1. Who was Sargon? What did he create? What were the benefits of this creation?

Sargon was a king of Akkad, one of the Semitic cities that rose in Mesopotamia after the Sumerians, during the Bronze Age. He’s credited with creating the first multinational empire, after conquering or absorbing many of the lands and peoples of the Fertile Crescent.

For Akkad, empire had the benefit of direct control of distance resources that would otherwise been gotten through traders. This meant a stronger and more stable economy, allowing Akkad to become wealthier—though that wealth would have been offset by the expenses of ruling over a vast empire, suppressing its subjects, and crushing rebellions.

For the subjects of Akkadian rule, empire would have meant broader distribution of previously hard-to-get goods, as the empire developed a larger overall economy; over time this can raise the standard of living throughout the empire. Migration within the empire meant greater contact with unknown peoples and ideas; in general, a potential for broadening beyond the local. Improvements in the empires that benefitted the Akkadian overlords would have helped locals as well, such as bridges and roads.—However, subjects of empire were liable to the tribute and taxes, to misrule by alien governors, and to military service in the emperor’s wars.

2. What was the Code of Hammurabi? What kinds of things did it deal with? Why was such a Code important?

It was a law code, one of the earliest known in history, issued by Hammurabi, a king of the Old Babylonian empire during the 18th century BCE. For the most part it dealt with applying justice to conflicts between individuals, often having to do with property or commercial transactions, with different provisions depending on class.

In an empire consisting of many different peoples and traditions, the Code imposed a unified law that overrode varying and conflicting local customs. Its publication meant that law and justice were fixed, rather than being subject to the whims and avarice of officials. A unified law code was one way to help bring about trust in an empire controlled by alien rulers from far away, because locals could now be sure what to expect from their rulers.

3. For today you read Tablet 5 of The Epic of Gilgamesh, which involves Gilgamesh and Enkidu’s encounter with Humbaba. What happens in this encounter? What do you think Humbaba might represent in the story?

Gilgamesh and Enkidu defeat Humbaba, the cedar-forest guardian. The prize cedar is cut down and sent to Uruk to be used as doors to the great temple there.

The fight represents Gilgamesh’s desire for glory, which is starting to be about Uruk and not just himself, and the value of companionship, even when there is disagreement. More generally, the fight represents humanity’s assertion of power over the natural world and the taking of the resources of the wild for the purposes of civilization, a second stage of humanity’s transition from nomadic to civilized acted out by Enkidu. The gods come from the wild power of nature and so this is also an assertion of mortal power over the gods.

EC1. All of the following are true of Enheduanna, daughter of Sargon, EXCEPT:

(b)She was priestess of the goddess of blacksmithing

EC2. Who were the Hittites, and where did they come from?

The Hittites were an Indo-European people, who migrated into the Mediterranean world from the Indo-European homelands to the north of the Black Sea. Like the rest of the Indo-Europeans they were original pastoral, decentralized, nonurban, and tribal, but on encountering the prosperous city-states of the Mediterranean World they sought to emulate their stability and success, building city-states of their own.—They settled in Anatolia and, merging with the indigenous peoples there, built one of the first Bronze age industrial trade empires.

1. Why did the Old Kingdom pharaohs build pyramids? How did pyramids and ziggurats have similar functions?

The pyramids were visible symbols of the pharaoh’s divine rule, unifying the people’s shared identity and religion. They represented power unlike any human’s and so reinforced the pharaoh’s divinity. Pyramids were also the ultimate in prestige and luxury, which was controlled by the pharaohs, and so showed precedence over all classes and over past kings as well. They employed huge numbers of people, impressing the people directly with his power and keeping them busy between harvests. They served as temples for the worship of pharaohs after death.

Like all monumental building (e.g., the ziggurats) they displayed Egypt’s (and so the pharaoh’s) immense economic power—to its own people and to outsiders as well, as well as serving as a visual focal point for a strong central identity as Egyptians and a home to a protective patron deity, in this case the pharaoh as a manifestation of Horus.

2. Who was Akhenaten? What do you think his story tells us about New Kingdom Egypt?

Akhenaten was an Egyptian pharaoh of the New Kingdom (during the 18th Dynasty). He and his queen, Nefertiti, sought to bring about religious reform in Egypt by shifting the focus of worship to Aten, calling him more important than the other gods. This brought about a form of polytheism in which one god is greatly predominant called henotheism. Akhenaten pushed the exclusive worship of Aten by changing his regnal name from Amunhotep IV to Akhenaten, building a new royal city sacred to Aten, and instituting new rituals and priesthoods.

