Did Scipio Africanus set up the fault-lines that would tear the

>>3273665
Scipio didnt had politacal ambtions and sucked at politics anyhow. I would rather say sulla is the first cunt.

>>3273665

The answer is bluntly "no." Scipio was sidelined by Cato the Elder, he never really accomplished anything in terms of politics.

If you're assigning blame for the Fall of the Republic, there are much better people to be pointing fingers at. You could blame Marius for restructuring the Roman army so that troops were directly paid by their commanders (thus making them loyal to their commanders rather than the Senate). You can blame Sulla for having the mother of all chimp-outs. You can blame Caesar for having himself declared dictator for life. You can blame Cato the Younger for refusing to let Pompey marry his daughter, thus driving him to marry Caesar's daughter instead. You can blame the Elites for opposing any sort of moderate land reform to the point where the lower classes through themselves behind Caesar in desperation for change. You can blame Cato the Elder for having Carthage destroyed, thus depriving Rome of its common, uniting enemy. Scipio doesn't deserve a spot on the list at all.

Apparently he was the first person to use the term "Emperor" which is in that context described a general who controls an entire theater.

>>3274989
I guess I see figures like Marius and Sulla as essentially extensions of Scipio into the political field. Do you know if they modeled themselves after him in any way, even at a propaganda level?
Also, did the Gracchi use their relation to him as clout for their political career?

>>3273665
>Did Scipio Africanus set up the fault-lines that would tear the Republic apart and lead to the Empire? He was the first Roman general who garnered a really significant political following and defied the Senate.
Nah his political clout (auctoritas) was not as great

Marius on the other hand opened a can of worms
>indigents in the army
>loyal to general not SPQR
>appeals to the plebs
He paved the way for people like GJC, Catiline, etc..

>>3274989
>Sulla for having the mother of all chimp-outs
Sulla fixed the Republic

>>3275044

If you're going to start using that against him, we might as well start blaming Hercules, because practically every general in the ancient world claimed to be related to him. Lineage from Hercules was claimed by such figures as Hannibal and Fabius. And if they weren't claiming Hercules, they were trying to fashion themselves as "The New Alexander" so we can add Alex the G to the list of possible culprits as well.

>>3275169
Sulla made a lot of good changes, but also a bunch of shitty and overbearingly pro-aristocracy ones that caused pretty much his entire reworking of the republic (aside from the courts) to be dismantled within 10 years of his death. Only thing he really saved was Cicero's career in the forum, since the new courts suited his style of legal practice far better than they did the old guard's (Hortensius & co).

Scipio Africanus was one of the major personifications of the republican ideal of a good commander and citizen.

You should read Seneca's 86 epistle. As others have already stated, he wasn't of a political mind, and in the he chose exile over burdening the republic with his presence.

>>3275164
To be fair, the Marian reforms were necessary since the class of small land owners that made up the bulk of the Roman citizen-levy had decline to far. Rome simply couldn't raise adequate military strength under the existing system. And the reforms were as much codifying existing practices as they were anything new.

The problem lies mainly with the Roman aristocratic classes taking over all the land. Without this attachment to the land, many citizens would simply follow whoever feed them (whoever controlled the grain dole) or paid them (the generals ultimately controlled the plunder and purse strings)

Marius and Sulla, Caser and Pompey etc were more symptoms of the problem than causes

>>3275169
>'fixed'
>set precedent of using the army to crush all dissent and seize dictatorial power
>collapses about thirty years later because he set the precedent

I guess he 'fixed' it for those thirty years? Except it wasn't really fixed at all...

>>3276510
The problem lay in Imperialism. Rome could not maintain its new empire with its citizen levy, and it could not expand further.

The Maurian reforms are the transition point between a republic and a military dictatorship. They are the transition between small citizen armies led by popularly elected representatives toward a professional unified army led by appointed generals. This is where the Empire truly, begins.

>>3276517
Not him but the "empire" as devised by August was basically a fixed roman republic.

>>3276528
>the maurian reform

I'm still blaming the Gracchi.