Daily Question: 3/21/11

Was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?


I think you could look at this question from both sides. For the people, I think that the people were probably happier under a republic because they had more say in what they wanted. For the country, the empire was better because the country had such a large rule so the people in the country probably had less chances of being attacked. In the Roman Republic, the people had the rights to vote for a leader and there were different classes of people. The country probably didn't face much inner turmoil besides the struggle of the orders, which was eventually solved and the country was fine once again. Also, not only one dynasty would most likely be in power like the empire. In the empire, the Caesar next in line would most likely go into power. Also, there was probably more fighting and killing for power. Just like we said in class, once something is done, it becomes a habit. Saying this, once Julius Caesar was killed, there were more people in power assassinated because it has already happened and it becomes a habit. The empire sounds like a much more violent place then the republic. In the republic, there wasn't people assumed to go into the leading position besides the fact that it would be a patrician. This would make it less likely for a big fight to arouse in wanting to kill the leader. Also, having a vote helps. In my view, Rome seemed to be better off as a republic than the empire for many reasons, but mainly for safety for all the people and the country as one.