In so doing, Akhenaten sought to undo the shift in religious power from the pharaohs, who had held unquestionable religious authority in the Old Kingdom, to the priests, who now held much greater power in the New Kingdom. The priests emphasized the significance of Amun-Ra, the sun god, in the pharaoh’s rule, so by associating the kingship with Aten he sought to wrest power from the priests. It was too late for that, however: the authority of the priests was now too well established, and the pharaoh’s power too diminished from the absolute in the New Kingdom. Egyptian religion reverted the control of the priests after the deaths of Akhenaten and Nefertiti, as signified by the regnal name of his son and eventual successor, Tutankhamun.

3. For today you read Tablet 7 of Gilgamesh, “The Death of Enkidu.” What are his reactions to his approaching death? What does Enkidu’s vision of the afterlife tell us about Sumerian beliefs regarding life and death?

Enkidu is distraught at first that his death will not be meaningful—that he will waste away rather than while achieving something great for Uruk and leaving a legacy by which he overcomes death. In his grief he blames Shamhat for civilizing him, but later repents and praises her for the gift she gave him.

The House of Dust is the term used to refer to the Sumerian afterlife; the name underlines that it is what is left after the ending of life, and not a place where life continues. In his dream, Enkidu sees (among other things) past kings who were powerful and constructive during their lives, but impotent and pathetic, bemoaning the loss of their ability to achieve.

EC1. All of the following are true of the Semitic invaders who dominated Egypt between the Middle and New Kingdoms EXCEPT: (1 point)

(b) They ruled peacefully over Egypt for many thousands of years [it was only a century or so]

EC2. In your opinion, why do you think unification was achievable in Egypt, but impossible in Sumer? What was most different about the communities in Sumer, compared to Egypt, that might have prevented it?

The main point here is that the city-states of Sumer were in competition for limited resources, and so remained in rivalry with each other and were often hostile. In Egypt, however, the environment provided plenty for all, so there was no need to compete for resources, and everyone had in common the protection and nurturing of the gods—eventually manifested as a single god-king.

1.What’s different about iron, compared to bronze? How did the shift to iron change things?

Iron weapons are not significantly harder or stronger than bronze. Iron ore is very common and easy to procure and control in large quantities. This meant that iron-holding societies were stronger militarily and had a higher standard of living, because they could make many more weapons and many more tools.

This contrasts with bronze because bronze required two components, copper and tin, and controlling sources of both was difficult; bronze was also difficult to produce. As a result, bronze was a luxury good, reserved for the elite, and bronze agricultural tools and weapons were produced only for the wealthy few.

The mass production of iron tools and weapons helps shift the center of gravity from the few to the many, as well as bringing about improved health (increased birth rate, reduced death rate), greater distribution of resources, and mass armies capable of more ambitious conquest and occupation of conquered territories.

2.Who were the Phoenicians, and why were they so successful? In what ways did they affect other Mediterranean societies?

The Phoenicians were the Semitic inhabitants of several cities in the coastal north of Canaan (modern-day Lebanon). They were ideally located to import raw materials from inland and then engage in trade around the Mediterranean coast in both directions. They developed a lucrative extensive Mediterranean trade route based on luxury goods that they manufactured from imported materials like raw textiles and marble and from their two most important local commodities—cedar wood and murex, the purple dye they converted into a coveted status symbol throughout the Mediterranean world.

Also their invention of the phonetic alphabet was spread throughout their trading network, introducing literacy to the Dark Age Greeks, the Etruscans, and the Latins.

3.What kinds of dangers did the Hebrews face when they returned to Canaan? In what ways did they overcome them?

The first great challenge they faced was how to ensure the survival of the religion of Moses in the seductive atmosphere of Canaan. The sensuous fertility rites and worldly appeal of Canaan religion and society threatened to draw Hebrews away into the Canaanite cities.

The second great challenge was their loose, tribal structure, in which any concerted actions were undertaken as temporary alliances between tribes. This unfocused, dispersed structure made the Hebrews vulnerable, weak in both offense to take the land and cities they needed to survive in the already populated Canaan and in defense against more powerful, wealthy inhabitants (both Canaanites and Philistines). The solution was to create a warrior king, but the Hebrews, remembering the oppressive power of the pharaohs from whom they had fled, were resistant to having a king until forced by necessity.

