/his/ - History

>"bad"

This is /his/tory. If you want to moralize, go to some other board.

If you have a better objective term for what you called "bad" though, go ahead, speak your mind clearly.

>>34302

Republican institutions don't automatically lead to stability either. The only difference is that in a republic, wielding power isn't so overt, and most of disputes that would cause civil wars in absolutist regimes get settled in underground.

Besides, it's pretty common for republican institutions to be unable to reach majority rule due to three sides forming, and in that case effectively nobody rules until consensus is reached. I'd say that is just as damaging to the state institutions as any succession crisis.

>>34302

What led to the instability, was the lack of a system that perpetuated it's stability. It wasn't until Tiberius set up a system that allowed an emperor to have a pool of appointed to study with. Although… one son did kill the other in this example. He did start the system that eventually led to roman stability for another 300 years.

The Republic was already in a dire state when Caesar came in, it was probably the combination of privatized armies (aka don't have any loyalty), how big the territories of the republic were (Italics asking for Citizenship and shit) by the 100 BC and the infightings between the Populares (the Left) and the Optimates (the Right).

Optimates were right, Sulla did nothing wrong and Gaius Marius and the Gracchi brothers ruined everything

>>34302

Let's forget the literal thousands of party supporters and senators slaughtered each time one came to power.

>>34320

Gaius Marius, more like Gayus Marius lol

In the long run the Roman Empire laid the groundwork for modern society so I would say it was a good thing.

People talk shit about emperors like Nero and Caligula but before Julius Ceaser came into power the senate was extremely corrupt, like they were barely a step above Nero.

>>34320

Tiberius Gracchus was right in wanting to distribute the Ager Publicus. The optimates were corrupt and unlawfully taking over the land.

Free peasant farmers were the backbone of the Roman army at the time and if Tiberius was successful replenishing their ranks then that cunt Marius wouldn't have risen to power. Besides he only wanted to enforce a preexisting law. Tiberius unlike his cunt brother was extremely reasonable and level-headed.

>>34300

What does this even mean? Without creating an Empire, Rome would have been destroyed by Carthage, or probably even earlier when Pyrrhus invaded. Subject cities are what supplied large amounts of the manpower that allowed Rome to defeat its most powerful foes.

Do you mean the Principate that Augustus founded? There's no way Rome would have stayed a united state without someone doing something similar, the competition of nobles had turned violent decades earlier and nobles figured out how to use the tribune of the plebs office as a path to personal power.

In the long run it was not, unless you are claiming that the republican senate would have been able to handle the Migration Period any better.

After all, I think that people are pretty confused when they think of this idea of the "decline of Rome." I don't even know what that means. The Germanic peoples who settled into Roman territories had become so Roman, in culture, language, institutions, etc, that it's hard to see how they are different.

Are you talking about what a map would show as Rome's borders? In that case, what lead to Rome's decline is the settlement of the migrating tribes and the usage of them as mercenaries that was bad in the long run.

Institutions, in my opinion, had nothing to do with the "decline of Rome." It has 100% to do with how they handled the migrations and the decisions they made about their military.