Could Rome have had its golden age, Pax Romana etc while remaining

Would have held together if it didn't become corrupted.

>>1453000
Sure, but it would have required a complete overhaul of the administration and political system anyway. The historical model just could not deal with the weight of imperial administration.
How are you gonna bring about such momentuous changes anyway? Hint: you're not. Hence the empire.

Short answer is no.
And anyways, monarchy was better and where Rome achieved all it greatness. Sadly bad Emperors had lot of weight to the end of Rome.

It wasn't Lenin or Mao who were hungry, but the hundreds of thousands of peasants whom they indoctrinated. In Western societies there simply no longer exist enough hungry men to launch a revolution and, as long as democracy is functioning properly, there never will be. For this is indeed the hidden biological purpose of democracy: to keep the machine running, even on auto-pilot, when there no longer exists any individual or group of individuals capable of taking control. The auto-pilot is always less trustworthy than a good pilot — especially in rough times — but in the latter's absence it is preferable to the complete disintegration of the machine (anarchism).

>>1453000
The republic was ill-suited to rule and empire. It needed to become more centralized to survive. Interests however prevented its reform until Augustus BTFO everyone else. Unfortunately that became the empire.If it wasn't him some other strongman would have done it.

>>1453106
>The auto-pilot is less trusworthy than a good pilot- especially in rough times

Isn't that why the concept of emergency martial law exists. Or were you thinking about less severe things when you said 'rough times'?

It wouldn't have lasted as a republic, to many ambitious people with to much power and not enough sense or well being for subjects outside of Italia and even then they couldn't peacefully give their latin allies citizenship. There would have just been more problems as the republic carried on

The short answer is I dont know.
But those who give a resounding no should remember that the empire had its most explosive expansions while it was still a republic.

>>1453048
The main advantage of the imperial system was that they had one master rather than a thousand.

Mind you this was good for the provinces, who had little to no say which faction of senators got to rule over them and tax them to the bone

>>1453000
> Pax Romana

This shit killed the Roman Empire.

>>1457226
How so?

>>1457247
The reason Rome fell was because its entire economy was based on taking slaves and wealth from new conquests. The limits of technology (transportation, food preservation, communication, logistics, bureaucracy etc) in Roman times meant that Rome simply could not expand any further past roughly what they had under Trajan/Hadrian. They maybe could have expanded a little more on their eastern border but the roughly equally powerful Persian empires had already called dibs. Barbarians or not Rome's economic model had simply reached a point where it could no longer sustain itself

>>1453000
>Would Rome have been less likely to fall if it had remained a republic?

If it weren't for Augustus coming along when he did the domains of the Republic would have desintegrated as quickly as Alexander's Empire.