More handpicked essays just for you.
Julius caesar effects on society back then
Julius Caesar impact on roman history
Essay on julius caesar's impact
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
This essay is intended to exonerate Gaius Julius Caesar from the sole responsibility of causing the collapse of the Roman Republic. This essay will explore the compounded actions of notable figures including Tiberus Gracchus, Gaius Gracchus, Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Augustus Caesar. By exploring both the actions of, and the means by which the prominent actors of this time period influenced it, this essay will illustrate how the destruction of the Republic was a gradual process encompassing the faults of generations, not only those of a single man. Tiberius Gracchus, elected Tribune of the Plebians (tribunus plebis) in 133 BC, was the first to successfully challenge the senate causing Roman politics to split into two camps: Populares …show more content…
The Optimates, the dominant party, supported the oligarghy often to the detriment of the general populace. Tiberius Gracchus ' objectives were unexceptional agrarian reform bills (Lex Sempronia Agrigaria) which were designed to redistribute land to accommodate the landless. His methods however, were remarkable. 1 Gracchus used his position as Tribune to circumvent the senate and present his bill directly to the concilium plebis, illegally overriding the veto of a senate influenced Tribune, Marcus Octavius, and finally have his reform enacted. After seeking a second term as Tribune Tiberus Gracchus was publicly murdered by a group of senators.*Following in his brother 's footsteps Gaius Gracchus was elected tribune for the years 123 and 122 BC. Gaius Gracchus ' first actions were to devise laws limiting the power of the senate, focusing on trial procedure, capital punishment, exile and diversifying juries to include equites. The inclusion of equites is of importance primarily because it allowed the equestrian class more influence in Roman politics, a fact which likely aided Gaius Marius in his rise to power. He then expanded upon his brother 's land bills demanding increased allotments so as to increase the number of employed citizens. …show more content…
Sulla served as quaestor under Marius and was credited with bringing a non-violent end to the Jugerthine war, thereby inspiring the animosity of Marius. After this Sulla was served as Military Tribune under Marius during the Cimbrian war before being transferred to serve in Catulus ' army in the position of legatus. Afterwards Sulla served in a variety of political offices both within and without Rome itself as well as holding commands in various wars. In 88 BC he was chosen over Marius to command the Roman Army in the first Mithridatic War. This command was bestowed upon Sulla both because of the Senate 's fear of Marius as well as his recent superiority as commander. The senate 's decision was not to stand unopposed. After various political crises Marius, through the hands of the tribune Publius Sulpicius Rufus usurped Sulla 's position of Commander. This led to the first march on Rome, an event entirely unprecedented. Sulla upon hearing of Marius replacing him as commander marched six legions across the pomoerium or city limits of Rome. This action would never have been possible without the earlier Marian reforms, as legionaries before the reforms would have been loyal to the state, not their commander. Sulla justified his attack on Rome by claiming that the senate had abandoned the mos maiorum, Rome 's equivalent of a constitution by
In final analysis, Sulla’s actions as a politician and a military leader, while occasionally bringing him prestige - dignatas, were major factors leading to the subsequent weakening of the Republic. Sulla was an odd mixture of cynicism and superstition, public sobriety and private indulgence. His reforms achieved very little besides adding to the sum of human misery. He brought an unprecedented ruthlessness to Roman life; and, though it may be conceded that his political intentions were good, his contemptible methods , notably marching his own Roman army upon the capital, contributed more than those of any other man to the debasement of the Republican constitution, he avowedly restored.
How was it possible that under the dictatorship and after the deification of Julius Caesar the Roman republic fell, when it had been structurally sound for four centuries before? When the republic was established around the end of the 6th century B.C.E., the Romans made clear that they wished to avoid all semblance of the monarchy that had ruled for two centuries before. (T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995; p. 215) The rule of the Republic was to be split into powers of the senate and consuls, a system that worked for over four centuries. The republic would face problems with the rise of the first triumvirate in 60 B.C.E., involving Julius Caesar, Crassus and Pompey. The triumvirate gained power that was intended to be in the hands of the senate and Roman assembly. This paved way to a situation in which a single man could sweep up the political power that previously belonged to the entire senate. Julius Caesar would use this tactic, following his campaigns of Gaul and Britton, to take sole dictatorship over Rome. While there were previous cases which individuals had been appointed as dictator, usually by the senate to serve for six months in a time of war, Caesar was appointed dictator three separate times.. After declining his first dictatorship, Caesar was awarded two more reigns as dictator for one and ten years, respectively. At this point Caesar was praised by the Roman people for his various military victories and had been awarded several awards and honors by the senate. Having conquered much of the surrounding territories, spanning from northern Africa to Greece, and enacting several reforms, Caesar was in the pro...
Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) was one of the most outstanding leaders in history. He was the first ruler of the Romano-Hellenic civilization and achieved his goals with great success throughout his life of 56 years. He was assassinated by the conspirators, who accused him of practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were. The conspirators were wrong to kill Julius Caesar because he contributed to the upturn and reformation of Rome into an orderly state.
Originally, it is thought, there was a law that prevented second consulships, and another that prevented holding another consulship until ten years had passed from the end of the prior. Marius bypassed both of these rules, maintaining the title of consul for five terms (104-99BC). Plutarch, the historical biographer, writes that “the people would tolerate no opposition” [to Marius’s second consulship], which shows us that Marius gained his power through support of the masses rather than support of the senate, which is what would be expected. Plutarch gives more evidence that Marius won his power by gaining the affection of the military and the plebeians, rather than the aristocracy whom he offended with his “violent speeches, full of contempt and arrogance” . From this we learn that Marius was not only supported by the people, but he was opposed by the higher class, and more important figures in Roman society.. The picture that Plutarch paints gives the impression that Marius gained his consulship in ways that were unconventional, much like the nature of the consulship itself. Breaking the mold like this paved the way for more fortunate ambitious men, like Sulla and Caesar, as he was showing that great power could be achieved without necessarily adhering to the preference of the
Philosopher A: In the Republic, the Senate was the primary branch of the Roman government and held the majority of the political power. It controlled funds, administration and foreign policy, and had significant influence of the everyday life of the Roman people. When Augustus came to power, he kept the Senate and they retained their legal position. The Emperor’s rule was legitimized by the senate as he needed the senators experience to serve as administrators, diplomats and generals. Although technically the most authoritative individual in Rome, Augustus strived to embody Republican values. He wanted to relate and connect to all parts of society including Plebeians. Through generosity and less extravagance, Augustus achieved a connection with the common people.
1. In my nineteenth year, on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army with which I set free the state, which was oppressed by the domination of a faction. For that reason, the senate enrolled me in its order by laudatory resolutions, when Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius were consuls (43 B.C.E.), assigning me the place of a consul in the giving of opinions, and gave me the imperium. With me as propraetor, it ordered me, together with the consuls, to take care lest any detriment befall the state. But the people made me consul in the same year, when the consuls each perished in battle, and they made me a triumvir for the settling of the state.
Upon expansion of the Roman Empire, lie trials and tribulations for the government to rule the foreign lands and keep the population in check. The Gracchi brothers grew up during a time when the Roman Empire was still under civil unrest. The Roman people were divided, lands were unevenly distributed, the government was disorderly, patriotism ceased to exist, and slave labor made it harder for citizens to uproot themselves from poverty. Tiberius, the elder brother, was the first to bring up the agrarian laws, and was followed after his death by his younger brother, Gaius Gracchus. The brothers knew of the significance of winning the side of the commoners to assert their power over the empire. By ways of the agrarian laws, and other reforms, the two brothers were able to win control of the masses, leaving the senate to fear what could happen if these two rise in power. According to Gaius Gracchus, “in a certain pamphlet, has written that as Tiberius was passing through Tuscany on his way to Numantia, and observed the dearth of inhabitants in the country, and that those who tilled its soil or tended its flocks there were imported barbarian slaves, he then first conceived the public policy which was the cause of countless ills to the two brothers.” (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 8.7)
Julius Caesar is well-known for being the Roman general and statesman who turned the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire (Biography.com Editors). The Civil War in Rome was essentially inevitable. During the years 49-45B.C the Civil War began for a variety of reasons. Some issues that lead to the Civil War were government issues, crossing the Rubicon and the power of the Roman citizens. Throughout my essay I will explain in detail the reasons why the Roman Civil War was no longer an option and why it had to happen.
