From the end of the dictatorship of Sulla in 80 BC to the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC, Rome saw the demise of the Republic in the actions of only a few of its most powerful men. A strengthened senate and competition for high offices created by Sulla would not save the Republic, but rather doom it to the struggles of Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar. These men, seeking power for themselves, tore apart the Italian Peninsula in an alliance and then later a civil war with each other thanks in part to the failed reforms of a dictator who had sought to make sure that no other man would take power as he had done.
By the end of the Social War, Sulla had become the dictator of Rome. Despite having nearly unlimited power, Sulla quickly began to attempt to reform Rome. He nearly doubled the size of the senate, increased the number of quaestors, revived restrictions, abolished the system of grain distribution, an offer of governorship to consuls and praetors at the end of their term, and other reforms of the courts and citizenship. Sulla resigned the dictatorship by 80 BC, but soon after his reforms failed. His reforms failed ultimately because they alienated too many people, and put such an increased power on the senate, in which there was doubt that “its members were capable of maintaining sufficient unity and sense of responsibility” (Boatwright 193). The senators needed to be “consistently more restrained”, especially with an “increased competition for the top magistracies” or else another man could march on Rome like Sulla had.
The formation of the first Triumvirate of Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar was one of advantageous political necessity for each man, in particular for Pompey and Caesar. When Pompey returned to Rome after an i...
... middle of paper ...
...rgetful in describing his own actions” (Suetonius 27).
We see that through the actions of the triumvirate, and then later the civil war between Pompey and Caesar were a result of the failed reforms of Sulla, as well as their own vainglory and thirst for power over Rome that would consequently bring the end of the Roman Republic. Their early struggles against a senate that held power over their futures and goals certainly helped push them into a revolutionary actions that would see Caesar rise to a power over Rome unequaled since the days of the first kings of Rome, despite never going so far as to call himself rex.
Works Cited
Boatwright, Mary T., Daniel J. Gargola, Noel Lenski, and Richard Talbert. The Romans: From
Village to Empire. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2012. Print.
Suetonius. The Twelve Caesars. Trans. Robert Graves. London: Penguin, 2007. Print.
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.
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...
Now whether the change that this time period brought about followed the evolutionary line or a rapid outright contingent revolution can be debated for many time to come. To the political contemporaries of Augustus the transition of political pole from oligarchy to autocracy seemed almost smooth and predictable [2]- [4] Now this obviousness of Augustus’ rise of power was not due to intelligence of his political comtemporaries as such. The eminence of Augustus during the early principate evolved in due time with due measure. A situation is worthwhile to consider: After the Actium war, the final war o Roman Republic, which was against Mark Antony, Augustus (then known as Octavian) became the unprecedented head of Roman empire. He had control over sheering number of five hundred thousand legionaries [3]- [5]. And the recent seizure of Ptolemaic treasure trove. The total situation compelled Tacitus (one of the bitterest commentator of Augustus) to say- ‘Opposition did not
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.
Strangely for a man who himself ignored the Senate's wishes and who killed an unprecedented number of its members, Sulla did a considerable amount to temporarily restore the power of the Senate, however the quality of power is questionable (Cavazzi, F. 2014). His reforms had no lasting impact on Rome, as soon as he retired and died, Rome was back into its existing state of political violence and chaos. All his work was for nothing, he was unable to have a lasting impact on Rome besides a deadly precedent to follow.
Sulla was a Roman general and political leader during the 80s BC. He is best known for being a consul twice and, more importantly, a dictator. His revival of the dictatorship was the first since the end of the Second Punic War. Although his dictatorship lasted from 82 BC to 81 BC, about one to two years, his time in office had a lasting impact on the Roman Republic for years to come. His sole purpose as dictator was to reform the Roman republic. Along with political change, Sulla’s reign led to instability, both socially and economically.
...picture, that on the verge of its collapse the Roman Republic, was a society composed of internal flaws. The Republic namely submitted to its own internal divisions, on multiple levels, from the divisions inherent to any society based on a slave economy, to divisions within the proto-democracy of the Senate itself. Inequalities between the haves and the have nots, as well as inequalities and struggles for power and control on the very highest level of Roman society created a general instability of the Republic, thus making its collapse not a miraculous or shocking event, but almost something to the effect of the removal of an illusion. With the collapse of the Republic, the internal tensions and conflict that constituted Roman life on multiple levels merely finalized themselves, taking a new political form that followed the same path as previous the political form.
With the problems starting with the dissolution of the first triumvirate and the actions of Julius Caesar, it seemed almost inevitable that the Republic would become an Empire. With the death of the true republican, Cicero, and many not remembering what the republic was like, giving power to the capable and honorable man seemed as if the best answer. Furthermore, if the Rome continue to remain a Republic the Senate could not have maintained the success or power that the Empire held. The ambition of one man made it easy to continue the growth whereas, many of the policies and disputes the country faced had face might have taken to long or complicated had the republic
Julius Caesar is well-known for being the Roman general and statesman who turned the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire (Biography.com Editors). The Civil War in Rome was essentially inevitable. During the years 49-45B.C the Civil War began for a variety of reasons. Some issues that lead to the Civil War were government issues, crossing the Rubicon and the power of the Roman citizens. Throughout my essay I will explain in detail the reasons why the Roman Civil War was no longer an option and why it had to happen.
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 final analysis, Sulla’s actions as a politician and a military leader, while occasionally bringing him prestige - dignatas, were major factors leading to the subsequent weakening of the Republic. Sulla was an odd mixture of cynicism and superstition, public sobriety and private indulgence. His reforms achieved very little besides adding to the sum of human misery. He brought an unprecedented ruthlessness to Roman life; and, though it may be conceded that his political intentions were good, his contemptible methods , notably marching his own Roman army upon the capital, contributed more than those of any other man to the debasement of the Republican constitution, he avowedly restored.
The first of many problems was the collapse of the Triumvirate. The Triumvirate was one of the main parts of the government of Rome, with which there were three leaders, which at the time were Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus. This was never truly working all that great, but held itself together by the marriage of Caesar's daughter Julia, to Pompey, and the friendship Caesar and Crassus shared. But, all this came to an end when Crassus was killed in a battle against a Parthian army. Then, not too long afterwards, Julia was murdered by someone who had broken into her home. This, destroyed the bond between Caesar and Pompey, and made them drift apart. Caesar seeing all this taking place, attempted to restore the bond by proposing to Pompey's only daughter, but was not allowed to by Pompey.
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.
After marching to 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 to Rome, victorious. After declaring himself Dictator for Life, Caesar was assassinated, and another Civil War ensued.... ...
Through critical analysis and research it has been shown that Caesar’s gain in power worried the senate.