Lucius Cornelius Sulla was born in 138 B.C.E, into a prominent Roman patrician family but not a wealthy one. He received a good education, as Sallust, a reliable unbiased Roman plebeian historian and politician, suggests, “…and was fluent in both Roman and Greek” (Sallust, 43 AD. Histories), which was a sign of high education in Rome (Cavazzi, F. 2014). Sulla was a general and lieutenant of the Roman Army, was elected twice for consulship before he became dictator in 81 B.C.E. His background in the military may be a strong influence on the way Sulla ruled and how his ruling lead to the downfall of the Roman Republic (Plutarch, 79 B.C.E. Life of Sulla).
According to, Franco Cavazzi, a current accredited unprejudiced Roman Historian, Sulla’s first major achievement was becoming Marius’s Lieutenant. Marius was not a Roman nor patrician but still managed to be elected 7 times, he lead the army to many victories and was well recognised for them. (Gill, N.S. 2014) (Cavazzi, F. 2002) 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.
These three authors support the same traits but share contradicting information about the character of Su...
... middle of paper ...
...ily restore the power of the senate, however the quality of power is questionable (Cavazzi, F. 2014).
His reforms had no lasting impact on Rome, as soon as he retired and died, Rome was back into its existing state of political violence and chaos. All his work was for noting, he was unable to have a lasting impact on Rome besides a deadly precedent to follow. Therefore Sulla’s reforms aided in the downfall of the Roman Republic as he was incapable of making permanent changes in the Republic and provided an extremely deadly precedent to follow. History Professor from the University of Utah, Dr Larry Ping explains, "His reforms attempted to put Roman politics into a strait-jacket, but he could not undo the effect of his own example, a general using the army of the republic to march on Rome, and overthrow the government in the name of reform" (Ping, 2011. Sulla).
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
...allow senate to have an active role in his leadership, a notion which had been a fatal mistake for past censors of the Roman republic. Julius Caesar, the last leader of the Roman republic was conclusively at fault for the demolition of the constitutional society. His dictatorship and lack of respect for the democratic system lead to his death and the death of the republic. “The most open and deadly hatred towards him was produced by his passion for the royal power” (Plutarch)
The Emperor Claudius was both a successful and significant ruler of the Roman Empire. His control of the Senate and new bureaucratic reforms led him to improve the efficiency of the government. His most dramatic reform was the expansion of the empire and the extension of who could be granted Roman citizenship. These new reforms gained him a lot of support. Although Claudius was easily influenced by those close to him, such as his two wives and freedmen, his rule was successful and one which paved the way for other rulers after
Plutarch's The Life of Crassus and Caesar. 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.
be better for Rome while the others just did not want him to become more powerful than
...ult of the senate's inactivity, selfishness and negligence. This resulted in the Senate's hostile reaction to the Gracchi, which therefore allowed the Gracchi to make revolutionary changes to the face of Roman politics, as a direct and indirect result of their actions, including the notion of a tribune as an instrument of initiative and reform, and more importantly, the introduction of violence in Roman politics. These changes could be felt long after the death of the Gracchi, which is evident in the powerful political armies of Marius and Sulla. In conclusion, The Gracchi were significant figures in Roman history for the short and long term consequences that resulted from their actions, acting as perceptive idealistic men who were concerned for the greater good of Rome at a time when it was atypical to do so.
...picture, that on the verge of its collapse the Roman Republic, was a society composed of internal flaws. The Republic namely submitted to its own internal divisions, on multiple levels, from the divisions inherent to any society based on a slave economy, to divisions within the proto-democracy of the Senate itself. Inequalities between the haves and the have nots, as well as inequalities and struggles for power and control on the very highest level of Roman society created a general instability of the Republic, thus making its collapse not a miraculous or shocking event, but almost something to the effect of the removal of an illusion. With the collapse of the Republic, the internal tensions and conflict that constituted Roman life on multiple levels merely finalized themselves, taking a new political form that followed the same path as previous the political form.
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
However, he faced a few setbacks since the republic was not ready for a dictatorial leader. His desire to retain authority put the Roman Empire at a risk for future civil wars amongst other generals. He aimed at reconstructing and restoring Rome, but in order to retain his power, Augustus had to make the restoration of peace and unity possible within the Roman population. Roman citizens craved for the same peace that had reigned before the civil war had begun, and were ready to support Augustus so long as he was ready and willing to preserve Rome and the privileges of the people. He agreed, making a tactical decision to return power to the Senate, subsequently abandoning his control of the provinces and the armies.
... His reforms, as far-reaching as they initially were, were short lived, and were annulled soon after his retirement. He thought that the People, meeting in the Concilium Plebis, were an unrepresentative and irresponsible body unworthy to govern, but he largely failed to infuse a new sense of responsibility to the Senate (Appian in Williams, p.149). Above all, arrangements to control the advancement 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.
Bravery, strength, and leadership are just a few of the characteristics possessed by Theseus of Greece and Romulus of Rome. Plutarch, a Greek historian, explains lives each of these men. These men were different from any of the other men during Ancient Greece and Rome; according to Plutarch, they were descendants of the divine, which ultimately destined them for greatness. Throughout their lives, they would achieve power through various events and establish the societies and politics of two the greatest cities in history. The paths that each took and the events that occurred in their lives molded them into the heroes while also contributing to the legacy they would leave behind.
...most graphic rule as the dictator. Sulla also managed to prevent another “him” to reappear in Rome or in any region that may cause more problems for him or for anyone who would try to take over. Should another Sulla appear after the first Sulla dies and goes down from his position, the Roman history as we know it would be changed drastically as more wars and sieges would have to take place before someone can take over the country as their Emperor. But on the other hand, I cannot disagree with the argument that Sulla’s intentions on the march has a flicker of personal intensions attached into it which would have made the march completely unacceptable as it has also killed lives upon the takeover. It also exercised the use of violence as a way to take revenge which could have been resolved through diplomatic talks should it has been pushed through by both parties.
Gaius Julius Caesar was born in Rome in July 100 BC. Rome was a Republic at this time. He was a statesman, Roman general, Consul, and notable author of Latin prose. He played a significant role in the events that led to the collapse of the Roman Republic and rise of the Roman Empire. He was a leader in a nation where the people were not involved in the government decision-making process. Thus, he had majority of the power in the Republic and was able to form a huge army. He was able to triumph, conquer new lands with the army at his grasp and command. As Caesar acquired more power over the years, som...
The Roman Empire was incredibly large and successful. In the prime of the empire population reached up to 56.8 million people. The land they conquered amasses to an outrageous 1 million square miles. Their influence is so great that even now people can see their imprint in architecture, law, and even helping spread Christianity, the world’s most populous religion. These amazing facts also begs a question. How did one of the world’s greatest civilization fall? Well, the fall of Roman Empire in 476 ACE was aided by ineffective rulers, the crumbling economy, and the invasion of the Germanic Tribes.
Ultimately, the Roman Republic’s downfall lay in its lack of major wars or other crises, which led to a void of honor and leadership. War united all of Rome’s people, and provided the challenge to its leaders to develop honor and leadership by their causes and actions. The lack of war allowed the Roman Republic to stagnate and become self-indulgent. By the end of the Punic Wars, which combined these elements, Rome was sure to fail. Without a common thread uniting its society, the Roman Republic unraveled because it had nothing left holding it together.