Mr. Freeman's comment on the death of the Republic is less than papal.

According to Charles Freeman, “In the third and early second centuries it had maintained an aura of competence and stability and although its legal powers were limited it had dominated the decision making process.”1 For a long time the senate’s authority was respected. As Freeman states, “Unfortunately the senate’s aura was easily dissipated through its own incompetence and political clumsiness.” 

If this was true, then why did Rome go to war with Carthage in the first place?  It went to war haphazardly and piecemeal fashion.  Why did it suffer so many set backs when at the brink of victory?  This is not a decision of a competent or stable body.  

Secondly, if it was such a stable and competent body, then why did it not assess, anticipate and dispose of Hannibal, Field Marshal of Carthage?

The Senate is like any other legislature stacked full of incompetent and unstable people.  Further, democratic governments like the Republic are by their very nature fraught with instability.  One man governs the will of many in a kingdom.  In a Republic, men are made to govern themselves.  The tales told by Livy are ones were the Romans teetered back and forth between peace and revolution even as the Volscians encamped at the gate.

The reason why the Roman Republic fell is as simple and as straightforward as there are 60 second in a minute and 24 hours in a day.  Men just did not care for the Republic anymore.  They surrendered the only vehicle that secured their liberty for a bit of bread, a bribe, an Alban Villa, and the applause of an up and coming politician.  

Do you think the men of like Cincinnatus would have resorted to Milo  in dealing with Clodius?  How would Camillus dealt with Caesar or Gracchus?  Cicero and Cato tried to tame the beasts of their time.  They prevailed on Pompey and Cicero almost succeeded in co-opting Caesar.  The Liberators won their early battles against Antony.  For every angling tyrant like Octavian and Lepidus, men devoid of self control like Dolabella, Caitline and Curio that might have made the difference in preserving the Republic, but whose moment had come and gone because they could not see clear.  They had chosen to pursue foolish things.

2 Because the empire became so large and because of rising social tensions at home, there were challenges which the senate was unable to meet.
This statement is stupid.  The Rome expanded its territory exponentially when it was a Republic and only gradually and then lost territory exponentially in a monarchy.  Freeman has it wrong.
   The senate also did not have a monopoly on power, as other men were becoming powerful. For instance, when Pompey rose to power and acquired a command, this caused the senate’s power to be lessened and made impotent. 

Other men became powerful in Rome, because of what?  There were always powerful men in Rome since its founding.  For 727 years, Cicero's words "Cedant togae arma"  was a way of life for the Romans.  Force of arms, violence, the willingness to fight brother against brother - that spirit backed the strong men that came of age in the time of Caesar and those men Pompey, Caesar, and Crassus had predecessors in Gracchus,  Saturninus, Sulpicious, Cinna and Fimbria.

What fate does a man of honor have when he is surrounded by knaves?  Ask Cato.  Ask Cicero, Labienus, and Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius Scipio Nasica.  Ask Brutus why the Republic fell.

It remained for awhile because it had been so powerful. Even when Pompey had power to overthrow the senatorial government, he did not do so. 

Marius financed his legions.  You cannot overthrow a government without perverting the morals of the Army.  When the Army pledges its loyalty to men and not the state, then we have a nation of men and not laws.  This is how the Republic DIED!!!

Response to comments about the Death of Roman Republic

 "First the land reforms and grain price fixing of the Gracchi brothers led to large scale political unrest."

 The Roman constitution had remained unchanged for a number of years.  Secondly what changes the Romans occurred gradually.  The fact is the the Romans since the early days of the Republic had purchasing grain at low prices during periods of famine since the dawn of the Republic.

"Next the addition of 300 equestrian senate seats by the dictator Sulla created more unrest."

The increase of membership of the world's most powerful legislature no doubt diluted the power of each individual Senator.  But is the dilution of senatorial power enough to cause a riot?  Which did happen quite frequently during the last days of the Republic, I don't think so.

The Optimates in the Senate who survived Marius' death squads rallied around Sulla as a dictator to reconcile the Constitution as the office of Tribune used by Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus became a vehicle for tyranny and demagoguery.  Plutarch's Life of Marius, Crassus and Antony bears this out.   

A comment about the Republic

 Would it be fair to say that Rome transitioned from a monarchy to an aristocracy to an oligarchy to some form of a representative democracy by the late Republic?

No.

Rome was a monarchy from 753 to 509 BC.  Even among the seven kings of Rome, the Romans moved toward a Constitutional Monarchy with important enfranchisements from Servius Tullius that Tarquin repealed with his high handed autocratic rule.  Tullius had established the Assembly of the Centuries.  The people had a voice and representatives.  They also had their patron client relationships and in 494 BC they had the tribune.  With the publication of the 12 Tables in 451 BC, their rights had been codified and everyone knew them.

The soldiers of the Roman Army even in the late Republican Army when Marius armed scum and dregs, soldiers could read.

You always had representative democracy in Rome even in the days of the Roman monarchy.

