Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
julius caesar effects on society back then
caesars impact on roman empire
julius caesar effects on society back then
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: julius caesar effects on society back then
How was it possible that under the dictatorship and after the deification of Julius Caesar the Roman republic fell, when it had been structurally sound for four centuries before? When the republic was established around the end of the 6th century B.C.E., the Romans made clear that they wished to avoid all semblance of the monarchy that had ruled for two centuries before. (T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995; p. 215) The rule of the Republic was to be split into powers of the senate and consuls, a system that worked for over four centuries. The republic would face problems with the rise of the first triumvirate in 60 B.C.E., involving Julius Caesar, Crassus and Pompey. The triumvirate gained power that was intended to be in the hands of the senate and Roman assembly. This paved way to a situation in which a single man could sweep up the political power that previously belonged to the entire senate. Julius Caesar would use this tactic, following his campaigns of Gaul and Britton, to take sole dictatorship over Rome. While there were previous cases which individuals had been appointed as dictator, usually by the senate to serve for six months in a time of war, Caesar was appointed dictator three separate times.. After declining his first dictatorship, Caesar was awarded two more reigns as dictator for one and ten years, respectively. At this point Caesar was praised by the Roman people for his various military victories and had been awarded several awards and honors by the senate. Having conquered much of the surrounding territories, spanning from northern Africa to Greece, and enacting several reforms, Caesar was in the pro...
... middle of paper ...
...would stand for a few years after Caesar’s death, praises would not stop and the Republic would soon fall seventeen years later to the man that inherited Caesar’s name and fortune.
Works Cited
T.J. Cornell, The Beginnings of Rome: Italy and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000-264 BC), London and New York: Routledge, 1995
Stefan Weinstock, Divus Julius, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971
Adrian Goldsworthy, Caesar: Life of a Colossus, Yale University Press, 2006
Ovid’s Metamorphoses
Suetonius’ Divus Julius
Vergil’s Eclogue the Fifth “Daphnis”
Plutarch’s Parallel Lives
Plutarch. Caesar. ed. by Christopher Pelling (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)
J.F.C. Fuller, Julius Caesar: Man, Soldier and Tyrant,
James Sabben-Clare, Caesar and Roman Politics 60-50 B.C., London: Oxford University Press 1971
http://www.theoi.com/Text/OvidMetamorphoses15.html#6
Gaius Julius Caesar ( 100 BCE – 44 BCE) contributed to the breakdown of the roman republic through his political military by decreasing senate power, dismissing Rome’s aversion to monarchy, and his attempt to remove senate, military and religious authority, as well as his civil war; in which he overthrew the government and walked on the Rubicon river. The Roman Republic’s degeneration is Europe’s first case of the downfall of a constitutional system. The previous consuls and dictators of Rome during the republic also influenced the republics destruction however, these actions collaboratively impacted towards the end of the republic by Caesars anti-republic like methods and leadership role.
Livius, Titus. The Early History of Rome. Trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt. London: Penguin Group, 2002. N. pag. Print.
The Roman Republic can be explained as the period from 509 – 27 BCE, which the ancient Roman civilization exemplified a republican form of government; where the supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives. During the Roman Republic, the 2 most powerful, and main branches of government included the Consuls and the Senate. It was the Consuls who held supreme civil and military control over Rome; however the republic had precautions in place to avoid one of the consuls from exercising too much power, such as short one year terms, veto and the notion of 2 consuls to divide authority. The republic then also included the senate; where at first, senators were only chosen from the patrician class, but in time, plebeians joined their positions (Bradley, 1990). Throughout the history of the republic, the evolution of government was driven by the struggle between the aristocracy and the ordinary citizens. The demise of the republic resulted through a series of civil wars and powerful dominance of significant historical figures (Princeton.edu, 2014).
