Monday, October 28, 2013
The Benefits of Empire
During Rome's period of dominance as an Empire, the Mediterranean world and nearby environments experienced a period of relative peace. Scholars called this period the "Pax Romana" as mentioned in your textbook. Our initial inclination today is to think of an empire with so much power concentrated centrally in it as something dangerous. However, the emergence of the Empire seemed to unify the entire area in a way that the Republic hadn't. Do you agree with the decision of individuals like Caesar and his successors to create and sustain an empire if it meant fostering a new sense of peace for 200 years? Would you have preferred the in theory more representative Republic before corruption and economic turmoil affected it (perhaps inevitable?) when it couldn't guarantee the same stability that the Empire seemed to foster? States are constantly at war today for a variety of reasons. If so, couldn't we argue that the creation of a morally guided empire would be a much better form of government if it could prevent conflict and encourage reform? Why or why not? Please respond to this prompt in AT LEAST TEN SENTENCES of thoughtful reflection and try to cite the textbook or your notes on it at least twice. Happy writing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe that a morally guided empire cannot be considered a better government than a government that represents people, even if the representative would eventually become corrupt. The fact is, as a government where the spot of king is passed down through children, eventually there will be bad kings or kings that are corrupt. For example, ¼ of the time in the Pax Romana, there were bad rulers (pg 164) . These rulers unfairly executed many innocent people and were very corrupt. The Pax Romana lasted for 200 years, but after that, the empire went back to its normal corruption. I believe that in a republic, while it is easier to become corrupt and it is much harder to pass reforms, pleases the citizens more than a dictatorship. For example, while the empire was in the middle of Pax Romana, the Jews rebelled against the Romans. I believe that under a representative republic this wouldn’t have happened. The Republic would have found a way to appease the Jews. Also a democracy makes corruption milder. Many of the big examples of corruption could actually be considered military coups where people assumed leadership of the Republic, leaving the republic with no power. But if the Republic stayed how it was, corruption would leave a lesser impact on society.
ReplyDeleteIn the textbook, on page 173, it is mentioned that the people of Rome were more loyal to the Republic than the Empire. I wonder if this has to do with the fact that in the Republic, the citizens were able to vote on their leader. Perhaps they felt more of a connection towards their leader because the people had chosen their leader, and the people wanted the best for the Republic.
ReplyDeleteIn order for an empire to flourish and to thrive, it needs an “efficient government and an able ruler” (Pg. 164). This is what kept the Roman Empire together during August’s rule. However, something I find interesting is that the reason the Roman Republic collapsed (by about 100B.C.) was partly due to the fact that the Republic was expanding and becoming wealthy so quickly. The reason the Roman Empire fell (by this I mean the end of Pax Romana) was due to the fact that they had expanded too far and they and run out of resources. This reminds me of the collapse of the Assyrian Empire, which declined because they had bit off more than they could chew – they could not handle all that they had conquered. I believe that these three declines of major empires mirror each other. I believe that if the Roman Empire would have been a republic during the time of all its turmoil, it may have benefitted the Romans more. The citizens of Rome would have felt more passion and loyalty towards their land, and may have elected a stronger leader. This may not have led to Diocletian becoming the emperor, and all subsequent events.
This question is a very interesting one because in five minutes of thinking about it I have come up with an amazing amount of pros and cons for both. As Americans we are raised to believe in a representative government but is our government really as amazing as we like to believe? And with that in mind, is America really the most successful and "greatest" country on earth? Marisa made an interesting point when she referenced the textbook when it says that the people of Rome were more loyal to the republic than they were to the republic on page 173. Nathan also made a good point using the textbook when he mentioned that a quarter of the time the rulers of the empire were not good rulers. These are two of the more serious cons for an empire/pros for a democracy but if you think about it can't you come up with a least two reasons why a representative democracy wouldn't be good? If you look at the U.S. Recently with the government shutdown. That happened in a representative democracy and, some might see, because it is a representative democracy. If we had a dictatorship the shutdown wouldn't of happened. If you look at dictatorships around the world the number of countries that are flourishing with one and the countries that are falling apart with one is probably pretty close to equal. But is it not the same for democracies? For example look at Egypt. They might not have liked the dictator but the country did well under his rule and now after they have kicked him out and they have a democracy is it really working for them? The economy is tanking and people are dying! Is democracy really such a great thing then? I don't have an answer for you questions Gregory because it is very hard to come up with an answer if you look at the argument from both sides. I would have to say that empires and representative democracies are equally good and bad because while the idea of both might be great any type of government depends on the people in charge and in that country and really you can't answer the question definitely until you have examined every empire and democracy in the world and found all the faults and great things in them.
ReplyDeletein certain times in history empires have united civilizations, though I feel as though this was kind of forced upon the civilizations and they were pressured to get along. It was not because they chose to. It is really impossible to know what is actually better though I think that people are more willing to get along and work together if the representative represents the people. When people are given some power over who leads them, such as when they are allowed to vote on who is given the power, in a republic. They are more willing to go along with their rules and ideas instead of rebelling. In a republic is where the power rests with the citizens who have the right to vote for their leaders. "Pax Romana" may of unified the civilizations during that time period but it was inevitable that it was going to fail at some point and return to corruption.
