Social Struggle In The Gracchi

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.

Despite being an immediate bestseller, shortly after publishing, Edward Gibbon’s History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire became unpopular with large groups of the British reading public. The abridged edition consecutively presents the stories behind the Empire’s leadership and course of action. Gibbon revivifies the complex and compelling period of the Romans by detailing the prosperous conditions of the empire, the decline, and the aftermath of the fall. At the same time, Gibbon efficiently scrutinizes the declining virtue of the Roman people. Gibbon made an argument that the intellectual inflexibility of the Roman Empire had declined into “barbarism” and “Christianity,” which ultimately attributed to the fall of the Empire.

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

Events which stretch as far back as the reforms of the Gracchi brothers’ meant that the Rome was facing a Republic that was already deteriorating before Pompey had stepped into power. While Pompey’s quest for power was harmful, many other factors were also baleful to the Republic, and were hence instrumental in its decline. Gnaeus Pompeius’s measures to gain power were harmful because it was primarily a paradox to the principles of being part of a Republic with all its notions of shared and short power. The fundamental reason why there were other reasons for the decline of the system are that the military power was given to him, the already weak Senate, and the fact that Pompey was not the only player in the breakdown of the Republic due

The fall of the Roman Republic was caused by the expansion of Rome, and it’s class tension, the ruling of Julius Caesar, and all things that followed Julius Caesar’s

Arguably the greatest contribution to the eventual downfall of the Roman Republic was the institution of Gaius Marius' popular, yet dangerous reforms, and his repeated usage of questionable political tactics to achieve his underlying personal goals. By undermining the power of the senate through illegal political conduct, and by introducing reforms that created the open potential for abuse of military power, Marius paved the way for future military monarchies, civil conflict and the eventual downfall and segregation of the Roman Republic.

Before the collapse of the Republic, Sulla, a roman patrician, declared himself dictator and used proscription lists, a list of people posted in the forum who were declared enemies of the state, to maintain his power. This example shows how lust for power was inherent and already destructive in the Republic, prior to its collapse. Similar to lust for power, greed could be found within the Republic before its collapse. For example, patricians, aristocrats, would buy farmland from plebeians who were serving in the army, and they used the land to increase their wealth. Lastly, loyalty was viewed as an important aspect of the Republic, specifically loyalty to politicians, family, and the Republic’s beliefs. Most Roman households had some allegiance to a certain politician and would support that politician despite their own personal beliefs. These three ideals of the Republic were established and followed long before the collapse of the Republic, and all three grew into destructive forces that caused the collapse of the

Rome was a highly hierarchical and class-conscious society; yet, since its power extended for centuries, the distinction between different classes varied in time. In the Roman kingdom and the early Roman Republic, the most important division in Roman society was between the Patricians and the Plebeians. The struggle for power between these two classes resulted in the development of the Roman system of government (McManus, 1997).

It is clear that the dynamics that characterized Rome’s society during the Republic were never easy. There was a constant push and pull of intentions and interests between Patricians and Plebeians. The Patricians always wanting to maintain economic and political supremacy while the Plebeians were in constant

After the fall of Tarquinius Superbus’ reign of Rome, the Brutus and Collatinus led patrician revolution leads to the beginning of a new era in Roman history: the republic. The early republic is mostly a patrician favoring institute and created it in order “to restore power and privileges that popular royal tyrants had usurped from them” and to make it “difficult for any one aristocrat to acquire too much power at the expense of the rest” (Ward 59). Greek historian, Polybius, in his book, Histories, talks about the greatness of this Roman republic and its constitution by claiming: “Now the elements by which the Roman constitution was controlled were three in number, … and all aspects of the administration were, taken separately, so fairly

The Second Triumvirate was a “formal magistracy legally appointed which could dominate the Senate and the State” (Scullard) and would prove to be the final straw in an already failed Republican system. The Roman Republic was ruled by a Constitution, which relied on a balance of three elements; The Senate; the Magistrates; the Assemblies. When the balance was upset either by ambitious magistrates, armies or tribunes then civil war was the result. The Senate proved ineffectual in preventing the Second Triumvirate from unbalancing this concept thus the played a significant role in the Republic’s fall. The Second Triumvirate, like those before them, had been able to take advantage of a vulnerable Senate to achieve their own personal aims in defiance of the Senate. The lack of faith in the Senate, which was present for this period of time, was what granted the Second Triumvirate to be the final push in the fall of the Republic. The Sullan legacy continued to be displayed in unlawful acts conducted by this three-man rule. Marc Antony, Octavian, and Lepidus all knew the significance of having an army at their hands and wealth that would ensure two things for them, power and civil war at the hands of conflict. It is therefor known that the Second Triumvirate played a significant role in the fall of an already fallen Republic.

Previous Roman actions have raised the question whether they recognized their slaves as things or people. Of course, there are economic advantages in support of slavery. However, when human lives are under constant danger and torture, the economic advantages must be forgotten. Although the slaves of Ancient Rome played a pivotal role in the society, their actions were never approved. After careful consideration, it is evident that the Romans recognized slaves as things rather than people. This conception is mainly due to three factors. They include: slaves being put on the market, the physical cruelty towards the slaves, and the slaves being mistreated to the point of revolt.

This essay investigates the role of religion and the importance of Roman society and politics. It will show the origin of Roman Religion, such as the pantheon, origin myths and the effect of foreign influence on Rome. This paper will also go into immense study of how religion affected Roman society through the likes of cult worship and domestic religion. It will also show the importance of politics on Roman religion, such as, the Imperial Cult, Vestal Virgins but more or less will also expose the persecution of Christians that were in opposition to Roman paganism.

While reading the novel I felt completely immersed in it because it explains the entire spectrum of Roman society, its darker side of corruption, the division of its people, and betrayal that cannot be explained through anything but an inside source. It is so difficult to understand because of its complexities, the plethora of unwritten rules and clichés that defined everything official that the Romans did. After reading this book, the reader will have glimpsed only a small fraction of the customs, though this will not prevent them from grasping the fundamentals of their political system as a whole. It is surprising how interestingly different they are from ourseven though our society is rooted so deeply into their foundations. Bribery for one was a very interesting topic of this book. It was a predominant part of the way their politics worked. When considering who would win elections, bribery was a major factor and its existence was even acknowledged by the state. Individuals such as Crassus, who had exorbitant amounts of money, relied heavily on bribes not to get votes for himself (he was popular enough not to need them), but for officials in lesser positions who had sided with him. In this way he achieved a huge control of every level of government and it wasn't until Cicero and a few other politicians following in his footsteps, put an end to this corruption through an even more complicated series of laws and risky

It is fairly apparent that a number of political overtones dominate Emile Zola's novel Germinal, which is the 13th book of nonfiction within the writer's Les Rougon-Macquart, a 20-volume series of novels. The author published this work of literature in 1885, less than 50 years after Marx and Engels unveiled the Communist Manifesto which was still plenty of time for a number of the ideologies propagated in this manuscript to take hold of popular culture and political theorists alike. In fact, one could successfully make a claim that the central theme of Germinal actually revolves around the conceptions of class antagonism that is an inherent part of an exploitative, bourgeois society such as that depicted in the French coal mining town in 1860, the setting for Germinal. A thorough analysis of this literary work illustrates that there are several instances of class antagonism, which are central to the plot of this book and provide its primary theme.