Well, Rome WAS founded as a Republic

There were really great emperors.

Most gladiators didn't die, right? Too expensive to just let them get killed off.

Yep

>Augustus
>Tiberius
>Cladius
>Vespasian
>Titus
>Domitian
>Nerva
>Trajan
>Hadrian
>Antoninus Pius
>Marcus Aurelius
>Lucius Verus
>Septimus Severus
>Alexander Severus
>Valerian
>Aurelian
>Tacitus
>Dicocletian
>Costans I
>Julian the Apostate
>insane

>Domitian
>makes himself "Dominus et deus"
>functioning human being

Proper gladiators sure, but there was a lot of worthless scum thrown in to give the actual gladiators someone to kill

Didn't they just use captured prisoners?

Thats where most slaves came from yes

Almost every single Emperor that wasn't batshit insane, crazy, or a murdering psycopath got deified officially, so that doesn't really take anything away from him.

No, I meant captured prisoners from war, not even trained by the gladiator schools.

They used slaves, most of whom were captured in war

>He doesn't know about based Tarquin.

Rome followed the same cycle as France which mean Kingdom > Republic > Empire > Collapse

>actually falling for the senate's propaganda

Why does Veeky Forums romanticize the Empire so much?

You are all aware that if anything like it happened today it would literally be North-Korea right?

Prove it.

Roman Kingdom > Roman Empire >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roman Republic

>To become emperor you just had to be born into it.

Confirmed for knowing little of Roman history.

>.To become emperor you just had to be born into it.
what the fuck?

this. title of the emperor was never hereditary, even if many emperors were related to the late one it's just because they were grown in court and knew how the shit works. just as often they were some other high-ranking civil officials or renowned warlords. the word "imperator" literally means "conqueror" and the throne belonged for who ever could take it, that's the main reason why the empire was in almost constant civil war.

>the word "imperator" literally means "conqueror"
It actually means commander, or ruler (from impero = I give orders)

well no one can prove there was a kingdom because there is no written evidence or anything. but Romans would have all thought that rome started as a kingdom with romulus

>Julius Caesar was the 1st Roman Emperor

Nonsense there is plenty of evidence for the monarchy and for Tarquinus Supurbus, the last king.

well al there is the histories by pliny. but they are likely biased and have no evidence to prove a kingdom

sorry got my sources wrong. livys histories biased. also his books state that each reign was about 35 years long which is the same length as Augustus's reign. there is no evidence in the modern form

It would be remarkable if Rome didn't start as a kingdom, that'show virtually every state starts out. Certainly, the Etruscans had a monarchy, and certainly they dominated Rome in it's early years and influenced every aspect of the Roman state. There's no "proof" but it's as sure as the existence of Socrates or Jesus that Rome had at least one and probably several kings.

[collapse]

rome started as a city-state you dingus

No it didn't you faggot, it started as a federation of Latin tribes. Besides, it's just as true that city states are almost always founded as monarchies, too.

Athens would disagree

No it wouldn't, they know they had kings before they became a democracy and in fact Athens was first founded by the Myceneans in the Bronze Age, and it's king Menestheus fought alongside Agamemnon at Troy.

Not only that, but the fact that Pesistratos' sons inherited his rule after his death makes them essentially makes them monarchs, and no longer tyrants in the Greek sense.

Kingdoms are the main most natural form of governing

Slight correction: hereditary monarchies are the primordial state of governing groups larger than a clan (an extended family).

>In Capri, Tiberius stopped fulfilling his civic obligations, but instead engaged in licentious acts. Most familiar is his training of little boys to act as nipping minnows.
Wtf

>trusting Suetonius or Cassius bullshit

SENATAUS

ROMAN REPUBLIC >""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Roman""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" empie

>Republic is better then the Principate meme again

>The Populārēs ("favouring the people", singular populāris) were a political faction in the late Roman Republic which favoured the cause of the plebeians (the commoners), particularly the urban poor.

DAILY REMINDER THAT SUPPORTING CAESAR AND THE ROMAN EMPIRE IS THE MOST PLEBEIAN THING YOU CAN DO

Who brought Italy together?

Who fought the Cimbri and Teutones?

Who defeated Macedon?

Who brought down Carthage?

The "empire" never fought enemies equally as powerful or more until it was a rump state overrun by germniggers.