Over the span of five-hundred years, the Roman Republic grew to be the most dominant force in the early Western world. As the Republic continued to grow around the year 47 B.C it began to go through some changes with the rise of Julius Caesar and the degeneration of the first triumvirate. Caesar sought to bring Rome to an even greater glory but many in the Senate believed that he had abused his power, viewing his rule more as a dictatorship. The Senate desired that Rome continued to run as a republic. Though Rome continued to be glorified, the rule of Caesar Octavian Augustus finally converted Rome to an Empire after many years of civil war. Examining a few selections from a few ancient authors, insight is provided as to how the republic fell and what the result was because of this.
Starting in the mid-second century BCE, the Roman Republic was struggling because the senate continually placated the consul, and patriotic figures like Cicero were hopeful that the republic and its values would triumph over the political strife. Furthermore, new politicians like the Gracchus brothers were trying to reform a republic that heavily favored tradition and its elite. In the midst of this, Julius Caesar rose to power and was assassinated. The century-long culmination of attempted reforms, factions, power-hungry leaders, and ideological divisions justified the killing of Julius Caesar as the Roman Republic was too entrenched in its problems to implement needed political reforms.
Livius, Titus. The Early History of Rome. Trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt. London: Penguin Group, 2002. N. pag. Print.
This essay is intended to exonerate Gaius Julius Caesar from the sole responsibility of causing the collapse of the Roman Republic. This essay will explore the compounded actions of notable figures including Tiberus Gracchus, Gaius Gracchus, Lucius Cornelius Sulla and Augustus Caesar. By exploring both the actions of, and the means by which the prominent actors of this time period influenced it, this essay will illustrate how the destruction of the Republic was a gradual process encompassing the faults of generations, not only those of a single man.
The Roman republic at first tried to protect itself from foreign enemies, not by being defensive, but by going on the offensive and destroying those that had any possibility of threatening the young republic. Once this started it was hard to stop the citizen army’s consisted of hop-lite phalanxs from continuing on with what they were good at; War. With each successful campaign came the spoils of victory, conquered land, expansion, new ideas, art, technology, religion, and so forth. All of these spoils added great wealth and power to the republic, most likely encouraging it in to becoming a empire.
The great Roman leader called, Julius Caesar, who fought as a general to expand the Roman Republic, left a great legacy. Julius Caesar was a great politician and worked his way up to being a dictator or counsel, which is the highest you can go in the Roman Government, would rule for a long time. Julius Caesar was a great leader who helped expand the Roman Empire and reformed the Roman Government which would be his great legacy. The topic of Julius Caesar relates to the topic of leadership and legacy because he was a great politician who left a great legacy on how the Roman government and how our U.S. government today worked by seizing the Roman Republic and starting the Roman Empire from the ruble of the Roman Republic. With him being a great
The fall of the Roman Republic in 44-27 B.C. is seen by many as the fault of a combination of people’s actions and events. Whether you believe the rise of private armies where the cause or the creation of the first Triumvirate lead to the destruction, it is entirely up to you. According to book, “Twelve Greeks & Romans”, Julius Caesar is to blame for the collapse of the republican government in Rome. This may come as a shock to some people because of the many great deeds Caesar performed in his life. People referred to Caesar as magnanimous, as he even appointed some of his former competitors to high offices. Other than the fact that people believed in Caesar, it is shocking that the collapse of an entire Republic could be the fault of only one man. Unfortunately according to the author of “Twelve Greeks & Romans”, Creaser’s one lethal fault, that ultimately led to his demise and to the collapse of the entire Roman Republic, was his arrogance (Richard, pgs. 174-175).
