Death, uncertainty, and fear all come to mind when thinking about the Roman Empire. When Julius Caesar made the fatal decision of turning the Roman Government into an empire, it hurt Rome forever. Bad leaders damaged Rome’s image while citizens of Rome lived in fear and panic. No one could control bad leaders and limit their power, giving them the freedom to do whatever they wanted. Although Caesar was very popular among common people, there would be many dictators that weren’t. Julius Caesar made a bad choice changing the government, but was able to do it by his popularity and weakening his opponents.
Before Julius Caesar changed the Roman Government to an empire, it was a republic (McManus, Barbara F). A Republic government is when the
…show more content…
This was a huge change from having many people in charge like they did in the republic. Also, citizens weren’t heard as much as they were in the republic. They couldn’t elect who they thought was going to make the best decisions for them; instead they had to obey whatever the dictator said even if they didn’t like his views. Because Rome had conquered so much, its territories were huge. Dictators had to rule all the land by themselves and had to make sure that no one was going to try and rise against them. Because of all the traveling they did to the different areas of the empire, many emperors died young. When a beloved emperor died it left instability throughout the empire and cause citizens to panic. Being an emperor is a job for life, and emperors ruled until they died or, in some cases, were assassinated. Having a bad leader who had the all the power could ruin the empire. Even though Julius Caesar was a good leader for Rome, that did not mean the rest of the dictators were good, strong leaders, too. If a bad leader had all the power and made poor decisions, it will hurt the empire and its inhabitants. Emperors such as Caligula, Nero, and Commodus hurt the Roman Empire’s image, resources, and people. (Gill, N.S). Many dictators had to rule by fear and violence to make sure they weren't overthrown and killed. Ruling by fear and violence resulted in many deaths and uncertainty …show more content…
Soldiers were more likely to be loyal to your general than the government so Julius Caesar had more control over his men than the Roman Republic. Also, Caesar shared the same hardships as the soldiers during battles. Without the help of his army, Caesar believed he wouldn’t have earned dictator for life and would have been killed earlier in his life. Caesar enacted different social reforms that made him very popular with the common people. Some of the reforms included citizenship for people in the provinces and public land for veterans. (CITATION). Julius Caesar weakened his political opponents by becoming dictator for life. By becoming dictator for life, the senate or any other group that held power could not control him. This prevented from anyone taking Caesar’s power and turning the government back into a
Most of their reigns were ended by assassinations. This means that people didn’t like their leaders and their unstable government system and the people would go as far as assassination to get rid of their emperors. An unstable government caused the fall of Rome because of injustice and because people kept assassinating their
Julius Caesars actions were okay because everything he did was for the good of his country. If he committed a crime, it was to help Rome expand or get more money, I know this because Rome became richer and bigger. But if you're gonna do something bad and think you're helping out, think about the consequences. Caesars actions were justified when he tried to murder Vercingétorix, he committed adultery with Cleopatra, and took over countries to expand land. Julius Caesar almost broke the law when he wanted to kill Vercingétorix.
The Roman Civilization, which lasted from 509 BCE to 476 CE and was located in present day Italy, was one of history’s greatest empires. Ancient Rome met the criteria to being a civilization by having a powerful government, a capable military and vigorous trading. Rome’s remarkable government was the reason why Rome lasted for more than 500 years. It provided employment for hundreds of thousands of workers, and Rome experienced rapid growth because of that (Bently 271). Trade brought new products and traders exchanged vast ideas and thoughts which led to Rome being very prosperous (Bently 284).
Matt Roer 5/18/15 Did Julius Caesar rule through power or authority during his political reign? During Caesar’s political reign, he ruled through authority because he was able to deliver the needs of the majority populares group while satisfying the optimates by building public works projects, creating reforms that benefitted foreigners and the populares, and conquering the land of other regions. Caesar convinced others that it was in their best interest to be ruled because he provided Romans and outsiders with opportunities to be financially successful. When Caesar first got into power, he decided to stack his supporters by doling out citizenship to people from regions where he used to live such as the Alps (B).
There have been many rulers in the Roman Empire, but none like Julius Caesar. Through his short rule as dictator, he was able to improve the ways of Roman life, and help the empire as a whole. He made many reforms to alter what other rulers have done before, improving the harsh and cruel laws. He was passionate about what he did, never letting the Roman people down. Never again will Rome see another ruler as great as Julius Caesar.
What to me was more of the bigger reason for the demise of the Roman’s Republic was bad government practices. Before they were a democracy, Rome really tried to move away from a government that was by the people and put more and more of its power into those citizens that were wealthier than others. Those citizens that were more sociable and more economical created a Rome where citizens yearned for more leadership roles. Those having positions in the senate and fearing to be ruled by a dictator, plotted to have Caesar killed. Caesar’s death caused nothing more than more wars and a ton of new leaders.
