Hey grace.estelle!
Here is your feedback on the essay you posted in the question thread.
Overall a strong response Grace! Definitely a big improvement from the paragraph I looked at before, well done!
Only a few minor comments here and there, mainly in regards to expression and wording. If your teacher accepts drafts I'd ask her to give this a look over as well to check in terms of content (and of course if she also has some extra opinions on structure), however overall I would be pretty confident handing something like this in :)
Great work! Let me know if you're confused with any of the feedback :)
Susie
Hey Susie,
thank you so much, your replies are so fast too!! The writing wouldn't have been much of an improvement if it wasn't for your help! ;D
Attached is my essay
My original version has images of evidence (frescoes, artefacts, features e.t.c) however due to the file size restriction of ATAR notes forum i had to remove them.
Also sorry for the wait, I had to reduce the file size took me awhile..
Thanks so much for offering to help me! ;D
Hey Maraos!Thanks so much for the marking! Your response time is impressive! ;D
No worries about the images :) Feedback on your essay can be found in the spoiler tag, along with some general comments underneath. In your message you said that word count was a problem, so I'm going to use astrikethroughwherever I believe you can cut down on words :) I have also used red to add any words or phrases that I feel are structurally necessary.SpoilerPublic building (Pompeii)
Common name: Amphitheatre of Pompeii
Region and insula number: Region II Insula 6 (II.6)
Location on an annotated streetscape:
I'm assuming the stuff written above was specified within the assessment notification? Just because in an actual essay you won't want to be using subheadings - but if this assessment requires it then its A-okay :)The Amphitheatre of Pompeii is one of the most impressive public monuments in the whole city, hmmm. I always tried to stay away from judgements like "most impressive" - just appears too dramatic. Archeological evidence within the building reveals much about local political life, Roman social structure, economy and leisure activities providing a glimpse into ancient life in the Roman world. I feel like this could be your judgement! Maybe clean it up a bit, but something like: As a public building, The Amphitheatre of Pompeii and its contents provide historians with an array of critical evidence, revealing much about local political life, Roman social structure, economy and leisure activities.It is the oldest known permanent amphitheatre in ItalyNice detail, but is it 100% important?Having beenConstructed shortly after the foundation of the Roman colony at Pompeii in the 70s BCE, evidence for its foundation and construction are found from two identical inscriptions, located over the main entrances to the Amphitheatre. These inscriptions record that it was dedicated in perpetuity to the colonists of Pompeii by the two quinquennial duumviri, Gaius Quincitius Valgus and M.Porcius. Great integration of a source! Thus the amphitheatre was closely associated with the new colonists and acted as a symbol of the new political order. Great link! The repeated reference to the ‘colony’ in the inscription emphasises the dominance of the new Roman elite over the native population. Fantastic paragraph Maraos! Setting up a strong essay! I do have one question though - were you expected to have an introduction, or to just jump straight into your response? Because this has too much specific detail to be considered an intro.
Evidence of social structure and inequality in the Roman world is highlighted through the configuration and layout of the amphitheatre. Good, clear and succinct judgment - Nice! It was made up I think you could find better words to say "made up" - comprised of perhaps? of two major sections, the ‘cavea’ (spectator seating) and the arena. The seats of the cavea were carefully ranked, the lowest section of seating was known as the ‘ima cavea’ and were reserved for the local elite, who enjoyed spacious seating and a ringside view. The other two sections known as the ‘media cavea’ and the 'summa cavea’were larger and would haveseated more spectators, mostlythosefrom the lower classes. The ima cavea is physically separated from the other sections by a continuous balustrade around 80 centimeters high, preventing any exchange between these spectators and the rest of the crowd. Further evidence of social stratification is provided by epigraphical sources, such asEpigraphic evidence of social structure comes fromeight inscriptions carved into the amphitheater’s travertine podium,theserecording that individual duoviri chose to contribute specific wedges of tufa seats. The donation of seating as pointed out by Parslow helped clearly differentiate the spectators according to class and rank, where the magistrates and the game’s sponsors occupied the prime rows. Again absolutely fantastic! Your integration of sources and detail is superb :)Not only were spectators of different social status separated from each other during the events themselves but the methods in which they merely entered the amphitheatre were different. Those of the lower class made their way up the steep stairways on the outside of the building to their seats.4 In contrast those of the upper elite class entered through one of the lower entranceways, which led to an internal corridor running around the perimeter of the arena.This is great detail, but I think you may be going on a bit too much about social structure now. I think you made your point well enough in the previous paragraph and this could be shortened dramatically (or even cut completely tbh). This is NOT because I dislike the paragraph - but just in terms of word count I feel like you can get rid of a lot here.This way the elite bypassed the exterior steep steps, as pointed out by Beard; “on this system the rich would never have had to cross paths, or rub shoulders in the mêlée, with the great unwashed.” 5This separation reveals the prominence of social stratification and elitism within the Roman social structure of Pompeii. This final judgement is fantastic. Even if you cut out this paragraph, please keep this link.
