The Roman Government

Gibbon begins his work by idolizing the Empire under Augustus and the subsequent rulers who followed in his footsteps. “The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour... During a happy period (A.D. 98-180) of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this … to describe the prosperous condition of their empire…” From the onset of the book, Gibbon sets out on a path to explain the virtuous characteristics of the empires. These emperors, the “good” emperors, were the last before the start of the

After solving the Sphinx’s riddle, he becomes the king and marries Jocasta, his mother. Again, we note that his action was unintentional. This was one of the reasons he should not have deserved what he got.

Some policies and institutions of the Roman Republic were useful to help them succeed in conquering first Italy and then the Mediterranean world. Before of the institution of the republic, the romans were a monarchy since their beginning and they were basically a pastoral people. Rome suffer several changes and improvements under the control of the Etruscan kings. The Etruscan were civilization settled north of Rome in Etruria, and they once had control over almost all the Italic peninsula. The Etruscans influences in Rome were profound, they transformed Rome from a pastoral community to a city (91). The Etruscan built the street and roads that help the development of temples, markets, shops, streets, and houses. They basically brought urbanization to Rome. It is fairly to say that the Rome republic was a fusion between the elements of the Etruscan civilization and the Rome elements. The combination of the different political institutions and policies made the Romans succeed in their conquest territories.

The Greeks and the Romans were two empires with similar goals, but contrasting government control. Within Greece were the Spartans and Athenians, which had two diverse governmental bodies. The Spartans were ruthless and focused on military success, while the Athenians lived off of a democracy and let their people decide what was best for the state. Close by were the Romans, who cared for their people liked the Athenians, but made acquiring land a necessity as to the Spartans. Although the Spartans, Athenians, and Romans were made up of different laws and government, they still kept control over their people for centuries to come.

During its time, the Roman empire had grown to a powerful force. However, the Romans had many changes that helped it grow while still maintaining many characteristic as well. As the Romans had maintained their control in the Mediterranean and continued to have great trade with other countries, Rome had changed their government system as well as have a major religion change. At the start of 509 BCE, the last Etruscan king’s reign ended and a new government system was founded.

The Roman Republic was a “democratic” republic, which allowed first citizens to vote, and to choose their governors in the senate (Hence, their consuls). However, it was a nation ruled by its aristocracy, and, consequently, the entire Republic`s power was concentrated in a few individuals. Furthermore, the Senate was controlled by Patricians, which directed the government by using wealth to buy control and power over the decisions of the senate and the consuls. This situation aroused the inconformity of the people; as result, a civil war took place in the Republic (destroying it), and then the Roman Empire was born.

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.

He is kind to free people and attentive to his rulers , but cruel to those he has enslaved, “being himself a lover of ruling and a lover if honor” (219, 549). Basing his claim to rule on his warfare abilities, and him ruled by spirit. At first he is one to despise money, but as he grows older he worships his money-loving tendencies, a habit produced by the lack of guardian leadership. His becoming of a timocratic man stems from his mother’s complaints that her husband is not a ruler, thereby putting her at a disadvantage to other women. Recognizing her husband’s lack of interest with money and his indifference towards her and everything else, she tells her son of his father’s faults. The boy is aware of his father’s shortcomings, but also takes into account his words of rationality. “So he is pulled by both” (220,570b), keeping bad company as a good man, he is establishes a median to be ruled by, becoming honor loving and the timocratic

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.

Justinian’s age was a golden age because Justinian had achieved many things. Justinian created currency, controls many sea routes for trade, had entertainment, and many more advancements. But the advancements that stands out are, the Bureau of Barbarians and how much land Justinian dominates. Justinian had created a secret agency for his empire. A group of merchants and spies that would go spy and bring back information about the enemy - Bureau of Barbarians. Because of this agency, Justinian had ideas on how to protect his empire. He also dominated a big amount of land. He controlled the Vandals in South Africa, the Ostrogoths in Italy, and the Visigoth in Southern Spain. Because of this, his empire gained many ideas, rituals, and information

He went from an insignificant peasant to the most powerful position in the Byzantine Empire, the emperor (source 3 page 120). This could be an explanation as to why Procopius attacks Justinian so frequently in The Secret History (DOES THIS NEED A SOURCE?). His bias and distaste is clearly displayed in the following quote (source 2 page 889): “Justinian, having no natural aptitude toward the imperial dignity, neither assumed the royal manner nor thought it necessary to his prestige. In his accent, in his dress, and in his ideas he was a barbarian.” Procopius essentially admits to his own bias, saying that the fact that he was not a natural heir and because of this is barbaric. Clearly, The Secret History is shaping up to be a remarkably biased source, which decreases the probability that it is a reliable

However, Diocletian had sudden health issues and was put on bed rest. Constantine found this to be his opportunity to escape and, so he moved from Nicomedia to Boulogne to meet his father who now ruled Spain, Gaul, and Britain. His father, Emperor Constantius Chlorus, was old, un-well, and troubled by the absence of his son, but in 305 AD he was finally reunited with his Constantine. With Constantius’ health declining in battle, he trained and raised Constantine to be ready to one day take over the empire. He trained him with the soldiers and by the end of the battle; everyone began to have Constantine’s trust. Unfortunately, winning the battle was not going to help with Constantius’ health. With his death, everyone knew and loved Constantius and knew that his son would rule with the respect his father did and therefore crowned him

What a pity. All of these oblivious bourgeoisie men and plebeians have failed to comprehend the reality of Julius Caesar’s sacrificial demise, the powerful man every man cherishes. While Caesar was in Spain, a fever came upon him and he violently shook while the falling sickness dominated his body, his lips transitioned to a chalk white, and the life was sucked out of him from God. Is this a powerful man who can influence Rome? Yet, every person worships him as a powerful man, which he is. On another occasion, Cesar nearly drowned from the tranquil river; it solely took the efforts of the heroic Caius Cassius to save his life. Is this the man worthy of leadership? A man who upholds to be equivalent to God, yet he nearly dies by the elements of nature? Nevertheless, everyone doubtlessly knows that Caesar is

The Romans were somewhat meeting the common good. When it came to providing public services the Roman Republic earned a B. The reason it earned a B was that the Romans were providing public services by having to make aqueducts, roads and having entertainment. The Romans made aqueducts that were made out of stone, brick, and special volcanic cement pozzuolana. The waterway system ran below the ground and was built to carry the flow of water. Aqueducts provided the Romans water. With the water they had they could take baths, drink water, and even fountains were used to provide water outside. Water transported from underground to the system of pipes below surfaces. When it came to building roads there was an old expression that said: “All roads

Edward Champlin’s book, Nero, is a fresh take on the life of a Roman emperor whose infamous legacy still lives on today. While many have concluded that Nero was simply insane, Champlin takes a different route and argues that, “his actions were rational-that is-he was not crazy-and that much of what he did resonated far more with contemporary social attitudes than our hostile sources would have us believe” (236). Perhaps he was not solely a mad man; he was more calculating than we think, and did things for a reason. To Nero, life was a performance, and he was determined to make sure his audience remembered him.