Community hub
Recent from talks
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Crisis of the Roman Republic
The crisis of the Roman Republic was an extended period of political instability and social unrest from about c. 133 BC to 44 BC that culminated in the demise of the Roman Republic and the advent of the Roman Empire.
The causes and attributes of the crisis changed throughout the decades, including brigandage, wars internal and external, overwhelming corruption, land reform, the expansion of Roman citizenship, and even the changing composition of the Roman army.
Modern scholars also disagree about the nature of the crisis. Traditionally, the expansion of citizenship (with all its rights, privileges, and duties) was looked upon negatively by the contemporary Sallust, the modern Edward Gibbon, and others of their respective schools, both ancient and modern, because it caused internal dissension, disputes with Rome's Italian allies, slave revolts, and riots. However, other scholars have argued that as the Republic was meant to be res publica – the essential thing of the people – the poor and disenfranchised cannot be blamed for trying to redress their legitimate and legal grievances.
More recently, beyond arguments about when the crisis of the Republic began (see below), there also has been disagreement whether events comprised a singular or multiple crisis. Harriet Flower, in 2010, proposed a different paradigm encompassing multiple "republics" for the general whole of the traditional republican period with attempts at reform rather than a single "crisis" occurring over a period of eighty years. Instead of a single crisis of the late Republic, Flower proposes a series of crises and transitional periods (excerpted only to the chronological periods after 139 BC):
Each different republic had different circumstances and while overarching themes can be traced, "there was no single, long republic that carried the seeds of its own destruction in its aggressive tendency to expand and in the unbridled ambitions of its leading politicians". The implications of this view put the fall of the republic in a context based around the collapse of the republican political culture of the nobiles and emphasis on Sulla's civil war followed by the fall of Sulla's republic in Caesar's civil war.
For centuries, historians have argued about the start, specific crises involved, and end date for the crisis of the Roman Republic. As a culture (or "web of institutions"), Florence Dupont and Christopher Woodall wrote, "no distinction is made between different periods." However, referencing Livy's opinion in his History of Rome, they assert that Romans lost liberty through their own conquests' "morally undermining consequences."
Von Ungern-Sternberg argues for an exact start date of 10 December 134 BC, with the inauguration of Tiberius Gracchus as tribune, or alternately, when he first issued his proposal for land reform in 133 BC. The Greek historian Appian of Alexandria wrote that this political crisis was "the preface to ... the Roman civil wars". The Roman historian Velleius Paterculus commented that it was Gracchus' unprecedented standing for re-election as tribune in 133 BC, and the riots and controversy it engendered, which started the crisis:
This was the beginning of civil bloodshed and of the free reign [sic] of swords in the city of Rome. From then on justice was overthrown by force and the strongest was preeminent.
Hub AI
Crisis of the Roman Republic AI simulator
(@Crisis of the Roman Republic_simulator)
Crisis of the Roman Republic
The crisis of the Roman Republic was an extended period of political instability and social unrest from about c. 133 BC to 44 BC that culminated in the demise of the Roman Republic and the advent of the Roman Empire.
The causes and attributes of the crisis changed throughout the decades, including brigandage, wars internal and external, overwhelming corruption, land reform, the expansion of Roman citizenship, and even the changing composition of the Roman army.
Modern scholars also disagree about the nature of the crisis. Traditionally, the expansion of citizenship (with all its rights, privileges, and duties) was looked upon negatively by the contemporary Sallust, the modern Edward Gibbon, and others of their respective schools, both ancient and modern, because it caused internal dissension, disputes with Rome's Italian allies, slave revolts, and riots. However, other scholars have argued that as the Republic was meant to be res publica – the essential thing of the people – the poor and disenfranchised cannot be blamed for trying to redress their legitimate and legal grievances.
More recently, beyond arguments about when the crisis of the Republic began (see below), there also has been disagreement whether events comprised a singular or multiple crisis. Harriet Flower, in 2010, proposed a different paradigm encompassing multiple "republics" for the general whole of the traditional republican period with attempts at reform rather than a single "crisis" occurring over a period of eighty years. Instead of a single crisis of the late Republic, Flower proposes a series of crises and transitional periods (excerpted only to the chronological periods after 139 BC):
Each different republic had different circumstances and while overarching themes can be traced, "there was no single, long republic that carried the seeds of its own destruction in its aggressive tendency to expand and in the unbridled ambitions of its leading politicians". The implications of this view put the fall of the republic in a context based around the collapse of the republican political culture of the nobiles and emphasis on Sulla's civil war followed by the fall of Sulla's republic in Caesar's civil war.
For centuries, historians have argued about the start, specific crises involved, and end date for the crisis of the Roman Republic. As a culture (or "web of institutions"), Florence Dupont and Christopher Woodall wrote, "no distinction is made between different periods." However, referencing Livy's opinion in his History of Rome, they assert that Romans lost liberty through their own conquests' "morally undermining consequences."
Von Ungern-Sternberg argues for an exact start date of 10 December 134 BC, with the inauguration of Tiberius Gracchus as tribune, or alternately, when he first issued his proposal for land reform in 133 BC. The Greek historian Appian of Alexandria wrote that this political crisis was "the preface to ... the Roman civil wars". The Roman historian Velleius Paterculus commented that it was Gracchus' unprecedented standing for re-election as tribune in 133 BC, and the riots and controversy it engendered, which started the crisis:
This was the beginning of civil bloodshed and of the free reign [sic] of swords in the city of Rome. From then on justice was overthrown by force and the strongest was preeminent.