4 ms·

> If inability to remove the Consul (or Dictator) via from office via elections is what qualifies as the death of the Republic, then it died with Marius, Sulla,

> If inability to remove the Consul (or Dictator) via from office via elections is what qualifies as the death of the Republic, then it died with Marius, Sulla, or Pompey. Right. Arguably the Republic had been on life support for decades, even before Marius and Sulla. Some argue that the fundamental issue was a coordination problem. The civic institutions that had worked reasonably well when Rome was merely the capital of an Italian agricultural reason began to fail miserably as Rome changed into an empire where communication between outlying regions and the capital took weeks or months. The proconsul/propraetor system, which came about fairly late in the Roman Republic, was an attempt to mitigate this, by providing an on-site official with authority ("imperium"). In practice, the promagistrates generally looked on their one year terms as a license to loot the province, squeezing out as many taxes and bribes as they could collect. This did not endear them with the locals. By contrast, an emperor usually wanted to remain in power for a long time (most of them did not, but they wanted to), and could spread their looting out over a longer period of time, and have it carried out by local officials they could make and break at will.

qwytw 4y ago
> was merely the capital of an Italian Arguably (considering the causes and outcomes of the Social War) it didn't even function that well in that regard. It was a city state which suddenly (in a couple generations) became a global empire. > an emperor Did an emperor even need to loot that much? He did not have to spend enormous amounts of money for electoral campaigns or directly compete with his peers in other ways. Arguably the interests of the emperor were inherently aligned with that of the state unlike that of elected magistrates who were ussually much more concerned about their political success and accumulating wealth (which I guess is pretty much what you're saying..)
- peterfirefly 4y ago
  > Arguably the interests of the emperor were inherently aligned with that of the state unlike that of elected magistrates who were ussually much more concerned about their political success and accumulating wealth (which I guess is pretty much what you're saying..) Roving bandits vs. stationary bandits.
- twelve40 4y ago
  > Did an emperor even need to loot that much? dunno about looting specifically, but yes, the emperors always needed an insane amount of money to finance the wars.
  - shjake 4y ago
    But it’s the state that needed the money. I mean under the Republic the corrupt magistrates defrauded both the people they were ruling over and the state. In the empire due to various reforms the state managed to get a much bigger share of the pie than before while collecting less in taxes.

qwytw 4y ago

> was merely the capital of an Italian Arguably (considering the causes and outcomes of the Social War) it didn't even function that well in that regard. It was a city state which suddenly (in a couple generations) became a global empire. > an emperor Did an emperor even need to loot that much? He did not have to spend enormous amounts of money for electoral campaigns or directly compete with his peers in other ways. Arguably the interests of the emperor were inherently aligned with that of the state unlike that of elected magistrates who were ussually much more concerned about their political success and accumulating wealth (which I guess is pretty much what you're saying..)

peterfirefly 4y ago
> Arguably the interests of the emperor were inherently aligned with that of the state unlike that of elected magistrates who were ussually much more concerned about their political success and accumulating wealth (which I guess is pretty much what you're saying..) Roving bandits vs. stationary bandits.
twelve40 4y ago
> Did an emperor even need to loot that much? dunno about looting specifically, but yes, the emperors always needed an insane amount of money to finance the wars.
- shjake 4y ago
  But it’s the state that needed the money. I mean under the Republic the corrupt magistrates defrauded both the people they were ruling over and the state. In the empire due to various reforms the state managed to get a much bigger share of the pie than before while collecting less in taxes.