ipl-logo

Who Is Gaius Ineffective Approach To Leadership?

1730 Words7 Pages

Gaius commenced leadership after Tiberius set up the Roman empire into a successful financial state, although Gaius being ambitious and extravagant with his approach to being an empire lead to him to be merely unsuccessful. Gaius is considered to be one of the worst Roman emperors alongside Nero, this is due to his cruel, egotistical demeanour throughout his reign. These behaviours are seen through the operation of the senate, reforms and policies, changing the role and image of the princeps, and his frontier and provincial policies. Through the evaluation of Gaius’ activity as an emperor, the conclusion of Gaius’ ineffective approach to leadership can be drawn. The way an emperor changes the role and image of the prince heavily displays the …show more content…

Although this aspiration often took toll over the need for a strategic approach, particularly within the military.Gaius’ provincial policy consisted of four main areas, Dealing with the conspiracy emanating from Germany, The alleged fiasco of his plan to invade Britain, The issue of client kings and senatorial provinces,and his policies in the east, and Gaius’ attitude towards the Jews. Gaius’ most notable campaign was his eager quest to conquer Britain in 40 AD, although the embarkment reflected more thoroughly on his megalomania rather than his ability to strategise a calculated military act. Suetonius tells the tale of Gaius’ brave mission to conquer Britain with a perspective making him the emperor seem cowardly,”command them to gather up the seashells”, collecting seashells seemingly to be a feminine approach and retreat-like response to meeting the coast of Britain. Suetonius also writes “somewhat redeemed with the erection of a lighthouse”, an act of marking territory. The inadequate representation of any literal military action during this campaign further shows Gaius’ inability to be a military leader, diminishing his image as an emperor following emperors with extensive military knowledge.At the time of his reign Germany was already implementing sporadic attacks throughout Rhine. Suetonius writes Gaius traveled to Germany in order to collect Batavian recruits for his bodyguards. Whether the validity of his motives are unknown, it is evident that little military action occurred in Germany despite a few raids across Rhine. Scullards delights in captivating the extravagant and superficial appearance of this time in Germany. “Fantastic stories circulated about this campaign; for his ‘triumph’ he used slaves who had to dye their long hair red and even learn some German.” Nevertheless, seemingly Gaius’ main motivation of the German

Show More
Related
1331 Words | 6 Pages

Prior to his succession as Emperor of Rome, Tiberius was a highly renowned military advisor who according to Thurman was “meticulous and elite” as an ‘imperator’ where he led multiple armies to victory in Lower Germany and Panonia. The many years he served in the Roman army then played a major role in his effective leadership as an emperor, particularly evident in his ability to maintain and improve the strength of the frontiers and avoid mutiny through treaties and diplomacy in countries of concern such as the East and Africa. Tiberius was also responsible for the fortification of the Praetorian precinct outside the walls of Rome that minimised disciplinary problems through intimidation and was more effective in safeguarding Rome during an emergency. Tacitus, who often wrote of Tiberius from a point of criticism, even spoke highly of his military expertise and wisdom, stating that “Tiberius was happier to have secured peace by prudent negotiation than if he had fought a victorious war”. Thus, through the predominately positive impacts of his military experience and wisdom during his rule, it is highly evident of the great effectiveness of his

Read More
876 Words | 4 Pages

Cornelius stated that since she does not want the Roman Empire to be destroy but will destroy the Roman Empire as he gets revenge on the people who killed his brother. Cornelia Africana wants Gaius to do nothing to his brother’s killers for

Read More
718 Words | 3 Pages

The vast expanse of the empire led to virtual autonomy on the part of generals and governors; autonomy that was often abused as Cicero’s prosecution demonstrates. Even a conscientious governor like Cicero had to deal with “endemic, chronic, low-level

Read More
864 Words | 4 Pages

Rome’s foreign policy lay with the senate and their military arm. “In all the preparations that are made for war, as well as in the whole administration in the field, they possess an almost absolute

Read More
312 Words | 2 Pages

Seager’s article focuses on Caesar’s motives and justifications for the Gallic Wars. Seager argues that Caesar never attempts to hide his imperialistic motives for invading Gaul. Caesar believes that Rome has an absolute right to be in Gaul, an idea that mainly stems from the innate and essential concept of Roman honor. Seager then claims that Caesar readily endorses the Roman virtue of freedom and admits that the rebelling Gauls shared this value. However, their attempts to gain freedom implied a rejection of Rome’s friendship and undermined Rome’s authority, therefore Caesar's suppression of the revolts are justified.

