SamplesHistoryEmpires of AristotleBuy essay
← Mary Wollstonecraft's IdeasArmy Values and Its Violations →

Custom Empires of Aristotle Essay

In the development of his work, Aristotle makes a comparison of different empires by introducing criteria of the number of rulers such as one, few or many as well as the nature of political regime such as good or corrupt. As a result, six different types of empires were developed by Aristotle. These include monarchy, aristocracy and polity that are considered good types of empires. Other types include tyranny, oligarchy and democracy that are considered bad ones. It has been argued that there is a number of advantages and disadvantages that come with the type of empire in practice. This affects the level of benefits of the people as well as the level of peace in an empire. Benefits and disadvantages are associated with the types of empires that Aristotle discusses in his classification of empires. This paper provides a discussion of those pros and cons. It also provides the argument whether these forms of rule would be suitable for the administration of the Roman Empire (Noble 56).

Pros of different Empires in Aristotle’s Politics. The major pros of a political monarchy are that the head of state is separated from head of government. It has also been noted that there exists a great relationship between the leader and the people if the leader is a monarch. This is because people see the Royal Family as any family they can relate to. The other pro is that this form of leadership ensures the interest of the nation is placed first in preference to other considerations. It is also a form of government that represents centuries of history and tradition. It is also considered a tourist attraction due to its archaic nature and tourists usually come to see the working palaces. This type of empire would have been successful in the Roman Empire during the reign of Diocletian which started in AD 284. Since the monarch divided the empire into two it would have ensured loyalty to the monarch from the eastern and the western empires. This would ensure cases of disagreements and rebellion against the monarch are prevented.

Aristocracy, on the other hand is a form of rule which ensures the best rules. There are certain pros associated with this form of rule. The main one is that it ensures the best people who can rule the country are given the authority to do so if the present leadership is hereditary. This ensures the country is ruled by correct people in the correct direction. This form of rule would have been successful in the Roman Empire that had various problems such as attacks from Vandals in AD 455. This led to the removal of the Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustus from power by the Odovacar, leader of the Goths. This is what resulted in the end of the Roman Empire. The selection of the right leader would ensure he puts the right defensive measures that ensure the people are protected. This would have contributed to continued existence of the Roman Empire.

Tyranny can also be considered to have certain pros with respect to the Roman Empire. This is because every person is allowed to act in a manner that he wants without considering ethics. It allows the society to run free by assuming control irrespective to the nature of the control. The conduct of this control is under the influence of the tyrant.  This form of leadership would have brought certain level of success in the Roman Empire due to rebellious nature of a number of provinces. This form of rule would ensure that the army is put in control in all the provinces. The armies in the Roman Empire had different ideas concerning the ways in which they wanted to be ruled. This was mainly experienced when one part of the army succeeded to put its own man in the position of an emperor. A number of rebellious reactions were experienced from other armies which weakened the rule.  For instance, between AD 211 and AD 284, there were a total of twenty-three soldier empires and twenty of them were killed by opposing armies. As a result, only the implementation of tyrannical rules could succeed in bringing peace to the empire (Zarrilli 56).

Democracy is a state where leaders are chosen by the majority based on existing laws that are approved by the public. One of the pros of this form of rule is that it ensures the electorate is informed and election of a leader is based on the belief in the ability of a leader by the people. It also ensures the decision of the majority is considered by giving each individual the power to vote. It also ensures re-election of these leaders is done after a certain period to determine the contentment of the people with the leaders. This form of leadership would have been successful in the Roman Empire where various sections of the armies were in disagreement regarding the emperor they preferred. By implementing democracy, it would ensure that both sections of the armies elect leaders whom they all trusted and wanted them to rule. This would have brought unity and reduced cases of rebellion.

Cons of different Empires in Aristotle’s Politics. The major drawback with monarch is that the position of the head of state is not an elective one and this undermines democracy (Matthews 45). He or she is born in a royal family and has to spend the rest of his life in the public while not having authorities to make decisions which affect the public. It is also a situation where hereditary is not associated with intelligence as it is possible to have both completely idiotic monarch as well as well-read monarchs. This form of leadership would not have been successful in the Roman Empire where there were many problems regarding administration and location of central administrative boundaries. If a monarch comes from a less intelligent background, he could not make decisions such as allocation of military defenses in various areas of the empire. This would have been particularly a problem during the reign of Diocletian who had to make decisions such as minting of coins and increment of taxes to cater for payment of defense forces and had to bear the responsibility for the discontentment of the Romans.

The con of aristocracy is that people do not have the right to decide who rules the government. The best leaders are appointed by the current government based on their interpretation. This could lead to inaccurate interpretation of the best leaders. In addition, it results into the idea that only a certain type of people is able to lead the government. The people in the lower classes are not given the chance to rule or have the opportunity to lead or join the government despite the possibility of having moral intelligence of the right level.  As a result, government loses a number of talented leaders and the country is led to destruction. This from of rule would not have been successful since it ensures only people in the upper class are selected in leadership position. This is a factor the led to autonomous form of leadership in the provinces of the Roman Empire. The basic units of government are ensured to be within city states, within the empire. This results into lack of understanding of the problems being faced by lower class citizens and the address of their problems.

The con of tyranny is that it is concerned with maintenance of power rather than concern for the welfare of the nation. In addition, despite being elected into power, once a tyrant assumes power, he does not necessarily need to be pleasing to the people. This results into a very unstable form of government as a result of rebellious acts from the people. This form of rule would not have been successful in the Roman Empire since the people required utmost loyalty of their leaders and needed their problems to be addressed. It would have led to many cases of rebellious actions of the people in the provinces. This is witnessed in the difficulties faced by the monarchs in their attempt to unite the people and address their problems by employing defense forces and charging reasonable taxes.

Critics of democracy argue that it is possible to influence the public to vote for a particular candidate particularly with the current improvement of media activities, influencing voter decisions and beliefs. In addition, voters usually vote for a candidate that would bring benefits to them. Thus this form of rule would not be efficient in the Roman Empire since it would have resulted into the people opting to vote for their people. Thus, divisions would still continue.

Code: Sample20

Related essays

  1. Army Values and Its Violations
  2. Human Nature and War
  3. Mary Wollstonecraft's Ideas
  4. Losses and Wins of the Battle of Sexes
X
 
On your first order you will receive 15% discount
Order now PRICES from $12.99/page ×
call-back-button
live-chat-button
Live chat