Publius Nonius Severus Posted March 29, 2007 Report Share Posted March 29, 2007 In the Plebeians and Patricians thread I questioned what was considered the "Middle Republic". After some thought I believe there are probably a lot of varying opinions on what the "Early", "Middle", and "Late" periods of the Republic were but they should all fall within the same general ranges...or maybe not! Are such distinctions misleading in and of themselves? Obviously this is something that can never be totally standardized in the scope of something as wide as general study, but, I would be greatly interested in your opinions. Here is mine (based heavily on the structure of the Republic applied by Pamela Bradley in her book Ancient Rome: Using Evidence): Early Republic 509-265 BC Roman Conquest of Italy and Constitutional Development (Conflict of the Orders) Middle Republic 264-146 BC Roman Expansion into the Mediterranean (Punic and Achaen Wars) Late Republic 146-27 BC Decline of the Republic (Aftermath of Mediterranean Expansion, The Gracchi and Others down to Augustus) What say you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Divi Filius Posted March 29, 2007 Report Share Posted March 29, 2007 This view seems to dominate. I don't know, I find that bundling up the period between 509 to 264 into one category to be way too broad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted March 30, 2007 Report Share Posted March 30, 2007 Anything would be a mere convention, but some variation of the above seems to be the norm. I think the Celtic sack of Rome is a turning point - not only in history, but in the historical sources. When the Celts sacked Rome a lot of Roman records disappeared. Consequently a lot of the history of the early era is colored with fables and myths. It makes sense to refer to this era as the Early Republic. From the post-sack recovery to the Punic Wars might make a good middle. And the Gracchi to Actium definitely gives us the much vaunted late Republic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted April 2, 2007 Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 I agree with Ursus. That's the timeline I usually use. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publius Nonius Severus Posted April 2, 2007 Author Report Share Posted April 2, 2007 Thanks for your responses. One thing I think I have learned is to avoid labels like "Early, mid, late" and using more descriptive references like based on actual events (like the sack of rome, post-Gracchi, etc.). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.