EC1.All of the following are true of the Philistines EXCEPT:

(c)They left behind lots of records and literature which informs us of their culture and history

EC2.Now that you’ve finished reading The Epic of Gilgamesh, what do you think the story is truly about? What moments from the story most exemplify this?

This question is subjective; possible answers include the Sumerian awareness of universality of death and the consequent need to achieve lasting contributions that surpass it; the untrustworthiness of the gods requiring mortals to ensure their own fate; the importance of the bonds with others over the self; the nature of men as beasts and the role of women to convert them to citizens as mothers/wives; etc.

1. What is a polis? How did they come about?

The polis was a form of city-state—a city and its adjoining territory forming a single political (and economic) unit. So the emergence of the polis involves formal political unification of an urban market center with its surrounding farmland territory, and centralization of government. Unification involves synoecism, whereby every village, town, and hamlet merge their political (and other) identities into a single unit. Also, rule by basileus (chieftain), characteristic of the dark age, gives way to collective leadership by a small group of magistrates (oligarchy) and an assembly made up of the citizens.

The aristoi—the wealthy, large-estate-holding, educated families—dominate the oligarchies and see it as their right and responsibility to govern. This creates tension with the common people (demos), who increasingly gain various levels of decision-making power.

2. Who were the Dorians? What effect did they have on Greece?

The Dorians were a second wave of Greek-speaking Indo-Europeans. The first were the Mycenaean Greeks, who arrived sometime before 2000 BCE; the Dorians arrived a thousand years later, around 1100-1000 BCE.

The arrival of a huge nation of newcomers into the Aegean world was hugely disruptive, helping to bring down the already unbalanced Mycenaean economy. Those factors, combined with natural disasters happening at the same time, caused the Bronze Age Greek civilization to collapse, forcing the abandonment of the cities, emigration of refugees, and a reversion to a basic agrarian economy in the countryside.

The Dorians settled to the west of the Greek world (sometimes called the West Greeks), while the existing Greeks were pushed east (East Greeks or Ionians). One of the most prominent Dorian groups was the Spartans, who conquered the inhabitants of the southern Peloponnese peninsula, forcing them to become serfs who farmed on their behalf so that the Spartans could focus on the art of war.

3. In what ways did the “competitive spirit” affect the way Greeks thought about themselves and others?

Men were judged on bravery and honor (timē), and were expected to strive to surpass (aretē) in competition with their peers (agon). This resulted in a culture in which shame and the need to outdo others played a major role. This also meant that the Greeks considered themselves superior and saw other cultures as barbaric and uncivilized.

EC1. From a Greek point of view, all of the following were barbarians EXCEPT:

(d) Hellenes [the Hellenes are the Greeks themselves]

EC2. What’s the significance of Delphi?

Delphi was thought to be the navel of the earth, and so functions as a common cultural focus for the disunited Greeks. It was the site of the oracle to Apollo, an important religious center. The oracle was shared by the Greeks and was held in common esteem by them, with leads from all over Hellas (and beyond) journeying to Delphi to consult the oracle.

Delphi was also important because it was a center of great wealth amassed through contributions to the temple, most of which was in the form of small objects fashioned from gold and dedicated to Apollo.

The Pythian Games werew held at Delphi every four years, Like the temple and oracle, these helped solidify a sense of shared culture amongst the otherwise disconnected Greeks.

EC3. Why was it called the Greek Dark Age?

The Greeks experienced the collapse of the Bronze Age economy and culture and the influx of the Dorians, fleeing the cities and resetting in countless farming villages across the Aegean world. At this time the Greeks lost their writing system, writing being an urban technology. As a result, the centuries of dramatic rebuilding and forging of a new culture that followed are not attested in records and written literature—they are dark to us.

1.Who were the helots? Why were they so important to the Spartan system? What risks did they pose?

The helots were state-owned serfs. In origin they were the conquered peoples of Laconia and neighboring Messenia, subdued early in Sparta’s history and permanent “prisoners of war.” Each helot family farm provided a fixed amount of food year-round for a Spartan warrior, freeing the Spartans from the distractions of managing land, laborers, and produce. The helot families retained for their own use anything beyond what was levied, which is why they are at least nominally considered serfs and not slaves.

