The Power of Film as Propaganda

The Power of Film as Propaganda The power of film as propaganda reality or myth? Throughout history various persons and administrations in power have attempted to win the hearts and supports of their constituents, often through reframing or reinterpreting historical events in a light favourable to them. This was certainly the case in the Russian Revolution of1917. The Bolsheviks and Lenin, their leader, sought to use film to recast events of the revolution in such a way as to rally and unify the Russian peasantry. Filmmaker Sergei Eisenstein was one of those recruited for the task, and while many government-sponsored films of the time have disappeared into the massive pile of poor quality filmmaking, two of his works in particular, Battleship Potemkin and October, were powerful in framing the Russian Revolution in the eyes of the world and his own people. These works demonstrate the power of film, even those recognised as containing elements of propaganda. Hostility and outbreaks had been building prior to the1917 Revolution, with general dissatisfaction for the Tsarist regime. One such event, a naval uprising in Odessa, was chosen by Eisenstein to show the liberation needed by the working class under the csars, which he considered had been subsequently provided by the Bolsheviks. Historically, the event was a mutiny of the seamen against the officers, and had been a major event in the earlier Revolution of 1905. Commissioned by the Soviet Central Committee to create a film commemorating the twentieth anniversary of the 1905 Revolution, Eisenstein originally planned a sweeping series of eight films, forming a panoramic view of 1905 events. However, when confronted with the communist definition of a workable budget, he quickly reduced the number to one. The film included significant license with the actual historical events of the incident, as Eisenstein and his government backers both made changes to portray the situation in a way supportive of the then-current Bolshevik regime. For example, whilst in reality the sailors were captured and incarcerated, Eisenstein ends the movie with the sailors in a rallying cry of class solidarity, rather than being herded off to prison. Eisenstein also used a variety of cinematic devices to reinforce his theme, regardless of historical accuracy. He staged the slaughter of civilians by the Cossacks on a series of steps in Odessa, undercutting close-ups of guns and faces with scenes of fleeing civilians and attacking soldiers to depict the slaughter of the populace by the czars troops. Overseas the film was a rousing success. European and American viewers and critics alike were impressed with the realism of the film and its filmmaking firsts. Eisenstein was the first to use editing to juxtapose apparently unrelated images, to create rapid and dynamic shifts in rhythm, and to compress and expand physical action rather than function simply as a storytelling device. The newsreel-like style of the film was another innovation praised by foreign critics. Americas National Board of Review reported at the time the faithful reproduction of this historical event by adhering as much as possible to a literal transcription and reproduction of officially documented facts Nothing approaching the reality of these scenes has ever occurred in cinematicsbefore. Interestingly, most American audiences regarded Potemkin as a celebration of freedom and liberation, rather than a support of a particular political agenda(Browne 182). Initial critics, with the exception of Gerstein who briefly mentions the propagandistic nature of the final scene, also viewed the film as historically accurate. Given only the partial and fragmentary information about the Soviet Union, the American agencies of interpretation the journalists and the critics sought to sketch a picture of something very new and unknown and used the figure of Eisenstein and the realism of his film to do so. However, by the late 1920s, critics were reconsidering the propaganda elements in Soviet films. For example, in his profile on Eisenstein in 1928, Alfred Barr openly explained the Russian governments involvement in the Potemkin and filmmaking in general, and the propagandistic elements of the movie. Intellects on both sides of the Atlantic appeared to have been quite taken with the reality of the movie, enough to overlook such elements of propaganda, and praise the Soviet filmmaker for his reality, a stark contrast to the to the fictionality and to t he vulgar artifice of the Hollywood image so despised by many of the intellectual elite. The film was not so well received in Russia. While by the 1930s, the Civil War became something of a focus for the revolutionary myth in Soviet cinema just the way the West was won fulfilled a similar function in Hollywood, at the time of its release Soviet audiences preferred lighter and more conventional faire. The problem was that, as long as Soviet audiences had a choice, they preferred the films that were