Salvete omnes,
Since no one else seems to care, let me make some controversial statements and see if that will wake you up.
The general consensus seems to be that the fall of the Res Publica was not due to the actions of any one man, but due to essential deficiencies in the Roman Constitution which made it incapable of handling the way the Roman state had changed. For that reason, it seems logical to assume that drastic constitutional changes would be essential, although clearly in a way that wouldn't destroy the oligarchic nature of the Res Publica.
One of the major flaws in the governing of Rome was that it failed to allow for the growth in power of people with loyal soldiers at their command. This was, after all, one of the consequences of the acquisition of empire. To curb this, maybe the election of multiple military posts a year, with each army being put under joint control of three such men? This is similar to the concept of mlitary management in the Athenian democracy. It might prove somewhat more cumbersome, and indeed lead to situations such as Arausio, where Caepio refused to submit to the authority of Mallius Maximus. However, by doing to the Military Tribunate what Sulla did to the Plebeian Tribune (Deprive it of all political influence and desirability) perhaps Rome's armies would be commanded by career soldiers or by people genuinely interesting in being elected to that post but no others. However, this would make opportunities for military glory for aristocrats fairly limited, making other avenues of advancement more important, such as the political, oratorical and legislative. Perhaps this might even encourage a political elite where it was the great legislators, lawyers and orators who reached the top political offices - and no doubt the Machiavellian schemers also - and the great military men who reached the top military posts. Hopefully this segregation would make the rise of political warlords such as Marius, Sulla, Pompeius and Caesar less likely.
*Curio breathes again* Well, there's controversial statement 1.
What do y'all think?
Bene valete,
Marcus Scribonius Curio Agelastus.