A2 - Rome
HOW FAR DO THE SOURCES SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE SENATE FAILED TO DEAL WITH THE CHALLENGES FACING THE ROMAN REPUBLIC?
Key:
EXAMPLES
DATES
SOURCES
(TEACHER NOTES)
Throughout the 70s, 60s and 50s BCE, the Roman Senate faced many socio-economic challenges. Not only did this include the increasing power of individuals such as Pompey and Caesar but also external factors which affected Rome like the Social War (90-88 BCE), for which the problems were never fully addressed, the Slave revolt (73-71 BCE) and the Piracy issues (mainly in 67 BCE). The Senate took several stances on how to approach these challenges but largely they used powerful militarians or strong politicians to take control of the situation. In this essay I (NEVER USE 'I' IN AN ESSAY) will be using Plutarch's biographies of Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, Lucullus and Sulla, in addition to snippets of Cassius Dio, Appian and Cicero's speech 'in Catilinam' and letters, to discuss how far the Senate's decisions in the face of these challenges resulted in failure.
Perhaps Rome's biggest error when it comes to addressing challenges is that they tend to grant all the power to one individual or they remain indecisive and keep switching whose in charge. An example of the first point is Sulla's dictatorship (REMEMBER THAT SULLA WAS ATTEMPTING TO STRENGTHEN THE POWER OF THE SENATE AND REDUCE THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNES) in 81 BCE where he is described to have power over life and death (Plutarch, Sulla 33). His many reforms in all areas of political Roman life left the Senate wary over their decision, particularly when Sulla brought about his Proscriptions (Plutarch, Sulla 30). Despite their worries, Sulla resigned from his political post at the end of the year (Plutarch, Sulla 34) however he had made significant changes to how the Roman Republic was run. Wary at what others could do with this power, the Senate avoided granting dictatorship for another 3 1/2 decades. Despite this, the Senate still granted unprecedented power to individuals, particularly Pompey. In 67 BCE, the issue of Piracy grew serious as trade by sea into Rome was halted (Appian) and so the lex Gabina was passed (Plutarch, Pompey 25). Plutarch, despite admiring the militarian abilities of generals like Pompey (GOOD - RELIABILITY), disagreed wholeheartedly with the extent of power this law granted as the whole of Rome was in "one man's hand" (Plutarch, Pompey 30). It does seem that the Senate have some restraint via the Optimates who are wary of Pompey's ambitions but believe they gain control him even after his involvement in the First Triumvirate (59-52 BCE). After the violence in Rome increases drastically throughout the 50s, the Senate clamoured to make Pompey dictator in 52 BCE (GOOD - USE OF DATES) so that order could be restored. Cato changed their mind by suggesting a sole-consulship so that Pompey would have all the power of a dictator but it would be levelled through the responsibilities of consul (Appian on Build up to Civil War). The Senate's wary approach seems to have led to sensible and optimal results as Pompey never seemed to try and seize more power and the outcomes of his leadership were always in Rome's favour. The exception is Julius Caesar's dictatorship in 46 BCE yet (ALTHOUGH JC WAS ALL ABOUT CHALLENGING THE OPTIMATES IN THE SENATE - OR THE OTHER WAY ROUND) even that was justified as a way for Rome to get respite from Civil War (Plutarch, Caesar) and even Cicero, who has known to hate and disagree with Caesar's populares approach to politics on many occasions admitted that "we are his slaves but he is a slave to the times" (Cicero's letters to friends in 46 BCE).
Rome have also kept switching the generals in charge when facing some challenges which perhaps causes more problems than it solves. The constant change in generalship for the Slave Revolt (73-71) for example led to Crassus and Pompey's career-length rivalry (I BET THEY WERE STILL RIVALS); minus the years in the Triumvirate. Pompey received the majority of the credit for that victory as, although Crassus may have defeated Spartacus in open battle (71 BCE), Pompey had dug up the rebellion from its roots (Plutarch, Crassus 11). The Senate had also involved many other generals in that battle such as Cassius who received hardly any credit at all due to their failures (Plutarch, Crassus 9). Lucullus received the same sort of treatment as even his own army mutineed against him despite his effective military tactics. Lucullus' victory over Mithridates was effectively stolen from him by Pompey (Plutarch, Lucullus) and the disgrace was so much that not even his men wished to celebrate his efforts. The damage of the Senate's decision to send in Pompey led to Lucullus being wronged and not having the lavish Triumph he deserved (Plutarch, Lucullus).
