Livy’s The Rise of Rome Essays

The roman republic came into existence at the termination of the Roman kingship in 507 B.C.E. The last king of Rome, Tarquin the Proud, was expelled by Collatinus and Brutus, as a result of his arrogance involving the matter of one of his relations raping the wholesome Roman matron Lucretia and her subsequent suicide. The rape of Lucretia was really a representation of the frustration that the roman citizens felt regarding the kingship. The later kings had little regard for roman values and the roman populus, which they used as something of a slave labor force. Brutus and Collatinus became the first Roman Consuls, elected by popular vote.

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?

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

1. Read "Cincinnatus Saves Rome: A Roman Morality Tale" (5-1b). In this excerpt, does Livy's story appear to be historically valid? Why or why not? Why were the "common folk" less pleased than the officials at seeing the Dictator? Were their fears accurate and what were their views of him likely to have been twenty days later? What elements of this story inspired later generations to hail Cincinnatus as "the noblest Roman of them all"?

The era dominated by Roman empire is one the most well-known and influential periods of history, home to famous names from Julius Caesar to Jesus Christ. At its height, Rome’s territory stretched from the Atlantic coastline to the Middle East, reigning over 60 million people, one-fifth of the population of the ancient world. However, the Roman empire’s treatment of their conquered people’s and their own citizens ultimately led to the permanent downfall of Rome.

When we think about the historical significance of Rome, it comes down to its leaders and how these leaders ruled in their era. Confidence, commitment, inspiration, intuition, and creativity, are all essential traits that a ruler must possess. In my opinion, no one has demonstrated these important characteristics better than Caesar Augustus, or better known as Octavian. Octavian showed how good of administrator he was, which was well needed after years of civil strife and social unrest. On the other hand, military genius, Julius Caesar, was lacking in administrative qualities which infect, lead his era to have a period of civil war and bloodshed.

In the dialogue between Bryan Ward-Perkins and Peter Heather “The Fall of Rome” the two historians answer a few questions that relate to the fall of Rome. The one specific time the two authors both agree is when Ward-Perkins mentions “disappointingly (perhaps) I basically agree with Peter here – neither of us have much time for the theory that the empire was quietly ‘transformed’, by the peaceful ‘accommodation’ into it of some Germanic barbarians. We both believe in invasions that were violent and unpleasant” (Heather, Peter, and Bryan Ward-Perkins). This is the only time presently written that both historians agreed on a given point. Peter’s statement that Ward-Perkins followed up with the agreement is “I am entirely convinced by all the evidence that shows that the late Empire was not being torn apart by irrevocable processes of decline by the fourth century” (Heather, Peter, and Bryan Ward-Perkins). The two authors are convinced that the transition was not peaceful, and from the information provided from the different wars there would have had to have been violence and not peace.

Caesar had multiple characteristics of a great leader; however, there are two that were widely known. Caesar was brave and cared for the

Tarquin, the fifth king of rome from 535 to 509 b.c. was known for being one of the craziest and most savage kings of roman history and had also later been overthrown in 509 b.c. I believe we can all relate to tarquin in some way shape or form. We all are crazy in some way as we believe that there is this giant being in the sky somewhere out there that controls this world and works everything that goes on in it. Tarquin was this was this way in how he ruled all of rome (although he was a little more brutal than we are). A good example of this is in his early rule, he gathered all the latin town leaders together and held a meeting with them over relationships with rome. One of the latin leaders didn’t trust tarquin and told his fellow leaders

The language of Roman rule and power can be disputed endlessly, much like all else when trying to study ancient history. This is primarily a result of a multitude of interpretations that can be inferred from primary sources, which also tend to be biased, that we have available to us. Examining a source that is written from an individual’s perspective, and they trying draw conclusions about varying aspects of a certain society is especially tough and extremely subjective. Nonetheless, history remains an important field of study and reaps many benefits.

In the earliest days of Rome, Livy turn his imagination and passion to legendary of Romanians. He had a historical past of the country he loved with great passion. Around the time B.C, Livy was convinced that his people forgot, what it really meant to be a Roman. It was mentioned that Livy wanted Roman Citizens to progress, and go back to the old ways. He was brave and had his own beliefs, and wanted to make changes on what he believed.

became the protector of the Roman people. His backbone of his power was his army but

     As a young adolescent, Octavian demonstrated his leadership ability long before having thoughts of becoming the first emperor of Rome. His strengths, features, and accomplishments as a military leader show only a part of his great political skills he possessed.

Rome became a powerful empire engulfing much of Europe, North Africa, and parts of Asia and what seemed like this great entity called the Romans were always in the search of more territory and land to conquer and assimilate into their ever growing vast empire. However, this was not always the case, before Rome became one of the greatest empires in all of history, Rome was a republic. They were government consisted of a Senate who much like our country today represented certain classes of the citizens of the Republic. During the growth and rise of the Roman republic conquering neighboring territories and competing for land grabs was not Romans primary objectives. Romans

The military might of Rome was second to none in its prime. Victorious battle after battle did