coolgolfer

I disagree with your statement "the republic allowed for ambition to be a strength, not a threat. It was only when republican institutions were ignored that ambition became a problem." Republican institutiuns were never ignored. In fact Republican institutions played a big part in the ambitions of great Roman statesmen at that time. After all it was republican institutions that allowed people like Marius and Sulla to fight amongst each other and the allaince between, Crassus, Pompei and Ceasar. This as well failed in the end. due to backstabbing, and most importantly Greed. Greed is what drives man crazy and greed is what made people transformed people into ambitious people. This became a threat to the republic. Finally on another note, the reason why the republic allowed people become strong is during that time, is because of the threat the republic was facing from it's enemies during the republican period. For example cathage, Hannibal, the slave revolts, such as Spartatus, the constant threat from Gual, you so forth. you can not doubt this situation the Romans were in at the time?? Again Cato we've been down this road many times before, you just can't have a disasterous scheme that lasted almost 500 years. You're talking about the Republic I presume. The Republic, not the principate, lasted 500 years. Nice to have you as a convert to the republic trex. Here I have to disagree--the republic allowed for ambition to be a strength, not a threat. It was only when republican institutions were ignored that ambition became a problem.

In regards to your questions " What's your basis for giving it a label of so-called" republic you mean? The Republic itself also experienced the same ambitious individuals as the Roman Imperial empire had. In fact you had ambitious people like Marius and Sulla, Marcus Crassus, Pompei, Ceasar, Cato, Brutus and so forth. Not to mention the many people before Marius. what I'm trying to say us that the republic form of government was no better. They had continues in fighting as well. The claim that the republic form of government was for the people and by the people was just a fake lie. The forces within the republic competing for power was constantly underminding and stabbing each other in the back. This evently led to the downfall of the republic fall of government. Why do you continue to say that I'm some what admiting that succession played a role. Regardless of succession or not the form of government was good until it became corrupt over time. What a emperor needs is the entire army supporting him. If this happened then you would never had anyone challenge the emperor. But, you have to remember that people in positions became corrupt. Greed is what caused the civil wars. "Greed is drives man to want things and to take by force if necessary. It could be greed for power, money and so forth" While I will agree that the 'Empire' may have needed authoritative individuals at times to facilitate effective government, the complete random nature of imperial succession was by no means better than the election process of the Republican period. It was different, and perhaps necessary at times, but certainly not just something to be labelled 'better'. Besides, I wasn't aware that the Republic was not really a Republic. Rome's system was very much a Republic regardless of its occassional appearance as an oligarchy. What's your basis for giving it a label of so-called?

To answer your question, I believe based on facts that the PAX Romana is a term/phrase to describe the economic, growth and stability the Roman Empire experienced during the rule of Augustus. This said that the PAX Romana lasted a good 100 years from the time Augustus assumed the throne from 27AD till the time the Romans went to War with Dacia. In the ensense, if you really think about it, the Romans really didn't have a serious military threat for a good 100 years, with a few small exceptions such as the defeat of two legions in Germany around 9AD, or a few skirmishes with Dacia around 89Ad or with th Macedonia Pirates during Tiberias rule. But overall, the Romans didn't have a serious threat until the time of Emperor Trajan. Eventhough Trajan went to war with Dacia and even went to war with Parthia.

