How Did The Fall Of The Roman Republic

The term “all great things must come to an end” is commonly associated with the decline of empires, dynasties, and rulers. As mighty as they may have been, the Roman Republic was no exception to this concept. Beginning around 133 BCE the Roman Empire began experiencing a drastic decline internally. A series of servile wars plagued the empire roughly between 140 BCE and 70 BCE, which caused massive internal turmoil the empire had never experienced before. Three wars were fought in a seventy year time span, each being deadlier that the last. On top of their own internal conflicts, the Republic fought a series of wars known as the Mithridatic Wars, between 83 BCE and 73 BCE. Despite gaining new allies once the wars were over, a massive power
struggle began breaking out in the Roman political scene. Around 62 BCE new men began emerging on the political scene that wanted to voice their opinions and become Consul. Many of these men were often time generals, which allowed them to accumulate followers, such as their soldiers, that created a massive power vacuum in their favor. Greed, corruption, and scandals, such as the Cataline conspiracy in the mid-60s BCE, paved the path for the Roman Republic to implode on itself around 49 BCE. With all of this in mind, the three events that contributed to the fall of the Republic were: the civil unrest among commoners that was enhanced by the Cataline Conspiracy, the power struggle between men of power, such as Cicero and Caesar, and Julius Caesar gaining the trust of the commoners, which allowed him to come to power in 49 BCE. The events that took place from the mid-60s to late-40s BCE were captured in time by two politicians from who I drew my sources. These two men, Gaius Sallustius Crispus, commonly known as Sallust, and Marcus Tullius Cicero, lived during the events that occurred in that time period. Even though they were both politicians, they disliked each other. Cicero came from an Equestrian family, which gave him the privilege of having an advantage in society. He was an advocate for promoting the harmony of the orders. Unfortunately, the harmony he spoke of only accompanied the Equestrians and the Senate, which would lead to his demise. On top of this, he strongly believed in maintaining a social hierarchy that left the commoners at the bottom. Needless to say, the commoners were not fans of Cicero due to this social hierarchy and his political agenda to block land reforms. He thought reforms violated property rights (Cicero, 136). Like Cicero, Sallust also came from a Plebian family, which technically made them both commoners. With saying that, it is important to keep in mind that by this time, around the mid-1st Century, wealthy plebeians, such as Cicero and Sallust, were members of the ruling elite class, despite being “commoners.” Around 55 BCE, Sallust became a Questor and worked his way up to become a Tribune of the Plebs in 52 BCE (Sallust,7). His political preference and agenda aligned him with what is known as the Populares, a group of Romans that favored the commoners, plebeians, and gave them a voice in the political scene. Due to his political agenda, he was removed from the senate around 50 BCE, but was reappointed around 48 BCE (Sallust, 7). This was due to his relationship with Caesar, who was also a member of the Populares. With all of this in mind, it is important to take into consideration that both of these sources can have biases in their work, which can skew the truth. These biases can sprout from their different political beliefs to even their dislike for each other. With saying that, they are both known to be credible sources and are commonly drawn upon by historians.
Leading up to the Cicero’s Consulship in 63 BCE, Rome was in a state of chaos. Tension from the commoners and enslaved individuals were being forced upon the senate, which resulted in the Third Servile and two Civil wars in a matter of roughly 25 years, 88 BCE to 63 BCE. Despite Rome’s ability to contain the slave armies during the servile wars, tension was still building throughout the empire by the commoners. Living conditions for commoners were horrendous in the city. At this point, mid-1st Century BCE, historians estimate that several hundred thousand people lived within the city (Brunt, 9). These people were housed in tenements that were not very well constructed. They were wooden buildings that would often collapse and in worst cases catch on fire. A lack of a fire department caused mass fires to run rampant. Despite the poor living conditions, rent was still extremely high, which became an issue. Seeing as there were so many people, it became hard for commoners to find steady jobs. In order for the Roman people to pay for their housing, food, and family, they did menial work to get by day to day. Feeding the people of the city became a huge issue as well. Grain distribution was often cut back by the distributors to ramp up the prices people could barely afford in the first place (Brunt, 18). Needless to say, many commoners were starving. The need to pay for the high costs of food and living quarters led to increasing debt among commoners in the city and people in the countryside.
Starvation, unemployment, a lack of help from the senate, and high debt finally put the commoners over the edge. Around the mid to late-60s BCE, violence began to break out in the city. Organized street gangs began to run rampant within Rome. This was all possible due to the lack of authority in the city. Unfortunately, there was not an organized police force in the city. This led to many assassinations and rioting breaking out among the people of Rome. All of this turmoil prompted groups known as Collegia to form. Collegia were essentially groups of citizens that supported each other, helped each other out, and often time provided protection for each other. A need for leadership and order among commoners was needed.
As this chaos in the city was unfolding, a man known as Catiline came to the realization that he could be the voice of reason for the commoners.
Catiline came from an aristocratic family that had held power for many years, but by the time Catiline entered the political scene, mid-60s BCE, his elite family had succumbed to crippling debt (Stocking). This allowed Catiline to form a connection with the commoners, unlike many other government leaders from the senate. Unfortunately for Catiline, he had a bad reputation and was not liked by many members of the senate. Luckily, due to these circumstances, he was liked by the dissolute, the youth (Sallust, 184). Due to the nature of Catiline’s political agenda, he was opposed by Cicero. Despite the threats that Cicero imposed on Catiline, he decided to run for Consul in 66 BCE, but was denied by the senate from running. Around the same time, rumors began to surface that Catiline supposedly had a plot to murder whoever won the election of 65 BCE. This event would lead to the demise of Catiline, but not without a fight. In the following election of 64 BCE, Catiline was allowed to run for Consul, but was beat by Cicero due to the fact that the Senate basically had control over who became Consul. By this time, Catiline began to lose support from other Populares such as Caesar and Crassus. Despite this setback, he attempted to run for a third time in a final attempt to become Consul in 62 BCE (Sallust, 194). This time, he was able to gain support from the commoners because he wanted to start a reform program that would lead to the “cancellation of debts and the proscription of the rich” (Sallust, 190). By Catiline gaining the support of the people, especially the youth, he gave these individuals a voice in the Senate, which they had not had in many years. Catiline’s presence in the political scene was the event that not only led to Cicero’s demise, but also kick started a back lash from the public towards the
Senate.