>Who brought Italy together?
Augustus.
>Who fought off the Cimbri and Teutones.
Who fought off the Alemmani, Macromanni, Goths, Vandals, Sarmatians, Visigoths, Goths, and Gepids?
>Who defeated Macedon?
Who made Rome gain its maximum territorial extent? Protip: not the Republic.
>Who brought down Carthage?
Who brought down the Seleucids?

*The "republic" never fought enemies as powerful or greater then those the principate did. Stay mad, Optimate sub-human.

That's very, very wrong. Rome was an empire of cities, political and cultural life was mostly supported and dominated by the local upper classes, there were institutions like the collegia that served as venues for political participation to the common people, etc...

Ironically, it was only when the Empire entered in decadence that it became more centralized, specially with Diocletian and the Dominate.

>Who brought Italy together?
Caesar's heir, Octavian aka Augustus aka the first Emperor of a newly reforged and reborn Rome that would last another 500 years.
>Who fought the Cimbri and Teutones?
The Republic never faced the the Sassanid Persian Empire, the Huns, or massive confederation of allied Germanic tribes. So not impressed there.
>Who defeated Macedon?
Who lost to the Parthian Empire? The Republic did. Who didn't? The Empire.
>Who brought down Carthage?
Who conquered Britain and extended Roman conquest of the Balkans further into the Danube or pushed into Germania Interior? The Principate did.
>Who brought down Carthage?
The Carthagians did by forsaking Hannibal, really.
>The "empire" never fought enemies equally as power
Parthian Empire
Sassanid Empire
The Huns
Germanic tribes vastly more organized, military advanced, and superior disciplined to those the Republic fought. So try again with that bullshit.
>rump state overrun by germniggers
As opposed to over 130+ years of rampant civil wars, internecine and sectarian in-fighting, dictatorships, and proscriptions from Marius, Sulla, Caesar, and others who lead the Senate and Roman military. Or caused things like the Social War or nearly got destroyed by three consecutive slave revolts like that lead by fucking Spartacus.

Republic is overrated.

Holy shit blown the fuck out.

> reborn Rome that would last another 500 years.
>The Principate did.
Funny that you say "Principate" after saying "500 years", because the Principate only refers to the ~250 years following Octavian being given his title, because you conveniently hide the century of strife during the Barracks Emperors' Era this way.

Conquering that useless rock Britain, which was abandoned early because it was that unbenefitial, also really is nothing to boast about.

>Who lost to the Alemmani, Macromanni, Goths, Vandals, Sarmatians, Visigoths, Goths, and Gepids?
ftfy
>Who made Rome gain its maximum territorial extent? Protip: not the Republic.
It actually was. The core provinces of the Empire were all annexed during the Republic
>Who brought down the Seleucids?
Parthians, after being rekt by thr Republic?
>The Republic never faced the the Sassanid Persian Empire, the Huns, or massive confederation of allied Germanic tribes. So not impressed there.
Sadly, it didn't. If it had, Rome wouldn't have succumbed
>Who conquered Britain
"conquered" is a broad term here.
>extended Roman conquest of the Balkans further into the Danube or pushed into Germania Interior
thanks for all that overextension, I guess
>>Who brought down Carthage?
>The Carthagians did by forsaking Hannibal, really.
hurr durr
>>The "empire" never fought enemies equally as power
>Parthian Empire
>Sassanid Empire
>The Huns
>Germanic tribes vastly more organized, military advanced, and superior disciplined to those the Republic fought. So try again with that bullshit.
The Republic almost always managed to completely wreck, annex and integrate its foes. The Empire had to relinquish Mesopotamia after one emperor and got rekt hard / stalemated for centuries by the others you mentioned

It is actually pretty amazing how few emperors were "born" into it. Out of the first 20, for example, I count three who succeeded their biological father.

Essentially, but it depends on when you re in history.

According to the Romans, it was a kingdom.

After fucking centuries though, the republic wasn't going to last.

>what is parthia

you guys really need to stop drinking the Imperial cool aide. The empire had full fledged dynastys.

>throne belonged to anybody who could take it.

Right because that always leads to the best ruler.

this

Civilized humans solve their issues with logic and voting. Barbarians crap all over their civilization and kill everyone for power. If only the rich where a little more flexible and controllable with the rule of law.

that doesn't mean they weren't born into it. Who you know matters far more than who you are. Would Julian the apostate have ever had a chance if he wasn't Constantine's nephew?

