Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars is one of the most important sources for the early days of the Principate. Suetonius includes all sorts of fascinating biographical details about the men he describes--along with plenty of sometimes unverifiable gossip and rumor.Sometime before Thursday's class, please read Suetonius' account of Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius (Caligula), Claudius, or Nero. Pick a line that illustrates particularly well either the emperor's achievements or the way in which that emperor's life was a personal tragedy, or a tragedy for the people of Rome. Explain your choice.
We will talk about your line selections in class.
I decided to choose Caligula because of the video we watched on Tuesday. The line I chose was this one ...
ReplyDeleteWhen cattle to feed the wild beasts which he had provided for a gladiatorial show were rather costly, he selected criminals to be devoured, and reviewing the line of prisoners without examining the charges, but merely taking his place in the middle of a colonnade, he bade them be led away "from baldhead to baldhead."
I chose this particular line because it shows just how crazy this man was when he was the ruler of Rome. He tried to solve many problems in Rome but the way he did it was the wrong way. Just this one example can show us how he served was a true tragedy for the Roman people. This man was a brutal man for he would enact horrible punishments for people who would but only tell him his games he put on were not good. He would force parents to watch their sons being executed. He would disfigure and brand people and then send them to the mines to work. This man led a brutal life and killed many innocent Roman people.
I decided to write my blog post about Nero, and the line I chose was "Many people at once made many direful predictions from his horoscope, and a remark of his father Domitius was also regarded as an omen; for while receiving the congratulations of his friends, he said that "nothing that was not abominable and a public bane could be born of Agrippina and himself."
ReplyDeleteI chose this line because it showcases how the people of Rome considered Nero a lost cause or an unlucky omen from the beginning. The article goes on further to describe how, at his purification, the name given to him by Claudius was scorned by his mother Agrippa, because Claudius at the time was the laughing stock of Rome. It seems like these omens pointed to Nero being bad or unlucky from the start, and because people were unwilling to believe otherwise, Nero led the unhappy life everyone predicted.
-Haylee Bohnet
I chose to write on Claudius, and the line I chose was:
ReplyDelete"He very often distributed largesse to the people. He also gave several splendid shows, not merely the usual ones in the customary places, but some of a new kind and some revived from ancient times, and in places where no one had ever given them before. He opened the games at the dedication of Pompeius Magnus's theater, which he had restored when it was damaged by a fire, from a raised seat in the orchestra, after first offering sacrifice at the temples in the upper part of the auditorium and coming down through the tiers of seats while all sat in silence."
I chose this line because it shows two aspects of great accomplishes by Claudius. This line shows his generosity in supporting the Roman people, but it also references how he helped rebuild Rome in disasters. It shows the overall care he had for Rome and its people. I think that a good emperor would have to show such levels of care to expand and improve Rome and its infostructure, like Claudius did. Though he was a successful military leader, as seen by conquering Britain, I believe that his success in ensuring future infostructure success for Rome was an equally large accomplishment.
I chose to read about Nero, and the line I chose is:
ReplyDelete" For under cover of displeasure at the ugliness of the old buildings and the narrow, crooked streets, he set fire to the city so openly that several ex-consuls did not venture to lay hands on his chamberlains although they caught them on their estates with tow and firebrands, while some granaries near the Golden House, whose room he particularly desired, were demolished by engines of war and then set on fire, because their walls were of stone. For six days and seven nights destruction raged, while the people were driven for shelter to monuments and tombs. At that time, besides an immense number of dwellings, the houses of leaders of old were burned, still adorned with trophies of victory, and the temples of the gods vowed and dedicated by the kings and later in the Punic and Gallic wars, and whatever else interesting and noteworthy had survived from antiquity. Viewing the conflagration from the tower of Maecenas, and exulting, as he said, "with the beauty of the flames," he sang the whole time the "Sack of Ilium," in his regular stage costume. Furthermore, to gain from this calamity too the spoil and booty possible, while promising the removal of the debris and dead bodies free of cost, allowed no one to approach the ruins of his own property; and from the contributions which he not only received, but even demanded, he nearly bankrupted the provinces and exhausted the resources of individuals."
