Assess the impact of violence on Roman politics during this historical period.

The use of violence, stemming from the political assassination of Tiberius Gracchus, had a pejorative impact on Roman politics during this historical period. Its impact was pejorative in the sense that it denigrated the Senates authority and destabilized Roman politics by intensifying the conflict between the populares and optimates and social groups.

Violence had a detrimental impact on Roman politics during this period. Firstly, when the Senate assassinated Tiberius Gracchus, they reintroduced violence into politics for the first time in over 400 years and inaugurated a century of political violence (Michael Grant) that would have a plethora of drastic implications on Roman politics. Secondly, the level of violence escalated as the period progressed from the tribunate of Tiberius Gracchus to the collapse [is this term appropriate here: what are you trying to say, specifically?] of the post Sullan oligarchy. This is exemplified in the deaths of Gaius Gracchus and his supporters by the Senate, the use of Marius veterans to eradicate opposition to the populares (Marius, Sulpicius, Saturninus and Glaucia), the assassination of Livius Drusus Minor for supporting Italian enfranchisement, the use of violence by the socii in attempting to achieve independence / citizenship, the Civil War and Sullas proscription lists. Thirdly, with the increasing use of violence, violence became a first rather than a last resort to achieve political gains during this period. As such, the impact of using such violent measures exerted a harmful impact on Roman politics as it undermined the Senates authority and destabilized the Roman state.

At first, violence was used by the Senate to dispose of political enemies who they felt threatened the stability of the state. The use of violence was legitimised and encouraged as a political weapon when the Senate beat (Tiberius) brains out in the street (Beesly), enacted the senatus consultum ultimum to deal with Gaius and acquitted Opimius for the deaths of Gaius and 3000 Gracchan supporters and assassinated Livius Drusus Minor for supporting Italian enfranchisement. [evidence of the Senates involvement??]Though the use of violence against political opposition (notably the tribunes) enabled the Senate to regain its position, Plutarch notes that it lost greatly in prestige and authority as it revealed their lack of potestas and imperium - showing that they could only eradicate political opposition through violent means and friendly tribunes such as Marcus Octavius and Livius Drusus Major. C.F. Konrad also comments that bloody violence (against Gaius) carried a whiff of civil war. As such, violence had a pejorative impact on Roman politics by legitimising the use of political violence for both the optimates and populares and catalysing the destabilization of Roman politics.

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, the populares 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 Marius veterans 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 the conservatives 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 and populares. 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 and populares 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 sociis 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.

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. Sullas march 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 Woolf especially 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 the sources we have used in class 2. I would probably abbreviate your first paragraph and integrate it into your introduction so that you can spend 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 and the nature of my concern highlighted in aqua.