Roman Aristocracy Essay

Rome was a grand empire that lasted many years. Eventually the empire did have to fall, but the reason that such a great empire fell is unclear. The fall of the Roman Empire was mainly caused by its size, the economy, the spread of christianity, and the many enemies of Rome.

Vincent Hoy 4/9/2014 Professor J. Duran History 101 / Spring 2014 Book Report Guide #1 A Perspective on Gentleman’s History In Michael Parenti’s, “The Assassination of Julius Caesar”, Parenti claims that Julius Caesar’s assassination was not an incident, and that his death would actually represent the war between the wealthy, powerful conservatives who call themselves, “gentleman historians” and positive supported lower-class citizens that believed in Caesar’s reforms. Since Caesar was gaining such an incredible amount of power and support from his people, the senate feared that Caesar’s influence would be push these reforms onto the lower-class citizens, and it would threaten and put the upper-classes privileged interests at risk. The

“The holy Roman Empire is neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. ”That quote was said about the Roman Empire by Voltaire. Rome began around 750 BCE as an unremarkable settlement. The roman army conquered from modern-day Scotland to Spain, the whole Mediterranean sea, and established colonies in North africa, Egypt, the Middle East and Asia Minor. Soon the empire began to go from a republic to more like a dictatorship.

The Roman Empire was once one of the most powerful empires in the world, but still to this day we ask, how did the empire end? Romans built their territory to be the best. They expanded their land across regions, had all the power, a large population, and technological innovations; so how could such a ‘great’ empire end? Rome was once at it’s peak but was destined to fall due to political instability, overconfidence, negligence, and barbarian attacks.

Julius Caesar is perhaps the most well known in the history of Roman Emperors, yet there is no denying that his reign was filled with controversy, no reason more so than his devious rise to power and his mischievous ways of suppressing the senate. There is no doubt that in ruling as a Dictator; Caesar lost the support of the Roman people, who had fought for freedom against an Etruscan King, a role in which Caesar was playing. His death in 44BC coincided with what many believe to be the year in which the Republic completely its eventual ‘fall’ that it had been plummeting to since 133BC, and it is only by looking at the differences in the end of his reign to that of Augustus’ in 27BC that

The seemingly unstoppable Roman empire was certain to fall in a matter of time. Even though Rome was majorly affected by external attacks, I feel like the fall was because of the internal decline. The economy and social issues were the key factors that led to the descent of the large empire. A vast amount of their problems came from within the city. Every decision that Rome made had an extensive effect on the city itself and the rest of the world. Many foolish decisions made by terrible emperors weakened the city and eventually cause the many aspects of Roman life to crumble.

Suetonius wrote The Twelve Caesars as a biography about twelve Roman Caesars. This essay will compare and contrast two of them, Divus Julius and Nero. Even though the two men both became Emperors who ruled Rome, they could not have been more different. Both had certain authority and public powers during each of their reigns. Their lives were also scattered with times of virtue and scandal. This was a different time from today. Human behavior and morals played a significant role in those ruling over others. Some had them and some not so much. In the end, their stories will ultimately give the reader an illustration of these two men and what their stories tell us about the lives of Roman emperors in the first century.

The ethos of the Roman nobility at the time of the second century BCE was driven by ambitious military and political careers. These where brought about by a rigorous set of ideals which were built upon Rome’s cultural foundations. “The four terms that ascribe such a rigorous set of ideals are gloria, nobilitas, virtus and auctoritas ”.

Two of the more memorable emperors to the Romans were Augustus Caesar (27 BC to 14 AD), and Caligula (37 AD to 41 AD). Although only having ruled the empire by a separation of 23 years and belonging to the same family (through marriage and adoption), their empires couldn’t have been more different. It is possible to determine the impact of an emperor’s rule based on their many vices and virtues, as well as the choices that they make in relation to them. The author Suetonius expressed in his writings the many vices and virtues that put into perspective the kind of leaders that these emperors appeared as to their polis. As we explore the concept of vices and virtues, as well as what kind of ideals these two rulers represented, we will begin to be presented with a clearer picture of what an ideal emperor would have looked like. A vice can be described as an immoral or wicked behavior; while a virtue can be described as a behavior showing high moral standards. Suetonius and the Roman people had a high interpretation of the concept of virtue and vice, as well as their role in the ruler’s life.

The story of ancient Rome is a tale of how a small community of shepherds in the central Italy grew to become one of the greatest empires in history, and then collapsed. According to Roman legend. Rome was founded in 753 B.C. By 275 B.C., it controlled most of the Italian Peninsula. In the A.D. 100’s, the Roman Empire covered about half of Europe, much of the Middle East, and the northern coast of Africa. The empire then began to crumble, party because it was too big for Rome to govern.

During the period of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, different leaders exhibited different styles of leadership and employed different political strategies. In addition, these leaders came to power and maintained their control in their own unique ways. Each leader seemed to have his own agenda, which set the tone for that era. Five prominent leaders of this time period were Agricola, Augustus, Julius Caesar, and the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The point to be made with respect to these particular men is related to the obvious correlation between the nature of a leader’s agenda and the impact of his reign. In the end, a ruler’s fate was dependent not on his agenda, but on style and strategy with which he pushed his

The Roman way of life is different and similar to modern day. Though one may not know much over the Roman’s the culture is fascinating and still remembered in history. The clothes, food, customs, and leisure are major in Roman lifestyle.

The accounts of emperor Tiberius’ reign by both Suetonius and Tacitus have qualities that serve to show how differing authors viewed Tiberius in various flattering and unappealing ways by their personal reasoning and desire to preserve truth as much as possible in scope of their respective intentions to provide scholars with treatments of him that give a through picture of his traits, strengths and weaknesses. Overall, by examining both accounts of Tiberius’ reign, readers are able to form independent judgement of Tiberius and if each description is biased beyond any semblance of objectively. Overall Suetonius and Tacitus leaves books that differ in style and accuracy but both do indeed want the residing public to understand the true

The play Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare is not just an artless tragedy that depicts the Roman values and characteristics; it is a complex medium of Machiavelli’s ideas about taking and holding political power as written in the book, The Prince. Machiavelli, an Italian statesman and political philosopher, opposed the conventional thought that defined a ruler as one who uses generosity to rule his principality, and claimed that politics and morals were two discrete values, and that only immoral and shrewd princes with prowess will accomplish his goals. Even though his book was criticised, banned as an evil work, and his name was often used to refer to an unscrupulous person, his concepts now dominate the ideology of modern political philosophy. Coincidently, his ideas can perfectly be interpreted by the characters of the play Julius Caesar by Shakespeare, an English playwright who lived in contemporary age as Machiavelli. The effect of whether adhering to or rejecting his concepts are well depicted in the play by disparate types of characters.

In William Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, great emphasis is placed on what it means to be a good Roman. Honour, honesty, service, and dignity were among the qualities considered virtuous and which contributed to a sense of Roman duty. Along with the virtues, Shakespeare also seems to examine the nature of philosophical Stoicism. The treatment of constancy and Stoicism has many thematic and moral implications in Julius Caesar. In analysing Brutus’ supposedly noble character, Shakespeare calls into question Stoicism’s place as a guide for human conduct.