The amphitheatreand surrounding areawas also designed to capitalize on the crowds entering this quarter of the city, providing a detailed insight into the nature of commerce, tourism and trade in the Roman world. Good judgementBased off the seating arrangements in the amphitheatreIt has been estimated that in total 10,000 to 20,000 spectators could be accommodated in the ampitheatre. This figure is far more than the male citizen body of Pompeiiandrevealing that the complex was intended to hold a large number of visitors from other settlements in the region maybe you could mention how it is believed that Herculaneans in particular used to come, as no amphitheatre has been excavated there! encouraging tourism and trade. As pointed out by Berry “the influx of neighboring peoples into Pompeii to watch the games must have had a significant impact on both her economy and status.” Painted inscriptions located beneath the external arches of the amphitheatre reveal that stalls and shop owners set up their stands for the sale of food and drink, such as Onesuch inscription readthat suggests Gnaeus Aninius Fortunatus had the aediles’ permission to occupy a certain space. Further evidence for trade and commerce comes from the famous fresco depicting the riot of A.D 59 where itinerant vendors of food and drink have set up their tables under the trees. During the excavation of the amphitheatre casts of ancient tree roots were created, confirming that trees did indeed grow in the square of the amphitheatre thus confirming the accuracy of the fresco. Your knowledge of detail is incredible!Property owners in the adjacent area also converted their homes and vineyards into taverns and restaurants, their proximity allowed these establishments to draw their business from one another.Great detail, but at this point I think your argument is solid enough :)Therefore not only was the amphitheatre a place of leisure and entertainment, it was also a major tourist destination and a central trading center revealing the nature of commerce and trade in the Roman world.
The Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum is one of the most impressive and luxurious private houses in all of Herculaneum. Like before, I think this is a little bit of a dramatic intro. Instead maybe: The Villa of the Papyri in Herculaneum is a highly valuable source of information pertaining to the Ancient roman world, providng extensive evidence on Greek influences, leisure activities and roman luxury. It was described by the famous archaeologist and curator of Herculaneum, Amedeo Maiuri, as the “Most valuable and richest villa of the ancient world.” Its abundance of archaeological artefacts and fixed features highlights the nature of Greek influence on Roman life, leisure activities and Roman luxury.
Villa owners often expressed their philosophical inclinations in visual form. If this paragraph is on Greek influences, then that needs to be explicitly addressed within your first sentence. This is clearly demonstrated in the luxurious Villa of the Paypri where evidence of Greek Epicurean influence has been uncovered through the discovery of a library in the Villa with a collection of over 1,800 carbonised papyri. This sentence came across a bit clunky - I feel like you could cut down a lot just by rewording.Most of the papyri were found in a room along with four inscribed busts of the Greek philosophers Epicurus, Hermarchus and Zeno.Great detail, but is it really important? I know it emphasises greek influence, but I feel like in comparison to everything else its less significant. Three quarters of all the scrolls that have been successfully opened so far are works of Philodemus of Gadara, a minor Greek Epicurean philosopher of the 1st century BC 13. The vast majority of the remaining papyri contain a number of Greek philosophical texts such as parts of Epicurus’ ‘on nature’, works of the stoic philosopher Chrysippus,14 and only a few fragments of Latin, 15 however as new technologies are employed the remaining scrolls might uncover a different story. Classics professor David Sider argues that what has been found was in fact Philodemus’ own working library, and that the owner himself was Philodemus’ patron. 16 It has been suggested that the owner was Lucius Calpurnius Piso, father in-law of Julius Caesar and patron of Philodemus, 17 however as pointed out by Berry, 18 and Dickmann 19this claim is not on the basis of any firm evidence. I feel like the discussion on whether it was actually his workshop could be cut down - is it really answering the question effectively? The abundance of Greek art and Epicurean literature within the library highlights both the influence of Greek culture on Roman life and Roman admiration towards Epicureanism suggesting that the Romans were heavily influenced by its hedonistic approach to life. Great link.
