The Roman Empire Was Superior to the Roman Republic

ContentionsI.Ci. The Pax RomanaI cannot disagree that the Pax Romana was a time of peace and prosperity for the Roman empire. However, a stretch of good times cannot necessarily outweigh the bad. Take for example Nazi Germany. In the 1930s Germany recovered greatly under the Nazis but then declined again in the 1940s. Does this period of good times make Nazi Germany superior to pre-Nazi Germany? After the Pax Romana Rome faced the worst times in its history before eventually collapsing (will address in more detail). I would like to just say that one good period of time does not automatically make one thing superior to another. You must examine the empire as a whole, which I will make sure we do. Cii. Emperors You have helped solidify my point about the Pax Romana with your argument about the Emperors. You say that a few bad names cannot outweigh the good ones. The same premise applies to the Pax Romana. A few good times cannot (in this case) outweigh the bad in the end.I would like to point out that my opponent gave no source when stating that an emperor was more efficient at making decisions than the Republic. Also, the Roman empire transferred Rome from a Republic ruled by councils formed by the people to an autocratic regime. Whether you say the emperors did a better job than the people or not cannot refute the fact that the political freedom of the Romans declined in the Empire. The Roman Republic held forums, councils and the Senate in order to rule via the populace. [1] The emperors caused political freedom in Rome to drop with the decision making power removed from these councils and placed in one man.II.Ci. Civil WarsYou say that the Roman Empire was more stable than the Roman Republic but this simply is not true. Yes, the Roman Republic was caught up in many civil wars but so was the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire had nine of its own civil wars. [2] While the Empire was still subject to civil wars like the Republic it was also subject to a series of damaging external wars that would lead the fall of Rome. During the reign of the Roman Empire there were a series of six major wars ending with the Gothic Invasions of Rome. [3] Rome simply spread out too far to control its own territory leading to occupations and instability in the far reaches of the Empire. There was restlessness in Jewish Palestine, Britain was conquered upsetting the Gothics and the Germans. The claim that the Roman Empire was somehow more stable than the Republic is simply untrue. They had a series of civil wars and damaging destabilizing external wars.Cii. ConsulsPolitics in the Roman Empire was just as bloody. There were twenty Roman emperors murdered. Twenty. [4] So politics in Rome under the Empire were just as bloody as they were before. The type of politics changed from one era to the next but not the nature of them.AssertionsA1. Fall of RomeThe Roman Empire led to the fall of Rome. The empire spread out too much and was subsequently invaded by Europeans from the north. Due to the unstable and spread out nature of the empire they could not respond to the threat eventually leading to the sack of Rome and the fall of the Roman empire. [5] The Roman Republic was smaller and more condensed and also more in control of its outer territories and was never threatened externally as much as the Empire. Also, the fall of Rome came under the Empire not under the Republic. After the Pax Romana and from the "third century on" [5] Rome saw its territories begin to deteriorate and fail to deal with barbarian and foreign incursions. A2. SenateThe Roman Republic was the first real Republic that functioned for the people. The United States took a lot of how it would eventually run its senate and government from the original Roman Republic. [6] Our representative system is borrowed heavily from the original Roman Republican system. That influence led to the United States government system and many other republican systems around the world today. A3. The Dark AgesDue to the Roman Empire's failure to maintain control and economic stability towards its later years this failure led to the Dark Ages. You claim the Pax Romana as a reason for Imperial superiority but the Romana cannot cancel out the 500 years [7] of history after the fall of Rome which led to the European feudal system, the Middle Ages, general poverty, a regression in technology and learning and an overall decline in the quality of life for those in Europe. The Roman Empire led directly to the Dark Ages and a massive decrease in quality of life for those under its former control. This is a huge blight to the Empire considering that the Roman Republic caused no such tragedy. Conclusion We have proven Pro's arguments to be false or over exaggerated in many areas while showing that the Roman Empire was unstable and bloody just like the Republic. Also, the rule of the Roman Empire would lead to the collapse of Rome, the fall of the Empire and the Dark Ages while the more controlled influence of the Republic lives on. The Roman Empire caused many hundreds of years of stagnant growth in Europe and regression. For these reasons the Roman Republic was superior to the Roman Empire.[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...[6] http://voices.yahoo.com...[7] http://www.gotquestions.org...