Did the Roman Republic owe its success more to its form of government or to its army?

Answer 1

Both were Rome's strong points. Although they suffered plenty of defeats, they averaged out as winners, and were so able to continue expanding the territory they controlled and the revenue they harvested. It was government in which they particularly excelled. Their system was to either use the existing local government or install a better type, but leave the locals to rule with military support from a Roman provincial governor; alternatively via a client king beholden to Rome, also with support from the Roman military nearby. Whatever the system, it meant that the country was ruled by its natural system of rule, and the local rulership took the responsibility and odium for controlling the populace and for taxes.

Answer 2

Both. An army cannot be efficient without being organised efficiently by an efficient government An army can conquer other peoples, but conquest cannot be sustained without an efficient state.

Rome's centralised state enabled her to fight on different fronts simultaneously, such as when they had to fight attacks by different neighbours at the same time, when the Etruscans attacked while Rome was fighting the Samnites, when she had to face the Samnite, Etruscan Umbrian and Gaulic alliance, when she had to fight the Hannibalistic War on more than one front and when she fought the First Macedonian War at the same time as the Second Punic War. Rome's state was capable of organising this.

In the first stage of the conquest of Italy the state was able to organise the foundation of Latin colonies in many strategic areas, seize native lands, and negotiate many alliance treaties. The building of the Appian way and successive military roads required an efficient state. So did the building of a large navy almost from scratch for the First Punic War. This is not to say that it was Rome's constitution as such that allowed for all this. It had more to do with a willingness to set aside internal conflict at times of war and administrative efficiency when it came to war. Rome also reorganised the army, such as when pay for soldiers was introduced in 405 BC, and when they adopted the Samnite manipular fighting system after their defeat at the Caudine Forks in 321 BC.

Determination was another factor. An example of this was when the Roman rich paid for building a new fleet out of their pockets when both the Roman and Carthaginian fleets were depleted, while the aristocracy in Carthage refused to do this. This is what won the First Punic War for Rome.

Answer 3

Both. An army cannot be efficent without an efficent government. The organisational abilites (both civilian and military) of the Roman state was one of the strengths of Rome. The powess of the Roman army is well known.