Is it worth losing a republic in order to gain an empire?
For: The age of Augustus could be shown as classic example of the benefits of having a empire instead of a republic. He himself ascended to the throne after the assassination of his adopted father and, brought peace throughout the total empire which lasted for over two centuries. This was possible as he successfully defeated all the threatening forces to the empire. “Indeed he attracted everybody’s goodwill by the enjoyable gift of peace.” (Tactius Roman Historian) (Spielvogel, 2004) This clearly shows that he as the first citizen of the state was much loved and decision taken by him was well approved by the majority of the empire. By controlling the army and maintain the peace was crucial in his source of power. He could have not been able to achieve any of this if Rome was a republic as it used to be. This would mean a majority vote would be necessary to declare war or peace against any rebellious dominion of the empire. He formed many reforms as he believed that the republic has corrupted the roman morals. By bringing forward these reforms he made a more respectable civil society which had dwindled down during the republican era. The quote “ Political equality was a thing of the past; all eyes watched for a imperial command” ((Tactius Roman Historian) (Spielvogel, 2004) This sends out a strong message as it shows to us that the Romans preferred a empire rather than a republic. Against: Soon after the death of Augustus the following first citizens were not successful as Augustus was. And especially Cladius who ruled from 41A.D to 54A.D More and more responsibilities given to the senate were taken back by the above rulers. Claudius instituted a imperial bureaucracy. “As the Julio-Claudian successors of Augustus began to behave openly like real rulers rather than first citizens of the state.”(Spielvogel, 2004) This clearly emphasized the need of a republic during the times leaders in this sort. They...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document