Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ancient rome political methods
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ancient rome political methods
Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix, born in 138B.C. to a minor branch of the Cornelian gens, has been heralded as a fortuitous and cunning man, a formidable commander, and yet an unfit politician with perplexing motives. Sulla’s early campaigning allowed him to rise to great military distinction, and earned him the later invaluable respect of his fellow soldiers. Nevertheless, his career illustrated the demoralisation of the Republic and contributed to its ultimate degeneration. The reformative measures he took in his last years of power - which were intended to preserve the Republican institution, were homicidal and ephemeral; they were altogether ineffectual compared to the example of Sulla’s own career. Sulla chose for his own epitaph, ‘no one ever did more good to his friends, nor more harm to his enemies’ (Southern Utah University, p.6). No words speak so succinctly of his political ideology as these. Sulla’s earlier career had not been that of an orthodox Optimate. Though he belonged to an old patrician family, it had long slid into obscurity and poverty. Plutarch suggests that a legacy from his step-mother and another from a mistress helped him, somewhat late, to a public career (Plutarch, p. 327). Plutarch was a Greek historian who wrote more than a century after Sulla’s death. Some of his pieces are polemical, that is, his writings possibly arise from scurrilous tracts, written by political adversaries of his subjects. As Marius’ quaestor, he had captured Jugurtha and won the loyalty of his fellow soldiers, sparking a later brutal animosity between the pair. This talent for winning the loyalty of soldiers never deserted Sulla, and that fact would have terrible consequences for Rome (Williams, p.139). From 104 to 101B.C, Sul... ... middle of paper ... ...of men through the Cursus Honorum –the threat from which his own career had so nakedly demonstrated – were clearly inadequate against men of determined ambition (Massie, p. 176). 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.
Plutarch presented history through biographical stories of the people that were important and influential during the time period he wished to address. However, after having read some of his work, one realizes that Plutarch inserts his own personal opinion and views of the people at hand into the factual documentation of their lives. For example, in The Life of Crassus, Plutarch expresses a general dislike and negative view of the man, but in The Life of Caesar he portrays the life through a lens of praise. It also seems that he uses his opinions of the people that he writes about to subtly extend moral lessons to the reader. What follows is a further isolation of Plutarch's opinions and lessons from within The Lives of Crassus and Caesar.
It was during Sulla’s service under Marius’s command in the military, that many of Sulla’s character traits were cultivated that contributed to the way he ruled. His character traits are listed in three main accounts by authors A.J. Koutsoukis, Erik Hildinger, who are both current impartial historical non-fiction writers, and Plutarch. Plutarch was a Greek historian, biographer and essayist, who is most famous for his work Parallel Lives, where he focuses on all of the contributing rulers of the Roman Republic. Plutarch is very even handed and focuses on the influence of character and moral lessons that can be learned from these emperors, good or bad.... ... middle of paper ...
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 for practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were.
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.
Both the histories of Sallust and the orations of Cicero can be considered literary works, to a degree. The War With Catiline, by Sallust and The First Speech Against Lucius Sergius Catilina, by Cicero, both contain excellent examples of writings from the age of the great Roman Empire. Although both are fantastic pieces depicting a time of tragedy, the Catiline Conspiracy against Rome, and they both think Catiline as evil, the two are also different.
4)Rosenstein, Nathan Stewart., and Robert Morstein-Marx. A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. Print.
Dionysius I of Syracuse garnered a reputation as a warmongering tyrant who harmed his people with his oppressive regime. However many surviving sources that explore his rule were written by people who were ideologically opposed to perceived tyrants. It is therefore quite possible that aspects of Dionysius rule where left out or exaggerated to suit the author`s anti-tyrannical agenda. It is the intention of this paper to argue that Dionysius rule did in fact benefit Syracuse more than he harmed it during his lifetime. His domestic and foreign affairs will be explored in order to show how he in fact benefitted the Syracusan state as well as the majority of its people. It will however also be argued that his legacy did harm the Syracusan state but that overall Dionysius rule was beneficial in his lifetime.
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
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
Lucius Sulla was born from an unknown family which has a position on government in 138 BC. His ancestors and family had a long line of history behind them since the establishment of the civilizations and he was very proud of this. His family was also well-established in the political arena and they were known for the luxurious tradition which he personally loved as he grew up. Despite their noble status, they could not move up the political ladder for some reason. His family was also not well known. As he grew up, he was already aspiring to make his way to the top and become a Senior Senator and become the most powerful man in his generation. This dream has been continued since he started becoming warrior under Gaius Marius. He began his conquest around the continent under Marius and fought in the Social War in 90 BC. At first no one believed of his capacity ...
Of course, aside from his contemporaries and generals who questioned his reasons for marching into Rome, there were others who also questioned why Sulla decided to go to Rome. The senate, some members of the army and even some of the citizens of Rome stated that his march was unjustified and uncalled for despite Sulla’s attempts to help the Senate. Sulla violated one of the rules of the city that no armed troops are allowed in the city unless he triumphed in a siege or war. He has also violated the city boundary, also known as the pomerium, which is an act that is graver than the acts done by both Sulpicius and Marius. Some believe that Sulla only had the support of the army because they were the first professional armies that have been created to be loyal to their general and not to the country, but considering the number of generals who left him raises some questions. Sulla’s army was that of his own work and creation, which he has tested upon the Social War. They were also picked through their loyalty and relationship. Sulla also handpicked his officers based on their loyalty to him and not to the constitution . The Senate is also angry with Sulla because of his actions but they could not complain due to the amount of power and support they are getting from him. They wanted to reprimand him because he did not respect the power of the Senate and the beliefs they have been pushing for since time in memorial. He has also turned away all the ambassadors sent by the Senate to make him stop the march. He has also murdered a tribune from the heart of the nobility or the nobilitas who ignored summons. They also believed that Sulla was a double-edged blade as he was defending the cause of the nobles and not of the people. The citizens o...
This new Republican government, which was administered by the consuls, was not the easiest to transform. Because of the expansion in Italy, the government began to initiate political institutions. These institutions enforced laws and provided authority which were very similar to imperium. “The Romans had a clear concept of executive authority, embodied in their word imperium, or “the right to command” (Spielvogel 117). Since the Romans were very sensible in their actions, they made and implemented them only as needed. The most essential positions held were the few elected magistrates and the two consuls who were “chosen annually, administered the government and led the Roman army into battle” (Spielvogel 117). If the consul was otherwise occupied, either a dictator or praetor would assume responsibility for the time being.
Saylor used many facts and details to enrich the book and give the story a more historical feeling. It is mentioned in the Author’s Note, that all the sources for Sulla’s life come from Plutarch’s biography and Sallust’s Bellum lugurthium. Biographies
The Roman Republic ultimately failed due to the lack of large-scale wars and other crises that had united the Roman populous early in the history of the Roman Republic. Roman leadership and honor became compromised. In the absence of war and crisis, Rome’s leaders failed to develop the honor and leadership necessary to maintain the Republic.
"Plutarch, The Spartacus Slave War" In Spartacus And Slave Wars, ed. Brent D. Shaw (Boston: Bedford/ St. Martin's, 2001) 131-138