The Roman History Essay Example for Free

The romish History EssayThe bill of Rome setoffborn deoxycytidine monophosphate of papistical Empire is the time of toughening of emperor governing and streng soing of its prideful suit. The indicated process, the most vivid external illustration was practice of governanceal repressions, was stipulated by individualized qualities of regents, and the very burden of principate regime.The scale and character of emperor timidity in the 1st century is subject of discussions in the recent historiography, unless doesnt matter which point of view we have, it entrust non be a misidentify to tell that its influence for papistical society was very great. The transformation from Re earth to Empire event of mutation meaning for Roman account statement wasnt the same important for Augusts contemporaries. Those advantages, which were the result of principate civilian peace, personal safety, economic goods beed to overshadow the unseas nonpargonild political changes (The End of the Roman Empire by Donald Kagan, p. 85).It took several(prenominal) dozens of years of Pax Augusti, where the political stability, which became a usual thing, parti totallyy lost status of downright value for the Romans. The necessity to preserve Caesars cause in the name of total safety was non so obvious for generation which grew during August government.Those who survived Tiberius repressions, harebrainedness of Caligula, petty tyranny of Neuron tacit that the governmental regime of Rome experienced changes during August government and the very time of it starts to be understood as historical edge, which separate Senate republic and Roman great deal (Senatus Populusque Romanum) from Caesars Empire (The End of the Roman Empire by Donald Kagan, p. 92).This terror delivered a strong blow to hoar aristocracy there were a lot of representatives of noble families Aurelius, Domicius, Calpurnius, Emiluius, Scribonius, Eluis, etcetera Still, even if non the terror, the archaic Nobiles early or later would disappear from the scene, giving regularize to pertly social mightinesss. A new generation managed to grew in conditions of terrorist regime of Julius-Claudius, generation which will manage to get a line the face of Empire.Lets realize the meaning of Nobiles. The word Nobiles (Latin nobilitas) means noble, the best. The estate of Nobiles appe ard during the fight of patricians with plebs. give thanks to reforms of Servius Tuliy, in unity with which the smirch of citizen was determined exclusively by property qualification, and not by belonging to close to class, plebs became Roman citizens and the top of this class became nobility. Importance of Tulius constitution was also in fact that it was an important stage in development of new elite class of aristocracy Nobiles.Common inte simplicitys of landed estate and slaves proprietors help consolidation of index finger class. Rich plebs and patricians atomic topic 18 making ane new class Nobiles. So we can make important conclusion if during the epoch of kings Senate stayed, by essence, patricians, so it becomes patrician-plebs during the Republic. Some patrician clans gratuitous their importance and gradually disappeargond. Some plebs clans, on the contrary, bring forwarded importance. some different fact is that Senate aristocracy consisted not moreover of plebs and patricians notwithstanding also so- recollected new lot (hominess novi). They were not a part Senate aristocracy and were able to gain some high positions only as exceptions.Economic basis of Nobiles-magnates was huge land-owning Nobiles took the best lands former lands of rulers became latifundias. in concert with Italian patrimonies the abounding gained big patrimonies in provinces as well. Frequent military campaigns to the otherwise countries make rich military commanders from Senate class. They have big sums of money from provinces, the finances of Nobiles from wars and robbe ries of provinces were the basis for land development (Donald Kagan, et. al., The western Heritage, vol. 1, chapter 5). simple slave-owning were developed.The historians think that Senate oligarchy had several political means of influence the coun get word such as Consulate power Appointing of potentates unconnected in the environment of democracyal tribunes Opposition to decisions of plebs national meetings Religion as strong support of aristocracy. agent simplicity changed by luxuriance.The next stage of struggle with regime of Senate oligarchy in the history of Republic became Caesars dictatorship. In 44 AD senate has given him a title of lifelong, eternal dictator (dictator in perpetuum), he has received also a title father of fatherland (p arns patriae), a title of emperor which became part of his name, specifying connecter with his army and has been elected great pontific. Caesar has shown himself everywhere in purple clothes of triumphal accompanied by 72 leactors. Des pite of dictatorship regime, traditional republican institutes were saved a post of consul, national meeting which obeyed the orders of Caesar.The senate reorganized by dictator and consisting now of 900 person primary(prenominal)ly his officers and even former libertines was the same. Caesar became the lifelong monarch. out to(p) before destiny and power of this person, draw ups Ploutarch, and allowed to put a bridle on them, Romans considered that individual power is rest from civil wars and other misfortunes. They have chosen him lifelong dictator. This irremovability in connection with unlimited autocracy was public tyranny (Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1, ch. 5).40-ies AD were marked by violent struggle against senatorial oligarchy and formation of certify triumvirate (43 AD) for this struggle. Mark Antony, Lepide and Octavian became the triumvirers, which have received from the senate the extraordinary powers for the establishment of state (tresv iri reipublicae constituendae), but in fact all these was made for struggle against republicans. Triumviri first of all acted as enemies of senatorial oligarchy, the main aim of them was destruction of old aristocracy.By Sullas example, they made lists of political opponents (proscription). Those repressions by quantity of victims and cruelty were overmuch crueler then those of Sulla they killed more then 300 senators and 2 thousand of horsemen. Cyceron was the head of opposition in Senate against triumvirs and particularly, against consul a friend of Caesar, by whose offer Antonio was decl atomic number 18d the enemy of fatherland.Cyceron made 14 speeches against him, accusing Antonio that he leads amoral mien of life, drunkenness and debauchery called him scoundrel, impudent, fool, coward, etc. Cyceron, the prominent Roman speaker, philosopher and political leader, was killed for his speeches. The killers brought his head to Antonio, who was finally satisfied (Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1, ch. 6).The Caesarians won a victory over Republicans and established an emperor regime in January 13, year 27 Principate the early form of Empire with August at the head. His full name was as follows Imperator Caesar Augustus, Divi Filius. Still, we can take up that Augustus really became the first dictator in world history to call for a nationwide plebiscite. policy-making system of Principate formally was based on traditional republican magistrates the reason of it was that Senate gave to August passing powers in order to renovate former Republic (N. Lewis M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I The Republic and the Augustan Age, p. 260). exactly in fact all of them were now united in Augusts hands, what contradicted the Republican constitution. Still, legally Senate (600 persons) was considered to be supreme governmental structure with court and legislative functions, but it also became an obedient weapon in emperors hands, because Senate co nfirmed all propositions of his emperor. So, Seneca was right, when he exclaimed The Governor hided in the republican clothesWhen I studied the history of Ancient Rome, the withstand I liked was the book of R. Syme Roman revolution (1939). A.J.P. Taylor wrote that the book is a work of brilliant scholarship which can be enjoyed by the expert and the layman alike. Another estimation of Ronald Symes work was made by Sir Maurice Bowra who said that his work is extraordinarily persuasive and kindle it is the best book on Roman History that has appeared for m some(prenominal) years. The idea of this book is to sample transformation of Rome from Roman Republic to Empire like some kind of revolution, the main force of which was new Roman Army armed proletariat. This book is a bright example of usage new prosophographic method of those times.This method was born in the West from the ancestor of XX century. In contrast to Mommsens dodge, which supposed the existence of some ideological pivot in the outline of events, which determined activity of political separates, this method makes the main accent on egoistic essence of human being subject of politics. The commutation theme of researches becomes not the struggle of ideas or the struggle of ideologies, but the rivalry of personal ambitions. So, this is the reason that representatives of prosophographic method have as direction of party war the war of family and clan groups.The scientists consider Geltzer, Muntzer and Syme to be the founders of this method. The first monograph of M. Geltzer is published in 1912 under the name Nobiles of Roman Republic, where the author suggests original conception, in accordance with which the Roman Nobiles consisted of Senator class and horsemen.But still, the main merit of this researcher is that he paid special caution to relative, friendly, client and other personal relations, with fides in its basis. Developing his ideas, Geltzer criticized the conception, which was quit e an popular thanks to Mommzen, the idea of which was nonpartizan character of political life in Rome. Ronald Syme considers that political struggle in Rome was determined not by struggle of the parties or political programs, but disputes of noble families, with admirers, which made a kind of group among the noble families, connected with them by extremely personal relations (Donald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1, ch. 6).Ronald Syme wrote other prominent wrangle which are worthwhile to cite hereThe nobiles by their ambition and their feuds, had not merely destroyed their false republic they had ruined the Roman People. There is something more important than political liberty and political rights are a means, not an end in themselves. That end is security of life and property it could not be guaranteed by the constitution of Republican Rome. Worn and broken by civil war and disorder, The Roman people was ready to surrender the ruinous privilege of apologizedom and su bmit to strict government as the beginning of time.So order came to Rome. Acriora ex eo vincula, as Tacitus observes.Ronald Syme considers Caesar not the revolutionary, but rather an opportunist and realist because his actions and deeds, which was more conservative and