Tacitus Pessimism In Thrasea

This essay will attempt to explain the motives that have led to the rise and fall of the brothers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus in the late second century B.C. Although very few sources remain of these accounts, which are based mainly on works of the historians Appian and Plutarch, the Gracchi have been the subject of study by several scholars. If on the one hand earlier historians tend to represent them as heroes and revolutionaries, on the other, more recent ones have regarded them as two controversial figures which were politically motivated by personal gains. They proposed and passed a series of legislations and the most controversial one is the agrarian law about the redistribution of the land. It can be argued that their motives have been certainly and thoroughly selfless for the good of the people of Rome in the specific period of history which spans from 133 B.C to 121 B.C. On the contrary, as it will be explained below, their methods have not always been ‘orthodox’. There could be three main areas that will help this essay to conclude if they were truly heroes of the people or political opportunists; the first is to evaluate what their true motives were, the second is to assess if there was an agrarian crisis and the third to establish who the beneficiaries of their legislations were. Overall, as all political figures, the Gracchi have to be taken in the context of the specific roman society of their time.

In Plato’s The Republic, we, the readers, are presented with two characters that have opposing views on a simple, yet elusive question: what is justice? In this paper, I will explain Thrasymachus’ definition of justice, as well as Socrates’s rebuttals and differences in opinion. In addition, I will comment on the different arguments made by both Socrates and Thrasymachus, and offer critical commentary and examples to illustrate my agreement or disagreement with the particular argument at hand.

In examining the histories presented by Livy and Tacitus, it is crucial to take into account the agendas of the respective authors. While both set out to portray as accurate of a historical representation as possible, it is evident that both renowned historians and rhetoricians intended to deliver several significant messages regarding their thoughts on Rome. Both authors do, indeed, acknowledge the greatness of Rome and champion the core of Roman values; however, Livy and Tacitus tactfully elaborate on different troubles that face the Roman Empire. The histories put forth by these great men aim to present the past as an aid to promote

Throughout the ages, Nero has been viewed as a rogue and a disgrace to the Roman Empire, thanks to unreliable primary sources. Because of this, Nero is now renowned world wide as the man who hated Christians, the man who killed Jesus and the man who wanted nothing but to satisfy his own desire of personal gain. This, though was not the case.

The accounts of emperor Tiberius’ reign by both Suetonius and Tacitus have qualities that serve to show how differing authors viewed Tiberius in various flattering and unappealing ways by their personal reasoning and desire to preserve truth as much as possible in scope of their respective intentions to provide scholars with treatments of him that give a through picture of his traits, strengths and weaknesses. Overall, by examining both accounts of Tiberius’ reign, readers are able to form independent judgement of Tiberius and if each description is biased beyond any semblance of objectively. Overall Suetonius and Tacitus leaves books that differ in style and accuracy but both do indeed want the residing public to understand the true

The Flames of Rome by Paul Maier is a documentary-fiction that has not only brought to life the evolution of Christianity in Rome but has also painted a clear picture of what it was like to live in Rome at the time. Understanding the Roman’s way of life and reasoning behind their actions plays a major role in the reasoning for Maier writing this book. The Flames of Rome is equivalent to reading a textbook but Maier makes it much more enjoyable and intriguing by adding plausible details of his own. Maier’s portrayal of the death of Claudius Caesar, in chapter nine of the novel, closely follows the primary sources of Tacitus and Suetonius but also loosely follows that of the secondary sources. It is important to compare Maier’s version to other

Tacitus is ecstatic about the current and last regime slowly bringing back freedom to the empire, but acknowledges that it is an extremely sluggish process that can be inhibited more easily than furthered. Roman imperialism can be a two-headed beast, one bringing joy and prosperity while the other rains down fire and brimstone. However, Tacitus could be viewed as hypocritical considering he condemned Domitian’s desire for military glory while loving the reign of Trajan. Obviously, this is partially because the former wanted to steal glory from Tacitus’ father-in-law. Tacitus finishes with, “Yet I shall find some satisfaction, even with the unskilled and unpractised voice, in recording the servitude we once suffered and in gratefully acknowledging the blessings we now enjoy.” He understands that living under an imperial leadership relies heavily on the individual currently in possession of power and that the outcome can differ greatly. Although imperialism is quite terrible at times, he acknowledges that it can lead to a variety of positive outcomes. Similarly, conquest and integration of conquered peoples is a process

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.

