In this essay I will argue that the ultimate failure of Pompey in his struggle with Julius Caesar was due to Pompey’s lack of risk-taking and his inability to predict Caesar’s strategies. I will then contrast this to Caesar’s riskier strategies which would eventually lead to his triumph over Pompey. I shall cover the major battles, Ilerda, Dyrrhacchium and Pharsalus in order to assess how and why Pompey eventually lost against Caesar. Tensions between Caesar and Pompey had grown more noticeable after the death of Crassus in 53BC. Caesar and Pompey came into conflict again when Pompey was granted sole consulship under the Senatus Consultum Ultimum (52BC) to combat the mob that had risen up to avenge Clodius’ death. Whilst Pompey was sole consul he instituted a law that prevented the holding of an office in absentia. Suetonius mentions that the bill that forbade the holding of offices in absentia was accidentally passed by Pompey before he could exempt Caesar from its conditions. However, Scullard writes that Pompey needed to take Caesar into consideration; this …show more content…
The stage was set for a long siege which Pompey could ill afford. Paterculus states that Caesar moved swiftly and relied on his own luck while Pompey endured the siege until he discovered a weak point in Caesar’s walls which he poured men through until Caesar’s men were forced into a tactical retreat. Seager also claims that it was Caesar’s speed and luck which helped him break the blockade at Brundisium which was being overseen by Bibulus. Pitassi, in his Navies of Rome, calls to mind Pompey’s use of the fleet to pursue Caesar’s retreating men and that his command of the sea had driven Caesar eastward. Furthermore, this reliance on a strong navy could have been a factor in making Spain so easy for Caesar to conquer as Pompey would have been occupied with raising legions and navies in
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...
His first contribution to Rome’s downfall came in the form of the formation of the First Triumvirate, which enabled him to illegally take Gaul, and further undermine the senate. Caesar made his way to power by gaining important alliances. Unlike Marius, he was born into a fairly important high class family in Rome. The First Triumvirate, formed in 60BC was composed of himself, Crassus and Pompey. Crassus was the wealthiest man in Rome at the time, and Pompey had just been awarded his third Triumph. The mere existence of such a group undermined the ideals of the senate, as it worked on the basis that no one man could have enough power to do anything without the support of the senators. The Triumvirs worked to achieve their own individual goals, whilst simultaneously supporting one another. Caesar was consul in 59BC, with Marcus Bibulus, and made the sheer influence of the three men public with the introduction of his land redistribution law. Crassus and Pompey supported this proposal, and Pompey filled Rome with his soldiers. Bibulus tried to void the law but Caesar’s armed supporters drove him out of the senate and forced him into house arrest. This meant that Caesar essentially had a sole consulship and gained enough power and support to overturn his proposed governorship and allowed himself
Julius Caesar was unquestionable a cunning Politian as portrayed within historical documents, even though the events were documented after the accounts of his rule materialized there are still numerous theories about his political ability’s and how he was viewed by the people he governed. This paper is intended to present the reader clear vision on how Julius Caesar was viewed during his dictatorship of Rome. Was Julius Caesar a selfish dictator or model politician? There will be five diverse source accounts of the events which will be examined for similarities and differences based on the historical evidences.
Julius Caesar emerged. He was able commander who led many conquests for Rome. In 59 B.C. Caesar set out for a new conquest. After nine years of constant fighting, he finally conquered Gaul. Pompey grew jealous of his achievement and had the senate order him to disband his forces and return to Rome. Caesar secretly crossed the Rubicon and killed Pompey then entered Rome. After crushing many rebellions, Caesar forced the senate to make him a dictator. Caesar launched many reforms such as public work programs and giving land to the poor. According to legend those in the senate murdered Caesar on March 15. Caesar's Grandnephew, Octavian, and Marc Anthony joined forces to capture his killers. However bitter feuds grew it soon became a battle for power.
However, Caesar had the approval of many citizens in Rome, which gave him more power of Pompey. Most citizens of Rome wanted him to run the Republic instead of Pompey, therefore, they supported and even encouraged his battle against Pompey. By having more power, he was essentially more easily persuaded to cross the Rubicon with his troops. Doing so, he crossed the Rubicon and began the fight due to the power of the people. Once he crossed the Rubicon, he was hailed as a hero (Civil Wars by Julius Caesar) and was persuaded to continue fighting for power in Rome. With Caesar’s army of troops growing and the support rising, he felt he had no choice but to continue fighting for power over Pompey. However, Pompey also had supporters on his side, making the battle longer and more difficult. Obviously you can not stop a war in the middle of The civil war lasted four years and Caesar eventually won power of Rome over
In 71 BC, Pompey returned to Rome from the West. He helped Crassus to defeat Spartacus.4 This demonstrated how Pompey was a great general, and in 70 BC, he and Crassus were both elected consul.5
Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) was one of the most outstanding leaders in history. He was the first ruler of the Romano-Hellenic civilization and achieved his goals with great success throughout his life of 56 years. He was assassinated by the conspirators, who accused him for practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were.
