Shorten this and put it in your own words Around the year 133 BC, Rome was set up as a democracy. Later the Roman people were sovereign. Even the system of voting was weighted to give more influence to the votes of the wealthy. By 14 AD, when the first emperor Augustus died, popular elections had all but disappeared. This was nothing short of a revolution, brought about through a century of constant civil strife, and sometimes open warfare. Many Romans themselves put the key turning point in 133 BC. The course of events is clear enough. In the process, he deposed from office another tribune who opposed the distribution and argued that his reforms should be funded from the money that came from the new Roman imperial province of Asia. Gracchus's land bill was passed. Gracchus's motivation is much less clear. Whatever his motives were, his career crystallised many of the main issues that were to underlie the revolutionary politics of the next hundred years. The consequences of Rome's growing empire were crucial. Tiberius's decision to use the revenues of Asia for his land distribution was a provocative claim - that the poor as well as the rich should enjoy the fruits of Rome's conquests. But Tiberius's desire to stand for a second tribunate also raised questions of personal political dominance. This became an increasingly urgent issue as leading men in the first century BC, such as Julius Caesar, were sometimes given vast power to deal with the military threats facing Rome from overseas - and then proved unwilling to lay down that power when they returned to civilian life. The events of 133 BC were followed by a series of intensifying crises. At the end of the century Gaius Marius, a stunningly successful soldier, defeated enemies in Africa, Gaul and finally in Italy, when Rome's allies in Italy rebelled against her. He held the highest office of state, the consulship, no fewer than seven times, an unprecedented level of long-term dominance of the political process. Marius then came into violent conflict with Lucius Cornelius Sulla, another Roman warlord, who after victories in the east actually marched on Rome in 82 BC and established himself 'dictator'.This had been an ancient Roman office designed to give a leading politician short terms powers in an emergency. Unlike Julius Caesar, however, who was to become dictator 40 years later, Sulla retired from the office and died in his bed. The middle years of the first century BC were marked by violence in the city, and fighting between gangs supporting rival politicians and political programmes. The two protagonists were Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus ('Pompey the Great', as he was called, after Alexander the Great) and Julius Caesar. Caesar promoted radical policies in the spirit of Tiberius Gracchus; Pompey had the support of the traditionalists. Historians in both the ancient and modern world have devoted enormous energy to tracking the precise stages by which these two men came head-to-head in civil war. But the fact is that, given the power each had accrued and their entrenched opposition, war between them was almost inevitable. Not much 'liberty' was to follow. Instead there was another decade of civil war as Caesar's supporters first of all battled it out with his assassins, and when they had been finished off, fought among themselves.

Uhh sorry! No one is gonna do this! I'm going to delete this.

Explanation:

Rome became a democracy about the year 133 BC. Later, the Romans ruled the world. Even the voting mechanism was rigged to give the votes of the rich more weight. When Augustus, the first emperor, died in 14 AD, public elections had all but vanished. This was a revolution, brought about by a century of civil conflict and, at times, outright combat. The important turning point, according to many Romans, was in the year 133 BC. The sequence of events is rather obvious. In the process, he removed another tribune who was opposed to the distribution and claimed that his reforms should be paid for with money from the newly established Roman imperial province of Asia. The land measure proposed by Gracchus was approved. Gracchus' motive is a little more hazy. Whatever his motivations, his work crystallized many of the basic concerns that would underpin revolutionary politics for the following century. Rome's expanding empire had far-reaching implications. Tiberius' plan to utilize Asia's income for land distribution was a bold declaration, implying that both the affluent and the poor should benefit from Rome's conquests. However, Tiberius' decision to run for a second tribunate prompted concerns about personal political power. This became an increasingly pressing issue as leaders in the first century BC, such as Julius Caesar, were occasionally given tremendous powers to cope with foreign military challenges to Rome, only to refuse to relinquish those powers when they returned to civilian life. Following the events of 133 BC, a succession of escalating crises ensued. Gaius Marius, a spectacularly successful soldier, vanquished adversaries in Africa, Gaul, and eventually Italy, when Rome's allies in Italy rose against her at the close of the century. He held the highest state post, the consulship, seven times, achieving an unprecedented level of long-term political domination. Marius subsequently clashed with Lucius Cornelius Sulla, another Roman warrior, who, following successes in the east, marched on Rome in 82 BC and declared himself 'dictator.' This was an ancient Roman post created to grant a powerful politician temporary powers in the event of an emergency. Sulla, unlike Julius Caesar, who would become dictator 40 years later, resigned from his position and died in his bed. Violence in the city, as well as fighting between gangs backing competing politicians and political programs, characterized the middle years of the first century BC. Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus (nicknamed 'Pompey the Great' after Alexander the Great) and Julius Caesar were the two main characters. Pompey enjoyed the backing of the traditionalists, while Caesar pushed radical measures in the style of Tiberius Gracchus. Historians in both the ancient and modern worlds have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how these two individuals ended up fighting in civil war. But the reality is that, given their respective levels of strength and ingrained rivalry, war was nearly unavoidable. There wasn't going to be much 'liberty' after that. Instead, another decade of civil war ensued, as Caesar's followers first fought his assassins, then fought amongst themselves when they were dispatched.

sorry

i do knot know this

martin luther king (1929-1968) was an activist for the african american rights, mr. king has a profile of a kind leader that built a tenacity, respect and full of hope future. he was an activist through civil disobedience and no violence pressure mechanisms. he tried to build a more egalitarian and fair society. his efforts carried a reivindication message of the civilian rights to every west corners. for that reason, he won the nobel prize in 1964.