Niebuhr's Elagabalus Legacy

The emphasis accorded these contingencies of physiognomy and the resolute refusal of any concession to our - or, so it would appear, antiquity’s - ideas of desirable physical appearance lead one easily to the conclusion that those portraits are uncompromising attempts to transcribe into plastic form the reality of what is seen, innocent of any “idealization” or programmatic bias. These are the portraits of the conservative nobility (and of their middle-class emulators) (luring the death-agonies of the Roman republic. There is no need to doubt that much of their character refers to quite real qualities of their subjects. These are men in later life because the carefully prescribed ladder of public office normally allowed those who followed it to attain only gradually and after many years to such eminence as would allow the signal honor of a public statue. One may well suppose that these hard-bitten and rather unimaginative faces closely reflect the prevailing temperament of the class and society to which they belong, and the twisted and

Augustus, formerly known as Octavian, was the adopted son of dictator Julius Caesar and Emperor or Rome. Octavian set out to destroy his father’s murderers and assembled his own army in his quest for power and retribution. At the start, he shared rule with Mark Antony, however, their collaboration proved ineffective leading Augustus to pursue more and more control, culminating in the defeat of Antony in the battle of Actium and assuming rule as Emperor of Rome. Augustus did not inherit rule, his pursuit for power comprised of manipulative actions veiled under his generosity, concern for his people and charismatic tone and tenor. Res Gestae Divi Augusti expresses a sense of self adoration and honor in his quest for power and control, yet the subtext portrays a vastly different undertone, that of use of cajoling and propagandizing messages to benefit his position and accumulation of control of the republic. This Res Gestae is Augustus’ mechanism of self-promotion and adoration for his exceptional leadership qualities, concern and respect gleaned from his citizens and senate, and his military savvy to overpower and gain peace for the Romans, thus proclaiming his reign as one of prestige and importance.

Horrific violence, terrifying threats and public terrors strike fear into the hearts of thousands who oppose the Assyrian Empire. “An Assyrian Emperor’s Resume: Ferocious Conquests a Specialty” remains a paragon of these unspeakable tragedies transpiring around 875 B.C. Written by Ashur-Nasir-Pal II (or one of his subjects), this anecdote highlights his conquests as he claims ancient cities’ wealth, while brutally murdering foreign people and destroying their lands. Geographically, the story takes place in the Middle East, specifically North Mesopotamia. According to the author, he conquers places like Hudun, Zamua, Zamru, Iritu and Ammaru. The historical value behind this piece portrays prominent aspects of their society and depicts how Assyrians reigned, while hinting at the empire’s values; therefore, this historical account provides evidence, which exhibits the attributes of the Near East during Ashur-Nasir-Pal II’s reign.

In the early first century AD, the Roman Empire was subject to autocratic rule and the old Republic was long dead. Augustus had been ruling for forty years and most of that time he was loved and praised by the Senate and the people of Rome. Throughout his reign, Augustus had the one lingering problem of finding a successor to take over the role of Emperor. He had chosen 3 different heirs in his time of rule; however, they all passed before they had the chance to inherit Augustus’ esteemed power. His fourth choice, Tiberius, was the one to succeed Augustus. He was often referred to, by Augustus, as an outstanding general and the only one capable of defending Rome against her enemies. The statement, ‘Tiberius is condemned by many ancient

The Roman Empire was vast at its peak and its influence is still felt today in our forms of military, government, and society in general. Ruled over for a time by emperors, the empire had periods of greatness and periods of decline. This list looks at ten of the emperors who have left their mark on history for being so dreadful. This paper will be about the top 10 worst emperors in roman history. These people had the chance to be good but they have decided to be the worst emperor.

Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, notoriously known as the Roman Emperor Trajan was born September 18, most likely in the year 52 AD of Spanish origin. He was an educated man with a powerful, masculine figure. A bronze sculpture at Harvard University showcases his physique in ceremonial armor standing as if addressing his troops. He possessed a true sense of dignity and humbleness which to the Romans made him an emperor of true virtue. He was an emperor who truly enjoyed war; his passion for war came from the fact that he was very good at it. He was a brilliant general, as shown by his military achievements. He was naturally very popular with the troops, especially due to his willingness to share in the hardships alongside his soldiers.

Tacitus’ Agricola, though it traverses a significant part of Rome’s conquest of Britain, is primarily about the man from whom the book takes it title. Tacitus used British conquest to show the reader Agricola’s many virtues, and he explained why Romans should strive to follow Agricola’s example. At the same time, however, Tacitus echoed Agricola’s virtues to Rome, which, before and during the writing of his book, endured several tyrannical emperors. Tacitus’ book, besides praising an individual, suggested hope for an improved future to many troubled Romans when the virtues of the empire had decayed, and freedom that they once loved had largely disappeared.

There are many differing ways that people suffer. Some effects can be superior and some can be inferior. In the quote by H. Richard Niebuhr, suffering can make you stronger, have more character, along with respect.

In the article Domitian and the dynamics of terror in classical Rome, Professor Peter Wiseman defends the historical depictions of several emperors—Domitian in particular—as tyrants.

On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even

An example of a major source, which chiefly opposes the alternate interpretations provided by numerous other sources, is evident through the portrayals delivered by Tacitus in the Annals which contain a prospect of first century Rome, from Tiberius to Domitian. However in general, Tacitus offers a vivid representation of the Roman Empire, and doesn’t overlook the deadly exploitation and inhumaneness of the time, especially in regards to Augustus. This same view is further supported as Tacitus states that the “Protection of the laws were continually deranged by violence, intrigue and corruption” and that he, along with all of the Roman people, were “Stript of equality…” as they “…all looked up to the commands of a sovereign without the least

Emperor Nero, infamously known as one of the most malevolent, oppressive, and tyrannical leader throughout history, was the last ruler of the Julio-Claudian Dynasty. He was born outside Rome in Antium and his mother married his great uncle, Emperor Claudius, in order for her son to be the next Emperor of Rome. It wasn’t apparent that her son was to become one of the most feared and cruel leaders in Roman history from 54 CE to 68 CE. By examining his achievements and failures as an emperor, his influences and changes over the entire economic, political and social spectrum are revealed.

Some claim that Commodus was the worse emperor in the history of Rome. The fact that his father, Marcus Aurelius, was a popular and successful ruler may have raised the precedent that Commodus had to live up to. But for whatever reason, Commodus proved a disconnected and self indulgent leader.

The paper serves as a critical analysis of Thomas F. Mathews’ “The Mistake of the Emperor Mystique” chapter in his book The Clash of Gods: A Reinterpretation of Early Christian Art. The scope of the analysis extends only to the chapter, the works included in the chapter and some supplemental sources by other art historians. It examines Mathews’ central argument and auxiliary claims, paying attention to his use of sources. Additionally it probes the validity of his assertions, drawing comparisons to other works or historians.

Galinsky adds a new dynamic to the telling of Augustus’ life with his interpretation and depiction of the leadership and the progress made at the time. He is attempting to show the reader a more rounded picture of the life of this young emperor. The strict structure of the overall book is great in reminding the reader that this is a recount of historical events. This along with the inset boxes may at times dry out the entertaining aspects of the story being told. That being said this book is well put together and unlike the average historical text has foudn a way to keep audiences engaged while keeping structure, and fact in unison.