Republican vs. Imperial Rome

[lonewolf371]

Basically, which one do you think would have lasted longer? I know many might immediately say Republican, but look at Athens, it fell in a much shorter time period than Imperial Rome yet it relied on the people for governance. Just interested in the board's opinions.

[Galestrum]

well sure why not, i will give you my entirely worthless opinion based upon what ifs http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

OK, all things being equal, meaning no major departures from history, save the fact that rome remained a republic instead of an empire.

I would have to say, the republic would have lasted alot longer, and may well have lasted till modern times. My reasons are fairly simple?:

(1) whenever there is a tradition of passing authority along bloodlines, you never know what you will get. Of course there is no guarantee that the senate would always make better decisions, but in general, all things being equal, i would presume that the senate would perform a better job of governance than an emperor. Most roman emperors were poor to standard, for the nearly 1500 years of the empire, there are a handful of great emperors.

(2) transition of power - the main reason for the collapse of the western empire, and the problems that would face the eastern empire were internal struggles for power. These civil wars cost the empire much in blood and treasure and would devastate the peoples and infrastructure of the empire. Its equivalent to looting and rioting in your own city, all you do is hurt yourself. Instead of facing and dealing with external problems the empire fought itself, not a great idea. While the republic certainly faced struggles, they did not begin to approach the problems imperial rome faced with the succession of nearly every new emperor.

(3) the republic was democratic and allowed members from across the empire participate in government, later in the empire, leaders were either from the military or entirely dependent upon the military. This lead too much internal strife, during the republic, military service was an honor and obligation for rome, later imperial armies saw the army as a means for power only often. While this happened under the republic, it was not nearly as bad. The republic functioned very well without many military power struggles internally until the generation before Caesar.

there are more reasons but the basic premise is democracy works alot better than dictatorships, etc over the long run. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, etc. and with the republic there was more of a meritocracy (people were given positions on merit moreso than in imperial times).

regarding Athens, it was only a small city state and was not a true democracy, most people in athens were not allowed to vote - only those that were citizens, which if i recall correctly left out slaves, women, and poor people. I would not say Athens failed as a political system, whereas imo imperial rome did fail because of the imperial system.

[Shahed]

don't know much about history
don't know much biology

http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[Galestrum]

just to further emphasize - the imperial military system was detrimental to the republic form. For instance in the republic, military command was split as i recall between (2) consuls, they held this position for only (1) year and could not hold that position again for around 8 or 10 years as i recall. This prevented generals from serving their own desires and also from concentrating too much power in one man or group of men. while this didnt always lead to great generals, the imperial system didnt either.

during imperial times, generals were kingmakers, whereas in republican times the senate were general makers. Being that in imperial times and starting actually in the generation of caesar, armies began showing more loyalty to general rather than rome, this was very bad for rome.

[Hakonarson]

Consuls could hold command for several years by getting various offices - immediatly after they were Consul they became pro-Consul, and Scipio held a command as "Commander without office" when first appointed, and commanded for about 7 yrs straight.

Sulla, Caesar, Mark Anthony, Bruitus and cassius, the grachi's and Marius all held office for long periods under the Republic.

The Republic lasted aabout hte same length of time as the Imperium I think (excluding Byzantium) - the founding of the Republic dates from the expulsion of the last Etruscan King about 500 BC?? So from then until 40 BC, vs from 50BC to about 400 AD before being replaced in the west by the Patriciate.

[lonewolf371]

Athens failed as a city-state because basically the entire city became, well, pretty much ignorant. While it is easier for a single ruler to become capable of biting more off than he can chew it is not impossible for an entire governmental state. Remember, Imperial Rome was born out of Republican Rome, that in itself is a fault of the Republican system. This is in many ways assuming Caesar never came along.

[Galestrum]

all those instances you cite Hark were late in the republic, most during the generation of Caesar - and longer tenures were rare and only granted during exceptional circumstances and to exceptional leaders - it was not the norm.

Imperial Rome was a failure of those running the system not the system itself. The senate allowed power to go to the generals, it was never suppossed to.

just another note, a huge portion of the lands conquered by rome were acquired during the republic, not the imperial days - luckily rome felt no major outside pressure during the pax romana - thing started falling apart shortly thereafter.

By the way, most people tend to find representative governments to be better than dictatorial ones today, odd that you would choose a dictatorial one over a representative form http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

[redrooster]

the republic wasn't a representitive democracy, i wouldn't use todays generalization to compare rome's governance. Also the absolute concentration of power in a single person like absolute monarchy was a fairly modern concept(louis XIV) as was dictatorships. I believe the Republic was pretty akin to an aristocracy and a very messy aristocracy at that. the people didn't have the power, the people wasn't sovereign. The richer and the landed held more power in terms of electorial votes and the senate was not elected but made up of nobles and former high ranking officials. I wouldn't go as far as to say the imperial rome was better then the republic but the republic was in no way a superior system.

The government was corrupt, the mob easily swayed by rhetorics or money, i would prefer an emperor, at least if he is weak or lousy the army would get rid of him. Darwin couldn't have been more pleased. http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[Galestrum]

lol red, nothing mch has changed, there arent too many poor politicians as far as ive seen http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif

i wasnt saying rome was the US, but was far more representative than any of its contemporaries that i know of. I also beg to differ with absolute power being a modern thing, if we want to split hairs there has never been absolute power, even stalin needed his cronies to back him up and the idea of legitimacy from the people.

all you have to do is look at ALL the horrible emperors to see how un darwinlike it was, and everytime it was new emperor time, the empire was racked with a whole spate of internal wars and destruction, you didnt see this in the republic. corruption, nothing new then and nothing new now.

as far as the mobs, why do you think the emperors had all those gladiator games? http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

the republic was superior, it at least attempted to be a nation of laws not of men which the empire was.

i would actually go cite some sources and quotes from my many books covering the period, but i simply dont care enuff to do the effort guys http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/tongue.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

SPQR http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/smokin.gif

[redrooster]

Not splitting hairs here, I was just speaking of the concept of "absolutism" which was fairly modern, and the method to admiinister it was fairly modern, of course we will never find THE democarcay, or THE dictator or THE absolute monarch.
Imperial rome was evolved from the republic, early emperors did not call themselves emperors, but 'first amoung equals'octavian still had elected titles and roles given to him by the senate. Yet the empire still moved towards a monarchy and it was accepted because either the people was blind to an inferior system back then or it was a suitable system for an empire whereas a republic was not.

[Galestrum]

the republic was fine at managing an empire. remember that most of the empire was part of the republic.

augustus was at the right time at the right place. rome was weary of all the civil wars fought among the triumverates, and prby figured after augustus things would go back to the old they were wrong, and once the real power was in the hands of the emperors , it wasnt likely to go back. stalin, hitler, hussien got lots of nifty titles too, not worth much if the option is love me or die hehe http://www.totalwar.org/forum/non-cgi/emoticons/joker.gif

[lonewolf371]

We believe that Representitive forms are better because we also believe that they are evil and autmatically cause resentment. This is only partially true, while they do cause resentment more easily if the monarch is a good monarch the country will benefit more than it usually would, however with a bad monarch a country benefits less than it usually would. Our current system in the US is probably the first major government to attempt to incorporate the advantages of both while negating the disadvantages.

PS-Mind you, I didn't vote, I wanted to see the board's opinions.

[redrooster]

Maybe you could post that in the Tavern, much rowdier crowd over there, probably will get plenty of opinions

[lonewolf371]

Aye. I'll do that.
*Grins evilly*.