Household decoration was a significant aspect of the ancient Roman world, as highlighted by Hadrill, private decoration tells us about the social use of space and from this reflects the social position and wealth of the inhabitants. Classics professor Richard Janko points out that the Villa of the Papyri was not merely a holiday house but a mouseion, a place to show off a collection of spectacular works of art and literature, thus revealing much about Roman luxury and social structure. If you're going to talk about social structure - which I agree you should - you need to explictly mention that within your introductory sentence for the Villa of the Papyri On the western side of the villa is a large peristyleover 90m long and 30m wide, filled with fountains, several large gardens and an overwhelming wealth of sculptures in bronze and marble. These included famous statues such as; the ‘Drunken faun’, ‘seated Hermes’ and the ‘dancing maidens,’ the statuary also included portraits of politicians, army heroes, writes, images of gods, satyrs and animals. Moormann points out that “the peristyle was reminiscent of a Greek idllic landscape, combined with a gymnasium, where sports and philosophy were practiced”.This view is further supported by Dickmann.23Don't mention historians if you're not going to explain them.The sculpted figures represented the finest elements of Hellenic culture and emphasise the owner’s admiration towards Greek art symbolising a fondness for living in the Greek style. The villa’s exquisite architecture and works of art represents more than a display of wealth. It is a method of displaying, or laying claim to social rank highlighting the increasing Hellenizing culture of the senatorial elite of the later Republic. Nice! This reflects a cultural revolution among the elite that originated from intense competition, in the need to assert claim to social leadership and status. This movement not only affected the elite, luxury living created the image of success and happiness to which even those with slender resources aspired, creating a sense of belonging and membership in a society in which ideology and culture was defined by the aristocracy of the capital. Really sophisticated analysis right here! Well done!
Okay! So overall I think this is a really good essay Maraos!
I do have a few questions in regards to structure. Where you told to separate your responses in this way and to use subheadings? Just because in an exam situation, you wouldn't be allowed to do that, so I'm just making sure that your teacher told you to structure it this way, because if not then some of my feedback changes. Please let me know if this isn't the case!
The positives - you are analysing really really well, and your grasp of detail is really extensive! This is the kinda stuff that differentiates between a band 5 and a band 6 (and a low band 6 to a high band 6!) so I'm really pleased to see that you are already at this level so early on.
In terms of cutting down your word count, I don't necessarily think that you are waffling because the information you provide is usually really relevant. However, when it comes to Ancient you don't need to discuss EVERYTHING about a particular issue. 2 detailed examples to support your argument is usually enough :)
I've tried to direct you a bit in regards to what to cut out, but if you want to include another paragraph for the Villa of the Papyri on leisure activities (which I do suggest!), then you will need to cut out more. I was notorious for going over the word limit in every subject last year (6000+ word draft for what was meant to be my 2500 history extension major work haha), and the way that I stopped myself was just by being really really ruthless. If a point didn't 110% add/support my argument, then I cut it. My sentences were often really really long as well, and often by just taking the time to reword them I could significantly cut back on my word usage (plus appear more succinct!) This is something that I think could work for your response too, as some of your sentences were quite long.
But yeah! Overall I think this was a really good essay Maraos! Well done ;D Please let me know if there is anything that you are confused about! Happy to clarify + expand upon anything if need be :)
Susie
Thanks so much for the marking! Your response time is impressive! ;D
Firstly,
Yes, this essay is in a weird structure, my teacher said it's more of a report rather than an essay (personally I think its an unusual assignment, but yeah)
secondly, my teacher said we didn't have to include an introduction since it isn't really a proper essay, he said we can just get right into answering the question
I was also thinking of adding this point for the amphitheater, but once again the word count is really annoying.SpoilerThe popularity of the gladiatorial shows and the spectacles at the amphitheatre lead to the civic benefaction of magistrates in an attempt to gain votes and public favor. (revealing much about local political life, leisure activities, influence of other cultures)
- Go into the types of shows at the amphitheatre and just how important they were to the population
- Speak about evidence from graffito about particular aspects of the shows and how the Pompeiians treated gladiators like ‘celebrities’ by grafting the walls of the amphitheatre (pg 36 BBC book)
- The fact that the amphitheatre was rebuilt after the earthquake of 62 AD as opposed to other public buildings such as temples, the theatre e.t.c emphasises just how important it was to the Pompeiians. (highlighting the nature of leisure activities in the romans world and just how important they were to the people of ancient Rome)
- Then speak about how magistrates used this love towards the Amphitheatre as a means of gaining popularity among voters in Pompeii e.t.c (evidence can be taken from inscriptions that reveal that the benefactors payed for the shows, thus revealing the ways in which they attempted to gain popularity)
Useful sources;
- Page 218, “the world of Pompeii”
- Page 58-61 of L.Jacobelli “Gladiators at Pompeii”
- Page 35-38 BBC “Pompeii the Last day”
Thanks again for the help! ;D
No worries! Since ancient marking isn't too busy I can usually get to them quite quickly haha :)
Thanks for clarifying the structure! That's all good then :) I really like your points on the amphitheatre, but maybe try and squeeze in some more info on the Villa of Papyri first :) Then if you have enough room defs include it!
Susie
Hey Susie,
I fixed up the paragraph on leisure activities (attached), would be great to get some feedback. :)
Once again I'm still over my word limit now that I have added this paragraph, which means trying to add the other point on the amphitheater is going to be a struggle. So do you think I should make sure that this paragraph on leisure activities makes it in or my other point about the amphitheater?
