Over time, nations change. Different leaders rise to power, politics and policies change, wealth and land is acquired and eventually, one may be left wondering how it all changed. This series of changes is seen in the ancient Roman republic in its last century. After a lot of chaos between unpopular politicians and new laws, certain individuals stepped into the government and swayed its focus to conquest and personal gain. Civil wars and class conflicts broke out in Rome due to aristocratic senators and ambitious generals, only to be met with the end of the republic.
This event shows how corrupt and money hungry the government had become, by letting anyone get high up in the political chain just by feeding the gluttonous king. The next king, Louis XVI saw that the majority of France (75%) was peasants and serfs. Consequently, to try to ensure their happiness (and prevent the Revolution), he had the Estates-General abolish the feudal system, in which they held no ranking.4 This made the nobility extremely unhappy. With no feudal system, they no longer were much higher up politicly than the commoners. The next noble atrocity came with Louis XVI making the nobles pay taxes.
Marius made a major step in pushing the Republic towards constitutional upheaval when, in 107 B.C., he abolished the property requirements for military service (Meier, 29). Not only did these impoverished soldiers depend on their commander rather than the State for their fiscal support, but they were also promised land in newly conquered provinces upon the completion of the service. While enlarging the pool from which the Roman Army drew its volunteer soldiers, this change in policy brought about a dangerous shift in political power. It was for this reason that the Senate opposed nearly every land law placed before it. If a gifted commander was able to enrich his soldiers through plunder, and give them land to settle after the campaign, “the soldiers might feel a greater obligation to their commander than to the Senate (Meier, 29).” This circumstance is an essential ingredient for civil war, more so, possible, than any other.
Starting in the mid-second century BCE, the Roman Republic was struggling because the senate continually placated the consul, and patriotic figures like Cicero were hopeful that the republic and its values would triumph over the political strife. Furthermore, new politicians like the Gracchus brothers were trying to reform a republic that heavily favored tradition and its elite. In the midst of this, Julius Caesar rose to power and was assassinated. The century-long culmination of attempted reforms, factions, power-hungry leaders, and ideological divisions justified the killing of Julius Caesar as the Roman Republic was too entrenched in its problems to implement needed political reforms. The Gracchan Reforms, written in the mid-second century BCE, was about the attempted reforms of brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus.
The reasoning and motives for the three wars varies. However, no matter what the motives of the wars were, the end result was the defeat and total destruction of the Carthaginian civilization. Essentially, the conflict arose from the clash of economic interests. The Carthaginians wished to protect commercial basis of power, while the Romans committed themselves to expansion (Marcel Le Glay 2009, 73). Carthage would lose the First Punic War, the result of this loss would cause vast amount of reprirations paid to Rome and a social revolt amongst its own people.
There are many reasons for the fall of Rome but they those reasons are intertwine with two main categories: economy and war. The Roman economy got so severe that they had to tax citizens and raise prices. Working Roman citizens could not quit their jobs out of fear of going into jail only to be released by death (doc 3.) Romans feared for their life and tried to raise a family on the little bit of money left over after being taxed. This shows that roman government is unscrupulous and cared so little about their working citizens.
When he returned this time, the Senate was frightened of him and named him dictator for life. Even though Caesar ruled as an absolute ruler, he made several reforms that led to controversy about whether he was too ambitious and didn’t believe in what was right or a true believer in what was right for the people. All of these questionable decisions led to Caesar’s assassination in 44 B.C.E. He was killed outside of the Senate building by a group of rebels who wanted the republic to rise again. All in all, Julius Caesar was an influential and important person in Ancient Rome.
When a senator fought back he was later forced to commit suicide by Nero. These two extracts are not just observations by Tacitus, but heavy criticisms against a man who was unworthy for his post. Tacitus stood against self - indulgence and extravagant displays of wealth as he saw these as being major flaws of the aristocracy and nobility. Although Tacitus was far more interested in moral behaviour, he saw these flaws as the basis for Rome's decline at the time of Nero. An example of this decaying Rome was in Ad60 when the people of Pompeii and Nuceria assaulted each other at the gladiatorial event.
In addition to the many headed hydra breathing down their necks, the plebeians lost access to what had been regal domain and was now the public land or ager publics, because the patricians who were in power, took control of it to increase their profits, running it by slaves or clients in the country while they and their families lived in the city. After the plebeian aedileship had been created, the patricians created the cruel aedileship. After the consulship had been opened to the plebeians, the plebeians were able to hold both the dictatorship and the censorship. Plebiscites of 342 BC placed limits on political offices; an individual could hold only one office at a time, and ten years must elapse between the end of his official term and his re-election. Further laws attempted to relieve the burden of debt from plebeians by banning interest on loans.
In January 49, more or less at... ... middle of paper ... ...allow senate to have an active role in his leadership, a notion which had been a fatal mistake for past censors of the Roman republic. Julius Caesar, the last leader of the Roman republic was conclusively at fault for the demolition of the constitutional society. His dictatorship and lack of respect for the democratic system lead to his death and the death of the republic. “The most open and deadly hatred towards him was produced by his passion for the royal power” (Plutarch) Works Cited Plutarch: The Life of Caesar (http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t08.html) http://www.livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t08.html Fall of the Roman Republic I: http://www.suu.edu/faculty/ping/pdf/falloftheromanrepublici.pdf The first Triumvirate http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/First_Triumvirate.html http://www.livius.org/vi-vr/vipsanius/agrippa.html