Tobias Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) The thing about the Principate system is that it was only as good as the person who wielded it. Augustus was of a strong personality, was highly ambitious and was extremely skilled politically and competent militarily. He created the system, and could thus use it to full effect and advantage to the people, and himself. Thus, during Augustus' reign, Rome was at peace and advanced. However, the succeeding people of less ability i.e. Tiberius, Caligula, Nero etc. took over the system, Rome suffered, because they could not use the system to full advantage and the handle the people and the Empire simultaneously. Whereas when Vespasian became Emperor, Rome again prospered, because he had the ability to use the system properly, and so it went throughout history. The Republic gave all people the chance to be the best - or the worst. The republic essentially guaranteed stable succession, which the principate mostly failed in. Whilst it is true that the Republic sorely needed the reforms of Augustus, the principate system didn't guarantee that any ruler would guarantee continued peace and stability. Edited January 29, 2006 by Tobias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted January 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The Republic gave all people the chance to be the best - or the worst. The republic essentially guaranteed stable succession, which the principate mostly failed in. Whilst it is true that the Republic sorely needed the reforms of Augustus, the principate system didn't guarantee that any ruler would guarantee continued peace and stability. As I already mentioned in more detail in one of my previous posts, while the republic was more stable when it came to succession it didn't really matter at the end, the system was failing anyway and became very unstable, I guess because of ineffectual rule. As soon as the principate replaced it things immediately started improving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neos Dionysos Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The Republic gave all people the chance to be the best - or the worst. The republic essentially guaranteed stable succession, which the principate mostly failed in. Whilst it is true that the Republic sorely needed the reforms of Augustus, the principate system didn't guarantee that any ruler would guarantee continued peace and stability. As I already mentioned in more detail in one of my previous posts, while the republic was more stable when it came to succession it didn't really matter at the end, the system was failing anyway and became very unstable, I guess because of ineffectual rule. As soon as the principate replaced it things immediately started improving. Yes they improved because you had a strong, and excellent leader at it's head, Augustus. But when you had poor leaders, the Principate deteriorated... and hurt the people and Rome. You had to replace them with good leaders again, hence why you had civil wars, when a bad emperor came to power, he brought out the worst of the Principate, only until he was gone could a new and good emperor take over and make the best of the Principate shine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 The biggest evidence that the principate was more suited for it's time than the republic was the Pax Romana. As soon as the republic fell and was replaced by another system everything worked out just fine for the next 200 years plus, thats not a coincidence it's directly related. Look at the last 150 years of the republic and compare that to the next 200 years of the principate. That's a biased comparison--to be fair, look at the last 150 years of both or at the first 150 years of both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted January 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 (edited) The biggest evidence that the principate was more suited for it's time than the republic was the Pax Romana. As soon as the republic fell and was replaced by another system everything worked out just fine for the next 200 years plus, thats not a coincidence it's directly related. Look at the last 150 years of the republic and compare that to the next 200 years of the principate. That's a biased comparison--to be fair, look at the last 150 years of both or at the first 150 years of both. It's not a bias comparison, the principate was better for it's time, read carefully what I said. Again, facts cannot be argued the republic was failing in it's last 100 or 150 years and the principate was the right replacement, there is plenty of evidence to prove that, I don't want to keep repeating myself. Lets not try and rewrite history, if it was doing well, then why did it fall? The republic was good for it's time but ultimately expired, the same thing happened with the principate. If you read one of my earlier posts, you would have noticed that I already mentioned when the principate began to fail, it too needed some radical changes. All good things must come to an end whether it's the republic or principate. No need to feel so bad about it. Edited January 29, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Germanicus Posted January 29, 2006 Report Share Posted January 29, 2006 Well Sulla was 60. It's not old by today's standards but he wasn't really 'young' either. Missed this, but yes, good point. I think the author was trying to compare the way Augustus is remembered with the way Sulla is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobias Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 As I already mentioned in more detail in one of my previous posts, while the republic was more stable when it came to succession it didn't really matter at the end, the system was failing anyway and became very unstable, I guess because of ineffectual rule. As soon as the principate replaced it things immediately started improving. As i said above, and as Neos said too, the principate worked well and caused advancement and improvement when a strong, capable and skilled person controlled it. Yes things started improving as soon as the principate come into being - because Augustus was a strong, capable and skilled (highly skilled) person, and he thus used the system to ensure peace during his reign, as well as pushing through reforms that he felt were needed. When an unstable or unskilled person took control of the system, the Empire would suffer tyranny, privation or general instability. Hence, the principate was only good if, and only if, a relatively gifted person controlled it. This argument about the principate is getting slightly repetitive now, so perhaps we should return to Sulla? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted January 31, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 (edited) As i said above, and as Neos said too, the principate worked well and caused advancement and improvement when a strong, capable and skilled person controlled it. Yes things started improving as soon as the principate come into being - because Augustus was a strong, capable and skilled (highly skilled) person, and he thus used the system to ensure peace during his reign, as well as pushing through reforms that he felt were needed. When an unstable or unskilled person took control of the system, the Empire would suffer tyranny, privation or general instability. Hence, the principate was only good if, and only if, a relatively gifted person controlled it. This argument about the principate is getting slightly repetitive now, so perhaps we should return to Sulla? What you said is true, but still the principate did great for over 200 years, thats a long period of time. At the end it screwed up just like the republic. To get back to Sulla, I don't think history should just dismiss him as a ruthless tyrant, historians seem to concentrate more on the negative aspects of his reign rather than the positive ones. His positive qualities outnumber his negative ones. Ofcourse his victims would disagree with that statment, but I have come to understand his actions even if they were cruel, he used his power wisely to crush his opposition, and thats no different than the senators that murdered Caesar, but for some reason historians did not treat those characters as harshly as Sulla. They used assassination to further thier political aims but they failed and Sulla did the same thing but he succeeded, at least while he was alive. Edited January 31, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.