answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

First of all it has to be noted that Rome already had an empire during the republic. Much of her imperial expansion occurred during the period of the Republic. It is this expansion which led to the collapse of the Republic.

The Roman Republic was brought down by the weight of imperial expansion. The central government had become dysfunctional, and lost control over the provinces (conquered territories). The governors of the provinces became unruly and treated their provinces as if they were their personal fiefs. Tax collection in the provinces was carried out by private collectors who 'farmed' the taxes to line their pockets. Corruption was rampant. A reform of military recruitment made the soldiers loyal to the commanders of their legions who could use them to obtain what they wanted through the threat of or the use of military violence. In 71 BC Crassus and Pompey encamped their troops outside Rome to have themselves elected as consuls (the two annually elected heads of the Republic). Pompey was not even eligible on the grounds of being below the required age and of not having served some public offices which were required before the consulship. In the last 64 years of the Republic there were 12 civil wars. In 88 BC Sulla entered the city of Rome with his troops during his first civil war against forces of Marius, even though Roman religion forbade the bearing of arms within the city walls.

Another problem in the Late Republic was the increase in the number of dispossessed peasants who lost their land to the expanding large landed estates which used slaves, who were war captives. These people flocked to Rome to try to eke out a living, swelling the masses of the poor in the city. The problem of poverty became a political hot potato which led to the conflict between the populares and the optimates. The former was a political faction which championed the cause of the poor and tried to introduce reforms to help them. The latter was a conservative political faction which favoured the aristocracy and opposed reforms. The senators were seen as being concerned with the interests of the aristocracy, rather than those of the poor and were unpopular among the middle and lower classes. They were also seen as being corrupt. Many of the civil wars were related to clashes between strong military leaders and the conflict between populares and optimates spilling into violence.

Julius Caesar assumed sole power in Rome (the Republic was normally headed by two annually elected consuls) for five years and tied to tackle Rome's problems. However, he was assassinated. More civil wars followed his death. Augustus emerged as the final victor. He gained control over the army and amassed great wealth through the spoil of war. He used both to establish his own absolute rule and became the first Roman emperor.. His tight control over the state restored a strong central government and political stability. Rule by emperors continued for 503 years.

.

User Avatar

Landen Heaney

Lvl 13
2y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar
More answers
User Avatar

Wiki User

10y ago

Rome did not turn from a republic to an empire. The Roman republic already had an empire. In fact, much of Rome's imperial expansion occurred during the Republic.

Rome's political system changed from republic to rule by emperors, not from republic to empire. This confusion is caused by historians who use the term empire in two senses. One is the commonly used territorial sense (the conquest of other peoples and their annexation into an empire). The other refers to Rome's period of rule by emperors.

The change from republic to rule by emperors was a political one, not an economic one.

This answer is:
User Avatar

User Avatar

Wiki User

9y ago

The Roman Republic did not turn into an empire. The Republic already had an empire. Much of Rome's imperial expansion occurred during the republican period. The Republic was replaced by rule by emperors. Historians make a confusing use of the term Roman Empire. They use it to refer to empire the territorial sense (the conquered territories), which is the term we are used to, and as a name for rule by emperors.

The Republic fell under the strain of a series of civil wars. The final one was a contest between Augustus and Mark Antony over who would become the sole ruler of Rome and her territories. Augustus won and established his absolute personal rule and became the first Roman emperor, thus stating the 506-year period of rule by emperors.

The Roman Republic fell under the weight of imperial expansion. The central government had become dysfunctional, and lost control over the provinces (conquered territories). The governors of the provinces became unruly and treated their provinces as if they were their personal fiefs. Tax collection in the provinces was carried out by private collectors who 'farmed' the taxes to line their pockets through extortion. Corruption was rampant. A reform of military recruitment made the soldiers loyal to the commanders of their legions who could use them to obtain what they wanted through the threat of or the use of military violence. In 71 BC Crassus and Pompey camped their troops outside Rome to have themselves elected as consuls (the two annually elected heads of the Republic). Pompey was not even eligible on the grounds of being below the required age and of not having served some public offices which were required before the consulship. In the last 64 years of the Republic there were 12 civil wars. In 88 BC Sulla entered the city of Rome with his troops during his first civil war against forces of Marius, even though Roman religion forbade the bearing of arms within the city walls.

