Fall Of The Roman Republic

1332 Words6 Pages
The Fall of the Republic: Corruption or Success? From its roots as a city-state ruled by kings to the notion of power by the senate and assembly, and finally to the ascension of empirical control, Rome has reverberated throughout history as an ever-transforming entity. Though the Republic solidly survived nearly five-hundred years, it remained anything but static. As this governmental system commenced to wane, it was due to a compilation of both individual actions and social conditions. It has been stated that the very success of the Roman Republic in war and imperial expansions led to its defeat. While this statement makes several valid points, it is likely that numerous other facets functioned in the fall of the Republic---especially that of Senatorial corruption and its ensuing lack of popularity. Gradually and with little warning, the surface of Roman life as a Republic began to transform at a rate that threatened the very fabric of the governing body. With the commencement of the second Punic war, a great disproportion of wealth grew evident. Whereas prior most plebeians were farmers or laborers who owned small but significant portions of property or earned adequate payment for their toils, upon the second Punic War, Hannibal destroyed this land, leaving plebeians homeless with little source of income. However, the cities inside Rome lent opportunity for both, and accordingly led to an inundation of migrations towards the cities. Farmland left behind was soon purchased by the wealthy, incensing the poor further, in addition to the increase in slavery and thus decrease in job opportunity. This condition, with a flood of enraged plebeians entering Rome, set the stage for further tumult. Civil war broke out in 133 BCE, as Tiberius Gracchus was elected tribune. Though the rise of popular tribunes was once an aspect that made the Republic strong, in this
Open Document