Roman Republic and Empire. PLEASE HELP ME!?

Question

I'm having a really big problem with my homework tonite and I would love if someone could help me out. OK so here's the question:
Explain the difference between the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. Describe the political characteristics of each and describe the transition from the republic to empire. Include a discussion of key events and people involved in the transition.

If anyone could help me with even parts of that question I would really appreciate it. THANKS IN ADAVANCE!

Answer 1

Here's a very brief discussion of early Roman history. This should help you understand the political issues surrounding the Roman Republic, and its transition to a less "democratic" form of government known as the Roman Empire. (This abridged history is taken from Wikipedia, for a more comprehensive account please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/roman_republic.)

==============================...
The Roman Republic was a phase of the ancient Roman civilization characterized by a republican form of government. The republican period began with the overthrow of the Monarchy in 509 BC and lasted until its subversion, through a series of civil wars, into the Roman Empire. The precise date in which the Roman Republic changed into the Roman Empire is a matter of interpretation, with the dates of Julius Caesar's appointment as perpetual dictator (44 BC), the Battle of Actium (September 2, 31 BC), and the date which the Roman Senate granted Octavian the title "Augustus" (January 16, 27 BC), being some of the common choices.

This is a distinction chiefly made by modern historians and not by the Romans of the time, however. The early Julio-Claudian emperors maintained that the res publica still existed under the protection of their extraordinary powers and would eventually return to its republican form.

Inhabitants: Roman citizenship

The Roman Republic had many different classes of people who existed within the state. Each one of them had differing rights, responsibilities, and status under Roman law.

Government:

Roman republican government was a complex system, which seems to have had several redundancies within it, and was based on custom and tradition, as much as it was on law.

Assemblies and Magistrates.
The basis of republican government, at least in theory, was the division of responsibilities between various assemblies, whose members (or blocks of members) would vote on issues placed before their assembly. These assemblies included the Curiate Assembly, the Centuriate Assembly, the Tribal Assembly, the Plebeian Assembly, and the Roman Senate. Membership in such assemblies was limited by such factors as class, order, family, and income.

Several of these assemblies had specific and specialized functions, such as the Curiate Assembly which conferred Imperium on the Roman magistrates. However, two of these assemblies dominated the political life of the Republic: the Plebeian Assembly, and the Roman Senate.

Within the various assemblies, there were a number of magistratus - magistrates, who performed specialized functions.

The Romans observed two principles for their magistrates: annuality, the observation of a one-year term, and collegiality, the holding of the same office by at least two men at the same time. The supreme office of Consul, for instance, was always held by two men together, each of whom exercised a power of mutual veto over any actions by the other consul. If the entire Roman army took the field, it was always under the command of the two consuls who alternated days of command. Many offices were held by more than two men; in the late Republic there were 8 praetors a year and 20 quaestors.

The office of dictator was an exception to annuality and collegiality, and the offices of Censors to annuality. In times of military emergency a single dictator was chosen for a term of 6 months to have sole command of the Roman state. On a regular, but not annual basis two censors were elected: every five years for a term of 18 months.

Evolution of Republican government.

During the early and middle Republic, the Roman Senate, highest in prestige and being composed of the aristocratic, rich, and politically influential (towards the end of the Republic, it was exclusively composed of ex-magistrates), was predominant in the state.

During the later years of the Republic, a division developed within the Senate with two factions arising: the Optimates and the Populares. The Optimates held to the traditional forms of Roman government, while the Populares were those who used the fact that the Plebeian Assembly was the only body capable of passing binding laws (plebiscites) on the Republic, to pursue political influence outside the Senate. Since the Senate controlled the finances of the state, this led to conflicts between the Senate and the Plebeian Assembly. Many ambitious politicians used these conflicts to further their political career, advancing themselves as champions either of "Roman tradition", or of "The People".
==============================...

KEY POINTS ABOUT THE ROMAN REPUBLIC:

National motto: Senatus Populusque Romanus (Latin: The Senate and the Roman People)

Capital: Rome

Form of Government: republic

Head of state: Two Consuls, in times of military emergency Dictator

Advisory Council: Roman Senate

Legislature: Roman assemblies

Establishment: 510 BC

Dissolution: January 16, 27 BC, final point of a gradual subversion into the Roman Empire

First consul(s): Lucius Junius Brutus, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus (509 BC-508 BC)

Last consul(s): Unclear, as consuls continued to be elected under the Emperors
==============================...

