Which do think was more based the Roman Republic or the Roman empire?

Which do think was more based the Roman Republic or the Roman empire?

Attached: 220px-Fontana_di_Trevi_Rome_04_2016_6768.jpg (220x275, 26K)

Monarchies > Rupubshits.

Kingdom of Venice

Each period depended on the ruling elite. Laws and customs were being changed all the time.

Republic

The Viking pagan conquests of chr*stians.

Attached: 1548960122703.png (720x1280, 502K)

Disgusting post

there is very little difference until 3rd cen

Early Republic > Early Empire > Late Republic > Late Empire

Both based, republic worked fine when it was a city state and not an empire, it only became a problem later

Which ever one had Nero, he was a fun dude

Roman Republic conquered Gaul and North Africa, so it conquered more than Roman Empire I think, but the leaders cowardly killed Julius Ceasar at the end.

the Republic because no government can function well depending on the mental state of a single person.

>but the leaders cowardly killed Julius Ceasar at the end
by then law was dead
If Pompey had won and Ceasar had gone to court, then the Republic would've survived

Empire (post-Constantine)

Dictatorship under the populares.
Cato killing himself best day of my life.

Greece

Greece was just Rome's Hollywood.

Empire because empire sounds cooler than republic

Greece was Rome's Europe

Almost all of the Empire's territories were captured during the Republic except Britain, Dacia and Mesopotamia

*Caesar

You could really just summarize this with anything as founders>inheritors

Attached: declaration_independence.jpg (890x580, 215K)

The Roman republic (of 1849)

The Roman Kingdom

he was so close....

Attached: 5305-Brescia-SGiulia-Ritratto_di_Claudio_II_Gotico_o_Aureliano-scontornata_png.png (220x366, 114K)

based and Mazzinipilled

rome degenerated into shit shortly after the razing of carthage

Attached: 1402902122535.jpg (986x1369, 961K)