Read More
841 Words | 4 Pages

When Tiberius’s run came to an end his brother, Gaius, sought to continue what he started. He began this by removing the senate from the extortion

Read More
331 Words | 2 Pages

Was bad leadership the key to Imperial Rome's failure? Caligula, Nero and Commodus are examples of why bad leadership was the key to Imperial Rome’s failure. “He had his brother Tiberius put to death without warning, suddenly sending a tribune of soldiers to do the deed; besides driving his father-in-law Slianus to end his life by cutting his throat with a razor.” Caligula killed innocent people for no reason that is not something a good leader of Rome will do to the people of Rome. He beat the soldiers and treated people crulley, that’s not how a leader should treat the people of his country.

Read More
687 Words | 3 Pages

Strauss believes that Caesar's rise to prominence and willingness to undermine established institutions ultimately impacted the Republican system and while Woolf and Gruen state that pre-existing matters were relevant, Syme and Strauss majorly rely on Caesar’s actions and express Caesar's motives as a significant figure to whose actions caused the downfall of the Republic. His actions were perceived differently and led to the understanding that Caesar destroyed the Roman Republic. Body paragraph 3: Following this, senators believed that Caesar was to blame and needed to put an end to his dictatorship. Many disliked him, for in 44 BCE, he was announced “dictator for life” which caused an uproar in senators, as it threatened the traditional authority of the senatorial class. They saw him as an “egotistical power hungry monster” and the Senate greatly disliked him.

Read More
1271 Words | 6 Pages

Those who could conquer the most land and successfully subjugate those living on said land were extolled. The act of conquest was a sign of bravery and also served as a means of ensuring the safety of the Germans by removing possible threats through oppression (Caesar 130). The application of these values would prove detrimental to Gallic geopolitics, as Germanic intervention in Gaul resulted in multiple instances of extreme violence, creating instability in the region. According to Caesar, Gallic sociopolitical customs stipulating that all tribes were divided into two leading factions and ruled by two tribes resulted in internal conflict. Conflicts between these two leading factions often led to German intervention, which in turn resulted in the subjugation of a certain Gallic population.

Read More
896 Words | 4 Pages

Through his drive for success, Caesar took advantage of every opportunity to rise in Roman society, from starting his career as military tribune to becoming quaestor of Further Spain and later curator of Rome (Freeman 2008:45). His tenure as consul with Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus became known as “…the consulship of Julius and Caesar...” resulting from Caesar’s ambition to undertake all of Rome’s state affairs (Suetonius The Lives of Caesars XX.59). It was the result of Caesar’s ambition that led him to cross the Rubicon river, Rome’s northern boundary, to protect his political position in Rome. By not disbanding his army, Caesar was effectively disregarding the boundary regulation of the Rubicon and this implied civil war (Class Notes Part II 2017:131). This ambitious action can best be described by a quote from Caesar himself which states “if you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases, observe it.”

Read More
1128 Words | 5 Pages

In this essay, I will argue that, despite some negative impacts, the military expeditions of the Roman Republic were, on the whole, beneficial to its citizens. The first major benefit of

Read More
1005 Words | 5 Pages

Caesar suspected the possibility of an attack by the Gauls, and how an attack might pose a serious threat to Roman security. Well aware of the situation at hand, Caesar realized that drastic measures had to be taken in order to protect and preserve the well-being of Italy; otherwise, Italy itself might become vulnerable to an attack. Caesar, well informed in the art of warfare understood that waiting for permission from the senate to launch a full scale attack on the Gauls would be a complete waste of time.

Read More
693 Words | 3 Pages

Using a “client army”, or hired mercenaries, he seized Rome’s highest offices and forced the Senate to support him. Notably, Sulla’s army consisted of commoners that did not own land or weapons. This ended up being crucial in Sulla’s capture of Rome, where his “officers except one deserted him … but his common soldiers followed him” (Hunt, 166). Sulla killed his opponents and anyone that dissented him, leading to the senate to become terrified of him.

Read More
1255 Words | 6 Pages

This paper will show you how Julius Caesar became the man he was and the pros and cons of his leadership. Before Caesar’s monarchy, he was a successful leader of armies. His victories in the Gallic wars only heightened his want for power. By 51 B.C. Julius’ ability to run a military was incomparable, which alone jeopardized Pompey’s leading. Thus, in 50 B.C. Pompey ordered Caesar to disband his army, step down from his military command, and return to Rome.

Read More
793 Words | 4 Pages

The Romans didn’t have much command over the province, but they did have some connections to the further side of the border. Caesar speedily took benefit of these connections to extend the boundaries of Rome beyond the borders of Gaul. Caesar decided to invade Britain, whose tribes seemed to have close relations with Gaul. These expeditions were well-celebrated by the Romans as for the first time Rome had expanded so far. However, Vercingetorix, a noble tribesman of Gaul, with his men, surprisingly rose against Caesar, threatening his power in Gaul.

Read More

More about Who Is Gaius Ineffective Approach To Leadership?

Open Document