Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Cicero's speeches
Cicero short essays
Cicero on the republic summary
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Sallust, Cicero and the Catiline Conspiracy
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.
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...
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.
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.
Livius, Titus. "The History of Rome, Vol. III." Electronic Text Center, University of Virginia Library. 8 11, 2005. http://etext.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/Liv3His.html (accessed 3 1, 2010).
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. Works Cited:.. Bradley, Pamela. Ancient Rome. 1999
Julius Caesar was a very influential figure in Roman history. Many features of the Roman Empire came from his reign as dictator. But what, specifically, were some of those great achievements? In this research paper, I will explain Julius Caesar’s youth, the Roman Republic before Caesar came to power, the Roman government before Caesar became dictator-for-life, the effects of Julius Caesar, the reasons for his assassination, and what affects there were when the public learned about his assassination.
...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.
4)Rosenstein, Nathan Stewart., and Robert Morstein-Marx. A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. Print.
Rome, even at its beginnings, proved to be a force to be reckoned with. It’s rapid growth and accumulation of power and repeated victories over powerful neighbors set Rome in a position of great authority and influence. As the leader of early Rome, Romulus’ effective command of his men and governance of his people provided the foundation for the building of a great city. Livy emphasizes Romulus’ possible divine origins and strong ties to deities as a validation and reinforcement of his ability to rule. A nation’s sole defense cannot be just bricks and mortar, it requires an army and a will and Romulus was able to successfully take action against the aggressors when action was needed.
...” (Livy, Rome 5.23). However, he never gave up on his home and his people, even when they gave up on him. Camillus’s “fervent wish” was that “love for this place will so fill your hearts that you will remain where you are…wracked by longing, homesick for your native soil” (Livy, Rome 5.54). Camillus understood that Rome was more than a conglomeration of buildings and stone. Rome was an idea, to be fostered, protected and shared. He was their savior, their misunderstood leader—a hero before his due time. Henceforth, this is Livy’s intention in engraving the life and story of Marcus Furius Camillus for the world, so that one day we may look back and seek the compassionate hero of Rome: the sun in the land of darkness. Her protector and Second Founder.
In Titus Livius’, The Early History of Rome, Livy takes on the task of documenting Rome’s early history and some of the famous individuals who help contribute to the ‘greatness’ of Rome. Livy dedicates an entire portion of his writing to describe the reigns of the first seven kings of Rome; all who influence the formation and governance of Rome in some way. However, of the seven kings in early Roman history, King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius achieved godlike worship and high esteem from their fellow Romans. While both highly important and respected figures in Rome’s history, the personalities and achievements of King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius are complete opposites of one another. Despite the differences found in each king and of their rule over Rome, both Romulus and Numa Pompilius have a tremendous influence in the prosperity and expansion of Rome in its early days.
In my opinion this book is not the evaluation of how approximately fifty million people from two thousand years ago thought about the world that they lived in at the time, but about how a few dozen men wrote about it, in a viewpoint illustrative of only a few thousand. In order to support her view, Edith Hamilton tries to bring these people together, threading together their common thoughts and ideologies. Save for the fact that this book only represents a handful of Roman citizens and the way that they saw the world in which they lived, I do feel like I got a better understanding of the “Roman Way” and the way that life was back then. Along with the history that I learned in class on the subject it makes me be able to picture it better in my mind’s-eye.
In the early first century AD, the Roman Empire was subject to autocratic rule and the old Republic was long dead. Augustus had been ruling for forty years and most of that time he was loved and praised by the Senate and the people of Rome. Throughout his reign, Augustus had the one lingering problem of finding a successor to take over the role of Emperor. He had chosen 3 different heirs in his time of rule; however, they all passed before they had the chance to inherit Augustus’ esteemed power. His fourth choice, Tiberius, was the one to succeed Augustus. He was often referred to, by Augustus, as an outstanding general and the only one capable of defending Rome against her enemies. The statement, ‘Tiberius is condemned by many ancient historians (including Tacitus), and his reign is often portrayed as being detrimental to the welfare of the Roman Empire’ is invalid as he treated the senate fairly, created strong economics and security in the state and boosted the empire into an unprecedented state of prosperity. This hypothesis will be proven through this essay by analyzing factors such as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire, his relationship with the senate, his financial control, the effect of Sejanus over his rule and why were his last years as Emperor referred to as a ‘reign of terror’ by Tacitus.
The book The Spartacus War by Barry Strauss is an in depth look at one of Roman history’s most legendary events, the gladiator revolt led by Spartacus. Spartacus has become a legend, creating a storyline that has inspired many movies and television shows, such as Stanley Kubrick’s epic Spartacus in 1960, starring the legendary Kirk Douglas. Spartacus has inspired a perfect mix of men over time with various backgrounds and beliefs, from Stalin and Marx, to Voltaire, and even to Ronald Reagan. How though, did Spartacus create a massive revolt of slaves that would create a massive problem for the mighty Rome? Strauss attempts to create a chronology of the Spartacus War using his vast knowledge of the Italian landscape, ancient documents, and archaeological evidence, as well as provide the reader with the historical reasons that might have created a perfect combination of causes to create the Spartacus legend.
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.
Rome was a major power because it always made certain its own military prowess was preeminent. There have been many ideas presented as to the fall of the Roman Empire. Many believe that Rome declined morally and the violence and decadence of the societal norms led to the demise. Gibbons has been credited with the theory of the influence and transference of Christianity over the Roman system of Gods and Goddesses that perpetrated the fall. Another theory lays the blame at the feet of the Emperor, that the happiness of the people and the functioning of the government was directly correlated with the personal merit and management skills of the reigning authority. This 10 page paper argues that the imperialistic tendencies of Rome over time and the pre-eminence of military expansionism in the latter stages, was the deciding feature of the "fall". Bibliography lists 7 sources.