Essay about Discourses on Livy: Republics and the Decemvirate

Events which stretch as far back as the reforms of the Gracchi brothers’ meant that the Rome was facing a Republic that was already deteriorating before Pompey had stepped into power. While Pompey’s quest for power was harmful, many other factors were also baleful to the Republic, and were hence instrumental in its decline. Gnaeus Pompeius’s measures to gain power were harmful because it was primarily a paradox to the principles of being part of a Republic with all its notions of shared and short power. The fundamental reason why there were other reasons for the decline of the system are that the military power was given to him, the already weak Senate, and the fact that Pompey was not the only player in the breakdown of the Republic due

The fall of the Roman Republic was caused by the expansion of Rome, and it’s class tension, the ruling of Julius Caesar, and all things that followed Julius Caesar’s

For several years, scholars and historians from around the world have been debating about the Roman Republic’s constitution. Many have described their constitution as purely democratic; however, others find aspects of the Roman Republic characterizing despotism or an aristocracy. So, which form of government could best describe the Roman Republic? Currently, there is no exact answer, but because of meticulous studies, observations were recorded and assumptions were made. From a selection of resources, the most common claim inquired that the Roman Republic should not be considered an accurate form of a democracy and there are a collection of reasons as to why this is.

On the heels of the Peloponnesian war, Socrates was blamed for corrupting the youth and disrespecting the Athenian gods and Athenian values. His defense or “Apology” and reaction after he was sentenced to death in “Crito” demonstrate his most basic philosophy and ideals of what a government should truly be like. Yet in a vastly different situation, Machiavelli, who lived during the renaissance of Italy experienced constant shifts of power which he wrote his book, “The Prince”. Machiavelli writes about how a leader or prince should conduct himself in order to keep and efficiently run a republic or principality. Although Socrates’ texts on the surface deal with his accusations, the texts give great insight as to how he thinks a government

How was it possible that under the dictatorship and after the deification of Julius Caesar the Roman republic fell, when it had been structurally sound for four centuries before? When the republic was established around the end of the 6th century B.C.E., the Romans made clear that they wished to avoid all semblance of the monarchy that had ruled for two centuries before. (T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995; p. 215) The rule of the Republic was to be split into powers of the senate and consuls, a system that worked for over four centuries. The republic would face problems with the rise of the first triumvirate in 60 B.C.E.,

Subsequently, the system was corrupted because weak or vulnerable individuals were associating with men in power; in exchange of support, and loyalty, for the sake of protection, which broke the Democracy. Socrates said, “Democracy elevates men to positions of authority not because of their wisdom or their fitness to govern, but because of their ability to sway the masses with empty rhetoric. In Democracy, it is not truth that matters; it is public relations.” That is exactly what it was happening in the Roman Republic.

As Rome became independent from the Etruscan ruling, its government walked away from having a monarch and transformed into a Republic as a way to avoid the tyranny that many times comes with an absolute autocrat. Rigorous precautions were taken from the start in order to keep the power balanced. Moreover, the structure of the government was meant to be resilient to bad judgment. The structure of the Roman Republic with its government and law provided for a more just system.

While Socrates and Machiavelli lived over 1900 years apart, the dilemmas their societies faced draw many parallels. In Machiavelli’s “The Prince”, he demonstrates a wide-ranging set of rules and principles to be followed by a leader to ensure the steady maintenance of authority and stability in a state or principality. Not only would Socrates be opposed to many of the espoused views in “The Prince” on what creates a successful ruler, thereby society, but had he lived in Machiavelli’s “ideal” state, he would openly question and rebel against the cogs that maintain its stability, possibly even advocating its upheaval. Socrates would most ardently disagree with Machiavelli’s depiction of the supremacy of the prince and state over its

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

In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be

People are unlikely to overthrow a ruler that they fear, for they dread the punishments of failure. If the ruler is not feared by the people, he will eventually upset enough of them that they will rise up against him. They will overthrow him because of his perceived weakness, and his name and image will be shamed in the eyes of both his government and his people. Machiavelli believes that the state is completely separate from the ruler’s private life. No matter how immoral or heartless the ruler may be in private, only his public image is important. A ruler can be a terrible, sleazy person on their own time, and when not involved with matters of the state, but at any time when the leader is involved in politics and the state, you cannot afford to injure the image of the ruler or else anarchy will develop. With this kind of rebellion can come revolution, war, and many other tragedies that could be otherwise avoided.

When examining Machiavelli political ideals, it is hard to look at it without saying this is cruel and not ideal in any sense. Machiavelli is a prime example for a strong leader that pursues justice through unification and has shown to be very open-minded. Justice doesn’t just come through cruelty and strength, it also requires intelligence with careful studies. As exhibited in the prior quote, he takes in historical mistakes and success to shape his ideal. To have a culture with justice, Machiavelli pushes that “It is necessary for a prince who wish to maintain his position to learn how not to be good, and to use this knowledge or not to use it accordingly” (224). It is quite evident that Machiavelli is willing to use the full extent of his power without fear. Through his willingness and open-mindedness, he examines both side, good and the bad, for the benefit of his country. He believes only those that can utilize both knowledge is fit for the position of being a prince. When he says knowledge, it goes deep into the studies of history and past experiences. It is shown time and time again throughout his

Niccolo Machiavelli is a very pragmatic political theorist. His political theories are directly related to the current bad state of affairs in Italy that is in dire need of a new ruler to help bring order to the country. Some of his philosophies may sound extreme and many people may call him evil, but the truth is that Niccolo Machiavelli’s writings are only aimed at fixing the current corruptions and cruelties that filled the Italian community, and has written what he believed to be the most practical and efficient way to deal with it. Three points that Machiavelli illustrates in his book The Prince is first, that “it is better to be feared then loved,”# the second

First let us discuss the ideas of Niccolo Machiavelli in is piece “The Prince”. Machiavelli has a very independent controversial way of thinking and portraying his ideal form of governance in this text. The ideal and most effective from of governance for him is not in that of a republic but instead he insists in an autocratic regime. He argues that republics and other forms of government are too weak because of the corruptness of human nature. This book is written as a guide on how a prince should run his state or nation based on how and when he would come into this power. One of his main concerns in which he has been criticized for is his disregard to follow moral values so as to properly run the state, as well as

First of all, what is a ruler? According to Merriam Webster’s Dictionary a ruler [is] a person exercising government or dominion. Machiavelli agrees with this definition, but goes into so much more depth in terms of what he expects a ruler to be. Throughout the book, there is a ‘tug of war’ of sorts between what a good ruler should be, and what a bad ruler shouldn’t be. The book also emphasises what a ruler can do to follow said steps to be a more successful ruler, and gives specific examples of empires that have succeeded following the steps as well. Now Machiavelli did not influence every empire of the time with his book. Rather, he took some definitive actions successful (and unsuccessful) leaders