Personally I think that my point on the amphitheater is maybe a little stronger however if I do include it in my essay it would mean that my essay would be unbalanced, focusing more on the amphitheater, what are your thoughts?
Also your edits from before were awesome, I was able to cut out so many unnecessary statements ;D
Hey Susie,
I fixed up the paragraph on leisure activities (attached), would be great to get some feedback. :)
Once again I'm still over my word limit now that I have added this paragraph, which means trying to add the other point on the amphitheater is going to be a struggle. So do you think I should make sure that this paragraph on leisure activities makes it in or my other point about the amphitheater?
Personally I think that my point on the amphitheater is maybe a little stronger however if I do include it in my essay it would mean that my essay would be unbalanced, focusing more on the amphitheater, what are your thoughts?
Also your edits from before were awesome, I was able to cut out so many unnecessary statements ;D
Hey! Sure thing :)Thanks so much for all the help and feedback ;DSpoilerThe villa is a valuable source of information related to leisure activities in the Roman world. Nice, clear judgment :) Aspointed outsuggested by Hadrill, “It is the owner and his social activity that [is] framed by the decoration [of his villa],” therefore by investigating the ‘decoration’ within a villa an understanding of social and leisure activities in the Roman world is acquired. Great integration of a quote. Located within the Villa a fragment of a wall painting depicting four ducks hung above two antelopes was found. The antelopes are still alive, and their hooves have been tied suggesting that they have been caught in a hunting trip. I feel like you could cut a lot out in the previous two sentences. Just say something like "A wall painting depicting what is believed to be the hunting of two antelopes" Such scenes related to hunting are common in the wall-paintings of Herculaneum and Pompeii, thus revealing the popularity of hunting as a leisure activity and more specifically the nature of hunting and types of animals within Campania. In the north-western section of the Villa a private swimming pool was uncovered. Herculaneum was home to two public bathing complexes 5 and therefore this discovery highlights the popularity of swimming and bathing in the Roman world, whereby the owner desired to have his own facility. Thus, these examples offer an insight into the nature of Roman leisure activities, more specifically those taken part by the Roman elite.
Another great paragraph Maraos!
In my opinion, the balance between the public and private houses is probably more important, so I'd be inclined to include this paragraph over another exploring the amphitheatre. However, if you think your next point on the amphitheatre is really strong, and you really want to include it, maybe sacrifice one of your other points on the amphitheatre? Its really up to you :) Either way, if i were you I would be feeling quite confident handing this in :)
Great work!
Susie
Thanks so much for all the help and feedback ;D
I honestly get too attached to my paragraphs to let them go hahaha (they are like children to me ;D), I might ask my teacher tomorrow about his opinion on the paragraph, but yeah you are right about making sure it's balanced
I'll let you know how I go :)
Hi Susie,Hey beatek! My comments can be found in the spoiler below :)
I'm trying to write an intro for my essay for Greek World:500-440 BC (attached)
I'm not sure if I'm on the right path.
Thank you!!!
I will be talking about the Ionian Revolt in my first body paragraph, then the Battle of Marathon in my second and then the Battle of Salamis (instead of the Persian expansion) in my third. I'm trying to argue that one battle lead into another and so on.Ahh so they are all battles? Potentially then with that argument, your judgement could be: 'The Greco-Persian conflict was facilitated and exacerbated through various instances of military combat - the Ionian Revolt, the Battle of Marathon and the Battle of Salamis.' That way you are indicating a common thread between them! However, i'm wondering if going by the events is the best structure. It very well might be! As I said earlier, I didn't study this unit, so content wise I can't make a definitive judgement - however have you considered a thematic structure? So a paragraph on socio-cultural causes, a paragraph on political causes, and a paragraph on economic causes? If you have enough content for each, I feel like that might be more effective! So assessing how, through each theme, the conflict between the Greeks and the Persians was exacerbated! What they want you to do with an evaluate question is to determine the significance of various factors, and how they contribute to an overall judgement :)but if im being really honest here, I don't understand what the question is asking :-\ :-\ :-\What exactly are they looking for when they say 'evaluate' in the question?
Thanks so much for the super quick feedback! I'll definitely take all your comments into account and improve my essay writing.
Hi Susie!
I just finished my Julio-Claudian historical period assignment and it would be great if i could get it marked.
The word count for the essay is 2000 words (+/- 10%) --> 2200 max
I'm currently on around 2800...... (I always do this for assignments, i get carried away haha ;D) so it would be great if you could suggest parts that I could potentially take out.
