Best royal dynasty for Rome

[chornedsnorkack]

In the first 125 years of Roman Republic, there were 5 alleged attempts to make Rome kingdom again, that I am aware of:

1. Tarquinius Superbus attempting restoration to throne, at some point with allies like king Lars Porsenna
2. Sp. Cassius Vecellinus, thrice consul, pursued popular politics and in 485 BC, was convicted and executed for attempting to be king... by his own father no less
3. Ap. Herdonius, seized Capitol in 460 BC but lost
4. Sp. Maelius, a rich plebian grain merchant, gave for charity during famine and was convicted and executed for trying to be king for that in 439 BC
5. M. Manlius Capitolinus, a consul, saved Capitol during Gallic siege, after the siege sold his land to help poor debtors and was convicted and executed for trying to be king for that in 384 BC

Which of the aforesaid, had he succeeded, would in the long term have led to best outcome for Rome?

 

[Viking25]

In the first 115 years of Roman Republic, there were 5 alleged attempts to make Rome kingdom again, that I am aware of:

1. Tarquinius Superbus attempting restoration to throne, at some point with allies like king Lars Porsenna
2. Sp. Cassius Vecellinus, thrice consul, pursued popular politics and in 485 BC, was convicted and executed for attempting to be king... by his own father no less
3. Ap. Herdonius, seized Capitol in 460 BC but lost
4. Sp. Maelius, a rich plebian grain merchant, gave for charity during famine and was convicted and executed for trying to be king for that in 439 BC
5. M. Manlius Capitolinus, a consul, saved Capitol during Gallic siege, after the siege sold his land to help poor debtors and was convicted and executed for trying to be king for that in 384 BC

Which of the aforesaid, had he succeeded, would in the long term have led to best outcome for Rome?

Vecellinus and Capitolinus seem like the best options due to their proven record of being competent and popular administrators and more or less effective field commanders. Superbus while I am going on a limb probably not as bad as later roman sources made him out to be was probably at best middling and the other two don’t seem like the most stable people to make King.

 

[Aluma]

Superbus

Nah he was a rapist asshole named after a means of transport
I say Rome adopts the republican model...of the French Republic

 

[chornedsnorkack]

Nah he was a rapist asshole named after a means of transport

No, he wasn´t. He was only accused of unjust political killings.
The one Tarquinius accused of rape was his son Sextus Tarquinius and he was not Superbus´ only son - Superbus´ other sons were Titus and Arruns.
Brutus killed his both two sons (and left himself without posterity) accusing his sons for siding with Tarquinii. The father of Sp. Cassius Vecellinus executed his son, too. These were purely sacrifices for benefit of res publica. But Sextus? Superbus had three sons. Was there any suggestion that Sextus was designated heir? If Superbus had died natural cases in power, what were the three sons going to do? Fight each other for throne? Share the cities fraternally?

And the victim, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, was Superbus´ nephew. Tarquinius Superbus might have had an opportunity to dispose of a surplus and troublesome spare by giving justice to his nephew - either executing Sextus or making noxal surrender of Sextus to Collatinus who´d do it.

From what I gather of Roman revolution, Brutus, Collatinus and Lucretius acted without waiting for Superbus´, Titus´ and Arruns´ reaction to Sextus´ conduct.

 

[DJ03]

Nah he was a rapist asshole named after a means of transport

it wasn't Superbus, according to the legend, and i refuse to believe for more than a split second that the story of Lucretia is historical

 

[Aluma]

it wasn't Superbus, according to the legend, and i refuse to believe for more than a split second that the story of Lucretia is historical

I was just joking taking the story at face value and calling him a bus

Also yeah it was the other Tarquin and the story is most likely mythological, though I do think there is a grain of truth to it because they could have framed the last king as terrible without the Lucretia thing and its not like doing that sort of thing was uncommon among roman rulers(see all the Emperors who were sexual abusers)

 

[Tiro]

SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS! (But not pronounced with a John Wilkes Booth accent).

 

[Mildtryth]

The problem is that save for Tarquinius, we don't really have much idea about how a restored Roman kingdom under the other four would have gone.

But in any case, the Republic was best in the long term, and plus, the way it was eventually set up had its own implications on Roman military success:

On the training side, nearly any Roman consul is going to have had extensive experience managing almost every aspect of his army. Moreover, the expectation was that the consuls or praetors leading armies under whom all of these military tribunes and quaestors served exercised a mentorship function; this is an apprenticeship training system and it works! Finally, the structure of Roman politics is as an elimination contest, with fewer offices on each major step of the system and voters deciding which elites advanced and which didn’t. Consequently, truly incompetent leaders might well be weeded out before reaching the army command offices of the praetorship or the consulship.

Meanwhile, all of the elites moving through this system are collected in the Roman Senate, a body of current and former magistrates, which serves both as the body which manages overall strategic direction (operating with the combined wisdom of every living Roman who has commanded an army) as well as a large reserve of experienced commanders to draw on.

That reserve of potential army commanders – not merely officers, but generals – matters, because it allows the Romans to keep multiple armies in the field, in multiple theaters, at the same time. By contrast, in Hellenistic monarchies, the main field army is led by the king – who can only be in one place. Consequently, you see even very active Hellenistic rulers still able to only focus on theater at a time, with subordinate generals sent to deal with other problems only being able to command much smaller (and often less effective) forces.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

One clue that would have made Manlian Rome an interesting case...
While the Roman historians tried to play up heroic feats and victories of early Republic, the clear impression is that Old Republic sucked. Military defeats, the one major expansion was at the end, conquest of Veii in 396, and that was soon followed by Gallic sack. And constant oppression of plebians by the incompetent and bickering patricians.

The big improvement on the outside would be the Roman conquest of Campania in 343, but the 350s seem to already have been improvements on the outside with successes against Aequi and Hernici. And on the inside, some of the grievances of plebians were answered with Leges Liciniae Sextiae, 367.

Did Roman Middle Republic of 350s...340s get better compared to 5th century because it was a Republic, or did it get better because it enjoyed objective advantages of the setting, that had been lacking in 5th century?

If Manlius Capitolinus had pulled off becoming King, would Manlii also have ridden the same favourable external conjuncture of mid-4th century and then pointed at the results as evidence of advantage of monarchy over republic?

As for addressing oppression of plebians, Licinius did it but Manlius had also tried to. Would Manlius´ approach have worked as well, or indeed sooner and better?