Rome After Punic Wars

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,

As a result of the agrarian laws, the two brothers were able to take control of the Empire, causing the Senate to fear their intentions and their potential. The Gracchi Brothers used their power and authority to take advantage of the vulnerable Roman government. They often let their selfish nature take control of the power they had, impacting Rome negatively. Gaius made it his goal to get back at the Senate for the death of his brother by replacing them with the Equites. The Gracchi brothers are the first tribunes to take advantage of their power.

In public, Octavian would condemn anyone who called him a monarch which shows that he did care about what the public thought of him compared to Julius Caesar. Octavian avoided such titles since he already had the power of an emperor and knew that there was a stigma towards the term monarch. He would only become a monarch as long as the people desired him to be one. Cassius Dio adds, “The name of monarchy, to be sure, the Romans so detested that they called their emperors neither dictators nor kings nor anything of the sort; yet since the final authority for the government devolves upon them, they must need kings.”

The Roman Republic did a moderate job meeting the common good, but there were several areas that could have used improvement. They should have treated their Auxiliary soldiers fairly, and made sure that their laws treated everyone equally. The Roman Republic also should have had safer entertainment that didn’t force people to fight to the death. Although Ancient Romans didn’t do everything in their power to meet the common good, they still became a very powerful empire and controlled

Through Mark Antony's description of the hesitation Caesar displayed to accept the crown, he contradicts Brutus' claim of Caesar possessing ambition.

For the Athenian Military it was a Huge Success not only for winning the battle but it also show that there is potential in the hoplite phalanx. Since each city-state fought the same way there was no way of telling the strengths and weaknesses of the hoplite phalanx. The battle showed that the hoplite was very effective against lightly armed troops but was still very vulnerable to cavalry which would be a problem later on in the battle of platea but now shown if used in the correct circumstances the hoplite phalanx would be a very devastating weapon. The Athenians had a backup plan for both if they lost or won the battle.

Ancient Rome is recognized for strength in war and battles, so the ideal citizen would be strong and willing to fight. Hunt explains that in Rome “one man’s loss was another man’s gain” (177). The culture of Ancient Rome was aggressive, as the men were trained to fight and be devoted to their country. “Male elites had to be on guard to defend against and avenge any slights to their personal, family, and state honor” (Hunt 177). In The Aeneid, Virgil writes “Roman, remember by your strength to rule //

Personally, Caligula was a tragedy waiting to happen. The people of Rome may have known that his reign would be the forefront of destruction to the Roman Empire, but a blind hope of arrogance clouded their judgment as Caligula’s terror destroyed the lives of those around him. However, Caligula’s life was built for luxury, military warfare, and egomania. Most Emperors would have the decency to respect his people, protect their empire, and keep peace among other countries.

Henry also stated in his speech to the Virginia Convention, “armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone,” (Henry 104). Not only was Henry speaking to them to reach their emotions, but he was also reaching to motivate them as well. Henry lets them know that together they are invincible and together they can take down whatever conflict comes their way. The emotion and determination that Henry used was a great way to influence the public to go to war.

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.

Report what Fabricius did—and did not do—(use an additional source) and find parallel examples of this kind of character from your world. a. Fabricius was a Roman commander who displayed a high level of confidence, honorableness, and rigor. During this period, he was vied as a model to the Romans. When the king of Greece, Phyrrhus, invaded Italy to fight against the Romans, Fabricius confronted Phyrrhus with a negotiation for an exchange of prisons. Phyrrhus was fascinated by Fabricius and agreed to let the prisons free without ransom (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica,

The first and second Punic wars occurred over a period of around 60 years in the mid and late second century B.C. Although this is a relatively short timeframe in comparison to the vast history of the Roman Empire, these wars would shape the fundamental outlook on Roman foreign policy for years to come. However important to the Romans, though, these repeated military conflicts would spell the end for their adversaries – the Carthaginians. Though at times in the fighting the Carthaginians definitively maintained an upper hand, I assert that the Romans were destined to win both wars. The Carthaginians simply could not overcome the Roman’s intrinsic courageousness, their superior political and armed forces organization, and, most importantly, the manpower the Republic possessed.