Was the Roman Empire a monarchy or a dictatorship?

[Odin]

I usually see the Empire referred to as a monarchy, but it didn't have the institutionalized regular hereditary transfer of power I usually associate with "monarchy."

[Dauphin]

Which time period.

It certainly had a hereditary period, it just tended not to be based on genetics.

[Zkribbler]

It was a dictatorship. Yes, occasionally it passed through families (similar to Papa Doc to Baby Doc) but that was because of the power wielded by the inheriter, not because the system demanded it.

The Romans would go berserk at the suggestion that they were a monarchy. They overthrew their King following his infamous rape of Lucretia, and the thought of a king was abhorent to them.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Dauphin
Which time period.

It certainly had a hereditary period, it just tended not to be based on genetics.

It seems in general that the Dominate period (from Diocletian onwards) was more monarchical then the Principate (Octavian to the Severans), but generally the dynasties that emerged didn't last too long.

[Ecthy]

I just love when people try and talk in categories without defining them before.

Is all science lost on you guys?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I just love when people try and talk in categories without defining them before.

QFT. If you need intense discussion to decide which of two artificial categories something belongs it, you ought to put it in neither and examine it as an individual case.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ecthy
I just love when people try and talk in categories without defining them before.

Is all science lost on you guys?

The problem with history and the other soft sciences is that, because you're still using real words to talk about it, (and not chemical names or formulas like in the hard sciences) it's not really "science" and you can have a valid opinion about the subject without having studied it the way real scientists do.

For an example of this kind of disrespect for history as a science, look at my hit-and-run post in the generals thread.

[BeBMan]

Monarchy in general just means that one rules, which was the case in Rome from the principate on. Monarchy does not have to be hereditary - there can be other forms. Then it depends how you use "dictatorship" here, a monarchy can be also a dictatorship (doesn't have to be of course).

[Will9]

Both. It depends on which Emporer you are talking about. Roman Emporers had unlimited power, but the generals would often rise up whenever the Emporer abused his power. The Preatorian Guards also could end up killing the Emporer.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by BeBro
Monarchy in general just means that one rules, which was the case in Rome from the principate on. Monarchy does not have to be hereditary - there can be other forms. Then it depends how you use "dictatorship" here, a monarchy can be also a dictatorship (doesn't have to be of course).

in contemporary English not every one man dictatorship is a monarchy. Saudi Arabia IS a monarchy, but say Libya is not. There are two differences - one is hereditary status, the other is ceremonial surrounding the ruler. North Korea today is (in practice) hereditary. But has no ceremony. Central African Empire had monarchical ceremony, but was never passed on. Both are "grey areas"

[GePap]

As someone said, the Romans themselves would not have called their system a MOnarchy, as the title of Emperor was supposedly given by the Senate. As nominal as this became, that was what supposedly seperated their system from the hated past of Kings.

Not that it made much of a difference in how the Empire was actually ruled, but heck, the Romans were all about rules (and ignoring them when they did not suit them.)

[Eli]

As someone said, the Romans themselves would not have called their system a MOnarchy, as the title of Emperor was supposedly given by the Senate. As nominal as this became, that was what supposedly seperated their system from the hated past of Kings.

The Kings were elected by the Senate when Rome was a monarchy.

[One_more_turn]

Semi-constitutional monarchy, then military dictatorship, then totalitarian despotism, and finally anarchy.

[Merkin Muffley]

The Roman monarchy was imposed upon it by the Etruscans. The monarchs were appointed by the Etruscans. One enterprising king had the bright idea of allowing the wealthy to pay him to give their advice to him. That was the extrent of the Senater in the monarchial era. They were an unelected elite group of advisors with no real power. It was only after they revolted and overthrew the Etruscans that the Senate became the elected rulers of Rome.

The empire was originally hereditary - from Julius to Octavian all the way to Claudius, but the house of Caesar died out. For the next 300 years there were repeated attempts to establish new Imperial dynasties, but none proved strong enough to survive more than 2 or 3 generations. I think the last dynastic emporer of Rome was Commodius, the emporer, heir to Marcus Aurelius, portrayed in "Gladiator" and "The Fall of the Roman Empire". After him I don't think that any emporer managed to pass the title on to his heir.

[One_more_turn]

The second Flavian dynasty lasted much longer. It began with Constantine the Great and ended with Valentinian III in the West and Theodosius II in the East.