Subversion of the Republic into the Empire

Technically, the republic did not end. Octavian (and his "heirs") was said to have "saved the republic" and ruled by "will of the Senate" until a future date, when he would return his extraordinary powers. All of Octavian's successors carefully maintained this lie (at least at the beginning). In truth, however, the Republic had been dying since 133 BC, with the killing of the Gracchi brothers. Their deaths signaled the end of debate and legal procedure — from that point on, whoever was willing to go the farthest dictated policy. Murder became commonplace during election time, and mobs were often whipped up by opposing parties to frighten enemies into submission. It became accepted, even encouraged, to use force to 'preserve the Republic'. Senators who could not legally block reform used assassination and trumped-up criminal charges to stop it; reformers who could not legally pass their bills used the steadily growing anger of the Roman populace to terrify the Senate or appealed to powerful generals and their armies for military support. Each time someone used violence to achieve an end, someone else hit back even harder to counter it. When Marius used his army of gladiators, slaves, and plebeians to seize Rome, Sulla hit back using professional legions. The result was a short-term stability and further weakening of the underlying structure of government.

The change also became one that put the men before the Republic — no longer was it possible to survive in the new vicious world of Roman politics by being humble and loyal to the ideals of the ancestors. Powerful politicians vied to become "Primus inter pares" - "First amongst equals" through whatever means necessary, and ambitious men were only kept in check by other equally ambitious competitors. Marius and Sulla were the first, and their example gave rise to the first Triumvirate of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, and of the second one composed by Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus.

Moreover, the Senate had proven, time and time again, to be so selfish, arrogant, incompetent and shortsighted that the Roman population no longer trusted them to lead. The Senate was often too willing to protect its friends, allies and members from lawful prosecution for even the most evident and extraordinary crimes; and because of this it lost the trust of the Roman citizens at large. When someone did come from their ranks and proved himself capable, the Romans flocked to them in a desperate hope that he might pull together the Republic and restore peace, law, and order. The Senate, using what means necessary, struck down these champions one by one, starting with the Gracchi. Each time this happened, the Roman people became more willing to accept the extreme measures of the reformers to ensure their laws, and their lives. Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon was technically treason, but no one outside the Senate cared, because it promised real change for a corrupt and unworkable Republic.

Within the Senate itself, the heavily entrenched, tradition-bound, rich conservative party was constantly at odds with any reformer that arose. The Gracchi worked outside the constitutional system by using the popular assemblies instead of the Senate; Marius had to fight tooth and nail just to get the necessary changes needed to recruit lower class soldiers; Sulla terrified the Senators with executions to enact reforms that were intended to actually preserve the powers of the Senate; and Caesar had to effectively conquer the whole Roman dominion in order to pass laws that were at least a century overdue. The harder the Senate fought to keep the status quo, the farther the reformers were willing to go, until at last it ended in Caesar's dictatorship.

The distrust the Roman citizens felt for the Senate was evident in the reaction of the troops to their commanders asking them to commit treason. The legions were willing to follow their commanders because they had no special love for the Senate, who only refused them pay and often fought over their rights to receive land upon returning home from war. There was no time when a commander asked his men to march with him on Rome and they refused, not one time where legionaries sided with the Senate. They chose to rally around names like Sulla and Pompey and Caesar, not the antiquated ideals of a Republic that rarely worked for them. The only thing that kept them in check, was each other. The Senate's inability to see this new reality cost it dearly. The Senate could not and did not want to adapt itself to the changing power structure, and as a result was pushed aside by those who could.

Part of the problem was that Rome's government was not designed to rule an empire. The Republic was meant to govern a city-state; one that was, even at its founding, growing in scope and power, but nevertheless only supposed to extend through the regions of central Italy. When territory was captured overseas, the Republic proved itself unable to effectively govern it. The provinces became fiefdoms of the governors, who proceeded to plunder them at will and engage in military adventures that did not have the approval of the Senate. These governors eventually took on Rome itself whenever they were threatened. There was no system of accountability, no ancient tradition of dealing with corrupt governors — the problem was new, and the Republic, so tradition-bound, would not change to handle it. Once the Republic became an Empire, only an Emperor could effectively rule it, not an oligarchic assembly. But it took nearly a century before that was fully realized. In the end, the failure to control the generals caused the downfall of Rome's Republic. When Caesar finally took Rome for himself, he was greeted with thunderous applause, because he, at long last, promised, and even delivered, reforms the Roman people had wanted since the Gracchi.

I hope this information helps. I would highly recommend you consider the implications of this example of the perversion of government from ancient history to the current situation of our modern democracies and the growing influences of anti-democratic forces.

Answer 2

Roman Republic was a 'democratic' form of government where the senators made the decisions about how to govern the public. Roman Empire was an autocracy where the emperor told the senators what to do. That's pretty simple and straight forward.

Research Gaius Julius Caesar for a detailed version of how he took command.