Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Historical Julius Caesar leadership
Julius caesar impact on roman society
Julius Caesar: The People's Dictator
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Historical Julius Caesar leadership
Julius Caesar: Dictator Misunderstood “I love the name of honor more than I fear death” (“Gaius”, Illustrated). I said this because I believe that it is important to do something honorable even if you have to die. It is considered honorable to die bravely in war instead of running away like a coward. This related to my purpose because it shows how courageous I was and how I was willing to die for my republic in war, making me a honorable leader in Rome’s history. I believe I was the greatest ruler of Rome in history because I ran my government to succeed. I feel no one is worthy of any power except myself, the best ruler of Rome, and this was only achievable with my political relationships, military experience, and government tactics. …show more content…
Between 58 and 50 BC, I conquered the rest of Gaul, up to the river Rhine. As I expanded my reach, I also showed my ruthlessness with my enemies. In one instance, I waited until my opponents ' water supply had gone dry, and then ordered the hands of all the remaining survivors be cut off(“Julius”). “veni, vidi, vici” (“Gaius”, Illustrated). I said this famous quote meaning “I came, I saw, I conquered” in Latin. This was a powerful quote because it shows my focus and determination to succeed in what I set to do and conquer all things I put my mind to. In Spain, I defeated the warring rival tribes, brought stability to the region, and won the personal allegiance of my troops through my skill on the battlefield. I was awarded a consulship by the senate(Mark). I later left Rome with my legions and went to Gaul in 58 BC. I defeated the tribes there just as I had done in Spain and secured the borders of the provinces. When the Germanic tribes seemed threatening to invade, I built a bridge over the Rhine River, marching my legions across in a show of force, and then marched them back and had the bridge dismantled. The Germans understood the message and never invaded(Mark). Jumping forward to 44 BC, in Rome, dissatisfaction was growing among the senatorial aristocrats over the increasingly permanent nature of my rule. A conspiracy …show more content…
I was born on July 13, 100 B.C. My father had been only a moderate political success, attaining the praetorship but not the consulship. My mother came from plebeian stock and my family could claim a long, if not overly distinguished, history. It was a patrician family on my father 's side and, therefore, one of the founders of Rome and was entitled to certain traditional privileges and offices. I received the classic, rhetorically grounded education of a young Roman at Rome and in Rhodes. I was considered one of the most cultured and literate of Romans by such an expert as Cicero himself. “I followed the traditional Roman practice of conducting some prosecutions in order to gain political attention”(“Gaius” Encyclopedia). “Experience is the teacher of all things”(Mark). I said this because I believe that in order to have the greatest success possible, one needs to be educated well in that subject, and one has to have already had some sort of experience so they know what it is like and can improve the next time around. In the following years I emerged as one of the leading political and social personalities of Rome. Cultivated, charming, handsome, and vain about my appearance, I made my love affairs the talk of Roman society. “I recognized the urban proletariat as one of the major sources of political power and cultivated this group assiduously”(“Gaius” Encyclopedia). Even while I conquered
Cicero’s essay, titled On Duties, presents a practical approach concerning the moral obligations of a political man in the form of correspondence with his young son. Essential to the text, the incentive for Cicero to undertake On Duties emerges from his depleted hope to restore the Republic within his lifetime. Cicero therefore places such aspirations in the hands of his posterity. The foremost purpose of On Duties considers three obstacles, divided into separate Books, when deciding a course of action. Book I prefatorily states, “in the first place, men may be uncertain whether the thing that falls under consideration is an honorable or a dishonorable thing to do” (5). Cicero addresses the ambiguities present under this consideration and codifies a means through which one can reach a justifiable decision. Subsequently, he expounds the four essential virtues—wisdom, justice, magnanimity or greatness of spirit, and seemliness—all of which are necessary to conduct oneself honorably. As a result, the virtues intertwine to create an unassailable foundation upon which one can defend their actions. Cicero’s expatiation of the four virtues, though revolving around justice and political in context, illuminates the need for wisdom among the populace in order to discern a leader’s motivations. This subtly becomes apparent as Cicero, advising his son on how to dictate decision-making, issues caveats regarding the deceptions that occur under the guise of virtue.
Gaius Gracchus’s political career began before he received his office as a tribune. He was born to a powerful family under his parents, Tiberius Gracchus major and Cornelia Africana. Tiberius gained fame during his successful suppressions of the rebellions in Hispania as a praetor. Once returning to Rome with a triumph, he adopted to the leadership position of consul in 177 and again in 163. This social background formed many ideas for Gaius at an early age, which he would act upon later. Scipio Africanus, whom defeated Hannibal in the Second Punic War, bore the child to Cornelia Africana. Even though she was of the elite class of families, the Gracchi family was plebian (Boatwright, Gargola, Lenski, and Talbert 2013: 86). These influential bloodlines created a stepping stone for Gaius when he sought out the tribune position. However, if it were not for his brother, Tiberius, his political career and many of h...
