To a significant extent, Sulla, Pompey and Cicero were individuals who allowed situations to occur which led to the fall of the republic. The fall of the Roman republic was more than a single man. It was a culmination of several individual actions, coupled with social conditions that were weighted heavily on Roman society. Though powerful individuals contributed to the fall of the republic, it was not successful in preventing the fall of the republic however, it has significantly maintained control of Rome for an adequate period of time. This is most apparent through Sulla substantial amount of power to increase the power of the senate and gave rise to individuals, also through Pompey’s formation of the first triumvirate with Crassus and Cicero. …show more content…
Sulla involvement within Rome significantly impacted the fall of the roman republic, through his reform in the cursus honorum and his military exploits. Sulla was an optimae who was the first man to march on Rome in 88 BC who sought his support from the conservatives within the nobility. Sulla career had a lasting impact on the political developments of the late republic. His lasting impact is evident through the climate of discord between Marius, which was a major concern for successful military commanders as he brought open violence to the streets of Rome, using threats and attacks to remove those loyal to his rivals. This is evident as Appain states “ He seems to have made such as a formal list of those whom he condemned to death, to offer prizes to assassins and rewards to informers”, thus this source shows Sulla ruthless act to slaughter anyone listed on the proscription list in sides with his oppositions, the Marians. As a result, as a conservative supporter of the imperial system like Sulla, Appian source is …show more content…
The alliance combined Caesar’s enormous popularity and legal reputation with Crassus’s fantastic wealth and influence and Pompey’s equally spectacular wealth and military reputation. The formation of the first triumvirate was critical due to the fact “ it’s formation was the turning point in the history of the free state” (Scullard), which determined the fate of the republic declining. The effect of Scullard sources is resource efficient and reliable as he heightens our understanding about the military and political happenings of the time. When Crassus died after the battle of Carrhae, Pompey gradually drifted with his alliance with Caesar. Caesar’s popularity with the people soared, presenting a threat to the power of the senate and to Pompey. Caesar eventually defeated Pompey and was the sole rule of Rome, thus tried reforming every aspect of the people’s life. As a result, Caesar ruling as a dictator significantly contributed to the fall of the Roman republic as Rome was no longer a republic but a
In the absence of war and crisis, Rome's leaders failed to develop the honor and leadership necessary to maintain the Republic. Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus joined forces to form a triple leadership called the First Triumvirate. The rulers of Rome states and colonies suspected that one man would soon emerge as the complete
Also, Pompey felt that Grassus most likely was working against him again by supporting not only Cato, but also Clodius. Furthermore, Cicero, felt safe again decided to attack the triumvirate and by using Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, who expected to be elected consul in 55 BC declared that he will press to terminate the Caesar command in Gaul. Facing rising enemies and serious danger for their existence the parties involved in the First Triumvirate decided to meet and renew the terms. That happened in April 56 BC, in Luca (modern Lucca, in Tuscany, Italy) right on the border with Cisalpine Gaul province, Caesar met with Grassus and Pompey, other senators were invited too, and strikingly many attend the meeting, Cicero was one of them too. The new contract was to receive unequivocal loyalty from Clodius and Cicero, and also that Grassus and Pompey will stand and be elected for consuls while Caesar will send solders in Rome to ensure that vote.
138 BC, is considered very significant to Roman history and has left a notable legacy behind after his death in 78 BC. Sulla was famous as he left the legacy of the reforms of the Constitutions of the Rome Republic, laws specifically targeted towards the cursus honorum. In these reforms, Sulla aimed to reduce the level of political power the plebeian tribunes had in society, and remove the existing democracy, also believing in adding power to the Roman senate. Despite these reforms lasting many years after his death, eventually revoked by Pompey and Crassus, Caesar still destroyed the reforms in later years, meaning that his legacy in regards to his constitutional reforms were short lived. He also stands out in history, having served as consul twice, and achieving a dictatorship in Rome, alongside many military successes, including his involvement in the Social War.
His selfish, egotistical personality made the Romans concerned with the state of their empire. At this point, they turned against themselves. Not knowing whether Caesar would give up his army peacefully, the Senate declared martial law and turned the Republic to the hands of Pompey.
Likelyhood of Julius Caesar, one of Romes most feared leaders, and Abraham Lincoln, one of Americas greatest presidents having much in common, wasn't much I thought. With more research I realized they had more in common like, they both had statues erected in their honor, there empires say a civil war close to there rain there's more I became fascinated on. In 60 BC, Caesar, Crassus and Pompey formed a political alliance that dominated Roman politics for several years. Their attempts to amass power as Populares were opposed by the Optimates within Romes Senate, among them Cato the Younger with the frequent support of Cicero.
