Roman Republic VS Roman Empire - Historum

CRUSADERcro · October 1st, 2009, 05:11 PM

First, here is my movie made by me and uploaded to youtube:

Roman Empire & Republic Conquests [509 BC - 476 AD]

Hope you will like it, I put some real effort in it

So... My Question in this thread is, what part of roman history do you prefer, REPUBLIC or EMPIRE? wich had better army, politic, society of this two? Your opinions...

P.S: Sorry if I made some mistakes in english, it's not my mother language

**DIVUS IVLIVS** · October 1st, 2009, 05:57 PM

Personally I cast my vote for the Roman Republic.

Under the Empire the army went into decline wheras under the Republic it was improving steadily.

The politics and general freedoms go to the Republic as well.

However, there can be little doubt that life was a great deal better under the Empire, especially for non-citizens.

I would have had the Empire under a modifed version of the Republic for the best system.

BTW, this should be moved to "Ancient History".

**Labienus** · October 1st, 2009, 07:35 PM

Definitely the republic, all the best roman generals lived in it:

Caesar, Sulla, Marius, Sertorius, Pompey, Lucullus, Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianius, etc.

gregorian · October 1st, 2009, 09:41 PM

The Republic certainly had the greatest Success Stories of Rome, but the Empire had the best nutcases.

**Belisarius** · October 1st, 2009, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS

BTW, this should be moved to "Ancient History".

Agree. Done.

CRUSADERcro · October 2nd, 2009, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Labienus

Definitely the republic, all the best roman generals lived in it:

Caesar, Sulla, Marius, Sertorius, Pompey, Lucullus, Scipio Africanus, Scipio Aemilianius, etc.

I give my vote to republic also, I think even today that system Rome had in republic (without slaves ofcourse lol) would be perfect for today europe also

**gaius valerius** · October 2nd, 2009, 11:51 AM

Military I wouldn't say the early empire was that much worse of then the Principate, the problem was mainly political and socio-economic, not as much military, which were the increasing horror of the later empire.

The Republic is of course the time of the great expansions (continued throughout the early Principate as well), with fascinating wars, persons and stories, that's why it has my favour, not because the army was supposedly "better".

**Belisarius** · October 2nd, 2009, 01:35 PM

I prefer the Empire of "late antiquity" when things weren't so one sided. More scope for better generals.

sculptingman · October 8th, 2009, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DIVUS IVLIVS

Personally I cast my vote for the Roman Republic.

Under the Empire the army went into decline wheras under the Republic it was improving steadily.

The politics and general freedoms go to the Republic as well.

However, there can be little doubt that life was a great deal better under the Empire, especially for non-citizens.

I would have had the Empire under a modifed version of the Republic for the best system.

BTW, this should be moved to "Ancient History".

I agree entirely with you on this.

**Edgewaters** · October 8th, 2009, 09:29 PM

Can't really separate the two. The Empire was an inevitable consequence of fundamental flaws in the Republic. Actually a pretty typical life cycle for republic systems in general. In the beginning it's all "Grrr! No kings! Never! We are free men!" and in the end it's "Why certainly Mr. Dictator, would you rather I gouge out my left eye or my right eye for your amusement?"