Assessment of Livy’s “the History of Rome”

This essay will attempt to explain the motives that have led to the rise and fall of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the late second century B.C. Although very few sources remain of these accounts, which are based mainly on works of the historians Appian and Plutarch, the Gracchi have been the subject of study by several scholars. If on the one hand earlier historians tend to represent them as heroes and revolutionaries, on the other, more recent ones have regarded them as two controversial figures which were politically motivated by personal gains. They proposed and passed a series of legislations and the most controversial one is the agrarian law about the redistribution of the land. It can be argued that their motives have been certainly and thoroughly selfless for the good of the people of Rome in the specific period of history which spans from 133 B.C to 121 B.C. On the contrary, as it will be explained below, their methods have not always been ‘orthodox’. There could be three main areas that will help this essay to conclude if they were truly heroes of the people or political opportunists; the first is to evaluate what their true motives were, the second is to assess if there was an agrarian crisis and the third to establish who the beneficiaries of their legislations were. Overall, as all political figures, the Gracchi have to be taken in the context of the specific roman society of their time.

2)”One view of Augustus went like this: filial duty and national crisis had been merely pretexts...After that, there had certainly been peace, but it was a bloodstained peace”-Tacitus, Annals

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

Tacitus, Suetonius and Plutarch, although major historians of their time, were not completely reliable and (now we realise) their works contained bias, mainly a result of upon the writers personal opinion and beliefs. Another cause of bias within primary text was the influence of the Roman elite hierarchy upon the contemporary writers of the time. Plutarch himself admitted this in many statements and claimed to not be a historian but a biographer. Plutarch regarded biography as a different class of writing, and his primary goal was to entertain the audience, as opposed to informing them. He did this by writing only what the reader wanted to read rather than the actual event that had taken place. This is the number one reason why much of ancient Roman sources are unreliable, and biased.

The Flames of Rome by Paul Maier is a documentary-fiction that has not only brought to life the evolution of Christianity in Rome but has also painted a clear picture of what it was like to live in Rome at the time. Understanding the Roman’s way of life and reasoning behind their actions plays a major role in the reasoning for Maier writing this book. The Flames of Rome is equivalent to reading a textbook but Maier makes it much more enjoyable and intriguing by adding plausible details of his own. Maier’s portrayal of the death of Claudius Caesar, in chapter nine of the novel, closely follows the primary sources of Tacitus and Suetonius but also loosely follows that of the secondary sources. It is important to compare Maier’s version to other

Throughout time, there will continue to be a considerable divorce between academic and popular historians. As Margaret Conrad argues, popular historians have established the tension, by recreating “historical films without the involvement of trained historians”. This underscores the troubling gulf that sometimes separates public academics approaches to the past. Academic historians have been “too long focused” on professionalism, and discarded “generating” a “dialogue” (Conrad) with their contextual audiences. The substantial dissolution between academic and popular historians is evident in a range of sources, essentially from Michelle Arrows to Herodotus and Thucydides to Bury.

Herodotus' writes his Histories for Greeks. Specifically for Greeks living in Herodotus' own time. The statement of purpose which begins the work seems to contradict this hypothesis. Herodotus claims to wish to "prevent the traces of human events from being erased by time, and to preserve the fame of the important and remarkable achievements…" [Herodotus, 1.0]. The underlying assumption here is that the author is preserving these events and achievements for future generations and perhaps even future civilizations. The text however does not does not follow these guidelines. Herodotus assumes that his reader will have certain amount of common knowledge.

In this essay I will summarize Julia Hejduk's argument that she lays out in her article, “Jupiter’s Aeneid: Fama and Imperium”. This essay will summarize the argument Hejduk makes in her work, catalogue her evidentiary archive including the secondary and primary sources she utilizes, as well as describe the fit between her argument and the evidence she employs, and discuss her disciplinary identity, including her training, previous works and how she fits into her discourse community. I am doing this to connect what the author asserts about Virgil's Jupiter to what this means in terms of Virgil's opinions on Augustus and the Roman Empire.

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.

Livy’s description of Romulus as a man with exemplary strength and military prowess helps solidify his position as a truly great Roman.

Herodotus marked a new way of recording and interpreting history: conducting research. He recorded what he saw, heard, and experienced as he traveled around places like the Mediterranean Sea, the Black Sea, and as far up as Babylon. He went on expeditions and encountered much of his information through in person exchange, an accomplishment surely to be considered great. Martin believes Herodotus explored an extensive amount of history and peoples and showcased a spectrum of topics like “war, politics, religion, commerce, geography, climate, ethnography, and individual human motivations” (Martin 7). In his writings called The Histories, Herodotus begins with The Story of Croesus and

The Civil War, consisting in large part of Caesar’s own account of the conflict between himself and Pompey, explores the origins of the war, the manner in which it was carried out, and most importantly the role of pivotal figures on both sides of the struggle. Prior to his records ending and supplementation by military officers, Caesar makes a case for his involvement in and perhaps triggering of the war, one which would transform the social and political landscape of the Roman empire as battles and campaigns were waged from Spain to Italy, Africa to Asia Minor. Caesar walks a fine line between historian, strategist and orator as he attempts to record historical events, martial decisions, and persuade an audience respectively. Despite his efforts to remain impartial, as evidenced by his admission that “the Pompeians were winning” at Dyrrachium, Caesar consistently presents himself as a charismatic and skilled general and leader, jeopardizing the integrity of the text as objective material and allowing it to be a propagandist account of sorts. Ultimately, Caesar uses anecdotal evidence, the presentation of his personal thoughts, and juxtaposition with his opposition to paint his side of the war in a positive and just light.

Before Augustus came to power, Civil war had ravished the basic principle of the Roman people. Piety, the warning to “fulfil our duties towards our country, our parents, or others connected with us by ties of blood” was undermined by faction. The duty towards country, parents and relatives was less of a bond because faction determined duty rather that Pietas. Thus Rome, a city founded in pietas, was that foundational principle. internal faction undermined the principles of pietas and corrupted its role in the city. Rome needed a moral reform towards pietas; Rome needed a refocus on the roots of the empire, its duty towards its ancestors, and unity based in pietas. Commissioned by Augustus, Virgil constructs the Aeneid so that it portrays the cruciality of pietas by redefining Greek epic heroism to include pietas. Each comparason of aeneas to another greek hero emphasises the pietas within him, showing how he is better because of it and combining the heroism of all the Greek heroes into Aeneas. By doing this, virgil shows that to unify Rome through pietas is to harness Rome’s power. Thus, Virgil reveals to the Romans a virtue which allows the individual Roman citizen embody and partake in the glory of Rome.

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 the discourse of literature, every tale presents a story with a hero. When it comes to culture, the author displays a heroic character as someone who demonstrates ideal characteristics that are based on the story’s historical background. These ideal attributes can include heroism, honesty, selflessness, and confidence. From Virgil’s tale of The Aeneid, Aeneas is portrayed as the protagonist and hero of the tale. Within this story, Virgil shows how the Roman culture is valued through Aeneas’s actions of heroism. His example of presenting the value of Roman culture to the reader is by illustrating the concept of romanitas. In the Roman culture, romanitas can be expressed in Latin as “roman-ness.” Though it is known to be a combination of