Leadership in Ancient Civilizations
During the period of the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire, different leaders exhibited different styles of leadership and employed different political strategies. In addition, these leaders came to power and maintained their control in their own unique ways. Each leader seemed to have his own agenda, which set the tone for that era. Five prominent leaders of this time period were Agricola, Augustus, Julius Caesar, and the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus. The point to be made with respect to these particular men is related to the obvious correlation between the nature of a leader's agenda and the impact of his reign. In the end, a ruler's fate was dependent not on his agenda, but on style and strategy with which he pushed his agenda. Those leaders whose methods were completely altruistic were heralded as great leaders, while those with devious and/or unethical methods of pushing their agendas were hastily assassinated. First consider Tiberius Gracchus. It is imperative to analyze his style of leadership and his political strategies. During his term as tribune, Tiberius' major goal was to pass a land reform bill. This bill was biased toward the masses. Tiberius tried fairly and squarely to gain the suppo
rt of the Roman senate, but this effort was to no avail. Tiberius then resorted to unfavorable tactics when he impeached another tribune, Octavius, the major opponent of Tiberius' bill. Thus Tiberius willingly destroyed the long-held and quite favored notion of an immune tribune. Then, there were those leaders whose style of leadership and political strategy fit perfectly into the framework of society, such that they were considered to be great leaders. These leaders were Agricola and Augustus. Agricola was an army commander for most of his relatively long life. He was regarded to be one of the best men anywhere, and he was revered by all. Yet, being an army commander does require some killing and punishing. Let's be real. How is it that Agricola was, by the nature of his profession, a killer, yet was so respected, while Tiberius and Gaius strove to help people, and were assassinated? Therefore, upon considering the lives of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, Julius Caesar, Agricola, and Augustus Caesar, it is clear that people in the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire considered a leader's particular actions more that his agenda when deciding whether or not a leader is worthy of being called "great" or being assassinated. Obviously, a leader's agenda and accomplishments are important factors, but we have seen with these five particular leaders that sometimes accomplishments do not matter. What matters greatly are the steps taken by a leader to obtain goals or satisfy certain needs. A different example of the same principle is summed up with the story of Tiberius' younger brother, Gaius Gracchus. Gaius worked not to appease the senate, but to appease the people. Although this seems quite noble of him, it was still a mistake to oppose the senate. Granted, this notion is counter-intuitive. One would expect that the senate is supposed to help the people, and since Gaius was helping the people, the senate should favor him. One would also expect that because it was the common people and not the senate that elected him, that he sho
Some common words found in the essay are:
Tiberius Gaius, Tiberius Gracchus, Augustus Agricola, Gracchus Gaius, Roman Empire, Caesar Rome, Gaius Gracchus, Gaius Caesar, Caesar Caesar, political strategy, Caesar Augustus, tiberius gaius, style political, style political strategy, agenda style, julius caesar, agricola augustus, common people, gaius gracchus, tiberius gaius gracchus, augustus caesar, republic roman, common people tiberius', agenda style political, style leadership political,
Approximate Word count = 1393
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
