What gov't best represents the Roman Empire?

[Vitmore The Great]

I was thinking, if the Roman Empire existed in Civ II (as it does in scenarios) what gov't would best represent historical Rome? Under a despotic gov't, your title is Emperor, yet Rome was more than the typical despotic nation. In the game, a Republic is the better gov't with greater financial and scientific yields, yet in real life the Roman Empire went on to become more wealthy and powerful than the Republic. If I am playing a scenario as King of the Roman Empire, I feel uncomfortable because I know Rome hadn't been a Monarchy in a thousand year of the scenario's time. What is your opinion?


I believe Fundamentalism would be the best gov't for the Roman Empire because the Emperor was thought to be divine, and gained the loyalty of the people via "bread and circuses". The empire's armies swelled during this time and the empire was getting richer. The cutting of the science rate can be an interpretation of the decline of their civilization, as it becaomes more concerned with wealth and pleasure than innovation (unlike the Greeks, the true innovators).


Vitmore
[This message has been edited by Vitmore The Great (edited July 18, 2000).]

[Prometeus]

I suggest monarchy, Vic.

------------------
Ave atque vale...

[Hasdrubal]

Monarchy first, then Republic, Communism starting with Augustus, Fundamentalism starting with Constantine.

Monarchy clearly is best suited to the monarchical state of real Rome.
Republic fits a little less well for the period leading up to the rise of Caesar and Augustus, but still seems the best choice.
Communism might be the best representation of the Roman Empire at its peak: heavily centralized, emphasised on the military, a mock senate, where only in name the power rested with the people, and a virtual halt to scientific progress.
Fundamentalism after Christianity became the official religion. Read Gibbon's 'the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' on how Christianity ultimately let to the fall of Rome...

------------------
Hasdrubal's Home.
Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

Provided I understood your problem right, you could customize the title prefixes when you start the game by choosing "Custom" when the game asks if you want to play as a male or a female leader.

So you could still play under Fundamentalism or Republic and have your title displayed as Emperor.

After the fall of the Republic, Rome moved quickly through despotism during the civil wars to Monarchy under Augustus. The term "Emperor" was in fact made up by Augustus to allow him to rule without upsetting Roman sensitivities about having a king, which they equated with tyranny. So the justification for Augustus to rule singlehandedly and not restore the republic was the need for someone to to run the empire, hence "emperor". He said he was just "primus inter pares", first among equals, but in reality he was a king by any other name. Following Augustus, dynastic succession was common, at least within the ruling family.

[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited July 19, 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Alexander's Horse (edited July 19, 2000).]

[cavebear]

As a Poitical Science major (degreed), I've read many papers about the various states of th government and the titles that applied. Many of those governments and titles don't really apply to our current definitions and understandings.

As others have pointed out, Rome went through several different governmental forms. However, I think that, for the most commonly understood view of Rome, want you want is a Republic with a Dictator, i.e., a popularly-supported strong-man, backed by the army and the general populace.

In game conditions, perhaps you would want to set your Republic leader's title to "Dictator".



------------------
Proud participant in GameLeague...

Proud Warrior of the O.W.L. Alliance...

[Sieve Too]

I'd say Despotism first and then Republic. With Augustus, Rome becomes a Monarchy since the Senate was quieted. Sometime after the Caesers, Rome turns back to Despotism with high corruption and not enough resources to keep the empire solvent. Too many Temples and Coloseums and not enough gold to pay for it. Christianity plus an increased population adds the additional cost burden of Cathedrals. Legions everywhere for martial law, but not enough for further conquest.

I'd avoid any of the modern gov'ts since they eliminate the corruption problems that were rampant in Rome. Fundamentalism especially provides too many finacial rewards and doesn't deal with the revolts in the provinces.

But that just my $0.02...

[Az]

well that's the civ million dollar question ,actually . because ,well , they had a freedom of speach to a certain extent but their trade didn't skyrocket ( I mean during the republic ) .then during the Impire it was an autocratic rule but just during that time the Romans had the so famous ( especially in the civ3 forums ) Pax romana.
trade boomed , science flourished .

can this be explained by the fact that virtually every commodity a man of the period needed could be obtained inside the boudaries of the empire . what happened later could be discribed as the CTP phenomenon , so (in)famous :
govmnt. form that doesn't match the number of cities creates unhappiness .

this could lead to riots that could lead to virtually no production that lead to more riots that led to the falling apart of the empire . I actually had one of thesre just today in CIV .I was the first civ.
I was fighting a war against 5 civs . all was going well until I had no choise but to build emancipation . I had too many cities for that time already . the aditional free citizens were the straw that broke the camel's back as they say . half of my big cities transfered to a different civ .
a turn later the other part ( including my capital ) went barbaric . I had no way to stop it because during my last wave of imrovements and because of the last war events' rush buys I had no cash to raise the wages .

here you go . raise and fall of empires with no special thingees in CTP .


------------------
Prepare to Land !

And what would be later, in byzantine times?

And about earlier opinions; using Fundamentalism for Roman Empire after Constantine, just because there was official religion, isn't a very good idea not only because of the financial reason presented earlier. If we use this definition of fundamentalism, we would never, or hardly
ever, use monarchy goverment. Medieval (and not only) european (and not only) countries countries had official religion, too, and were mostly less tolerantial than Empire.
Also, fundamentalism means easier conquest, right? Tell me, what Romans have conquered after Constantine? Have they got stronger, or rather- as one of You have stated, weaker?
And keep in mind that whatever we may say about christian ideology in life, there was something left of early christian idealism, even many centuries ago. War maybe was treated as something unevitable, but wasn't, up to Heraclius' times, anything
nobilitating.