[jsb123]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
"Republics" nearly always fall. Rome had a Republic, it flourished under an Emperor. France has reinstated their monarchy several times, Spain has reinstated their monarchy, as has Cambodia. There was discussion as to whether Libya should bring back their monarchy. A republic is the weakest form of government.

That is a very dodgy assertion.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
France has reinstated their monarchy several times.

Er what? Titular Kings are not the same as actual Kings.

Edit: That does not make sense... er I have no idea how to explain it but those that were King had little to no actual power... thats better, I think

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Er what? Titular Kings are not the same as actual Kings.

Edit: That does not make sense... er I have no idea how to explain it but those that were King had little to no actual power... thats better, I think

still, Napolean was a reinstation of a monarchy. He had quite a lot of power. Either that or he invaded the rest of Europe without permission

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by jsb123)
That is a very dodgy assertion.

provide something to contradict that the Roman Empire was at its best under an Empire.

[tehFrance]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
still, Napolean was a reinstation of a monarchy. He had quite a lot of power.

Napoléon was never a Monarch. Please if you are going to make a statement about another country, look up what you are going to say before you say it

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by tehFrance)
Napoléon was never a Monarch. Please if you are going to make a statement about another country, look up what you are going to say before you say it

"Emperor Napoleon" and Emperor is a monarch.

[jsb123]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
provide something to contradict that the Roman Empire was at its best under an Empire.

The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? That runs to about six volumes.
The Empire was only ever really great under Augustus, and he never called himself an emperor in the modern sense of the word. Most of what would become the Empire was established under the Republic, and most gains under the Emperors were rapidly lost. And it was hardly ever hereditary, as most of them were either adopted or selected.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by jsb123)
The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? That runs to about six volumes.
The Empire was only ever really great under Augustus, and he never called himself an emperor in the modern sense of the word. Most of what would become the Empire was established under the Republic, and most gains under the Emperors were rapidly lost. And it was hardly ever hereditary, as most of them were either adopted or selected.

All empires and naitons must eventually fall, regardless of their system of government. Rome was at its peak under an Emperor.

[TopHat]

Augustus was quite careful never to call himself emperor, though. It wasn't really until Nero that imperator was more frequently used than princeps. Augustus remained wary of Caesar's fate and tried to make sure people saw him as a permanent head of the Republic, not an emperor. He was a Cromwell, not an Auld Pretender.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
All empires and naitons must eventually fall, regardless of their system of government. Rome was at its peak under an Emperor.

I would reply with an in depth answer on why you're potentially incorrect. There are perhaps better examples that we could choose.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by toronto353)
I would reply with an in depth answer on why you're potentially incorrect. There are perhaps better examples that we could choose.

there are, but to balance out what I said, Rome culturaly flourished under the republic, power wise it was greatest as an Empire. We have the perfect balance, with both monarch and democracy, why change things?

[toronto353]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
there are, but to balance out what I said, Rome culturaly flourished under the republic, power wise it was greatest as an Empire. We have the perfect balance, with both monarch and democracy, why change things?

Again culturally is a bit difficult to argue really. Rome's culture only really flourished from 3rd/ 2nd century BC with Livius Andronicus and Gnaeus Naevius (mere translators of Greek work though rather than writing original Roman work - though Naevius begins to do) so for the period 700 - 200BC, it's not particularly great culturally. Culture flourished more under the imperial period in terms of high literature though there are some writers who flourished in the Republican period (Plautus - though his work is a bit derivative, Catullus - though again a bit derivative and others). Culture was more controlled under the imperial period in terms of Augustus' strict religious laws among others, but Roman culture flourishes really from the very end of the Republican period to 100AD really so culturally it is the imperial period which wins out then.