If that is your definition of "born to it," though, then the same applies to the Republic, doesn't it?

chess v checkers.

>century of strife
As opposed to over 200 years with the Republic?
>Britain
>useless
Yeah those, silver, metal ore, and gold mines were totally useless.
>The Republic almost always managed to completely wreck, annex, and integrate its foes.
No it didn't.

>>As opposed to over 200 years with the Republic?
If it only existed for half as long than you claimed initially, then, yeah, even 200 years of strife (which you just upped to for no reason) would be worse.

>Yeah those, silver, metal ore, and gold mines were totally useless.
Compared to the cost of maintenance, yes.

>Compared to the cost of maintenance.
I think you have no idea what you are talking about. Britain was conquered by Cladius, and shored up as an investment for Roman families and those of ex-soldiers to colonize. The mineral deposits in British Isles were heavy and well worth the reason why the Romans maintained a major military presence and settlements there for over 400 years.

>you upped
I didn't upp anything, there's more then one person pointing out the Republic is shitty here.

Principate refers to the entire Imperial period of the Roman Empire: from 27 BC to 476/480 AD. The Republic period was from 509 BC to 27 BC; a duration of 482 years; most of which its last half was increasing levels of corruption, Senatorial incompetence, mismanagement of Italian lands, disenfranchisement of the plebians and its regular commoners, and constant strained relations with other Italics and Latin peoples within the Roman hegemony and this isn't even getting into the cycle of repeated civil wars and mass-killings that proscriptions brought under various tyrants/dictators like Sulla.
None of those save a different tribe of Goths ever defeated Rome, you retard.
>Parthians
>rekt by the Republic
Never happened. First war was Crassus losing over 30,000 men against Surena in his abortive invasion and illegal attack on the Parthians. Second failure was Antony's entire expedition getting completely blown out. Third war, Rome nearly lost completely if not for Antony's lieutenant recovering Anatolia and the Levant. The Republic never "blew out" the Parthian Empire at any point.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

>Principate refers to the entire Imperial period of the Roman Empire:
I disagree. The Principate ended with Diocletian (284 A.D.), from which point on it systematically no longer makes sense to speak of the same type of state. The tetrarchy became the rule, rather than the exception, and administration, economy and society substantially changed.

>plebians
Opinion disregarded.

>basing your story on a time where literally nothing can be proven save the fact that the city of Troy might have actually existed

Seriously every Greek historian at that time exaggerated the shit out of everything. It's like reading the bible

>I disagree.
That's your problem, not mine. Principate refers to the transition of power from the Senatorial class/patricians to the the lone Augustus and his successors who held ultimate executive power, extra-legal abilities, and graivtas that supercedes that of the Senate.

Get over it.

>Opinion disregarded.
Optimate loser, please go. Even the Empire endured longer as a strong autocratic system under the Imperial period then the Republican one. Stay mad.

I THINK Rome's best days were the 2nd Punic Wars, and early diadochi bashing, magnesia, maybe even the Eprius cucking before that...

A scrappy smallish "republic" bashes on the big boys.

Principate ended with Diocletian, who established the Dominate after shedding most of the Empire's Republican heritage.

In any case, the Republic conquered the Mediterranean. The Republic was able to overcome any and all foreign threats with an amazing amount of perseverance. Pyrrhus, Hannibal, the Macedonians, all great people that the Republic defeated.

The Empire gave birth to amazing rulers such as Commodus, Elagabalus, Caligula, Nero, etc. The greatest Roman emperor himself was a product of the Republic. The Empire was a ticking time bomb from the second Augustus died. The West ended up overrun by subhuman Germans while the East got btfo so hard by Arabs that they turned into a Greek rump.

>That's your problem, not mine.
Actually, I could just say the same and then say that your periodization is inferior to mine, but this isn't simply my opinion in the first place, and rather that of the overwhelming amount of literature that I've read, which defended this standpoint. If this literature was representative, which I assume (but don't know), then this would actually be your problem.

But, to be quite frank, from your simplistic notion of definitions it appears to me that you don't know how a stasis of definition should be resolved anyways, making further elaborations on the justification a waste of time, so I'll rather do something worthwhile.
It's "plebeians", not "plebians", by the way.

Have a nice day.

>Principate ended with Dicocletian.
Not really no. Already explained this earlier, repeating it ad naseum isn't going to win you anything here no matter how much you repeat yourself.