With the problems starting with the dissolution of the first triumvirate and the actions of Julius Caesar, it seemed almost inevitable that the Republic would become an Empire. With the death of the true republican, Cicero, and many not remembering what the republic was like, giving power to the capable and honorable man seemed as if the best answer. Furthermore, if the Rome continue to remain a Republic the Senate could not have maintained the success or power that the Empire held. The ambition of one man made it easy to continue the growth whereas, many of the policies and disputes the country faced had face might have taken to long or complicated had the republic
Those elected to leadership were admitted in the Senate where public affairs were discussed. Power divisions during the time were complicated and no single person was entitled to too much power. Tribunes, which comprised of ten men, were put into place in order to monitor the Senate and ensure that the interests of the people were protected. However, this system began to fall apart since certain individuals wanted to have more power than others. Such persons started to compete for that power, and use it to exploit Rome’s politics. Subsequently, competition for power led to civil wars that paved the way to the growth of a one-man leadership. Gradually, dictatorship replaced republic government, and when Augustus rose to power, he became the sole and undisputed leader of Rome.
In 509 B.C. the Romans declared themselves a republic, free from rule of the Etruscan kings. (“The Rise of…”) From that point on, the Roman’s form of government would never include the title of “king”, in fear that a single person would gain absolute power. The republic included a dictator (in emergencies), the senate, two consuls, and several other positions. (Bishop) Although the goal of creating a republic was to have a government that represented the wishes of its people, the Roman senate consisted of men of wealth or power, leaving most of the plebeians, or common people, out of the picture. Many of the emperors’ policies strengthened the power of the government, and therefore weakened the power of the plebeians. By the end of Sulla’s rule in 78 B.C., grain prices had risen substantially and there was large gap between the rich and poor. (“The Rise of…”) When Julius Caesar took power, he initiated several reforms that were much needed at the time. Caesar spent large volumes of money on entertaining the citizens, while expanding citizenship to people of conquered lands and lessening the power of the senate. His policies threatened the method of income of senators and around 60 senators, in the name of saving the republic, murdered Julius Caesar at a senate hearing in 44 B.C. Civil war then erupted in Rome and lasted over a decade. At the end of the blood brawl, it was Octavian who emerged victorious; he would be the first Roman Emperor and would be known as Augustus. (Morey) Although the “Liberators” (Julius Caesar’s assassins), might not have realized it, the day that Julius Caesar died was the same day that the republic died; t...
“He is said to have been tall of stature… except that towards the end.” What was it that really led to the fall of the Roman Republic? There are a lot of different factors to consider when trying to determine what caused the collapse. By examining The Rubicon, The Life of Julius Caesar, and some accompanying handouts from class, this paper will discuss how the Roman Republic did not collapse because of one factor. The collapse of the Roman Republic was like that of a game of Jenga. Factors were pulled out of the Republican system just like a game of Jenga until the Republic could not stand anymore.
Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans believed in the well being and wealth of Rome, and if that meant the total destruction of a potential adversary, then as history will show that is unfortunately to the detriment of the adversary what happened.
After marching to Rome, Sulla became dictator in 82 BC. After Sulla, the First Triumvirate: Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar, owned virtually all power in Rome, yet each had his own desire to defeat the other two and become Emperor. When Crassus died in battle, Caesar had his chance. He defeated Pompey and marched to Rome, victorious. After declaring himself Dictator for Life, Caesar was assassinated, and another Civil War ensued.... ...
In Cicero, Everitt narrates in the first chapter the political background that Cicero will inherit; in SPQR, Beard’s narration fills in what happens before Everitt takes over by focusing on Cicero. Everitt describes a political system that had become Byzantine in how it operated without even a large bureaucracy. The intersection of power among the senate, consuls, other officials, and the people had led to a “self-defeating political system” (20). Further, various reform proposals that dealt with land and the new peoples that the Republic was now ‘governing’ were being stalled and defeated. Everitt describes how with the professionalism of the Roman army, retired veterans needed land and no solution was easily forthcoming. With reforms stalled, many tribes went into revolt in Italy; the situation was resolved after much bloodshed and the granting of new political rights.