Studybay uses cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. By continuing to use Studybay you accept our use of cookies view more on our Cookie Policy
How can I earn money with StudyBay Top writers
Order Assignment
This order has already been completed on Studybay
On Studybay you can order your academic assignment from one of our 45000 professional writers. Hire your writer directly, without overpaying for agencies and affiliates! Check price for your assignment
18 total offers received. Writer hired: luvlyn

History - Roman Republicanism, Essay

The ancient Roman historian Livy noted in his Ab Urbe Condita that the distinguishing feature of the Roman Republic was the fact that it was based in the rule of law rather than the whims of individual kings. Throughout the Roman Republic, and especially when it was under threat, this notion of the Republic as grounded in law and liberty (libertas) would be frequently invoked. When Octavian "restored" the Roman Republic, he was careful to create the appearance, at least, of keeping Roman law intact. He defined his role of Princeps as being just like any other Roman citizen--subject to Roman law. At the same time, Octavian was granted maius imperium by the senate and was described with the contradictory term primus inter pares (first among equals). By the time of Vespasian, the notion of the Roman emperor as being subject to Roman law fell away. In his Lex de imperio Vespasiani, Vespasian clearly states that he is "excused" from certain laws on the precedent that previous emperors had also been permitted to violate those laws. Concerning the emperor's authority and status. Vespasian asserts: "And that whatever he [the imperator] considers to be in accordance with the public advantage and the dignity of divine and human and public and private interests, he shall have the right and the power to do and to execute." With this statement does Vespasian, in effect, finally destroy any remnants of Roman Republicanism? Has he finally turned the Principate into a de facto monarchy? Why do you think Roman citizens (and senators) supported this move--or at least did not openly challenge it and revolt? Why, in your view, did this bold assertion of a right to autocratic rule pass unchallenged whereas, not much earlier, Julius Caesar was assassinated on the mere suspicion that he was attempting to restore the monarchy? Please address these questions in a short essay of c. 750 words. Your arguments should be grounded in evidence from the course. Your grade will be determined by the quality of your arguments; originality; quality of presentation (proofread!); and adherence to the guidelines of the assignment. Additional research beyond the course content is not required. If you DO use additional sources, however, you MUST cite them.
The ancient Roman historian Livy noted in his Ab Urbe Condita that the distinguishing feature of the Roman Republic was the fact that it was based in the rule of law rather than the whims of individual kings. Throughout the Roman Republic, and especially when it was under threat, this notion of the Republic as grounded in law and liberty (libertas) would be frequently invoked.
Related Materials
Assignment ID
785791
Discipline
Type
CREATED ON
29 November 2018
COMPLETED ON
30 November 2018
Price
$30
This order has already been completed on Studybay
On Studybay you can order your academic assignment from one of our 45000 professional writers. Hire your writer directly, without overpaying for agencies and affiliates!
Check price for your Essay
Latest reviews for luvlyn
Akshan Smith
9 December 2018
Akshan Smith
As always on time, easy to communicate and awesome writer to work with :) HIghly recommend !!
NasirG
3 December 2018
NasirG
👍
Renad992
17 November 2018
Renad992
good work