Friendship’s Decay on Rome
In looking at the late Roman Republic, one can find many different accounts on how politics worked in Rome. One of these accounts by Polybius gives us a sense of the way politics worked in Rome. Polybius believed, “in all politics, we observe two sources of decay existing from natural causes, the one external, the other internal and self produced” (Polybius 506). The second account by Cicero gives us a framework of how Roman politics play out, stating “The canvass for office resolved itself into an activity of two kinds, of which one is concerned with the loyalty of friends, the other with the feelings of the people” (Cicero 37). By examining these two different views of Roman politics: Polybius’ The Histories of
Cicero, in giving his advice to his brother on how to achieve the highest power in the land, (consulship) pulls back the curtain on how Roman politics actually work and that friendship is key if one wants to become a consul. He defines friendship as “whosoever gives any sign of an inclination to you, or habitually visits at your house” (Cicero 37). Cicero believed friends were people you could use as leverage by building loyalty and connections to build one’s social structure to achieve the highest prize of them all: consulship. According to Cicero, friendship creates problems, stating, “Your exalted character has compelled many to pretend to be your friends while really jealous of you” (Cicero 42). What Cicero is implying is that everyone is jealous of everyone else, and by making friends to become consul you also attract enemies who also desire power. Cicero describes three of these opponents “First, those whom you have attacked; second, those who dislike you without definite reason; third those who are warm friends of your competitors” (Cicero 42). One cannot please all in Rome, Cicero recounts, and because of this bitter struggle over power and private ambition friendship breeds
Plutarch writes of Caesar’s character, “He had an ability to make himself liked which was remarkable in one of his age, and he was very much in the good graces of the ordinary citizen because of his easy manners and the friendly way in which he mixed with people” (Plutarch 257). By examining Caesar’s character, one can understand how he used his love of the people to gain power and to keep it with his military victories which had brought a vast amount of wealth and land to Rome. Caesar embarked on creating Rome’s biggests debts in order to achieve friends. Plutarch remarks on Caesar’s enemies who “thought that this influence of his would soon come to nothing, once he stopped spending money, and they stood aside and watched it grow among the common people. Later on it had become too great for anything to be done about it, and was plainly aimed at a complete revolution in the state” (Plutarch 257). Caesar relied on friendship, and used his friends tactically in forming the First Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and he was able to gain their followers while also establishing his own name. Caesar learned from Sulla’s decree of proscriptions on one’s enemies and instead pardoned his enemies to make them his friends. This ultimately would turn out be disastrous for Caesar, as those whom he pardoned would switch sides at the last minute and stab
During the Republic, the people of Rome had a major disinclination towards any sort of Royalty, which is why when Caesar attempted to lead undemocratically indefinitely, he disrupted one of the core stances that romans shared communally. Caesar over indulged in power when he retitled himself as ‘dictator in perpetuo’. “And as Caesar was coming down from Alba into the city they ventured to hail him as king. But at this the people were confounded, and Caesar, disturbed in mind, said that his name was not King, but Caesar, and seeing that his words produced an universal silence, he passed on with no very cheerful or contented looks…..But the most open and deadly hatred towards him was produced by his passion for the royal power.” Caesars egotism and self-importance made him uncherished by members of the senate. “Everybody knew that Caesar's ego would never allow him to play second fiddle to another senator, and it was equally well-known that another famous military leader, Pompey the Great, had similar ambitions. In January 49, more or less at...
During the last century of the Roman republic, the system of government was drastically changed and eventually fell apart, not only because of Marius and his military reforms, but also because of the dictatorship and proscriptions of Sulla, seven consulships of Marius, political alliances of the first and second triumvirates and the growing corruption and ineptitude of the senate.
...ion this all showed that style of governing and ruling an empire started a century long pattern of events that eventually lead to the fall and destruction of the old oligarchy led by the Senate. The combination of desire for personal gain and glory of a politician or general was what weakened the Roman customs and the Senate. This was a cycle among the Senate, to find themselves stuck in a problem and to find others to fix with of course military means but in turn make everything more corrupt with their disruptive practices such as Pompey and Julius Caesar. But they were not the only ones there were others who were to blame for causing such decay and corruption such as Marius, Sulla, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus. They were the ones who kept this corruption cycle going and it was Augustus Caesar who finally broke the cycle and brought stability and order back to Rome.