This is a pretty long passage, but I thought it describes how Nero being emperor was a tragedy for Rome. Although he seemed like a good leader in his youth through aiding the Roman people, singing, and sponsoring shows, Nero ended up growing up into a bad emperor. He began to go crazy, even burning down a city in Rome because he deemed its "buildings ugly" and "streets crooked". People were forced out of their burning homes and had to take shelter elsewhere, and important spoils of war/antiquities burned away. Nero just sang and seemed to enjoy the fire, all while the people of the city were suffering and losing everything. After the fire, he even had the audacity to demand contributions although previously offering to remove the debris and dead bodies for free. The provinces and other citizens were nearly bankrupt as a result of their forced payment, and his fire proved how he was a problem for Rome. In his youth he seemed genuinely good, but Nero ended up becoming a psychopath whose appetite for destruction and suffering could not be sated.
The line I chose was from Tiberius
ReplyDeleteXXII. Tiberius did not make the death of Augustus public until the young Agrippa had been disposed of. The latter was slain by a tribune of the soldiers appointed to guard him, who received a letter in which he was bidden to do the deed; but it is not known whether Augustus left this letter when he died, to remove a future source of discord, or whether Livia wrote it herself in the name of her husband; and in the latter case, whether it was with or without the connivance of Tiberius. At all events, when the tribune reported that he had done his bidding, Tiberius replied that he had given no such order and that the man must render an account to the Senate; apparently trying to avoid odium at the time, for later his silence consigned the matter to oblivion.
I think it’s not necessarily a terrible thing, but I do believe that it does lack some transparency, which could be bad for the Roman people. I think with as respected a leader Augustus was, it was important for the Roman people to know of his death, even if there were conflicting factors or reasons that it hadn’t been announced. The Roman people deserved to know right away not only that Augustus was dead, but rather as well that Tiberius was talking over the Roman Empire, and seeing the change of course. If it was a non-respected leader, then I don’t think the Roman people would particularly care as much, but Augustus helped bring stability as well as transparency to the Roman Empire and really the Roman people, and that’s one of the reasons why he was able to bring along different successes. Tiberius, although not wanting to become the leader of Rome, knew that he had important shoes to fill, and had to come to an appropriate state of mind to accept it and be the face of the Roman people.
Nile Hesson
"He was large and strong of frame, and of a stature above the average; broad of shoulders and chest; well proportioned and symmetrical from head to foot. His left hand was the more nimble and stronger, and its joints were so powerful that he could bore through a fresh, sound apple with his finger, and break the head of a boy, or even a young man, with a fillip. He was of fair complexion and wore his hair rather long at the back, so much so as even to cover the nape of his neck; which was apparently a family trait. His face was handsome, but would break out on a sudden with many pimples. His eyes were unusually large and, strange to say, had the power of seeing even at night and in the dark, but only for a short time when first opened after sleep"
ReplyDeleteI chose this line because it is depicting Tiberius as a strong and capable man who could take care of Rome. THough he did make some mistakes, this is the way that a Caesar should want to be described by the historians. THough this line does not highlight any specific achievements, one can see how he might have been able to achieve what he did by the descriptions of his stature alone.
"There was nothing, however, in which he was more ruinously prodigal than in building. He made a palace extending all the way from the Palatine to the Esquiline, which at first he called the House of Passage, but when it was burned shortly after its completion and rebuilt, the Golden House."
ReplyDeleteThis is in regards to Nero. Nero was, for the most part, a horrible leader and an awful man in general. He did, however, succeed in expanding the city of Rome in terms of architecture. When one thinks about the Roman Empire, one of the many things that come to mind are the vast, expensive, and uniquely designed buildings. Nero's palace was indeed one of those buildings that people might consider. Nero no doubt produced a multitude of tragedies throughout his time in emperor, but he had achievements in architecture and design.
-Lauren Bland
I decided to do Caligula and the line I chose is:
ReplyDelete"When cattle to feed the wild beasts which he had provided for a gladiatorial show were rather costly, he selected criminals to be devoured, and reviewing the line of prisoners without examining the charges, but merely taking his place in the middle of a colonnade, he bade them be led away "from baldhead to baldhead."
I'm going to say this could have been regarded as a tragedy for the Roman people as they had a bloodthirsty emperor who seemed to enjoy the torture and death of both animals and humans. Caligula was an awful, awful man and an even worse emperor and leader of the Roman people.