how far do the sources support the views that the senate failed to deal with the challenges

facing
the republic throughout the period:

ratification of the eastern provinces

reliance on Pompey

empire was too big

civil war

internal corruption

optimates v populares

Armies loyal to general not state

Triumverites

The content of the period can be used to prove a standpoint, that the senate did not deal with
challenges presented to it throughout the period of the republic, I will argue why the senate in fact
failed to deal with said challenges and how ultimately the senate failed as a political body and how I
ultimately agree that the sources support the views that the senate failed to deal with challenges of
the period.

Plutarch states, that the senate was “not its own master” which in context of the source refers to
Marius’s large influence on the army and plebs, meaning essentially he had a strong arm over the
senates decisions, this is evident of the early period, and throughout the entire period that the
senate functions, as separate large figure heads; Marius then Pompey, then Octavian all have a
similar method of controlling the senate via proximity, further, during the civil war of Sulla and
Marius, upon the senate learning that the Sulla would march upon Rome (Plutarch), they were left
helpless as they had no ability to raise an army, meaning that Sulla could essentially walk in and
enact proscriptions, these proscriptions saw any senator, pleb or patrician who would stand against
Sulla killed, in this instance Sulla would make himself dictator under the forced hand of the senate,
however this would not be the only time a similar instance would happen, as later into the late
republic, Octavian would equally walk on a defenceless Rome and simply kill mainline politicians (E:G
Cicero) who would pose a direct threat to his control or had wronged him, which then allowed him
to instate an illegal consulship election for himself.

It can be argued that an attempt was made to properly combat the challenges dealt to the senate of
the time as the lex Campania (ratification of the eastern states) presented by Caesar and the Anti
bribery law presented in the 50s (essentially what the name implies) by Pompey, however equally,
these arguments can be used to state the senate had incorrect priorities or had simply failed to
combat the challenges of the time, as for the example of the lex Campania, Plutarch states that the
senate member and consul bibulous (with assistance of Cato) claimed to see lightning (an omen that
meant senate could not hold) every time the lex Campania was to be debated/passed, meaning the
senate was held up for more than a week or so if not longer, furthermore these presented
documents were presented by members of the first triumvirate which itself was a body of internal
corruption as political “unions” were strictly prohibited, its further stated (by Suetonius) that the
senate practically knew about the triumvirate but did nothing.

In conclusion the senates priorities were completely out of line and as a result they did not deal with
the challenges of the period, these examples within the sources absolutely support the view that the
senate in many ways was stunted in its execution of, it’s important that the bias of Suetonius and
Plutarch are taken into account, both being later less contemporary writers, but even aside from this
the sources support the views stated.