Rome had begun expanding shortly after the founding of the Republic in the 6th c

entury BC, though it didn't expand outside Italy until the 3rd century BC. In a
sense then, it was an "empire" long before it had an Emperor.[9] The Roman Repub
lic was not a nation-state in the modern sense, but a network of towns left to r
ule themselves (though with varying degrees of independence from the Roman Senat
e) and provinces administered by military commanders. It was ruled, not by Emper
ors, but by annually elected magistrates (Roman Consuls above all) in conjunctio
n with the Senate.[10] For various reasons, the 1st century BC was a time of pol
itical and military upheaval, which ultimately led to rule by Emperors.[11] The
consuls' military power rested in the Roman legal concept of imperium, which lit
erally means "command" (though typically in a military sense).[12] Occasionally,
successful consuls were given the honorary title Imperator (commander), and thi
s is the origin of the word "Emperor" (and "Empire") since this title (among oth
ers) was always bestowed to the early Emperors upon their accession.[13]
The Augustus of Prima Porta
(early 1st century AD)
Rome suffered a long series of internal conflicts, conspiracies and civil wars f
rom the late second century BC onwards, while greatly extending its power beyond
Italy. Towards the end of this period, in 44 BC, Julius Caesar was briefly perp
etual dictator before being assassinated. The faction of his assassins was drive
n from Rome and defeated at the Battle of Phillipi in 42 BC by an army led by Ma
rk Antony and Caesar's adopted son Octavian. Antony and Octavian's division of t
he Roman world between themselves did not last and Octavian's forces defeated th
ose of Antony and Cleopatra at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC. In 27 BC the Senat
e and People of Rome made Octavian princeps ("first citizen") with proconsular i
mperium, thus beginning the Principate (the first epoch of Roman imperial histor
y, usually dated from 27 BC to AD 284), and gave him the name Augustus ("the ven
erated"). Though the old constitutional machinery remained in place, Augustus ca
me to predominate it. Although the Republic stood in name, contemporaries of Aug
ustus knew it was just a veil and that Augustus had all meaningful authority in
Rome.[14] Since his rule ended a century of civil wars, and began an unprecedent
ed period of peace and prosperity, he was so loved that he came to hold the powe
r of a monarch de facto if not de jure. During the years of his rule, a new cons
titutional order emerged (in part organically and in part by design), so that, u
pon his death, this new constitutional order operated as before when Tiberius wa
s accepted as the new Emperor. The 200 years that began with Augustus' rule is t
raditionally regarded as the Pax Romana ("Roman Peace"). During this period, the
cohesion of the Empire was furthered by a degree of social stability and econom
ic prosperity that Rome had never before experienced. Uprisings in the provinces
were infrequent, but put down "mercilessly and swiftly" when they occurred.[15]
The sixty years of Jewish Roman wars in the second half of the first century and
the first half of the 2nd century were exceptional in their duration and violenc
e.[16]
The success of Augustus in establishing principles of dynastic succession was li
mited by his outliving a number of talented potential heirs: the Julio-Claudian
dynasty lasted for four more emperors
Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero
befo
re it yielded in 69 AD to the strife-torn Year of Four Emperors, from which Vesp
asian emerged as victor. Vespasian became the founder of the brief Flavian dynas
ty, to be followed by the Nerva Antonine dynasty which produced the "Five Good Emp
erors": Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and the philosophically inclined
Marcus Aurelius. In the view of the Greek historian Dio Cassius, a contemporary
observer, the accession of the emperor Commodus in 180 AD marked the descent "fr
om a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron"[17] a famous comment which has led s
ome historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus' reign as the beginning
of the decline of the Roman Empire.