FREE ESSAY ON BREAKDOWN OF ROME

BREAKDOWN OF ROME

Essay on the breakdown of the early Ancient roman republic. 
For men who had easily endured hardship, danger and difficult uncertainty, leisure and
riches, though in some ways desirable, proved burdensome and a source of grief. Sallust 
The causes for the breakdown of the early Roman Republic cannot be attributed to a single
event, trend or individual, rather it was due to a combination of all three in varying
degrees. The principal and fundamental cause was the breakdown of the political checks
and balances, particularly the Cursus Honorum from 133 BC onwards. This subversion
occurred both accidentally and through the subversive behavior of individuals,
unconsciously and consciously undermining the fabric of the republic in their quest for
power and glory. One substantial outcome of this incapacitation was the emergence of
violence as a political means. Once this had occurred the end of the old republic was
heralded an autocratic dictatorship was born.
The republic was born out of a collapsed monarchy and was specifically geared to prevent
a centralization of power. The mechanisms to this end were contained in the Cursus
Honorum, a document that outlined the ladder of offices. It demanded, among other things,
10 years of military or legal service before any magistracy could be held, annual
election and two years between consecutive offices (Plutarch, 1974. p.140). This system
was designed to ensure that no individual could become too powerful by dividing
jurisdiction between several groups and allowing for veto.
The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius are often blamed for causing divisions and
antagonizing the aristocracy and particularly the senate by introducing laws and
legislation that, although promoting egalitarianism for the poor, were catalysts to later
breaches of the Cursus Honorum. Both Tiberius and Gaius had laws enacted without
consulting the senate. This weakened the senate's power and started a trend of ignoring
the senate that remained until the breakdown (Plutarch, 1986. p 176). These Graccian
reforms included the implementation of a welfare system whereby Romans citizens would be
given free corn and the Lex Agraria or land reforms that broke down the latafundia and
increased the number of small-scale farms. The welfare corn system not only aroused
violent anger from the nobility but also created an urban mob (Suetonius, 1979. p.42)
that relied on handouts and later participated in violence. Tiberius Gracchus ran for
election to the tribunate for two years consecutively (123 and 122 BC). This was in
direct contradiction to the Cursus honorum. The senate, when they heard of Tiberius'
plan, killed him. This action was significant, due to it being the first time that
violence had been used for a political end, it was not to be the last.
Marius and Sulla, great leaders of Rome from 119 to 78 BC, can be attributed part of the
blame for the breakdown of the republic. Their constant quarreling led to factional
fighting amongst the people and eventually to civil war. Marius came into power before
Sulla and, like the Gracchi, showed a tendency towards disturbing the status quo and
antagonized the nobility. Marius' reforms centered on military change, the most
controversial of which was the extension of military service for the landless class. This
seemingly insignificant reform had wide repercussions since it created semi-professional
soldiers rather than a citizen militia (Bradley, 1990. p 270). Since no pension scheme
was organized, the soldiers were largely dependent on their commanders for payment and
pensions of land. This dependence led to the soldiers being tied to their commanders,
allowing for the later development of armies that were loyal to individuals rather than
to the state. Marius' contempt for the Cursus Honorum is illustrated by his standing in
the consular elections while not in Rome, a post that he gained and held for six years.
This action was in direct contradiction to the rule of one-year consulships in the Cursus
Honorum and allowed Marius to establish a power base that he used for his own political
designs.
Both Marius and Sulla used violence openly as a political means. The first such incident
was during the tribunal election where Marius killed Nonnius, a political opponent to his
friend Saturnius. This was not the only example of violence from Marius. When returned
from exile, he killed everyone who had ever offended him and took their land for himself.
Sulla was not much better, having a similar proscription list and sometimes adding names
to the list simply to acquire property. Legions of Roman soldiers, who had effectualy
turned into private armies, carried out these executions. This practice of obtaining
soldiers for personal means led eventually to the widespread use of violence and
eventually to civil war. 
Close to the end of the republic, a triumvirate arose, combining the three most powerful
men in Rome-Pompey, Caesar and Crassus. Caesar engineered the union, using the military
and political skill of Pompey and the Financial and political power of Crassus for his
own benefit. He manipulated both men to pass legislation and reforms that would spell the
end of the republic and catapult him into an autocratic Dictatorship. 
Caesar, upon election to his first consulship in 59 BC, was faced not only with a hostile
senate, but also a large proportion of the tribunes, acting on behalf of the nobles, that
seemed determined to oppose his amendments. A relatively moderate bill to provide
pensions for Pompey's veterans was met with prolonged and systematic obstruction
(Bradley, 1990. p336) by the senate. Caesar chose then to bypass the senate and took the
bill directly to the assembly where it was vetoed by a tribune named Bibulus. Upon
knowledge of this, he presented the assembly with Pompey, who vowed to use violence if
necessary to defend the people's rights. The bill was subsequently passed. Caesar,
according to Suetonius, governed alone, and did very much as he pleased. (Suetonius,
1979. p.110)
Each of the men was greedy for glory and power, demanding triumphs and ovations for
military and political victories. Their earlier quarrels over such things had been
damaging for the republic but their eventual union was to be its downfall.
It is interesting to note however that, in the words of Plutarch. All of these men came
to an inglorious and ineffectual end. (Plutarch, 1974. p.213)
Close to the breakdown, violence was used almost as a matter of course in political
activities. From 133 BC mob violence became commonplace. Many politicians were dragged
away and butchered by angry mobs, not the least of whom was Caesar himself. This trend
towards violent resolution of political issues is well documented. Pompey used this
element to his advantage, stirring up the crowd to the point that people were afraid to
speak out against him since if they did, they were liable to be beaten to death by his
supporters or murdered by his army. 
The culmination of these events and trends was the breakdown of the Republic and the
regression into a dictatorship, a system that survived until the fall of the Empire
hundreds of years later. The seeds for the fall were planted very early in the form of
social and political problems that continued for the Romans long after the breakdown of
the republic. Although brilliant in their military and the development of physical
infrastructure, the Romans made the mistake of letting the carefully and meticulously
placed system of checks and balances fall asunder, taking with it the stability and
potential for political egalitarianism that had made the Roman empire great. 
Rome shall perish - write that word 
In the blood that she has spilt.
William Cowper
Joseph Clark apter@up.net.au