The concept of exemplarity was used extensively throughout Roman literature as a tool to give guidance and enforce authority. By providing an ethical framework of societal precedents, exempla served to govern all facets of Roman public life. The system of exemplarity had an inherent power in Roman society, allowing it to be exploited for personal gain by rulers such as Augustus. Through his monumental literary biography, Res Gestae Divi Augusti, Augustus manipulated exemplarity in order to translate his coercive power into benevolent authority over the people of Rome. Exemplarity, in the broadest sense, is system of precedents in Roman history that are passed down through generations to serve as guidance in the decisions of everyday life.
However, Roman culture was very imperialist culture it was accepted out of the country very quickly. Webster noted that Romans position had also a significant role in the this process because it let the provincials become inalienable part of the Roman Empire, and as the logical consequences of this situation
While each of these structures had a definite purpose such as disposing of waste, carrying water, hosting sporting and entertainment events, the only exception was that of triumphal arches that, according to Cartwright (2012), were built to commemorate “military triumphs and other significant events such as the accession of a new emperor”. Since there was no practical use of these arches apart from replacing the gates of a city, they usually were decorated with inscriptions. Two prominent arches of this type are the Arch of Constantine and Septimus Severus are still standing. That said, arches were everywhere and throughout the Roman Empire given their function. What was very clear was how advantageous this architectural structure proved to be since it kept the Roman Empire structurally intact for centuries - an aspect that was not necessarily an advantage that their adversaries had at their disposal.
The life of Caesar was short, yet incredible. It is imperative to find out about this extraordinary man and is numerous achievements. Julius Caesar was a politically adroit and prevalent pioneer of the Roman Republic who fundamentally changed what ended up known as the Roman Empire by significantly extending its geographic reach and building up its majestic framework. By age 31, Caesar had battled in a few wars and wind up engaged with
Here is the forerunner to many political districts our governments use today. A little further on, this assembly was given binding power over the entire state - a momentous step. Moving forward, all major priesthoods and offices, even consul, despite determined resistance, were opened up to plebeians. Additionally, the enslavement for debts was abolished “establishing the principle that the liberty of a Roman citizen was an inalienable right” (148). Finally, the story of decemviri, with more classical Roman elements, concludes the gains of the
Introduction In seeking to answer the question I propose to examine certain aspects of Augustus’ rise to power and the way he obtained and exercised his auctoritas/Ἀξιώματι/influence and became the de facto if not de jure, sole ‘leader’ for Rome. Looking at the auctoritas and potestas/Έξουσίας/powers he had and the way he exercised them was he the first emperor of Rome having destroyed the Republic, did he actually save the Republic? given the state it was in or did he do something else? The argument presented here is that Augustus did not destroy the Republic. His use of his powers and his positions were within the Republican framework of the time – even if, on occasions, at its accepted margins.
Roman empire has been one of the most powerful and successful empire throughout the world history so defeat in the battle against them and being of the part of their empire were almost inevitable. Lands of that empire spread in South Europe, partly West Europe, near east and north Africa. As a normal procedure, their culture, customs, language and so many other things that belong to them had to be adopted by people of lands which were captured by Romans. It is called romanization. The main reason how roman empire could capture vast lands is their power.
According to Roman tradition, “what makes a good society” lies within the ability to obtain and sustain power, wealth, and stature, as well as being Roman, despite the Roman culture’s emphasis on moral values. But the gradual transformation of the Roman society and leadership, bloomed the realization of Christian traditions and morals converting the meaning of what makes a good society in the Roman tradition. As a polytheistic culture, the Roman’s legacy is grounded in stories of the gods, beginning with Romulus and Remus, sons of a Latin Princess and Mars, the god of war. Rome was said to be founded by Romulus in 753 BC and named for him. Early Rome was ruled by kings in tandem with the Senate until 509 BC.
The Romans were well-known for their engineering skills, having constructed engineering marvels standing till date. Their engineering skills were revolutionary and despite their achievements, the Romans have been accused of failing aesthetically. I believe to term Roman architecture as failure aesthetically is extreme, because of the aqueducts, the amphitheatre and the Roman temples were exemplary examples to justify their case. The Romans started building aqueducts because it was a necessity used to carry water supply from sources into the cities. According to Anderson (2012), the primary purpose of the aqueducts was to transport water from valleys into town, but they were still a “civic pride in the Roman world” and not neglected aesthetically.
Monumental architecture is, specifically, architecture built by those with power, not just everyday citizens. Going through the architectural history we clearly see the tie and bond between political power and architecture. Anthropologist Peter Wilson states that architecture always relates and links to the way we understand and see the world, giving us the space and liberty to conceptualize reality and explain the cultural and social practices. Leaders have always taken advantage of this particular framework to demonstrate their power over the populace, they express how they wish to be seen and force their particular view of that power on the populace through