Two of the more memorable emperors to the Romans were Augustus Caesar (27 BC to 14 AD), and Caligula (37 AD to 41 AD). Although only having ruled the empire by a separation of 23 years and belonging to the same family (through marriage and adoption), their empires couldn’t have been more different. It is possible to determine the impact of an emperor’s rule based on their many vices and virtues, as well as the choices that they make in relation to them. The author Suetonius expressed in his writings the many vices and virtues that put into perspective the kind of leaders that these emperors appeared as to their polis. As we explore the concept of vices and virtues, as well as what kind of ideals these two rulers represented, we will begin to be presented with a clearer picture of what an ideal emperor would have looked like. A vice can be described as an immoral or wicked behavior; while a virtue can be described as a behavior showing high moral standards. Suetonius and the Roman people had a high interpretation of the concept of virtue and vice, as well as their role in the ruler’s life.

The language of Roman rule and power can be disputed endlessly, much like all else when trying to study ancient history. This is primarily a result of a multitude of interpretations that can be inferred from primary sources, which also tend to be biased, that we have available to us. Examining a source that is written from an individual’s perspective, and they trying draw conclusions about varying aspects of a certain society is especially tough and extremely subjective. Nonetheless, history remains an important field of study and reaps many benefits.

The Civil War, consisting in large part of Caesar’s own account of the conflict between himself and Pompey, explores the origins of the war, the manner in which it was carried out, and most importantly the role of pivotal figures on both sides of the struggle. Prior to his records ending and supplementation by military officers, Caesar makes a case for his involvement in and perhaps triggering of the war, one which would transform the social and political landscape of the Roman empire as battles and campaigns were waged from Spain to Italy, Africa to Asia Minor. Caesar walks a fine line between historian, strategist and orator as he attempts to record historical events, martial decisions, and persuade an audience respectively. Despite his efforts to remain impartial, as evidenced by his admission that “the Pompeians were winning” at Dyrrachium, Caesar consistently presents himself as a charismatic and skilled general and leader, jeopardizing the integrity of the text as objective material and allowing it to be a propagandist account of sorts. Ultimately, Caesar uses anecdotal evidence, the presentation of his personal thoughts, and juxtaposition with his opposition to paint his side of the war in a positive and just light.

Champlin reviews and argues on Nero’s explanation of why he killed his mother, his obsession with Apollo, the great fire of Rome in 64 A.D. and why Nero responded the way he did, as well as his other notorious acts. People will have a hard time believing some of Champlin’s claims of Nero because of the many hundreds of years of bias against him. Champlin makes some good, sensible arguments, but also makes many more that some just won’t believe at first, such as when he argues about the good things Nero did. Most people would remember Nero as a raving madman who killed for pleasure and ruled so terribly that his own subjects eventually killed him. While it is revealed in the first chapter that Nero commits suicide, the Roman people would have killed him if he didn’t kill himself

In Mary Beard’s book, The Roman Triumph, she explores one of the most interesting victory celebrations of the ancient world. Instead of having a small gathering, or even a raucous party, Romans brought what they had seized and carted it through the city. They even brought some people they had captured so that the crowd could know exactly who they triumphed against. This celebration gives historians a view into the Romans lifestyle. Roman triumphs also show what values were important to the Romans and where they found their significance. Using Mary Beard’s book I will demonstrate the nature of Roman triumphs by giving examples from Pompey’s triumph in 61BC, what these triumphs tell historians about the Roman world and why they are significant, and what they tell us about the values the Romans held dear.

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.

Abstract: In this paper I attempt to admire the spectator’s experience while viewing the Arch of Titus, and bring to the forefront why I find the Arch of Trajan to be underappreciated. I will compare the two by first analyzing the meaning of the Arch of Titus, and then analyzing and summarizing the Arch of Trajan. The source I used for the Arch of Trajan may be among the outliers of most scholars, but I find that I agree with their analysis of the arch in that it was not simply a list of Trajan’s accomplishments, but rather outcomes of his famed policy, unrightfully credited to Nerva, of alimenta.