Cicero And Livy

This book emphasizes the alternative interpretations offered by Americans on the origins of the Constitution. Holton’s purpose with this book was to show that the framers interests involved making America more attractive to investors. In order to do so, they purposefully made the government less democratic with the writing of the Constitution. However, with the addition of the Bill of Rights, one could argue the Framers had at least a slight concern for the American people and their civil liberties.

Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in

Both Romans and Americans are known for allowing their conquered to enjoy a certain amount of liberty. A less glorious similarity is the Roman and American social welfare systems. Straying from using the imagination and classical problem solving, both civilizations have expended their resources to quiet the cries of the hopeless, without building any hope for their unfortunate citizens. Roman law influenced much of the American legal system, especially in the area of criminal justice. America has followed in the footsteps of the Romans in many ways, for better or for worse.

According to Scott (2008), the Constitution of America has undergone several translations within the history of America because they found it to be unclear. Whereas it appears discrepant that the unclear Constitution could be useful, the disagreement is the case (Robertson, 2005). Americans regard the Constitution to be helpful for the reason that it allows for diverseness of views. In the history of America, a variety of thoughts would develop with alarming and formidable support through various factions (Robertson, 2005). Today, the main political arguments are presented from the Republican group or Democratic group. During the early periods of the American government, arguments on politics were made by Thomas Jefferson

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

Foucault address the changing definition of crime and how power is exerted through the enforcement of punishment. During the monarchy, kings and queens showed their power and authority of the people by determining what punishment someone would receive for their actions. In the current political system, judges and juries are in the position to make these decisions. Judgement is the current system is based on motives and intent rather than on the severity of the crime alone. We care more about the psychological state of the individual and want to be able to change the person's soul to better respect society. The quote below addresses how punishment uses a variety of specializations and how the individual's mental state is molded to fit into standards we have created today.

This world has seen many great leaders and emperors but two of them standout a little more than the others. Their names are Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte. Both men were highly respected and greatly feared. They also ran great empires that spanned over thousands of miles. They wanted to rule and conquer anything they could. They have many similarities and differences in the way they ruled and conquered. Their empires were so big that there came a time where they couldn’t control it and their reign came to an end. Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte have molded and shaped the way rulers and leaders should rule over

Publius believed in an emphasis in the Constitution on mechanisms for the restraint of the passions of the American people rather than a reliance on their virtues or reason. While Publius knows that humans are capable of reason, rationality and good self-government, he knows they are also very prone to being controlled by their passion and self-interest. This first set of qualities enables a society to be free, stable and prosperous, while the second leads to the destruction of such a society. The protection of the one and the restriction of the other is a very delicate balance. The government that achieves this balance would need to be limited enough so that men may make use of their faculties for self-government, but Publius argues that it

Both Marcus Aurelius and Cicero try to create a guide, based on their stoic views, on how a person is supposed to live a purposeful life. Marcus Aurelius was an emperor and Cicero was a politician, so both serve somebody or something. In Cicero’s “On Friendship” he bases his guides on what he has learned from important people in his life. In Marcus Aurelius’ “Meditations” he bases his guide off of what he has learned as an emperor with stoic views. Some of what he Aurelius has learned is different from Cicero’s view of stoicism; an example of this is in section seven of Meditations. Section seven of Meditations is about what Aurelius learned from his tutor. He states, “Endure hardship, and have few needs; to do things for myself and not

Have you ever thought that the U.S. government is easily comparable to the Roman's version of government? Maybe that's because the U.S. government is roughly parallel with the Ancient Roman Government. The Romans did not have a constitution, like us Americans, but their division of executive, legislative, and judicial branches is similar. The Roman government served as a template for the American government. As you read further, you will see how the governmental structures, with detail, are similar by first making points on the American style contrasted with the Roman style of government.

The Greeks and the Romans were among the most influential societies in the history of the world. Evidence of Greek or Roman influence can be found in almost every culture or country that has ever existed. Though both cultures were different in practice and incredibly competitive with one another, their politics and their beliefs set the stage for future civilizations, including those of the modern world. In particular, the values and practices of Greek and Roman citizenship and politics, more than any other cultures, influences American policies today in terms of values, government, and self-image.

Madison’s primary focus throughout the beginning of this paper is factions. He holds a deep disdain for them as he thinks that they solely focus on themselves, while hurting other Americans, which is evident in this quote, (“…united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the

In Plato’s The Republic and The Apology, the topic of justice is examined from multiple angles in an attempt to discover what justice is, as well as why living a just life is desirable. Plato, writing through Socrates, identifies in The Republic what he thought justice was through the creation of an ideal city and an ideal soul. Both the ideal city and the ideal soul have three components which, when all are acting harmoniously, create what Socrates considers to be justice. Before he outlines this city and soul, he listens to the arguments of three men who hold popular ideas of the period. These men act to legitimize Socrates’ arguments because he finds logical errors in all of their opinions. In The Apology, a different, more down-to-Earth, Socrates is presented who, through his self-defense in court, reveals a different, even contradictory, view of the justice presented in The Republic. In this paper, the full argument of justice from The Republic will be examined, as well as the possible inconsistencies between The Republic and The Apology.

The films begin with Cleopatra being in exile, she is the rightful Queen of Egypt. The throne was stolen by her siblings; Arsinoe and Ptolemy. Roman General Julius Caesar arrives at Alexandra to collect the debt that Egypt owes Roman. Being the bold queen that she is, Cleopatra smuggles herself into the palace, wrapped in a carpet, under the pretense that the carpet is a gift from her to Caesar. They soon become involved with each other. With her new ally on her side, the next morning, Cleopatra and her younger brother are betrothed to marry by Caesar. After their union, Cleopatra is proclaimed the Queen of Egypt. This forces the impressionable Ptolemy to join forces with Arsinoe to over through their sister out of Alexandria for the second

By looking at the readings of Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Locke, there are a few distinctions between how the modern thinkers viewed politics versus the way the ancient thinkers believed politics should be. There are many topics both modern and ancient thinkers discuss in their writings, such as the purpose of politics, the science of politics, human nature, as well as the ideal regime. By doing so, these thinkers’ views on political topics such as these illuminate how they thought politics should work and who should be able to participate in the activity of politics.