Home  ›  The Year 211 Bce Was a Turning Point for Both Rome and Roman Art Because

The Year 211 Bce Was a Turning Point for Both Rome and Roman Art Because

Written By terça-feira, 26 de abril de 2022 Add Comment Edit

134 – 44 BC political instability leading to the Roman transition from Republic to Empire

The crisis of the Roman Republic refers to an extended catamenia of political instability and social unrest from almost 134 BC to 44 BC that culminated in the demise of the Roman Republic and the advent of the Roman Empire.

The causes and attributes of the crisis changed throughout the decades, including the forms of slavery, brigandage, wars internal and external, overwhelming corruption, land reform, the invention of excruciating new punishments,[1] the expansion of Roman citizenship, and even the changing composition of the Roman ground forces.[two]

Modern scholars also disagree almost the nature of the crisis. Traditionally, the expansion of citizenship (with all its rights, privileges, and duties) was looked upon negatively by Sallust, Gibbon, and others of their schools, because it caused internal dissension, disputes with Rome'southward Italian allies, slave revolts, and riots.[3] Notwithstanding, other scholars have argued that as the Republic was meant to be res publica – the essential thing of the people – the poor and disenfranchised cannot be blamed for trying to redress their legitimate and legal grievances.[3]

Arguments on a single crisis [edit]

More recently, beyond arguments nigh when the crisis of the Republic began (come across below), at that place also accept been arguments on whether there even was a crisis or multiple ones. Harriet Bloom, in 2010, proposed a different epitome encompassing multiple "republics" for the general whole of the traditional republican menstruation with attempts at reform rather than a single "crisis" occurring over a menses of eighty years.[four] Instead of a single crisis of the belatedly Commonwealth, Blossom proposes a series of crises and transitional periods (excerpted only to the chronological periods after 139 BC):

Proposed chronological periods (139–33 BC)[5]
Years BC Description
139–88 Democracy v: 3rd democracy of the nobiles
88–81 Transitional catamenia starting with Sulla'due south get-go coup and ending with his dictatorship
81–60 Democracy half-dozen: Sulla's democracy (modified during Pompey and Crassus' consulship in 70)
59–53 First Triumvirate
52–49 Transitional period (Caesar's Civil State of war)
49–44 Caesar's dictatorship, with curt transitional period after his death
43–33 Second Triumvirate

Each different republic had different circumstances and while overarching themes can be traced,[5] "there was no single, long republic that carried the seeds of its own destruction in its aggressive tendency to expand and in the unbridled ambitions of its leading politicians".[half-dozen] The implications of this view put the autumn of the commonwealth in a context based around the collapse of the republican political culture of the nobiles and emphasis on Sulla's civil state of war followed past the fall of Sulla's republic in Caesar's ceremonious war.[7]

Dating the crisis [edit]

The Roman Republic in 100 BC

For centuries, historians have argued nearly the start, specific crises involved, and end appointment for the crunch of the Roman Republic. Equally a culture (or "web of institutions"), Florence Dupont and Christopher Woodall wrote, "no distinction is made betwixt different periods."[8] Notwithstanding, referencing Livy's stance in his History of Rome, they assert that Romans lost freedom through their own conquests' "morally undermining consequences."[9]

Arguments for an early start-date (c. 134 to 73 BC) [edit]

Von Ungern-Sternberg argues for an verbal showtime engagement of 10 December 134 BC, with the inauguration of Tiberius Gracchus as tribune,[10] or alternately, when he starting time issued his proposal for state reform in 133 BC.[eleven] Appian of Alexandria wrote that this political crisis was "the preface to ... the Roman ceremonious wars".[12] Velleius commented that it was Gracchus' unprecedented standing for re-ballot as tribune in 133 BC, and the riots and controversy it engendered, which started the crisis:

This was the beginning of civil bloodshed and of the gratis reign [sic] of swords in the city of Rome. From and then on justice was overthrown past forcefulness and the strongest was preeminent.

