Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Ancient rome social structure
Greek and Roman social structures
The way of life of the ancient Romans
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Ancient rome social structure
Caligula, though having only ruled for four years, is likely one of the most infamous figures in Roman history. However, it would be unfair not to mention the good alongside the bad. If we take a look at the earlier part of of his rule in comparison with the latter portion, we can see that there was an extreme deterioration in the quality of his rule, for he was once an emperor who was more than just towards his people, and was enthusiastically welcomed by the Senate. At the start of his rule, he was quick to launch sweeping reforms, such as publishing public expenses and allowing new members into the Roman equestrian orders (penelope.uchicago.edu). However, later in his rule, he began to execute people left and right for alleged treason and …show more content…
Historical accounts hold that his lavish excesses bankrupted Rome, and he resorted to levying harsh taxes against the people. A famine also took place, for grain could not be imported as cargo ships were impounded to be used in the construction of the Caligula’s pontoon bridge (archive.org). On top of the famine, Caligula’s relationship with the Senate was extremely turbulent. He humiliated and mocked the Senate at any possible opportunity, so much as to making his own horse consul (bbc.com). Though Caligula was less than skilled dealing with politics, he however was able to contribute new territory to Rome. During his rule, he was able to annex Mauritania, a Roman puppet state, after executing their king during a visit to Rome (perseus.tufts.edu). Later in his rule, he also led a conquest into Britannia, though this was ultimately aborted (penelope.uchicago.edu). Nevertheless, he returned to Rome with his troops claiming victory, and paved the way for its eventual conquest (Hurley 41). In the east, Caligula had an extremely antagonistic and distrusting relationship with the Jews. Believing that the Jews were not honoring him, he had figures made in his likeness placed inside synagogues, and riots ensued …show more content…
Caligula led a hedonistic life characterized by overspending and bizarre perversions, such as incest with his three sisters, or the seemingly endless flow of prostitutes through his court (Grant 114). Caligula was also plagued with sleep issues, and had a quick temper. His insomnia drove him to lonely dances in the dark, and once ordered senators to dance with him in the dead of night (Grant 116). During the day, he was quick to swear people away with his sharp tongue, earning him the disdain of senators and his subjects (Grant 112). During his rule, Caligula was enjoyed to present himself as a living god, often erecting statues of himself and his sisters throughout the empire, perhaps as a form of mockery towards the now powerless Senate (Burton 90). Needless to say, he was not in any way a sane
Emotional turmoil- Caligula found it hard to keep his emotions under control after finding out that his grandfather Tiberius, was responsible for the deaths of his parents and siblings. He expressed these aggressive emotions through engaging in sex with various men and women, as well as his sisters (especially Drusilla). He sometimes made the men watch as he had sex with their wives and children. Note- this happened prior to him contracting disease at the age of 37.
During the Republic, the people of Rome had a major disinclination towards any sort of Royalty, which is why when Caesar attempted to lead undemocratically indefinitely, he disrupted one of the core stances that romans shared communally. Caesar over indulged in power when he retitled himself as ‘dictator in perpetuo’. “And as Caesar was coming down from Alba into the city they ventured to hail him as king. But at this the people were confounded, and Caesar, disturbed in mind, said that his name was not King, but Caesar, and seeing that his words produced an universal silence, he passed on with no very cheerful or contented looks…..But the most open and deadly hatred towards him was produced by his passion for the royal power.” Caesars egotism and self-importance made him uncherished by members of the senate. “Everybody knew that Caesar's ego would never allow him to play second fiddle to another senator, and it was equally well-known that another famous military leader, Pompey the Great, had similar ambitions. In January 49, more or less at...
Augustus Caesar’s had a huge impact on Western Civilization. He molded Rome into being a peaceful place. He changed Rome. He made it bigger and more glorious. He created things that we still use today like currency and the postal service. He was good to the people of Rome, and because of his kindness he was worshiped by most of the Roman’s and after his death considered a
For thousands of years people have been talking about the great powerful Caesar. He is one of the greatest known dictators known to people today mostly because of all of the things he was able to accomplish during his rein as emperor. After reading primary sources about Caesar, it has given me a better understanding of what other people thought of him during this time period. It’s safe to say that Caesar was obsessed with power and respect from other people that would explain his thirst for war and land, which is one of his greatest strengths and helped in making Rome a great empire.
