The US is a country not a government. Similarly Rome is a city not a government. Your question therefore makes no sense.
When asking question please make sure that you questions are answerable.
London is better than Rome on my opinion
yes It depends what you mean by 'better'. It is certainly less efficient than many other forms of government.
Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.Rome did not go from a republic to an empire. They are two different things. The republic was/is a form of government while an empire is a political holding. Rome was an empire under the republican form of government. What is generally referred to as the "empire" is properly called the principate, in which the empire was ruled by one person rather than the collective senate.
I believe democracy is a better form of government than dictatorship.
There is no evidence that in a democratic country, a parliamentary system is any worse or better than a republic form of government. With the assumption that the democratic country is truly democratic, than its citizens will adapt a form of government best suited to the country's needs.
The two are not comparable.
It is better than no government. But many compromises will have to be made.
No.
Caesar's enemies felt that they had to eliminate him because he had accumulated an excessive amount of power and showed no sign of relinquishing any of it. The government was becoming a one man rule rather than a republic. Caesar's enemies felt that the only way to save their way of life and government was to kill Caesar.
It became stronger, which is why it was able to take it over. Whether it was better is a moot point - better at what?
Points on Military government is better than Civilian government
Thoreau, like many in modern times, was convinced that government was unresponsive and broken. However, he posited that government is necessary and, rather than no government, what was needed was better government.