The Epicureans By Their Writings Have Seized The Whole Of Italy

This essay will attempt to explain the motives that have led to the rise and fall of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the late second century B.C. Although very few sources remain of these accounts, which are based mainly on works of the historians Appian and Plutarch, the Gracchi have been the subject of study by several scholars. If on the one hand earlier historians tend to represent them as heroes and revolutionaries, on the other, more recent ones have regarded them as two controversial figures which were politically motivated by personal gains. They proposed and passed a series of legislations and the most controversial one is the agrarian law about the redistribution of the land. It can be argued that their motives have been certainly and thoroughly selfless for the good of the people of Rome in the specific period of history which spans from 133 B.C to 121 B.C. On the contrary, as it will be explained below, their methods have not always been ‘orthodox’. There could be three main areas that will help this essay to conclude if they were truly heroes of the people or political opportunists; the first is to evaluate what their true motives were, the second is to assess if there was an agrarian crisis and the third to establish who the beneficiaries of their legislations were. Overall, as all political figures, the Gracchi have to be taken in the context of the specific roman society of their time.

Though Pompey sought power by manipulating the political system to his own advantage, the fact that the Senate was already weak and hence gave him this power.This shows that although Pompey’s actions were detrimental to the fall of the Republic, he was not the sole contributor. Pompey was both underage and had held none of the required offices, yet the Senate passed decrees exempting him from these traditional prerequisites, thus allowing for him to be joint consul with Crassus in 70 BC. According to Cicero, “absolute power” was what he had sought, and thus this ambition had nothing to do with “the happiness and honour of the community.” This reveals a callously ruthless dimension to Pompey, in that he would undertake any measure to achieve his own goals. However, it should also be noted that Cicero’s interest areas are sometimes narrow and deliberately, or accidentally selective. By reaching the top without any previously held positions of consequence, Pompey the Great had manipulated the political system to his own advantage. Thus, by doing so he undermined the Senate, reiterating its insignificance and weakness.

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

Niccolò Machiavelli, a Florentine philosopher and political aficionado from the 16th century and Socrates, a classical Athenian savant who lived during the 5th century B.C., are both judged as being forefathers to modern western political science and thought. The two great men both came from erratic epochs within their respective nations of Italy and Greece: wars, transitions of power, and domestic conflicts left their countries void of sustainable leadership and in desperate need of a brighter future. But despite being from equally hopeless times, their theories on how their societies (and ultimately, future ones) should function in order to prosper, are divergent. In this essay, I will argue that Socrates would

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.

Swiss-French writer Benjamin Constant and ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle offer conflicting viewpoints concerning the merits and possibilities of ancient Greek democracy. Aristotle’s political theory attempts to justify his city-state’s political structure by providing a model of the common good, or Chief Aim, his end goal for Athenian democracy. He believed Athenians could reach the Chief Aim as a society by individually learning to be virtuous and then instilling laws and morals based on these ideals. In his lecture, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns, Constant highlights that the individual liberties protected in a modern representative democracy are much more important than the political liberties that one was given in antiquity. Constant illustrates that while some ideas of ancient Greek democracy are precious, Aristotle’s political theory is not an obtainable reality and it was beneficial that modern democracies transitioned to a system that protects individual liberty.

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

In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti highlights the many significant people and events that characterized the late Roman Republic. Specifically, he focuses on the time period between the election of Tiberius Grachus, to the rise of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. In this account of history, Parenti presents the social, political, and economic aspects of the Roman culture from the perspective of the Roman commoner, or plebeian. Using this perspective, he also spends a great amount of time examining the causes and effects of the assassination of Julius Caesar. The views that Parenti presents in this book stand in sharp contrast with the views of many ancient and modern historians, and offer an interesting and enlightening perspective into class struggle in the society of the Roman republic.

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.

Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was the son of a Roman aristocrat whose family had regularly held the highest offices of state for the past century. Tiberius achieved much in his life and was a man of high distinction in political circles. He was a man with a prominent background- coming from very powerful families. It seemed also, that many had high expectations of him, and his potential was not seen to its full extent. To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion. Today I will be critically analysing and assessing the significance of three key areas which have been the crux of historical debate for centuries. Today I will be touching on Tiberius' family background, education, and early career to 134BC, the aims

Daniel Mechenko HIS 1001 Professor Trumbach Paper 2 Sophism For many years, ancient Athens had been governed entirely by aristocrats with peasants contributing little to nothing to politics due to the imbalance of power. However, after the birth of democracy, which was implemented by Solon, the Aristocrats did not have as much power at their disposal relative to previous era. Peasants acquired the right to vote for their leaders, and because of this, an individual looking to obtain political power had to be a proficient orator in order to sway the citizens of Athens to elect him as a public official.

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.

Power is a natural desire for humans. It is what structures society, makes the world turn, and to get more of it, people will do almost anything. Yet society often follows whoever is in power without a second thought. Because the Romans follow whoever is in power without considering that person’s morals and ideals, they are responsible for the anarchy that ensues after Caesar’s death.

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

What one can take away from both the implicit and explicit criticisms given by Xenophon and Aristotle is that political life is incredibly messy and problematic and, moreover, the best regime, the telos of political life, may not be unattainable. Both works indicate that virtue must be a main component of the regime, yet it appears human beings have difficulty remaining virtuous in the face of 1) material wealth and 2) the allure of