Polybius concludes that “all existing things are subject to decay; it is a proposition which hardly needs proof, since the inexorable course of nature is enough to impose it on us” (The Rise of the Roman Empire, VI 57). He believes that a progressive succession of constitutions promotes political stability in the Roman state. Contrary to Polybius's theory, Livy's account of the origins of monarchy and republic demonstrates that a nation's political changes are truly unpredictable. In The Rise of Rome, Livy shows that political revolutions change social and moral behaviors of the res publica. His exemplary stories do not support Polybius' belief that political changes are destined. Rather than focusing on the natural and gradual succession of government, Livy immortalizes specific historical events to emphasize the importance of moral values. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Before we examine the differences between Livy and Polybius, we must recognize their commonalities in writing the history of Rome. Their ultimate goal is to explain how Rome reached its current status and to view Rome's emergence as a dominant world power as an unprecedented event throughout history. Polybius shows how Rome "possesses irresistible power to achieve whatever goal it sets for itself" (VI. 18), and Livy wants to "celebrate...the history of the greatest nation in the world » (The Rise of Rome, preface). By documenting Rome's political progression, they reveal that a well-functioning government was the key to Rome's success and superiority. Polybius' logical explanation of the various forms of states and Livy's vast monumentum give their audience a coherent idea of ​​human activities in history. Nonetheless, they diverge in their methodologies and beliefs about the motivating factors behind policy changes. Compared to Livy's stories, Polybius's cycle of natural changes in types of government oversimplifies Rome's political turmoil. Polybius believes that mob rule inevitably eliminates the aristocracy. Livy, however, attributes the rape of Lucretia as the single fundamental event that triggered the dawn of the republic (I. 59). In a democracy, Polybius suggests that "the people dare not install a new king, because they are still terrorized by the injustices committed by previous monarchs" (The Rise of the Roman Empire, VI. 9). Livy's account contradicts this claim because most people were unprepared for a radical change of government despite Brutus's efforts. The senators of Rome even feared that “the plebs, in their terror, would accept the monarchical regime” (The Rise of Rome, II. 9). In addition to offering dramatic stories to explain political changes, Livy wrote with a strong bias not found in Polybius' impartial theory. Although his theory can be applied universally, Livy focuses on changes led solely by the Romans. Livy embodies a degree of obsession with Rome's monumental achievements that is not consistent with Polybius' neutral tone in presenting his theory. Livy emphasizes the achievements of the strong and often ignores the plight of the masses. It views ordinary citizens as minor players in the management of the state and as having little political ambition. According to Dr. Natalia King, "Livy's use of examples highlights the potential of actionsindividuals to bring about real changes in the civic sphere.” It focuses on military events and notable figures: kings, military dictators and senators. He writes a grandiose account of the military strength and brilliant leadership of selected individuals. It documents the move from monarchy to republic as a transition of power among elite members of Roman society. For example, at the beginning of the republic, "not only were members of the royal family who bore the name Tarquin present in the state, but they were even heads of state" (II.2). The end result was nothing other than the concentration of power in the hands of the aristocrats under the name of republic. Therefore, Livy's account, with its inherent bias in favor of the strong, is incompatible with Polybius' theory. Not only does he pay more attention to powerful men, but Livy also preserves individual achievements and failures while Polybius's cycle of change overshadows them. Polybius seeks universal guiding principles for political change. His theory of cyclical governments attempts to describe a general model of causality to show "by what means and under what political institutions almost the entire world fell under the domination of a single power, that of Rome" (The Rise of the Roman Empire, VI). .2). It does not focus on specific people who brought about radical changes in Rome. On the other hand, Livy immortalizes remarkable episodes to illustrate Roman virtues. He recites the honorable deeds of influential leaders to emphasize the perpetuity of Rome. Livy includes a memorable speech by Camillus, who describes Rome as "the place where once the discovery of a human head was taken as a sign that this place marked what would be the center of the empire and the head of the world » (The Rise of Rome, V. 54). For Livy, Rome did not undergo natural evolution and decline. He believes that an ambitious leader must encourage a large part of society to act. Livy recognizes human activities as agents of political change rather than the natural progression of state constitutions. Livy would certainly not agree with the idea that “the second [internal evolution] continues a regular sequence” (The Rise of the Roman Empire, VI. 57). Until the economic burdens and social responsibilities of the people reach a certain threshold, natural revolutions and changes of government, as Polybius describes, will not occur. In Livy's story, the origins of the monarchy and the republic involve a delicate power struggle between two antagonistic parties: the rulers against the emerging ambitious class. Each party developed methods to gain the support and loyalty of the plebeians. Kings built religious monuments and adopted symbols of power to ally themselves with the gods. For example, Numa invented a goddess because “he could not convince them [people] without a miraculous fiction” (The Rise of Rome, I. 19). Through these practices, the ruling class created an aura of reality to brainwash the plebeians into believing that the rulers were inherently deserving of their status quo. However, under the influence of a competent leader with a persuasive speech, the plebeians gained hope and desire to improve their living conditions. Brutus's sentimental speech, for example, "moved his hearers to such a degree of fury that they revoked the king's power and ordered the exile of Lucius Tarquinius" (I. 59). In his accounts of the origins of the monarchy and the republic, Livy highlights distinct conflicts, which generally involved.