much more Roman citizen, then some can him consider to be (R. Syme, The Roman innovation, p.312) he determines Octavian as a real revolutionary leader. The most kindleing, still, are conclusions made by Syme somewhat Caesars dictatorship, his personality and character of power. Ronald Syme doesnt see the necessity to suppose that Caesar had inclination to create ellinistic monarchy. His political aims were determined by desire to liquidate events of civil war.He understood, of course, that government of Nobiles became anachronism in the world orb, as well as the government of Roman plebs from the moment when all Italics were able to take part in vote (Gabba, E. true up history and false history in determinate a ntiquity, Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981) 50-62). But even in this position Caesar could be satisfied by dictatorship as it was his autocratic position was forced to the great extent. In such a agency Ronald Syme in his work The Roman Revolution gave very careful and reserved estimation or Caesar. Caesar wasnt appraised the title of revolutionary even, although Syme examines the civil war after the Caesars death like a further intensification of revolution, and the successor of Caesar, Octavian, is dependd as revolutionary leader. The arguments Syme uses, are often seem to be ineluctable.This conception influenced considerably the ideas and works of different scientists regarding transformation of Rome from Roman Republic to Empire.Ronald Syme writes the following about the CaesarThe rule of the nobiles, he Caesar could see, was an anachronism in a world-empire and so was the power of the Roam plebs when all Italy enjoyed the franchise. Caesar in truth was more conservative and Roman that many have put on no Roman conceived of government save through an oligarchy.The researchers who tried to investigate the nature of problem of principate try to imagine this transformation not like simple change of political forms, but like a part of more wide social-political revolution. We mean, first of all, the possibleness of Roman revolution, which is expressed with full energy in the Symes work. The essence of changes, which took place in Roman government at the edge of old and new era, by opinion of English researcher, was that oligarchy of Roman Nobiles changed by other, consisted of different groups of Italian people.The principate appeared as a result of compromise between revolutionary leader, Octavian and Republican aristocracy, which lost its monopoly for power during the Civil Wars of I century before our century. This compromise, stipulated by Constitutional Agreement of AD 23, became the basis of political position of August, which was determined, besi des the extremely powers, given to him by Senate and people, by the special influence of his personality (anctoritas Augusti), which had great power (Alfoldy, G. Two Principes Augustus and Sir Ronald Syme, p.101-105).To call this system, created by August, the monarchy or not to call by opinion of R. Syme is the matter of taste. It is important, that in fact this power was absolute, and there is no doubts and other opinions. The Republicanism of the Empire founder can be considered the fiction of historians of XIX-XX centuries Tacit and Gybbon understood the real matter of facts more clearly then majority of the new researchers, considers Syme (Alfoldy, G. Two Principes Augustus and Sir Ronald Syme, p.112).Still, some historians adoptt agree with Ronald Syme, who declares that the decisive role in the subsequent constitutional transformation played people who were very close to August Vipsany Agrippa and Lyvia. Ronald Syme is sure that the relations of direct subordination betw een principles and proconsuls of Senate provinces are modulate only starting from the year 23. His point of view, as far as I think, is without any doubt, quite close to truth it is not accidentally almost immediately after regulation of year 23 August undertakes long inspection trip at his Eastern lands.It goes without saying that Ronald Syme also divides great wariness to problem of organization of public opinion in his work The Roman Revolution (R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, pp. 459-475). We are fully agree with conclusion of English historian, that laudation addressed to principal by Virgily, Goratio and other prominent poets of those days, cannot be considered only as usual court flattery. The poets of August government are natives of Italy. The opinions of Italian people are reflected in their creativity like in the mirror. (R. Syme, The Roman Revolution, p. 333). I think, particularly, that this work of Ronald Syme can be called one of the most important books on history o f Rome. The book is written in amazing style and actually, I really think that it can change the life of person wholl read it guardedly and attentively.Lets have a look nor for Roman problem with Suetonius eyes. When he published one of the most storied books The Twelve Caesars, Roman Empire already existed for more them 1,5 centuries. 