Joseph Jordan Nero Debate Paper Roman History The reign of Nero has been generally accepted to be a period of insanity and darkness in the Roman empire, however there is also new light being shed on this period of Roman history. It is true that Nero was a determined and violent man who was willing to smash any obstacle in his path in order to secure his throne, but did this necessarily make him any worse than his predecessors? If anything, atleast for a period, Nero was one of the more humane Roman leaders. Politics, whether it is in ancient Rome or even in the modern day, is a dirty game that demands certain reprehensible actions in extraordinary situations. The company one keeps plays a huge role in a leader’s actions as well, when
He used repetition to try and sway the plebeians. He often refers to Brutus as an “honorable man”, each time with more sarcasm. Antony also uses reverse psychology on the crowd. He tells everyone about “Caesar’s will”, however, he says that he cannot read it. This makes everyone beg for him to read it.
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.
Pompey was easily exploited and the senators also attempted to strip Caesar of all power. This was an incredibly thing to achieved due to the fact that Rome had operated as a republic for quite a long period and, enabling the senators to take advantage of its constitution loopholes. Taking the power away from the Senate was considered to be non-traditional and that it would threaten the original institution of the republic. However, it was only considered to be an “unwise” decision to the Senate because their corrupted network was revealed to the Roman citizens following Caesar’s reform. Some could argue that Caesar could have been power hungry and attempted to take control of other authorities.
The army were forms of bribery. Senate – the First triumvirate was a major blow to the Senate and its influence and role within the Roman society. Yet it played a large role in the formation as they drew the members together. The Senate felt threatened by Pompey’s popularity and Caesar’s power. By promoting and supporting Pompey (sole consul) over Caesar, the
The eventual collapse of the weimar Republic was brought upon by many factors and even though there is much disagreement among historians about the eventuall trigger, there is a general consencous on the factors leading to the downfall of German democracy. One of the views carried by historians is the Determinist view which basically states that the conditions under which the Republic was created far too extreme and the structure of the republic was serverely weakened, so much so that its downfall was inevitable. The other view was the Alternate view which while acknowledging the structual weaknesses of the Republic, states that the republic had the ability and reselience to recover, but instead lacked sufficient political leadership and a lack of determination to see through their troubles. One of the triggers of the collapse of the weiman republic was article 48 of the German constitution, which granted the president with emergency powers which allowed him to assume full control of the country. This trigger is held highly among determinist historians as one of the reasons the republic was doomed to fail from the start.
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.
This made the contemporaries scandalised, it provoked negative thoughts with regards to both Buckingham and James. Their public displays of affection only served to bring the court into more disrepute, even if it was not unusual for a king to have favourites. Buckingham was a shrewd manipulator of the king. James went so far that he allowed him to involve himself in politic matters and decision-making. The parliament of January 1621 to 1622 started to revers the trend towards Buckingham's ever-expending power
The Gracchi Brothers The Gracchi were two brothers who felt that the Roman Republic was treating its citizens poorly, and sought election in an effort to enact legislation that would broaden the franchise and protect the plebeians from debt, slavery and other social threats. Both were killed by their conservative political opponents. While Roman class and social affairs had for centuries consisted of machinations by various individuals to get their way, the activities of the Gracchi completely altered the state of Roman politics. The Gracchi brothers had the interests of Rome at heart, instead of their own, which wasn’t a common attitude amongst the other senators. The reforms the Gracchi tried to pass were long over-due and their programs
“Tacitus as a Source for the History of the Roman Principate” In light of the selections from Tacitus’ Annals and Dialogue on Oratory, Tacitus’ pessimistic almost cynical attitude is made clear to historical readers. This negative attitude in his historical writings compromises his neutrality toward the events and subjects he includes in his writing. In particular, Tacitus’ negative approach shines through in his description of the trial and death of the historian Cremetius Cordus and in his description of Roman oratory and rhetorical education during the principate. Based solely on these two selections, Tacitus’ apparent partiality would not seem to make him a helpful or constructive source for the history of the Roman principate; however,