How Greed Destroyed the Roman Republic

[@tribunateSPQR]

What do you believe was the chief cause of Republican Rome’s collapse into Empire?

[@ayrdenpocock8767]

No one or group of individuals on their own. Whilst certain personalities may have contributed to a greater or lesser extent to the Republic’s demise, the growth of social conflict, the influx of wealth from the expansion of Roman dominance across the Mediterranean, rampant corruption, unemployment and poverty where much greater contributing factors.

[@scottw5315]

Their foundation was based on conquest and slavery. If not outright slavery, conquered provinces paid tribute to Rome forever. This of course, led to abuses. The resentment of the conquered understandably grew ever more over the decades, even centuries. Finally, as slaves were freed and foreign auxiliaries were made a large part of the legions the character of Rome shifted away from their founding ideals. The people changed as what it meant to be Roman was changed with more and more foreigners diluting the national character.

[@robertbrown3004]

Another issue was the failure of the Senate to pay the army properly after Gaius Marius, as it became a professional army, this resulted in the army becoming loyal to its general rather than the republic, because only through their general did they get properly paid, for example the first tribunate which Pompey joined because the Senate refused to gift land to his soldiers for their service.

[@sulimanthemagnificent4893]

*Possibly* a lack of spirituality/ethics among the ruling class, *possibly* I don’t know enough to say definitely, but it seems to line up. Instead of duty honour and service to their gods and/or a higher ideal, many gave into greed and began corrupting the state. But that’s just my surface level take, it’s not accounting for the material factors that were influenced by the above and vice-versa.

[@Matheus_Oliveira25]

"A city for sale and doomed to speedy destruction if it finds a purchaser". Sallust's Jugurthian quote fits nicely. Great video as always!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you! Sallust may be a bit of a moralizer but it’s quotes like that which make him one of my favorite ancient historical sources

[@Ancient__Wisdom]

Great quote! Amazing that he (and presumably others) were able to diagnose the problem but were powerless to stop it

[@bwg4608]

Interestingly enough, Pompey during his consulship without a colleague in 52 BC passed a law designed to address the issues you mentioned in this video. Pompey's law made it so a consul or praetor had to wait five years after his magistracy ended before he could go to his province. The idea being that creditors wouldn't be willing to loan out huge sums to finance election campaigns if they had no way of getting paid back for at least 5 years, and thus candidates wouldn't be able to rack up huge debts financing their campaigns and without those debts provincial governors would have much less incentive to fleece their provinces. (And as an added bonus since magistrates would no longer get to immediately go from their elected office to governing province they would not be able to take advantage of the loophole in Roman law that provincial governors were immune to prosecution to avoid being prosecuted for any crimes they committed in office.) There's no way of knowing if the law would have worked or not (the outbreak of Caesar's Civil War kept it from really getting tested), but it was at least an imaginative attempt to address several of the biggest problems of the late Republic.

[@yidavv]

Are you sure this video was just about rome? Sounding pretty familiar 😅

[@Breakfast_of_Champions]

It's the universal story of the oligarchy. Every ancient greek polis played out a version of it before the Romans took it to another level.

[@tribunateSPQR]

First as tragedy, then as farce

[@Ancient__Wisdom]

Me too, but I can't quite put my finger on it...

[@ouss]

I just hoped Trump crossed the Rubicon and restore American liberties in 2020.

[@davidroddini1512]

I guess that Roman culture and traditions continue to the present day. Will we face the challenges to the republic better than they did?

[@WorthlessWinner]

Cicero seems the closest to a true believer in the Republic in this late period...which might be why he accomplished basically nothing :I

[@stephanammann347]

Yeah but painting over the rotting building was the goal. i'd argue that his main concern was an esthetical one, no longer was rethoric a paramount vertue in politics.

