Final Exam

Question: Considering all of the conflict of the first century BCE, was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?




Theses: Rome had power over many places as both e Republic and as an Empire, though while empire was an faster way of getting things done, Rome was better off as a Republic because there was more order, and with more people, they were sure to look out for the common good.




Primary Source #1:




Roman rule was established in Egypt after Octavian (Augustus) displaced the last ruler of the Ptolemaic line, the famous Cleopatra VII. It proved to be a great and rich province for Augustus, who organized the country not so much as a Roman Province but as the emperor's own special domain land. In Egypt, the Emperor was considered the successor of the ancient Pharaohs; his deputy - the prefect - ruled the country with an authority permitted to few other governors.

Pasted from <http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/romanegypt1.html>

Ancient History Sourcebook:

Egypt under the Roman Empire




Primary Source #2:




Roman System -- based on balance of interests

Monarchical	Aristocratic	Democratic
2 Consuls + other magistrates	Senate	Assembly of Tribes Tribune
Directed government and army Acted as judges Could issue edicts Acted as chief priest	Controlled state budget Could pass laws	Approved/rejected laws Decided on War Tribune could veto actions of magistrate Acted as final court
Basis of power: possess imperium, the right to rule need for leadership	Basis of power: members were richest men in Rome.	Basis of power: provided most of the soldiers
Limits on power: one year term each could veto	Limits on power: could not control army needed majority as soldiers.	Limits on power: Could not suggest laws often paid as clients by the elite

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/rome-balance.html

Ancient History Sourcebook:

The Roman Republic: Checks and Balances




Primary Source #3




THE THREE kinds of government, monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, were all found united in the commonwealth of Rome. And so even was the balance between them all, and so regular the administration that resulted from their union, that it was no easy thing to determine with assurance, whether the entire state was to be estimated an aristocracy, a democracy, or a monarchy. For if they turned their view upon the power of the consuls, the government appeared to be purely monarchical and regal. If, again, the authority of the senate was considered, it then seemed to wear the form of aristocracy.

http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/polybius6.html

Ancient History Sourcebook:

Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE):

Rome at the End of the Punic Wars

[History, Book 6]




Argument: Rome ruled over many places while it was under the rule of a King, such as the rule over Egypt according to Source One, but by looking at source two, they had a very good system, such a system such as the checks and balances, the Republic was more organized, and the people got a say in what happened in their government. This made them balanced and a union, according to source three. With one king in Rome, there was always fighting over the throne, with a republic, everybody could have a part.