popular elsewhere in Europe, and were happy with a diet of Hollywood hits or Soviet imitations. In addition, Potemkin featured no central hero with whom audiences could identify; the main character of the movie is best described as the collective masses. While Eisensteins lack of a central character fascinated Western audiences, it dehumanised Soviets, who were uninterested in the Cine-Eyes more perfect visions of reality. Potemkin had to be taken off after only two weeks, to be replaced with are turn of Robin Hood starring Douglas Fairbanks, the film featured before its releas e. While the power of Potemkin as propaganda was far more convincing, at least initially, abroad, Eisensteins next great work, October, enjoyed tremendous success at home and was valuable as a way of reframing the October events for decades. Scholar recognise the inaccuracies and license of the film. Figes, for example, contends October is Eisensteins brilliant but largely fictional propaganda film. Rosenstone also acknowledges both the initial impact and lasting influence of the film.  October  has become and remains one of the best known and most enduring accounts of October so well known that it seems no exaggeration to suggest that more people have probably learned about the Bolshevik Revolution from the film than from any other single source. As October had a much stronger impact on the Russian public, both as a movie and as propaganda, it is important to consider the situation in Russia at the time and how it influenced the films creation and support. The Russian peasantry, accounting for eighty percent of the population, was largely hostile and overwhelmingly illiterate speaking more than a hundred different languages. In addition, peasants as a group were largely politically ignorant, and needed, it was felt by government leaders, to be properly informed. Peasants were inclined to believe naively in every printed word, and therefore open to persuasion from a variety of sources. Lack of vocabulary amongst the group and misunderstandings with speakers sent by the Bolshevik regime to educate them further compounded the communication problem. Furthermore, the peasants had not supported the Bolsheviks coming into power. Immediately after the overthrow in October, in November 1917, the Bolsheviks held an election as they had promised. Unfortunately for them, they were not the most supported party, although no group received a majority vote. The Bolsheviks lost the November 1917 election to the Socialist Revolutionaries, who received forty-four percent of the vote to the Bolsheviks twenty-seven percent. Although they lost, the Bolsheviks nonetheless seized and consolidated power. This left the government as one in need of persuasive means to address its constituents. Not having been elected by the people, it depended largely on the power of the word to establish its authority. The Civil War that occurred following the Revolution necessitated urgent, cheap and effective measures to win over the hearts and minds of the people in whose name the Bolsheviks claimed to govern. In response, Lenin realised the importance of the dyna mic visual propaganda that cinema could offer and set the government on a course of creating propaganda films. Films would serve to not only entertain, but to allow the Bolsheviks to construct their particular utopia out of the ruins of Tsarist Russia. However, By the 1930s, the Party functionaries recognized that the films were not useful propaganda instruments as long as they could not attract a mass audience. Russians clearly preferred Hollywood-type films, and had similar response to government-produced propaganda films as they had to Potemkin, although such works had little of its quality or creativity. Government leaders recognised that their greatest artists, who made experimental, innovative films, could not communicate with the simple people who wanted to be entertained. They developed a new slogan for art in the Soviet Republics, loosely translated as movies for the masses. Experimentation was denounced as formalism, as something alien to Soviet art, and now each film had to be immediately comprehensible even to the least educated. Many artists and writers immediately following the 1917 Revolution also recognised the need to enlighten the peasantry, and the potential for creative media to communicate new life options to them, and initially joined in government efforts. Filmmakers such as Eisenstein and Kozintsev, for example, were determined in their different ways to use their new art form to construct a new Sovietman. However, with the increasing and ever more intrusive censorship, in combination with limitations on creativity and severe punishments for violations of government guidelines, many film producers simply stopped making movies. Whilst the cinema became increasingly popular, movie selection decreased. By the 1930s, foreign films had been banned; Soviet films also decreased. Whilst in the 1920s over one hundred movies were made