—Velleius, Vell. Pat. 2.3.3–4, translated and cited by Harriet I. Flower[13]

In any case, the assassination of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC marked "a turning point in Roman history and the beginning of the crisis of the Roman Republic."[14]

Barbette S. Spaeth specifically refers to "the Gracchan crisis at the first of the Tardily Roman Democracy ...".[15]

Nic Fields, in his popular history of Spartacus, argues for a start appointment of 135 BC with the beginning of the First Servile War in Sicily.[16] Fields asserts:

The rebellion of the slaves in Italy nether Spartacus may have been the best organized, simply information technology was not the starting time of its kind. There had been other rebellions of slaves that afflicted Rome, and nosotros may assume that Spartacus was wise plenty to profit by their mistakes.[17]

The start of the Social War (91–88 BC), when Rome's nearby Italian allies rebelled against her rule, may be thought of as the beginning of the cease of the Republic.[xviii] [19] Fields too suggests that things got much worse with the Samnite engagement at the Boxing of the Colline Gate in 82 BC, the climax of the war between Sulla and the supporters of Gaius Marius.[20]

Barry Strauss argues that the crisis actually started with "The Spartacus State of war" in 73 BC, calculation that, because the dangers were unappreciated, "Rome faced the crunch with mediocrities".[21]

Arguments for a later start date (69 to 44 BC) [edit]

Thornton Wilder, in his novel The Ides of March, focuses on the menstruum c. 69 BC to 44 BC as the Crunch. Pollio and Ronald Syme engagement the Crunch merely from the time of Julius Caesar in threescore BC.[22] [ verification needed ] Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon, a river marking the northern boundary of Roman Italian republic, with his army in 49 BC, a flagrant violation of Roman law, has become the clichéd point of no return for the Republic, as noted in many books, including Tom Holland'due south Rubicon: The Final Years of the Roman Commonwealth.

Arguments for an terminate date (49 to 27 BC) [edit]

The terminate of the Crisis can likewise either be dated from the assassination of Julius Caesar on 15 March 44 BC, afterwards he and Sulla had done so much "to dismantle the government of the Republic,"[23] or alternately when Octavian was granted the title of Augustus past the Senate in 27 BC, mark the kickoff of the Roman Empire.[24] The end could as well be dated earlier, to the time of the constitutional reforms of Julius Caesar in 49 BC.[ citation needed ]

Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus [edit]

Tiberius Gracchus took office as a tribune of the plebs in late 134 BC while "everything in the Roman Democracy seemed to be in fine working lodge."[25] There were a few apparently minor problems, such as "the annoyance of a slave revolt in Sicily"[26] (the Outset Servile War).

At the same time, Roman society was a highly stratified class organization whose divisions were bubbling below the surface. This system consisted of noble families of the senatorial rank, the knight or equestrian grade, citizens (grouped into two or iii classes depending on the time period - self-governing allies of Rome, landowners, and plebs or tenant freemen), non-citizens who lived outside of southwestern Italy, and at the bottom, slaves. Past police force, only men who were citizens could vote in certain assemblies, and only those men who endemic a certain amount of existent property could serve in the armed services, which would gain them social prestige and boosted benefits of citizenship.[27] The government owned big tracts of farmland (ager publicus) that it had gained through conquest or escheat (acquisition from owners who had died without heirs); this it rented out to big landholders who used their slaves to till it or who sub-leased it to modest tenant farmers.[28] There was some social mobility and limited suffrage.[29] The plebs (or plebeians) were a socio-economic form, but also had possible origins every bit an indigenous grouping with its own cult to the goddess Ceres, and ultimately, were a political party during much of the Roman Republic.[30] This social system had been stable after the Disharmonize of the Orders, since economically both the patricians and the plebeians were relatively both well off. Italy was dominated by modest landowners. All the same, erstwhile after the Punic Wars, this changed due to various factors. Partly due to the availability of cheap grain coming into the Roman food supply, likewise as the social displacement caused to farmers who had to serve on long foreign campaigns using their ain financial resources and frequently having to sell out, the countryside came to exist dominated by large estates (latifundia) endemic by the Senatorial social club. This led to a population explosion in Rome itself, with the plebeians clinging desperately to survival while the patricians lived in splendor. This income inequality severely threatened the constitutional arrangements of the Republic, since all soldiers had to be belongings owners, and gradually property owning was being limited to a small Senate, rather than being evenly distributed beyond the Roman population.