150 years before the ancestor of dictator Caesar, Octavian became the only governor of huge Roman government. Civil wars, which took place for more then 20 years, were spotless and the epoch of Roman republic finished as well.The choke of Republic was caused by a number of economic, social and political reasons. As result of long-lasting wars which lasted for more then three centuries, Rome, which once was an unpretentious city-government, subordinated almost the tout ensemble Mediterranean area. Rome managed to subordinate nations with very different level of social and cultural development Greece, which already overcame its power, Asia, Syria , Egypt, where forms of property and exploitation, which were popular at the times of Ancient East, were combined with developed slave-owner relations. Union Africa, Gallya, Spain, divided into plenty of regions and tribes, part of which already knew developed slavery, trade, city life, and part of which still lived in other conditions or was subordinated to kin aristocracy (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.12).So, explanation of events needs examination of facts in their connection and cooperation, where good and bad events are the reasons of the same motives. This is the way Plutarch and Tacit do, although for one of them this connection is spread for the whole Roman history, and for the other one is limited by life of one person. Estimation of events, still, needs level best possible isolation of the fact only in this position well be able to compare it and estimate if it is good or not. This is the way Suetonius acts.He gives in his work a chain of b iographies instead of consequence of events, and he proposes to the ratifier in each lifespan plenty of facts (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.13). His emperors seems to pass some kind of exam for a good governor for people who read his works, and he takes into account not the motives of their actions, but the only actions and their results.Tacit wanted to scare the reader, showing him the fatal inevitability of degeneration of the Emperor Rome Plutarch wanted to console the reader, giving him moral examples, which they should obey and which they should avoid. Both of them wanted to touch the nervus of their heroes and to find out some properties which are common for outgoing, present and future. The history continues to live in modern time for them. Tacit feels that cruelties of former emperors can be renewed in any new governor, Plutarch recognizes that merits and demerits of past governors are still alive and will remain the example and the kind of lesson for all the times. Suetonius doesnt know these feelings (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.15).The contemporaneity for him already solved all questions which were accusing the past, the truth was reached and the former mistakes will never happen again these were particulars, accidental lucubrate, which cannot be considered as common facts. So, having a look at them, he notices only the external side of events, he tries to find the features which are individual, different, unusual and bright the quality in small details is much more interesting for him, then similarity in common. To tel with other words, he aspires to interesting facts, but not to edifying ones.This is the task and this is the approach estimation instead of explanation, a number of facts instead of chain of events, interesting facts instead of edifying. This approach determines all character of Suetonius biographies and in woof and place of the facts. The author is concentrated at the personality of emperor all the time. This is not the history of Empire, but a history of emperors.Suetonius doesnt depict historical background at best he reminds about it, supposing that all considerable events are familiar to the reader. Everything that takes place at the huge area of Empire seems to compute Suetoniuss work only by weak echo (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.16). Events in provinces seem even dont existing for him. Speaking about the Empire expansion he says only in few words so and so areas are turned into provinces, or in give away case he determines their location. (The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Classics) by Suetonius, Yul. 25, Tib. 16).So, the city of Rome and Emperors court are the focus of authors oversight. Suetonius enumerates emperors building and spectacles, laws and addicts, shows relation of the governor to Senate, horsemen and nation, special attention he divides to organization of court and legal activity of the emp eror. People who influence emperor and governmental personal matters are in the shadow for example, Agrippa and Mecenat are noted briefly in Augustus biography in Tiberius biography only Sean was mentioned, and Macron wasnt noted at all there is no place for Seneca in Neros biography as well as for Nimphidius Sabin at biography of Galba only while describing biography of Claudius, he enumerates his advisors- libertines, which considered the emperor their toy.But at the same time the figure of emperor, overshadowing all the other, is described with full details here, in description of person, embodying the whole Roman Empire, there are no inessential details. He carefully collects facts regarding his health, character, habits, interests, way of life personal life of the emperor seems to be integral part of his governmental activity, it opens to the reader the inclinations of governor in a simple person and allows to foreseen the features of politics with the help of character featur es.Besides, details of personal life of emperor, of course, allowed adding the interest to Suetonius work, which was of such great importance to the author and the readers. Suetonius writes more details about fill in adventures of Caesar then about conquest of Gally he collects anecdotes of Vespassian and at the same time he doesnt write anything about the famous resolution regarding division of power between Senate and Vespassian (JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius , p.17).The biographical scheme consists of four parts life of emperor before he came to power, governmental activity, personal life, death and funeral. The first and last parts author use chronological scheme of events, if necessary, but the middle parts (which are dedicated to power of emperor) are completely built by logical scheme, with columns, headings and rubrics. Neque per tempora, sed per species this is the main principle of Suetonius writing.Suetonius wasnt an independent political philo sopher. But still, his biographies are of great interest as a document of epoch, when the hypothesis of monarchy was formed. In their details, they give full program, which should follow the leader, in case he wanted to be authorise by ruling classes. Some features were the result of specific conditions some seemed to be actual and real. This is the reason of interest to his work during the middle ages and nowadays, and thanks to this condition his work is quite popular and interesting even for modern reader.But, lets come back to the Roman history. Variety of philosophic conceptions at the end of II and I century BC was only one demonstration of complete dissidence of nationality, which was monolithic before this dissidence took place in all spheres of culture, and first of all in interpretation of the most actual problems of Roman history for modern political struggle. In such a way, for Sallustius, the active supporter of Caesar, opponent of Senate party, Roman past was an exam ple. But now the government fell into decay and seemed to die inevitably if some changes will not happen. The cause of decay is terrible spoiling of temper, which touched plebs as well, but the main damage caused to Nobile.So, what are the reasons of doom of the Nobiles? To tell the truth, the reason is always the same. Often I think over the facts, writes Sallustiy,- in which way the great people achieve success and glory, how the nation raises with the help of prominent governors, which circumstances are the reasons of fall for huge countries and always I have the only one reason for all these the same merits or the same demerits are the reason of these opposite events all people who became winners despised the wealth, and all beaten ardently pressed toward them. So to reach true greatness for a separate person and a government in common, is possible only by one way to despise the wealth and physical enjoyments, to representative in work, patience, good events and brave actions it means, by way of moral perfection. These short formulas are the beginning of Sallustius theory of moral collapse.Nobile became corruptible, dissolute, self-interested and always been the enemy of common people, who struggled for exemption during the time of war between patricians and plebs. Some of the main reasons of doom of the Nobile can be called also two passions, two demerits, which are developed in the Roman society desire for power, ambitions (ambitio) and desire for money, self-interest (avaritia).Ambition made people to become liars to have one in mind and to tell the other in words, to estimate friendly and enemy relations not by essence, but by benefit and to bemore interested in attractive appearance then in inner content (Sallustius). The second demerit is even more dangerous for society, because self-interest radically undermines faithfulness, frankness and other positive qualities in human being, and puts in the forefront cruelty and arrogance, it teaches people to treat the Gods without any regard and to count that you can buy everything.Roman society once and for all was stucked in demerits and crimes. save wealth is praised, virtue is downtrodden, poverty is the synonym of shame, and honesty seems to be almost unreliable. The youth couldnt brook to all these and under influence of greed and luxuriance turned from one side to robberies, and from the other to mad expenditures, forgot about shame and modesty and didnt want to obey the laws- neither human, nor God.Rome was great until plebs and their representatives (national tribunes) remained free and strong government became stronger thanks to its victories. The power of people and fear of strong external enemies held the Nobile in leash, but when Carthage was destroyed, this limiting beginning disappeared. The craving for power and wealth started to be shown more and more openly.Aristocracy in their aspiration for wealth ruined and corrupted by tips the nation which lost the freedom they won before. And still, there is only one factor which is still able to save Rome nation. The task is to return freedom and power, usurped by the Nobile (P. A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic, p.65-72). Nation should realize their power, to remember that all decisions of consuls and Senate have meaning until the nation obeys them, and to act in the same manner actively like plebses were struggling with patricians.Works CitedAlfoldy, G. Two Principes Augustus and Sir Ronald Syme, athenaeum 8171.1 (1993)Syme, The Roman Revolution (1939)The End of the Roman Empire by Donald KaganDonald Kagan, et. al., The Western Heritage, vol. 1 (chap. 5-6)A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic (1988)Lewis M. Reinhold, Roman Civilization, I The Republic and the Augustan Age (3 ed. Columbia University Press, 1990)The Twelve Caesars (Penguin Classics) by Suetonius, Penguin Books reprinting edition (August 1, 1991)JOHN W. BURKE, Emblematic Scenes in Suetonius Vitellius (July, 1998)Gabba , E. True history and false history in classical antiquity, Journal of Roman Studies 71 (1981)