Why do people think the Roman Empire was good again when it was under the Republic that they conquered the majority of...

Why do people think the Roman Empire was good again when it was under the Republic that they conquered the majority of their territories and had their most glorious victorious? The Empire is overrated meme trash.

*victories

To gain an empire is much easier than holding onto one. The constant infighting of the Senate would have caused much more instability in the long run than the Imperial system.
You could also make the argument that an Imperial coup was inevitable, whenever the Republic faced an external invasion, whichever general successfully stopped it would be immediately tempted to simply overthrow the republic, and would have had the public support to do so, especially if the senate was seen as being too complacent in response to said invasion. Remember, there were calls to make Scipio Africanus Emperor way back in the days after Zama

Still doesn't change the fact that the Empire was a failure compared to the Republic. They expanded very little and couldn't keep hold of the new territories they conquered for any substantial amount of time.

Because the early Empire was the most glorious period in Rome's history.

They did expand into some area and the republic would have collapsed much quicker than the empire. The republic was destroyed by it's own success. You can't run an empire like a city state.

>a.C. - d.C.

>Teutoburg
>Caligula
>Nero
>Domitian
>Commodus
>everything goes to complete shit after that

Empire = trash

The only realistic expansion would be through Germania all the way to the Elbe (any large ancient state would ideally like a sizable river as its natural border, that's why the Romans borders lined up with the Danube and Rhine), and can you really fault them for not expanding after Teutoberg?

Also expansion is a silly marker for the success of a state, think about how many great empires exploded on to the scene and then fizzled out right after its stability was rocked *cough* ALEXANDER *cough*

And c'mon Marcus Aurelius, Trajan (there's the expansion if you want it), Constantine, OCTAVIAN. When the Imperial system gave you a solid leader it worked perfect.

MFW Trajan spent the better part of 19 years kicking the whole known world's ass and some pleb 2000 years later wants to glorify the cakewalk that was expansion after the Punic Wars.

Completely ignoring the reign of the 5 good emperors

ALL HAIL CAESAR

while the Republican times forged Rome's culture and tested their mettle as a people, it was during the Imperial times that they really "Romanized" other places and left their permanent mark on Europe, that their form of government, their vision of power, order, virtues and social structure took root in people all over. Rome's Empire was what turned tribal chieftains into kings and made their power god-given and absolute.

It was everyone trying to be Emperor that obsessed over the Empire, which ended up being a mythical wonderland of unbelievable wealth, culture, extravagance and power, the city on the hill for all the powerful aspired to be like

It's cultural, political, territorial and scientific zenith was in the Empire era

What was the point in conquering all of Gaul and venturing into Britannia anyway?

Shouldn't they just have focused their efforts further eastward like they did just after the Punic Wars and there was no one left to fight but the Hellenistic states?

The glory of Rome died when legions started fighting legions.

Yeah, but they were called the five good emperors because they were so used to shitty ones. Why else point it out?

Caesar wanted land

The Elbe makes a shitty frontier. With the Rhine, you can do portage straight from the Rhone and the Mediterranean. With the Elbe, you have to do portage through the Danube or the Main which crosses major forests and mountain ranges (the Böhmerwald and Thuringer Wald).

Germanicus BTFO'd the Germanics and they could've annexed if they saw worth in occupying. They just didn't see worth. Germania was a swamp. Before the carruca plow, there was little agricultural potential in the region compared to Gaul or Italia. It was filled with forests and hostile people with little mineral wealth to speak of and it was difficult to resupply for the reasons I stated above.

Romans preferred tributary or client kings in Germania, it was easier for them to manage and they still held hegemony in the region.

because ppl here lack education

they are unaware of the fact how the "empire" drained itself dry by constant wars, trying to hold on to lands with little to know gains, projects like the limes or hadrians wall which were costy, flushing down sestertii, political instability and rebellions each time an emperor passed away and so and so on

the transition between the late republic early empire was indeed glorious with the pax romana but thats thanks to a princeps, not an emperor

>people still thinking clay is the only measure of success
Wow I guess 2017 america is just the same as 1853 america.

Because its not all about expansion, without Hadrians policy on the limits of the empire it would have likely fallen much earlier than it historically has.
The empire focused on the development of land already held by them, not autistic overextension

>Trajan
Trajan crippled the Empire in the long run, user.

>last century of the Republic
>rampant corruption, civil wars, proscriptions, and instability
>better

>I found Rome a city of bricks and left it a city of marble

>I left Rome and went to Nola to kill myself
What did Octavian mean by this?

Always find it amusing that most >Republicfags are Sullafags.

shut up you fucking profligate I bet you betray your wife

depends how you define success of a state. if i think states are bad (they are) i should look at their impact on history and the lands they influenced yes? in which case alexander and the mongols, two of the largest yet short lived empires ever, are extremely successful in their influence on humanity.

Caesar was going to invade Parthia but the murder cancelled that. It's forever regretful he couldn't have a go in the east.