annually, but this number had dropped to less than forty by the 1930s. Content was for the most part centred on the benefits of the Bolshevik regime and the evils of the Tsarist one. Class consciousness could usually be reduced to an understanding that there were enemies everywhere, that the Soviet was of life was superior, that it was the duty of decent people to participate in the building of socialism, that the primary allegiance one owes is to Soviet society and not to the family. As Kenez wryly notes, if one judged the world entirely on the basis of Soviet films, one might have imagined that the task of Soviet border guards was to keep out all those who hoped to enter. The Bolshevik government needed to rally illiterate masses to its support, whilst the Soviet Republic spanned a gigantic geographical and cultural plethora, and a number of events leading up to the current regime seizing power were morally questionable, at best. The question is whether propaganda films really exerted the influence over the public that many have long held unquestionably that they do. The Soviets certainly committed a surprising amount of scarce resources, although not as much as the filmmakers would have liked, to this novel form of propaganda, recognising the apparent potential of the medium of cinema for powerful, mass, political propaganda. Reeves contends that in many countries, including the UK and Soviet Republic, the power of film propaganda was simply assumed. Through the 1950s,politicians and commentators alike seem to have become only more convinced that the mass media in general, cinema in particular, provided a weapon uniquely capable of effectively moulding the ideology of the masses. Reeves further contends that empirical studies in Britain between the First and Second World Wars are primarily supportive of the power of film propaganda and the media to influence the general populace. Almost without exception int er-war studies stressed their enormous power, using metaphors like hypodermic needle or magic bullet to characterise that power in contrast to the weakness of the mass of people who, whether they liked it or not, received the messages which the media generated. While there have been more recent challenges to these findings, Eisensteins October is widely held to have had a profound impact both on the Russian people and foreigners in shaping their perception and understanding of the Bolsheviks rise to power. Although October was made before the changes to filmmaking of the 1930s, it very much followed the type of movie propaganda scheme the government would later require. The film was commissioned by the Soviet agency in charge of the production and distribution of films, Sovkino, as part of the tenth anniversary celebration of the 1917events. Ever the visionary, Eisenstein first planned to create a heroic epic, spanning from the February 1917 overthrow of the Czar to the end of the Civil War in 1921.Pressures of time (both on the screen and in the production process) led to aversion that covered a smaller slice of the past: from February through October1917. The story the movie tells, and the way it tells that story are surely part of along tradition of explaining why and how the Bolsheviks took power. One might even argue that October had a significant role in creating that tradition. The film neither accurately represents what happened nor entirely fictionalises events, instead combining the two to create a picture in the minds of many of the Revolution. The film opens with the downfall of the Russian Czar in February of 1917.While it overdoes the evilness of the Tsarist regime a bit from an historical standpoint, this presents a strong contrast for the following events. Of particular note is the handling of the July Days protests in July of 1917.The Bolsheviks had assembled over fifty thousand supporters, had surrounded the Tauride Palace, and had taken hostage a representative of the Provisional Government during the protest. Bolshevik leaders truly did decide not to overthrown the government during this time, calming the crowd and a voiding bloodshed. Eisenstein is considered by many scholars to be relatively accurate in his rendition of the July events, although he creates from a decidedly Bolshevik point of view. Eisenstein shows us the masses of marching protesters, the bloodshed on the Nevsky Prospekt, the anger of the middle classes against the lower orders, the Bolshevik speakers calming the soldiers, insisting it is not time to seize power. Similarly, Rosenstone states that historians have little dissent over much of the things that led up to the October events, or how Eisenstein handled them. The February Revolution, he contends, was truly popular and necessary, while the Provisional Government was inept, inefficient, stupid or criminal in its attempt to continue the war. Eisensteins portrayal of Kerenskys handling of the entire situation is alsosupported by historians. Figes states that during the event, Kerensky began to strut