Hicari Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 so, which one is better in your opinion? the roman empire, or the roman republic? (and it would be REALLY nice for people to respond to this, i need views and reasons..) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 so, which one is better in your opinion? the roman empire, or the roman republic? (and it would be REALLY nice for people to respond to this, i need views and reasons..) The Republic was better because it has the word "Pub" in it. Hard to beat that. All joking aside, I will assume that this is for a school assignment/paper of some sort. I'm sure several people would be willing to share their thoughts, but it would much more engaging if you were to offer some of your own views and reasons first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 If you go to 'Forum' and open up some of the threads, you will find a gold mine of opinions on the matter. BTW, welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 so, which one is better in your opinion? the roman empire, or the roman republic? (and it would be REALLY nice for people to respond to this, i need views and reasons..) Hmmm.... :sp_ike: Gaius O. is right . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
votadini Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 When I was younger, I always thought the Republic represented the continuation almost of Hellenistic social and political development in ideals, but in reality I now very much doubt that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost_Warrior Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 I actually prefer each of them for different reasons. I like the Republic because of it's ideals and form of government (when the Republic actually worked, that is). I like the Empire because of its grandeur and military strength (I have a thing for the Roman Legions lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Paulinus Maximus Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 That's a very hard question, in my opinion unanswerable, each era has it's own pro's and con's. My particular favorite period is the late republic / early principate so in my opinion its 50/50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spittle Posted January 24, 2007 Report Share Posted January 24, 2007 Late Republic/Early Principate. That is THE era! I hoped to to gather a basic knowledge of all Roman history but keep getting sucked back into Sulla/Marius to the Flavians, with a special concentration on Caesar v Pompey to Actium. If there is a half a century as important as this to Western history I am unsure what it is. BTW. This time zone is the physical and idealogical battle ground of REPUBLIC v PRINCIPATE. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
votadini Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 If there is a half a century as important as this to Western history I am unsure what it is. But the era is a part of 'Western history' to start with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hicari Posted January 26, 2007 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 thank you all for your different answers! some of them helped me (and yes, it was for a seminar i had to do) now i just have to hope that i get a decent mark on it.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 so, which one is better in your opinion? the roman empire, or the roman republic? (and it would be REALLY nice for people to respond to this, i need views and reasons..) Two sides of the same coin. Neither was better than the other. The republic, faced with the same decisions as the empire, would have crumbled too. The empire after all was living off the wealth of the republics gain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 Most people will approach the question from a strictly politico-military perspective. The discussion then becomes an argument over whether an increasingly dysfunctional city-state oligarchy defended by a citizens militia is better than an increasingly tyrannical pseudo-monarchy backed by professional soldiers. Another perspective might be a socio-cultural one. Which paradigm better laid the foundations for what we call Western Civilization? Certainly both epochs have their triumphs. But it was under the empire an ever increasing segment of the population began to assimilate into what we now call the Greco-Roman heritage. This to me is what gives credence to the empire over the Republic. Rome gradually spread out from a city-state ruled by a small clique of oligarchic families into a cultural ideal encompassing a wider spectrum of people. As a Modern Westerner with the benefit of hindsight this is what is most meaningful to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rameses the Great Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 I heard of many theories of how the Roman Republic was the same as the Greek democracy. I also heard that the Roman Empire was similar to the Eastern ways of ruling, since one man ruled over the entire empire and had all the power. Any validity, or just a bad comparison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 I heard of many theories of how the Roman Republic was the same as the Greek democracy. I also heard that the Roman Empire was similar to the Eastern ways of ruling, since one man ruled over the entire empire and had all the power. Any validity, or just a bad comparison? Its a bad comparison. Roman democracy wasn't entirely based on the greek model. It was after all a plutocracy - government by the wealthy. Rule by one man isn't limited to eastern culture. Thats normal human behaviour which the weakened senate was unable or unwilling to curb. The empire was Rome living on borrowed time in one sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted January 26, 2007 Report Share Posted January 26, 2007 I heard of many theories of how the Roman Republic was the same as the Greek democracy. I also heard that the Roman Empire was similar to the Eastern ways of ruling, since one man ruled over the entire empire and had all the power. Any validity, or just a bad comparison? Its a bad comparison. Roman democracy wasn't entirely based on the greek model. It was after all a plutocracy - government by the wealthy. Rule by one man isn't limited to eastern culture. Thats normal human behaviour which the weakened senate was unable or unwilling to curb. The empire was Rome living on borrowed time in one sense. Polybius has an interesting take on this subject. He proposed that the Roman Republican system was the best because it incorporated all three elements (Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy) and had checks and balances to ensure that neither branch was too strong. The Monarchy was the Consuls, the Senate was the Aristocracy, and the Concilium Plebis/Tribunes represented the will of the people. As far as the origional question, I think it is a matter of personal interest. Neither one was "better" than the other entirely. All in all, I enjoy the Late Republic the most, from Marius to the Early Principate. After Actium I loose some interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.