If I were a Roman citizen in the years of the faltering Roman Republic, whom I would choose to support would depend a lot upon my personal status, my family alliances, and personal ambitions. The land acquisitions of Rome were expanding at an immense rate, an aristocracy controlled the Senate, slaves were in revolt, and citizens burdened with taxes and conscription leading them to leave their land and sell their votes (Coffin et. al 2011). It was inevitable that something would have to change in the method of leadership in Roman lands.
If I were a patrician member of the Roman Senate, I would try to preserve the Republic. In my mind, the Republic would philosophically be the ideal method of government. However, my motive for supporting the Republic would also be out of self-interest for my family and myself. There was much to gain financially from the abandoned lands of plebian citizens. Like Cornelius Sulla, I would want to maintain a private army, which would be very expensive (Coffin et. al 2011). Therefore, maintaining the status quo would be important to me since I would need to find more ways to maintain and expand my power and status.
However, if I were a plebian Roman citizen, I would be more likely to support someone like Julius Caesar. Under Caesar came the possibility of more stability for average people and an end to the patrician corruption that festered in the Senate. His dictatorship would not seem like tyranny to me when he increased the size of the Senate by 300 members to include non-patricians such as business people and politicians (Coffin et. al 2011). The first and most famous Caesar did not live long enough to see his ideals come to pass, but he brought the spark that eventually led to the dissolution of the Republic and instigated the beginning of the Roman Empire.
References
Coffin, Judith G., Stacey, Robert C., Cole, Joshua & Symes Carol. Western Civilizations: Their History and Their Culture (17th ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011.
