• Even though he was an Emperor, he actually started the demise of kingdoms and royalty. • Napoleon’s legacy is quite complex because he was the embodiment of the Enlightenment on one hand, and on the other, he inspired fear. • He contributed to the resurgence of conservatism, the growth of nationalism, and the rise of a new phenomenon, romanticism. This deadly trio led to two world wars. • It is true that he implemented some revolutionary institutions, but one should not overlook the fact that he also had every one of them only to satisfy his own desire.
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.
• The situation in Rome toward the end of the Republican period was that the country’s senate had lost majority of its power. The senate had become corrupt, divided and inefficient due to the powerful generals who commanded legions and extorted Rome. • Octavian’s rise to power and the establishment of the Augustan principate became a reality due to many factors, tactics and challenges conquered by the now great historical figure and leader. The impact of Caesar’s death, the formation of the Second Triumvirate, the settlements of 27BC and 23BC as well as Octavian’s manipulation, powers and titles in the new form of government all contributed to the result of Octavian’s power and influence over Rome. Body: • The impacts of Caesar’s death on Octavian were the Senate’s arrangement and his inheritance.
Political backbiting was and always would be a common trait in any system, but even the greatest of Romans like Scipio Africanus, was a victim to the whims of politicians. The social instability that resulted from inequities in the class system gave way to rise of demagogues like the brothers Gracchi. The use of the citizen assemblies for popular agendas tore at the very fabric of Senatorial power. The conflicts between these aristocratic leaders and their supporters engulfed the first century B.C.E. in political turmoil.
Many have come to the question: What were the contributing factors to the fail of the Roman Empire? Political downfall, social wrecking, economic destruction, and military confusion brought on the collapse of the Roman Empire. What was once a thriving republic that the public knew and loved turned into an unjust and corrupted empire and with it brought confusion. Julius Caesar, a military leader, had earned the support and trust of Rome and was appointed dictator. Caesar would later destroy what was left of the republic.
But the reverse was the result, so much so that his kingdom was plundered by centurions, his house by slaves, as if they were the spoils of war.” It was not unusual for Romans to take control of the kingdom of a client-king and make it a Roman province after the death of the king. This is what they did with the Iceni. Unfortunately, the Romans were known for their unfair treatment of their subject peoples, particularly with regards to abusing
The fall of the Roman Empire was inevitable by A.D. 476. Christianity had weakened the bonds that had held it together, the people became corrupt, and it got too big. It was also because of barbarian attacks. Simply, all empires always fall and Romans time had come to an end. The collapse of the Roman Empire was a calamity; it leads to the Dark (Middle) Ages.
Contradictions in Brutus’ Character The central theme of the play ‘Julius Caesar’, authored by the celebrated dramatist William Shakespeare, is the conspiracy against Caesar, his assassination and the subsequent civil war between the pro-Caesar faction and the anti-Caesar faction, that causes much blood shed in the country. This is the precise political background which is set for the play. Caesar’s rising power and his popularity among the plebeians is of much concern to the Roman nobility. While a section of them is jealous of him, Brutus is worried that Caesar will rule the country in a tyrannical manner depriving the liberty of the subject. He is thinking of the common good and not the personal convenience.
The country was faced with huge losses in manpower and economic destruction after the war, despite being one of the victors. The country was mourning the loss of an entire young male generation. With the onset of the Great Depression, the French people felt the democratic system had failed them and so they looked to extremist organisations to lead them. As the international situation was worsening, it became clear that the instability in France from 1920 to 1940 meant the nation was divided, depressed and in danger of being captured by the Germans in 1940. Immediately after the First World War, there was a period of political instability with the election of four different Prime Ministers in three years.
Nevertheless it is that trait that endangered civilization and eventually it will obliterate civilization. If we examine carefully Koestler’s argument that supports his statement that there is a paranoid streak running through human history then we can seek to discuss this statement in the context of human behavior. If one looks from as early as the conquest of Early Greek societies with the Greek city states fighting each other. Then you had Alexander the great uniting them and then Rome came. The Romans brought high amount of violence.