Leadership In Ancient Civilizations Essay -- essays research papers

During the period of the romish Republic and the romish Empire, different drawship exhibited different ardors of attractionship and employed different governmental strategies. In addition, these leaders came to power and maintained their control in their have got unique ways. Each leader seemed to have his own agenda, which set the tint 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 event men is related to the obvious coefficient of correlation between the nature of a leaders agenda and the touch on of his reign. In the end, a rulers fate was dependent non on his agenda, besides 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 circuitous and/or unethical methods of pushing their agendas were hastily assassinated.First consi der Tiberius Gracchus. It is unconditional to analyze his style of leadership and his political strategies. During his term as tribune, Tiberius study goal was to pass a land reform bill. This bill was unilateral toward the masses. Tiberius tried fairly and squ atomic number 18ly to gain the support of the Roman senate, but this effort was to no avail. Tiberius then resorted to unfavorable tactics when he impeached another(prenominal) tribune, Octavius, the major opponent of Tiberius bill. Thus Tiberius willingly destroyed the long-held and sort of lucky notion of an immune tribune. However, this is what the common people wanted. Tiberius big mistake was blatantly opposing, thus disrespecting the Roman senate. As a result, the senate assassinated Tiberius. The lesson to be larn here is not that Tiberius agenda was constructed out of self-interest or greed. Tiberius manifestly wanted to help the common people. However, Tiberius methods were not proper for that time in that pla ce. And it is probable that Tiberius could easily have been persuaded to compromise. Thus, Tiberius downfall was not his agenda, but his style and political strategy.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 even so a mistake to oppose the senate. Granted, this notion is counter-intuitive. cardinal wo... ...in accordance with the main point we have been discussing, he did so with a particular style and political strategy, so as not to low social order. He ruled very subtly. He saw to it that he got what he wanted, yet he did so with such caution that it was wrapped as interest in providing for the good of the citizens. Therefore, Augustus reign supports the theory that a ruler can drive a selfish agenda, yet as long as the style and political strategy of the leader in question is favored by the people, then the leader can still be considered a good ruler.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 leaders particular actions more that his agenda when deciding whether or not a leader is worthy of being called great or being assassinated. Obviously, a leaders agenda and accomplishments are important factors, but we have seen with these five-spot 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.