In the play The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare, I saw two main characters as tragic heroes. First, I saw Julius Caesar as a tragic hero because his will to gain power was so strong that he ended up losing his life for it. The fact that he could have been such a strong leader was destroyed when he was killed by conspirators. I saw Marcus Brutus as a second tragic hero in this play. Brutus was such a noble character that did not deserve to die. The main reason why he did die, however, was because he had led a conspiracy against Caesar and eventually killed him. These two characters were the tragic heroes of the play in my opinion.
Pompey tried another devious act against Caesar, which this time worked. He had the senate pass a law that made Pompey and Caesar both give up troops, and send them to the East, where they were supposedly needed against the Parthians. This seemed fair, but it made Caesar lose two legions, one that was lent to him by Pompey in the Gallic Wars, and one of his own. Once they were positioned there, Pompey decided they were no longer needed, and sent them to Capua (a city in Rome) under his command.
As all of us, Romans stared at the Britains in the distance, I almost felt a huge stone lift off our shoulders as though we were outnumbered we had better weapons and armour, the chance of victory suddenly became more fair. As we both prepared for the battle, Suetonius gave us a speech to inspire us, "Disregard the clamours and empty threats of the natives! In their ranks there are more women than fighting men! Unwarlike, unarmed, when they see the arms and the courage of the conquerors who have driven them to flight so often, they will break immediately. Even when a force contains many legions, few among them win battles - what special glory for your few numbers to win the renown of a whole army! Just keep in close order. Throw your javelin, and then carry on. Fell them with shield-bosses, kill them with swords. Do not think of plunder. When you have won, you will have everything."
While Pompey’s ambitious nature and hence seeking of ultimate power was detrimental to the fall of the Roman Republic, other factors which also helped him achieve this power were perhaps the fundamental reason for its decline. The Senate was already weak for allowing Pompey to exploit the military and political system to his own advantage and hence to achieve this power, while in the final years of the Republic (which were evidently most damaging to the system) when the First Triumvirate was formed, the other individuals Caesar and Crassus also played a major part in the harm of the Republic. Now what the Romans had feared most all along was well and truly underway.
In previous years, Caesar had relied upon the wealth and prestige of others in order to further his own political and military ambitions. Before his governorship of Cisalpine Gaul, he relied heavily upon the financial support of Crassus (whom was his main creditor) to gain favour with the Roman public. However, with his appointment as proconsul of Cisalpine Gaul and Illyricum in 58 B.C.E, Caesar saw an opportunity to increase his own wealth and prestige without relying upon the support of others. To his command of Cisalpine Gaul, he was also later given the command of Transalpine Gaul. His command of the Gallic region had several advantages. Firstly, the Po Valley was an excellent recruiting ground for troops. Secondly through Gaul, Caesar had an opportunity to acquire great wealth, which would be needed to fur...
Julius Caesar was a strong leader of the Romans who changed the course of the history for the Roman world decisively and irreversibly. With his courage and strength, he created a strong empire and guided the empire for almost 20 years. His life was short, but had many adventures. I will tell of some of this man’s remarkable life. He did many things, therefore, I will only discuss a few. His name, part of his reign, one of his greatest battles, and his death will be told.
September 9th, 2007: Inmate Jerry Martin, a 37 year old white male steals a truck from a Huntsville parking lot. He drives it into a female correctional officer’s horse, ultimately ending in her falling to her death. An innocent woman, killed because of a man’s poor decision. Homicide is a felony widely regarded as one of, if not the, worst offences a human can commit. The act of ending a man or woman’s life, whether intentional, or unintentional, is one that can very rarely be justifiable. That being said, however, I do believe there are some instances where homicide can be socially accepted.
Tragedies most often refer back to the actions of men. The play Julius Caesar, by William Shakespeare, provides a good example to how the quote is shown to be accurate." The calamities of tragedy do not simply happen, nor are they sent [by the gods]: they proceed mainly from actions, and those actions of men." This statement is profoundly proven through the past and present actions of the conspirators throughout the play. From the beginning of the play, the reader can identify who will necessarily betray and plot to murder Caesar.