around with comic self-importance, puffing up his puny chest and striking the pose of a Bonaparte.Rosenstone notes Eisenstein shows Kerensky as a would-be Bonaparte, by cutting from a close-up of him directly to a statue of Napoleon, and he is hardly the only historian to suggest the prime minister saw himself in that kind of heroic role. Figes and Rosenstone both note that Eisenstein used similar techniques to highlight the ineptitude of General Kornilov. Eisenstein suggests that the attempt to overthrow the Provisional Government was really based on a misunderstanding, exacerbated by Kornliov, who also saw himself as a Bonaparte figure and did not realise that most of those supporting him did so with the hope to use him in the governments overthrow .Eisenstein presents Kornilov as yet another potential Napoleon by cutting from his image to that of the same statue previously linked to Kerensky. The film shows how the generals march on Petrograd is undermined by Bolshevik agitators, who are able to convince the Cossacks of his Savage Division that the Soviet programme of Peace, Land, Bread is not meant just for the worker sof Petrograd but for everyone, including them. It is the ending of the movie, as he did in Potemkin, where Eisenstein takes the greatest license. The movie climaxes with the storming of the Winter Palace, an event that did not actually occur. Indeed the Palace was largely unoccupied by the time of the October events, and any Bolsheviks attacking it would have only had to rebuff a few women and elderly men left to tend to maintenance. While Kerenskys cabinet was inside, they were cut off from the outside and posed no threat. The Palace was taken peacefully, with cabinet members arrested. However, Eisenstein realised the film must have a strong climatic event, and as Lenin had previously used the Palace as an emblem of the Revolution conquering old regimes in the name of the masses, he used a dramatic battle to climax his historical rendition. Many Russian critics at the time were appalled that he had even considered dramatising or reframing such an important event in their history. Additional complaints included Eisensteins omission of the collapse at the front and the growth of the workers movement were also directed at the film.Rosenstone would counter that a filmmaker can never forget the demands of the medium no matter how much you are committed to putting the past on the screen, and no matter how accurate you wish that past to be, the one thing you can never do is to mirror a moment all those moments that have vanished. Even in contemporary viewing of October, however, Eisensteins theme is repeatedly that it was the stupidity and oppression of the Provisional Government, not the political desires of the Bolsheviks, that led to the October 1917 Revolution. It was the desires and action of the masses, not Lenin or a few organising leaders, that led to the governments overthrow. As propaganda, the film has long served to reinforce the validity of the Bolsheviks seizure of power, and therefore to instigate major changes on the Soviet populace. It remains the way many, both in Russia and in Western countries, view the events of 1917, an as such speaks to the effective and lasting power of film as a propaganda device. History can be recast, reinterpreted, expressed in film, and many will believe what they see .Eisensteins work reinforces both independent research and policies ofgovernments worldwide that support film propaganda as a convincing tool. BIBLIOGRAPHY Battleship Potemkin. Dirs. Sergei M. Eisenstein and GrigoriAleksandrov. White Star, 1925. Behind the screen. TheTimes (UK) 18 September 2004: Features, Films 29. Balio, Tino. Eisenstein. 21 May 2005.http://members.tripod.com/~afronord/eisen.html Browne, Nick. Eisenstein inAmerica: The First Phase. Emergences 12.2 (2002): 181-197. Encyclopedia:Propaganda Film.January 2005. 21 May 2005.. Figes, Orlando. The Russian Revolutionand Its Language in the Village. The Russian Review 56 (July 1997):323-345. Figes, Orlando. A Peoples Tragedy:The Russian Revolution 1891-1924. New York: Penguin Books. 1998. Forging the Shipof State: The Bolsheviks in Power. 21 May 2005.. Kenez, Peter. Jewish Themes in StalinistFilms. Journal of Popular Culture 31.2 Spring 1998: 159-169. October. Dirs. Sergei M. Eisenstein and Grigori Aleksandrov. WhiteStar, 1927. Reeves, Nicholas.The Power of Film Proaganda Myth or Reality? Historical Journal of Film,Radio Television 13.2 (1993). . Rosenstone, RobertA. October as History. Rethinking History 5:2 (2001): 255-274. Taylor, Richard.Russian and Soviet Cinema: Continuity and Change, Imperial War Museum,London, 17-19 July 1990. Historical Journal of Film, Radio Television 11.1 (1991). . Taylor, Richard.Soviet Cinema: The Path to Stalin. History Today July 1990: 43-48. The OctoberRevolution of 1917.21 May 2005. . Yangirov, Rashitand Taylor, Richard. Soviet Cinema in the Twenties: National Alternatives.Historical Journal of Film, Radio Television 11.2 (1991)..

