Was Rome better off as an 'empire' than as a republic?

When Rome was a Republic there was a fairer system of government. The votes of the rich counted for more than the poor. The poor also had a large amount of power under the republic. The poor only had one seat in the Senate but they were given the power to veto. During this period the empire expanded and trade as well as wealth grew. The wealthy could purchase land and serve in the Roman military. During this period Rome was better off because the poor had more power and the government was kept in check through a system of checks and balances.

When Rome was an empire it was not better off. Rome was ruled by an emperor. This emperor had complete control over all the people of the roman empire. The poor had even less rights then before. The senate had much less power then under the Republic. Even though the government was weaker, the empire continued to expand and gain wealth. The empire was not better off in this period because the common people didn't have as many rights and one ruler controlled the entire empire.

Source:

Conversion of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire. Web. 9 Mar. 2010.http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/cot/t2w4rometoempire.htm.

Picture source:

The Growth of Roman Power in Italy.jpg. Web. 9 Mar. 2010.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Growth_of_Roman_Power_in_Italy.jpg.