Well, your response may be true in the sense that it has some merit. But, I still have to disagree both with you and Scerio. You stated the following "this political infighting was a direct result of there being no mechanism of succession such as existed during the republic. Moreover, civil war and unconstituional transfers of power long predate this period. There was no legitimacy to the rule of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero; the civil wars after that were also an effect of the fact that Octavian failed to develop a mechanism of accession; and the only way that subsequent emperors could keep a lid on the simmering civil wars was to engage in systematic poltical murders. Hence, "at Rome the slaughter was constant". Yes, there were a handful of good emperors who managed to secure the rule of an adopted successor. But if you count up all the emperors who served during the principate, nearly half died of unnatural causes or were deposed violently. That's not a sign of a healthy political system. So, no--Octavian's scheme was a disaster for Rome." Your statement in your mind may be true back in the days of the republic. But that has nothing to do with Octavian's vision for Rome and it's empire. The mechinism of political change at the time allowed to be think and govern as a nation with many people and cultures instead of ruling itself as a city-state. Octavians political change allowed Rome to grow and establish itself as a super power both, politically, economically, and Militarily. Octavian brought to Rome stability for many decades. Now, Yes, I will admit that the mechinism of succession had it's flaws, but it was much better then the days of the so-called Republic. You fail to recoginze the true reason and facts as to why Rome collapse. Again, succession played a part, but a very small part. over-time what really contributed to the eventual split of the Roman Empire was due to the following: poor leadership, civil wars, and the failure of political reform. First and foremost poor leadership in a way does play a part in the downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Here

I have to disagree with your statement that it was Constantinople's fault that the Roman Empire collapsed as we know it. It was expected that once the Roman Empire split into two parts as it did in 395AD, the Western and Eastern parts would eventually evolve into its own individual way of life and identity. For example, after American colonist rebelled against England, America became a separate nation with the ability to govern itself and over-time we as a nation develop & evolved into a great society today based on principles and so forth. In my opinion, over-time what really contributed to the eventual split of the Roman Empire was due to the following: poor leadership, civil wars, and the failure of political reform. First and foremost poor leadership in a way does play a part in the downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Here

I have to disagree with you in your view on why the roman empire collapse. First and foremost, the creation of the empire by Augustus was not view as the reason why it failed. The creation of the empire by Augustus was a good thing for Rome. The old republic before Augustus created the empire was not proven to govern Rome proper. You have to understand the transformation from the Repbulic version of government to the empire /Imperial version was understandable in the sense that Augustus knew and understood that Rome needed change in the sense that Rome was no longer a city-state, but as Rome acquired more land/territory Rome needed to governed with the sense that it is now responsible now for civilizations that are not Roman. Rome's new government structure allowed it to better manage/administer lands it conguered. This concept og government worked very good. Now back to why I disagree with you. Poor leadership in a way does play a part of downfalls of civilizations, but it isn't a big reason. Every nation in todays world will have good and bad leaders. The idea that Christianity was the final touches, I disagree. Religion had no part in this. What really hurt the Roman empire, was the political instability that occured after Emperor Commodus was murdered in 192AD. From 192AD to 284AD when Diocletion became emperor, the Roman Empire went thru so many emperors due to political infighting. The political infighting over-time drained so much energy from the Roman army that it was no longer political united. There was always Roman Legion or legions supporting one governor or general for the title of Augustus/Ceasar/Emperor. Plus not to mentioned that the Roman army was so distrated with infighting and killing each other for the emporership, this allowed the enemies of Rome exploit this weakness. In the end by the time Diocletion became emperor and restored order, the damage that was already done in the matter of 100years, Rome was never able to repair it. Finally, what hurt them was Diocletions version of politcal reform. he created for the western part and the eastern part two Augustus's and two ceasars. This in my opinion, eventhough Diocletion's intention was to bring politcal reform & better management to the empire was a good try. Diocletion in the end really created more headaches for Rome. now you had the Augustus for the western part of the empire competing with the eastern Augustus and the same goes with their second in commands which were called Ceasars. Plus, the loyalty of the Roman Imperial Army bacame even more divided. Over-time the empire was really developing in what would eventually become the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire. This rivary also created mismanagemnt and military plunders that added to the decline of the empire during this period. The biggest military plunder was in 369Ad when the eastern emperor attack the Goths. This military plunder litterly wiped out 2 thirds of the Eastern Roman army. This is part of the reason why the roman empire never recovered from this event. I truly feel being that I'm a Roman Empire fan and from reading many articles, that if the Roman Empire didn't experience a good 100 years of constant civil war from 192AD to 284AD, the Roman Empire as a whole would have lasted much longer then 470AD and it would've been able to suppress and control the barbarians.