The Awakening Essay -- essays research papers

The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, tells one woman’s story of her attempt to awaken to her true wants and desires for her life. When Edna Pontellier spends the summer on Grand Isle, she begins to think beyond the role of wife and mother that she has played so far. She begins to think of herself as a separate person with independent thoughts and feelings. Her transformation is difficult and she has great trouble deciding what she really wants in life. Edna attempts to discard all of the traditional values of her life to find her independence. Confused by the new feelings these experiences bring, Edna’s awakening is a failure because she does not have the necessary skills to become independent. Despite her attempts to change and embrace a new life, Edna is defeated because of her weaknesses that are symbolized in her art, the water, and her relationships with men.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  One of the first ways that Edna begins to find her inner self is through her painting. She definitely shows some talent as an artist and throws herself into this new self expression. She spends time painting rather than spending time with her husband, children and acquaintances from the past. Even as her artistic talents develop, art becomes a symbol of failure for Edna. Edna does learn to express herself and assert her self through her art. Even though Edna learns to live through her paintings, Madame Reize sees becoming an artist as a test. She believes that becoming an artist is a test of...

Main cause of the Pilgrimage of Grace was a widespread dislike of religious changes Essay

Do you agree with the view that the main cause of the Pilgrimage of Grace was a widespread dislike of religious changes? There were three main rebellions in Henry VIII’s reign as king; The Lincolnshire Rising, The Pilgrimage of Grace and Cumberland Rebellion. These rebellions were all connected because each one triggered off the next one. The three main factors that set off the rebellions were the economic state of the country, the political state and the religious activities at the time. There are evidences that support the view that the main cause of the Pilgrimage of Grace was a widespread dislike of religious changes. Source 6 states that â€Å"†¦ Pilgrimage of Grace was a reaction against the religious changes†. Everything about the rising was to do with religion, the banners that the rebels carried had the five wounds of Christ on it, and all the rebels had to take the pilgrims oath. Where they swore not to carry out violence and that the pilgrimage was all to do with God and not overthrowing the king. This is supported by the evidence in source 7 where it says â€Å"except for the love you bear to Almighty God†. The author for source 7 is Robert Aske, who led the Pilgrimage of Grace to defend the religious houses that were being closed and property seized by the king. This goes to show that religion seemed to be the main cause of the uprisings against the king; the evidence shows that the Pilgrimage of Grace was named due to religion. Source 6 also mentions â€Å"brought to the boil by the dissolution of the smaller monasteries†. The timing of the rebellions started when the smaller monasteries were closed down and while commissioners were in progress of shutting other ones. Many monks and clergymen were now starring at homelessness and unemployment and many felt that standing up to the kings new policy was all they could do-they had nothing left to lose. They didn’t have the skills in the fast paced world and no financial means to survive and were on poor pensions. However, the monks could easily gain the support of the local people as the monks had looked after them, and the fact that the monks would of most probably have come from the surrounding areas. Even though the monks could gain the support of the locals, many of them would join the rebellion as they would lose their place of worship and pray. Source 7 also mentioned â€Å"maintenance of the Holy Church† this suggests that people started to see that Henry VIII was moving away from the traditional Catholic methods and starting to take up protestant views. Robert Aske named this uprising using a religious name. This meant that many more people would join, as all the people in England didn’t agree with Henry VIII’s new religious policy. The audience for source 6 are for the general public most importantly history students however this source was written 400 years after the event and could be argued if the memory of the author is distorted or have the author done an extensive research. On the other hand, there are evidences in the sources to suggest that religion was not the main cause for the Pilgrimage of Grace. Source 8 mentions â€Å"involving many social elements† it can be inferred from source 8 that the rebellions wasn’t only focused on religious activities but also socio-economic factors. England at the time of the Lincolnshire Uprisings was in turmoil, especially in the north of the country. The successful resistance to the amicable grant had stopped the government, but the English people were now weary and didn’t hold complete support for the English government. The north had been in a poor