Socio-economic problems not only concerned those in the Senate but mostly came from issues with the Plebs. When Sulla's dictatorship in 81 BCE led to a reverse of Gaius Graccus' cheap grain distribution law of 123 BCE, the suffering of the plebeians grew more dire. This meant that the clamour for populares politicians increased thus leading to the elections of Caesar for consul in 59 BCE and Clodius as tribune in 58 BCE. When Clodius came into power, he used cheap grain distribution as a way to gain power and support from the people of Rome. This led to him legalising collegias (Cassius Dio) and allowing for gang violence to overtake Rome during the majority of the 50s. The Senate didn't even try and address this until 52 BCE where they made Pompey sole-consul. This was a mistake on the Senate's behalf as Clodius had already been killed that year by Milo who was the leader of Pompey's own gang (JUST SHOWING HOW FAR THE SENATE HAD LOST CONTROL AT THAT POINT). Pompey's act as sole-consul to ban public violence was therefore merely a dismissal of Milo (Appian on build up to Civil War) meaning he gained far more popularity for his actions that he actually deserved. Catiline also used the cheap grain and the cancellation of debts or novae tabulae as bribery for support in the second Catilinarian conspiracy (63 BCE). The Senate were perhaps quicker to act on this one as Cicero made several speeches, one specifically aimed at the followers of Catiline in an attempt to persuade them that Catiline was offering them fake promises (in Catilinam, II, 18). Although Sallust in 'The Conspiracy of Catiline' suggests that this move was ineffective, at least the Senate (THEY PASSED THE SENATUS CONSULTUM ULTIMUM) took notable action.
The Senate's methods to address problems of Rome ranged from indecision, ultimate power to individuals, and the reliance on optimate persuasion. While all of these can be considered unwise to a certain extent, it is not a fair judgement to deem these decisions as failures. In all aspects, the socio-economic and war related challenges were dealt with effectively with the possible exception of Caesar's life dictatorship - however one could argue that this resulted in disaster due to his murder and not his actual actions when in power. Overall, the Senate were largely successful in facing challenges that threatened the Republic yet they made some choice (NOT SURE ABOUT THIS LAST POINT) and late decisions which occasionally affected the quality of the outcome.
(A GOOD ESSAY JEMMA - WELL DONE! I HAVE MADE A FEW COMMENTS ON IT - HAVE A LOOK AT THE MARK SCHEME FOR A FEW MORE IDEAS)
~ 43/50 ~ A ~
HOW FAR DO THE SOURCES SUPPORT THE VIEW THAT THE SENATE FAILED TO DEAL WITH THE CHALLENGES FACING THE ROMAN REPUBLIC?
~ timed: 1 hour ~
* I did not know the exact essay title before writing this however I was given just over an hour's planning time beforehand with the theme 'Socio-Economic Problems' to focus onKey:
EXAMPLES
DATES
SOURCES
(TEACHER NOTES)
Throughout the 70s, 60s and 50s BCE, the Roman Senate faced many socio-economic challenges. Not only did this include the increasing power of individuals such as Pompey and Caesar but also external factors which affected Rome like the Social War (90-88 BCE), for which the problems were never fully addressed, the Slave revolt (73-71 BCE) and the Piracy issues (mainly in 67 BCE). The Senate took several stances on how to approach these challenges but largely they used powerful militarians or strong politicians to take control of the situation. In this essay I (NEVER USE 'I' IN AN ESSAY) will be using Plutarch's biographies of Pompey, Crassus, Caesar, Lucullus and Sulla, in addition to snippets of Cassius Dio, Appian and Cicero's speech 'in Catilinam' and letters, to discuss how far the Senate's decisions in the face of these challenges resulted in failure.
Perhaps Rome's biggest error when it comes to addressing challenges is that they tend to grant all the power to one individual or they remain indecisive and keep switching whose in charge. An example of the first point is Sulla's dictatorship (REMEMBER THAT SULLA WAS ATTEMPTING TO STRENGTHEN THE POWER OF THE SENATE AND REDUCE THE POWER OF THE TRIBUNES) in 81 BCE where he is described to have power over life and death (Plutarch, Sulla 33). His many reforms in all areas of political Roman life left the Senate wary over their decision, particularly when Sulla brought about his Proscriptions (Plutarch, Sulla 30). Despite their worries, Sulla resigned from his political post at the end of the year (Plutarch, Sulla 34) however he had made significant changes to how the Roman Republic was run. Wary at what others could do with this power, the Senate avoided granting dictatorship for another 3 1/2 decades. Despite this, the Senate still granted unprecedented power to individuals, particularly Pompey. In 67 BCE, the issue of Piracy grew serious as trade by sea into Rome was halted (Appian) and so the lex Gabina was passed (Plutarch, Pompey 25). Plutarch, despite admiring the militarian abilities of generals like Pompey (GOOD - RELIABILITY), disagreed wholeheartedly with the extent of power this law granted as the whole of Rome was in "one man's hand" (Plutarch, Pompey 30). It does seem that the Senate have some restraint via the Optimates who are wary of Pompey's ambitions but believe they gain control him even after his involvement in the First Triumvirate (59-52 BCE). After the violence in Rome increases drastically throughout the 50s, the Senate clamoured to make Pompey dictator in 52 BCE (GOOD - USE OF DATES) so that order could be restored. Cato changed their mind by suggesting a sole-consulship so that Pompey would have all the power of a dictator but it would be levelled through the responsibilities of consul (Appian on Build up to Civil War). The Senate's wary approach seems to have led to sensible and optimal results as Pompey never seemed to try and seize more power and the outcomes of his leadership were always in Rome's favour. The exception is Julius Caesar's dictatorship in 46 BCE yet (ALTHOUGH JC WAS ALL ABOUT CHALLENGING THE OPTIMATES IN THE SENATE - OR THE OTHER WAY ROUND) even that was justified as a way for Rome to get respite from Civil War (Plutarch, Caesar) and even Cicero, who has known to hate and disagree with Caesar's populares approach to politics on many occasions admitted that "we are his slaves but he is a slave to the times" (Cicero's letters to friends in 46 BCE).
