The two brothers recognized their opportunity to expose the weaknesses of the Roman Republic and the Senate. This resulted in the Senate’s unfriendly reaction to the Gracchi, which influenced the brothers to make changes to Roman politics. The brothers attempted to change Roman politics, as a result of the reaction the Senate gave them. The affect of these changes was proven after the death of the Gracchi brothers. Lastly, the Gracchus brothers changed Roman history positively at times and negatively at times, resulting in short and long-term damage to Rome.
Rome was once a leading moral and physical backbone in the Mediterranean Sea. Their strong shared values and even stronger armies help create Rome into the superpower of the ancient world. However, those values are often forgotten, and in the first century BCE, those values brought change once again for Rome both in government and society. The Republic was done away with and Augustus was named Emperor and the citizens had become more liberal and immoral. The combination of these two phenomena ended up leading to a stricter more traditional society for the Roman people.
The First Triumvirate eventually fell due to Caesar’s extensive governorship in Gaul and Pompey’s eagerness to join the Optimate Faction. However, at that point in time, Caesar was far too successful for the alliance’s failure to affect his ever-thriving political strength. Seeing that he had victoriously completed his conquest of Gaul, “Caesar set up an efficient provincial administration to govern the vast territories,” and went on his way to lead Rome autocratically (McManus, 1). Though he tried to obtain this positon legally, he eventually resorted to military force,
Caesar was beginning to show signs that he saw himself above roman jurisdiction which was contradicting Republic values. The senate also did not like the fact that Julius Caesar was extremely disrespectful towards them on multiple accounts which showed his arrogance. Suetonius states, “Two tribunes of the people ordered the fillet to be removed at once from his statue and the offender imprisoned. But Caesar reprimanded and summarily degraded them both.” The reason why Julius Caesar was eventually assassinated was because he was too obvious about his motives. Caesar had no problem acting like a tyrant in front of the senate even though they were the ones that gave him his titles and honors.
The Roman aristocrats were totally consumed with the need to retain the legacy of their family’s name. The nobles of Rome would have been under extreme pressure to achieve military prowess and political status. The young nobles felt that their families and their own reputation was at stake, so they devote their lives in service to Rome. They felt like they had to live up to and or overcome they're predecessor's accomplishments, but if they accomplished more with each passing generation then that would make it harder and put more pressure on the later generations.The key of the ancient Roman aristocracy are virtus, gloria, nobilitas and auctoritas. We can see with these four terms the Roman noble’s strengths, weaknesses, aspirations and motivation .
When Cassius creates the fake petition he makes it seem as though there are many angry Roman citizens who want Caesar removed from the thrown. After he finishes making the petition he throws it into Brutus's window so that he can read it. After reading it Brutus will believe that no one is happy to have Caesar in power of Rome if Cassius's idea goes as planned. His fabricating of the Petition was an emotional reason for overthrowing Caesar because there wasn't actually that many angry Roman citizens. He also had another thought on how to convince people that Caesar is no good for Rome.
Caesar was officially made dictator in 47 B.C. this position was usually temporary but he was later on made dictator for life in 44 B.C. Rome had its senate but the real power was with Caesar . Caesar did not want to become the king but the fear of the republicans led the senate to conspire against Caesar and a group of senators ended up killing him believing that the old republican system would return. In conclusion Julius Caesar’s military power affected Rome either positively or negatively from 60 B.C.
But not all in Rome loved Caesar. Some loved him, some hated him, but such is the life of a prominent leader. Caesar was a very progressive leader, as he worked to break down social boundaries within the vast empire, all the while expanding Roman territory. He demonstrated great prowess and strategy in battle, as well as skilled in rhetoric and oration and governing. He also introduced Rome’s calendar, the namesake Julian calendar.
The Romans thought that by persecuting the Christians, they would eventually abandon their faith and follow the Roman customs. However, contrary to their intentions, many more people converted as a result of the persecution. The martyrs who died for their faith impressed others because they believed in a cause so strong that they were willing to die for it. By the courage of the Christians, those who were inspired by them came to see the truth and eventually became Christians too. Although they persecuted the Christians, the Romans provided them a reason to stand up for their beliefs.
97-100). Antony gives several other examples of the exact reasons why Caesar isn’t guilty, but this is most impactful one because the people personally saw Caesar rejecting the crown therefore making it a testimony of Caesar that he could never have the traits of always trying to add to his power since he
Tarquin was the last ruler of Rome. He was a very harsh ruler and because of the bad experiance that the Romans had with him...the kingdom turned into a republic. Agustus brought an end to the Roman republic and created an Empire. Agustus had many accomplishes. Some examples are that he had a standing army and he helped promot art and culture.
Cliques formed and vied for the emperor’s attentions; Flattery was common, and many courtiers were frequently ridiculed outside of the court for their shameless attempts at the emperor’s good graces. The only thing that discredits the author’s argument is that his attempt to fully describe the court is based largely on anecdotal evidence. Unable to accurately detail the complexities of the Roman court and the extent of its power with appropriate evidence, the author makes generalizations based on courts of other kingdoms and empires in order to create an otherwise plausible conceptualization of the magnitude of the Roman
Near the beginning and then again towards the end, Caesar uses nearly the same approach in his military tactics to ward off the Britons. He tells of how, in both cases, they were reinforced somehow and then, afterwards, they retreat back into the camp. In the case of the former situation, Caesar himself is the reinforcement. His men had struggled with the Britons and were "perturbatis nostris [novitate pugnae]." They were disturbed by the nature or novelty of the battle.