economic situation for a long time, the economy wasn’t the biggest reason for the fights and rebellions, but it would have played a part. This is supported by evidence in source 6 where it states â€Å"those responsible to be punished† suggests religion wasn’t the only thing the rebels were fighting for. Source 8 also mentions â€Å"high taxes, enclosure, the statue of uses†¦.. † the harvest of 1535 had been terrible and 1536 had seen little improvement in the produce. Which then in turn lead to hunger and poverty. What also didn’t help was the introduction of an extra tax. This ‘new’ tax soon aroused suspicion as this use of premium income was only used at a time of conflict for the country. The government also introduced new policies which involved tax being paid to landowners and these caused landowners to cheat and charge extra amounts. This could have really frustrated the common people and might have pushed them or the force behind the Pilgrimage of Grace. Also the introduction of enclosures really affected large populated areas like York due to the shortage of land and this would have caused the people of the north to call for a rebellion. Moreover it can also be argued that there were political reasons for the outbreaks. This is caused due to Henry’s attempt to end his marriage with Catherine of Aragon. This was intensified because of Henry’s idea to centralised power, which meant excluding the north. Thomas Cromwell, who was no important noble family, carried out the centralising of the power to the south, was just a commoner turned king’s main advisor. Many people, especially in the north felt that Cromwell had no right to be advising the king. This is supported through evidence in source 7 where is says â€Å"†¦. bad counsel from his advisers†. In conclusion, it can be argued that most of the reasons for the outbreaks are religious based, but the risings started due to taxes, bad harvest, the introduction of protestant methods in church and the dissolution of the monasteries and the dislike for Cromwell and his new policies. These all surely added up to the triggering of the revolts. However, the amount of people that took part in the rebellion depended on the issue that they weren’t happy about. So for example if some people didn’t like the closing of the monasteries, they would have felt angry and frustrated enough to have to join the ‘Pilgrimage’. The fact the it was named the Pilgrimage of Grace seems to hint that Aske and others that started it only felt it was meant to be purely religious affair and that the other groups that joined in used as a front for their anger.

The Twelve Tables Of The Roman Empire - 940 Words

Ruby Driscoll Hickey Twelve Tables April 26, 2017 The Twelve Tables Though the Twelve Tables are not widely known, they played a large role in establishing the early Roman government. Not only were they the first set of written laws in the Roman empire, the Twelve tables bound the Plebeian and Patrician empires to the the same set of regulations. The Twelve Tables inspired other nations at the time to form an organized system and regions around the world still use the basic fundamentals of the laws. The Twelve Tables were first introduced to the Roman empire in 455 BC. The Plebeian and Patrician empires appointed a council of ten men to form a set of rules that bound their people. The council was called the Decemviri. Together, the†¦show more content†¦The fifth table says that any woman, whether or not maintained majority, should be in the custody of a man at all times. If the father and husband are deceased she will be in custody of her brother until remarried. The sixth table only contains one law which states when a property owner sells his land, the sell is binding and the land cannot be taken back by the original seller, unless repurchased a year after the buyer removes his previous crops. On the same tablet, table seven is found. Table seven states that if a tree from another land falls on your land, you are able to take legal action and cut it down, or harvest the fruit from the side of the tree that is on your property. If the fruit is not on your property, however, the owner of the tree is able to put you in debt until the fruit is returned or paid back for. Table seven also says that the roads should be paved by managers of the city and any unpaved roads are legal to drive on without regulation. Table eight gives rules on injury. If a man hits another free man and brakes his bone, he owes the man 300 coins. If the bone of a slave is broken, he owes them 50 coins. If the injury affects the man for the rest of his life, the price doubles. It also stated that if a man is killed at night while robbing a house, the man who killed him will not be prosecuted. The third law of the table states that any man who purposely destroys the foodShow MoreRelatedThe Roman Revolution1540 Words   |  7 Pagestheir own. Roman laws were mostly composed of assimilated rules and regulations from other cultures. The Twelve Tables allowed the republic to expand and be a model for future cultures. They were the best attempt at all-encompassing laws and rights, that were binding to every person in the republic, not just Roman citizens. As such, it broke down the barriers between the classes and rights of