Plebs and Politics in the Late Roman Republic by Henrik Mouritsen: Book Review
Mouritsen field of study was ancient history at King’s college in London, this was a very interesting topic to him. The author purpose in writing this book was to better understand the political system in the late roman republic. He believes that the populus Romans held absolute power when it came to electing officials for legislation. Mouritsen had a question about the voting structure at the time, that allowed roman citizens to choose the next tribune. The question was based on the size of the crowds that would attend public meeting and vote. Also, if that size influenced how the system worked. Also, the location as to which this meeting was held. He had questioned how long it would take a vote to happened and compared writings from other historians to come up with estimates. Lastly how roman is run and the challenges it faces brought out by the rich
…show more content…
I believe that his felid is very board and so this topic would fall under his studies because of the time. However, Mouritsen uses a lot of support from writers like Plutarch. He uses Plutarch to talk about how some building were said to be built for the voting to occur in and then imply his own theory to the information as to what would seem more realistic. These types of sources are used all throughout this book manly to describe events. For example, the voting process and how many people the historians say were there. this would be compared to how many people were there based on being able to fit all the voter in on a time frame. Often some work is compared to another historian to obtain a rough estimate of what might have happened. He also talked about a historian named Hansen and his believe about the functionary view of general in that time. It is said that it was not likely that the generals could address the whole army do to spacing
In conclusion the power of being put into office differinates between these three documents With the power of the election of being placed into office by the people themselves, this can be seen in the Athenian constitution less but more in the roman and U.S. constitutions as these documents represent the symbolism of democracy at hand. But meanwhile their similarities can be found in the aspect of being found worth and right for the position the one running for office is seeking and that is something that can be understood by all that it’s never to be
Rome was kind of a democy it had it’s flaws but by its voting system it makes it a democy. In document C only 2% of Roman’s voted and these votes by the people even though it was few that makes it a democracy. In document C you had to be in Rome to vote which is far because they wouldn’t want an outsider to vote on things that were going on in Rome. In document B poor rich and the freed slaves could vote and for it’s time that is amazing that the poor and the freed slaves could vote. Rome definitely had it’s flaws but for it’s time it was a good democracy but in our fews we don’t think the Rome Republic was a good democy at all.
The Political Decay of the Roman Republic The fall of the Western Roman Empire was the first example in history on the collapse of a constitutional system which was caused by the internal decay in political, military, economics, and sociological issues. The government was becoming corrupt with bribery. Commanders of the Roman army turned their own army inward towards their own Constitutional systems, fueled by their own ruthless ambition. This paper will talk about how the violence and internal turmoil in 133 B.C.-27 B.C. was what provoked the economic stagnation in the city of Rome and to the end of the Republic and the many corrupt politicians and generals who only thought of nothing more than personal gains and glory. The senate lost control of the Roman military and the reason they rose against the senate was because the senate were no longer able to help manage the social problems or the military and administrative problems of the empire.
It is surprising indeed that Even today, tyrannies and dictatorships exist in the world when more than two and a half thousand years ago the ancient Athenians had developed a functional and direct form of democracy. What contributed to this remarkable achievement and how it changed the socio-political. scene in Athens is what will be considered in this paper. The paper will have three sections, each detailing the various stages. of political development from the kings of Attica to the time of Pericles when, in its golden age, Athens was at the height of its. imperial power.
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.
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...
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.
Politics in Pompeii and Herculaneum was an essential and important aspect of life. Politics enabled the towns to run successfully and smoothly. There were elections held for politicians, which included the election of two Duumviri and two pairs of Aediles. The comitum, which was made up of roman males who were over the age of 25, voted for who they believed should be the next Aediles and Duumviri. People who were running for the positions or people who wanted someone they liked to be elected would leave messages everywhere to promote and advocate them in hopes for them to be elected. There were over 2000 electoral notices found in Pompeii. This can be shown in source B which is the programmata from the House of Loreius Tiburtinus, Pompeii.
Livius, Titus. The Early History of Rome. Trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt. London: Penguin Group, 2002. N. pag. Print.
Marcel Le Glay, Jean-Louis Voisin, Yann Le Bohec. A History of Rome. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009.
The Roman Republic had an upstanding infrastructure, a stable social system, and a balanced constitution that solidified Rome’s greatness. Regardless of its achievements, however, the Roman Republic owes much of its success to classical Greek cultures. These cultures, in conjunction with the fundamental values of Roman society, certified Rome as one of the most significant powers the world has ever seen.
The Roman Republic began approximately around 509 B.C. when the nobles drove the King and his family out of Rome. This monumental incident helped shape the start to the transformation of the monarchy into a republican governmental system. This is known to have begun by that of the Roman nobles trying to hold their power that they had gained. The Republic was “[a] city-state [which] was the foundation of Greek society in the Hellenic Age; in the Hellenistic Age, Greek cities became subordinate to kingdoms, larder political units ruled by autocratic monarchs” (Perry 105)
3)Gwynn, David M. The Roman Republic: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
The Roman Republic ultimately failed due to the lack of large-scale wars and other crises that had united the Roman populous early in the history of the Roman Republic. Roman leadership and honor became compromised. In the absence of war and crisis, Rome’s leaders failed to develop the honor and leadership necessary to maintain the Republic.
“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.