In terms of power, you have to define power in terms who has power. Imperial politics was a bit of a sham really. Augustus didn't want it to look like he had power, but he concentrated power into his hands and the Senate fell over themselves to offer him more power. The people had more power in many ways in the Republican period - e.g. the Gracchi episode, but there is a whole question of whether the people truly had any kind of power in any period of Roman history and that is a lot trickier to answer.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by toronto353)
Again culturally is a bit difficult to argue really. Rome's culture only really flourished from 3rd/ 2nd century BC with Livius Andronicus and Gnaeus Naevius (mere translators of Greek work though rather than writing original Roman work - though Naevius begins to do) so for the period 700 - 200BC, it's not particularly great culturally. Culture flourished more under the imperial period in terms of high literature though there are some writers who flourished in the Republican period (Plautus - though his work is a bit derivative, Catullus - though again a bit derivative and others). Culture was more controlled under the imperial period in terms of Augustus' strict religious laws among others, but Roman culture flourishes really from the very end of the Republican period to 100AD really so culturally it is the imperial period which wins out then.

In terms of power, you have to define power in terms who has power. Imperial politics was a bit of a sham really. Augustus didn't want it to look like he had power, but he concentrated power into his hands and the Senate fell over themselves to offer him more power. The people had more power in many ways in the Republican period - e.g. the Gracchi episode, but there is a whole question of whether the people truly had any kind of power in any period of Roman history and that is a lot trickier to answer.

militarily is the sort of power I was talking about, if you look at the italian city states later on, in the 1400s/1500s, they flourished as republics, but not until they banded together and had a King did they enjoy any sort of military power, the most powerful being the papal states, which was ruled by the pope, who is technically a monarch.

[toronto353]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
militarily is the sort of power I was talking about, if you look at the italian city states later on, in the 1400s/1500s, they flourished as republics, but not until they banded together and had a King did they enjoy any sort of military power, the most powerful being the papal states, which was ruled by the pope, who is technically a monarch.

Again not a fair comparison. There were many obstacles to being in the military in the Republican period which were slowly eroded towards the end of the Republican period through Sulla's reforms etc so you can't draw a comparison there because it was only really the Imperial period which enjoyed no restrictions. The only major thing that Augustus did was to cut the legions from 36 to 32 I think, but there weren't the same obstacles that there were in the Republican period so it's not a fair comparison.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by toronto353)
Again not a fair comparison. There were many obstacles to being in the military in the Republican period which were slowly eroded towards the end of the Republican period through Sulla's reforms etc so you can't draw a comparison there because it was only really the Imperial period which enjoyed no restrictions. The only major thing that Augustus did was to cut the legions from 36 to 32 I think, but there weren't the same obstacles that there were in the Republican period so it's not a fair comparison.

I suppose, Rome was a bad example in hindsight

What's the actual date for the referendum now? Isn't it the week before the Jubilee or something, would kinda wreck the party if the republicans win

[toronto353]

(Original post by Moleman1996)
I suppose, Rome was a bad example in hindsight

What's the actual date for the referendum now? Isn't it the week before the Jubilee or something, would kinda wreck the party if the republicans win

25th May and hopefully we don't need to worry about that eventuality.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by toronto353)
25th May and hopefully we don't need to worry about that eventuality.

fingers crossed Monarchy's come out well in polls from TSR users recently though, so that could be a good sign

[Rakas21]

I love how the monarchists need to use 2000 year old examples to validate their claims, says it all really - Just jesting.

Who is leading the campaigns, whether i lead or not i shall be a prominent member of the campaign.

[Birchington]

Are we having elections to appoint the leaders of each campaign? I'm happy to lead the republican campaign.

[Moleman1996]

(Original post by Rakas21)
I love how the monarchists need to use 2000 year old examples to validate their claims, says it all really - Just jesting.

Who is leading the campaigns, whether i lead or not i shall be a prominent member of the campaign.

ha ha, I did move on to Italian city states, only 600 year there...

And there are of course examples of just 200 years ago, but im trying to avoid bringing up the British Empire because Internetguru will be on it like a hawk