The Roman Principate, An Era That Has A Clear Induction Essay

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.

Although the fall of Rome remains obscure, what many historians fail to realize is that the decline of the Roman Empire was the epitome of cause and effect relationships. Properly analyzing the fall of Rome leads historians to realize that a chain of circumstances, beginning with the political corruption of the Western empire, was a catalyst for superfluous military spending and economic failure, all which contributed to the fall of Rome. Because the Praetorian Guard would select the highest bidder and put him into office, the emperors would not represent the people as a whole and did not instill the beliefs that the people held. In Document 1, Roman Emperors, 235-285, a chart shows the inconsistency of the Roman emperors and the violence

The Flames of Rome by Paul Maier is a documentary-fiction that has not only brought to life the evolution of Christianity in Rome but has also painted a clear picture of what it was like to live in Rome at the time. Understanding the Roman’s way of life and reasoning behind their actions plays a major role in the reasoning for Maier writing this book. The Flames of Rome is equivalent to reading a textbook but Maier makes it much more enjoyable and intriguing by adding plausible details of his own. Maier’s portrayal of the death of Claudius Caesar, in chapter nine of the novel, closely follows the primary sources of Tacitus and Suetonius but also loosely follows that of the secondary sources. It is important to compare Maier’s version to other

According to Edward Gibbon in document 2, “the active virtues of society were discouraged and the last remains of military spirit were buried.” This lead to the fall of the Roman Empire because the people weren’t patriotic and didn’t want to save the values they currently had. The military didn’t have any spirit since the majority of the army was made up of foreign soldiers who didn’t fight because they wanted to defend their empire but to get paid. Additionally, as noted in document 1, “very few inhabitants of the empire believed that the old civilization was worth saving.” This shows that the people weren’t very willing to help defend their empire because they didn’t believe it was even worth saving.

Compare the following descriptions of Augustus’ rise to power, one by Augustus himself and one by Tacitus (the second-century historian), and discuss their historical validity.

After the fall of Tarquinius Superbus’ reign of Rome, the Brutus and Collatinus led patrician revolution leads to the beginning of a new era in Roman history: the republic. The early republic is mostly a patrician favoring institute and created it in order “to restore power and privileges that popular royal tyrants had usurped from them” and to make it “difficult for any one aristocrat to acquire too much power at the expense of the rest” (Ward 59). Greek historian, Polybius, in his book, Histories, talks about the greatness of this Roman republic and its constitution by claiming: “Now the elements by which the Roman constitution was controlled were three in number, … and all aspects of the administration were, taken separately, so fairly

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.

In this section I will be analysing how Octavian/Augustus rose to become the first Emperor of Rome and his reign thereafter. I will also be looking at how he gained his position and what being and

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

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.

Many anthropologists and historians have speculated about the different causes and effects of the fall of the Roman Empire. Some have even stated that Rome did not fall but instead, was merely transformed. However, there were many causes that did end this prodigious empire. Many seemingly small decisions made by powerful emperors over the course of just over a century lead to its destruction. In this paper it will be established that the Roman emperors, in an effort to save their political power, made adjustments to warfare/treaty practices and made political changes which over time lead to the inevitable collapse of the realm, this caused a drastic regression in the living standards of the Roman citizens, implying that the Empire did indeed collapse and not transform.

A republic, like Rome, moves at a maddeningly slow pace. Legislation is put through a system of checks and balances where rivals debate ad nauseum over proposed policies. In a perfect world, this ensures that only which is most beneficial for the state and her peoples becomes a reality. A Tyrant, however, can accomplish a great deal in only a short amount of time. A good leader, like Augustus, can propel his people forward unhindered by the chains of a republic. The Roman people, according to Tacitus: “prefered the security of the current regime to the dangers of old” (Yardley 2008, 3). Even if it lacked freedom, many were willing to submit to an empire if it meant stability and security.

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.

After being exiled, Niccolo Machiavelli began to work on “Il Principe”. He wrote it as a letter to Lorenzo de Medici providing him with the secret to becoming a good ruler and perhaps earn him a position in the Medici government. He explains how to acquire power, create a state, and maintain it. It serves as a guide for political action based on lessons of history and his own personal experience as a civil servant in the Florentine republic.

Abstract: In this paper I attempt to admire the spectator’s experience while viewing the Arch of Titus, and bring to the forefront why I find the Arch of Trajan to be underappreciated. I will compare the two by first analyzing the meaning of the Arch of Titus, and then analyzing and summarizing the Arch of Trajan. The source I used for the Arch of Trajan may be among the outliers of most scholars, but I find that I agree with their analysis of the arch in that it was not simply a list of Trajan’s accomplishments, but rather outcomes of his famed policy, unrightfully credited to Nerva, of alimenta.