Were The Gracchi Demagogues Or Heroes?

The reforms of the Gracchi, that helped the lower classes and those with no wealth, were most controversial as what was given was taken from the richest individuals or members of the senate. Originally designed by Tiberius, the land bill, would mean that no individual could own more than 1000 iugera (Each iugera is approximately 505.86m2). This angered members of the senate and rich aristocracy as most of them owned expanses many times greater than that amount after recent wars and expansions. It is also known that Gaius introduced two other very significant bills before his death. Livy writes about all three and states that Gaius “…carried several dangerous laws, among which was one on the supply of grain, which was to be sold for six and one-third asses to the plebs; a land bill like that of his brother; and a third law, aimed at corrupting the

Compare the following descriptions of Augustus’ rise to power, one by Augustus himself and one by Tacitus (the second-century historian), and discuss their historical validity.

Roman’s had an idealised view of what their politicians should be. From their ancestry to their attributes. In this essay I shall be looking at Gaius Marius. How did he live up to the Roman ideals? What are those ideals? I shall a number of these ideals one by one. But first I shall discuss what ideals the Romans have and why.

In this paper, I will discuss the historic events of a Roman coup as written by Gaius Sallustius also known as Sallust. Early Rome, according to Sallust’s best knowledge, was built by two groups of people, exiled Trojan soldiers under Aeneas and native aborigines without government or law. For a time after the founding of this settlement, they prospered and no ill intents of human nature toward another were found. As the city continued to grow in wealth, size, and number it was soon the envy of neighboring kingdoms who were wrought with greed. The Romans having held ground and won these neighboring kingdoms through battle, established a city founded on monarchy law and created allies with nearby kingdoms. After the seed of tyrannical rule was developed Rome changed government and appointed two rulers with annual power, the king and the senate. Now as Rome was under new command of the usurper Sulla the Roman army, for the first time, indulged in women, drink, material wealth, and riches. Now these plagues of sin have taken hold of young romans and continued their destructive paths to conquer the minds of all Rome. This was the setting for Sallust’s history about the

This investigation evaluates the question, to what extent did Julius Caesar 's assassination affect Rome, politically and socially. Gaius Julius Caesar, famously known for his brilliant military strategies and shrewd political expertise, helped transform the Roman Republic into one of the greatest civilization in the western world. During his reign, Julius Ceasar expanded Rome’s geographical territory across Ancient Europe immensely, conquering areas of present-day France and Britain. The investigation will primarily focus on the political opportunities created by Caesar 's death, as well as the public reaction, from the immediate ramifications to its long-term effect on the Roman government. Effects in foreign and other civilizations not directly involved with Roman affairs or within Rome will not included in the investigation. Sources for the investigation will include The Emperors of Rome by David Potter and the Ancient History Encyclopedia .

In The Assassination of Julius Caesar, Michael Parenti highlights the many significant people and events that characterized the late Roman Republic. Specifically, he focuses on the time period between the election of Tiberius Grachus, to the rise of Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. In this account of history, Parenti presents the social, political, and economic aspects of the Roman culture from the perspective of the Roman commoner, or plebeian. Using this perspective, he also spends a great amount of time examining the causes and effects of the assassination of Julius Caesar. The views that Parenti presents in this book stand in sharp contrast with the views of many ancient and modern historians, and offer an interesting and enlightening perspective into class struggle in the society of the Roman republic.

This new republic was plagued by tension arising from the class differences of the patricians and plebeians. The Gracchi brothers attempted to equalize things, Gaius Gracchus proposed a redistribution of farm land that would benefit the plebeians. The end result was rather unfortunate as he was killed; his other brother was also killed ten years later for similar reasons.

In Mary Beard’s book, The Roman Triumph, she explores one of the most interesting victory celebrations of the ancient world. Instead of having a small gathering, or even a raucous party, Romans brought what they had seized and carted it through the city. They even brought some people they had captured so that the crowd could know exactly who they triumphed against. This celebration gives historians a view into the Romans lifestyle. Roman triumphs also show what values were important to the Romans and where they found their significance. Using Mary Beard’s book I will demonstrate the nature of Roman triumphs by giving examples from Pompey’s triumph in 61BC, what these triumphs tell historians about the Roman world and why they are significant, and what they tell us about the values the Romans held dear.