every individual, creating equality. The key to Roman law was The Twelve Tables, as they united R omans and allowedRead MoreThe Development Of The Roman Republic861 Words   |  4 PagesThe development of the Roman Republic is an overshadowed, yet important, piece of Roman civilization. When asked about Rome many only relish in the grand military expansions or grand virtues of the organized empire that was established. However, full of turmoil Rome was left to battle its own structural demons. Romans based their identities off of unwritten morals and beliefs established through tradition. The struggle within Rome is evident throughout the writings of Appian and Rigsby. The developmentRead MoreThe Twelve Tables Essay1457 Words   |  6 Pages The Twelve Tables were the first laws ever written down and shown to the public in Ancient Rome. The Twelve Tables were displayed in the Roman Forum or marketplace. The Twelve Tables were also the earliest surviving writings of Ancient Rome. When the founding fathers started to draw up the Constitution, they looked at Rome, and were inspired by The Twelve Tables to write the first laws of the United States. The Twelve Tables were not just the first written down laws in Ancient Rome. The TwelveRead MoreTechnological Advancements Of Ancient Rome1703 Words   |  7 PagesTaylor Mabry HIS 101-W06 Professor Terry May 22, 2016 Technological Innovations of Ancient Rome The Romans were extraordinary builders and professional civil engineers, and their flourishing civilization formed developments in technology, culture and architecture that endured for centuries. Ancient Rome had several qualities that made their civilization successful but most importantly through the advancements of technology and innovations that flourished throughout the ages that are still usedRead MoreThe Most Successful Empire: the Roman or the Mongol? Essay1259 Words   |  6 PagesThe Roman Empire lasted from 201 BC to 476 AD and conquered many lands bordering them, including Mediterranean and covered all of western Europe and half of Britain. On the other hand, the Mongol empire lasted from 1206 AD to 1386 AD and conquered much of Russia, Islam, and many of the Slavic peoples. Their conquests were swift and brutal, often leaving thousands dead behind them and successfully becoming the civilization who had conquered the most land. Although both of the two empires were h ighlyRead MoreThe Roman Republic And Its Political Impact On Our Government925 Words   |  4 PagesThe Roman Republic and Its Political Impact to Our Government Have you ever taken a moment to think about the roots of our government? Since the beginning of civilization, humans have had an impulse to form governments. It is an experiment thousands of years in the making. Governments were created out of the need to protect people from conflicts and to provide law and order. The question then arises; who did America model its government after? Many historians say that America followed in the footstepsRead MoreLegal Developments in Western Civilization836 Words   |  3 Pagesnotable achievements in legal development. As empires rise and expand, it becomes necessary to create a legal code that standardizes punishment, institutes a form of common law, and protects society from arbitrary abuses of power. These principles were formally established relatively early in the western world, and became the foundations upon which later government institutions created their legal systems. The Code of Hammurabi, the Twelve Tables, and Magna Carta, all r epresent key moments inRead MoreEtruscan Culture, Architecture, Art, And Religion936 Words   |  4 Pageshad on early Roman history. Site a minimum of four examples. The Etruscans and Greeks influenced the Romans in many ways. Some examples of these influences can be seen in entertainment, religion, architecture and politics. The Romans had the gladiatorial sports for entertainment while the Etruscans also had a sport of gladiatorial fighting. The religion of Romans was a polytheistic one, which means they believed in many Gods like the Greeks did, the only difference is that the Romans changed the GodsRead More Roman Empire Innovations Essay1583 Words   |  7 PagesRomans found new societal and technological innovations which led their empire to be a sustainable society. These innovations helped the Roman Empire to be successful and peaceful. They aided in making everyone content, including the conquered and prevented wars from breaking out within the empire. Technological innovations helped the citizens live a comfortable and healthy life. New innovations included new beneficial laws. The last king of Rome was Tarquin the Proud. A harsh tyrant, he was drivenRead MoreEssay on The Roman and Grecian Effects on Society1261 Words   |  6 Pagesin today’s society that reflect empires from early in human history. Much influence can be found from the Roman and Grecian empires, more than from any other sources. The basic forming of our own government can be traced back to the ideals that formed the Roman and Greek governments, paying attention their strengths and also to what caused the demise of those societies as well. (teachergenius.teachtci.com) Let us examine the Roman influences and facts first. Roman Governmental Influence: There was