WSC HISTORY QUESTION ANSWERS - Problems of Succession and the Triumvirate in Rome
![Authors Avatar]()
by
anastasiasorial34gmailcom (student)
History The Triumvirates were a group of three leaders sharing power in Rome. The first Triumvirate took place from 60 to 54 BC. Julius Caesar, Marcus Licinius Crassus and Pompeius Magnus co-ruled, aiming to bring order to Rome. Crassus was killed in 53 BC during a battle against the Parthians, where he was determined to conquer Parthia so he could take its riches; this ended the Triumvirate. After Crassus died, Pompeius Magnus and Julius Caesar started a civil war that ended in Caesar's favour. Julius Caesar led Rome until he was murdered in 43 BC. Subsequently, a new triumvirate was created. The two potential rulers were Octavian (Caesar's grandson and legitimate successor) or Anthony (Julius's military second in command). Lepidus, an ally of the killed ruler, helped merge the two into a triumvirate with him to rebuild the Roman republic and gain revenge on the murderers of Julius Caesar. Unfortunately, their greed for power resulted in Octavian exiling Lepidus. Without Lepidus to control Antony and Octavian, Octavian illegally got hold of
Anthony’s will. Even though scholars were perplexed whether it was real or forged, it was enough to support Octavian for a battle against Antony. With Cleopatra, he committed suicide, as he was chased down to Alexandria. It ended with Octavian ruling the Roman Empire throne on his own. As shown, power isn’t best when shared as in both triumvirates, the rulers ended up taking each other out because of ambition and ego. But in today’s world, I think establishing co-rulers in a business or company is an effective way of leading a successful workstation. When more opinions are accumulated, more ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
Anthony’s will. Even though scholars were perplexed whether it was real or forged, it was enough to support Octavian for a battle against Antony. With Cleopatra, he committed suicide, as he was chased down to Alexandria. It ended with Octavian ruling the Roman Empire throne on his own. As shown, power isn’t best when shared as in both triumvirates, the rulers ended up taking each other out because of ambition and ego. But in today’s world, I think establishing co-rulers in a business or company is an effective way of leading a successful workstation. When more opinions are accumulated, more perspectives are taken into consideration, leading to a careful measure of the correct decision. Today, accusations can be solved legally with fewer issues as only the facts are examined and fibs are closely caught sight of. I reckon the ideal number of co-leaders is 2-3 people. For the reason that different angles result in better conclusions, more than a person is recommended; nonetheless, too many co-rulers may be consequent of more disputes or splitting into different clans. Appointing a new leader to a country or company is an arduous task if a system isn’t implied. Having said that, there are many different types of succession that choose who should be the next figurehead to the establishment. Firstly, there is political succession -one ruler or official rising to power after another has died, resigned or been removed from office, following a clearly defined succession order. For example, once Queen Elizabeth of England dies or resigns, her son will take her place as the ruling monarch of England. Even though this type of succession creates a clearly defined reign, it can result in many succession issues including: possible successors conflict about who should take the lead; a leader’s successor may be too young to rule, causing confusion; the successor may not be fit for the role, but will have to take it due to the family line, bringing the country/organisation into disorder. Secondly, there is corporate succession: a strategy in which leadership roles and ownership of a company are passed onto an employee, children or family member. The 'replacement planning' concept makes sure the company maintains running smoothly after a key employee leaves for a different opportunity, retirement, or dies. This is one of the most effective successions as a successor isn’t required to have the same blood as the previous leader. Yet jealousy and greed for power could cause mayhem, similarly to a political succession. Even more complicated than these previous successions, is the succession in the criminal underworld. The leaders of criminal organizations and syndicates are often the most powerful people in their communities—and the most in danger of being usurped. After the passing of a leader of criminal organisations, a series of civil wars can be established and the death of the future designated successors in order to take their place. On the contrary, badly designated successions are the most common reason for destruction. It occurs when a person doesn’t designate someone to succeed and their organization, company or country falls in chaos; or when a person does designate a successor, but people still fight for the spot. To conclude, I think that the person that should be in charge of who should succeed would be the previous leader or a vote should take place. This is because leaders should have the freedom to pass down their belongings in the hands of someone they trust. But in many cases, votes are more appropriate as it takes the opinions of many people, and chooses the majority; this could be argued as a lot fairer. A leader performing badly should only be forced out of power if a number of illegal actions have taken place and if the country/company is falling into doom. A lot of the time, revolutions take place to kick the current leader out, which is not the most tranquil solution generally creating destruction. In my opinion, leaders should only have an allocated time to reign so that if any problems are being caused, they could soon be over using less violence. In addition, we could avoid these situations by preparing a successor for their position in order to successfully lead with their people’s admiration.
