Why is the history of the period of the Roman Monarchy so unreliable?.
Answer ONE of the following questions , writing roughly 3 1/2-5 pages for your answer. Your submissions should be 12pt font double spaced. Use both of your textbooks (as well as any files/lectures provided on Canvas) to answer the question (if you are using any other outside sources, make sure that they are academic/peer-reviewed ones). Use your own words, and make sure to cite your sources. In text citation is to be MLA style, i.e. (Boatwright 2011, 52). Assignments that do not have in-text citation as well as a Works Cited page will receive a “0” grade. Your submission must use at least two (2) secondary sources (i.e. articles/textbooks of an academic caliber) and one (1) primary source (i.e. a source written at the time such as Livy, Caesar, Polybius, etc.).
- Why is the history of the period of the Roman Monarchy so unreliable? Which kings seem to be reliably historical (i.e. having existed), and which kings seem to be more a part of legend, and why (provide specific examples of the seven kings!)? Can some kings be considered to be completely historical and others completely legendary, or can it be a little bit of both depending on the monarch?
- Discuss the government of the Roman Republic, giving attention to each of the civil offices. What are the powers of these offices, and how are they similar to that of the U.S. government? How are they different from that of the U.S. government? What roles to ‘checks and balances ‘ play in the Roman system, and why?