The Roman Revolution – Ronald Syme, Article Critique Example

The Roman Revolution -Ronald Syme (1903-1989)

The young Caesar had fought the war under the national mandate’ (Syme, 2002, p311). A Tacitean scholar by the name of Sir Ronald Syme (1903-1989), published accounts of the Roman Revolution through Oxford University Press projecting young Caesar as a conqueror. This interpretation of the war was met with immense controversy from the Roman public who felt that Caesar was nothing else but a dictator. The issue of national mandate was removed from the truth according to perceptions of the people (Syme, 2002).

While young Caesar might have fought the war with dexterity conclusively his reigndid not meet the needs of Romans. Importantly, the Republic’sstructure along with polices adapted by the Senate were designed to keep Romans loyal to a dictatorship rule. In fact Augustus selfishly was developing system through which he could gain popularity and be restored to public life honorably. This attitude was contrary to expectations of German Nazis, who were monitoring the political progress Rome was making in the world (Syme, 2002).

Syme(1903-1989) contends that ‘he remained, though the appellation gradually faded from use’ (Syme, 2002, p. 311). This is of Augustus Caesar’s character. He preferred to appear tenacious for his own self-aggrandizement. Power was the most important feature of his war. Caesar never wanted to lose power. Hence, remaining in power through the appellation even though failure was eminent was just a part of who he is as correctly represented by scholar,Sir Ronald Syme (1903-1989). Simply, it supports the Syme’s theory that, ‘Yet he might have kept it, whatever the form of the constitution and legal definition of hi powers’ (Syme, 2002, p. 311). Definitely, this quote clarifies Caesar’s desire to grab and hold on to power irrespective of the costs (Syme, 2002).

Works cited

Syme, Ronald. Roman Revolution.  London: Oxford University Press.2002. Print