The Roman Empire Was Superior to the Roman Republic

I. Defending the Empire i. The Pax Romana "Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman peace") was the long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force experienced by the Roman Empire in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD.""Its span was about 207 years (27 BC to 180 AD)."[1] It was never equaled by the Republic in length at any time. All major civil wars had ended. There was not a major civil war (the civil war after Nero could be contested, but it did relatively little damage and was certainly not to the extent of any of the civil wars previous) until the early 300s AD. Another feature of the Pax Romana was the war was taken out of Italy and its immediate conquests (Greece and Macedonia). There would never again be an attack on Italy and its immediate conquests (the last one being Julius Caesar's march on Rome) until late in the 4th Century. ii. Emperors Whenever criticizing the Roman Empire, people always bring up names like Caligula, Nero, Commodus, and others. They forget two things. One, they forget the good emperors like Augustus, early Tiberius, Claudius, Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Constantine, and others. They also forget that bad people of the Republic like Tiberius Gracchius, Gaius Gracchius, Sulla, Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, and others (this will be covered in more detail later). Emperors could be very good, and their policies could be enacted quicker, more successfully, and with more effect than at any time in the Republic. II. Attacking the Republic i. Civil Wars Civil Wars were rampant in the last two centuries of the Republic. The first one started with Tiberius Gracchius and his land reform policies. A civil war broke out between the aristocracy and only ended with Tiberius's assassination. Then his brother, Gaius, came to power. The exact same thing happened. Then came Marcus and Sulla. Their policies differed significantly. Marcus was consul for 6 out of 10 years. After he was deposed by Sulla, he wanted his power back. And everyone knows that this equals civil war. So came civil war. Marcus was defeated and Sulla became almost like a dictator for 10 years (I'll cover him later). Then came the first triumverate. Crassus, Pompey, and Caesar. There was an internal struggle with the Senate and Aristocracy pitted against the populus. The triumverate originally took the populus's side, but the Senate managed to wedge Pompey and Caesar (Crassus by this time was out of the picture) apart, with Pompey now on the Senate's side. They wanted Caesar's generalship taken away and for him to be prosecuted for crimes against the state. He refused, and even marched on Rome. Pompey, the Senate, and their Army feld to Greece and Caesar took Rome. Caesar defeated Pompey in Greece and became dictator. In his 5th year, he was assassinated. Then came the second triumverate. Lepidus, Antony, and Augustus (at the time Octavian). Again, the latter two drew apart, and civil war resulted. It resulted with Antony's suicide and Augustus's uncontested power over the Roman Empire. The Roman Republic was very unstable and frequently had civil wars. While the Empire had civil wars, they were less frequent and were a lot less bloody than the Republic's. The Empire was more stable. ii. Consuls Consuls could be very bloody. There was Tiberius Gracchius who killed several people to better his plan before being assassinated himself. There was Gaius who did the same thing. There was Sulla who killed thousands in order to eradicate everyone who disagreed with him. There was Caesar who was so scrupuluous that he is considered on of the most feared people of antiquity. The Republic encouraged people like this to power and to kill all who stood in their way. This rarely happened in the Empire. Conclusion The Republic was more unstable than the Empire. I am curious to see my opponent's arguments. I will have more thoughtout arguments next round. I am interested to see how my opponent argues. Sources: [1]:http://en.wikipedia.org...