Republic and Imperial Form of Leadership in Rome
Link (Links to an external site.)
Overview reading on the Roman Empire
Link (Links to an external site.)
Essay Prompt:
Coming from the US 21st century point of view, we often have very fixed ideas about the words “republic” and “imperial“. We tend to focus on the ideological differences and conclude that a Republic is fair, just and upheld by a social contract, while an imperial system by nature is harsh, brutal and, ultimately, a tyranny, but do you feel this was the case in Ancient Rome?
Based on your readings on both the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, which do you feel was the superior form of government in regard to its efficiency and functionality, leadership, treatment of citizens, economics, creativity and progress, etc., and why?
Approx. 500 words
Requirements: 500 words
Answer preview
The Empire was more successful as their Empire’s territorial gains were widespread and lasted longer than the Republic system. The Empire spread its wings to the British in the West and Danube Rivers. They spread their culture throughout Western Europe, where the Republicans had limited themselves to the Italian Peninsula. Also, after the Empire divided itself into Eastern and Western Empire, and the Western Empire collapsed, the Eastern Empire continued, and it was pretty successful. Like many societies in ancient times, Rome’s economy depended on agriculture. Due to many foreign wars, many people left their homes to fight the military for long periods, many losing their homes and lands, leading to a poor economy. Another success in ancient Rome is that the building of sewer systems, plumbing systems, and running water systems helped reduce the chances of people contaminating.
[677 Words]
Republic and Imperial Form of Leadership in Rome
