Civil War on Pompey Essay

They swiftly maintained support of the Scipios campaign in Spain as well as re-establishing their dwindling army to 250,000 strong by the end of 216 BC through expanding recruitment. Two urban legions were formed from volones, young men (17) and criminals in addition to allies increasing their quota of troops. The senate ingeniously payed for such a force by issuing an edict where, for the first time, troops were provided at the expense of private citizens. Additionally, the senate learnt from their failures of fighting Hannibal in the field and agreed to adopt the once ridiculed ‘Fabian Strategy’ to keep Hannibal under control for the next 16 years. The cutting of Hannibal's supply lines and conducting raids and ambushes thinned out his reach, resulted in the loss of his allied land. Additionally, the Carthaginian Government failed to both maintain reliable manpower and support Hannibal. Throughout the course of the Second Punic War, “The Carthaginian Government’s failure to support Hannibal was extremely costly, especially considering they

In the victory over the battle of Pompey, supporters that sided with Pompey, Caesar still forgave them, “Surely not his former opponents, the defeated Pompey supporters like Cicero himself, who had been allowed to return to Rome and the Senate with their properties intact, and who were now his staunchest and most appreciative friends” (Parenti 172). Caesars concerns wasn’t to be biased and was only in favor of returning to the prosperous, content Rome. The aristocrats then decided to mastermind a plan with the senators in order to take Caesar’s life and remove his reign of reforms. Upon arrival, Caesar would be gathered around his senators and hear about Tillius Climber’s petition about allowing his brother to be return from being exiled. Delivering the first assault would be led by Casca, followed by a slash from Cassius, and after encountering twenty-three stab wounds, Caesar would bleed to death and lay motionless.

Sabinus’s legion, when told to let go of their baggage, “were departing from their standards everywhere, which each of them was holding most dear, each was hastening to seek and to snatch away from the baggage” (vulgo … properaret 4-5). This dishonorable action indicates this legion’s lack of loyalty to the general cause of the Roman army. Each soldier, in the heat of battle, thought only of themselves, selfishly attempting to salvage their own belongings, while neglecting the battle around them and the safety of their comrades. In stark contrast, in Cicero’s legion, even though “all their bagges and all their fortunes were burning” (omnia … conflagare 2) (as mentioned earlier), “not only did no one withdraw about the wall for the sake of retreating, but hardly anyone even looked back and then all were fighting most bitterly and most bravely” (non modo … pugnarent 3-4). Again, rather idly gather their belongings with utter disregard for those around them, Cicero’s soldiers ignore their own belongings and focus on the task at hand. No one retreated, having been overcome with fear, and almost no one even succumbed to the temptation to look back at their belongings, whether in fear or sorrow. Instead, they fought fiercely and bravely and thus Cicero’s legion was far more successful in repelling the Gallic

The hypothesis of this report is that the military reforms instituted by Gaius Marius ultimately paved the way for the fall of the Roman Republic.

Sulla did not have a full army with him so he had to recruit soldiers from Roman allies. His ability to get these soldiers and to push Mithridates back, shows his great military skills. This campaign was also important because it brought Rome into contact with the powerful Parthia Empire. He was able to arrange a treaty with Parthia, which was a milestone for Sulla. This would not be the last time he would meet Mithridates in battle.

This investigation evaluates the question, to what extent did Julius Caesar 's assassination affect Rome, politically and socially. Gaius Julius Caesar, famously known for his brilliant military strategies and shrewd political expertise, helped transform the Roman Republic into one of the greatest civilization in the western world. During his reign, Julius Ceasar expanded Rome’s geographical territory across Ancient Europe immensely, conquering areas of present-day France and Britain. The investigation will primarily focus on the political opportunities created by Caesar 's death, as well as the public reaction, from the immediate ramifications to its long-term effect on the Roman government. Effects in foreign and other civilizations not directly involved with Roman affairs or within Rome will not included in the investigation. Sources for the investigation will include The Emperors of Rome by David Potter and the Ancient History Encyclopedia .

The Roman state at this point could not supply its army with weaponry so it required its soldiers to do so. This slowly changes during the Struggle of the Orders, with middle and lower class citizens having the right to be a part of the army and other reforms were introduced including payment for servitude (Ward, 69). In the following centuries, the republic did not severely reform the military’s enrollment strategy, other than during the latter part of the 2nd Punic War. Scipio was able to convince Roman citizens to volunteer for an expedition to invade Africa. This was the first time the state did not enforce its law requiring soldiers to be property owners (Ward 110), because of the huge losses incurred during the previous battles of the war.

In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti highlights the many significant people and events that characterized the late Roman Republic. Specifically, he focuses on the time period between the election of Tiberius Grachus, to the rise of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. In this account of history, Parenti presents the social, political, and economic aspects of the Roman culture from the perspective of the Roman commoner, or plebeian. Using this perspective, he also spends a great amount of time examining the causes and effects of the assassination of Julius Caesar. The views that Parenti presents in this book stand in sharp contrast with the views of many ancient and modern historians, and offer an interesting and enlightening perspective into class struggle in the society of the Roman republic.

