This shows that Wolsey was a successful chief minister in terms of justice because he saw it as his duty to bring everyone justice no matter how rich they were. But there were times when Wolsey used the courts to further his own position and carry out personal vendettas against enemies. For example Wolsey had been put in the stocks by Paulet in a bid to teach the young man a lesson about humility and good grace. Wolsey never forgot his humiliation and used his position as Lord Chancellor to have his revenge. Source 8 supports this because it says 'But Wolsey's vision and his originality in
One of the most difficult problems was choosing a new emperor. Eventually, the throne went to the highest bidder. With the corruption within the empire, it would only grow weaker every day.” The disapproval in government by the people of Rome brought on civil war. After the assassination of emperor Severus Alexander, a 50-year civil war would erupt and bring confusion to the empire. “In what sometimes has been called the ‘military anarchy’, the fifty years following the murder of emperor Alexander Severus in AD 235 saw reins of Roman power pass through the hands of no fewer than twenty legitimate emperors and a host of usurpers, between them each
Saying that he does not deserve this is as if almost to say he did not exist. Hitler deserves his reputation without a doubt, even though Hitler’s reputation is a horrible one, why can’t Alexander receive his, much more it is not a negative one, one that killed a mass of people. Now maybe Alexander did kill many people in his time of reign, but most of those kills were because of war. Hitler’s reason was for an evil hatred of the Jewish community. I think that the idea that he does not deserve his reputation is solely for argument, because some people love the feeling of making other people angry.
Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey all knew that individually they did not have the power to overrule the Senate, so they came to their senses and realized if they could not beat them individually they should join together and take over. Caesar was in great need of assistance. At that point he consulted the two men, Pompey the powerful and Crassus the millionaire. These two men were also seeking something and Caesar had the capability and the connections to help both of them. The three together created the First Triumvirate.
Whenever he described an enemy he made them appear as though they were war mad barbarians out to destroy the fragile balance of Roman power in Gaul. This played on the common belief that most Romans had that everybody in Gaul was bloodthirsty and willing to kill whenever. Most of the times, with the use of hindsight, we can see that Caesar had ulterior motives. However, at the time it seemed like whatever he did was only to protect Rome. Along with depicting Gauls and Germans as bloodthirsty barbarians, he also used his own soldiers to stir emotions in his readers.
Whatever the reason may be, it is just a cold fact that he was responsible for the death of thousands of people. That is a number able to shock anyone into thinking that Robespierre was an utter villain. Therefore, in order to end this contradiction of opinions and debates, his motivations as well as his actions should be examined in relation to one another. It is possible that despite his merciless decisions, a few historians have supported Robespierre. Amongst them is Albert Aboul who thought that Robespierre’s actions were necessary for the benefit of France.
Unlike Caesar, Brutus is able to separate completely his public life from his private life; by giving priority to matters of state, he epitomizes Roman virtue. Torn between his loyalty to Caesar and his allegiance to the state, Brutus becomes the tragic hero of the play. Julius Caesar - A great Roman general and senator recently returned to Rome in triumph after a successful military campaign. While his good friend Brutus worries that Caesar may aspire to dictatorship over the Roman republic, Caesar seems to show no such inclination, declining the crown several times. Yet while Caesar may not be unduly power-hungry, he does possess his share of flaws.
Julius Caesar was one of the most influential and memorable leaders in all of recorded history; he may have been the greatest man of all time. Caesars self-promotion style enabled him to have a swift rise to power; Caesar didn’t always follow the rules, and there's no denying that he left a trail of enemies in his past, but his rise to power was spectacular at that. Unlike many Roman Leaders, Caesar proved to his people that he was the best that could have been; fighting in the front lines with his army showed that he was confident as well as a great tactician. His urge for such a quick rise to power brings forth the question of whether his intentions were all for the good of Rome. It was no coincidence that Caesar ended up with the power and position, with him planning and constructing his future using his nature of a tactician for creating a tactical pathway.
Despite the increased responsibility and independence the senate became more subservient to him, “Though at first the senate showed real independence, it soon realised the risk of encroaching too far” (Scullard). This was due to the fact of the growing treason trials and Sejanus’ influence, senators afraid of their safety began to win favour by sycophancy. Whilst through his reserved temperament and ambiguous instructions led confusion to the senate steering towards deterioration, Tacitus notes he remarked them “men fit to be slaves”. This declining power of the senate under Tiberius became more obvious when he administered the empire from Capri failing to create the diarchic balance, Scullard writes “Tiberius had tried and failed and his failure was made irremediable by his retirement to Capri” illustrating the impact on Princeps becoming more dominating issuing imperial
If I were Julius Caesar Julius Caesar was a Roman military and political leader. He played a critical role in the transformation of the Roman Republic into the Roman Empire. He spent all his life being a king of Roman Empire, but unfortunately, he failed at last. Although he did not success, he is still a great man in the history. Julius Caesar was a great talented militarist rather than a politic statesman.