I didn’t say they did it well, but the basis behind the republic form in it’s origin was an attempt to ensure no more tyrant kings. At least, that’s what I recall from the long ago days when I read about such things.
:’) Our Framers studied past attempts (all of which were unsuccessful) to establish a system of gov’t with things like checks and balances, limits to power, separation of powers, and subservience to the will of the people. The Roman Republic was a classical period city-state with various kinds of pre-existing affiliations such as tribes, clans, and families, along with the concept of citizenship. Politicians from the period following the overthrow of the last of the Kings, through the next phase of the republic — when the emperor became a permanent part of the political system — had to know about and deal with these older affiliations, as well as yet another permanent affiliation, that of the Roman armies.
The Romans didn’t come up with a regularized or stable system for succession, or even for selection, of its emperors, until (after a couple of centuries, which included a long period of regional “caesars”) Diocletian tried it. To test his system after setting it up, he retired (to a fortified, nearly self-sufficient manor in the now-former Yugoslavia — the building still stands) so his designated successor would take power, and compelled his eastern counterpart (Diocletian also divided the empire into e and w) to do the same. Splitting the empire may have been the one aspect that was pretty much stupid.
Eventually this broke down and Constantine conquered the whole works.