The Spartan system was heavily dependent on the helots. Because they greatly outnumbered the Spartan citizenry, which was restricted to the warrior elite (the homoioi), the Spartans were constantly alert to the dangers of uprising among the helots and feared marching their armies too far from home. To reinforce their status as prisoners of war, young Spartans were required to literally hunt helots as part of their training. Helots were also paraded before the young warriors drunk and humiliated to train them to think of helots as an inferior class.

2.Describe Solon’s contributions to the Athenian system.

Solon had the trust of both aristocrats and the commoners and so was able to enact reforms that benefitted Athens as a whole. He weakened the power of local and family influence by making participation in Athenian politics dependent on wealth, not blood, creating new classes that cut across local and family loyalties in order to strengthen Athenian unity and the prosperity that would come from a stronger and more vibrant unified economy. He strengthened Athenian agricultural production and relieved the debt slavery crisis that was crippling the poor peasantry. He fought not for the poor against the rich (as with the tyrants), or vice versa, but for a stronger Athens.

3.Regarding the first parts of Clouds: (a) Why does Strepsiades go to the Thinkery? (b) How does “Socrates” first enter (appear on stage)? Why do you think the playwright introduces him like this?

Strepsiades goes to the Thinkery to learn false speech in order to free himself of the debt foisted on him by his son. “Socrates” appears descending from above in a basket, much like gods at the end of a tragedy descending to dispense wisdom and justice (“deus ex machina”), only “Socrates” talks not about the wisdom of the gods but the “natural functions” and physical processes of the temporal heavens. His scruffy appearance presents him as a false god. He also starts out with his head literally in the clouds.

EC1.Powerful groups in Athens included all of the following EXCEPT:

(c)The two kings and their royal families (basilei) [Athens had no kings]

EC2.What are some potential disadvantages of radical democracy, as practiced in Athens?

One problem noted by those who favored the aristocracy is that the poorer classes were not educated (education was only available to the wealthy in the ancient world).—More generally, dangers faced by pure democracy include demagoguery (unscrupulous people gaining votes by telling people what they want to hear); division into faction, making consensus difficult to achieve; and tyranny of the majority, where interests of smaller groups of voters are locked out by the needs and wants of the majority.

1. Did the Spartans win the Peloponnesian War, or did the Athenians lose it? Explain using examples of what Spartans did right, or what Athenians did wrong, that resulted in the Spartan victory.

This is a subjective question, but some of the things that can be mentioned are as follows. For Athens to “lose” this war, would mean that Athens had an advantage that might have led to them winning, but which they squandered. One argument for this would be the overextension of their strength and resources by extending the war to Sicily. This ended up being a huge catastrophe which permanently weakened Athens’s ability to fight off Sparta. An argument could also be made for Athens losing through disaffection caused by Athens’s ruthlessness toward its allies, as exemplified by the siege and massacre at Melos. Athens was also weakened at the start of the war by the great Plague of Athens, which greatly reduced not only manpower but also many Athenians’ faith in the path they were taking.

For Sparta to “win” would mean overcoming their own disadvantages to defeat Athens through their own agency. Arguments in this line of reasoning would involve the establishment of the base at Decelea in Attica, allowing year-round raising and harassment of Attica’s countryside. Also the deal with Persia in which Persia provided naval help to Sparta, overcoming Sparta’s disadvantage at sea, in exchange for the return of the Ionian Greek states Persia had ruled over before they were taken back by the Delian League. Another, more minor factor is the unexpected ability of a laconic Spartan general, Brasidas, winning over Athenian allies to Sparta, leveraging their disaffection and overcoming their feat of Athens.

2. Who were the sophists? Why would people like Plato see them as immoral?

Sophists taught the skill of arguing a question from any or all positions, as part of the art of rhetoric, in fifth-century Athens. Democracy in Athens created a market for this service, since effectively persuading other voters to your point of view was a valuable ability in a society where ordinary votes mattered. Critics charged that sophists taught the ability to argue a position regardless of truth or morality.

Unlike sophists, who taught a skill, philosophers as a group sought the spread and increase of knowledge and understanding, whether of the physical world or of human behavior. They tended to question received wisdom and superstition in order to develop more rational explanations. Those who taught philosophy, generally, were interested in teaching their students how to question things in order to discover truth; sophists, by contrast, taught their students how to give the most convincing answer regardless of its truth or value.

3. For today you read section 5 of Clouds. Who wins the debate that takes place in the Thinkery? How does he win? What do you think the playwright, Aristophanes, is getting at in this scene?

