07-12-2011, 07:30 AM
I've often wondered the same things. I attribute the principate and the dominate to the downfall of Rome (more so the dominate, but giving just about absolute power to anyone for any extended period of time is not good). Had it not been for Julius Caesar, there would be no "Augustus". For every great Roman Emperor there was, there were a larger number of horrible Emperors who often acted in self interest. Valen's loss at Adrianople is regarded as the decline of the Western Empire, and several other emperors hastened the fall of the West, especially when they were not military leaders by merit, but rather by default.
The Romans had a good thing going, well maybe not a good thing with the greedy patricians and higher eques, but the Republic was progressing. Would the Senate have been able to ward off the barbarians, and come out strong in the 6th century? I don't know, the senate did some rather "clumsy" things in the Second Punic War, but I don't think the Senate would have made as many stupid decisions as some of the Emperors.
Augustus is by far my favorite Roman, but his terrible choice of choosing Tiberius as his successor instead of Germanicus certainly did not directly benefit the Empire
The Romans had a good thing going, well maybe not a good thing with the greedy patricians and higher eques, but the Republic was progressing. Would the Senate have been able to ward off the barbarians, and come out strong in the 6th century? I don't know, the senate did some rather "clumsy" things in the Second Punic War, but I don't think the Senate would have made as many stupid decisions as some of the Emperors.
Augustus is by far my favorite Roman, but his terrible choice of choosing Tiberius as his successor instead of Germanicus certainly did not directly benefit the Empire
Quintus Furius Collatinus
-Matt
-Matt
