What was the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire?

Answer 1

The Roman Republic was a democratic nation, focused on alliances and trade and military around the Mediterranean Sea. The empire was led by a monarch, or emperor, who (in almost every way) had total control. Usually, they squandered the nation's wealth on personal wars, great palaces, and anything else that came to their desire. The republic made two generals, or consuls, control the military at all times. They owned bits of France, Italy, Greece, North Africa, the Middle East; everywhere the Mediterranean touches. The Roman Empire was more powerful, because there was a lot of military buildup; they were easily the most powerful nation in the world. Take the boundaries of their nation and stretch them. However, crime and corruption and decadence had never been seen in the Western World like that before.

Answer 2

Technically there was no difference. The Roman republic was an empire. As soon as Rome expanded and governed territories under Roman law, it became an empire. It was an empire under the republican form of government with elected officials, each responsible for the duties of his office. What is erroneously called the "Roman Empire" is properly called the principate, where one man, usually not elected, ruled. So the empire was first ruled collectively, by the senate, and then singularly, under the principate.

Answer 3

Originally, Rome was a republic, in which representatives were elected by the population with the ability to vote, who ran all of Rome. Eventually, the republic was taken over in a coup, establishing an emperor. The democratic republic is referred to as the Roman Republic, while the Rome ruled by the emperor is the Roman Empire.

Answer 4

The Republic was headed by two annually elected consuls who were the heads of state and the army. This was done to prevent personal rule by one man.

The term empire is used by historians to indicate the period that followed the Republic when there was personal rule by one man whom they call the emperor.

This choice of term is confusing because Rome already had developed an empire during the Republic. The term is used both in relation to the territory of the Roman Empire and to rule by one man. To add to the confusion the Romans did not use the term emperor for the personal ruler. They used the term princeps (first man).

Answer 5

None. Rome was already an empire under the republic. An empire is NOT a form of government, it is a large holding of some type. What is falsely called the "Roman empire" is the principate.

This was a form of government in which one man was the responsible leader.

Answer 6

Rome established an empire long before what we call Roman Empire emerged. In the Republican era, assemblies of the people dominated. With Augustus came a power-sharing between the Princeps and the Senate, with the popular assemblies gone.

Answer 7

The difference was only between the head of state. Rome was an empire under the republic. It had territories and provinces under the republic and ruled them under Roman law, That made Rome an empire under the republican form of government. What is commonly called the "empire" was in reality a principate, with one man being the supreme ruler.

Answer 8

The main difference is that the Roman Repuclic was run by the people and for the people, while the Roman Empire was run by an emperor.