4 ms·

According to Ms Beard the most basic cause for the Roman republic downfall was the establishment of private armies. Julius Caesar amassed an enormous military

According to Ms Beard the most basic cause for the Roman republic downfall was the establishment of private armies. Julius Caesar amassed an enormous military power with his private army on his military campaigns on Gaul and used it to just grab the power in Rome. Truth, it was his nephew Octavian/Augustus that finished and buried the Republic, but he wouldn't be able to do so unless Caesar hadn't given the mortal blow before. No wonder Putin tried to put a leash on Prigozhyn before it would be too late. Also, Imran Khan must understand very well what happens when the military isn't under the government control.

mmanfrin 3y ago
You're replying to a comment about a book that details the events prior to Julius Caesar, who was at the very end of the republic, not its cause.
- philipov 3y ago
  The cause of what? We don't know much about the cause of the republic because any records of that were lost in the first sack of Rome. As for the cause of the fall of the republic, Julius Caesar did not cause those factors to exist, but in him we see the culmination of a hundred years of learning how to abuse the flaws in their civic constitution. He wasn't the first, but he put all the pieces together. In fact, I think he's quite similar to Philip II, who put all the pieces together in Macedon. Alexander the Great was able to reach such heights because he had the way paved for him, the same way Julius Caesar paved the way for Octavian.
thom 3y ago
I don't disagree with the central thesis, and you can argue all sorts of moments for the fall of the Republic, but the establishment of client armies started with Marius, not Caesar. Even then, it was in response to political, economic and military issues which predated even Tiberius Gracchus whose tribunate many use to mark the beginning of the end. Rome's constitution was a marvel, as noted by Polybius, and it granted stability for a long time. But by the time of Sulla (who marched an army into Rome decades before Caesar), all pretence of a government that intended to give equal voice to all factions had disappeared. The idea that Ceasar or Octavian dismantled a functioning or even salvageable republic seems fanciful to me.
- philipov 3y ago
  I would go back even farther, all the way to the end of the Second Punic War. Scipio Africanus was the one who expanded the practice of client-patron relationships to a geopolitical scale to build an independent power base. He was also the innovator of the cults of personality that would become common. He never tried to overthrow the republic, but some of the political practices used to destabilize the late republic can be traced back to his innovations.
littlestymaar 3y ago
How were Caesars' legions “private”? Are you sure you're not confusing with the fall of the Roman Empire, with autonomous military leadership in the provinces (but even then, calling them “private armies” would still sound anachronistic)
- flextheruler 3y ago
  They’re loyalty was to Caesar or their general to give them a share of the loot they were conquering. This started with the Marian reforms.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    > This started with the Marian reforms. Per a post a couple weeks back by the same author as TFA, those weren't a thing actually: https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms-werent-a-thing/ https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms...
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      The most relevant quote I could easily find: "Rewarding soldiers with loot and using conquered lands to form colonies wasn’t new and Marius doesn’t standardize it, Augustus does."
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > How were Caesars' legions “private”? The Roman state authorised the raising of legions. But the (pro)consuls raising them were responsible for paying them. Think: Prighozhin.

mmanfrin 3y ago

You're replying to a comment about a book that details the events prior to Julius Caesar, who was at the very end of the republic, not its cause.

philipov 3y ago
The cause of what? We don't know much about the cause of the republic because any records of that were lost in the first sack of Rome. As for the cause of the fall of the republic, Julius Caesar did not cause those factors to exist, but in him we see the culmination of a hundred years of learning how to abuse the flaws in their civic constitution. He wasn't the first, but he put all the pieces together. In fact, I think he's quite similar to Philip II, who put all the pieces together in Macedon. Alexander the Great was able to reach such heights because he had the way paved for him, the same way Julius Caesar paved the way for Octavian.

thom 3y ago

I don't disagree with the central thesis, and you can argue all sorts of moments for the fall of the Republic, but the establishment of client armies started with Marius, not Caesar. Even then, it was in response to political, economic and military issues which predated even Tiberius Gracchus whose tribunate many use to mark the beginning of the end. Rome's constitution was a marvel, as noted by Polybius, and it granted stability for a long time. But by the time of Sulla (who marched an army into Rome decades before Caesar), all pretence of a government that intended to give equal voice to all factions had disappeared. The idea that Ceasar or Octavian dismantled a functioning or even salvageable republic seems fanciful to me.

philipov 3y ago
I would go back even farther, all the way to the end of the Second Punic War. Scipio Africanus was the one who expanded the practice of client-patron relationships to a geopolitical scale to build an independent power base. He was also the innovator of the cults of personality that would become common. He never tried to overthrow the republic, but some of the political practices used to destabilize the late republic can be traced back to his innovations.

littlestymaar 3y ago

How were Caesars' legions “private”? Are you sure you're not confusing with the fall of the Roman Empire, with autonomous military leadership in the provinces (but even then, calling them “private armies” would still sound anachronistic)

flextheruler 3y ago
They’re loyalty was to Caesar or their general to give them a share of the loot they were conquering. This started with the Marian reforms.
- dllthomas 3y ago
  > This started with the Marian reforms. Per a post a couple weeks back by the same author as TFA, those weren't a thing actually: https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms-werent-a-thing/ https://acoup.blog/2023/06/30/collections-the-marian-reforms...
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    The most relevant quote I could easily find: "Rewarding soldiers with loot and using conquered lands to form colonies wasn’t new and Marius doesn’t standardize it, Augustus does."
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> How were Caesars' legions “private”? The Roman state authorised the raising of legions. But the (pro)consuls raising them were responsible for paying them. Think: Prighozhin.