Julius Caesar, a Roman general and statesman, served on the First Triumvirate that ruled the Roman Republic during 60 B.C. Although he was popular among the common people and also a great and outstanding military commander, he wasn’t a good leader to govern Rome due to his ambition and inner-weakness. One of the main reasons that Julius Caesar was not a good leader was his ambition. He was a corrupted tyrant, lusting for power. Becoming a governor in his region of Rome wasn’t good enough, he wanted to be crowned king and serve as a dictator for life, something that Rome didn’t have for five hundred years.
Another way that Edward IV proved that he was not a ‘puppet king’ as Henry VI was seen as was by removing Warwick’s brother, George Neville, as chancellor. However, although these events showed that he was not controlled by Warwick, there were many failures that outweigh his successes when it came to dealing with the over mighty subjects. Edward was said to have ‘alienated’ Warwick, which then caused him to become over mighty. Warwick was the biggest land owner in England and therefore had a lot of power, maybe even too much power as some people thought when it came to Edwards’s decision. Edwards marriage to Woodville was said to show favouritism as he subsequently gave the Woodville family titles and arranged the best marriages possible for Elizabeth’s sister, meaning that Warwick’s daughters did not get the desired marriages.
Although source 6 describes Henry and Wolsey’s foreign policies as failures, David Gross ell does go on to write that Wolsey succeeded in bringing glory and honour. This is reinforced by other successes in their foreign policies, for example the field of cloth of gold which extravagance impressed the likes of many, and showed other possible allies the extent of Henry’s supposed wealth. This can also be seen in source 4, depicting fountains flowing with wine. However, as far as their foreign policies are concerned, by and large they were a massive failure, as seen in source 5 “never saw the time so needful for the King’s Highness to call his council”. Other examples include Henrys betrayal by Charles, the uproar caused by the Anglo-French alliance and the Amicable Grant.
For the purpose of this paper, attention will be focused on the Antigonid, Ptolemaic, and Seleucid kingdoms and how these powerful institutions employed these particular methods to legitimise their personal monarchies. The use of propaganda to form alliances by the successor kings, as a political strategy, is most certainly visible in the century following Alexander’s death in 323 BC . It could be argued that Antigonus I, through his proclamation of Greek freedom in 315 BC , was engaging in propaganda as a means of securing legitimacy and power for his monarchy. We know from Diodorus ; Antigonus marked Cassander as an enemy of the Greeks and Macedonians and accused him of attempting to enthrone himself in Macedon. He then proclaimed freedom of the Greeks.
To what extent was the reign of Tiberius successful? An evaluation of Tiberius’ success or otherwise is difficult. Ancient sources are quick to point to his failings, right from his accession to the ‘princeps’, which Suetonius claims only came about by default, “for want of any better choice”. Tacitus may not be as theatrical in his treatise on Tiberius, but he too was often critical of the emperor, highlighting how Tiberius was cruel and arrogant, and how Tiberius’ murder of his potential rival, Agrippa Postumus, was callous. Such subjectivity clouds much of the ancient appraisals of Tiberius.
Caesar was not a strong enough leader for Rome, a booming city that was quickly accumulating knowledge and wealth. He needed to be stopped before he turned Rome into a monarchy, or even a dictatorship. Brutus did not kill Caesar out of jealousy or hatred. In fact, he considered Caesar to be a good friend of his, while Caesar returned these feelings. Despite this, Brutus was more loyal to his country, the land he calls home, and the people with whom he shares it with.
Julius Caesar Journaling Project Taylor Browne May 31, 2013 English 10 Period 2B Act 1: The Conspiracy Is Looming Dear Diary, I don’t like Caesar at all. I think that he is very weak and I feel as though, that I’m the only one who sees his weakness. I also think that the Romans treat Caesar like a god and that he can’t be touch. If you ask me there is nothing special about Caesar. If Caesar becomes too powerful, he might become a tyrant.
Excerpts from Plutarch’s Life of Caesar. However, the Romans gave way before the good fortune of the man and accepted the bit, and regarding the monarchy as a respite from the evils of the civil wars, they appointed him dictator for life. This was confessedly a tyranny, since the monarchy, besides the element of irresponsibility, now took on that of permanence. 2 It was Cicero who proposed the first honours for him in the senate, and their magnitude was, after all, not too great for a man; but others added excessive honours and vied with one another in proposing them, thus rendering Caesar odious and obnoxious even to the mildest citizens because of the pretension and extravagance of what was decreed for him. 3 It is thought, too, that the
The triumvirs had the powers of a dictator without the title. It was also bound by marriage as Antony was married to Octavia, Octavian’s sister. They divided control of the Roman world between them, Octavian got the west and Rome, Lepidus took most of Gaul and Spain and Antony got the Eastern provinces. The purpose of the alliance was to set the state in order and to attack the republican armies of Brutus and Cassius in the east. Antony hoped to increase his prestige and influence with military campaigns in the East.
Malcolm uses the example of how former President Harding came into his position. Political boss Harry Daughterey pointed out the Harding was a handsome man but not at all very intelligent. Harding lived a life of partying, gambling, and spending time with women. He enjoyed this much more than the ideals of being a politician. It is believed he only won the election because he looked like a great leader, rather than having the qualities of one.