Thanks! :D
Time to type this all up again because it deleted the first time (cries). Hahaha, we're defs in the same boat when it comes to word limits, I was notorious for going over last year (handed my extension teacher a 6900 word draft for my major work - that went down well ;) aha)
My comments can be found throughout the spoiler!SpoilerThe Roman Empire experienced dramatic changes during the reign of the Julio-Claudian rulers, the introduction of various reforms and policies had a large impact on both the Roman Empire and Europe as a whole. Awesome, clear, strong judgement! The succession of a new ruler was accompanied by a whole host of political, social, legal, religious and administrative reforms and policies. Each of the 4 Julio-Claudian rulers, Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius and Nero, reigned with varying degrees of success, the reforms and policies introduced by each ruler were critical in maintaining both a satisfied populace and an efficient and strong Empire thus determining whether or not their Principate would be successful. As argued by Sinnigen; “the importance of imperial personalities in determining policy and law should not be underestimated.” Tiberius’s Principate was a relatively successful reign, his continuation of Augustus’ model of ruling lead to a successful Principate. Gaius’ Principate was an unstable period, his erratic policies in general ultimately lead to his assassination greatly damaging the reputation of the Julio-Claudians. Claudius repaired Gaius’ unstable Principate, and re-introduced traditional Roman republic policies, disturbing the old governing class. And finally Nero, whose Principate was perhaps the most unstable of all the rulers, although initially efficient his Principate ultimately lead to the end of the Julio-Claudian period. Solid intro - not really anything for me to add, this is setting up to be a great essay!
Tiberius was an effective and relatively successful Princep, his attempt to govern in the spirit of Augustus enabled him to uphold the rights and dignity of the Senate and thus his rule was meet with a significant amount of support initially - however later it most certainly declined, and I think that should be represented within your judgement. Remember - "To the Tiber with Tiberius" was chanted when he died, he was not very popular. Tiberius approached provincial reforms in a similar manner to that of Augustus. As pointed out by Scullard, he also remained loyal to Augustus’ consilium coercendi intra terminus imperii , which as outlined by Tacitus advised “that the empire should not be extended beyond its present frontiers.Tacitus claims that Augustus advised such a strategy because he “either feared dangers ahead, or was jealous” of the new Emperor.Don't talk too much about Augustus' himself, as he is not on the syllabus.Tiberius’ provincial policy was disturbed early on in his reign. Two serious mutinies followed Tiberius’ accession, one in the army stationed in Illyricum and the other on the Rhine. Failure to discharge soldiers who had completed their terms of service and the severity of service itself caused dissatisfaction among the legions and threatened to upset Roman control of the provinces. The Illyrian mutiny was quelled by Tiberius’ son Drusus, and the army of the Rhine was returned to their allegiance by Germanicus. Germanicus however made matters even more complicated, by ravaging the territory between the Rhine and the Weser in three successive campaigns without the authorization of Tiberius. In-response Tiberius ordered an end to the war and recalled Germanicus, turning to diplomacy rather than force of arms. Tiberius made each of the three Gauls (Aquitania, Belgica, and Lugdunensis) a province, and two new administrative districts, called ‘Upper’ and ‘Lower’ Germany, under consular legates, were created on the left bank of the Rhine. Way to much narrative and description, you can cut out most of this, and instead focus on analysing. Despite these disturbances the provinces were successfully controlled during his reign and as argued by Scullard “in general the provinces enjoyed peace and increasing prosperity under Tiberius’ administration.” Tiberius’ social policy was generally a successful one and was met with very little opposition hmmm I'm not sure if this is 100% true - if I remember correctly, he was quite conservative, and that reflected in his social policies - particularly in regards to religion and entertainment.. His humble and modest approach to ruling may have contributed to his success, as pointed out by Suetonius; “Tiberius… behaved with great discretion, and almost as modestly as if he had never held public office.” Tiberius was by no means a lavish emperor, he did not put on lavish games or gladiatorial battles and was very much disinterested in such activities. Despite trying conscientiously to govern in the spirit of Augustus ultimately as pointed out by Sinnigen he “utterly lacked the charm and adaptability of his predecessor,” and this was very much reflected in his social policy. Following the plot of Sejanus and during the final years of Tiberius’ reign the atmosphere of his Principate drastically changed. The Emperor, as pointed out by Sinnigen, “became increasingly morose as the years passed, and his fears of treachery increased.” The Lex de Maiestate or ‘Law of treason’ was rigorously enforced and the triviality of court cases rose during this period, as argued by Sinnigen; “Tiberius took ‘treason’ to mean plots against his life. In some cases he discouraged frivolous charges, but he also seems to have accepted as cases of maiestas tales brought to him by informers (delatores) of trivial or imagined insults to his person.” Was this Tiberius though - or more Sejanus acting on behalf of Tiberius? Tacitus maintains that in the last few years of Tiberius’ reign his ‘true self’ was revealed, expressed by “unrestrained crime and infamy.” The memory of his later years, represented by Tacitus and Suetonius paint a portrait of a tyrannical