Another problem in the Late Republic was the increase in the number of dispossessed peasants who lost their land to the expanding large landed estates which used slaves, who were war captives. These people flocked to Rome to try to eke out a living, swelling the masses of the poor in the city. The problem of poverty became a political hot potato which led to the conflict between the populares and the optimates. The former was a political faction which championed the cause of the poor and tried to introduce reforms to help them. The latter was a conservative political faction which favoured the aristocracy and opposed reforms. The senators were seen as being concerned with the interests of the aristocracy, rather than those of the poor and were unpopular among the middle and lower classes. They were also seen as being corrupt. Many of the civil wars were related to clashes between strong military leaders and the conflict between populares and optimates spilling into violence.

Julius Caesar waged a civil war against the forces of the senate and assumed sole power in Rome (the Republic was normally headed by two annually elected consuls) for five years and tied to tackle Rome's problems. However, he was assassinated. More civil wars followed his death. Augustus won the final one.

This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Why did Rome change from a republic to an empire ruled by an emperor?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about General History

What did Marcus aurelius do for a living?

Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.


What emperor ruled Rome in 400 b c?

No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.


When is the reign of Emperor Constantine who reunities the empire?

Emperor Constantine ruled the Roman Empire from 324 AD- 337 AD


Did the Roman republic come before the Roman empire?

The Roman Republic lasted from the time of the kings until the civil wars in the first century BCE. The first Roman ruler that we call an emperor was Gaius Octavius -- or Augustus -- who ruled from 27 BCE to 14 CE. He didn't call himself an emperor, but "princips" or "first citizen." For more information about the Roman Republic, check my website: www.judithgeary.com


Who ruled the roman Empire after Caligula?

Hadrian ruled after Trajan.

Related questions

Who was the emporo when the rome empire started?

The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.The Roman empire began after the second Punic war and a that time Rome did not have an emperor, it was the republic and was ruled by elected officials.


What did Marcus aurelius do for a living?

Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.Marcus Aurelius was a Roman emperor. He ruled the empire for a living.


What was one major change that occurred in Rome after its transition from a republic to an empire?

These are two different terms. A republic is a system of government; an empire is a group of countries under one control. Rome was an empire long before it had an emperor - the republic ruled an empire covering half of Europe.from Spain to Greece. The republic was a limited democracy ruled by the Senate, The next phase did away with the limited democracy and for 200 years became a power-sharing arrangement between emperor and senate.


What emperor ruled Rome in 400 b c?

No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.No emperor ruled Rome in 400 BC. In that year Rome was a republic, not a principate.


Did Augustus maintain or support the roman empire?

Augustus ruled the Roman Empire. After the fall of the Roman Republic he became the first Roman Emperor.


How are empires ruled?

An empire is ruled with an emperor of course


What is a government ruled by an emperor called?

empire


What ystems of government did roman empire have?

Rome was first a monarchy, then a Republic ruled by a Senate and two consulates, and finally, it switched over to an Empire under Emperor Octavian in 23 A.D.


How is a republic different from a empire?

In comparing a republic and an empire, you are trying to compare apples and oranges. An empire is a large holding. A republic is a form of government. The two have only a marginal relationship. An empire can be any large conglomerate, such as an industrial empire, a publishing empire, a financial empire or a political empire. A republic, as said above is a form or type of government. In a republic the people elect their officials to speak for them. A political empire, such as the Roman empire, can be ruled by a republic form of government, and it was for a time, until the principate form of government replaced the republic and ruled the empire. A more recent empire, the British empire, was ruled by a monarchy. A political empire can be ruled by various forms of government, with a republic being one of the types of government.


What is the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman Emperor?

The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.The Roman republic was a form of government and the Roman emperor was a man. If you mean the difference between the Roman republic and the Roman empire, there was no difference except in the form of government. Rome was already an empire under the republican form of government. When a single person took over leadership of that government, it became the principate or what is erroneously called the "empire". In both types of government, vast amounts of territory were ruled by a single authority, the senate under the republic and the "emperor" under the principate. Both the republic and the principate met the criteria for an empire.


Who was the roman empire that ruled after Cleopatra?

The Roman emperor who ruled after Cleopatra was Octavian/Augustus.


Who became emperor of the Easter Roman Empire in 552 CE?

No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.No one new became emperor of the eastern empire in 552. That year was in the reign of Justinian I, who ruled from 527 to 565.