Fall of Rome DBQ Including most of the Mediterranean world, Rome, a city that was growing big enough to become one of the world’s largest empire’s would soon slowly fall apart because of their problems. In 27 BC, Rome’s first emperor, Augustus Caesar, took complete power. During his time, he ruled with Pax Romana, a time of Roman peace which lasted for almost 200 years. After his death, the Roman Empire begun to break apart. The primary reasons for the fall of Rome was it being geographically too big; the population was decreasing due to plagues which led to the Roman army becoming weak, social and military issues and laziness of the military would guide the army down which led to cities being lost, and their government and leadership issues of the weak or selfish power leaders would all conduct to the breaking up of Rome.
The most interesting thing I found in my research about Rome was that Gordian III took the throne at age 13, becoming the youngest emperor of Ancient Rome. I also found that many of the Roman emperors were psychotic. Mad emperor Caligula ordered his legions to collect shells on the beach in order to prove that he had "conquered the sea". Nero killed his mother and his wife and attempted to instate his favorite horse, Incitatus, as a priest and consul, and ordered a marble stable built for him with chairs and couches on which the horse never sat. Emperor Commodus once ordered all the cripples, hunchbacks, and generally undesirables in the city to be rounded up, thrown into the arena, and forced to hack one another to death with meat cleavers.
Julius Caesar led Rome for many years, however, his rule ultimately proved to be bad for Rome. Rome did not benefit from Julius Caesar because he ended the republic. He crossed the Rubicon River in Italy with his army, and this act was seen as an insurrection.
The empire of Rome had a slow fall due to its poor leaders, the republic of Rome had a very quick death due to the corruption of its leaders, the empire had one man to control all and it would usually be overwhelming and the republic had a great many “leaders” all whom wanted to be the leader-iest leader of all the other leaders. Corruption and power are one and the same, it takes a great person, a legend almost to be able to maintain absolute power without absolute corruption. Alexander the great was a great leader because he had wars to fight and people to kill he had a singular goal. Ramases II was a great leader since he had a very poor Egypt to return to its former status. These goals help a leader to remain calm and away from their inner thoughts, but when your inner thoughts are screaming old men and power hungry, conceited “lad” it would not take long before someone gets mad enough to silence the rest of these voices.
The Roman Empire was in a state of anarchy with civil wars against Italy and this ultimately led to a state of despair between the Roman citizens (Rostovtzeff, 1926). Augustus, the upcoming chief of the Roman Empire, had promised the citizens of Rome their rights and privileges would not be jeopardized and had amassed a huge amount of support from the citizens in exchange that Augustus would deliver and abide to his promises if he were to be the new leader of the Roman Empire (Rostovtzeff, 1926). The Roman citizens believed in a leader who would not betray them and one that could lead their army efficiently, and therefore the conditions were set for any chief that were to be elected, one who was elected by the soldiers and officers rather than the citizens and senates to omit any biases. This led to a strong government because the leader and the senates were there for the people and to keep it in line, creating a sense of law and order. But even then, before Augustus, the Roman Empire was already built before an emperor was elected (27 BC).
The imperial system's dependence on powerful and secure leadership was harmed when the conspirators assassinated Caesar and replaced him with an unpopular emperor, setting in motion a chain of events that would ultimately contribute to the decline and collapse of the system. The emperor was the highest authority in the empire, and as such, his or her role and personality had a significant impact on the empire's stability and success. Weak or unimportant emperors frequently caused economic crises, huge barbarian invasions, and chaos. As a result, the Roman Empire's dependence on the emperor's status and character contributed to its decline and eventual collapse. This decline would not have happened if Caesar hadn't been killed.
Rome was a leader in the Ancient World. It accomplished many achievements during its reign. Romans formed a new system of government,and expanded their empire. Though the Roman empire was great they eventually fell because of three reasons , military mistakes, economic and civic decay, and political instability. These issues were caused by many factors such as an idle attitude, greediness, and natural disasters.
Who was Julius Caesar was he a hero or a villain? Julius Caesar was a hero to many plebeians because he made many great accomplishments of the government , Rome, and for the poor. Some people might think he was a villain, but some people think differently. First of all, Julius Caesar did many great effects to Rome. Julius gave land to the landless, like the poor and veterans who didn’t have land before.
Nero, The Roman Emperor. The Roman Empire is known for fabulous culture, brutal wars, social upheaval and fascinating leadership. Although being a republic for around four hundred years, its emperors often define the Roman Empire. Some of them are bad, some of them good.