The Romans have had almost every type of government there is. They've had a kingdom, a republic, a dictatorship, and an empire. Their democracy would be the basis for most modern democracies. The people have always been involved with and loved their government, no matter what kind it was. They loved being involved in the government, and making decisions concerning everyone. In general, the Romans were very power-hungry. This might be explained by the myth that they are descended from Romulus, who's father was Mars, the god of war. Their government loving tendencies have caused many, many civil wars. After type of government, the change has been made with a civil war. There have also been many civil wars between rulers. But it all boils
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
The Roman Republic had an upstanding infrastructure, a stable social system, and a balanced constitution that solidified Rome’s greatness. Regardless of its achievements, however, the Roman Republic owes much of its success to classical Greek cultures. These cultures, in conjunction with the fundamental values of Roman society, certified Rome as one of the most significant powers the world has ever seen.
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
30 BC ~ Octavian was given the title of Imperator, which was used in the Eastern provinces. Imperium suggests unlimited imperium (or power) (Antiquity 2 Interpreting The Past) This was the first of many titles that were to be given to Octavian after his defeat of Mark Antony in 31 BC at the Battle of Actium. It indicates that the provinces thought Octavian was worthy of being honoured, and that the power he possessed at the time should remain his. Therefore this was the first factor that initiated the rise of Octavian.
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.
The notorious Caligula ruled the Roman Empire from 37 AD until 41 AD as a tyrant who in due time became a villain. Although Caligula was an intelligent and amusing young man he also had a cruel and darker side that would in modern times, leave people to question his mental stability. His weird and unusual actions would reinforce this idea, such as him wanting and having his counterparts look up to him and worship him as a god because he considered himself a divine one. He would force both men and women to have sex with him and would commit incest with his sisters. Although incest was acceptable in that time, it is an action that is highly frowned upon in modern day. One considerable reason for the madness behind Caligula’s reign could be due to a disease called megalomania. German pacifist Ludwig Quidde made this term known and described it as “the point of regarding oneself as divine; disregard for all limits of law and all the rights of other individuals; brutal cruelty without purpose or reason” (qtd. in Winterling 2). However this would not have bothered Caligula. He enjoyed having food that was covered in gold leaf and drinking from vinegar that had dissolved pearls inside of it. He also thought enough to want to hold a ceremony to crown his horse and make him apart of his consul. Caligula indulged in the excitement and torture of execution. The victims of these senseless crimes were often Roman senators. He even removed two from his office because they forgot his birthday. Although he was in the position of high authority, author of The Lives of the Twelve Caesars: Caligula, Suetonius stated a clear explanation for his behavior that “he was insane” (qtd. in Winterling 7).
His fourteen-year reign represented everything decadent about the Julio-Claudian period of the Roman Empire. His self-indulgent, cruel and violent affairs continued the economic chaos that had plagued the Roman citizenry since the days of Tiberius (Champlin, 1990). In the first five years as emperor, Nero gained a reputation for political generosity, promoting power sharing with the Senate and ending closed-door political trails. However, he generally pursued his own passions and left the ruling to his three key advisers – the Stoic Philosopher Seneca, the prefect Burrus and Nero’s mother Agrippina (Armstrong, 2012). Nero was a reckless and selfish adolescent when he ascended to Emperor, as highlighted by Suetonius within his historical scripture, ‘The Twelve
(Livy, Book 1 section 3) He eventually gained control of Gabii after using his son as a form of trickery. Stating he had surrendered the war and exiled his son Sextus Tarquinius due to disagreement. His attitude of deceit was just another element that caused
The Roman Republic began in 509 B.C.E. with the overthrow of the Etruscan monarchy. In 27 B.C.E the Roman Empire began with Octavian Caesar becoming the emperor, this ended almost 500 years of republican self-government. There is much debate over why Rome became so powerful so quickly. Many think it had to do with Rome’s military strength. Others think that it was because Rome knew of and controlled most of the trade routes. Still others believed it had to do with the technology that was advanced during the Roman Republic. All of these factors played significant roles, but which one played the most important role?
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.