[@tribunateSPQR]

I think you're right to an extent. Cicero was a staunch Republican but ultimately was much more of a realist than ideologues like Cato. He even has a great line about Cato's refusal to deal with politics as it actually existed: “For he (Cato) gives his opinion as if he were in Plato's Republic, not in Romulus' cesspool.” Ultimately I agree and it is frustrating that he and Caesar were never able to see eye-to-eye as I think their combined genius may have been able to arrive at a long term solution

[@Lazyguy22]

@@tribunateSPQRI don't think so - Caesar and Cicero were both caught up in the Roman obsession with military expansion and plunder that led to the dramatic increase in wealth inequality in Rome.

[@tribunateSPQR]

@@Lazyguy22 I agree with your assessment, they (like all Roman aristocrats) were fully aligned on these matters. However, despite a shared ideological commitment to imperialism abroad they weren't in agreement on how "domestic" power would be shared. This was the central crux of conflict in the late Republic as a belief in Rome's right to plunder was universal

[@emuannihilator5774]

Fantastic video! Eloquent scriptwriting and fine voiceover is a recipe for a great channel, hope you folks take off!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Much appreciated, thank you!

[@zntq8858]

GREAT PRESENTATION

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you! Appreciate the positive feedback, we’re Glad you enjoyed it!

[@MarcusAgrippa390]

The Senate when discussing giving Pompey sole consulship "Well you can't let something like elections get in the way of democracy"

[@tribunateSPQR]

"I agree Senator, elections are too important to be left to voters!"

[@Ancient__Wisdom]

Freedom is mandatory

[@laisphinto6372]

The funniest Thing is from all people Leading the conseratives its freaking pompey Magnus aka Mister "Special command" comparing pompey to Caesar , Julius Looks way more Traditional than pompoes riding an elephant Chariot whole wearing the Alexander the third aka the great cloak During a Triumph

[@meguemil8542]

Excellent video. I'm glad you are shedding light on this perspective. I always found it kind of lazy and infuriating to blame Caesar or a small group of people for the fall of a system that was structurally flawed

[@Maphisto86]

Oddly enough the caesars would continue to prop up the mouldering corpse of the republic long after Augustus’ reign. Even after the end of the Principate era and the fall of the western half of the empire, the Roman state in Constantinople would continue to mint coins referring to their empire as a “republic”; not the antithesis of monarchy or a popular government, but simply the state itself.

[@CBrace527]

It was likely just a formality, for example they also kept pagan gods on coins in the east long after the conversion of the empire. I wonder if any understood what the term "republic" actually harkened back to.

[@tribunateSPQR]

I've always been fascinated by how the eastern Romans emphasized continuity despite their extreme cultural, linguistic and religious differences to the west. Much like the continued use of "Republic" they also utilized pagan iconography on coins even though the empire had been thoroughly Christianized by then - just shows that some terms and concepts were so closely aligned with the state itself that they took on new meanings. Really wish I knew more about this era, would make for a good future video

[@El-Silver]

​@@tribunateSPQRyou can maybe make a Collab with Daniel from eastern Roman history and maybe a video about the comparison of the late republic/ early empire with some parts of the eastern roman empire

[@erisu69]

Fantastic video presenting an argument that I haven't seen before - this perspective feels very fresh in a market oversaturated with ancient history content. Thank you for the work that went into making it!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you! We work hard to provide a fresh perspective on the ancient past as there is so much content out there already, we're very glad that you appreciate the extra effort that goes into our work

[@aldrinspeck2724]

Elite Overproduction: too many people fighting over the same piece of the pie....

[@andychap6283]

Really interesting video, love the channel. It’s always a highlight to see an upload

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you! Very glad to have your support, it means so much to us to see positive feedback like this

[@Stamatakis33]

Wonderfully done!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@ethanz8318]

Excellent video and analysis - and I appreciate that you don't club us over the head with the analogies that may be drawn

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thanks - it's always tough to strike a balance between subtlety and the urgency of the message

[@scottw5315]

Extremely well done. Thanks!