The Second Triumvirate was a “formal magistracy legally appointed which could dominate the Senate and the State” (Scullard) and would prove to be the final straw in an already failed Republican system. The Roman Republic was ruled by a Constitution, which relied on a balance of three elements; The Senate; the Magistrates; the Assemblies. When the balance was upset either by ambitious magistrates, armies or tribunes then civil war was the result. The Senate proved ineffectual in preventing the Second Triumvirate from unbalancing this concept thus the played a significant role in the Republic’s fall. The Second Triumvirate, like those before them, had been able to take advantage of a vulnerable Senate to achieve their own personal aims in defiance of the Senate. The lack of faith in the Senate, which was present for this period of time, was what granted the Second Triumvirate to be the final push in the fall of the Republic. The Sullan legacy continued to be displayed in unlawful acts conducted by this three-man rule. Marc Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus all knew the significance of having an army at their hands and wealth that would ensure two things for them, power and civil war at the hands of conflict. It is therefor known that the Second Triumvirate played a significant role in the fall of an already fallen Republic.

Julius Caesar (100-44 BC) was one of the most outstanding leaders in history. He was the first ruler of the Romano-Hellenic civilization and achieved his goals with great success throughout his life of 56 years. He was assassinated by the conspirators, who accused him for practicing tyranny. This essay will discuss whether it was right for the conspirators to murder Caesar and what its consequences were.

The Civil War, consisting in large part of Caesar’s own account of the conflict between himself and Pompey, explores the origins of the war, the manner in which it was carried out, and most importantly the role of pivotal figures on both sides of the struggle. Prior to his records ending and supplementation by military officers, Caesar makes a case for his involvement in and perhaps triggering of the war, one which would transform the social and political landscape of the Roman empire as battles and campaigns were waged from Spain to Italy, Africa to Asia Minor. Caesar walks a fine line between historian, strategist and orator as he attempts to record historical events, martial decisions, and persuade an audience respectively. Despite his efforts to remain impartial, as evidenced by his admission that “the Pompeians were winning” at Dyrrachium, Caesar consistently presents himself as a charismatic and skilled general and leader, jeopardizing the integrity of the text as objective material and allowing it to be a propagandist account of sorts. Ultimately, Caesar uses anecdotal evidence, the presentation of his personal thoughts, and juxtaposition with his opposition to paint his side of the war in a positive and just light.

Caesar possessed too much power. They said he was becoming a threat to the Roman Republic,

Chalking up the fall of the Roman Republic to a decline in traditional Roman morality, while not false, sells the events and changes that were the causes for the fall of the Republic short. At the end of The Third Punic War with Carthage we arguably see the Republic at its height. However in only a decade things begin to change, we see events that send Rome as a Republic past a point that Rome could not recover. Gaius Marius’s military reforms, specifically that of allowing for the captive cencsi, men who owned no property, and the creation of professional soldiers is the true catalyst for the downfall of the Republic. By enacting these reforms Marius opened up military duty to Rome’s largest group of citizens, however it created unforeseen issues, such as what to do with these men once they returned from battle. These reforms opened the door for military generals like Sulla and Caesar to gain the unquestioned support of their troops, in many instances gaining more respect from the soldiers then they had for the Roman state itself. These military reforms are a constant through line through the fall of the Republic, touching large political issues such as the conflicts between the Populares and the Optimates, or the rise of The First Triumvirate; socioeconomic issues such as the rise of Roman aristocracy, development of a slave based agriculture system to the profits from war. The complexity in which these reforms help lead to this immoral Roman state is complex and has been

Plutarch considers Julius Caesar’s assassination to be justified. He believed the group felt they had to keep their plans in secret with a select few which they could trust to further their cause. Despite the fact that there prophesies and warnings alerting Caesar to his eminent Demise, the assassins continued their plan feeling that they would be deemed as “noble leaders of the commonwealth” when they had done this great deed. Because of Caesars hand in the murder of Pompey, it was believed to be a “divine appointment” to hold a senate meeting where there statue of Pompey stood for whom they also sought vengeance. Therefore at the start of the meeting, Plutarch states that when Cassuis turned and faced Pompey’s statues, this when Caesar walked in the room and the men struck him, making it look like it was providence. At the end, Brutus was prepared to make a speech but there was nothing but chaos. The elitist group had come to the agreement to only kill Caesar but when they sought Antony as a threat, Marcus felt enough had been done “restore Rome and saved Antony’s life,” illustrates

A republic, like Rome, moves at a maddeningly slow pace. Legislation is put through a system of checks and balances where rivals debate ad nauseum over proposed policies. In a perfect world, this ensures that only which is most beneficial for the state and her peoples becomes a reality. A Tyrant, however, can accomplish a great deal in only a short amount of time. A good leader, like Augustus, can propel his people forward unhindered by the chains of a republic. The Roman people, according to Tacitus: “prefered the security of the current regime to the dangers of old” (Yardley 2008, 3). Even if it lacked freedom, many were willing to submit to an empire if it meant stability and security.