and ruthless ruler, and as argued by Sinnigen; “Despite good intentions, he was not one of the most successful emperors.” Tiberius’ unstable later years of his Principate was ultimately his downfall, his tyrranical policies further corrupted the Princep thus damaging the reputation of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. However despite these pitfalls Tiberius was an effective ruler throughout most of his reign. Scullard argues that his years of competent and outstanding service as a soldier and administrator have been “overlaid by the hatred which his last years engendered,” his wise continuation of the policy of Augustus provided a valuable period of stability for the young Principate on-top of this his administrative and foreign policy was excellent. Therefore despite the obvious setbacks, Tiberius’ reforms and policies were generally positive and contributed greatly to the prosperity of the Roman Empire. I'd probably want to mention his financial reforms as well! They were super successful, he left the bank in a surplus (which Gaius then ruined...). Overall this is a great paragraph, however I can definitely see where you can cut out words. You tend to over explain a bit, and actually provide TOO MUCH detail. One or two examples are enough :)Gaius’ Principate was a relatively unstable and short period,The reforms and policies introduced under his reign ultimately destabilised the reputation of the Julio-Claudians and left a severe stain on the Augustan system of government. Gaius’ reforms and policies during the first few months of his reign were considered positive and re-built the damage done by Tiberius’ oppressive final years. As pointed out by Scullard; “he checked delation and treason trials; recalled political exiles and allowed the publication of some suppressed works; abolished the sales-tax; gave shows and distributed largess.”Archaeological evidence in the form of coinsNumismatic evidence has been uncovered during this period, some coinswereminted with the slogan; ‘OB CIVES SERVATOR’ (‘For Citizens Saved’) further emphasisingCaligula’sCall him Gaius - Caligula was his nickname (it meant little boots how cute haha attempt to show more respect to the senate and the people. However, as argued by Scullard “Rome did not breathe this freer air for long.” Gaius’ remaining Princep was filled with erratic policies that destablised the Empire and the general population’s trust in the Principate, in the words of Suetonius; “the rest of this history must deal with the monster.” What triggered this shit supposedly? One of Gaius most distinguishable policies as compared to his two predecessors was that of his religious policy. As pointed out by Sinnigen; “he was the first emperor in Rome to insist on being a ‘living god.’” Suetonius recounts such behavior stating that; “he insisted on being treated as a god -- sending for the most revered or artistically famous statues of the Greek deities (including that of Jupiter at Olympia), and having their heads replaced by his own.” On-top of this Gaius demanded for deification by all inhabitants of the Empire, including the Jews who had been exempted from this formal expression of loyalty what affect did this have? Did they comply?. Gaius’ social policy was as equally extravagant. As pointed out by Wiedemann; “another reason for Tiberius’ unpopularity had been that his reign had seen very little public building activity,” Tiberius’ reign also lacked lavish games or gladiatorial battles. In an attempt to gain favour over the people Gaius renewed gladiatorial spectacles, put on extravagant spectacles and made large donatives to the public. Suetonius lists some examples of such activities; “Gaius held several gladiatorial contests… he staged a great number of different theatrical shows… and would scatter vouchers among the audience entitling them to all sorts of gifts.”Suetonius also points out that Gaius completed ‘certain projects half finished by Tiberius’ including the Temple of Augustus and Pompey’s theatre in an attempt to win popularity among the people. In response to your question - yes I think this is a valid argument. Gaius’ reforms and relations with the Senate were disastrous, as pointed out by Scullard; “he ignored or humiliated the Senate and struck several blows at the ‘diarchic’ ideals of Augustus.” Suetonius also points out that “he would indiscriminately abuse the Senate,” examples of this mistreatment include; holding the consulship each year, moving the Imperial mint form Lugdunum to Rome, handing back the elections from the Senate to the People and transferring the command of the legion in Africa from the senatorial proconsul to an imperial legate. However it must understood that there are few surviving and reliable sources about the reign ofCaligulaGaius, and as pointed out by Sinnigen; “Caligula was a ruler whose personality is lost in a biased, not to say fantastic, historical tradition.” Did you know that the whole "pick up seashells"
thing is probably a complete mistranslation? Seashells and 'tents' are very similar apparently, so he was probably telling them to 'pick up their tents' - which makes a lot more sense! Despite this, from our current understanding Gaius’ Principate was a short and unstable period for the Roman Empire, his reforms and policies were ultimately negative and thus lead to his assassination by a tribune of the Praetorian guards in January 41 AD. As pointed out by Scullard, Gaius’ Principate left a severe stain in the Augustan system; “these years, short though they were, left their mark, not least upon the Senate and nobility who realized that behind a Princeps might lurk a despot.” Again another fantastic paragraph, that can be cut down through just not going into every aspect so in depth! Often it is just enough to mention it and provide maybe one or two examples. Though I know it is part of the question, you could potentially cut down on the amount of quotes you have used, as they will be eating into your word count quite considerably as well!
