Empire Or Republic?

[hannibal_barca]

I am curious as to the opinion of the members on this board because you guys seem educated and you know what you are talking about.

Was Rome better of as a Republic or an Empire?

I personally feel it was better of as a Republic because the original Roman constitution balanced the relations between the Senate, acting Consul, and the People and when the emperors came in they upset that balance and when a bad emperor was in power they would not be checked as severely by the senate and the people.

[pompeius magnus]

The republic could not longer govern the mass amount of territory Rome owned, I prefer the republic, but the empire was the only option.

[PerfectimusPrime]

The republic was not capable of effective governance when rome started to expand in gigiantic scale. So, I'd say that the Empire, or the Principate was more effective government early on and was somewhat better for the people to, but later on the Principate started to show cracks, mostly because of the lack of accepted dynasty and civil wars greated by the sort of un-official ruler position.

[Lost_Warrior]

The Empire worked out way better than the republic did. There got to be too many people/too much corruption for the republic to last.

[P.Clodius]

My favorite period is 2nd Punic War through to late Republic/early Empire.

[Ursus]

The Republic was basically a city-state government that found it increasingly difficult to effectively administer an empire. The Empire worked better, aside from the insane emperors and civil wars.

[Aquila Volo]

Any form of government has its ups and downs. How can you rate a government? By finances? By territory gained? By time period? Eventually all governments hit a snag somewhere.

[Felix Marcellus]

I think the Republic could've managed the empire. The problem wasn't with the Senate not being able to govern. The problem was with individual men who didn't want to obey the law as it was. If all Romans were team players, Pompeii and JC in particular, all could've been fine. If they as the two most powerful Romans had just followed the law, setting the example for future political power figures, the Republic could very well have run effectively. You can't say corruption was too prevalent in the Senate. Corruption didn't go away with the ascendancy of an emperor. If anything it increased, hence the fact that the empire faced more civil wars than the republic did.

[Augur]

Like most of the above posters, I too have a sentimental preference for the Republic, particulary its first 400 years. In my view, however, the last hundred years clearly demonstrate that the traditional Roman structure -- under Senate leadership -- was simply no longer working or workable. Indeed, during that last century -- From Gracchi to Caesar -- the Senate became less a source of stability and solutions than it was a part of the problem. Clearly the Republic had to be replaced with something -- how many more Marius-Sulla-Pomey-Caesar civil wars could Rome have survived? Fortunately, along came Octavian/Augustus and the Imperial system he forged which, while less sentimentally appealing, did a quite remarkable job of perpetuating Rome for almost 500 more years, and in the East, 1,400! If longevity is a sign of success that is not bad by any imperial standard.

[Dominus]

To answer your question, Hannibal: In my opinion, greed put Rome at the top, via the Republic. The Empire put restrictions on that greed, allowing Rome's vast empire to survive.

 

Felix, with all due respect I have to disagree. Rome's republic was an oligarchy. As with America, it had democratic forms, but all oligarchies are based on that always reliable aspect of human nature: greed. It's also a reliable form of government, where the rich band together and protect their mutual interests. Every lasting government has been based on this principle. Pompeius and Caesar were products of their culture, the way had been paved already by Marius and Sulla. I'm not saying that the Republic wouldn't have worked, but there were other men who'd have eventually seized power or contested the system. Or had already tried, like Catiline during Cicero's consulship. Human nature is like a law of physics. Greed would have caused endless looting of the provinces, and endless new border wars that would have ultimately destroyed the empire. Marxism didn't work either, for exactly the same reasons.

 

On that note, though - we all have to remember that Republic and Empire are, in part, classifications applied by modern historians. In his own time, Augustus was revered for restoring the Republic, though some of his contemporary critics denounced him. But nonetheless, Imperial forms lasted well into the Republic. Diocletion was the first emperor to act and dress like a king, at least by Roman standards. (He was also the only emperor to retire. And later come back as a consultant!) The earlier Imperial period was still the Republic. It just had one additional Magistrate, the princeps. But even this was decided on and ratified through the time-honored Republican legislative processes.

 

(Edit: Augur, I was writing while you posted. I didn't mean to come off as reiterating your excellent post.)