>Republic conquered the Meditarranean
And the Empire conquered more of northern Europe, extended further out into Mesopotamia, the Caucasus, the Levant, and the British Isles. The Empire is more impressive.
>The Republic was able to overcome any and all foreign threats.
No it didn't. They never conquered or defeated the Parthians, they never defeated Pyrrhus, they had many setbacks in general. And most importantly, they constantly withheld Rome itself from total domination with constant in-fighting and civil wars as corruption to continued through the Republic to grow to staggering levels.
>Pyrrhus
Never conquered him, never defeated his kingdom, could only force him to withdraw from Italy after losing multiple armies to him because his tactical ability was similar to a certain famous relative and ancestor of his. Stop lying.
>Macedonians
>great people
Nope.
>Empire gave birth
Republic gave birth to Crassus, and Sulla, and other tyrants and corrupt degenerates. You aren't going to win the shitflinging here either, faggot.
>Empire was a ticking time bomb from the second Augustus died.
Empire: 507 years
Republic: 480 years.

Empire > Republic.
Maximum territorial extent of the Roman Empire: Under the Imperial period.
Maximum prestitage and zenieth of Roman/Latin culture and language: Under the Imperial period.
Greatest generals, outside of Caesar, Marius, Scipio, and Pompey still goes to the Imperial period; Agrippa, Tiberius, Germanicus, Aurelius, Aurelian, Stilcho, Aetius, Belisarius, Agricola, Drusus, and so on.
Economic power: once again under the Imperial period.

Empire > Republic.

>all that autistic rambling, non-sequiter attempt at placating by trying to move the goal posts and working in a fallacious argument on semantics when the original tangent was pre and post Republican periods on the Roman macro-state
Please, you aren't fooling anyone here. Now meme more buzzwords and nonsensical jargon to try and look intelligent.

There is a clear break with earlier tradition with Diocletian's ascension, from the way the emperor is treated, to the very system of governance. If you insist on denying this and continue to believe that Diocletian's Empire is the same as Augustus', that's your problem.

>Northern Europe
Literally barbarians. Besides, none of it would have happened without Caesar's conquest of Gaul in the name of the Republic.
>Mesopotamia
For a whole 2 minutes
>Caucasus
See above
>Levant
Conquered by the Republic

And this is supposed to be more impressive than the conquest of Carthage and Macedon? Please.

Pyrrhus won the battles but lost the war. And eventually the Republic did conquer Epirus. The Macedonians were certainly greater than literally who Germanic tribes.

Crassus and especially Sulla were competent men. The same cannot be said for Caligula and that faggot Elagabalus.

The only reason the Empire lasted that long was because it was built on the greatness of the Republic.

>If we pretend that the greatest generals of the Republic never existed, than the Empire has the best generals!
Pls

The Romans conquered all the superpowers of the Mediterranean as a Republic. They pushed through massive defeats, raising legion after legion of Roman citizens until they won. The Empire got btfo at Adrianople and Yarmouk and never recovered.

The Republic defeated Hannibal and Greece, while the Empire got cucked by litteral who Germanics and Arabs.

Pretty obvious that Republic > Empire

>Caesar
>Republican
Entire post disregarded from here on, don't even have to pay attention to any other nonsense you said. Into the trash it goes.

The Empire was designed to rule Europe.
The Republic was designed to rule one city-state.
Cut the bloody Republic some slack.

Need to read better m8. Never said that Caesar was a Republican. But when he conquered Gaul, he did it when Rome was still a Republic.

Nice try tho

>Caesar
>Republican
Entire post disregarded from here on, don't even have to pay attention to any other nonsense you said. Into the trash it goes.

Meant for this autist.

I'll take your sperging out as an acknowledgment of the Republic's greatness.

>has no rebuttal
>/sp/ garbage posts
See Now here's your (You)

Caesar would have restored the republic if he hadn't been murdered

>whole family murdered when he was 6 apart from cousin
>even after being elevated to Caesar he was betrayed more than once in his Gallic Campaigns
>basically has civil war forced on him after being commanded to march to his death in Syria

Julian would've had a comfy life in Athens if he'd been left to get on with it, he didn't want a chance of being Emperor, as happened with many others the Legions forced it upon him.

>Caesar
>Republican
Entire post disregarded from here on, don't even have to pay attention to any other nonsense you said. Into the trash it goes.