Domus Aurea Vs Colosseum

Personally, Caligula was a tragedy waiting to happen. The people of Rome may have known that his reign would be the forefront of destruction to the Roman Empire, but a blind hope of arrogance clouded their judgment as Caligula’s terror destroyed the lives of those around him. However, Caligula’s life was built for luxury, military warfare, and egomania. Most Emperors would have the decency to respect his people, protect their empire, and keep peace among other countries.

As a result of the agrarian laws, the two brothers were able to take control of the Empire, causing the Senate to fear their intentions and their potential. The Gracchi Brothers used their power and authority to take advantage of the vulnerable Roman government. They often let their selfish nature take control of the power they had, impacting Rome negatively. Gaius made it his goal to get back at the Senate for the death of his brother by replacing them with the Equites. The Gracchi brothers are the first tribunes to take advantage of their power.

The second element of a tragic hero is that they are suffering or will suffer a catastrophe during the course of the play. Brutus’s catastrophe is that formed an alliance with the conspirators and agreed to assassinate Caesar since he believed he would be doing it for the right reasons like to protect the freedom of Rome but the other conspirators assassinated Caesar for their own personal gain. “…Countrymen, my heart doth joy that yet in all my life I found no man that was true to me” (V.V. 34-35). The third element of a tragic hero is that they have a fatal flaw in some way or another. Brutus’s fatal flaw

The main fact that he can be considered a betrayer is because he killed his best friend Caesar. Yet we all know that Brutus was looking at the bigger picture, and knew that Caesar was not fit to be the ‘king’ of Rome in the play Brutus says : "Not that I lov'd Caesar less, but that I lov'd Rome more.". If Caesar had become king he would have let the power go to his head and ruined the Roman Empire more than it already degraded. The other reason that Brutus can be seen as a betrayer is that he was working against Caesar. Also they group that Brutus worked with had questionable motives and properly did not do it for the same intentions Brutus said he did it for.

Some people argue that Julius Caesar was the greatest military general and politician of all time; however, I disagree. In my opinion, Caesar was a forceful dictator who only cared about his own wealth and power, punished innocent citizens, and was greedy for supporters. Julius Caesar just wanted himself to be satisfied, even if it was at the expense of the Roman republic. He also punished all of the innocent citizens that just wanted to sustain the old laws and traditions of the Roman republic. Another reason he is not an astonishing leader is that he increased the number of senators so that more people would support him.

Throughout the story, Brutus was one of the few characters that understood the way power could change a man. He feared that Caesar would become a tyrant with all his new power and that Rome would suffer from his rule. He states this multiple times in the story. During Caesar’s funeral, Brutus states “Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more,” (JC 3.2.23). It is clear to see here that Brutus was justified in killing Caesar because his intentions are good.

Alexander The Great:An Analysis A wise person once said “Every villain is a hero in his own mind.” Someone might think this because one thinks that they are helping but just making it worse. As a child Alexander was tutored by Aristotle. Aristotle warned him not to kill, Alexander did anyway, he even killed his own father to become king of Macedonia.

Not to mention, Odysseus sacrificed some of his men’s lives so that he could get himself and the other living men out alive. The theme is expressed through Odysseus because he was forced to sacrifice some of his men to keep others alive. Not to mention, Odysseus made other sacrifices during the section, “Father and

He believed that princes must use violence to maintain power within their princedoms, which shows that Machiavelli saw political power and leaders as weak and unstable. He saw this as the Italian city-states fought for control over land. He also witnessed this as the Medici family lost power in Florence and the new ruler, Girolamo Savonarola, took over. Savonarola, a Dominican monk, was incredibly pious. He hosted the Bonfire of the Vanities and burned art, fashion, jewels, and other secular objects.

Abominable action are executed by Scar, he murdered his own brother and king to seize his position as king; he also tried to murder his nephew Simba, the heir to the throne but failed and told him to run away. As a result, he became the king ruling the kingdom in with a lack of consciousness and ruthlessly s. Scar believed he was entitled to perform as he pleased; his behaviour was no longer the surviving behaviour to seize the position of king. There was a food and water shortage but he responded he would rather prefer death to come along to all of them in order to stay as king, in power of the whole kingdom. His main focus in life was being king and is above every other animal in the hierarchy and he behaved as he was not even concerned about his death but only his legitimate

Rome fell on a basis of not a singular reason, but multiple. Yet these are many aspects that make it up, whether they range from Rome’s many corrupt emperors to the invaders such as the Huns. In truth, every part was crucial in the fall of Rome. From emperor to emperor, from Nero to any other. Such made the fall of Rome, such broke a once mighty empire, and such may be a reminder that no matter how powerful you become or are, you will fall in due time.

“Why did the Roman Republic fall?” The Roman Republic did not fall simply from one cause, rather many external pressures that brought on political instability and destruction. There were multiple pressures that lead to the downfall of Rome including ambitious generals, changing politics, client armies, and a desolate Senate desperate to remain prominent. Many significant people of the time, who wrote letters and speeches on ancient Rome, help to build detailed recollections of the political warfare that took place between 78-31BC.

Some masters were evil foxes who sent people to inquire their slaves how the master was. As long as the slave’s master heard any slaves hated him, he would send people to punish slaves who told the truth. Due to this, most slaves universally said their master was kind and they were contented instead of telling the truth. The frequency of inquiring caused slaves began to trust their master was nice, and finally those slaves enslaved themselves. Moreover, giving the heavy work to slaves did not only help the master getting more money, but also destroyed slaves’ will.

Alexander demanded that people blend cultures against their will, punished civilizations that refused to surrender and tricked people into thinking that he cared about his army. Some say he was involved in his own father’s death because Alexander wanted the crown. He did horrific things in order to succeed earning him the common title “Alexander the Great.” People would stop calling him by this false name if they knew the real roots of Alexander’s story. All in all, some people might think that Alexander was a great leader, but his greatness is actually a

Even from its earliest days, Rome’s citizen cavalry commanded prestige and respect in the military and political structure of Rome. From the violent days of Romulus, through the time of kings, and through the Republic, the citizen cavalry’s elite role in the Roman army provided a path for wealthy young men seeking to distinguish themselves for future political service. This citizen cavalry served Rome well for centuries before being mostly replaced by allied auxiliaries in the first century B.C. Although it is widely believed that the citizen cavalry declined due to military ineffectiveness, the citizen cavalry actually faded away due to social and cultural changes that affected the organization of the military.