Romans placed a lot of value on effective and good leaders and being a good leader constituted a number of things. Throughout Sallust’s speech, he give instances where Catiline made quips of “honor, fortune, and dangers” to impressionable young men who followed him (16.2). This occurrence of Catiline, who has been portrayed overall as greedy by Sallust, starts the display of Catiline acting devious and charismatic in order of to get followers. Sallust provides a speech that Catiline said to his participants where he starts by stating how he knows he can trust them because of their past deeds and actions they have done to prove this to him as well as for his gain. Catiline continues to complement these followers with equating them with him by stating they …show more content…
Aeneas was able to use the same components that Catiline used when he spoke to his conspirators including relating to them, with their history of victory or hardship, and providing a single goal of the group. For Catiline and his men their shared goal was their desire for wealth, while Aeneas and his men to save faith and continue on their journey. Similarly Turnus was able to rally up the opposition against Aeneas and his allies with similar motives and style as Catiline and Aeneas. He starts his speech with: “… peace be damned, ordered his captains to march on Latinus, His battle cry rang out: ‘For Italy! Drive the enemy out! Turnus is here, a match for Teucrians and Latins alike!’” (7.562-566). The following passage is on the Rutulians’ response to Turnus’ speech. These people were brought together and followed him due to Turnus’ good looks, ancestors, and his courage they have seen on the battlefield. This collaboration of men can be contributed to Turnus’ usage of rhetoric, his message of the homeland, and this society’s thoughts on nobility and
In book II of the odyssey Telemachus is about to start his journey to find his father. In lines 49-85 Telemachus is beginning to give his speech during the assembly. In this speech he is trying to get some people to help him on his voyage to find his dad. For the simple fact that everything is falling apart because Telemachus mother has attracted suitors. Also Telemachus knows his family doesn’t know how to defend themselves. Although it may seem as if Telemachus words aren’t registering to the people, they are really taking his words into consideration.
Turnus’s love for Lavinia sways his thinking to be selfish and personal. Aeneas’s passion for the gods and his mission influences his thinking to be future-oriented and impersonal. Similarly, Aeneas’s men do not submit to Fate; personal emotions and gain influence their actions. To fight the Trojans, Coroebus tells the men to put on the Greek armor in order to fight the Greeks from the inside (2.514-523). The belief that the gods are on the Trojan side, his own terror of the Greeks, and his own pride and strength motivate him to convince to act in this manner (2.511-514). These selfish incentives are contrary to what Aeneas tells and shows his men through his own actions and thoughts. Eventually, Coroebus and his men realize that they are “protected by the gods now no longer” and the Greeks attack them (2.525, 546-547). The men’s love for themselves and love for their city influence their submission to fate and Aeneas’s mission. Turnus and Aeneas’s men have a lot in common, mainly in their analysis of the signs granted by the gods. They use the signs for their own personal advantage, while Aeneas sees the signs as holding a special meaning that must be decoded. Aeneas’s devotion conquers his own emotions, so that he can honor the gods and maintain his
Indeed, prudence and cunning can be considered to be important elements inherent in the accomplishment of virtuous actions. In the case of Agathocles, Machiavelli recognises a practical element of virtù. Agathocles’ prowess ultimately resulted in being able to perform deeds that required a high level of skill (Strauss, 1995: 44). Nevertheless, the moral implications of his actions restricted the possibility that his undertakings might be considered virtuous. On the other hand, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia are indicative of a marriage between rational and moral pursuits (Fischer, 2000: 66). To begin with, the actions undertaken by Oliverotto did not result in the preservation of peace and unity; elements that indicate the existence of virtù in state matters (Mansfield, 1996: 71). Conversely, the actions carried out by Cesare Borgia showed the existence of a martial attitude in order to preserve the power of the ruler and the state (Bobbitt, 2013: 43). It must be added that in Machiavelli’s schema, there is a predilection for a strong ruler capable of preserving some kind of political unity amongst the Italian states. Although the actions exercised by Cesare Borgia necessitated the exercise of violence, his ulterior motives had attached to it an important moral element, leading us to conclude that
Elie Wiesel, a holocaust survivor, delivered The Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech, in Oslo on December 10, 1986. He started his speech off by reciting the following prayer: "Barukh atah Adonai …shehekhyanu vekiymanu vehigianu lazman hazeh"—"Blessed be Thou…for giving us life, for sustaining us, and for enabling us to reach this day." Then, after his speech, the people thanked him for everything he had done to help humankind make peace. With a profound sense of humility, he accepted this honor.