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

The language of Roman rule and power can be disputed endlessly, much like all else when trying to study ancient history. This is primarily a result of a multitude of interpretations that can be inferred from primary sources, which also tend to be biased, that we have available to us. Examining a source that is written from an individual’s perspective, and they trying draw conclusions about varying aspects of a certain society is especially tough and extremely subjective. Nonetheless, history remains an important field of study and reaps many benefits.

Chalking up the fall of the Roman Republic to a decline in traditional Roman morality, while not false, sells the events and changes that were the causes for the fall of the Republic short. At the end of The Third Punic War with Carthage we arguably see the Republic at its height. However in only a decade things begin to change, we see events that send Rome as a Republic past a point that Rome could not recover. Gaius Marius’s military reforms, specifically that of allowing for the captive cencsi, men who owned no property, and the creation of professional soldiers is the true catalyst for the downfall of the Republic. By enacting these reforms Marius opened up military duty to Rome’s largest group of citizens, however it created unforeseen issues, such as what to do with these men once they returned from battle. These reforms opened the door for military generals like Sulla and Caesar to gain the unquestioned support of their troops, in many instances gaining more respect from the soldiers then they had for the Roman state itself. These military reforms are a constant through line through the fall of the Republic, touching large political issues such as the conflicts between the Populares and the Optimates, or the rise of The First Triumvirate; socioeconomic issues such as the rise of Roman aristocracy, development of a slave based agriculture system to the profits from war. The complexity in which these reforms help lead to this immoral Roman state is complex and has been

Many anthropologists and historians have speculated about the different causes and effects of the fall of the Roman Empire. Some have even stated that Rome did not fall but instead, was merely transformed. However, there were many causes that did end this prodigious empire. Many seemingly small decisions made by powerful emperors over the course of just over a century lead to its destruction. In this paper it will be established that the Roman emperors, in an effort to save their political power, made adjustments to warfare/treaty practices and made political changes which over time lead to the inevitable collapse of the realm, this caused a drastic regression in the living standards of the Roman citizens, implying that the Empire did indeed collapse and not transform.

Tiberius Gracchus and Cicero were two men who were both concerned with wellness of the citizens of Rome; however, they had different opinions on the best way to achieve political advancements. Throughout the different generations of the two men, the same issues plagued Rome, and throughout their lifetimes the separate factions of the senate became more polarized as they continued to disagree about the fate of Rome. Cicero wrote letters to his friends and family which today offer great primary information about what it was like in Rome during the late republic. In our virtual reality game, Saeculum, I get firsthand insight into the issues that plagued Rome when my clients come to me with the issues of land, food, and water. I am tasked with

The first section of this piece will attempt to explore the conflicts that occurred between the aristocrats and the peasants in Solon’s Athens on the basis of land and slavery, and the solutions that Solon posed in the form of laws, as well as the effects that they had on the citizens of the time. There were city of Athens was divided into three parts; there was the Hill, the Plain, and the Shore (Plutarch: Solon, 54). Each division contained it’s own people with different political views. The Hill supported an extreme democracy, whereas the Plain supported an extreme oligarchy, and the Shore wanted a government that wasn’t quite an oligarchy, and wasn’t quite a democracy. The Shore wanted a government that was modeled after, and was a mix of both democracy and oligarchy (Plutarch: Solon 54). The presence of this third party made it very difficult for either extreme party to rise above the other (Plutarch: Solon 54). The land quality of the peasants was very poor and it was located in the barren part of the city, however the rich owned vast amounts of good quality land (Trumbach). It was very common to find peasants in debt to the aristocrats because of their bad quality land. Many times, commoners would cultivate on the land owned by the aristocrats, and pay them one-sixth of the produce that was harvested (Plutarch: Solon, 54). It was also apparent that peasants would use themselves as collateral, and were often seized as debt slaves by their

The accounts of emperor Tiberius’ reign by both Suetonius and Tacitus have qualities that serve to show how differing authors viewed Tiberius in various flattering and unappealing ways by their personal reasoning and desire to preserve truth as much as possible in scope of their respective intentions to provide scholars with treatments of him that give a through picture of his traits, strengths and weaknesses. Overall, by examining both accounts of Tiberius’ reign, readers are able to form independent judgement of Tiberius and if each description is biased beyond any semblance of objectively. Overall Suetonius and Tacitus leaves books that differ in style and accuracy but both do indeed want the residing public to understand the true