The Downfall Of Rome: The Fall Of The Roman Empire

1187 Words 5 Pages
Rome and all of her influence is declining. I fear for those whom live in the very heart of Italy and her fellow surrounding provinces. The man power is declining. To many Roman men have lost their lives to fellow Romans. What example are we setting up for the commoners who see one of the pinnacles of roman society, aristocrat, killing aristocrat. Commoners are already at their breaking point. The Punic wars have drove us into the collapse of the commoners. Those whom had the land were drafted into the war with hopes of loot, gold and other plunder but instead their terms were increased due to rapid expansion. They had less time to serve on the farm, and because the campaigns reached to the end of the worlds, the jungles of sub Asia to the …show more content…
They are powerhouses for the farmland, more people allow more things to be done. How can a commoner keep up working with his kin compared to an aristocrat with 100 slaves? The commoner just can not. So if they can not keep up, they loose profit. They have less to sell and are less productive, all on top of buying tools and seed for farming. Because of their financial instability they can not keep their land, and when a roman looses his land he can no longer farm and make money. But something even more vile is that he is stripped of becoming a roman warrior. If he can not become a warrior he is hurt more than just in his pocket but in his pride. The only way to make a name for oneself is making it it politics and military, and both go hand in hand. Gaius Gracchus ' attempt to fix commoner land loss was hardly even temporary, but he had the landless enlisted. However he would signal a sort of arrival of political upheaval. Posses of men formed for political reasons at each others throats for a power grab. The mere thought back on the war of Sulla versus Marius brings back horrors of a major move to general devotion rather our great …show more content…
Not by Germanic barbarians, not by Persian armies but by civil unrest. Resources are needed to keep any Empire strong and full of vigor. We can not gain new resources if we do not expand. However we can not expand, if our legions are loyal to their generals more and more often ever since Marius and his war with Lucius Sulla. The victor of these skirmishes can determine the outcome of Rome politically. Take for example Julius Caesar, if it was not for the camaraderie of his men he would never have obtained power and established his rule over Rome. But all these pits of general against general has tired Rome, and all Romans. Romans want, no, they crave stability, economically and politically. The best way may be monarchy, but is the point of our senate not to allow one man rule? If the people want it however they are reserved the right to be ruled this way. Even then they have the tribune of the plebs to watch out for the everyday commoners. Clever enough Octavian can rule, gracefully enough in the past, to appear that he was royal to Rome and it 's people while having the total opposite outcome. His claim to fix Rome in the past was essentially to cover up one man rule in a facade of

Related Documents