Events which stretch as far back as the reforms of the Gracchi brothers’ meant that the Rome was facing a Republic that was already deteriorating before Pompey had stepped into power. While Pompey’s quest for power was harmful, many other factors were also baleful to the Republic, and were hence instrumental in its decline. Gnaeus Pompeius’s measures to gain power were harmful because it was primarily a paradox to the principles of being part of a Republic with all its notions of shared and short power. The fundamental reason why there were other reasons for the decline of the system are that the military power was given to him, the already weak Senate, and the fact that Pompey was not the only player in the breakdown of the Republic due to the alliances he had made with Crassus and Caesar. Although Pompey’s quest for power through military achievements was harmful to the Republic, this power was bestowed upon him by the Senate.
Thus a prince who knows noth... ... middle of paper ... ...be like, a tyrant. From the Machiavellian ruler, it then moved into the prevention of tyrant rulers with the “Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants.” Eventually with the preliminary fights for rights and a civil war that produced “The Petition of Right” where men were granted written rights that limited the power of the absolute monarchs, man was able to secure some unalienable rights and limit the absolute power of monarchs. Hobbes continued this stress of including the rights of the people into the politics of the absolute monarch otherwise the people will take control and limit the powers of the monarch even more. Thus by the time Frederick II became King of Prussia, he had all the right qualities that allowed him to become Frederick the Great and lead Prussia to many great things by blending the people’s rights with his personal political system.
At the same time, Caesar also showed his political talent diplomatically. He showed his tolerance to the defeated tribes, thus they would not rebel. “Julius Caesar treated the defeated people of the Gallic War tolerantly: he tried to Romanize the tribe he defeated” (Shiono 293). Instead of slaughtering them, Caesar chose to introduce Roman culture to them to assimilate them. He granted those defeated people citizen identities.
They also believed that Sulla was a double-edged blade as he was defending the cause of the nobles and not of the people. The citizens o... ... middle of paper ... ...most graphic rule as the dictator. Sulla also managed to prevent another “him” to reappear in Rome or in any region that may cause more problems for him or for anyone who would try to take over. Should another Sulla appear after the first Sulla dies and goes down from his position, the Roman history as we know it would be changed drastically as more wars and sieges would have to take place before someone can take over the country as their Emperor. But on the other hand, I cannot disagree with the argument that Sulla’s intentions on the march has a flicker of personal intensions attached into it which would have made the march completely unacceptable as it has also killed lives upon the takeover.
It is not, however, fair to ask all that we do of these figures cast into the public eye. Sophocles knew that humans were imperfect creatures, and therefore governments and rulers would be flawed by this accordingly. A president must be tough but fair, as should a king be. Creon made the mistake of taking his decrees to far, sacrificing the will of the people for strength in the state. President Bush's administration (McClellan) may have been too quick to judge the scandal over the leak, making a firm statement to fire whomever was responsible for the leak of the identity of an undercover CIA operative in 2003, but since it has been found that two top White House aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were the source of the leak, the administration as of now has reneged on it's original statement.
Some authors like Weinstock believe "Caesar more likely than not been included in the choice, fitting the distinctions into a more excellent arrangement" (270) Julius made sure he received the recognition from the Senate of his high accomplishments indirectly so the citizen would give him more respect and honor. Caesar was "currently showed up there as the representative and despot of Rome and as the tyrant, who was likewise ruler of Alba" (Gelzer 319). The Senate did not wish upon another sole ruler of Rome and the people agreed it was unpopular. This gossip of Julius title of King could have been a piece of the death plot. This turned into a decent open door for the individuals who needed to harm Caesar 's reputation despite the fact that Caesar told the general population "I am Caesar, and no King" (Suentonius 79).
Even though many scholars have disputed the main cause of persecutions, many have acknowledged the many aspects have contributed to the persecution of the early Christians. The Roman Empire was one of the greatest and largest empires of the Old World and had to instill harsh measures in order to maintain and assert its control over the different lands and people that it had conquered. As it grew, the Roman Empire strove to preserve the roman way of life and its citizens loyalty to their emperor and nation. And since Rome claimed leadership from their gods, the Roman Empire needed to have citizens loyal to the empire and to the gods. Not doing so could be viewed as threatening by the empire as it could demonstrate that a person was not loyal to Rome and to the gods.
As history progressed most governments were overthrown because of the laws that were imposed. Emperors and Kings changed to Presidents and Prime Ministers. This was caused by revolutions because the people did not like the way they were being ruled. But should people be ruled in the first place? Who should have the right to do such a thing?
So like the roman empire , the Carolingian Empire had to be divided and that didn’t make anything better. Feudalism was the only political stability that can be used because all the factors had built up to it. The few political factors that caused feudalism leads to the... ... middle of paper ... ... reasons where disappearance of the roman empire , invasions , barbaric empires that had the same outcome as the roman empire, and civil wars. The social reason was that the kings were weakening and the nobles were rising into authority because they had all the components that appealed to the people who lived in the disaster filled lands of western Europe . Manorialism could be caused by the same factors as feudalism but it seems to be caused by an economic influence.
Before Christianity came to Rome, people believed in polytheism, so emperors were basically gods, so the change represents the acceptance of something else to believe in. While Christianity helped with the fall of Rome, the expansion of the empire also assisted in the fall of the Roman Empire. An Empire that is too big is not always for the better because there are more problems to be dealt with. In the case of the Roman E... ... middle of paper ... ...the Empire. The decay of Rome helped corrupt the city from the inside, by the city falling apart which made people want to leave the Rome area.