Since 509 and until 27 B.C. the Roman Republic experienced numerous alternations both in its military and in its political history. Due to several circumstances and changes in the military and social stage, the political life of Rome was affected while in this era. A number of modern scholars are of the opinion that the Roman government of the Late Republic was a government of the elite. Namely, they maintain that the elite formulated it for the elite. This argument alone unearths a number of questions concerning issues. One would wonder whether the political regime of the Late Roman Republic was oligarchic or democratic. In addition, this led many scholars, such as J. North and A. Jakobson, to investigate further the roman election and its …show more content…
The latter illustrates that electoral bribery was quite common in the Late Republic. He states that politicians took under consideration the electoral power of the “urban plebs” and this was the reason why they did not hesitate to provide the common people with feasts, games and other sorts of entertainment sometimes they even handed out money. Yakobson states that a Roman political candidate had his reasons to be generous to the public else, he stood great chances of being rejected by the people and the elections. What Yakobson illustrates though, is the fact that bribery did not intent to affect the common people of the low classes, instead, it was aiming to their patrons. Namely, the theory behind bribing the plebs was to gain the support of wealthy patrons, and not to buy the votes of the poor. In fact, a candidate could not be sure whether the person that he gave money to in exchange for his vote was truly going to vote for him, due to the “secret” vote. Although the act of bribing might sound “scandalous” and illegal, Cicero cites that it was the candidate’s obligations to arrange games and to invite the tribe to banquets, as part of their political campaign. He also maintained that “the efficacy of the games in winning votes for the elections was a well-known feature of Roman politics”. Yakobson is not certain whether patronage dominated the electoral system, but he cites Nicolet and explains that this particular issue should be view form a critical perspective. There are not actual source that provide statistic evidence that show the percentage of bribery. Yet, according to Nicolet, there were laws in the Late Republic that tried to limit the act of bribery. The laws did not forbid bribery, as this would affect both the common people and the candidates, but they aimed to restrict the candidates’
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
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.
How Democratic was the Roman Republic? Though, the Romans made undemocratic decisions, they still included the people in a lot of executive decisions. The Assemblies carried out the majority of what the people wanted and what they decided. Therefore, Rome allowed their citizens to help make important decisions about government, which made them democratic.
Roman citizens had come to consideration that they, indeed, did have a poor government. The Roman government gave an unjust life to people based on their social rank (Document E). This led to the citizens not appreciating the government as well as the Empire. Most of the emperors in Rome were assassinated so it gives the citizens the intention that if you did not like the emperor you can just kill them (Document A).This tells the reader that it was hard to govern Rome because they constantly kept replacing emperors. Considering that Rome did not have a stable ruling system, citizens of Rome began to doubt and not depend on their government.
The Roman Republic was often known for its lasting influence for the development of Western political governance and ideals and is often hailed as a beacon of democracy in ancient history. But an in depth look reveals it to be more complex. While the Roman Republic held democratic elements that allowed citizen participation and representation, its political structure was ultimately characterized by a significant concentration of power among the elite and few for the average person. This essay will explore the extent of democracy within the Roman Republic, analyzing key aspects such as the electoral system, legislative bodies, and social hierarchy and the democratic nature and the implications it had on the overall governance of the state.
This paper aims to make an insightful comparison of two great leaders of history whom were assassinated by conspirators during the height of their political lives. By exploring the assassination and lives of these two men we can more clearly understand the historical and social events that underpin a conspiracy as grand as these. The life and death of Julius Caesar is one of the original grand conspiracies in history, as his ambition grew so did the envy of his fellow senators. Julius Caesar was born to a noble family and inherited a relatively high status in ancient Rome’s hierarchy.
Furthermore, Jugurtha prove that “Rome is for sale” by in a multiple occasion successfully bribed Roman officials, and by that manage to ensure his success. The (comitia tributa) summoned Jugurtha to Rome to give evidence against any senators who were alleged to have accepted bribes from
Reasonable and noble concepts on the surface, however, were underlying with their own contempt for the Senate and optimate party. What could be seen on one side as an attempt to rectify a dangerous and debilitating social system was viewed on the other as nothing more than a power grab and a flagrant attack on the Republican institutional ideas of the time. The goal of the betterment of society as a whole was lost, and victory became the only objective. As ambition and personal motivation became the predominant theme of the Late Republic, the social fabric that long-held Rome together, against all odds, was being torn apart due to the reforms that were set in
In her chapter on the historiography of Roman exemplarity, Christina Shuttleworth Kraus examines this loss of power through the transition of exempla as the res gestae populi Romani to the res gestae divi Augusti (Kraus, 2). In early Roman history, exemplarity rested in the hands of popular consciousness; the citizens of Rome had the sole power of deciding which events or people to raise up to the status of exempla. This system of exemplarity that is explained in detail by Matthew Roller’s four stage model of the creation of exempla by public discourse (Roller, 216-217). However, Roller’s framework begins to collapse when Augustus intentionally influences exemplary power through his coercive Res Gestae. Rather than looking to the past for the great deeds of common people like the Sabine women or Lucretia, Roman citizens of the Augustan period had their attention directed towards the persona of one man, an exemplar in the form of an emperor.
The Life of Marius, written by Plutarch, is a fascinating ancient source detailing the career of the Roman Gaius Marius, 127-86BC. While there are interpretive and reliability issues, the Life of Marius is a particularly useful and significant source. It is our only extensive primary source on Marius, who was a key political figure of late Republican Rome. Additionally, Plutarch’s work indicates not only many crucial military and political development in Rome in the time period, but also gives a reflection of Plutarch’s own Rome and its values and political climate.
Throughout history, many incredible civilizations have risen and fallen. Among them was Ancient Rome. The Roman Republic started in Italy in around 800 BC, and became a grand and powerful civilization. It was ruled by the people and they voted for leaders. Ancient Rome would go on to dominate much of the Mediterranean.
Maximinus I. The organization of these four chapters emphasizes the structural conformity of the treated emperors, less in the similarity of their policies than in the comparability of the political problems of the time. To Gibbon it was clear that, despite apparent differences, the Roman policy of that era was fraught with the Romans
NAME – AKUL KHANNA PROFESSOR – KANIKA DANG ENGLISH THESIS PAPER DATE -2ND NOVEMBER 2015 MARK ANTONY’S DEVELOPMENT IN JULIUS CEASAR In the year 44 BC the powerful empire of Rome had lost its ruler due to the assassination led by the senators and Julius Caesar’s brother Brutus. Caesar’s death was a huge setback for Rome and its people and the whole empire was in utter chaos. Mark Antony a very noble, loyal and affectionate friend of Caesar.
The magistrates and tribunes… were the only ones who could place legislation before the voters.” The small percent of citizens that actually did vote in Ancient Rome were spoon-fed their candidates by higher ups like the magistrates in