Rome: Empire or Republic?

Ah Conrad, I knew you would be the one to post in a thread like this :D
I would add the third option you suggested, but I cannot. Once you set the pole options, you cannot change them :(
Also, thanks for the history on Rome. It was an interesting read to say the least.
Also, I'm sig quoting this:

Quote:

---

Joemanf, you have unleashed Conrad Jalowski: the Greek, Hellenistic, Roman, Medieval, Byzantine and Italian Renaissance scholar.

---

:D

Anyway, thanks for participating in the discussion. Your input always brings light into the darkness.

That... was... much... info...

Republics are ineffecient. Im not saying that there bad im just saying there inefficent.

The Empire of Rome was a far for effective Governement than the earlier Repuplic of Rome.

Actually, technically there were no real Roman Emperors. They took prestigious, and often religious (or later saintly) titles to credify their positions of power.

That being said, the Empire was really a religious dictatorship for much of its history.


However, the "Empire" was, again, a far more efficient government than the previous Roman Republic because of the simple fact that there were far fewer civil wars fought by prominent men who tried to gain leadership within the Senate.


The lack of instability led to both the Empire gaining power then losing it later on.


At first, the great stability helped the "Empire" organize itself into a Power, which would have conquered nearly anything, except for the fact that the very thing that had given it strength in the first place now weakened it fatally...


That weakness was called stagnation. The people, by now Christian, had so fitted into normalcy, that they grew increasingly too lazy to get up and defend their borders, homes, etc. from foreign incursions.


This stagnation eventually led the Romans to get so lazy as to let "barbarians" enter the Empire as mercenaries, to fight their battles--almost all of them defensive--for them.

These same people destroyed the Empire in the West.

If the Empire would have stayed on its toes, then this horrible condition would never have occurred, and they might have ruled Europe by the close of the sixth century had they kept pushing outwards...

I'm about to go Caracalla on some peeps.

It is true that the greed of various power-hungry men helped lead to the decay of the Empire, but that also happened to the Roman Republic, except that the occurrence was practically daily as there were far more eligible candidates to fight back then--all equipped with their own personal armies...(they were, after all, wealthy men)...

However, the thing that led to all of this infighting was the lack of activity going on that united the people under one banner.

This lack of activity, best known as stagnation, was the main element that led to the destruction of both the Republic and the Empire.


The main difference was that the Republic ended when one man had enough brute force to get him titled "Emperor" (NOT our good friend Julius) and reign until his natural death in A.D. 14...his name was Octavian, the adopted heir of Julius Caesar.

He sufficiently defeated his main political and military opponents, and the door was flung wide open for his sole rule (the Senate was by now sufficiently whipped into submission by the victor) and control of the bulk of the Empire's strength from shortly after the battles in the year of 27 B.C. to A.D. 14, when the ruler died.

After his death, people once again fought among each other for power, but there was always someone in charge to run the place if he was not dodging arrows, daggers, swords, armies, etc. for dear life...

However, there were multiple people with a variety of targets in the days of the Republic...


In the Empire, there was a leader with a mission to beat people to bits, and for much of the time, the people followed him--if he was a good leader...

If not, civil war erupted.


Nature's brutal way of replacing poor leaders took its toll early on--much of the time, both the Republic and the Empire were in total chaos, and only one thing could save the area known as the Roman Empire from total destruction--a solid leader, which did indeed come every so often.




If the Republic of Rome were allowed to exist for any more time than it did, and nobody gained the clout and armies, and strength enough to best the whole Empire in the Ultimate Quest for Power, then that empire would have crumbled in on itself quickly.

Then, outside and inside forces would have torn Rome itself to shreds...

Man conrad!! I could just ask my ancient history assignment question in here and u would do the dam thing for me!! :D

I have a knack for coming up with answers as well.

I have hardly needed to do the sufficient research for nearly nineteen years. I just learn, and remember, probably like our good Conrad does here as well.


The bookworm always prospers.

However, I still need to detail on the finer points of many things--something which I give Conrad very extensive credit for--he details his work to the extreme, like I do when my grade depends on it--LOL...

Jurnis, those were good points :D
Anyone wanna challenge Conrad or Jurnis? I can assure you that you will lose :D

why should we try? i know a bunch, but im to lazy...

The Republic was a system that, in its heyday from c.500BC to c.100BC, was based on the rule of law, and a cleverly balanced constitution that was not a written document, but consisted of an accord between the 3 elements, democracy, monarchy, and oligarchy. As the historian Polybius wrote, it is this balance which gave ancient Rome its greatest strength.

Rome was not ruled by any single man. That was contrary to the whole philosophy of the Republic, which was about having a balance of power. Two annually elected Consuls held the highest position of power. They could veto each other, so neither had absolute power, and they were strictly limited to one year in power.

This system greatly helped to prevent the kind of tyrannical abuse of power that happens all to often in dictatorships and monarchies. Nobody was above the law, and all free men were citizens with a stake in their future. All citizens could vote, and the assembly of the people could pass laws that applied to all.

All of this contrasts with the Roman Empire, which was a system based on an emperor. One man had total, absolute power. And as we all know, complete power corrupts a man completely. Corrupt, insane tyrants like Nero, Caligula and Commodus often ruled the empire with appalling cruelty and incompetence. Under the Empire, Rome slowly began to decline. By the time of the third century crisis, the empire was at the point of collapse. That it held together for another century and a half was a miracle, due largely to a series of strong soldier-emperors. But they failed to reform the system, and since it was largely a matter of luck who came to the throne next, sooner or later weak emperors took power again, and Rome entered its final decline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SunTzu123

Corrupt, insane tyrants like Nero, Caligula and Commodus often ruled the empire with appalling cruelty and incompetence. Under the Empire, Rome slowly began to decline. By the time of the third century crisis, the empire was at the point of collapse. That it held together for another century and a half was a miracle, due largely to a series of strong soldier-emperors. But they failed to reform the system, and since it was largely a matter of luck who came to the throne next, sooner or later weak emperors took power again, and Rome entered its final decline.

---

As I said, Rome's only mistake after Ceaser took power was letting the weak gain control.

wow guys its a tie 12-12