Julius Caesar is the leader of Rome and is seeking to become king in a matter of time. Though he is a good military strategist, he lacks knowledge in running government and is too greedy to have any concern for the peasants when he is alive. Caesar is all about conquering and power and he is afraid of nothing. Before he is murdered, he says “The things that threatened me ne’er looked but on my back. When they shall see the face of Caesar, they are vanished” (II, ii, 575). Th...
...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.
Sallust was an obscure historical writer from the first century BCE. In The War With Catiline, he tells of the conspiracy of Catiline and his plan to bring about civil war in Rome and over power the Senate. Sallust depicts this historical event very fairly and with a seemingly unbiased attitude, although he was not involved in any way with or against the conspirators. It was said that in this period of time things had been going very well, “…Our country had grown great through toil and the practice of justice, when great kings had been vanquished in war, savage tribes and mighty peoples subdued by force of arms, when Carthage, the rival of Rome’s sway, had perished root and branch, and all seas and lands were open…” This time of absolute supremacy gave way to a generation of Romans who were greedy and power hungry. Sallust viewed this...
Does Turnus pose a threat? From one point of view, Aeneas seems to always have the military upper hand, and Turnus seems physically inferior, thus not threatening. However, from a different perspective Turnus is deceptive, thus menacing. When he thinks h...
A truly dramatic moment in history occurred on April 20, 1814, as Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France and would-be ruler of Europe said goodbye to the Old Guard after his failed invasion of Russia and defeat by the Allies.
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
Brutus’ leadership and compassion for others make him a popular figure amongst the Roman people, and it is his reputation that establishes him as an influential individual. For example, despite the fact that Brutus loves Caesar like a brother, he warily joins the conspiracy to assassinate him. He does this because he believes that Caesar’s ambition would become tyranny and that Caesar’s death is a necessary evil in order to preserve the liberties of the Roman people. In his own words Brutus claims, “It must be by his death; and for my part, I know no personal cause to spurn at him, but for the general.”(Act 2, Scene 1, Page 1116). In addition, Brutus takes the reins of authority from Cassius and becomes the leader of the conspiracy. He gains this prerogative because of his convincing tongue and powerful influence. His leadership is evidenced when he begins to challenge Cassius’ ideas. When Cassius asks the conspirators to “swear our resolution”(Act 2...
Two powerful leaders, one power hungry whose ambitious ideas lead to his downfall, the other mindful of people who deserve their higher positions. A true leader is someone who has a vision, a drive and commitment to achieve what's best. In the play written by William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, Brutus and Caesar are one of the main characters. They demonstrate leadership qualities that are still relevant to today. They are both very ambitious characters; however, they do so for different reasons and differ in their openness to others. There are many similarities and differences that lie between them. Both are noble and great men with loyal followers and neither man questions the rightness of his own path. Both made crucial mistakes that resulted in their death. However, Caesar acts out of love for for himself, his country, and to retain his power as ruler of Rome. Brutus on the other hand acts out of love for freedom of Rome. This essay will discuss and compare their qualities as leaders as well as their styles and how they are effective/ineffective in the play.
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.
This play illustrates how important honesty and persuasion in an attempt to win over the people. Coriolanus attempts and fails to win over the people due to his failure to truly persuade Rome to view him as a worthy leader of their community while this sets the tone for Brutus and Sicinius to use their manipulative nature to win over the populous. Coriolanus’ lack of communication skills is his fatal flaw allowing more persuasive figures to take advantage of the opportunity and sway the people of Rome proving that honor and noble acts by themselves are not enough to grab and hold the support of the general
The text is a speech of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto who at that time representing Pakistan in Security Council. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto is a renowned Politician and founder of a Political party in Pakistan, “Pakistan People’s Party” meaning party of the people of Pakistan. The present and permanent constitution of Pakistan is formulated under his guidance when he was in power after the fall of East Pakistan. He attains attention of people of Pakistan after his speech in Security Council when he pledges the case of Pakistan in United Nations in 1971. After his this speech he emerges as a leader of most of the people of West Pakistan. Moreover in the elections of 1971 he won most of the seats in West Pakistan as he mentioned himself in the given draft “I