FREE ESSAY ON THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

THE FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE

For men who had easily endured hardship, danger and difficult uncertainty, leisure and
riches, though in some ways desirable, proved burdensome and a source of grief. The
causes for the breakdown of the early Roman Republic cannot be attributed to a single
event, trend or individual, rather it was due to a combination of all three in varying
degrees. The principal and fundamental cause was the breakdown of the political checks
and balances, particularly the Cursus Honorum from 133 BC onwards. 
This subversion occurred both accidentally and through the subversive behavior of
individuals, unconsciously and consciously undermining the fabric of the republic in
their quest for power and glory. One substantial outcome of this incapacitation was the
emergence of violence as a political means. Once this had occurred the end of the old
republic was heralded an autocratic dictatorship was born. The republic was born out of a
collapsed monarchy and was specifically geared to prevent a centralization of power. The
mechanisms to this end were contained in the Cursus Honorum, a document that outlined the
ladder of offices. It demanded, among other things, 10 years of military or legal service
before any magistracy could be held, annual election and two years between consecutive
offices. This system was designed to ensure that no individual could become too powerful
by dividing jurisdiction between several groups and allowing for veto. 
The Gracchi brothers, Tiberius and Gaius are often blamed for causing divisions and
antagonizing the aristocracy and particularly the senate by introducing laws and
legislation that, although promoting egalitarianism for the poor, were catalysts to later
breaches of the Cursus Honorum. Both Tiberius and Gaius had laws enacted without
consulting the senate. This weakened the senate's power and started a trend of ignoring
the senate that remained until the breakdown. These Graccian reforms included the
implementation of a welfare system whereby Romans citizens would be given free corn and
the Lex Agraria or land reforms that broke down the latafundia and increased the number
of small-scale farms. The welfare corn system not only aroused violent anger from the
nobility but also created an urban mob that relied on handouts and later participated in
violence. Tiberius Gracchus ran for election to the tribunate for two years consecutively
(123 and 122 BC). This was in direct contradiction to the Cursus Honorum. The senate,
when they heard of Tiberius' plan, killed him. This action was significant, due to it
being the first time that violence had been used for a political end, it was not to be
the last. Marius and Sulla, great leaders of Rome from 119 to 78 BC, can be attributed
part of the blame for the breakdown of the republic. 
Their constant quarreling led to factional fighting amongst the people and eventually to
civil war. Marius came into power before Sulla and, like the Gracchi, showed a tendency
towards disturbing the status quo and antagonized the nobility. Marius' reforms centered
on military change, the most controversial of which was the extension of military service
for the landless class. This seemingly insignificant reform had wide repercussions since
it created semi-professional soldiers rather than a citizen militia. Since no pension
scheme was organized, the soldiers were largely dependent on their commanders for payment
and pensions of land. This dependence led to the soldiers being tied to their commanders,
allowing for the later development of armies that were loyal to individuals rather than
to the state. Marius' contempt for the Cursus Honorum is illustrated by his standing in
the consular elections while not in Rome, a post that he gained and held for six years.
This action was in direct contradiction to the rule of one-year consulships in the Cursus
Honorum and allowed Marius to establish a power base that he used for his own political
designs. Both Marius and Sulla used violence openly as a political means. 
The first such incident was during the tribunal election where Marius killed Nonnius, a
political opponent to his friend Saturnius. This was not the only example of violence
from Marius. When returned from exile, he killed everyone who had ever offended him and
took their land for himself. Sulla was not much better, having a similar proscription
list and sometimes adding names to the list simply to acquire property. Legions of Roman
soldiers, who had effectualy turned into private armies, carried out these executions.
This practice of obtaining soldiers for personal means led eventually to the widespread
use of violence and eventually to civil war. Close to the end of the republic, a
triumvirate arose, combining the three most powerful men in Rome-Pompey, Caesar and
Crassus. Caesar engineered the union, using the military and political skill of Pompey
and the Financial and political power of Crassus for his own benefit. He manipulated both
men to pass legislation and reforms that would spell the end of the republic and catapult
him into an autocratic Dictatorship. Caesar, upon election to his first consulship in 59
BC, was faced not only with a hostile senate, but also a large proportion of the
tribunes, acting on behalf of the nobles, that seemed determined to oppose his
amendments. A relatively moderate bill to provide pensions for Pompey's veterans was met
with prolonged and systematic obstruction by the senate. Caesar chose then to bypass the
senate and took the bill directly to the assembly where it was vetoed by a tribune named
Bibulus. Upon knowledge of this, he presented the assembly with Pompey, who vowed to use
violence if necessary to defend the people's rights. The bill was subsequently passed.
Caesar, according to Suetonius, governed alone, and did very much as he pleased. Each of
the men was greedy for glory and power, demanding triumphs and ovations for military and
political victories. Their earlier quarrels over such things had been damaging for the
republic but their eventual union was to be its downfall. It is interesting to note
however that, in the words of Plutarch. All of these men came to an inglorious and
ineffectual end. 
Close to the breakdown, violence was used almost as a matter of course in political
activities. From 133 BC mob violence became commonplace. Many politicians were dragged
away and butchered by angry mobs, not the least of whom was Caesar himself. This trend
towards violent resolution of political issues is well documented. Pompey used this
element to his advantage, stirring up the crowd to the point that people were afraid to
speak out against him since if they did, they were liable to be beaten to death by his
supporters or murdered by his army. 
The culmination of these events and trends was the breakdown of the Republic and the
regression into a dictatorship, a system that survived until the fall of the Empire
hundreds of years later. The seeds for the fall were planted very early in the form of
social and political problems that continued for the Romans long after the breakdown of
the republic. Although brilliant in their military and the development of physical
infrastructure, the Romans made the mistake of letting the carefully and meticulously
placed system of checks and balances fall asunder, taking with it the stability and
potential for political egalitarianism that had made the Roman empire great. 
Bibliography
References
Encyclopedia of Roman Empire. (1994). New York: Facts on File, Incorporated.
Gibbon, E. (1983). The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. New York: Viking Penguin.
Gibbon, E. (1999, April). Medieval Sourcebook. Available:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/gibbon-fall.html.
Hutchinson Dictionary of World History. (1994). New York: ABC-CLIO, Incorporated.
Murray, K. (1999, April). Quotations from Decline and Fall of Roman Empire. Available:
http://dnausers.d-n-a.net/dnetDkjs2/quotes.htm
Veyne, P. (1997). The Roman Empire. New York: Harvard University Press.