The debate is between Just Arhument and Unjust Argument, and Unjust Argument wins. He does so by pointing out that the audience is already largely corrupted by immorality, which Just Argument cannot dispute. By having a character called “Unjust Argument” win, Aristophanes is showing that the sophists’ teachings undermine the morality of Athenians.

EC1. Famous tragic or comic plays from classical Athens include all of the following EXCEPT:

(d)Helaiai by Thucydides, about the murder of Herodotus by a vengeful scribe

[Thucydides was an historian, not a playwright]

EC2. The text refers to the “fundamental incompatibilities between Sparta and Athens” as part of the context for the Peloponnesian War. What “incompatibilities” made Athens and Sparta unable to coexist? How did this lead to war?

Sparta and Athens had incompatible visions of the Greek ideal. Sparta saw all its citizens as peers, equally accomplished and capable, with none standing ahead of the others; the prototype of this was the hoplite warrior, and Sparta bred itself into a society of hoplites to pursue this ideal.

Athens, on the other hand, saw individual accomplishment as more beneficial. Each excelled as best he could, and society was made up of all kinds, with different classes a natural outcome, and greater status according to wealth and property a given.

There was also an ethnic/dialectical difference: the more conservative Dorians, which included the Spartans, did not see themselves as having exactly the same heritage or goals as the more liberal Ionians, which included the Athenians and their eastward allies around the Aegean.

Most of all, Sparta embraced a society governed by the few, with the masses completely without a voice (only the warrior elite were citizens of Sparta). Athens embraced a society of the many, instituting radical democracy in order to give voice to a wide and diverse population. These visions of society simply could not be reconciled.

1. What were some of the complaints of the plebeians that helped bring about the Conflict of the Orders? What advantages did the plebeians have in pursuing their goals?

Early on in the Republic, the patricians kept control of government and the law. The plebeians had no officials to look out for their interests. They did not know what the laws were, and did not know how to prosecute their cases. They were largely locked out the magistracies, the senate, and the priesthoods. The patricians held rigidly to the idea that imperium—the right to command citizens—belonged only to patrician families, because the gods only trusted patricians.

The plebs had two major advantages. First, Rome could not fight wars without them. On several occasions they “seceded”—refusing to submit to the levy by which the armies were created, leaving Rome unable to fight its attackers. Second, the plebs had strength in numbers. They created laws for themselves and elected their own officials called tribunes, and because the plebs made up such a large portion of the citizen body these laws (called plebiscites) and officials had a major impact on Rome. Eventually, the Conflict of the Orders ended in 287 when a law was passed making plebiscites binding on all Romans.

2. Describe at least three ways that consuls were different from kings. What do these differences tell us?

Roman kings ruled alone and for life, and controlled the state religion. When the monarchy was abolished, the king’s political and priestly functions were separated. The king’s priestly functions went to a special priest called the rex sacrorum, and control over the priesthoods was held by the pontifex maximus.

The political authority of the king was given to the consuls. However, the place of one king there were two consuls (collegiality), with each consul being able to stop the other if he acted recklessly or ambitiously. In addition, the consuls served only one year, and generally could not be reelected.

The collective effect was the share the king’s authority across the property-holding families and to prevent the concentration of power or influence in a single man or family.

3. What did the Romans mean when they called someone a novus homo, or ‘new man’? What would it tell us about such a man if he were to become consul?

A “new man” was someone with no ancestors who had been consuls. Since the Romans determined “nobility” by whether someone had such an ancestor, a “new man” was someone who did not come from a noble family. A “new man” becoming consul was rare, but it did happen with outstanding individuals. (Two examples from the Late Republic are Gaius Marius and Marcus Cicero.)

EC1. All of the following were assemblies of the Roman Republic EXCEPT:

(c) the social assembly, which met on the pnyx and was organized by socii (color of ancestral footwear)

EC2. What was the significance of the Twelve Tables?

The Twelve Tables were twelve sets of laws that made rights, restrictions, and punishments public and available to all citizens. It’s the foundation of Roman law and the heart of the traditional customs (mos maiorum). Also, an incident associated with the board of ten (decemviri) charged with drafting these laws reaffirmed the Republic’s horror of personal ambition.