His motive was to bring justice to the peoples of Gaul who he claimed had been of threat to Italy. Caesar even claimed that “Rome was a victim of unprovoked aggression” as a result of the Helvetii’s actions. Where he said that Rome was obliged to punish them for their crimes. Caesar’s rhetoric continues to view the Germans as hostiles for crossing the Rhine River into Gaul. Regardless that the area crossing is further north of Italy he viewed them as a threat. As Caesar continued his campaign into Belgae, the people sought to respond to what they had seen as aggression due to Caesar’s occupation of their territories. Caesar justified this as a threat to Rome. Likewise Caesar made similar accusations of hostilities from Britain that they had supported the enemy, yet stated that only traders had travelled between Gaul and Britain. Caesar’s motive to conquer Gaul can be further seen through the responses and reactions of the Gallic people to his advance through the
Augustus cares about his people or that is how he portrays himself in his personal account of his life. He references things such as the money he gives to multiple causes, as well as his service to the people, and the positions they awarded him. He also portrays himself as being a just leader. For example he says “those who assassinated my father I drove into exile, avenging their crime by due process of the law”, he fairly punished them for their crime. Augustus also shows that he is in favor of true justice by saying that he would prefer to let someone live instead of killing them. Augustus’ name was important to him as was his history, and his traditions he mentions refusing offices that
Debates of the cause of the Roman Civil War are numerous. Historian and author Erich S. Gruen, in his book The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, implicates the desire “to maintain dignitas” on the part of both Caesar’s opponents and Caesar himself as one of the primary catalysts to the strife. However, Aulus Hirtius, Caesar’s biographer and comrade, tells a different story. In chapter 8 of Caesar’s biography De Bello Gallico, Hirtius uses biased language to suggest that the events leading up to the Roman Civil War were primarily due to the puerile pride and emotions of Caesar's opponents, and to suggest that Caesar’s side was the more justified one, but neglects to recognize the similar pride of Caesar.
Tiberius Sempronius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus were born into one of Rome’s most politically connected families of their generation. This in turn, benefitted both of their short controversial political careers. Tiberius Gracchus, the eldest of the two, was described by Florus as “a man who easily stood out from others in birth, appearance and eloquence...” (n.d., p. 221) and Velleius identified Tiberius as being the epitome of perfection (p. 55). These sources, created nearly 100 years after the death of Tiberius Gracchi, describe Tiberius to be the ‘perfect’ human-being which could demonstrate a bias accou...
Julius Caesar (July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC) was a Roman general, statesman, Consul, and author of Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. On March 15 44 B.C.E, the Roman dictator Julius Caesar was murdered. There are multiple accounts of this incident, while all accounts came after the death of Caesar, the writing on the incident portray Julius Caesar to have been a selfish dictator.
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
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.
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
...s to make Rome a democracy and through it he faced his sorrows like a god and held a good reputation in society. He made his own enemies look up to him with respect and never gave up his great moral character. He turns nobler through every act and scene. A noble person is someone with moral character, courage, generosity, honor and bravery to do what is right. They are the people who show respect for what is right and face obstacles, challenges and risks and face the consequences and challenges to prove what is right. They are strong, honorable and face their sorrows in silence. They find the truth and reason in everything that happens. They are great people like Martin Luther King, Jr., honorable soldiers and senators like Brutus. Brutus was a man of courage, generosity, honor, bravery and honor. He was the noblest of them all.
1, Lines 9-12). This depiction of the Helvetians as brave and surpassing other Gauls in valor was an attempt at heightening the prestige of his victory. Caesar goes on to change his attitude and perception of the Gauls in a negative manner in an attempt to justify his first battle with the Helvetians. Here he nearly completely eliminated the people of the Helvetian district of Tigurini, which was responsible for the defeat of Lucius Cassius and went as far to say, “Qua in re Caesar non solum publicas, sed etiam privatas iniurias ultus es, quod eius soceri L. Pisonis avum, L. Pisonem legatum, Tigurini eodem proelio, quo Cassium, interfecerant” (p. 15, Lines 13-16). Although this in itself is not an exaggeration of the characteristics of the Helvetians, Caesar’s use of both a positive and negative perceptions of the group is an excellent example of Caesar’s conscious effort to use card stacking to positively influence the notion of his victory in the minds of the Roman Senate and the Roman people as a
After the conclusion of the Gauls sacking Rome, Rome became obsessed with the security of their empire and acutely aware of any and all potential threats. “Following the sack by the Gauls, the Romans were frightened by strong neighbors and sometimes made preemptive strikes against peoples they believed were becoming too powerful” (Kidner, 129). Rome became a walled city that would not let any foreign soldiers through its gates from the conclusion of the sacking in 390 B.C. until 410 A.D., earning it the nickname of the Eternal City. The Roman mantra of Lex Fetiale, which prohibited Rome from going to war unless under siege or asked for assistance, was suddenly much easier to justify than before.
One of the first occasions presented was the plotting of Caesar’s assassination. Cassius, Casca, Trebonius, Ligarius and the other conspirators all wanted to rid Rome of Caesar. However, not one of them could give the green light.” They needed one who held a high place in the hearts of the people, to support them and to justify their actions. They needed an “honorable” man.
The Pax Romana, or Roman Peace, was a time of great prosperity for all people under Rome’s rule. Roman citizens enjoyed the spectacles of the gladiators in the coliseum and the comedies performed at the many theatres. The Romans are attributed with the development of concrete, which enabled them to build large structures such as aqueducts. As Rome grew into the primary world leader, it’s Republican government was falling apart. The Senate was ineffective because it had no control of the vast armies that provided power. Conservative Romans who believed strongly in the Republic would immediately target a strong general who took sole control. Rome was in need of a solitary, powerful leader. Octavian skillfully turned himself into an emperor without suffering the fate of his great-uncle, Caesar. He controlled the army, and managed to please the masses. Once in the position of power, he changed the government not only to benefit himself, but also to benefit the Empire and ultimately the people. This structure was so strong, that it could survive through weak emperors such as Caligula and Nero and major problems like who the next emperor should be. Octavian was so influential that eventually the Romans did not care that they were no longer a Republic. They knew that with Octavian, they could become the greatest empire in...