assess the impact of violence on roman politics

7/31/2019 Assess the Impact of Violence on Roman Politics

1/4


2/4

Violence that was first used by the optimates would continue to have a damaging impact on Roman politics, as

it further exacerbated the states political destabilization. Seeing the nobility use violence to fulfill their political

goals, thepopulares used violence to retaliate against the optimates and to achieve their political aspirations.

Marius veterans for example, were first used by Saturninus, who resorted to violence in attempting to pass his

Bill giving land to Mariusveterans because how could he do otherwise when the nobility were ever ready

to meet constitutional action by the bludgeon and the dagger? (T.P.Wiseman). Marius veterans were

further used by Saturninus (to take violent action against political opposition to him and Glaucia), Marius (to

massacre his political opposition) and Sulpicius to redistribute the Italians across the 35 tribes and to obtain the

Mithridatic command for Marius since theconservatives had appealed to the sword, and so would he

(E.S.Beesly). Accordingly, it can be ascertained that the implications of violence were highly destructive to

Roman politics, as the use of violence escalated as the period progressed. Moreover, because the nobility had

been so willing to adopt drastic measures of violence to maintain their authority and dominance, the populares

also used violence, believing it to be an acceptable tool for maintain and securing political security and success.

This meant that violence was now seen as a first, rather than last resort in achieving political gains. Furthermore

the use of violence also fuelled the conflict between the optimates andpopulares. As such, violence had a

damaging impact on Roman politics.

The impact of violence can also be said to be negative, as the use of violence in politics by both the optimates

andpopulares meant that violence was now a legitimate political weapon and thus, it was used by the socii in

an attempt to achieve independence and citizenship. After the Senate once again brooded in the shadow of

violence (Paul MacKendrick) in assassinating Livius Drusus Minor for his support for Italian

enfranchisement, the socii responded to the Senates use of violence by killing a Roman ambassador to

Asculum and instigating the Social War, which dealt massive defeats on Rome. The significance of the socii s

use of violence is that violence was now perceived as a legitimate political weapon and a first resort, and had

now escalated to not only being used by the Romans, but also to other social groups. Additionally, William

Dunstan comments that the Social War offered a prelude to more prolonged spells of political chaos.

Hence violence used by the socii had a negative impact on Roman politics by attributing to the intensification

and legitimization of violence during the period.


3/4

Through the tumultuous period, ambitious men had become accustomed the use of violence for political gain,

and therefore, the impact of violence on Roman politics was pejorative as it further exacerbated the lack of

authority the Senate had. Sullasmarch on Rome, Romes First Civil War between the men of violence

(Appian)and Sullas proscription lists all exemplify the tragic impact of violence on Roman politics. Greg

Woolfespecially notes that Sullas proscription lists haunted Rome with violence Roman politics became

incurably partisan and personal. Moreover,the Senate was absolutely powerless in stopping all the actions

of these violent and ambitious men, because violence was legitimised as a political weapon, and as such, their

authority was continually challenged and undermined throughout the period. Thus, the impact of violence on

Roman politics was pejorative.

Henceforth, since the reintroduction of violence into Roman politics for the first time in over 400 years by the

Senate, violence was used extensively and escalated as the period progressed - becoming a first resort in

achieving political gains, denigrating the Senates authority and attributing to the conflict between different

factions and social groups. As such, it can be ascertained that violence had a detrimental impact on Roman

politics.

Overall Comments:

1. Structurally sound. A well-argued piece. Excellent use of sources, although I would make greater use of thesources we have used in class

2. I would probably abbreviate your first paragraph and integrate it into your introduction so that you canspend more time on developing some of your arguments. In particular, you almost gloss over the nature of

the violence perpetuated by Sulla and Marius during the period 87-6 B.C. when Roman politics really hit its

nadir

3. Changes have been highlighted in yellow, and questionable statements have been highlighted in green andthe nature of my concern highlighted in aqua.


4/4

assess the impact of violence on roman politics

Documents