Claudius’ reforms and policies as Princep were relatively successful, his reign offered a new hope for the Principate after Gaius’ atrocious rule. Proud of his country’s past, Claudius looked back to the more creative period when Augustus attempted to reconcile Republic and Principate, these external interests played a major role in the reforms and policies introduced by Claudius. In response to Gaius’ mistreatment and policies against the Senate, initially Claudius sincerely tried to co-operate with the Senate on Augustan lines. As pointed out by Scullard; “he showed the Senate outward respect and assiduously attended its meetings.” Examples of Claudius’ attempt to restore relations with the senate include; making frequent use of Senatus consulta (decree of the senate), trying to maintain the social position of senators and developing Augustus’ provision of the best seats in the Circus for them; restoring Achaea and Macedonia to the Senate in 44 and sharing new provinces acquired during his Principate between senatorial and equestrian legates. Unlike his predecessors Claudius assumed the Censorship in AD 47 for the traditional term of eighteen months, as pointed out by Sinnigen; “Augustus had avoided [this post] because its tenure might have seemed too autocratic.” See you could definitely cut down on your examples here. Claudius’ genuine attempt to restore relations and the policies introduced to do so greatly improved his relation with the senate did it actually though? Like they still very much hated him and wanted to return to a republic - especially when they were insulted by his appointment of Freedmen into the imperial centralised bureaucracy!,On top of this,Furthermore, whilst holding the censor Claudius adjusted the membership of the Senate by mean of adlectio, expelling some old members and adding a number of provincials, including some Gallic chiefs. Scullard argues that “his creation of new patricians will also have been designed to infuse new blood into the aristocracy.” Despite having good intentions and supporting the Senate during the early stages of his Princeps, Claudius alienated the senate, as argued by Scullard; “One of the fundamental causes of Claudius’ difficulties with the Senate and the Equestrian Order was that beside making them more dependent on himself he was at the same time becoming more independent of them through the creation of a private secretariat.” Claudius developed a centralised bureaucracy by creating speciliased departments, each under a freedman forming the basis of an imperial Civil Service. Though this angered the senate, it did increase efficiency as the Senate was super obstinent a lot of the time and refused to work with him. This service was independent of the older authorities, the Senate and Knights and as pointed out by Sinnigen, Freedmen were granted large sums of power, they supervised practically all branches of government directed by the Princeps and so came to have a great influence upon his decisions and policies. Furthermore as pointed out by Scullard this chancery was staffed with men mostly of non-Italian origin, who were not imbued with the Roman tradition and who owed loyalty to the Princeps alone. Although the introduction of a centralised administration increased the Empire’s administrative capacity it also brought danger, Suetonius claims that; “Claudius fell so deeply under the influence of these freedmen… that he seemed to be their servant rather than their emperor; and distributed honours, army commands, indulgences or punishments according to their wishes.” And his wives! Agrippina in particular had a masssivvvveee influence, that many say was actually positive (ie. Barrett) Despite being the first emperor since Augustus to attempt to maintain traditional republican values Claudius’ reforms in the senate and both his drive for efficiency at home and abroad undermined the old governing class and led to the greater centralization of power in the hands of one man. Though Claudius revered Augustus, the effect of his well-intentioned Principate was to disturb further the delicate balance of the Augustan settlement. I feel like a lot of it was due to the situation he was in though, more so than his own failures - like the Senate was never going to not be a nuisance - and he came at a time where so many people didn't want a Princeps at all, and instead to return to a republic. Despite these setbacks, Claudius’ Principate and the reforms and policies introduced during his reign were largely successful returning trust once again to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Like with the others - great paragraph, potentially too detailed (though I do think that a mention of Agrippina would be great!)
The reforms and policies of Nero’s Principate, although initially successful, were ultimately a failure and lead to the end of the Julio-Claudian period. LOVE this judgement - solid and direct, but also nuanced - FANTASTIC Nero’s first few years as Princep were relatively stable and successful, even Trajan himself believed that a ‘quinquennium Neronis’ was a period in which Nero’s rule excelled the government of all other emperors. Under the guidance of his two advisers Seneca and Burrus who themselves were under the influence of Agrippina as her patrons!!!, Nero’s government was efficient and as pointed out by Sinnigen; “Under their direction the administration, while strongly autocratic in tone, was efficient and conducted with consideration of the best interests of the Empire.” Nero was welcomed by the senate and according to Tacitus promised the Senate more autonomy, in a welcome speech composed by his tutor he promised many reforms; “he promised to follow the Augustan model in his Principate, to end all secret trials intra cubiculum, to have done with the corruption of court favourites and freedmen,Great detail,
but it's not your own, so you can cut it out I think :)and above all to respect the privileges of the Senate and individual senators.” Nero sought popularity with the people as well with the elite and thus his social policy was extravagant. He provided highly expensive spectacles and introduced many forms of games I love that he took part in these himself, I just think that is so funny haha -
get mad Joffrey vibes from Nero. Nero’s interest in the arts and all forms of music and drama is reflected in his social policy, on-top of this his fascination with Greek culture can also be seen in his reforms. Nero wanted to introduce Greek Games into Rome, including athletic contests, chariot driving, and competitions in poetry, music and oratory. Such social reforms include; banning gladiatorial combats to be fought to the death because such games were ‘unHellenic’, in 60 he established the Quinquennial Neronia which was a Greek style festival based on the Olympic Games, in 61 he built a gymnasium and baths the Thermae Neronianae and in 64 he appeared on the stage at Greek Naples. Don't need this many examples. As argued by Scullard, Nero’s unrestraint spending and extravagant policies encouraged him to indulge in his less reputable desires and rid himself of any who stood in his way; in 62 AD treason trials started again. The death of Burrus was followed by the appointment of two Praetorian prefects, Faenius Rufus and a vicious Sicilian Ofonius Tigelinus. Nero’s policies during the latter part of his reign greatly damaged the power of the Senate and as argued by Sinnigen; “The senate, whose support had been courted by Burrus and Seneca, was now without any influence, and, because his wanton extravagances emptied the treasure, Nero resorted to oppressive measures to satisfy his needs.” The fire of 64, and the need to reconstruct the city was followed by strict taxation reforms which further damaged Nero’s reputation. Nero’s selfishness also came into play, as pointed out by Tacitus; “Nero profited by his country’s ruin to build a new palace.” His damaged reputation led to plots against his life, and after the Pisonian conspiracy of AD 65 involving five eminent senators and supported by Praetorian prefect Faenius Rufus, Nero took savage revenge enacting ruthless policies; trials intra cubiculum principis were revived and as pointed out by Scullard; “frightened by the narrowness of his escape Nero became a ruthless tyrant.” Nero’s unstable rule and extravagant and ruthless reforms during his Principate ultimately lead to his demise, the promise of his early years had been unfulfilled, and on his way to absolutism and tyranny Nero had incurred great hatred eventually resulting in his suicide and the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Could pontentially mention his disasterous religious reform as well - again, I feel like this paragraph was screaming for a mention of Agrippina.
During both Claudius' and Nero's reign, Agrippina's influence tended to elicit positive results!
The reforms and policies introduced by each of the Julio-Claudian rulers played a critical role in determining the success of each ruler’s Principate, and their successors. I think this is important,
like as I said, I don't think Claudius' reign would have been as limited if it were not for the damage sustained by Gaius and Tiberius in terms of their relationship with the Senate.. Tiberius’ Principate was a relatively successful period, the reforms and policies introduced during his Principate followed in the spirit of Augustus thus leading to his success. Gaius’ Principate was a period of instability his short and violent reign was filled with erratic policies that left a severe stain on the Augustan system and greatly damaged the reputation of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Claudius, in a noble attempt to return to the glory days of Augustus introduced policies that attempted to reconcile Republic and Principate and thus returned trust back to the Julio-Claudian dynasty. And finally, Nero’s Principate, although initially stable ultimately lead to the introduction of violent and hate filled reforms resulting in the death of Nero and the end of the Julio-Claudians.
Okay! Absolutely AWESOME work Maraos (as always ;) )! This essay was absolutely fab - like really awesome. The arguments you make are great, the language you use strong, and you very clearly have a really in depth and sophisticated understanding of your topic (like I'm super impressed - many of the things you mentioned I had no idea about, very clearly you've gone well beyond the textbook and done your own research, which is soooo important to doing well in any history subject!).
The only thing (aside from many a few suggestions that can be found in the spoiler) you need to be concerned with in word count, because yes, you have gone wayyyyy over. The thing is, I think this should be easy to fix! You tend to over explain yourself, which is overall a good sign, as it means you have a really strong understanding of the content, however its too much for an essay. Much of what you include should be summed up in one sentence, and rather than mentioning every example that you know, 1-2 will suffice :)
But yeah, overall super impressed Maraos this is great! I always love reading your essays, because the effort and hard work that you put into them is so apparent. Keep 'em coming!!
Susie
Thanks so much for the feedback susie! :DNo worries! Hahaha you'll get there - if I can go from writing 6000 word essays to 1100 average you'll be fine :D
haha and yeah word count is defs a problem (gotta improve that for trial essays especially).
Glad to hear you like reading my essays haha :) , now i just gotta finish this extension project....
Thanks again!