Sunday, September 26, 2010

Punic War.The Deathstroke Of The Republic?

" fait accompli
lit. A accomplished fact that is so thoroughly finished that it is extremely unlikely to be reversed" French-English dictionary

Ahem

As a amateur history scholar I often like to just think,"hmmmm! I wonder what would have happened if he died,or if this happened instead?" With most things there is a point in which the history of a nation or war is hinged on a single time, a point of no return, a fait accompli.
The Roman Republic, did it have a point of no return?A time when, if cooler heads had prevailed, the Romans would not have fallen to an the temptation of Imperial authority?
I personally do not know 100%, But I have assembled some theories from mentors,books,
and good friends.
Theory One-----Punic War Theory
Rome was just beginning on it's path to becoming the mistress of the Mediterranean, when it's interests collided with the goals of an older empire:Carthage.The wars stemmed from years of commercial aggravation,economic competition,and territorial ambition!It took three wars,but at the end Carthage was destroyed, and (according to some) the Republic was sowed with a slow disease.
Three points make up the bulk of this theory.#1-Excess of slaves:In any war,back then,
the victors took slaves.But the Romans took many, many Slaves!As was noted in my previous post, The Roman's power came from a loyal,tough,worker-farmer class.The enlisted farmers came back to find their position taken by the slaves and the noble-run estates.disenfranchised farmers joined the mob of discontented unemployed who would follow any charismatic person.
#2-increase of nobility:Now not only did the people need to contend with cheap forced labor,senatorial nobility, But now also they had to deal with a new genre of nobility,The landed nobility.these were individuals who had profited from the wars and were ready to enjoy their hefty profits.(usually at the expense of the people.)
#3-loss of initiative:The plebeians had,during the war, left most of the prosecution of the war to the senate patricians.But with the passing of time the plebeians surrendered more and more powers,to these successful experienced war leaders.with disastrous
consequences later.
Well that is one theory maybe right, maybe wrong, we will never know.Please feel free to debate with me.

NEXT:The Greek conquering,did it spell doom for the republic!?Stay Tuned!!!

7 comments:

  1. Good post Gryphon. You made some excellent observations, you post was a well rounded and easily understandable. I think that the Roman’s “fait accompli” if indeed they had one was when the senate had Tiberius and Gaius killed don’t get me wrong I agree that the 2nd or 3rd Punic war was the seed that started Rome on the wrong track but then again every civ hast to end sometime at least in practice. So you could say that SOMETHING had to kill it and that is just the most noticeable symptom. But if you say that theoretically a civ CAN last indefinitely than I think that the “poison” theory is viable I also think it could have reversed until the two consuls deaths
    but that was the last time that someone could have peacefully reformed Rome on the other hand the fact that they failed could mean that it was already to late.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Rennuk!I appreciate all the constructional criticism I get.I agree with you totally!
    P.S-Should I continue on the fall of the Roman Empire or no?

    ReplyDelete
  3. all good things must come to an end (Quote... some Guy I don't know)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think something is not right with the time stamps on the posts. Is it just my computer?
    ( sorry i suppose this has nothing to do with this thread) but i have to ask

    ReplyDelete
  5. never mind, think I fixed the settings for it

    ReplyDelete