That's sort of an oxymoron isn't it? I mean, it was the Empire that fell in corruption and decadence, not the Republic.
Your point is valid for the reasons given. But,IMO,the Roman republic would never have fallen under this kind of circumstance simply because the populace, during the Republican period, was unified and homogenous and had not fallen into the effete decadence of the later Empire.
I see what you're saying. As you probably know, the fall of Rome was a very long process. I think the beginning of end had its roots in the Republic. The civil war and in the Senate. The Senate and people became so frustrated by "dead lock" and I know that term is over simplfying what happened. What they wanted was 1 man to come along and save the Republic. They got an Emperor. With that in mind I am a little concerned to say the least about Presidents who rely on executive orders to "get things done". I think it was a very long time before the Roman citizens actually realized that they no longer lived in a Republic. The Emperors did what they could to keep that illusion alive. Thanks for your reply.