1. How did the Romans govern their provinces? What were some of the complaints?

The Romans set up territories they ruled over as “provinces”—literally, a job or responsibility for an ex-magistrate. A consul or praetor, after his year in office, would have his powers continued for another year for the purpose of accepting responsibility for governing a conquered territory. He was now a proconsul (or propraetor), and was the sole Roman authority in the territory he’d been given. A large enough province might have a Roman legion stationed there, of which the proconsul or propraetor was the commander.

Because there were only eight magistrates a year (two consuls and six praetors), and therefore only eight potential new governors, once there were more than eight provinces it became increasingly necessary to prorogue, or hold over, the sitting governors in their territories, with the result that some governors ended up ruling over their provinces for several years, allowing them to build up a power base there among the local nobles and their own legions. Thus the provincial governments allowed one man to have complete executive authority (rather than two as back at Rome), without a colleague or a senate or assembly to get in the way of his ambition; and many of them stayed in place for multiple years, rather than one year only as in Rome.

One key element of Roman provincial government was tax farming. Because the governors had no supporting bureaucracy, tax collection was outsourced to for-profit corporations run by Roman middle class businessmen (publicani). These corporations gouged the populace by collecting as much money as they could, handing over to the Roman state the fixed amount the senate decreed for that province and pocketing the rest. This resulted in resentment, rebellion, and increased need for Roman military presence and oppression in the provinces.

2. Why was Tiberius Gracchus’s land law so controversial? What happened to Gracchus as a result?

The Gracchan laws affected the Italian public lands (ager publicus)—vast amounts of lands taken by Rome in war. These lands had been settled by citizens in small freeholds still technically owned by the state but farmed by generations of Roman citizen farmers. But the shifting of the rural economy in the third and second centuries meant that more and more of this land was ending up as part of the large estates of the rich. Tiberius Gracchus’s law proposed enforcing an old law saying no one could have more than 300 acres; he hoped to redistribute the land to recreate a large population of citizen farmers out of the landless poor teeming in Rome. This was taken by the rich as a rabble-rousing attack on behalf of the poor.

Gracchus also bypassed the senate and proposed his law directly to the people. Over time it had become customary to present laws first to the senate, which would debate them and offer a resolution supporting it if they approved. Since the conservative senate contained many rich landholders and their friends, and were moreover averse to radical change that would upset customs and traditions of the Republic (which they felt duty-bound to protect), Gracchus knew his law would be opposed by the senate. But bypassing the senate angered the elite, and since Gracchus broke no laws in doing so the response to Gracchus was personal and outside of the system.

Gracchus also had the Assembly vote to remove a tribune who had threatened to veto the bill if it passed, and funded the land commission created by the law by diverting the bequest of the king of Pergamum, scorning the senate’s traditional control over foreign policy. In bypassing the senate, acting against a (pro-senate) tribune, and diverting the Pergamene bequest, Gracchus asserted a more extreme idea of the power of the People (without reference to the state) than most in the ruling class could withstand.

3. How did Marius reform the Roman army? What problems did this solve? What problems did it create?

The main issue with recruiting soldiers to fight Rome’s wars in the Middle Republic was that there was a minimum property requirement. In order to create an army large enough to fend off the massive Cimbri/Teutones invasion, Marius did away with this requirement, creating what is known as the “voluteer army” or the “proletarian army.” With these forces Marius was able to defeat the invades, and this became the model for all Roman armies going forward.

The problem with the volunteer army is that with no wealth and no homestead of their own to return to, these soldiers were dependent on their general to ensure they had land return on and a share in the spoils of war. This helped ensure that Roman legions were loyal to their generals rather than to the central government that protected the homesteads of the landed families, making possible the general’s march on Rome that brought Sulla, Caesar, and later many emperors to power.

Marius also reformed the army by introducing the legionary eagle standard, a semireligious standard carried before evergy legion that served as a focal point for its soldiers. These concentrated and strengthened the identity and unity of each legion, making them all the more formidable when turned against an enemy—or against Rome.

EC1. The Social War refers to the armed conflict between:

(d) The Italian allies and Rome

EC2. What was the senatus consultum ultimum, or “last resolution of the senate”? How was it used?

The senatus consultum ultimum, or “ultimate decree,” was a Senate vote to instruct the consul and other top magistrates to defend the Republic and see that no harm came to the state. It enabled the state to use violence against Roman citizens, depriving them of provocatio (a citizen’s right of appeal to the People) and other protections.

It could be wielded by a faction in the Senate (in this case the most conservative of the “optimates”). It was used justify killing C. Gracchus and thousands of his supporters.