Beginning in 133 BC, Gracchus tried to redress the grievances of displaced smallholders. He bypassed the Roman senate and used the plebeian assembly to pass a police limiting the corporeality of country belonging to the country that any individual could farm.[31] This would accept resulted in the breakup of the large plantations maintained by the rich on public country and worked past slaves.[31]

Gracchus' moderate programme of agrarian reform was motivated "to increase the number of Roman citizens who endemic land and consequently the number who would authorize every bit soldiers according to their census rating."[31] The programme included a method to quiet title, and had a goal of increasing the efficiency of farmland, while doling out small parcels of land to tenant farmers, his populist constituency.[31] Gracchus used a law that had been in place for over a century, the lex Hortensia of 287 BC, which allowed the assembly of plebs to bypass the Senate.[31] However, another tribune, Marcus Octavius, used his veto to scuttle the plan. It was widely believed that the rich Senators had bribed Octavius to veto the proposal.[31]

The crunch escalated: Gracchus pushed the associates to impeach and remove Octavius; the Senate denied funds to the commission needed for land reform; Gracchus then tried to use money out of a trust fund left by Attalus III of Pergamum; and the Senate blocked that, likewise.[32] At one point, Gracchus had "one of his freedmen... drag Octavius from the speaker's platform."[33] This attack violated the Lex sacrata, which prohibited people of lower status from violating the person of a person of higher form.[33] Rome's unwritten constitution hampered reform.[31] So Gracchus sought re-election to his one-year term, which was unprecedented in an era of strict term limits.[34] The oligarchic nobles responded past murdering Gracchus.[35] [36] Because Gracchus had been highly popular with the poor, and he had been murdered while working on their behalf, mass riots broke out in the metropolis in reaction to the assassination.[37]

Barbette Stanley Spaeth believed that he was killed because:

Tiberius Gracchus had transgressed the laws that protected the equilibrium of the social and political guild, the laws on the tribunician sacrosanctitas and attempted tyranny, and hence was subject to the penalty they prescribed, consecration of his goods and person [to Ceres].

—Barbette S. Spaeth, The Roman goddess Ceres, p. 74.[38]

Spaeth asserts that Ceres' roles as (a) patron and protector of plebeian laws, rights and Tribunes and (b) "normative/liminal" crimes, connected throughout the Republican era.[15] These roles were "exploited for the purposes of political propaganda during the Gracchan crunch...."[fifteen] Ceres' Aventine Temple served the plebeians equally cult centre, legal archive, treasury, and court of law, founded contemporaneously with the passage of the Lex sacrata;[fifteen] the lives and holding of those who violated this police force were forfeit to Ceres, whose judgment was expressed by her aediles.[39] The official decrees of the Senate (senatus consulta) were placed in her Temple, under her guardianship; Livy bluntly states this was done and then that the consuls could no longer arbitrarily tamper with the laws of Rome.[40] The Temple might as well have offered asylum for those threatened with arbitrary arrest past patrician magistrates.[41] Ceres was thus the patron goddess of Rome'southward written laws; the poet Vergil later calls her legifera Ceres (Law-bearing Ceres), a translation of Demeter'south Greek epithet, thesmophoros.[42] Those who approved the murder of Tiberius Gracchus in 133 BC justified his decease as punishment for his offense confronting the Lex sacrata of the goddess Ceres: those who deplored this as murder appealed to Gracchus' sacrosanct status equally tribune under Ceres' protection.[15] In 70 BC, Cicero refers to this killing in connexion with Ceres' laws and cults.[fifteen] [43] [44]

Rather than attempting to absolve for the murder, the Senate used a mission to Ceres' temple at Henna (in Sicily) to justify his execution.[38]

Nigh nine years later on Tiberius's younger blood brother, Gaius, passed more radical reforms. In addition to settling the poor in colonies on state conquered past Rome, he passed the lex frumentaria, which gave the poor the right to purchase grain at subsidized prices.[45] The agrarian reforms were only partially implemented by the committee; still Gracchi colonies were set up in both Italia and Carthage.[46]

