Hi folks! What stands out to you in this week’s readings about the slow breakdown of collective rule in the late Republic? Where is this friction coming from, in the context of the reading you chose?

Tiberius is made to be an amazing man - beloved by the people. When he came back from war he was greeted like a king. While he was criticized by some for past actions the common people rallied to his defense, even calling for punishment of other officials but sparing him.

He was portrayed as a protector of ordinary citizens, admired for his bravery and sense of justice. The article also talks about his law for giving back land to those who were less wealthy and making sure that the rich people did not try to steal the land. If they did they would be punished. His speeches emphasized the injustice of soldiers dying for a country that offered them no land, no homes, no altars or family hearths. This moral clarity and pathos made his message resonate strongly, further fueling public support.

Though supported by some high-ranking and virtuous Romans (e.g., Crassus, Scaevola, and Appius Claudius), Tiberius faced increasing alienation from the political elite ( the senate and a lot of the elites.). His reforms and popularity provoked fear and anger among the aristocracy, which set the stage for his tragic fate. - overall I think he will always be remembered by the people who appreciated his attempt in reform and love for the people.

The reading I chose is “Sulla’s Brutality / Livy, Appian.” The brutality used and his gain of power changing Rome entirely was very interesting. The author was probably showing us how if we gave power to a man hungry for more, the cause and effect would be huge in a negative or positive sense, as many died of Sulla’s greed for power. The time and place were possibly in battlegrounds in open, crowded areas. This reading has many connections to our past reading; it isn't the first time we have witnessed a change in the abuse of certain powers. This time it is the use of an army and brutality, not taking no for an answer. 

I wonder if in Rome a counter-army ever fought back against someone like Sulla? Maybe a wealthy family or something else?

I decided to read Sulla’s Brutality because I had heard of his reign of terror and was interested to learn more about it. The part of the reading that stood out to me the most was Appian’s remark about the length of his dictatorship, that “There had been autocratic rule of the dictators before, but it was limited to short periods. But under Sulla it first became unlimited and so an absolute tyranny”. Appian wrote his history in the 2^nd century and is clearly trying to convey how important this moment was both in terms of the unprecedented nature of Sulla’s dictatorship and the profound legacy it would leave. Did Sulla’s dictatorship, and the radical measures he took to stabilize the Republic, actually lay the seeds of the Republic’s demise?

For this weeks response i chose Drusus and his enemies. I feel that the line in which both sides coincided in turning on Drasus was the was very ironic and interesting as he not only presented a resolution which gave knights power and audit the senate of the bribery issue to keep it clean and orderly but also he attempted to quench the needs of their new cohabitants found in the Italians by giving them equality. Yet he was still turned on when appeasing all sides and even not given peace when kept out of the way of matters pertaining to his position, just to murdered in his own home's atrium. I feel that this article presents a recording of an example of how Rome had become more and more corrupt. Not only in not allowing the men of Italy who served the same rights as those of Rome more interestingly the audacity of the senate to enact violence and murder upon those who had different views, though they always had the fasces which presented this violent nature of the senate the acts which led to the death of not only Flaccus and the Gracchus brothers but also Drusus were from a state of moral superioty and self interest rather than for the greatness of Rome. I do have a question on how these seemingly concurrent acts of the senate affected the integration of other cultures in their chase of keeping up the status quo.

Appian's "Drusus and his Enemies" paints the growing tension between the Romans and their Italian allies. Appian mentions the Italian's desire for political equality, not viewing themselves as subjects but as partners in the Empire through advocates like Fulvius Flaccus and Gracchus. The Senate tremendously opposed and retaliated by sending Flaccus to command an army for war so his consulship could expire. Appian states, "he obtained the tribuneship after that and contrived to have the younger Gracchus for a colleague, with whose co-operation he brought forward other measures in favor of the Italians. When they were both killed." Displaying the precedences set by the killing of Tiberius Gracchus of the Senate or any political group within Rome to kill anyone who doesn't align with Rome's old traditions and beliefs. Drussus took on the mission of getting Italian citizenship and led several colonies in Italy and Sicily to please the plebians. For Senate and Knights, he proposed they reconciled by adding 300 equestrians to the Senate, adding a shared power balance to the judicial system. Which subsequently backfired on Drussus and angered both groups. The Knights feared losing power over the judicial system; many were making substantial financial gains from their positions in the court and were disturbed by anti-bribery law, which threatened their power. The Senate feared adding that many new equestrians would dilute their influence and create new factions to assemble. Angering both groups isolated Drassus, leading to his eventual assassination, which ended the reform efforts and painted a target on those who supported Italian citizenship, allowing the knights to persecute members of the Senate who sided with Drassus, weakening the Senate's power. Prominent members of the Senate fled to avoid trial, and the ones who said were banished.

Is this the old guard corrupt, or are the new people in power corrupting the system?

For this week's reading, I picked "Mithridates Against Rome by Appian and Plutarch." In the first excerpt from Appian, Mithridates is portrayed as a significant and formidable opponent to Rome, comparable to Hannibal. The text emphasizes the expansive territorial gains of Rome due to conquering Mithridates, which included much of Asia Minor and Syria. Appian portrays the Roman victory as a monumental achievement, underscoring Mithridates' strength and the challenges Roman leaders like Sulla, Lucullus, and Pompey faced. In contrast, the second excerpt from Plutarch focuses more on the aftermath of the conflict, specifically Lucullus’ triumph and the wealth accumulated from the war. Plutarch's description of the triumph illustrates the procession and the spoils taken from Mithridates.