A comment about the Roman Constitution

 The Roman Constitution is confusing because it coalesced over time.  The Roman gravitated toward conservatism because of the innovations in their lives.  Roman state was not conceived, deliberated over,  debated and compromised as our written Constitution.  The Romans, like all military men, improvised when the situation required it.  

We know that the Romans had contact with the Near East, the Greeks, the Gauls and other peoples of letters yet their Constitution has a unique stamp to it.

Also because their Constitution was unwritten it was easy to change.  All it required was a majority at the time or to merely violate the Constitution slightly if you will forgive the modern parlance "nudge."

I cannot emphasis enough how much innovation or improvisation had on the Roman mind.  The office of Consul invented in 509 BC. The Romans invented the office of Censor in 443 BC,  Praetor in 336 BC, Quaestor roughly 420 BC, Tribune and Aedile in 494 BC.  

Universal Empire fb page

A Paradise of Bachelor's Trailer

Jimbo's IMDB

Under what conditions and circumstances might Rome have appointed dictators with practically unlimited governing powers?

The term Dictator did not the hold the same two bit Latin American sleaze ball connotation that we regard today.  I think in examining our forbearers it is important to keep a sense of perspective of who these people were and how different they were from us.
Until Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, the term Dictator marked a man of reverence and respect.  Think Father of Our Country style reverence.  They believe this because the Romans invested absolute power in one man to solve one problem for sixth month at a time.

The Romans hated the idea of Kingship.  They were jealous of their liberty.  They held their liberty in reverence and awe.  It marked his superiority against those people still subject to the whims of kings - read tyrant.

Athenian concepts of liberty and tyranny rested firmly in the breasts of the Romans.  The man who wielded dictatorial power only did it for a number of months.  From 509 to 83 BC, a period of 426 years, the Senate invoked the Roman office of dictator a mere 85 times and from the years 202 to 83 BC, the Senate had no need to convoke a dictator.

Famous men who held the office of dictator include men like Fabius Maximus, Lucius Papirius Cursor - twice consul during the Samnite Wars, Marcus Valerius Corvus, Marcus Furius Camillus five times Dictator and known as the Second Founder of Rome,  but the most famous dictator of them all was Cincinnatus.  Cincinnatus, who was living a type of political exile on his farm as his son had been convicted in absencia for political violence committed in defense of senatorial prerogative.  Messengers found Cincinnatus at his plow when called to service.  Cincinnatus mustered an Army and rescued the besieged Army personally by leading the infantry into battle and resigned from the office a mere 16 days in office.

By 202, the Senate replaced the office of Dictator with the Senatus consultum ultimum (the Final Act of the Senate) which empowered the Consuls with dictatorial power for a short window of time.
 

Universal Empire fb page

A Paradise of Bachelor's Trailer

Jimbo's IMDB

Patricians and Plebes in the Early Republic

 'The Roman Republic consisted of two basic orders: the Patricians and the Plebians. “These two groups would shape the culture of Rome with disagreement and discord. These two groups would develop a compromise over time, which was the driving force behind the evolution of the Roman constitution.' 1 The Patricians were the aristocrats and the Plebians were the commoners.

It is true that the Republic consisted of 2 orders at the time: Patricians and Plebians.  From the founding of Rome, it is hard to visualize the difference between a Patrician and Plebian for Livy, Dionysius and Plutarch tell us that Rome from its founding originated as safe-haven for Iron Age felons and crooks, a motley crew of pioneers, adventurers and rogues.

Romulus established the Patricians order on wealth or merit (depending on your definition of merit.)  The Patrician class unlike a warrior band at their origins were just the richest men of the bunch.  They weren't related to one another nor was their rank predicated on individual heroism or military prowess whereby the chief dispensed spoils to favorites as William the Conqueror or Charles Martel would.  Romulus needed to bind the 100 richest men to the state, the establishment of a patrician order served that purpose.

His grandfather suggested that he create a privy council such as a Senate to solicit their opinions on ideas he had to rule his Kingdom.  He also needed the support of these men to finance his military operations against his neighbors the Sabines, the Crustumini, Veii and Fidenae.  

Though conservatism and hierarchy mark Roman society, entropy and dynamism mark the Roman character.  Patricians may have stayed patricians, but just because you were born a patrician doesn't mean you were born to a life of Riley.  Catiline, Caesar and Sulla, though patricians began their lives in economically dubious circumstances.  Patricians and Plebians were equal before the law.  It makes sense that Roman Society inclined toward more hierarchical and conservative norms due to the instability of Romulan times.

When the Roman people expelled the last King of Rome in 509 BC, the Romans had no clear idea of what was next.  It makes sense that Roman Society inclined toward more hierarchical and conservative norms due to the instability of the new Republic.

Patrician power coalesced over time and met resistance, had been pealed back and advanced during various points of the history of Rome due to the personalities of the times.

Universal Empire fb page

A Paradise of Bachelor's Trailer

Jimbo's IMDB