So /his/ could the Roman survive if it still a republic instead a Empire?
No, just look at all the shit what happened in the last century of the Republic, no wonder Augustus was hailed as a God after he died.
>>1147298
>a God
god with a lower case 'g'
augustus was hailed as a god, not God.
God = Creator, God of the Bible
god = title
>>1147304
>>God = Creator, God of the Bible
>>god = title
Hmm no, this is autistic. Go away.
>>1147443
he has a point.There is no way a man can on pair with Zeus or Venus
>>1147449
Yes but Venus's pancake tits cannot compare with Freya's Fabulous Funbags, now can she?
>>1147269
if you're thinking about the republic merely continuing as it was, then probably not. the violence and upheaval of the late republic was a total mess, and with senators so focused on, essentially, political stagnation from the gracchi onwards (e.g. "i'd rather this good reform not go through at all than someone else get credit for passing it") as well as the violence that came with it distracted most attention from the boarders and provinces, and eventually revolts would've been successful. if you're thinking the earlier republic, i suppose it's possible, but doubtful, because enfranchisement of the population was not something that was pursued, which would've caused an ongoing "us vs them" mentality in the provinces. what would've had to happen is a true republic with enfranchisement of (at least all the freeborn male) citizenry of the entire territory in order to give all the folks a stake in the republic's success. given the lack of speedy communication / travel, this would've been extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. so, probably not. (sorry, this was all stream of consciousness; i'm a bit drunk)
>>1147269
No, it was too big. If anything they should have slowly enacted a policy of sovereignty within the prime areas of their Empire (ie Briton, Iberia, Italy, Greece, Africa).
>>1148738
that was sort of what diocletian tried to enact with the tetrarchy
>>1147269
It would be a lot smaller, probably just Italy, Gaul, Hispania and maybe Britain or Greece.
>>1147269
See >>1148722
The Gracchi were the final hope for the Republic to live on in some form. After they were assassinated/publicly executed by Senatorial mobs, there was really no hope.
The Senate was consolidating the wealth of the Empire in their pockets and neglecting the governance and future.
Their short sightedness in this regard is what led to the Marian Reforms and then Sulla, Caesar, and Augustus.
The consolidation of power by Augustus and his (mostly failed) attempts to stomp out degeneracy saved Rome. Unfortunately for Augustus his reign was too long. Every male relative and protege and friend he hoped to pass his estate (and Rome) to died.
>>1149170
Would like to add that it's ironic that Caesar died young and before he could realize his vision, yet it succeeded after him regardless.
Whereas Augustus died old and did everything he had wanted to and was largely successful, yet it began to crack immediately after his passing despite his efforts.
>>1149170
So what led to the widespread corruption in the Republic after the Punic Wars? Was it the boatloads of slaves brought in from the war?
>>1149193
Wider citizenship might have done it.
More people with an interest in good government = better government and more citizens means that you can keep to a citizen military.
But the patricians would never have had it.
>>1148802
The tetrarchy wasn't a bad idea. Diocletian's main mistake was on sucession laws for his system.
>>1147304
says the fag who worships 3 jewgods as one.
>>1149193
What makes you think corruption started after the Punic Wars?
Rome was an insignificant little city that didn't even have defensive fortifications until the late 4th century BC. There are no mentions of Rome that I'm aware of prior to the 4th century.
By the end of the 2nd century BC they'd conquered Italy, defeated Carthage & assumed control of it's territories, begun a centuries-long conquest of Iberia, and defeated or otherwise subjugated all of the Hellenistic monarchs save the Ptolemies.
And under what sort of political structure?
A few ultra-powerful, ultra-wealthy families from Rome and (later) neighbouring Latium controlled everything and families simply vied to one-up each other.
Consuls and Proconsuls were all chosen by the Senate, a council of primarily elderly men from the aforementioned families, and Consuls and Proconsuls would become Senators when they were done or old enough. Military victories just fast tracked your pre-planned political career and only people from wealthy, politically affluent families or sub-faimlies could hold command.
Then with the Plebian reforms, all they did was add a vector by which wealthy merchant families who weren't part of the aristocracy could also exert power to benefit themselves and increase their status.
It was a glorified plutocracy. The chronological evolution of the Republic shouldn't surprise anybody, up to and including the deaths of the Gracchi, the Marian reforms, and Sulla.
The republic was infinitely better and made rome reach its superiority opposed to losing it all, the roman empire brought back all the garbage that lead to the roman monarchs coup. Any one who disagrees is a sweaty wog with shit in their pants and pictures of duce on their wall
Why was that the enclosure process of Rome, led to the slow death of Republic, while the enclosure process in England, aided in bringing about the Industrial Revolution?
>>1147304
wow, it's not enough that we can't have a decent thread about religious history but you have to do it in history threads too? Fuck. Off.
>>1149270
This.