For thousands of years people have been talking about the great powerful Caesar. He is one of the greatest known dictators known to people today mostly because of all of the things he was able to accomplish during his rein as emperor. After reading primary sources about Caesar, it has given me a better understanding of what other people thought of him during this time period. It’s safe to say that Caesar was obsessed with power and respect from other people that would explain his thirst for war and land, which is one of his greatest strengths and helped in making Rome a great empire.
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
Everyone in life develops at least one friendship in their lifetime, some stronger than others. In some cases a friend might ask for a favor that would be considered immoral. Cicero and Montaigne express their opinions toward this situation and how a true friend would act through the story of Blossius and Tiberius Gracchus. Both come to the same conclusion but they have different reasons as to why they hold that position.
The early Roman Republic was one of the greatest civilizations of all time. The Roman government was so great, that it has been copied for centuries by other countries, including the United States. Rome was ruled by the Etruscans for hundreds of years. The Etruscans taught Rome to be civilized. They were taught the alphabet, “promoted trade, the development of metallurgy, and better agriculture in and around Rome.”(Butler) The Romans gained their independents from the Etruscans in 509 B.C, and created their own government, a republic.
That being said, he argues that the people have an important role to play in said government (Polybius 6.14). Although the people do not make decisions such as presenting bills, ordering allies as they please, or convening assemblies as the consul, who has the most power in the system, does (Polybius 6.12), they have other such important duties. According to Polybius, said duties include assigning office, such as voting on consuls, deciding penalties for offences, assessing legislation, voting on war proposals, as well as “ratify or abrogate alliances, truces and treaties” (Polybius 6.14). He also states that the Senate must act in the best interest of the people and cannot disregard the popular assembly, as they can vote to deprive the Senate of authority, and that the tribune of the people, who is obliged to always carry out the people’s decision, can veto the senate (Polybius 6.16). After reading this, one may assume that the people had a strong role in Rome and that the strongest element of the government is democracy given the responsibility held on the people. People had the right to hold assembly and vote, something seen as a building block of democracy, but in fact the people had very less power in
Tiberius Sempronius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus were born into one of Rome’s most politically connected families of their generation. This in turn, benefitted both of their short controversial political careers. Tiberius Gracchus, the eldest of the two, was described by Florus as “a man who easily stood out from others in birth, appearance and eloquence...” (n.d., p. 221) and Velleius identified Tiberius as being the epitome of perfection (p. 55). These sources, created nearly 100 years after the death of Tiberius Gracchi, describe Tiberius to be the ‘perfect’ human-being which could demonstrate a bias accou...
“He is said to have been tall of stature… except that towards the end.” What was it that really led to the fall of the Roman Republic? There are a lot of different factors to consider when trying to determine what caused the collapse. By examining The Rubicon, The Life of Julius Caesar, and some accompanying handouts from class, this paper will discuss how the Roman Republic did not collapse because of one factor. The collapse of the Roman Republic was like that of a game of Jenga. Factors were pulled out of the Republican system just like a game of Jenga until the Republic could not stand anymore.
He wanted to relate and connect to all parts of society, including the Plebeians. Through generosity and less extravagance, Augustus achieved a connection with the common people. Philosopher B: After the fall of the Roman Republic in 27BC, the fundamental power shifted from the Senate to Augustus, the Emperor. However, Augustus knew that to keep the favour of the Roman people, he needed to keep up the façade of the Senate holding political power. Despite this, the Senate held no actual political power, although individuals still sought membership of the senate for dignity and social status.
