Which of these Empires do you have a higher opinion of: British, or Roman?

[TheReckoning]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

This is such a hysterically stupid argument that I’m not surprised you made it.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

[DaleCooper]

Plenty of real historians describe the Roman Republic as an empire. That's not a radical statement at all.

[KaiserDave]

This is such a hysterically stupid argument that I’m not surprised you made it.

Sigged!

[KaiserDave]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

My earlier point stands, and it was substantiated by bloggers such as Conservatopia, Parochial Boy, and Al, who are considerably wiser than you. None of them have made such tremendous contributions to my signature though. Nor do any of them stalk my old posts to resurrect two year old arguments that I won.

[Left Wing]

This man has done more to divide Atlas blog than anyone else. He’s bumped 2 year old arguments that he lost. I still refer to him as The Retardening, do what you like!

[TheReckoning]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

The title uses the capital “Empire”. It should have been obvious.

[KaiserDave]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

The title uses the capital “Empire”. It should have been obvious.

As was explained two years ago, the distinction between the Republic and the Empire is more nuanced and complicated than the distinction between the present-day Russian Federation and the Petrine Russian Empire. Frankly it's very arguable that a clear-cut singular change from Republic to Empire never occurred. I am aware you struggle with this.

[TheReckoning]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

The title uses the capital “Empire”. It should have been obvious.

As was explained two years ago, the distinction between the Republic and the Empire is more nuanced and complicated than the distinction between the present-day Russian Federation and the Petrine Russian Empire. Frankly it's very arguable that a clear-cut singular change from Republic to Empire never occurred. I am aware you struggle with this.

Please refer me to an academic single source that refers to Julius Caesar, or any of his predecessors, as ruler of the “Roman Empire.” You won’t, because the Roman Empire did not exist then.

[KaiserDave]

The Roman Republic was an Empire. It was a political unit governing varying groups of people governed by a central authority. It was governed by a select group of privileged citizens as opposed to a single ruler, which changed with the ascension of Augustus Caesar. In terms of the question you pose, the distinction between the day before Augustus became "Emperor" and the day after is rather unimportant. The differences between the Republic and Empire, but only as it relates to the internal political affairs of the contiguous Roman political unit that lasted for 2,000 years. Not in a comparative question to other empires.

Essentially, the Roman Republic was an Empire and should be included in any comparison.

Even if you didn't include the Roman Republic, the answer is still obviously the Roman Empire. All modern conceptions of "empire" come from Rome.

By this logic, since the Russian Federation has multiple different groups in it, historical discussions about the  “Russian Empire” as it is used ought to include modern day Russia.

The only mistake is that I should have said empire instead of Empire. One can talk about the Putinist Russian empire that exists today without referring to the Tsarist Russian Empire. The Roman Republic was not an Empire, but it was an empire. The distinction should be obvious.

The title uses the capital “Empire”. It should have been obvious.

As was explained two years ago, the distinction between the Republic and the Empire is more nuanced and complicated than the distinction between the present-day Russian Federation and the Petrine Russian Empire. Frankly it's very arguable that a clear-cut singular change from Republic to Empire never occurred. I am aware you struggle with this.

Please refer me to an academic single source that refers to Julius Caesar, or any of his predecessors, as ruler of the “Roman Empire.” You won’t, because the Roman Empire did not exist then.

You have to make it harder than this.

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

thereckoning has once again proven himself incapable of being right about anything.

[Antonio the Sixth]

ayy lmao

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Even if we accept the pedantry of "republic vs empire" I'm not sure why how you can accept that the roman empire did nothing relevant but coast on what was done by the Republic. Here are some pretty important things that you can decidedly link to the Empire:

- pax romania. The long period of stability transitioned the old Republic (which was a more "imperial" state with an italian Metropole governing colonies) into a pan-european entity of common laws. If the civil wars at the end of the republic had led to its dissolution, would an expansionist oligarchy that briefly held sway over the Mediterranean be seen as foundational for so many states? (This is the most important concept, as without this, all the other influences of the Republic would have been about as ephemeral as greek influence over Afghanistan).

- the position of "emperor" a mantle which was deliberately taken by many future European leaders. Napoleon, Peter the Great and the HRE weren't aping Pompey, they wanted to be Augustus!

- rather a grim example, but the forcible expulsion of jews under hadrian created the Jewish diaspora and creates a legacy that obviously continues to this day.

- the reforms of Diocletian in many ways created a constitutional framework that outlasted Rome itself.

- the foundation of Constantinople (it existed as a small city before, but you know what I mean) created one of the most important cities in world history, with an imperial role that outlasted Roman state)