Some of Gaius' followers acquired the decease of a man; many historians fence they were attacked and were acting in cocky-defense. In any instance, the expiry was used by Gaius Gracchus's political rival, Lucius Opimius, to suspend the constitution once more with another senatus consultum ultimum.[47] In the past, the senate eliminated political rivals either by establishing special judicial commissions or by passing a senatus consultum ultimum ("ultimate decree of the senate").[48] [49] Both devices immune the senate to featherbed the ordinary due process rights that all citizens had.[50] Gaius fled, but he was as well probably murdered by the oligarchs.[35] Co-ordinate to one aboriginal source, Gaius was not killed directly by them, but ordered his slave Philocrates to do the deed in a murder-suicide.[51]

Gaius Marius and Sulla [edit]

The next major reformer of the time was Gaius Marius, who like the Gracchi, was a populist.[3] Unlike them, he was also a full general.[3] [52] He abolished the holding requirement for becoming a soldier during the Jugurthine War, when the Roman regular army was very low on manpower and had difficulty maintaining the conflict.[3] [52] The poor enlisted in large numbers.[3] [52] This opening of the Army'southward ranks to the capite censi enfranchised the plebs, thus creating an esprit de corps in the enlarged ground forces.[3] [53] Some elites complained that the regular army now became unruly due to the commoners in its ranks, merely some modern historians have claimed that this was without good cause:[three] [53]

Marius stands accused of paving the way for the then-chosen lawless, greedy soldiery whose activities were thought to have contributed largely to the pass up and fall of the Democracy a few generations later. Nevertheless nosotros should not lose sight of the fact that Marius was not the offset to enrol the capite censi. Rome was ruled by an aristocratic oligarchy embedded in the Senate. Thus at times of extreme crisis in the past the Senate had impressed them, along with convicts and slaves, for service every bit legionaries.

—Nic Fields[3]

Marius employed his soldiers to defeat an invasion past the Germanic Cimbri and Teutons.[52] His political influence and military leadership allowed him to obtain 6 terms as delegate in 107, and 103 to 99 BC, an unprecedented accolade.[52] Nonetheless, on 10 Dec 100 BC the senate declared another senatus consultum ultimum, this time in social club to bring down Lucius Appuleius Saturninus, a radical tribune in the mould of the Gracchi who had been inciting violence in Rome on behalf of Marius' interests. The Senate ordered Marius to put down Saturninus and his supporters, who had taken defensive positions on the Capitol. Marius proceeded to do this, simply imprisoned Saturninus inside the Curia Hostilia, intending it seems to keep him live. However, a senatorial mob lynched the tribune regardless, by climbing atop the Senate House and throwing dislodged roof tiles downwardly onto Saturninus and his supporters below.[52]

Sulla, who was appointed as Marius' quaestor in 107, later contested with Marius for supreme ability. In 88, the senate awarded Sulla the lucrative and powerful mail of commander in the war against Mithridates over Marius. However, Marius managed to secure the position anyway, through political deal-making with Publius Sulpicius Rufus. Sulla initially went along, just finding support amid his troops, seized power in Rome and marched to Asia Minor with his soldiers anyway. There, he fought a largely successful military campaign and was non persecuted past the senate. Marius himself launched a insurrection with Cinna in Sulla's absence and put to expiry some of his enemies. He died shortly afterwards.[54]

Sulla made peace with Rome's enemies in the eastward and began to conform for his return to Rome. Cinna, Marius's populist successor, was killed by his ain men as they moved to run into Sulla on strange soil. When Sulla heard of this, he ceased negotiations with Rome and openly rebelled in 84. Invading the peninsula, he was joined by many aristocrats including Crassus and Pompey and defeated all major opposition within a year. He began a dictatorship and purged the state of many populists through proscription. A reign of terror followed in which some innocents were denounced but and so their property could be seized for the do good of Sulla's followers. Sulla's coup resulted in a major victory for the oligarchs. He reversed the reforms of the Gracchi and other populists, stripped the tribunes of the people of much of their power and returned authority over the courts to the senators.[55]

Pompey [edit]