[@WorthlessWinner]

Currently reading Livy. He was probably projecting these issues back into the long past. But if the conflict of the orders existed even half as much as he presents it as existing in the long past, then I would not have been sad to see the senatorial elite finally collapse.... though I am sad that isn't what happened and it was more just a shift in power within the elites, which used appeals to the plebs on occasion to get that shift going =/

[@laisphinto6372]

My opinion the Patrician Elite and the plebian masses we're way more unified than WE believe because looking at the early Republic IT was a constant death Match Patricians constantly sacrificing themselves, plebians almost never refuses to Fight romes enemy. I think the real noticeable massive Shift came after the punics wars because then finally IT wasnt rome fighting for its very survival but being the top Dog in the mediterranen and with the insane riches from carthage , a fallen Empire. This insane wealth followed by greece looting really Made the patrician Elite really way above the plebians and they lost that unity that Made them win in the First place

[@Warmaker01]

Yes. With victory in the Second Punic War, Rome became the big Mediterranean power. As time past from that point, when Rome became large, filthy rich, and powerful things got a lot worse as a Republic. It's weird. The success, riches, expansion that came with victory of the Second Punic War would also be the seeds that would doom the Republic. The success corrupted them. And that Republic's success did not mean everyone in said Republic got a better life for it. Roman soldiers coming back home after service abroad only to find their families homeless and their farms bought out by the rich.

[@Janika-xj2bv]

Great video, Titus. Duly subscribed.

[@brianjacob8728]

sulla with a corrupt senate was the root cause. thank you for getting this correct finally. blaming the gracchi or jc has always been wrong.

[@SomasAcademy]

Super interesting video!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you so much and thanks for taking the time to comment

[@StanGB]

Thanks for sharing, loved this one

[@tribunateSPQR]

thanks

[@CBrace527]

Good thing we all learned our lessons so this could never happen again

[@mohamedkoblawi4175]

This is my new favorite channel

[@tribunateSPQR]

thank you, welcome aboard!

[@Laotzu.Goldbug]

I can't seem to recall the exact book, or text, or lecture I read it in, but I remember many years ago coming across a source in which the author claimed that the Romans themselves, contemporary to their own time, saw themselves in Decline and decadence - in terms of virtue and social principles - from the time of their victory over Carthage. Or to put it more tightly, that Scipio himself was the beginning of the end, and that in a way their moment of greatest triumph over their true and only existential enemy was also the moment in which they immediately began to tear themselves apart afterwards. I have no idea if this is true, but it would be interesting if there was a certain self-awareness.

[@thevisitor1012]

You could honestly make a "how greed destroyed X" vid for any civilization in human history

[@WorthlessWinner]

Interesting that only 2 people a year being able to be consul led to such strict competition within the eliet, but only 1 person every 4-8 years being able to be POTUS doesn't (similar stories for most other countries around the world today) obviously there's a LOT of differences between ancient and modern countries that can explain that, but i wonder which differences exactly are responsible....maybe it's something we can never know

[@Adsper2000]

Because in Roman society, the economic, religious, military, and political elite were all the exact same people, and there was only one path to gaining real status (achieving high political office). In the USA, there is no military elite, the economic elites just pay the political elites instead of being them, and you can gain national importance without ever touching political office.

[@B_Estes_Undegöetz]

