Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Decline of the roman republic
Slavery during the Roman Empire
Decline of the roman republic
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Decline of the roman republic
The “tyrants” of Rome in Tacitus’s work were the embodiment of what he felt was wrong with the imperial system of government. From Messalina, driven by her desire, to Nero, who might have tried to burn Rome or at least used the burning city as a backdrop for a rendition of the fall of Troy, the tyrants were used to show the descent of Rome and how it became its own greatest enemy . Unlike Greek Historians who tried to distance themselves from the events that they recounted, Romans viewed history as a form of moral instruction for future generations and wrote about it passionately . Thus, impartiality had a different meaning to them than it does to us today, when Tacitus promised to be impartial, he is not promising not to judge, because that would take away one of the most important aspects, he is promising to judge fairly “without either bitterness or partiality” . The “tyrants” mentioned in this essay, Nero, Messalina and Agrippina the Younger, were all used by Tacitus to show how far the Roman state had fallen and because Romans took their ideas of public morality from their ancestors to attempt to prevent such behaviour in future generations.
To
…show more content…
Messalina was, in part, used by Tacitus to show the weakness of Claudius, he was so passive that he appears to be a minor character in the stories of his wives and his freedmen rather than the main feature of the reign that bears his name . Traditionally in Roman society it was thought that there was a link between morality and social status, Tacitus looked down on slaves, freedmen and the lower classes , and the heavy involvement of freedmen in the Claudian Annals can be linked to the moral decline of Rome that Tacitus is trying to
What follows is a further isolation of Plutarch's opinions and lessons from within The Lives of Crassus and Caesar. " Certainly the Romans say that in the case of Crassus many virtues were obscured by one vice, namely avarice; and it did seem that he had only one vice, since it was such a predominant one that other evil propensities which he may have had were scarcely noticeable. " Beginning the Life of Crassus with this statement, Plutarch starts the reader off with a negative feeling of who Crassus was. This statement is very strong because it not only points out Crassus's largest shortcoming, but also implies that it was so prevalent that it outweighed all his virtues as well as his other faults.
Horatius Cocles demonstrates Roman values with his readiness to assert himself for the good of the community despite any ramifications. He even attempts to advise his men in the direction of virtue by claiming “that it was vain for them to seek safety” (Livy, 20). These men appear to follow standards typical of the Greeks, as their personal motives guide their actions instead of the needs of others. Their lack of concern for the entire state of the Republic is an example of what individuals were not to do. The success of the individual, in this case Horatius, is a victory in Rome, which contrasts the idea of individual arete, valued by the Greeks. The greatest honor for a Roman was saving the life of another Roman whereas in Greek culture, an individual displays excellence in competition (Burger 91). For the Greeks, an individual may achieve honor at the cost of defeating another. In contrast, Romans sought to achieve honor by protecting what was best for all. Therefore, Romans valued self sacrifice while Greeks appear more self-centered (Burger 91). Horatius Cocles demonstrates the values of the Roman society in his steadfast opposition to the enemy. He is a model to the state for his courage in adversity.
...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 success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
Looking at Rome’s political struggles at the dawn of the first century B.C., it becomes apparent that the groundwork for Caesar’s Republic shattering revolt was lain down by Marius and Sulla. To be more specific, the stage was set by the class struggles between the Aristocracy, who demanded control of the Republic by virtue of tradition, and the masses, which demanded a voice.
One of the first occasions presented was the plotting of Caesar’s assassination. Cassius, Casca, Trebonius, Ligarius and the other conspirators all wanted to rid Rome of Caesar. However, not one of them could give the green light.” They needed one who held a high place in the hearts of the people, to support them and to justify their actions. They needed an “honorable” man.
In Titus Livius’, The Early History of Rome, Livy takes on the task of documenting Rome’s early history and some of the famous individuals who help contribute to the ‘greatness’ of Rome. Livy dedicates an entire portion of his writing to describe the reigns of the first seven kings of Rome; all who influence the formation and governance of Rome in some way. However, of the seven kings in early Roman history, King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius achieved godlike worship and high esteem from their fellow Romans. While both highly important and respected figures in Rome’s history, the personalities and achievements of King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius are complete opposites of one another. Despite the differences found in each king and of their rule over Rome, both Romulus and Numa Pompilius have a tremendous influence in the prosperity and expansion of Rome in its early days.
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 of practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were. The conspirators were wrong to kill Julius Caesar because he contributed to the upturn and reformation of Rome into an orderly state.
Emperor Nero, infamously known as one of the most malevolent, oppressive, and tyrannical leader throughout history, was the last ruler of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. He was born outside Rome in Antium and his mother married his great uncle, Emperor Claudius, in order for her son to be the next Emperor of Rome. It wasn’t apparent that her son was to become one of the most feared and cruel leaders in Roman history from 54 CE to 68 CE. By examining his achievements and failures as an emperor, his influences and changes over the entire economic, political and social spectrum are revealed.
The main feature of the Roman aristocratic ethos in the second century BC was the set of goals, values that the ancient Romans had and the way they achieved them. These were born out of the military and political careers of ambitious individuals and involved the gain of valued high office and much praised famous deeds. The Roman society revolved around turning the military, the politics, religio and gens to conform to the necessities of the aristocratic class. Through the works of the ancient writers/historians, Polybius, Plutarch, Livy, Apian and Cicero about the life of Scipio Aemilianus, this essay will set out to indicate the strengths and weaknesses of such value system.
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
His fourteen-year reign represented everything decadent about the Julio-Claudian period of the Roman Empire. His self-indulgent, cruel and violent affairs continued the economic chaos that had plagued the Roman citizenry since the days of Tiberius (Champlin, 1990). In the first five years as emperor, Nero gained a reputation for political generosity, promoting power sharing with the Senate and ending closed-door political trails. However, he generally pursued his own passions and left the ruling to his three key advisers – the Stoic Philosopher Seneca, the prefect Burrus and Nero’s mother Agrippina (Armstrong, 2012). Nero was a reckless and selfish adolescent when he ascended to Emperor, as highlighted by Suetonius within his historical scripture, ‘The Twelve
Julius Caesar is the leader of Rome and is seeking to become king in a matter of time. Though he is a good military strategist, he lacks knowledge in running government and is too greedy to have any concern for the peasants when he is alive. Caesar is all about conquering and power and he is afraid of nothing. Before he is murdered, he says “The things that threatened me ne’er looked but on my back. When they shall see the face of Caesar, they are vanished” (II, ii, 575). Th...
Tacitus does a wonderful job of describing the culture and life of Germany and its people in Germania. His personal feelings about them seem to be two-sided. Tacitus describes the people of Germany as barbaric and dumb but he also wants us to know that they had many qualities of a great country. The Germans have a strong army of soldiers that find their nobility through war and that makes them a possible threat. Although Tacitus finds many similarities between his home country of Rome and Germany, we find out that the two places are very different.