Republic Versus Oligarchal Republic Carthage and Rome had several similarities and several differences. Rome was a republic, electing its officials to rule over them and enforce the laws. Carthage was an oligarchal republic, with aristocrats being the only ones allowed to hold office. I will attempt to explain how each government worked and their differences. Rome was a republic.
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. Rome’s constitution had three different elements which held independent powers and shared their ideas to prove the constitution was democratic.
Hiero as someone who has lived both lives gives many reasons to break this misconception and prove the unhappiness state that he lives in because of his position as a tyrant. And in response Simonides argues that there are some ways that the tyrant can redeem himself and get the love and attention that he craves and tries to advice him and show him these ways. In general, tyrants are sovereign rulers who rule over unwilling subjects by force. They have control over almost everything and everyone in the state, meaning there is no consideration for law. Tyrants always think of themselves
For although, as White says, Cicero’s relationship with Caesar was “one of the most productive connections that Cicero acquired” in terms of patronage and largess, Caesar’s use of his distance and constant mobility as a tactic of personal manipulation placed Cicero at a distance and emphasized the power disparity between the two.6 Caesar’s correspondence arrived to Cicero through lines of communication that were established by Caesar himself, and he often portrayed himself as busy as well as geographically distant, which lead to letters that were brief and indirect. Often Cicero even had to go as far as learning of Caesar’s opinions through third parties like Balbus, Dolabella, Caelius, and Trebatius.7 This resulted in a relationship in which Caesar held much of the power by obfuscating his intentions and withholding information, while Cicero’s letters were continually anxious and overly obliging in an attempt to get a positive response from Caesar. This
Unfortunately for Julius Caesar, he had several powerful enemies. In addition, there were many political situations that had occurred at the time of Caesar being in power. He had gained most of his power from defeating his enemies, his biggest enimeis were right by his side the whole time. But in this process he had also gained many more powerful enemies, some of his eniemes had been he bestest friends Brutus and Cassius. He had tried becoming an absolute dictator.
Succeeding in having all of Gaul under Roman control, Caesar proved himself to be a great ruler and achieved a very high reputation as a strong leader. He was also admired by his army for being ready to sacrifice and go through any hardships and overcome all obstacles for the sake and welfare of Rome. Being favored and admired by the army was one of the main reasons that triggered the senate's fear of his escalating power. However, things began to gradually deteriorate and gravitate towards a civil war. The senate managed to pull Pompey towards them and stimulate tension between him and Caesar; to take things up a notch Crassus died leaving only Pompey and Caesar to each other.
Caesar refused and Pompey and Caesar began to fight for control of Rome. In 49 BC civil war broke out and Caser defeated Pompey. In 44 BC he became dictator of Rome for life. “As the empire’s only leader, he began to make changes, such as reorganizing the Roman calendar and starting colonies. He also granted Roman citizenship to people living in those colonies”.
When you put the two names next to each other and compare Federalist versus Anti-Federalists and what is thought of it is always a topic that has always been a bit harsh or even arguable to the people of this nation. Federalists and Anti-Federalists had extremely different points of views on how to run their nation and the way the government should be set up. Federalists had faith in our people and believed that they should be the ones running the government. They were avid believers of many things such as a strong central government, a central bank, and an even those that protect our rights, the army. Federalist no.