One particular detail that stood up for me was the scale of Mithridates' military resources described in Plutarch's excerpt. The mention of "over 400 ships," "50,000 cavalry," and "250,000 infantry" paints a vivid picture of the formidable force he commanded and shows the significant challenge he posed to Rome. Both Appian and Plutarch illustrate the complexity of the Mithridatic wars and their significant impact on Roman history. They aim to illustrate Mithridates as a formidable adversary whose military capabilities posed a serious threat to Rome, which forced the republic to confront challenges beyond its borders.

lastly, this document seems to come from a period where Roman society valued military success and public displays of power, which were often marked by triumphal celebrations. Victories in battle were celebrated through elaborate parades, showcasing the spoils of war and reinforcing the status of military leaders.

Something I'm curious about is how the political alliances during this time influenced the outcome of military conflicts.?

For this week I read On Tiberius Gracchus from Plutarch because I had heard of Tiberius Gracchus before but didn't really know a lot about him. Plutarch wants to in a sense pay respect to how Tiberius was a incredibly effective leader and speaker, it was these characteristics that allowed him to wield the loyalty of the populace. The quote from this passage that really nailed what Tiberius' legacy was for Rome was "For Tiberius, maintaining an honorable and just cause, and possessed of eloquence sufficient to have made a less creditable action appear plausible, was no safe or easy antagonist, when, with the people crowding around the hustings, he took his place, and spoke in behalf of the poor". Tiberius knew what the people wanted and he was going to give it to them even if it he was becoming a problem. Tiberius had his hand on spark that could light the growing resentments between the poor and the rich Romans, he was going to upset the growing wealth of the major Roman Families and he was going it legally in Rome, he was a threat, he skirted the line but he had the respect of a leader and that was outweighing the wisdom of the Senate, something had to give and it did. Tiberius did light the spark but it just wasn't one he would live to see, but he set things in motion that would change Rome. The one thing I wanted to know more about, did any of the men who had Tiberius killed ever come to regret it, did they eventually have to acknowledge that less land for the other Romans meant less soldiers for the Legions at the very least.

I chose this text because Marius's animosity towards the nobility interested me. Marius served in the war against anti Roman Numidian usurper Jurgurtha under Metellus. After a year he became consul and started a new campaign against Jurgurtha. As consul he made war provisions a priority and requested reinforcements for the legion. He sent people he trusted to see that these requests get delivered. The public loved Marius the people wanted to see him success in this venture. So all who were called for by Marius answered to his favor. Before leaving for his campaign he gave a speech to the public to excite the crowd that was gathered. In his speech he basically calls out the nobility. Marius expresses his disdain towards the nobility by pointing out their faults. For instance he states that the nobility heavily rely on greater deeds done by their ancestors. That they themselves haven't done anything important. But since they have a name of someone who was great they receive benefits. Basically they don't know what it's like to work hard for something. While Marius being common born had to earn the position he is in at this point of his life. Nobles read the great achievements of other men and Marius is out in the battlefield making a name for himself.

For this week, I chose the reading Sulla's Brutality/ Livy, Appian. It interested me because I wanted to learn more about what kind of actions did Sulla take in order to pursue power in Rome. Something that I found interesting that jumped out at me was when they explained Sulla initiated proscriptions after gaining control which basically legalized murder of his enemies. He also offered rewards for their assassinations. Appian provided details of Sulla’s actions and the ruthless pursuit of power he began in Rome. Livy explained that Sulla filled Rome with violence and slaughter that no one had ever seen before. I think the author was trying to communicate and show in a vivid way the power Sulla began to gain in Rome through his actions. He wanted to seize control and Rome and chose violence to gain it. He massacred thousands of people and aimed to eliminate all of his political enemies to gain power.

How did Sulla’s actions impact Roman politics and society long-term?

Was Sulla’s actions to really gain power over Rome or was it more of a reflection of his character as an ambitious or greedy person?

I chose the reading On Tiberius Gracchus by Plutarch due to what we previously learned in the class about Tiberius's popularity among the common people of Rome and wanted to dive deeper into why he was so loved. This part of the passage stood out to me, "But, in this all the populace, showing an extraordinary kindness and affection for Tiberius, indeed voted that the consul should be stripped and put in irons, and so delivered to the Numantines; but, for the sake of Tiberius, spared all the other officers." This stood out because the people loved Tiberius so much that they were willing to hand over their consul as a captive so as to shift the blame as far away from Tiberius as possible, the consuls who were essentially meant to be the most powerful and famous men in Rome. Plutarch was trying to communicate the influence that Tiberius held over the populace and how far they were willing to go to protect and follow him. This is important as it can shed some light into the motives for Tiberius's eventual assassination. This passage is showing the shift in Rome as it began to branch out as an empire and how the people of Rome itself had begun to struggle. With common Romans having less and less land meanwhile the rich continued to take hold of more and more land this led to a crisis for Rome especially in the military as less and less people were meeting the minimum property requirement to join the military. This document supports other readings we've discussed since we've had many discussions about how Rome was very against any one man holding power and seeing Tiberius's immense popularity among the Roman people sets the stage for the violence that would take hold of Roman politics. I would like to find out more about whether Tiberius seeked only to be loved by the people so as to grow his power and influence in Rome? As well, did the senate doing anything at all costs to prevent any one man in Rome from taking too much power, including assassinating political figures to prevent this, did this only delay the inevitable direction Rome was going in? Or could they had somehow further prevented any one man from withholidng the power in Rome?