Account for the changing relationship between the Senate and the Princeps over time. RED = TEACHER’S NOTES The Senate and the Princeps had a constantly changing relationship. Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius, Nero and the four emperors from 68- 69AD saw to this dynamic interaction throughout their time as Princeps. Though the Senate had limited powers masked behind the illusion of total control, after the Julio- Claudians and the Year of the four Emperors their powers were shown to be limited which was affected by the relationship the Senate had with each princep. Augustus introduced the principate after ending the civil war in Rome through negotiating the First and Second settlements.
Twice at the end of the 5th century in Athens the demos voted their democracy out of existence and replaced it with an oligarchy. This happened in 411 BC and 404/3 BC near and at the end of the Peloponnesian war. There are some similarities in both of these events but also some major differences we will see. The reasons of why these events took place, who the organisers were and how they were orchestrated need to be looked at if we are going to be able to answer the overall question of why the Athenians took these actions to replace democracy. For the two coups there were distinctively different backgrounds involved.
How did the governmental fail to meet the people’s needs (which group of people in particular?) - Who was Julius Caesar? How did he help/hurt the empire? Why did he use social unrest to rise to power? What were the implications of his actions on the Republic?
The challenges facing each society are quite different. Rome had a series of leaders that were not only inept, but they may have been mentally disturbed. These leaders were known as the Julio-Claudian, or Bad Emperors. Some of these bad emperors include Nero, Caligula, and Domitan. In the United States, some may dislike the President, but never in our history have we had a leader that killed members of his
The rise of Pericles In 463 B.C., thirty-two-year-old Pericles joined forces with Ephialtes in the Athenian leadership. Together they managed to ostracize Cimon, or force him to leave the city. Before Cimon's followers could recover, Pericles and Ephialtes instituted a number of reforms to reduce the power of the aristocrats and increase that of the poor. Up to that point, Athenian leaders had not been paid, meaning that only the wealthy could afford to hold public office. Pericles and Ephialtes established pay for public officials, thus opening up offices to the poor.
There was a withdrawal of financial, cultural, and legal uniformity. The citizens of Rome were governed by law codes before the presence of the barbarians. The soldiers didn’t know who to follow-Roman troops were made and unmade emperors so often that (to exaggerate only slightly) a man might be a general one day, emperor the next, and dead on the third. (Bennett 8) As far as the people on the outskirts of Rome, living under Roman law, were probably not too happy with the decline. I believe people like some type of structure or a feeling of security.
In the year of 1810, México had an influence from United States and France so they began to think in the idea of fight against the Spanish. In that time, a King of Spain was governing but he had many unfair laws because he gave all the power to the rich people of Spain instead of the people that were born in Mexico, especially the Mexican Indians, they were exploited. A priest, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and his officers were arming a conspiracy against Spanish so they decided to fight in the fall of that year but then Hidalgo received a letter from Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez, the owner of the house where they were planning the revolt in Queretaro, and she told him that the Spanish caught them and that now they knew their plans so Hidalgo decided to anticipate the fight. He gathered many persons as he could in his church so he made an army of 50,000 persons. Miguel Hidalgo rang the bell of the
These lower class people were starting to rebel, and become disloyal to the Roman government, and this was unacceptable. They were beginning to refuse to work or fight and some even physically withdrew from the city. The last leader of Rome Tarquinius created the Roman Republic. This basically gave all the power of the Roman State to the Senate. Julius Caesar took over Rome and
The emperor now had “right to declare war, ratify treaties, negotiate with foreign leaders, and chose their own successor” (Laffery, The Fall of Rome). Since the republic was the form of government that was ruled by elected citizens (senate, assemblies, etc..) once the empire emerged, the emperor became a supreme ruler that took over the power that the senate and assemblies once held and by the 3rd century, the senate had little to no power and very little influence. Thankfully, the Empire actually did see that they could gain peace for a short while with good emperors, one that had the
The Roman Republic was facing internal problems that would cause it to ultimately collapse into the Roman Empire. Including social unrest between the classes and military entering into politics, among other reasons, the Roman Republic crumbled under itself and gave way to the beginning of new government. A second triumvirate ended with civil war and the Republic was over; however, Octavian created the Roman Empire in its place. Because of the stabilizing government, strong legal system and increasing trade, the Pax Romana was able to remain tied together for about 210 years. The Roman Republic was struggling to remain in power but the social unrest was a not a helping factor in helping the Republic to last for a while longer.