Greed, ambition, and the possibility of self-gain are always constant in their efforts to influence people’s actions. In Julius Caesar, Marcus Brutus, a venerable politician, becomes a victim of the perpetual conflict between power-hungry politicians and ignorant commoners. He is a man of honor and good intentions who sacrifices his own happiness for the benefit of others. Unfortunately, his honor is strung into a fine balance between oblivion and belief and it is ultimately the cause of his downfall. His apparent obliviousness leads him to his grave as his merciful sparing of Mark Antony’s life, much like Julius Caesar’s ghost, comes back to haunt him. Overall, Brutus is an honest, sincere man who holds the lives of others in high regard while he himself acts as a servant to Rome.
Perhaps the strongest friendship in the play was Caesar and Marc Antony. They had a unique bond with Caesar holding power and Marc Antony giving him assistance with it. Antony and Caesar cherished each other as friends because they did not have many of them at that time. Caesar’s friendship with Brutus was a different one though. Caesar thought they were good friends and had a reliable friendship but in the end it turned out that Brutus literally stabs Caesar in the back. Brutus and Cassius always had a friendship, but not one that I would want. Cassius needed Brutus for a friend and the way he got him was his superb pervasive talking to raise Brutus’ self esteem and make him feel good. So in a way Brutus was being used by who he though was his “friend”. Brutus and Portia had a great friendship. They loved each other very much and Portia was willing to do anything for Brutus but he was caught up in Cassius’ evil plans. Brutus was caught between the friendship of Portia or Cassius and unfortunately he chose Cassius. Caesar and Calpurnia had a strong friendship too. Calpurnia was not as strong willed as Portia but she obeyed Caesar and loved him dearly. Caesar felt that he was marginally better then her but still, he loved her. The last relationship I’m going to talk about is Caesar and Cassius. They did not have a good friendship. Caesar felt Cassius was deceitful, untrustworthy, and a very sneaky person well Cassius felt Caesar was too power hungry and needed to be stopped. With each man thinking this there friendship was bound to never get off the ground.
They also used flattery and manipulation to soothe any feelings of doubt that Caesar may have had about their sincerity. These tactics would gain trust, which is the key to all friendships. This trust was lost and transformed into betrayal with the murder of Caesar. Although Brutus and Cassius plotted against and murdered Caesar, the theme of friendship remained strong as it falsified the conspirators' intentions. Caesar was susceptible to the power of friendship, just like any normal person, and his friendship with the conspirators unfortunately blinded him until Brutus's final blow, by which time it was too late for him.
Julius Caesar was a strong leader for the Romans who changed the course of the history of the Greco - Roman world decisively and irreversibly. With his courage and strength he created a strong empire. What happened during his early political career? How did he become such a strong dictator of the Roman Empire? What events led up to the making of the first triumvirate? How did he rise over the other two in the triumvirate and why did he choose to take over? What happened during his reign as dictator of Rome? What events led up to the assassination of Caesar? What happened after he was killed? Caesar was a major part of the Roman Empire because of his strength and his strong war strategies. Julius Caesar was a Roman general and statesman whose dictatorship was pivotal in Rome’s transition from republic to empire. When he was young Caesar lived through one of the most horrifying decades in the history of the city of Rome. The city was assaulted twice and captured by Roman armies, first in 87 BC by the leaders of the populares, his uncle Marius and Cinna. Cinna was killed the year that Caesar had married Cinna’s daughter Cornelia. The second attack upon the city was carried our by Marius’ enemy Sulla, leader of the optimates, in 82 BC on the latter’s return from the East. On each occasion the massacre of political opponents was followed by the confiscation of their property. The proscriptions of Sulla, which preceded the reactionary political legislation enacted during his dictatorship left a particularly bitter memory that long survived. Caesar left Rome for the province of Asia on the condition that he divorce his wife because Sulla would only allow him to leave on that condition. When he heard the news that Sulla had been killed he returned to Rome. He studied rhetoric under the distinguished teacher Molon. In the winter of 75-74 BC Caesar was captured by pirated and, while in their custody awaiting the arrival of the ransom money which they demanded, threatened them with crucifixion , a threat which he fulfilled immediately after his release. He then returned to Rome to engage in a normal political career, starting with the quaetorship which he served in 69-68 BC in the province of Further Spain. In the Roman political world of the sixties the dominance of the optimates was challenged by Pompey and Crassus. The optimates, led by Q...