March 21th Daily

Was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?

In my personal opinion, Rome was much better off as a republic rather than an empire. When they were a republic and not trying to take over other empire's land, they were much more successful on a political standpoint. Everyone was happy with that ways that they government was leading and no one was fighting. The plebeians were ecstatic that they actually had a massive say in what is going on with the rules and ways of living in Rome, since the Tribune of the Plebs came into effect. Since the plebeians were much of the population rather than the patricians, who before had all the control over the Senate, it only made sense that they had some say in what happens in the Senate. The Tribune of the Plebs shows that they were able to have a lot of control being common people and still lead a great republic. When Rome started to take over land from the Carthage empire, they began to consider themselves more and more of an 'empire' and then they somewhat fell apart politically. As Rome was gaining land and power, it was mostly the patricians who were gaining from it. The patrician, first class, people were the only ones who were gaining land and money from all of the land taken over by Rome. The plebeian people were not happy at all with that. Two brothers name the Gracchi brothers tried to bring fairness and equality  back into Rome; they were assassinated. This shows a lot of people that when Rome as well as many other city or areas of land begin to form an empire and invade on other peoples land focusing on the military rather than the government, the government and political part of the empire begins to fall apart. People lose focus in what is really important in the empire- which is the people, not the amount of land that you have.