[Augur]

No problem Dominus, but nicely posted. While I am at it, however, I do dissagree on your sole choice of Roman motivation -- ie greed -- as being behind virtually all developments. Greed along with love, hate, envy, patriotism, religion, family, etc., are a part of the dynamics and motivations of all societies. But in Rome (for me, particularly the early Repulic) one cannot help but be reminded of the centuries of honest, often quite dedicated and selfless heros at all levels who sacrificed much, including their lives, for things other than "the buck." In this regard I am reminded of one of Tacitus' lines: Never forget that good men can serve under bad emperors.

[Felix Marcellus]

I don't disagree with anyone that the Senate wasn't working. What I feel is the course of action should not have been for one man to empower himself to do what he wanted to do. JC didn't make it better. He made it different as I've said before. If emperors are so great, how is it Rome fell under the rule of one. How did having an emperor make life better for the average Roman? Because many in here are saying Caesar made it better. So did the average peasant finally have enough funds to go get an education and be a powerful political figure one day? Did their diet go from bread and water to all you can eat at Golden Corral? Was slavery abolished? Did more people have TV's? (Just a joke) What did JC make better and for who? I don't think he ended corruption. He transferred it all to himself.

[Dominus]

Thanks Augur - and right back at you: very well-posted and refuted! I didn't mean to preclude the many movingly beautiful selfless and glorious acts of patriotism throughout the history of the Roman Republic - acts that preserve one's faith in humanity. On the contrary, I'm a huge fan of that! I just meant that oligarchies, by their very nature, invite all the inherent problems associated with greed. Rule by the rich! That's why the Plebeians went on strike early on. Not just for their rights, but for their own piece of the collective Roman pie. And look how many wars were initiated by greed, or for self-aggrandizement of oneself, and one's dignitas. JC's an example of this himself. And this is also the reason that Augustus forbade triumphs to be held by Romans outside his family - too many wars had been started by Roman politicians-turned-general. Every Roman general considered his place in the history books a birthright. He wanted his mask displayed at his descendants' funerals forever. And by Roman standards, there was NOTHING wrong with that. It was a natural aspiration.

 

Felix, JC was a dictator, not an emperor. I kind of feel like you're applying mondern standards of morality and society to Roman times. Theirs was quite an alien way of thinking, by American standards. At least in some ways. Slavery was a good thing, for instance. That's true in most pre-industrial societies. With advent of the "imperial" period, Roman citizens no longer HAD to risk their lives serving seven campaigns under a politician commander anymore. How's that for improvement? People could focus on families and live peaceful lives. Men of talent and energy could, and did, increase their status before and after the emperors. I could go on (and on) at length, but I honestly don't want you to feel I'm being argumentative. Here's something to consider: you think Rome fell under the emperors. Why? Because there were no longer emperors? That's when modern historians marked the so-called "fall." I submit to you that Rome never fell. Rome went on to become a cultural institution, what we call "Western Civilization." The barbarians became a part of that themselves, just as immigrants swarm into America today. Theodoric the Goth was a Consul, for gods' sakes! The US is based on Roman Republican Government by our founding fathers for the same reasons - they'd just thrown out the kings! We ARE Rome! Drive around DC and look at the architecture, if you don't believe me.

 

Ave Rome!

[Lost_Warrior]

I agree with you on the similarities...but...we are a long way down from the glory of Rome IMHO.

[Augur]

oligarchies, by their very nature, invite all the inherent problems associated with greed.... Rule by the rich!

Well, let's not be too eager too trash oligarchies -- Roman or otherwise -- as an entire species. Despite the bad press oligarchies (and the aristocrates who populate them) have received during recent centuries, we do well to remember how much we owe to these pampered few -- which in my view includes almost everything. Well, maybe not "everything," but everything that concerns the last three millinia of advances in the arts, literature, philosophy, medicine, physics, engineering and virtually all of the other sciences. We may not like the traditional "leisure wealthy classes" very much, but it was their leisure (and a little curiosity) that made most advances possible, or their wealth that funded/sponsored genius from more humble origins. Yes, there are exceptions, particulary in today's developed world of universal education and meritocracy. But never sell the aristocratic classes short. As human beings we owe much of the best of what we are to them.

 

As for Rome: ditto.

 

I submit to you that Rome never fell. Rome went on to become a cultural institution, what we call "Western Civilization." ... We ARE Rome!

I love this theory. But if you look at the squalor, ignorance and beastiality that dominated the many centuries that followed Rome's fall (in the West), one cannot help but wonder how modern Western Civilization was able to recapture or salvalge any of what was Roman. Thank goodness for long memories and strange Romanophiles like us.