made up of ex-magistrates , he presented his proposal directly to an assembly of the people.

Tiberius's career crystallised many of the issues underlying the revolutionary politics of the next hundred years. In the process, he deposed from office another tribune who opposed the distribution and argued that his reforms should be funded from the money that came from the new Roman imperial province of Asia. Pompey had a loyal private army, but proved politically incapable of delivering on his promises of land and bounties.

As an officer of Sulla during the Civil War, Crassus had made himself the wealthiest man in Rome by profiting from Sulla's proscriptions , that is, the outlawing of Roman citizens by putting their names on lists and putting a price on their heads, wanted dead or alive. All proscribed citizens saw their civil rights nullified and their property confiscated and auctioned off by the state.

He used his wealth to buy influence in the Senate and throughout the urban populace and emerged as a powerful, but surreptitious influence on the roman state. Caesar began his career in a seemingly hopeless situation as the nephew of C. Marius confronted by the dictatorship of Sulla. As a young aristocrat he excelled at manipulation of the symbols of Marian reform and public generosity and became the darling of the masses by the late 60s BC. By offering his political abilities to aid Pompey and Crassus with their political agendas, he rose to the consulship in 59 BC basically to work as a tool for his two more powerful partners.

He delivered necessary legislation in the face of senatorial opposition and received for his effort a year extraordinary command in Gaul. Intense rivalry existed between these three dynasts, but so long as they maintained their illegal political association, the senatorial aristocracy was powerless to thwart them. He hoped to use the aristocracy to reduce Caesar's influence with the army in Gaul , just as the aristocracy hoped to use him for the same purpose if only to discard him once Caesar was destroyed.

Pompey was defeated at Pharsalus and killed in Egypt , and the rest of the oligarchs opposing Caesar were mopped up across the Mediterranean.

Having defeated all his enemies, Caesar was granted a year dictatorship for purposes of restoring the republic. His solution was to reconstitute himself as a Roman form of Hellenistic divine king or ruler. Since BC however, the Romans had prided themselves with having obtained their freedom by expelling their Etruscan King. The very word king, REX , was anathema to the Republic mentality. Roman citizens had a civic duty to suppress any attempt at tyranny though political assassination and could do so with impunity.

Although carefully avoiding the title "rex", Caesar attempted to collect for himself all facets of constitutional authority, serving at the same time as dictator, as consul, as Pontifex Maximus, and as Plebeian Tribune for life. He was murdered by a conspiracy of some 60 odd senators a few weeks later. At this point the precedent of rule by one man had been established at Rome.

The only question remained which of his supporters would most likely succeed him to this position. This turned out to be his great grand nephew, C. Julius C. Caesar Octavianus, or Octavian. Causes of the Political Decline:. Economic and Social Changes Consequent to Imperialism. Watts argues that while the Senate ordered his murder, it was Tiberius Gracchus who let the genie out of the bottle. What he introduces is this political tool of intimidation and threats of violence. While life in Rome, with gladiator battles, crucifixions and endless war was violent, for centuries Romans took pride in their republican system and political violence was taboo.

You just lose face and move on. In that sense, this is a remarkably successful system for encouraging compromise and encouraging consensus building and creating mechanisms whereby political conflicts will be decided peacefully. So what does the story of the Roman Republic mean for the United States?

The comparison is not perfect. Joanne B. Freeman, author of Field of Blood , a history of violence in Congress before the Civil War, tells Anna Diamond at Smithsonian she found at least 70 incidents of fighting among legislators, including a mass brawl in the House, though they often tried to paper over the conflicts.

Despite periods where the U. But recent events, like changes to filibuster rules and other procedures in Congress as well as increasingly heated political rhetoric give Watts pause. The solution to keeping a republic healthy, if Rome can truly be a guide, is for the citizens to reject any attempts to alter these norms he says. The example of the Roman Republic shows the result of not policing those norms and keeping violence in check is the potential loss of democracy.

Unlike most, Cicero did not flee. He deemed it important and right to stay, and if necessary, die with his mother country. Cicero got what he wished, and was murdered on the 7th of December, 43 BC.

Cicero was seen as one of the most influential speakers since Cato, and now that he is dead, not much political power stands in the way between the Second Triumvirate and Rome. With their political enemies dead in the Roman state, the men of the triumvirate wanted to exterminate their foes in the east: M.

Brutus and Cassius. The death of the liberators is commonly seen as the official closing and end of the Roman Republic.

Now, the Triumvirate is in power and the republic is overthrown. Antony was in rule of the east with hopes to push back the forces of Parthia. Octavius remained in Italy in the west to overthrow Sextus Pompeius in Sicily.

Octavius, being the more dominant and powerful, takes Sicily by force. With Sextus Pompeius gone, the problem remained of the weaker Lepidus he was clearly the weakest of the three rulers in the Triumvirate, and he was no longer seen as necessary. Lepidus saw him able to overthrow Octavius with a mere 20 legions. This is the first sign of the separation and fall of the Second Triumvirate. Similarly to the first triumvirate, opposing views between Antony and Octavius created small bickering between them.

Many started to doubt Antony and his power, mainly because of all of his failed battles in the east against the Parthians.