The Annals by Tacitus summarizes the reigns of the Roman princes. “The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred. Hence my purpose is to relate a few a few facts about augustus- more particularly his last acts, then the reign of Tiberius, and all which follows, without either bitterness or partiality, from any motives to which I am far removed (Tacitus, The Annals). Tiberius’s rule was discussed by noting the history that lead to his rule, which accounts to modern histories by ____________. This shows that the quality of Roman Government was _______________ in this period.
Gibbon begins his work by idolizing the Empire under Augustus and the subsequent rulers who followed in his footsteps. “The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour... During a happy period (A.D. 98-180) of more than fourscore years, the public administration was conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this … to describe the prosperous condition of their empire…” From the onset of the book, Gibbon sets out on a path to explain the virtuous characteristics of the empires. These emperors, the “good” emperors, were the last before the start of the
Compare the following descriptions of Augustus’ rise to power, one by Augustus himself and one by Tacitus (the second-century historian), and discuss their historical validity.
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
Nero and Tiberius both started off as great leaders of Rome. Throughout their leadership many events occurred that caused the general publics view to change on both of them. Comparing Nero, the careless leader to Tiberius, the leader with great accomplishments I found that they are complete opposites. Analyzing the accomplishments, treatment of people, and the overall personality of Nero and Tiberius it can be concluded that Tiberius is a better leader than Nero.
Imperial Rome, during the first century A.D. was expanding it's boundaries by adding new territories. They expanded into northern Europe and Britain and conquered or attempted to conquer various types of people. Based on my reading of Tacitus' The Agricola and The Germania, I have knowledge of the life and customs of the Britons, subject of the Agricola, and the Germans, subject of the Germania. This of course being the Romans, and more specifically Tacitus,' observation and view of these groups of people.
Julius Caesar was a very influential figure in Roman history. Many features of the Roman Empire came from his reign as dictator. But what, specifically, were some of those great achievements? In this research paper, I will explain Julius Caesar’s youth, the Roman Republic before Caesar came to power, the Roman government before Caesar became dictator-for-life, the effects of Julius Caesar, the reasons for his assassination, and what affects there were when the public learned about his assassination.
Many anthropologists and historians have speculated about the different causes and effects of the fall of the Roman Empire. Some have even stated that Rome did not fall but instead, was merely transformed. However, there were many causes that did end this prodigious empire. Many seemingly small decisions made by powerful emperors over the course of just over a century lead to its destruction. In this paper it will be established that the Roman emperors, in an effort to save their political power, made adjustments to warfare/treaty practices and made political changes which over time lead to the inevitable collapse of the realm, this caused a drastic regression in the living standards of the Roman citizens, implying that the Empire did indeed collapse and not transform.
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in
Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus was the son of a Roman aristocrat whose family had regularly held the highest offices of state for the past century. Tiberius achieved much in his life and was a man of high distinction in political circles. He was a man with a prominent background- coming from very powerful families. It seemed also, that many had high expectations of him, and his potential was not seen to its full extent. To a few of us here today, this is a solemn and most momentous occasion. Today I will be critically analysing and assessing the significance of three key areas which have been the crux of historical debate for centuries. Today I will be touching on Tiberius' family background, education, and early career to 134BC, the aims
Suetonius wrote The Twelve Caesars as a biography about twelve Roman Caesars. This essay will compare and contrast two of them, Divus Julius and Nero. Even though the two men both became Emperors who ruled Rome, they could not have been more different. Both had certain authority and public powers during each of their reigns. Their lives were also scattered with times of virtue and scandal. This was a different time from today. Human behavior and morals played a significant role in those ruling over others. Some had them and some not so much. In the end, their stories will ultimately give the reader an illustration of these two men and what their stories tell us about the lives of Roman emperors in the first century.
To what extent was Augustus ' achievement of power a continuation of the phenomenon we have been examining throughout this course? How was Augustus different? By the time of his death in AD 14, what had changed since the epoch of Scipio Aemilianus?
Two problems facing the late Roman Empire was the instability and non unification caused by inner family civil wars. Rome's rapid expansion, after the Punic Wars, resulted in changes that permanently divided the state. Both Aristocrats and Plebeians wanted total control of Rome and tried to destroy each other. Civil war was the the only way to solve problems in politics. Consequently, the power of the military became strong. Control of Rome's armies changed from the government to the generals because the soldiers began to listen to their generals rather than to the Government. On dismissal from military service, the soldiers had no farms to return to, and they
“I transferred the Republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome” Did Augustus Restore The Republic?
His early reign was welcomed in Rome. He abolished unpopular taxes and freed citizens that Tiberius had unreasonably imprisoned. He also presented extravagant events, such as chariot races, boxing matches, plays, and gladiator shows. After six months of his ruling, Caligula fell severely ill. This caused a great concern throughout the empire. When he recovered, he was no longer the same
In his letter to the Emperor Trajan, dated 113, Pliny the Younger offers a glimpse into the life and practice of the early Christian community within the Roman province of Bithynia. This ancient document provides what David Music calls, "one of the earliest post-New Testament references to Christian singing." Certainly, the Old Testament, and New Testament point to the practice as well, (2 Samuel 22:1-51, Matthew 26:30), indicate that the expression of song has consistently operated at the heart of the liturgical, communal, and devotional life of God 's people. In fact, without the utterance of song, religious worship becomes sterile, in many respects, devoid of divine artistic expression. This journey of thought will seek to explore views on hymnology and song by looking in great detail firstly at Augustine 's position with regard to music as seen in book (10.33.49 - 10.33.50) of the Confessions, secondly, at the introduction to his homily on Psalm 119:The Ascents of the Christian, and finally, I will make the claim that Augustine 's experiences with Manichaeism and Neo-platonism had a tremendous influence on his philosophical and ideological position with regard to music.