ReplyDeleteThe Roman Empire was based on too many things that could have gone wrong. Most importantly, to have a stable empire you must have a strong, able emperor, such as Augustus. An emperor must find a way to appease the poor, such as Augustus did by setting up a civil service. (162) However, this system was flawed because eventually there was a huge gap and little in common between the classes. Even though most people in Rome lived in poverty, they were distracted from their disadvantages by gladiator contests and holidays. (165) While this in itself was ingenious on the part of the government, if the poor Romans ever realized their disadvantages they would revolt. Once the peasants gain enough power and the gap between rich and poor is apparent, the peasants could overthrow the empire. Another problem with having an empire is that it gets too big for one person to manage, such as what happened with Diocletian. (174) Even if the Roman Empire hadn't been invaded by the Huns and Germanic tribes, it probably would have failed anyway because of the instability in their society.
ReplyDeleteIf you have a good emperor, I don't see a problem at all with having an empire instead of a republic. The risk runs with the fact that corruption develops much quicker/easier when an emperor is reigning than when citizens have a voice with a republic. When Rome was a republic, consuls were re-elected every year. If a consul became corrupt, they would only have power for a year anyway, so they wouldn't have as much time as a corrupt emperor to ruin the civilization. However, with a good emperor, you don't have to worry about corruption. The emperor would have more time to conquer more land for your people, without having to turn the reigns over to someone else after a year. This could definitely strengthen your civilization in a way that would be much harder to do with a republic. We can look to Alexander the Great of Macedonia for proof of this. He conquered far more land than anyone has been able to do with a republican government. I'm not saying every empire would end up conquering what Alexander did, but they would come closer than with a republic.
ReplyDelete- J��rdan Valdés #3
A morally guided empire or an empire that was protected against corruption would be, hands down, the best form of government. It would be really great to remove the controversy of politics so that everyone could just get on with whatever needs to be done while the people who know what they are doing worry about what actually happens in government. This may seem like it would eventually create problems that would probably involve selfish or power mad emperors. This may be the case, but the book says that Augustus stabilized the empire through a series of changes (p. 162). I think that his changes were nice and all, but it would all work rather a lot better if corruption was made crucial to the system of the empire. An empire would work a lot better if some aspects were taken from our government. The one really great thing about our government is that it gives no one person or group of people greater power than all of the other groups. This could also be used to stabilize corruption in an empire. Basically it would just be three groups that work together rather like rock, paper and scissors. Every group has direct or indirect power over every other group. That way the system is balanced. The only differences that would be prevalent in the empire version of this system would be the fact that each section was basically just an emperor (no voting). In this new empire there would be three emperors. Each would have different powers and responsibilities, but they would all keep each other in check. This way corruption is not only allowed, but an essential part of the government. I would love to live in an empire. The emperors would look out for the interest of the people by looking out for their own interests. I would like a reasonable amount of freedom (many ancient empires gave their subjects quite a lot of freedom), but I don’t want to have to deal with politics. They are boring and annoying at best, dangerous and sensitive at worst, and always more trouble than they are worth. They are best left in the more responsible hands of others. Much of this was a bit of an exaggeration in order to emphasize my point. My point was that a stable empire is possible and that it could be really nice.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a government represented by the people is better. The main problem with an Empire is that it may seem people, but if the people have no power is it really a good kind of peaceful? A place where people have no representation live lives without true freedom or peace that is supposedly shown. The only argument for this Empire over the Republic is that we saw peace. Yet, there is absolutely no way to be sure that there would have been war under the Republic. Also, without freedom would you truly want to live in a time of peace? It is a hard decision to make, but not having freedom ruins anytime, war or peace. And even the Empire was a not a good form of government, it had plenty of corruption and murder, just in government rather than a battle. It is best to fight knowing that will happen, rather than be ruled by this corruption. It is best to have a Republic.
ReplyDeleteI believe that a government should be non-discriminatory and it should be equal. I am referring to a government represented by the citizens. An empire is a type of government represented by a king or emperor, whereas a republic is represented by the citizens.
ReplyDeleteOn page 173, "The Fall of the Roman Empire," the textbook mentions that, "over time, Roman soldiers in general had become less disciplined and loyal." This resulted in a lack of loyalty and an abundance of foreign soldiers. I agree with what Marisa said earlier, how the citizens were more loyal to the Roman republic than the Roman empire because they felt as if they had more of a personal connection to their elected leader.
The Roman Republic was ruled by what resembles the US's form of government today. It included an Executive, Legislative, Judicial, and Legal code-- page 157(these were not the names at that time). The Roman Republic had a "check and balance,"fair, and equal system of government. This system of government decreased the potential amount of corruptness, eliminated all threat of tyranny and power hungriness, and decreased the possible frustration from the citizens. Whereas the Roman empire was ruled by the exact opposite. The citizens lived in fear of the potential threat from the bad emperors and possible corruption.
I believe that a Republic government is better than an Empire ruled government because the citizens--the governed-- have a say.
I believe that a government represented by the people is better. As a government where the spot of king is passed down through children, eventually there will be bad kings or kings that are corrupt. The only argument for this Empire over the Republic is that we saw peace.The Pax Romana lasted for 200 years, but after that, the empire went back to its normal corruption. I believe that in a republic, while it is easier to become corrupt and it is much harder to pass reforms, and please the citizens more than a dictatorship. For example ,during Pax Romana, the Jews rebelled against the Romans. I believe that under a representative republic this wouldn’t have happened. The Republic would have found a way to please the Jews. I believe that a Republic government is better than an Empire ruled government because the citizens have a say.
ReplyDelete