Sallust, a highly regarded Roman historian, commented that “…fear of its enemies preserved the food morals of the state, but when the people were relived of this fear, the favourite vices of prosperity-licence and pride-appeared as a natural consequence”. This is corroborated by Florus, a criticized Roman historian and poet “The next hundred years were unhappy and deplorable because of internal calamities. The resources and wealth gained in our conquests spoiled the morals of the age and ruined the state, which was engulfed in its own vices as in a common sewer”. Both Sallust and Florus explain how Tiberius’ death caused the senate to resort to violence in order to keep their power. Consequently, the peace in Rome was disturbed and eventually led to the fall of Rome.
These mythical individuals show characteristics that are both valued and those that could be seen as inferior. In Sallust’s Conspiracy of Catiline, Catiline, the antagonist of his own story, is described as having some of these characteristics and how he displays them changes others perspective on him. With each of these characteristics that a Roman would have seen as positive were painted in a negative light because Sallust tells the audience instances where Catiline used these gifts in harmful ways. In contrast Aeneas, in Virgil’s Aeneid, is described and assigned what are thought of as the same Roman attributes, but these are held a positive approach compared to Sallust’s description of Catiline. The first example of this can be seen in the fifth section Sallust tells the audience of Catiline’s noble upbringing and is described as intelligent, ambitious, and as a brilliant solider.
The Life of Marius, written by Plutarch, is a fascinating ancient source detailing the career of the Roman Gaius Marius, 127-86BC. While there are interpretive and reliability issues, the Life of Marius is a particularly useful and significant source. It is our only extensive primary source on Marius, who was a key political figure of late Republican Rome. Additionally, Plutarch’s work indicates not only many crucial military and political development in Rome in the time period, but also gives a reflection of Plutarch’s own Rome and its values and political climate.
This paper aims to make an insightful comparison of two great leaders of history whom were assassinated by conspirators during the height of their political lives. By exploring the assassination and lives of these two men we can more clearly understand the historical and social events that underpin a conspiracy as grand as these. The life and death of Julius Caesar is one of the original grand conspiracies in history, as his ambition grew so did the envy of his fellow senators. Julius Caesar was born to a noble family and inherited a relatively high status in ancient Rome’s hierarchy.
The Tragedy of Julius Caesar was written about four hundred years ago. This story demonstrates the corruption of Roman government in 44 BC. Rhetoric and theatrics are the main tools that current politicians, and ancient politicians use to gain popularity, commandeer power, and make crucial relationships. Important Roman political figures such as Brutus, Cassius, Antony, and Caesar along with present-day politicians use these rhetorical methods to accomplish their goals. The Tragedy of Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare demonstrates how rhetoric and theatrics largely affect politics and political relationships.
Within The Palace Thief, Mr. Hundert, a history teacher, hosts a contest on Roman history. The three top students in the class are chosen to participate, one of these including Sedgewick Bell, a troubled student who had been working hard to get his grades up. In the midst of the competition, Hundert was having suspicions about Sedgewick’s delayed answers and downward glare each time he was asked a question. Upon closer inspection, “‘I peered through my glasses at the stage and knew at once that he had attached the “Outline of Ancient Roman History” to the inside of his toga.’” Fully aware this is not allowed and gives Sedgewick an unfair advantage, he “leaned to Mr. Woodbridge next to me and whispered, ‘I believe Sedgewick Bell is cheating.’
These devices strike sympathy in the plebeians for Caesar, but also a strong displeasure towards Brutus. By talking about his friend’s death in a tragic way, Antony not only persuades the plebeians to side with him instead of Brutus, but he also causes the plebeians to come together in a massive horde and become a violent riot through
5. This quote connects back to Julius Caesar in many ways, in particular when referring to the conspirators and Brutus. Brutus is persuaded to go over to the side of the conspirators, both by Cassius’s words and the planted letters. Cassius convinces Brutus that the people want him to lead, while he himself has never seen any evidence of that. Brutus trusts that Cassius is telling him the truth, and doesn’t take the initiative to ask the people himself.
As a writer at Gladiators Monthly, I am examining the historical accuracy of the movie Gladiator. There are aspects of Gladiator that do and do not hold true to the historical accuracy of the Romans under Commodus. This essay will show how the depiction of Commodus has both accurate and inaccurate qualities, while the portrayal of the Roman crowd determining the fate of the gladiators is quite accurate. In reality, Commodus did not kill his father, Marcus Aurelius, nor did he reign for such a short period of time.
This book isn’t limited to only events that could be closer to facts then fiction, it also encompasses culture, ideas, and more. Throughout this essay, pieces of the book will be analyzed to see if they are closer to fact than fiction or fiction than fact, thus the ability to conclude if Pompeii is closer to fact or fiction or a mix of both will be presented. The aquarius
It is astonishing how one man can take away another’s life so quickly and easily. It is alarming how one could argue that the murder of Julius Caesar was a group effort, when there is only one man who is behind this horrific feat of hatred. It is amazing how anyone could think that the killing of our powerful leader-to-be could be justified by any reasoning. Ladies and gentlemen, we are standing in the very same room as the murderer of the great Julius Caesar. May I direct your attention to the man guilty of this crime, Marcus Brutus.
If I were in Catalines position I would simply tell Cicero that he didn 't have any proof of anything that he was accusing me of, Cicero is using rhetoric to make wild accusations against Cataline and pretending to restrain himself from punishing Cataline, telling the senate, and exposing him when he doesn 't actually have anything to expose him of. Since Cicero was a high ranking official in the roman senate he was able to make claims against Cataline because who would believe a possible conspirator or a high raking official.
It seems that the fall of the Roman Republic was not a singular event that occurred instantaneously, but rather a long process that saw the increasing use of methods outside of Republican institutions to settle conflicts between members of the aristocracy over political power. Even as the Roman government transitioned form Kingdom to Republic and then to Empire, the competition between aristocratic families remained a relative constant in across the centuries. So too has the desire to mythologize the past. The romans attributed both the fall of the Kingdom of Rome and the fall of the Roman Republic to moral rot, while a more reasonable assessment might place the blame on a dissatisfied and competitive elite class and an inefficient and unresponsive governmental system that was unwilling or unable to address their concerns. In much the same way, modern observers of the Roman Republic have tended to mythologize the fall of the Republic in the service of creating a moral narrative about the unconscionable tyranny of Cesar and the righteousness of the Senate, or whatever alternative narrative is befitting of the historical moment and audience.
In this order of ideas, Brutus’ traits can be analyzed and
In this journal we can thrash out the influences of Shakespeare and Machiavelli in the tragedy, The duchess of malfi. The Machiavellian note in the play: Niccolo Machiavelli was a statesman who flourished in Florence during the years 1469-1527.His book the PRINCE was the most popular work of the time and had wide influence . His doctrine may be thus summarized: (1) One should not allow oneself to be hampered by any kind of moral considerations in the pursuit