Pompey the Groovy, the next major leader who aggravated the crisis, was built-in Gnaeus Pompeius, simply took his ain cognomen of Magnus ("the Great").[56] Pompey as a boyfriend was allied to Sulla,[57] but in the consular elections of 78 BC, he supported Lepidus confronting Sulla's wishes.[ citation needed ] When Sulla died subsequently that twelvemonth, Lepidus revolted, and Pompey suppressed him on behalf of the senate.[ citation needed ] Then he asked for proconsular imperium in Hispania, to bargain with the populares general Quintus Sertorius, who had held out for the past 3 years against Quintus Caecilius Metellus Pius, 1 of Sulla's nearly able generals.[58]

Pompey's career seems to have been driven by desire for military glory and disregard for traditional political constraints.[59] Pompey served next to Crassus and Julius Caesar as role of the first triumvirate of Rome, however, before this, the Roman elite turned him down— every bit they were beginning to fear the young, popular and successful full general. Pompey refused to disband his legions until his request was granted.[lx] The senate acceded, reluctantly granted him the title of proconsul and powers equal to those of Metellus, and sent him to Hispania.[61]

Pompey infamously wiped out what remained of Spartacus' troops in 71 BC, who had been pinned down by Crassus.[62] He received Rome'southward highest honor, the triumph, while Crassus the lesser honor of an ovation, which injure Crassus' pride.[63]

In 69 BC, he conquered Syria, defeated King Tigranes of Armenia, and replaced one puppet king, Seleucus VII Philometor with his brother Antiochus 13 Asiaticus.[56] Four years afterwards, he deposed the monarchy, replacing it with a governor.[56] This non only finished off the Seleucids,[64] but brought in thousands of slaves and strange peoples, including the Judeans, to Rome, thus creating the Jewish diaspora.[57] This generated swarms of refugees, which tin only have created its own discord.

While many of Pompey's reckless deportment ultimately increased discord in Rome, his unlucky alliance with Crassus and Caesar is cited equally beingness especially unsafe to the Republic.[22] In Jan 49 B.C., Caesar led his legions across the Rubicon River from Cisalpine Gaul to Italy, thus declaring state of war confronting Pompey and his forces. In August 48 B.C., with Pompey in pursuit, Caesar paused most Pharsalus, setting up military camp at a strategic location.[65] When Pompey'south senatorial forces vicious upon Caesar's smaller ground forces, they were entirely routed, and Pompey fled to Egypt. Pompey hoped that King Ptolemy, his former client, would assistance him, simply the Egyptian king feared offending the victorious Caesar. On 28 September, Pompey was invited to leave his ships and come ashore at Pelusium. As he prepared to footstep onto Egyptian soil, he was treacherously struck down and killed by an officer of Ptolemy.[65]

See also [edit]

  • Constitutional crisis
  • Crisis of the Third Century
  • Damnatio memoriae
  • Autonomous recidivism
  • Fall of the Western Roman Empire
  • The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Edward Gibbon

References [edit]