11:25 Since as you’ve pointed out in several other videos on your channel all alliances of equals were very short-lived and the only stable relationships to a Roman of “high birth” or with any aspiration to office were hierarchical or nonexistent and individualistic, I find this idea that “the two sides” both sincerely believed that if “only the other” would cease to pursue their selfish aims then “liberty” and “Roman Republican virtue” would be restored to be not credible. I don’t think any of these men in the late Republic could have been that truly clueless and unselfaware and uncritical thinkers to really believe that nonsense. After all Aristotle had made it clear in his well known work “Politics” almost three centuries earlier that any polis which incorporated democratic principles to its governance but also stressed individualism as a political or ethical principle or “virtue” would inevitably produce an oligarchy with constant civic discord between the oligarchic class and the increasingly dispossessed commoners, as well as vicious internal competition within the oligarchy itself. This was well known to educated Romans. They weren’t ignorant of this. Nor were they ignorant of the material cause of the discord and class conflict … growing wealth flowing into a successful polis and the rapid unequal distribution of that wealth and competition for it. The Romans were unlikely to be so stupid as to truly believe that it was “the other side” in any conflict that was causing the decline in the Republic. Many of them even knew what would solve many of the problems based on popular opinion about land distribution reforms and laws to control slaves displacing citizens from paid labor and skilled trades. The rich simply didn’t care because they were benefiting. I suggest quite the contrary to what you suggest. The one hundred and fifty years or so of sudden immense expansion of Roman wealth and territory, the creation of the disruptive slave economy on a previously unseen scale which unilaterally benefited the rich ruling class while harming the common farmer citizen-soldier, created a very self-aware ruling class who conceived of themselves economically as sharing interests with each other and being separate and above the rest of Roman citizens in way they’d never conceive of themselves before. For the first time the “optimates” thought of themselves as an economic class of people. And as such their interests consistently diverged from the populares on many issues in ways and to an extent they had never before. And I believe that since we have no written texts NOT left behind by optimates or those beholden to them, we don’t know what the populares really thought about all the talk of “Roman Republican virtues” the optimates engaged in incessantly and in detail. But it’s hard to believe such educated and clever men simply kept arguing with each other while sincerely thinking that if only the “other” optimates would stop being so greedy things would be fine. Or if only the plebes would just stop worrying about feeding their families and losing their family farms while the citizen farmer’s families father or sons were off to war, then things would return to normal. I think we’re reading rhetoric from the rich ruling class types meant to distract and deceive the less well educated citizen when they heard such pronouncements from their leaders. The kind of rhetoric we hear today that serves the same purpose … meant to displace blame from the speaker/writer or the speaker’s economic class during times of economic distress. And cynical Roman culture war talk none of Roman ruling class truly believed, as they selfishly drove the Republic over a cliff themselves… gambling they’d be better off after the chaos than if they agreed to legal reforms that transferred the wealth the plebes were agitating for legally and in an orderly fashion. Oligarchs can never be trusted. When a rich oligarch claims to care in the least about “culture” and “virtues” you can be sure he’s lying to you!

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

Given human nature, could it have gone another way? Great vid BTW, love the solid Roman political stuff!

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you! Yes, I believe that you're right about the ultimate bent of human nature - the desire for accumulation ultimately wins out for most people in the end

[@JohnJones-jh8nq]

Greed ruins everything every time.

[@jileel]

This sounds very familiar...

[@tribunateSPQR]

I won't go so far as to say that history repeats itself, but trends certainly do. Especially when the driving forces that animate those in leadership have changed so little.

[@Ridcally]

Wow, great video! Why so few views I don't understand - does youtube think ancient Rome is inappropriate now?

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you so much! We always want to expand our audience, but for a small team that doesn't do any advertising we're still pleased with the overall pickup we've had in the year or so since we started. The algorithm is a fickle thing and we still don't entirely understand it. We depend entirely on word of mouth so comments like this do actually boost our ability to reach new viewers. Thanks for the support!

[@Ridcally]

@@tribunateSPQR I really appreciate your analysis from political sociology standpoint - haven't seen it on yt actually. Wish you all the success and waiting for the next one!

[@tribunateSPQR]

@@Ridcally much appreciated! It’s feedback like this that encourages us and keeps us going

[@TobyTubeS]

Great stuff as always!

[@CelticLifer]

Money and politics don't mix well

[@samibehada4197]

While i agree with the sentiment, i would phrase it differently. They mix too well... both bring power to their owners, and power tends to coagulate, at the beginning. Than the rot begins.

