The Two Gladiators By The Director Caiano

Romans were a civilization that originated after the Greek culture. They, like Greeks, saw an extreme significance in the idea of a love for one’s country and loyalty. The Romans, however, were more concerned with public affairs such as education, sanitation, and health. They held a strong connection with their ancestors and wished to imitate what the ancient Romans did. Although Romans rejected the idea of a Rex, or king, they favored the common hero. They wanted a leader who a “regular Joe”, someone who was average and could still led an average life after doing extraordinary things. The Romans also had a very defined government that was broken into consuls, senate, and assembly. There were two consuls who served in place of the king as the leaders of the Roman Empire. Next in succession was the senate, comprised only of patricians who debated and passed legislation. Finally, there was the assembly made for the plebeians to approve laws.

Commodus' ambition begins after he kills his father Emperor Marcus Aurelius because he feels that his father did not love him enough and becomes the Emperor of Rome. Marcus says that Commodus "is not a moral man" and that "he cannot rule". Commodus is the Macbeth character in 'Gladiator' but is still not the main character. The main character in the film is Maximus who resembles Macduff in the film. While still being shown as a great fighter, Commodus is also shown in the film as a bit of a coward, after Maximus wins the war for Rome, Commodus shows up late to the victory celebrations acting as if he wasn’t even aware of a war even existing. Quickly after being crowned as Emperor of Rome, Commodus becomes disliked by the Senate and the people of Rome and seen as a pathetic leader. Commodus uses the ambition to be like his father to create barbaric fights in the Coliseum. "He'll bring them death and they will love him

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

In Document A, you can see how many emperors were killed in a 50 year period. This shows that the emperors were not in office long. Because of this, the people could not get used to a ruler. The rulers also were not able to get better, because they were commonly killed. In Document C, Michael Grant wrote “...weakness of the late Roman army were largely due to the eventual failure... to enforce regular conscription [draft of soldiers]. This shows that the government was corrupt and only wanted things for the rich and themselves. The rich people themselves did not want to go to war, but they wanted to keep their slaves, so they sent the middle class.

The novel-based American drama movie Rumble Fish was directed by Francis Ford Coppola in 1983-the author of the novel S.E. Hinton also co-wrote the screen play. The cinematographer is Stephen Burum, the music is by Stewart Copeland, and the editor is Barry Malkin and the. Zoetrope Studios produced the movie with a 10-million-dollar budget (Clarke).

Children of Men is a film that forces the viewers to take notice of how the future is born out of the present, and to be conscious of the misguided implications of the choices we make or accept today. The director, Alfonso Cuarón, visually applied the background to tell the story and warn us of a world that is not too far from our own without fully distracting the viewers’ attention from the foreground.

Julius Caesar was a very influential figure in Roman history. Many features of the Roman Empire came from his reign as dictator. But what, specifically, were some of those great achievements? In this research paper, I will explain Julius Caesar’s youth, the Roman Republic before Caesar came to power, the Roman government before Caesar became dictator-for-life, the effects of Julius Caesar, the reasons for his assassination, and what affects there were when the public learned about his assassination.

I believe that Commodus was a cruel and chaotic ruler of Rome because of all the things that he has done as emperor. Commodus was cruel and chaotic because he killed things for fun. Another reason is Commodus started the fall of the roman empire(an extensive group of states or countries under a single supreme authority, formerly especially an emperor or empress). One last reason that Commodus was cruel and chaotic is that he would fight as a gladiator in the Colosseum. Some people say that Commodus had a good education, making him a good leader but that’s just wrong.