  1. ^ The root of excruciating means from crucifixion. See Fields, p. 79.
  2. ^ Fields, pp. 8, xviii–25, 35–37.
  3. ^ a b c d e f 1000 h i Fields, p. 41, citing Sallust, Iugurthinum 86.2.
  4. ^ Flower 2010, pp. ix–xi, 21–22.
  5. ^ a b Flower 2010, p. 33.
  6. ^ Bloom 2010, p. 34.
  7. ^ Flower 2010, pp. 162–3.
  8. ^ Dupont, p. ix.
  9. ^ Dupont, p. x.
  10. ^ Flower 2004, p. 89.
  11. ^ Flower 2004, pp. ninety-92.
  12. ^ Flower, p. 89, citing Appian.
  13. ^ Flower, p. 91.
  14. ^ Flower, p, 92.
  15. ^ a b c d due east f Spaeth (1996), p. 73.
  16. ^ Fields, p. seven, viii-x.
  17. ^ Fields, p. seven.
  18. ^ Flower, p. 97.
  19. ^ Fields, pp. 12, 24.
  20. ^ Fields, pp. xix-twenty.
  21. ^ Strauss, p. 96.
  22. ^ a b Syme, Ronald (1999). The Provincial at Rome: And, Rome and the Balkans 80BC-AD14. Academy of Exeter Printing. p. 16. ISBN978-0-85989-632-0. [Pollio] fabricated his history of the Civil Wars begin not with the crossing of the Rubicon, just with the compact betwixt Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar
  23. ^ Blossom, pp. 85, 366.
  24. ^ Flower, p. 366.
  25. ^ Bloom, p. 89
  26. ^ Blossom, p. 89, see also Fields, pp. seven-ten.
  27. ^ Fields, p. 41; Blossom, pp. 90–91, 93; Dupont, pp. xl–41, 45–48.
  28. ^ Flower, pp. ninety-91
  29. ^ Flower, p. 89, nn. 2, 3, citing various scholars discussions (citations omitted).
  30. ^ For a further word of the plebs and Ceres, see Spaeth (1996), pp. 6–10, 14–15, and 81–102 (Chapter four of that treatise), citing R. Mitchell, Patricians and Plebeians: The Origin of the Roman State (Ithaca and London 1990).
  31. ^ a b c d eastward f m Flower, p. 90.
  32. ^ Flower, pp. ninety-91.
  33. ^ a b Spaeth (1996), p. 75.
  34. ^ Flower, pp. 89, 91.
  35. ^ a b Strauss, p. 204-205
  36. ^ Spaeth (1996), pp. 74-75.
  37. ^ Blossom, pp. 91-92.
  38. ^ a b Spaeth (1996), p. 74, fn. 84, pp. 204-205, citing Cicero, Dom. 91, et al..
  39. ^ For discussion of the duties, legal status and immunities of plebeian tribunes and aediles, see Andrew Lintott, Violence in Republican Rome, Oxford University Press, 1999, pp. 92–101, and Spaeth, pp. 85-90.
  40. ^ Livy's proposal that the senatus consulta were placed at the Aventine Temple more or less at its foundation (Livy, Ab urbe condita, 3.55.thirteen) is implausible. See Spaeth (1996) p.86–87, 90.
  41. ^ The evidence for the temple as asylum is inconclusive; word is in Spaeth, 1996, p.84.
  42. ^ Cornell, T., The beginnings of Rome: Italia and Rome from the Bronze Age to the Punic Wars (c. 1000–264 BC), Routledge, 1995, p. 264, citing vergil, Aeneid, 4.58.
  43. ^ David Stockton, Cicero: a political biography, Oxford Academy Printing, 1971, pp. 43–49. Cicero's published account of the example is usually known equally In Verrem, or Confronting Verres.
  44. ^ Cicero, Against Verres, Second pleading, 4.49–51:English version available at wikisource.
  45. ^ Flower, p. 93
  46. ^ Dupont, pp. 45-46, 48.
  47. ^ Blossom, p. 94, citing J. von Ungern-Sternberg, Unter suchungen: senatus consultum ultimum, pp. 55-57 (Munich 1970) and W. Nippels, Public order in aboriginal Rome, pp. 57-69 (Cambridge 1995).
  48. ^ Polybius, 133
  49. ^ Polybius, 136
  50. ^ Abbott, 98
  51. ^ Dupont, p. 58, n. 29, citing Valerius maximus, Works, Half-dozen.8.5.
  52. ^ a b c d e f Flower, pp. 95-96.
  53. ^ a b Come across too Fields, pp. 12, 46.
  54. ^ Roberts, John (2007). Oxford Dictionary of the Classical World. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. pp. 187–188, 450–451. ISBN978-0-19-280146-3.
  55. ^ Roberts, John (2007). Oxford Lexicon of the Classical Earth. Oxford, England: Oxford University Printing. pp. 187–188, 450–451. ISBN978-0-19-280146-3.
  56. ^ a b c Losch, p. 390.
  57. ^ a b Losch, p. 349.
  58. ^ Fields, q.five., get p. #
  59. ^ The netherlands 2004, pp. 141–2. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHolland2004 (help)
  60. ^ Plutarch, Parallel Lives, Life of Pompey, p. 158 (Loeb Classical Library, 1917).
  61. ^ Boak, Arthur E.R. A History of Rome to 565 A.D., p. 152 (MacMillan, New York, 1922).
  62. ^ Losch, p. 349; Fields, pp. 71-81.
  63. ^ Fields, pp. 81-82; Losch, p. 349; Strauss, pp. 195-200.
  64. ^ Losch, pp. 379-390, 575.
  65. ^ a b "Pompey the Not bad assassinated - Sep 28, 48 B.C. - HISTORY.com". HISTORY.com . Retrieved 4 November 2017.

