The great Latin historian Tacitus opens his Annals with a deft summary of the evolution of the Roman state, beginning with the words 'The city of Rome was, from the start, ruled by kings'. As his words suggest, Roman periodicization of Roman history was based on forms of government, basically: immediately after Rome's foundation (traditionally, in 753 BC, rule by kings (the 'regal' period); next (traditionally, from 509 BC) rule by a Republic (aristocratic, not democratic, but nonetheless obedient to regularly elected officials: 'magistrates'); and finally (from 27 BC) rule by emperors (principes).' Modem historians follow suit, and subdivide both Republican and imperial history into 'early', 'middle' and 'late' periods, thus referring to the 'Early' Republic, the 'High' Republic and the 'Late' Republic, and to the 'Early', 'High' and 'Late' Empire. The distinction between 'Republic' and 'Empire' can be a Role confining to newcomers, because Rome's empire was for the most pan a Republican creation. However, it works well enough, and is here to stay. A further complication is that there is lively debate as to the specific dates of some of these periods: when did the Early Republic end, or the Late Empire begin?
(source: Introduction. John Drinkwater. in: A Chronology of the Roman Empire. 2001. Timothy Venning; https://zenon.dainst.org/Record/000879128)
This website uses cookies to ensure the best possible experience. By continuing to use this website you are giving consent to cookies being used. For further information on cookies visit our Privacy Policy.