Garnsey and Sailler in their first chapter in their book discuss the principate, which could be defined as “the rule of the early roman emperors”. Broken down into different aspects

Roman values and their importance to the state play a central role in Julius Caesar. These values are portrayed as integral to the success of Rome, because the majority of these virtues act in favour of the state. Each person in Roman society has their own role which is part of a more important collective whole. Characters in the play seem to identify more with being a citizen or “soul of Rome” rather than a unique individual (Shakespeare, 2.1.323). The play emphasizes Rome as “an alien society” and analyses the relationship “between Rome and the Romans, who see themselves as ‘citizens,’ rather than ‘men’” (Miles, 2). Shakespeare emphasizes the importance of the state over personal thoughts or feelings: “not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more” (Shakespeare, 3.2.21-22). Each of the Roman virtues arises out of a sense of duty to put the state over the self. Following this duty evokes a necessary recognition of

At the age of five Commodus was named Caesar, and at the age of seventeen he became co-Augustus with his father. He spent his childhood accompanying Marcus Aurelius on political campaigns, and learned a lot on how to run an empire. However, after the death of his father the people of Rome found that the years under Marcus Aurelius had not impacted Commodus' leadership skills. Commodus' reign was filled with bad decisions, causing the people of Rome

The biggest moment in which Commodus shows his lust for power is at the beginning of the movie. His father Marcus Aurelius, who is also the Emperor, decides that the Roman General Maximus Meridius, who is very close to Marcus, is to take over the Roman Empire as Ceasar once he dies(Movie). He does not believe Commodus is fit to rule. Marcus tells his son this news and Commodus is so heart broken by Marcus’ decision that he suffocates his own father in order to take over the empire(Movie). Commodus also shows pride in himself multiple times throughout the film. Towards the beginning of the film Commodus constantly boasts to the Senate and Maximus about how will take over the Empire once his father dies(Movie). Commodus also asks Maximus if he is willing to stay and continue leading the Roman Army when he becomes Ceasar. Later on in the movie after Commodus has become Ceasar, he is always showing how he is royalty(Movie). He takes pride in the way he dresses with fine white royal robes, the crown, fancy armor, and capes. He loves that he lives in a marble palace with servants and guards to fetch his every need, and has the finest decorations and tableware(Movie).

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

While reading the novel I felt completely immersed in it because it explains the entire spectrum of Roman society, its darker side of corruption, the division of its people, and betrayal that cannot be explained through anything but an inside source. It is so difficult to understand because of its complexities, the plethora of unwritten rules and clichés that defined everything official that the Romans did. After reading this book, the reader will have glimpsed only a small fraction of the customs, though this will not prevent them from grasping the fundamentals of their political system as a whole. It is surprising how interestingly different they are from ourseven though our society is rooted so deeply into their foundations. Bribery for one was a very interesting topic of this book. It was a predominant part of the way their politics worked. When considering who would win elections, bribery was a major factor and its existence was even acknowledged by the state. Individuals such as Crassus, who had exorbitant amounts of money, relied heavily on bribes not to get votes for himself (he was popular enough not to need them), but for officials in lesser positions who had sided with him. In this way he achieved a huge control of every level of government and it wasn't until Cicero and a few other politicians following in his footsteps, put an end to this corruption through an even more complicated series of laws and risky

Commodus also went against the demonstration of normatively appropriate conduct, which is a shared definition of ethical leadership according to Eisenbeiss (2012), and something that also includes the advocacy of such behavior to followers.(Eisenbeiss 2012:792) Connecting the orientations of justice and moderation, is also applicable here, due to the proposed shift by Aurelius and also something that i.e altered the course of his life drastically and immediately (Eisenbeiss 2012:795) Another aspects addressed in this paper is the dilemma Commodus encounter in his meeting and interaction with Maximus, someone with an authentic leadership style, further contrasting his own shortcomings and strengths. The way that Commodus dealt with his- what he considered- betrayal, actually catapulted Maximus even further into such a leadership, due to the life changing event that occurred when his family was slaughtered (Northouse 2013:266) The theoretical approach for authentic leadership would have it that such leaders display self-awareness, and internalized moral perspective, balanced processing and relational transparency, all of which can be seen in the character of Maximus even though his processing went through stages where his balance was in questions, naturally due to the loss of his family and being imprisoned and sold like a slave. His moral reasoning, stemming from a military core as well, could have said to have a further impact on