Major sources and farther reading [edit]

  • Abbott, Frank Frost (2006) [1901]. A history and description of Roman political institutions. ISBN0-543-92749-0. OCLC 855860566.
  • Brunt, P. A. (1988). The autumn of the Roman Republic and related essays. Oxford: Clarendon Printing. ISBN0-19-814849-6. OCLC 16466585.
  • Dupont, Florence (1993). Daily life in ancient Rome. Translated by Woodall, Christopher. Oxford, United kingdom: Blackwell. ISBN0-631-17877-5. OCLC 25788455.
  • Eisenstadt, S. N.; Roniger, Luis (1984). Patrons, clients, and friends : interpersonal relations and the construction of trust in order. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN0-521-24687-iii. OCLC 10299353.
  • Fields, Nic (2009). Spartacus and the Slave War 73-71 BC : a gladiator rebels against Rome. Steve Noon. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN978-ane-84603-353-seven. OCLC 320495559.
  • Bloom, Harriet I., ed. (2014) [2004]. The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic (2nd ed.). ISBN978-1-107-66942-0.
    • Brennan, T Corey. "Power and Process under the Republican "Constitution"". In Flower (2014), pp. 19–53.
    • von Ungern-Sternberg, Jorgen. "The Crisis of the Roman Commonwealth". In Flower (2014), pp. 78-100.
  • Flower, Harriet I. (2010). Roman republics. Princeton: Princeton University Printing. ISBN978-0-691-14043-8. OCLC 301798480.
  • Gruen, Erich S. (1995). The Terminal Generation of the Roman Republic. Berkeley. ISBN0-520-02238-6. OCLC 943848.
  • Kingdom of the netherlands, Tom (2003). Rubicon : the last years of the Roman Republic (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday. ISBN0-385-50313-X. OCLC 52878507.
  • Losch, Richard R. (2008). All the people in the Bible : an a-z guide to the saints, scoundrels, and other characters in scripture. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans. ISBN978-0-8028-2454-7. OCLC 213599663.
  • Meier, Christian (1995). Caesar: a biography. David McLintock. New York: BasicBooks/HarperCollins. ISBN0-465-00894-one. OCLC 33246109.
  • Meier, Christian (1997). Res publica amissa: eine Studie zu Verfassung und Geschichte der späten römischen Republik (in German). Suhrkamp. ISBN978-iii-518-57506-2.
  • Polybius (1823). The Full general History of Polybius: Translated from the Greek. Vol. 2 (Fifth ed.). Oxford: Printed by W. Baxter.
  • Seager, Robin, ed. (1969). The crisis of the Roman commonwealth : studies in political and social history. Cambridge: Heffer. ISBN0-85270-024-5. OCLC 28921.
  • Barbette Spaeth (1996). The Roman Goddess Ceres. U. of Texas Press. ISBN0-292-77693-4.
  • Strauss, Barry S. (2009). The Spartacus war (1st ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN978-1-4165-3205-7. OCLC 232979141.
  • Syme, Ronald (1999) [1939]. The provincial at Rome : and, Rome and the Balkans 80BC-AD14. Anthony Birley. Exeter: Academy of Exeter Printing. ISBN0-85989-632-3. OCLC 59407034.
  • Wiseman, T. P. (2009). Remembering the Roman people : essays on late-Republican politics and literature. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. ISBN978-0-19-156750-six. OCLC 328101074.

External links [edit]

  • Works past Sallust at Project Gutenberg (Schmitz and Zumpt, 1848): Bellum Iugurthinum

gonzalestworaverefor.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis_of_the_Roman_Republic

0 Response to "The Year 211 Bce Was a Turning Point for Both Rome and Roman Art Because"

Postar um comentário

Assinar: Postar comentários (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel