Comparisons of the Histories of Livy and Tacitus:

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.

The Roman Empire is Europe’s great creation myth. The great Mediterranean empire has left a great legacy of culture, language, conquest, art, and science in Europe and beyond. But everything decays with time, especially memory. Our archeological and historical understanding of the Roman Empire is limited. These gaps in knowledge, combined with popular misconceptions relating to culture, politics, race, technology, politics, and religion from the period, mean that any “period” piece is bound to be historically inaccurate.

Tacitus also shows distrust towards Augustus in his exiling and killing of anyone deemed to be a political enemy – a taste which her masterfully called the proscriptions, and advertised to the public as a

Tacitus believes that Roman Imperialism has a variety of attributes that include prosperity, cruelty, and jealousy. He is more so critical of conquests attempted by people he does not favor. Tacitus is a great source of the Roman imperialist results as he lived through emperor’s who were thought to be effective and others who were unsatisfactory to say the least. He favored the Trajanic regime that he was serving under while criticized Domitian’s reign undoubtedly. Overall, his opinion on imperial rule was mostly negative since it promoted the corruption of the ruler and the ruled, increased secrecy, paranoia, cruelty and moral downgrades in the emperors, and an increase in greed, hypocrisy, and cowardice in the subjects. While he talks

The purpose of this research paper is to analyze the Roman Empire and the culture within that civilization from 43-306 C.E. Centrally located in the Mediterranean lies Italy, one of the three great peninsulas that can be seen from the south of Europe. The Roman Empire and its civilization has always been one to be admired by people and leaders all around the world. When the thought of this illustrious empire comes to an individual’s mind, one might assume that they may think of the great Julius Caesar and his tragic death, Marc Antony and Cleopatra, or even the great philosophers that flourished during this time. Thousands of years later the romans are still being praised for their advances in the sciences, philosophy, and government.

“Romulus shrunk from a direct attack with his body of shepherds, for he was no match for the king in open fight” (Livy). Rather than attack the king on equal terms, Romulus gains control of the city by sneaking up on the king and assassinating him. Romulus then gains power over their newly created settlement by killing Remus, not because he was justly aggravated but rather, he killed Remus in a fit of rage. To the Romans, doing something like this would have been seen as dishonorable. However, Livy does not try to shelter this view from the reader, because he knows it was the only way Romulus could have seized enough power to begin his own

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.

Cincinnatus was chosen to be dictator of Rome in 457 B.C.E. Cincinnatus was chosen to defend Rome from attacks, especially from the attacks of the Aequi. Dictator was a position for short-term immoral methods used in emergencies. “There is no better account of how virtues of duty and simplicity enabled good Roman citizens to prevail during the travails of the fifth century B.C.E. than Livy’s Account of Cincinnatus.” (Spielvogel p.118). The values that Livy emphasized in his account of Cincinnatus was that power does not always require money. Cincinnatus had a great amount of power and used his power to help the roman citizens by fulfilling his duty of defeating the Aequi. “Now I would solicit the particular attention of those numerous people who imagine that money is everything in this world, and that rank and ability are inseparable from wealth : let them observe that Cincinnatus, the one man in whom Rome reposed all her hope of survival, was at that moment

Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in

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.

Based on the readings Romulus was able to add to the success of Rome with many attribution. He created a larger city, which had very few people. This led to more and more people to be invited to live there. Romulus soon created an organized city. By turning attention to the balancing of strength and policy Romulus created one hundred senators. Overtime Romulus continued to help the city prosper including increasing the Roman power, he also made attempts to set up many alliances. Livy characterized Romulus as greatness. Livy seems to be pulling the readers away from Romulus’s most common description “he killed his brother”, and toward the lesson and political aspects.

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.

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.

Abstract: In this paper I attempt to admire the spectator’s experience while viewing the Arch of Titus, and bring to the forefront why I find the Arch of Trajan to be underappreciated. I will compare the two by first analyzing the meaning of the Arch of Titus, and then analyzing and summarizing the Arch of Trajan. The source I used for the Arch of Trajan may be among the outliers of most scholars, but I find that I agree with their analysis of the arch in that it was not simply a list of Trajan’s accomplishments, but rather outcomes of his famed policy, unrightfully credited to Nerva, of alimenta.

With that same courage Tacitus begins to write the eulogy of his father-in-law Agricola. He speaks on his historical family background and the personal achievements he accomplished while still alive. Tacitus close relationship with his father-in-law allows him to give not only an account of Agricola’s conquered over Britain but he is able to give a personal account about his character as well. Tacitus admired his father-in-law because of his genuine and honest character, Agricola stood out to him to be a noble man unlike the rest of the military commander in the Roman Empire. Tacitus continues to praise Agricola for his noble character and mentioned he “…succeeded