Julius Caesar Back Round On JC Born roughly around July 12 or 13th 100 BC in Rome and died March 15th 44 BC Politically adept/ Popular Leader of the Roman Republic Transformed Roman Empire by expanding its geographical reach and establishing an imperial system. Caesar joined the military to escape having to divorce his first wife Cornelia who's father was a political rival of the current dictator Sulla. JC returned to Rome after friends eventually convinced Sulla to allow him to return and after Sulla's passing began Caesar's in depth dive into Roman politics and prosecuting. Even after all Caesar did for his country a year after he returned to Rome and was claimed as dictator then hailed as Father of his Country he was savagely assassinated.
Juliane Smith Professor Mira Green HSTAM 302 16 July 2023 The First Triumvirate’s Effects on Traditional Rome In 60 BCE, three men, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, Marcus Licinius Crassus, and Gaius Julius Caesar, came together to accumulate their resources to achieve their personal goals. This alliance is known as The First Triumvirate, but it is more correctly associated as a factio or an amicitia. The term factio was used by political opponents who viewed the trio as a tyrannical faction, while the trio themselves considered the alliance an amicitia, a friendship flourished by mutual aid with their clients, followers, wealth, and influence. Crassus, known for his wealth, with Pompey’s military and political leadership, and Caesar’s unexpected
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.
This paper will show you how Julius Caesar became the man he was and the pros and cons of his leadership. Before Caesar’s monarchy, he was a successful leader of armies. His victories in the Gallic wars only heightened his want for power. By 51 B.C. Julius’ ability to run a military was incomparable, which alone jeopardized Pompey’s leading. Thus, in 50 B.C. Pompey ordered Caesar to disband his army, step down from his military command, and return to Rome.
What were the primary reasons for the “fall” of Rome? Rome fell because of many other reasons but the main reason Rome fell were because of weak leadership, military weakness and economic problems here is why. One reason Rome fell was because of weak leadership. According to document A Roman leaders would die because of assassination, suicide and because of natural causes. Romans would become leaders and would die because of assassination and a few would die because of natural causes.
Lucius Cornelius Sulla was a prominent figure in the late republic of Ancient Rome, rising to power through establishing allies and his military accomplishments. As a member of the patrician class Sulla rose to power through the Roman political ladder (Cursus Honourum). Sulla was the victor of the social war, conducted war against the Mithridates and headed the first civil war in Roman history against Marius. Through his military accomplishments, he gained support from the senate and was later elected consul and then transitioned into dictatorship. He became a well-known dictator in 82 BC where he established a series of governmental reforms altering Rome’s political system.
Using a “client army”, or hired mercenaries, he seized Rome’s highest offices and forced the Senate to support him. Notably, Sulla’s army consisted of commoners that did not own land or weapons. This ended up being crucial in Sulla’s capture of Rome, where his “officers except one deserted him … but his common soldiers followed him” (Hunt, 166). Sulla killed his opponents and anyone that dissented him, leading to the senate to become terrified of him.
It seems that the fall of the Roman Republic was not a singular event that occurred instantaneously, but rather a long process that saw the increasing use of methods outside of Republican institutions to settle conflicts between members of the aristocracy over political power. Even as the Roman government transitioned form Kingdom to Republic and then to Empire, the competition between aristocratic families remained a relative constant in across the centuries. So too has the desire to mythologize the past. The romans attributed both the fall of the Kingdom of Rome and the fall of the Roman Republic to moral rot, while a more reasonable assessment might place the blame on a dissatisfied and competitive elite class and an inefficient and unresponsive governmental system that was unwilling or unable to address their concerns. In much the same way, modern observers of the Roman Republic have tended to mythologize the fall of the Republic in the service of creating a moral narrative about the unconscionable tyranny of Cesar and the righteousness of the Senate, or whatever alternative narrative is befitting of the historical moment and audience.
Aristotle’s forms of government include three ‘true’ forms following deviations to each form. The first type of constitution is kingship; the rule of one aiming at the good of all. The second is aristocracy; the rule of the elite aiming at the good of all. The third is polity “politea”; rule exercised by the populous aiming at the good of all 116. Kingship, aristocracy, and polity are considered the ‘just’ forms because their focus is on the common good.
Many different internal and external pressures lead to the destruction of the Roman Republic. Cornelius Sulla, a Roman general, dictator and optimate, anticipated and was aware of the results of many powerful and