Why do normies consider Rome to only be an empire starting from when Augustus was named Princeps? I don't understand this. What do you consider the definition of an "empire", /hist/ and would you agree that Rome started as an empire even if it was a republican society well before Augustus's reign?
The distinction between the Roman "Republic" and the Roman "Empire" is meant to differentiate between their forms of government. It's pretty significant, seeing as how in the Roman Republic, there was no permanent autocrat in charge of the government (hence Republic) and in the Roman Empire, an emperor stood as the head of the government (hence Empire). It really isn't hard to understand.
>>791035
>If the emperor calls himself princeps he isn't an emperor
Anon he was called imperator anyway. The word just means "leader"
Is there any chance the Roman empire would have done better if Julius Caesar had just cleared out the corruption from the Republic instead of declaring himself dictator?
>>791128
Princeps meant first citizen. And it wasn't the first time the title was ever used, and we had dictators like Sulla well before Augustus.
I'm asking for your definition of an empire, because Republican Rome was by all definitions an empire.
>Empire
>a group of nations or peoples ruled over by an emperor, empress, or other powerful sovereign or government
There is a difference between the Roman Empire and the Roman empire.
>>791171
Pay attention to what the OP is asking.
>>791035
It's to make the story of Rome seem more tragic because according to normies "empire" = "bad"
>>791139
We have no idea what he would have done after being Dictator given the whole "fatal case of stabitis" and all.
The corruption was endemic at that point; Augustus supplanting the Imperium of the Senate with his own was just the most corrupt thing possible at that point.
>>791189
Don't most Normies view Ceasar as some sort of hero though while Brutus was evil put into human flesh?
>>791035
Rome was always an empire since it came into contact and conflict with the Greeks and Carthaginians. Even as a republican state, it was constantly expanding to build buffer states, military borders, and fortifications to defend itself from Celtic and Gaulic barbarian invasions. That was the lynchpin of Roman thought; not so much money, or profit, or glory but the protection of Italy from roving bands of barbarian tribes.
The majority of what made up the core of Roman conquests and expansion was before it transitioned into a principate under Augustus: Gaul, Iberia, North Africa, Anatolia, Balkans, Greece, Macedon, and a large swathe of the Near East and even of the British Isles.
An empire by definition is one nation that holds sovereignty and dominion over other nations. Republican Rome did this, its as much an "empire" as Principate Rome.
Do all oligarchies eventually turn into some sort of autocracy since family names become tarnished eventually in the shit throwing game of politics?
>>791219
I thought most people saw it the other way around.
>>791035
So you do not understand the basic concept, to begin with.
The Roman Republic was backed by a careful system of balance of power in order to never allow any power to stay concentrated in the hands of a single individual. The monarchical body - the Consulate - was changed every year, and always divided between two magistrates. The aristocratic body - the Senate - was replaced with a certain constancy, and was able to keep the balance of the Republic. The democratic bodies - the Assemblies - also did not have absolute power, and ultimately determined the policy changes.
The whole of the Roman constitution matrix is subverted when it gives extraordinary powers, the lifelong ability to abrogate the decisions of all other organs, and impose on them the will of a single individual.
This is the power of Imperivm granted to Augustus and his successors, until the death of Constantine XI.
The Republic was never formally abolished, but its essence is undone with the existence of a political power above all others. Above the Republic, the Senate, the People and the Magistrates. This is what characterizes the Empire.
It makes no difference if Augustus was called the "First-Citizen", or "Emperor" or even, say, "Burundanga". It is irrelevant. The difference is the investiture received.
>>794901
Holy shit nigga you dumb.
>>794901
>The Roman Republic was backed by a careful system of balance of power
no it wasn't
>>795636
>>795674
Plebe ignari, discat!
>As for the Roman constitution, it had three elements, each of them possessing sovereign powers: and their respective share of power in the whole state had been regulated with such a scrupulous regard to equality and equilibrium, that no one could say for certain, not even a native, whether the constitution as a whole were an aristocracy or democracy or despotism. And no wonder: for if we confine our observation to the power of the Consuls we should be inclined to regard it as despotic; if on that of the Senate, as aristocratic; and if finally one looks at the power possessed by the people it would seem a clear case of democracy.
- Polybius
>>796279
Those laws were constantly ignored or bypassed with technicalities as the corruption of the Republican era Rome progressed
Rome was effectively an empire from the Second Punic war onwards.
>>791219
Alexander Hamilton isn't most people.
>>797454
This desu
>>797454
>not since 390 bc and Brennus
They had a long series of dictators even from then on.
>>791035
How I Met Your Mother - Nazi edition
>>798050
wrong thread, oops
>>791248
>That was the lynchpin of Roman thought; not so much money, or profit, or glory but the protection of Italy from roving bands of barbarian tribes.
Given how they expanded, I'd disagree with this. a power concerned with protecting Italy does not send men to Greece or Hispanic when italy isn't 100% controlled,d and when the biggest threat to italy is in Gaul.
Rome was about glory.