[@BP-rg8xp]

Nice video. I see parallels with oligarchy of the USSA kk

[@Ancient__Wisdom]

well done as always

[@enammemberseptember7366]

Nice vid, pleb. ❤

[@tribunateSPQR]

Thank you, and we agree that Pleb is a term of honor

[@enammemberseptember7366]

@@tribunateSPQR It's a neutral term, in my opinion.

[@nathanielziering]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. History has proven this over and over again. In Republics and Monarchies.

[@MCAPrince]

I think we shouldn't completely disregard ideology as a motivating factor for ancient peoples. Of course we shouldn't fully buy into their propaganda, but ideological convictions are human. I think it is a mistake to believe that all roman senators in the First Century BCE were merely greedy etc. We shouldn't put modern ideologies in the mouth of ancient peoples, but they did have an ideology of their own. An ideology being contradictory and people acting against their own claimed ideological convictions also isn't an indication that there were no ideological convictions at all. Rather it is in the nature of every ideology to have inherent contradictions and it is human for people to act against their claimed ideologies. Additionally, reducing people to only self-interested and explaining their actions as being motivated only by self-interest makes two more mistakes. One, this lens and analysis requires these historical people to have a clear view of what would actually be in their interest, which they often probably did not. Two, it ignores human psychology to have views and beliefs about the world they live in.

[@davidhoward4715]

True, but what caused the long-term decline of the Republic was that the senatorial oligarchy co-opted republican ideology for their own selfish purpose. When they proclaimed liberty but denied it to even their opponents within the ruling elite, they made resort to force inevitable. Yet it was they who introduced violence into day-to-day politics, used against the Gracchi and by Sulla. They convinced the "popular" politicians that meaningful reform was only possible through command of an army.

[@alexandarvoncarsteinzarovi3723]

Nt greed avarice ,

[@infidelheretic923]

"Republics can not long survive when winning an election takes precedence over the integrity of the election itself." Keep that fact in mind, Trump voters.

[@davidhoward4715]

Like Trump and his supporters, politicians in the old Republic tried to rig elections, and when they failed resorted to violence. Like Trump and his supporters, their corruption backfired on them.

[@AlexaSmith]

hmmm make me wonder what people could read about the romans in the 1700s

[@tribunateSPQR]

It would have been mostly limited to primary sources, some of which would have been difficult to track down without the huge personal resources someone like Gibbon had. He does reference work by Montesquieu and Voltaire though. Pushed it back a little further and we see that Shakespeare relied overwhelmingly on Plutarch for his Roman plays to the point that I don’t think he even read any other ancient texts

[@elvispelvis5891]

Why "bce" though, the usage is so off-putting

[@davidhoward4715]

Do some basic research. "BCE" is almost universally used by historians. Believe it or not, not everyone in the world is a Christian.

[@ilect1690]

fun fact the roman empire itself was once put up for sale

[@Carelock]

I disagree that the Principate was an empire. It operated more like an oligarchy. Which was a natural succession to the Senate/magistrate state control previously. The Res Publica had been dead since at least the Second Punic War…

[@WDGreer59]

The Berlin Wall fell in 146 BC?

[@davidhoward4715]

No.

[@Kuudere-Kun]

I'm not so sure there was no devotion to the Populari cause left in Antony by the time he was fight the civil war with Octavian. The truth is it's hard to tell since he wasn't in a position to implement domestic policies in the Capital. What I have decided I absolutely do not doubt is that Fulvia was still carrying the torch the Political Agenda of Clodius right up to her death in 40 BC.

[@wasserungeheuer-918]

Historia Civilis is that you?

[@SpaceGhost1701]

Ugh...another MAGA ancient history youtuber. unfollow

[@El-Silver]

What are you talking about they made. Video saying the dangers of Sulla supposed restauración

[@quadrasaurus-rex8809]

This makes then Biden/Trump/Hunter/Clinton stuff make a lot more sense.

[@mrlume9475]

Sounds like Bidens' government!