Julius Caesar’s dictatorship in Rome is a key element in the gradual transition of our government from what
‘I love the name of honour, more than I fear death.’ The words of a man whose passing marked a new chapter in Roman history, who led a life that steered Rome to prosper and become one of the most influential civilizations there has ever been, Gaius Julius Caesar. Gaius Julius Caesar (commonly known as Julius Caesar) was undoubtedly a man of great achievement. Although assassinated before he could carry through with all of his ideas for Rome, what he accomplished throughout the course of his life crowned him as the one in a million who has altered the course of history. His victories led to a senator’s rebellion, and Caesars eventual assassination. As he fell, the vast Roman
Much ink from the historians’ pens has been spilled seeking to explain the reasons behind the fall of the Roman Republic. As Gruen notes, “from Montesquieu to Mommsen, from Thomas Arnold to Eduard Meyer…the Republic’s calamity has summoned forth speculation on a grand scale. How had it come about?” (1) Certainly, from one perspective, it can be said that the attraction of this event is to a degree overstated: it is based on the belief of the stability of political systems, of the deterrence of the possibility of radical changes in political worldviews and general social arrangements and structures. Furthermore, it marks a decisive shift, in the political arrangements of a grand civilization of Ancient Rome: in other words, it marks an instance where even within the continuity of a singular civilization, such as that of Rome, there can be the presence of political turbulence and abrupt changes of directions regarding the form which political power and hegemony ultimately assumes. Yet, what is perhaps more important from the perspective of the historian is the precise sense in which the events of the collapse of the Roman Republic still remain ambiguous, arguably because of the multi-faceted manner in which this fall occurred. Hence, Gruen writes: “the closing years of the Roman Republic are frequently described as an era of decay and disintegration; the crumbling of institutions and traditions; the displacement of constitutional procedures by anarchy and forces; the shattering of ordered structures, status and privilege; the stage prepared for inevitable autocracy.” (1) In other words, the collapse of the Roman Republic is complicated because of the multiple dimensions in which such degeneration ultimately happened: it was not mere...
The Roman Republic was founded in 509 BC after the ruling Tarquins abused their extensive power as monarchs and were overthrown. The goal of the Roman Republic was to have a strong government, governed equally by the patricians and the plebians, and to avoid another Roman Monarchy. For years Rome was guided by great men, such as Cincinnatus and Scipio Africanus, who led the Republic through hard times, conquering such enemies as the Etruscans and the Carthaginians. Large-scale war united Roman society in its common goals. However, after Scipio’s victory at Zama in 202 BC, a new Roman world began to take shape. Roman soldiers returned home from their victory to find that they could not pay for their farms, becoming “squatters” on their own lands after having to sell them to richer men. The Senate became corrupted, and despite the Gracchi brothers’ best efforts, the rich patricians soon monopolized nearly all aspects of the Republic, from trading and “farming” to governing the people. After marching on Rome, Sulla became dictator in 82 BC. After Sulla, the First Triumvirate: Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar, owned virtually all power in Rome, yet each had his own desire to defeat the other two and become Emperor. When Crassus died in battle, Caesar had his chance. He defeated Pompey and marched on Rome, victorious. After declaring himself Dictator for Life, Caesar was assassinated, and another Civ...
One of William Shakespeare’s most revered Roman plays and a tragedy that has stood alone in its place of magnificence in world literature, Julius Caesar is accredited to have been written in 1599. It portrays the 44 BC conspiracy against the Roman dictator Julius Caesar, his assassination and the defeat of the conspirators at the battle of Philippi. It is one among several plays written by Shakespeare that were based on true events from Roman history, others being ‘Coriolanus’ and ‘Antony and Cleopatra’. ‘Lives of the Noble Greeks and Romans’, written in the First century A.D. and translated by the Renaissance English writer Thomas North, is the source of these plays on a certain level. Shakespeare seems to have agreed with Plutarch’s philosophy that history is made, written and altered by the actions and beliefs of a few great men, that is to say the rulers, rather than by the public or the people as a whole. He depicted the actions of the leaders of Roman society rather than class conflicts or larger socio-political movements as having determined history. That being said, while Shakespeare focuses on these key political figures in his play, he does not ignore outright the fact that their power rests at least to some extent on the fickle favour of the populace.