Tacitus Dialogue Essay

The Greek society was a direct democracy with people voting on the issues themselves instead of representatives voting on their behalf. Any male citizen over the age of eighteen was allowed to vote. Like the Romans, the Greek government was divided into separate parts. The Greek government consisted of an assembly, council, and courts, with each requiring a different number of voters present. The people all gather and vote on issues by hand, and this is the simplest form of majority rules. The role of the people is extremely important in how the society and state is governed and run. This early form a democracy was detailed by Pericles funeral oration during the Peloponnesian War. Pericles was an eminent Athenian politician who states in regards to the government of Athens, “Its administration favors the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here, Pericles states that the people have all the power and their opinion is highly valued. Likewise, the Romans valued the people’s opinions so highly that they entrusted with them rewards and punishments, vital aspects that held the society together. Pericles also states, “…nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, here is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition (Pericles, “Funeral Oration”, pp. 2)”. Here is the essence of democracy, every man no

2)”One view of Augustus went like this: filial duty and national crisis had been merely pretexts...After that, there had certainly been peace, but it was a bloodstained peace”-Tacitus, Annals

Today, much of the world’s governments have converted to democracies. In the Ancient World, there was only one truly notable example of a democratic society: The City-State of Athens. This is actually the birthplace of democracy, where instead of the rich or powerful ruling, it was the citizens of the city-state that held the power. This advanced way of government was so effective and well structured, it even laid the foundations for the development of our own democracy, right here in the United States, over 2,000 years in the future. Prior to Athens’s collapse during the Peloponnesian War, it truly had an efficient and very organized system of government.

A reading of Thucydides’, Pericles’ Funeral Oration and The Melian Dialogue uncovers both contrasting and comparable viewpoints on Athenian politics, power, aims of war, and empire. Thucydides presents two differing characteristics of Athens, one as the civilizer in Pericles’ funeral oration and the other as an tyrant in the Melian dialogue. In the funeral oration delivered by Pericles during the first year of the war, the Athenian leader emphasizes the idealized personal image of the Athenians in regard to their constitution and good character. Pericles goes on to praise the Athenian democratic institution of Athens that contributes to their cities greatness; in Pericles’s own words, “The Athenian administration favors the many instead of few… they afford equal justice to all of their differences” (112, 2.37). This quote emphasizes the good character of the Athens’ to coax and encourage the Athenians to preserve and better their great empire into the future. On the other hand, in the Melian dialogue, this notion of justice and equality is irrelevant; one, because Athens compared to Melos, is the stronger of the two and thus, is more powerful. Further, Athens, will continue to acquire absolute power and build its empire by conquering Melos and whomever else stands in its way. Through Pericles’ funeral oration and the Melian dialogue, the following conclusions/themes will demonstrate both the changing and somewhat stable nature of Athenian policy with regards to empire,

“Because of the greatness of our city the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own.” First it can clearly be noted that Pericles is talking on behalf of the city-state of Athens, rather than on behalf of himself. This is demonstrated by his use of “ us”, “our” and “we” signifying the democracy of Athens as a whole. Secondly, Pericles continues to demonstrate a great deal of pride. He is acknowledging the success and excellence of Athens and uses a metaphor to describe the result of Athens’ greatness when he says “the fruits of the whole earth flow in upon us”. He goes on to say that “…. so that we enjoy the goods of other countries as freely as our own.” This is important, because Pericles is using this statement to argue that there is no need to change the style of government Athens has. Furthermore he is using logos and logical reasoning as if to say: Athens is doing great, and we are reaping the benefits of other countries as a result of the greatness of Athens. Why should Athens change the system of government when it favors everyone and is being carried out successfully?

There is a fundamental difference between a democracy and a republic as it concerned the political entitlement of the citizenry. The citizens of a republic do not participate directly with governmental affairs. The citizens of a republic can however have a say in who does participate. The Roman republic has two prefect systems to prevent dictatorship which didn’t work.

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.

Tacitus is ecstatic about the current and last regime slowly bringing back freedom to the empire, but acknowledges that it is an extremely sluggish process that can be inhibited more easily than furthered. Roman imperialism can be a two-headed beast, one bringing joy and prosperity while the other rains down fire and brimstone. However, Tacitus could be viewed as hypocritical considering he condemned Domitian’s desire for military glory while loving the reign of Trajan. Obviously, this is partially because the former wanted to steal glory from Tacitus’ father-in-law. Tacitus finishes with, “Yet I shall find some satisfaction, even with the unskilled and unpractised voice, in recording the servitude we once suffered and in gratefully acknowledging the blessings we now enjoy.” He understands that living under an imperial leadership relies heavily on the individual currently in possession of power and that the outcome can differ greatly. Although imperialism is quite terrible at times, he acknowledges that it can lead to a variety of positive outcomes. Similarly, conquest and integration of conquered peoples is a process

The wise oligarch notes the helpfulness and power of the poor, yet the Athenian government provides the poor with little freedom of society. Even when Athens has a lower population than Rome, Athens drastically lack variety in the people they elect or give power to. Judging by Rome’s guidelines and statistics, one of the Roman citizenship system’s best qualities are the wide distribution of power in the common people. A content plebian population results in a quiet and prosperous

The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life” (Pericles’ Funeral Oration, Thucydides). In other words, it doesn’t matter what your social rank is, if you are a citizen of Athens, you have a right (and duty) to serve in the government. This is known as a direct democracy today, and it is where we, citizens of the United States, took inspiration for our current system of government. Pericles is right to praise the city-state in this regard, as its legacy still has effect on the world millenniums after its time.

Sparta’s tyrant has promised me more rights, and has been a good ruler for the current year. He does many things to improve my life. Our tyrant reformed laws, and gave me and citizens other than nobles a say in our government. He even canceled my debts, which is making my life much more easier as a farmer. My family has

My fellow Athenians, we have lost everything to the war against Sparta. I stand here before you to tell you about our monetary policy. It pains me to remind you that we have no money, but do not fear for I shall regain it. I have prayed to the gods over this matter, and I have finally written a new policy under their guidance. If you stand with me you will stand with the Oligarchs who have suffer terrible losses as you all have. Do you want our government’s money in the hands of a fool or in safe hands? Our city will not waste its time with people that don’t even know what they are doing, we shall pick the most qualified by vote.

Unlike the others, Nicias is not easily persuaded by words of victory, and does not favor the war due to his Aristocratic soul where his logistikon governs his thumos and epithumeticon. In Nicias' speech he produces sound arguments that show protest to their irrationality and quick decision- making of the Athenians. First he makes sensible suggestion to the assembly when says ."..not to draw on ourselves a war that is no business of ours, after so short a deliberation on so weighty affair...." Nicia's directly addresses their hastiness when he said `I will let you know that your haste is unseasonable, and you will not easily achieve your goals" and he reminds Athenians that "the least success comes by way of desire, and the most by planning ahead." Hence

Compare and contrast Thucydides’ and Socrates’ analyses of the fate of Athenian democracy in war, of why the Athenians went to war, and of how and why they failed.

“But we trust that the gods may grant us fortune as good as yours, since we are just men fighting against unjust, and that what we want in power will be made up by the alliance of the Lacedaemonians” (Thucydides 270). The Melians should have acted sensibly instead of being naïve and submit to the imperial power seeing that the odds were against them. The Athenians give them a choice, but they decided to act irrational and respond emotively. “They underestimated Athens’ military power, judging the issue by the clouded eye of volition rather than calculations based on security and followed the human tendency to back their desires with uncritical hope and use of sovereign reason only to reject what they find unpalatable” (Bosworth 36).