Rome have also kept switching the generals in charge when facing some challenges which perhaps causes more problems than it solves. The constant change in generalship for the Slave Revolt (73-71) for example led to Crassus and Pompey's career-length rivalry (I BET THEY WERE STILL RIVALS); minus the years in the Triumvirate. Pompey received the majority of the credit for that victory as, although Crassus may have defeated Spartacus in open battle (71 BCE), Pompey had dug up the rebellion from its roots (Plutarch, Crassus 11). The Senate had also involved many other generals in that battle such as Cassius who received hardly any credit at all due to their failures (Plutarch, Crassus 9). Lucullus received the same sort of treatment as even his own army mutineed against him despite his effective military tactics. Lucullus' victory over Mithridates was effectively stolen from him by Pompey (Plutarch, Lucullus) and the disgrace was so much that not even his men wished to celebrate his efforts. The damage of the Senate's decision to send in Pompey led to Lucullus being wronged and not having the lavish Triumph he deserved (Plutarch, Lucullus).
Socio-economic problems not only concerned those in the Senate but mostly came from issues with the Plebs. When Sulla's dictatorship in 81 BCE led to a reverse of Gaius Graccus' cheap grain distribution law of 123 BCE, the suffering of the plebeians grew more dire. This meant that the clamour for populares politicians increased thus leading to the elections of Caesar for consul in 59 BCE and Clodius as tribune in 58 BCE. When Clodius came into power, he used cheap grain distribution as a way to gain power and support from the people of Rome. This led to him legalising collegias (Cassius Dio) and allowing for gang violence to overtake Rome during the majority of the 50s. The Senate didn't even try and address this until 52 BCE where they made Pompey sole-consul. This was a mistake on the Senate's behalf as Clodius had already been killed that year by Milo who was the leader of Pompey's own gang (JUST SHOWING HOW FAR THE SENATE HAD LOST CONTROL AT THAT POINT). Pompey's act as sole-consul to ban public violence was therefore merely a dismissal of Milo (Appian on build up to Civil War) meaning he gained far more popularity for his actions that he actually deserved. Catiline also used the cheap grain and the cancellation of debts or novae tabulae as bribery for support in the second Catilinarian conspiracy (63 BCE). The Senate were perhaps quicker to act on this one as Cicero made several speeches, one specifically aimed at the followers of Catiline in an attempt to persuade them that Catiline was offering them fake promises (in Catilinam, II, 18). Although Sallust in 'The Conspiracy of Catiline' suggests that this move was ineffective, at least the Senate (THEY PASSED THE SENATUS CONSULTUM ULTIMUM) took notable action.
The Senate's methods to address problems of Rome ranged from indecision, ultimate power to individuals, and the reliance on optimate persuasion. While all of these can be considered unwise to a certain extent, it is not a fair judgement to deem these decisions as failures. In all aspects, the socio-economic and war related challenges were dealt with effectively with the possible exception of Caesar's life dictatorship - however one could argue that this resulted in disaster due to his murder and not his actual actions when in power. Overall, the Senate were largely successful in facing challenges that threatened the Republic yet they made some choice (NOT SURE ABOUT THIS LAST POINT) and late decisions which occasionally affected the quality of the outcome.
(A GOOD ESSAY JEMMA - WELL DONE! I HAVE MADE A FEW COMMENTS ON IT - HAVE A LOOK AT THE MARK SCHEME FOR A FEW MORE IDEAS)
~ 43/50 ~ A ~
Comments
Post a Comment