During the late Roman Republic, Michael Parenti proposes to interpret conflicts such as power through the use of what he calls “A people’s history, therefore the title “A People’s history of ancient Rome”. In Michael Parenti’s words, “A people’s history should be not only an account of popular struggle against oppression but an expose of the anti-people’s history that has prevailed among generations of mainstream historians” (Parenti pg.11). His intention is to present the reader with a history based on resistance vs oppression, but also point out the key facts that many historians have based Roman history on which are incorrect and highly biased. This is also demonstrated in the following line when he quotes “It should be a critical history
…show more content…
Parenti first discusses about Tiberius Gracchus. Tiberius is described as “a man of aristocratic birth and strong democratic leanings who addressed some of the afflictions that beset Rome and Italy most notably the crying need for more equitable land distribution”, hence the Lex agrarian (Parenti pg. 60). Dio Cassius is the first to think differently of Tiberius as he sees him as “turning aside from what was best” in order to drift “into what was worst” by bedeviling and disturbing all established customs,” and making “any statement or promise whatever to anybody” (Parenti pg.61). Plutarch concluded the former’s efforts as “being designed to cripple the power of the senate in every possible way, and it was inspired by movies of anger and party politics rather than by considerations of justice and the common good” (Parenti pg. …show more content…
Furthermore, because the roman senators perceived him to be a dictator and they wanted to restore their republican liberties. Many other explanations from other historians were given being similar in nature to this. He gives an alternate explanation stating that his death was the result of being perceived as a popular leader who threatened the privileged interests of the Senate aristocrats. This is supported by the effect of Caesar’s death which sparked a civil war and transformed the Roman republic into the Roman
Parenti first discusses about Tiberius Gracchus. Tiberius is described as “a man of aristocratic birth and strong democratic leanings who addressed some of the afflictions that beset Rome and Italy most notably the crying need for more equitable land distribution”, hence the Lex agrarian (Parenti pg. 60). Dio Cassius is the first to think differently of Tiberius as he sees him as “turning aside from what was best” in order to drift “into what was worst” by bedeviling and disturbing all established customs,” and making “any statement or promise whatever to anybody” (Parenti pg.61). Plutarch concluded the former’s efforts as “being designed to cripple the power of the senate in every possible way, and it was inspired by movies of anger and party politics rather than by considerations of justice and the common good” (Parenti pg. …show more content…
Furthermore, because the roman senators perceived him to be a dictator and they wanted to restore their republican liberties. Many other explanations from other historians were given being similar in nature to this. He gives an alternate explanation stating that his death was the result of being perceived as a popular leader who threatened the privileged interests of the Senate aristocrats. This is supported by the effect of Caesar’s death which sparked a civil war and transformed the Roman republic into the Roman