The Excesses Of Caligula Essay

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.

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 military campaigns of the Caesars made Rome one of the largest empires of the ancient world. Suetonius conveys through his writings that being a good military leader and a good Caesar were synonymous. Augustus, who Suetonius thought an excellent leader, reunited the eastern and western halves of the Roman Empire ( 51) and greatly expanded Romes territory (53). Augustus “showed not only skill as a commander, but courage as a soldier” in the eyes of his contemporaries (47). On the other hand, both Caligula and Nero, considered poor leaders by Suetonius, had very limited military success and aspirations. Only once did Caligula initiate a military exploit, and it was rife with his madness. His campaign into Germany was on a whim and all he accomplished was receiving the surrender of a

Tiberius was a significant Julio-Claudian emperor who applied a great deal of contributions to the Roman Empire during his reign… The Julio-Claudian dynasty refers to the first five Roman Emperors: Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula (also known as Gaius), Claudius, and Nero and the family to which they belonged. They ruled the Roman Empire from its formation, in the second half of the 1st century 27 BC, until AD 68, when the last of the line, Nero, committed suicide. The ancient historical writers, Suetonius and Tacitus, write from the point of view of the Roman senatorial aristocracy, and

When we think about the historical significance of Rome, it comes down to its leaders and how these leaders ruled in their era. Confidence, commitment, inspiration, intuition, and creativity, are all essential traits that a ruler must possess. In my opinion, no one has demonstrated these important characteristics better than Caesar Augustus, or better known as Octavian. Octavian showed how good of administrator he was, which was well needed after years of civil strife and social unrest. On the other hand, military genius, Julius Caesar, was lacking in administrative qualities which infect, lead his era to have a period of civil war and bloodshed.

In the third century the Roman Empire was in turmoil. Civil wars were tearing the empire apart. Several different individuals took their turn as leader of the empire and attempted to fix things but none were in office or stuck around for more than a couple years at a time. All this changed when Diocletian rose through the ranks to become emperor.

Nero and Tiberius were two leaders who were liked by the public. Both starting their reigns young, Nero and Tiberius accomplished many things. Gaining the public’s eye, Nero gave Claudius a lavish funeral and personally delivered the oration in person. He founded a colony at Antium consisting of praetorian veterans, he gave the public an immense variety of entertainments, and even introduced his own style of architecture. These accomplishments all played a role in how the public adored him. Giving the public positive ideas will gain their trust, but unfortunately, he does not keep their trust. As Nero became older, his accomplishments became less and less, he began turning into someone who was in it for the money. His turning point was when he bankrupted Rome, once this happened Nero was neither trusted or liked.

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.

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

Caligula’s universal condemnation has been seen throughout the writings of ancient historians over time, due to his evil representation and ‘monster’ like behaviour. The impact Caligula had over Rome is not remembered for the better, for his legacy shows the impact that he left behind was the horror and twisted ways of his reign. However he did have little impact that remains beneficial to Rome, for the first six months of his reign was nothing compared to how he left it. Firstly Caligula was considered a welcome breath of fresh air when he took to the throne. In the first six months of his reign people celebrated him, many believed he would take in his father’s footsteps. Secondly after the first six months of his reign Caligula fell seriously

A man cannot have positive limelight from all the people ,who are working under him. According to this popular statement , the lecture states negative comments about emperor Claudis. Though he has negative side ,which lead Rome into doom, he has also certain positive points as mentioned in the essay before that.

At this stage in the Roman Empire things were extremely dangerous and many power struggles within the royal family were arising. With the demise of the

Julius Caesar is perhaps the most well known in the history of Roman Emperors, yet there is no denying that his reign was filled with controversy, no reason more so than his devious rise to power and his mischievous ways of suppressing the senate. There is no doubt that in ruling as a Dictator; Caesar lost the support of the Roman people, who had fought for freedom against an Etruscan King, a role in which Caesar was playing. His death in 44BC coincided with what many believe to be the year in which the Republic completely its eventual ‘fall’ that it had been plummeting to since 133BC, and it is only by looking at the differences in the end of his reign to that of Augustus’ in 27BC that

Rome had become a corrupt political center, to become Emperor was to sign your own death warrant, therefore the only people interested were the most unskilled the empire had yet seen.