More handpicked essays just for you.
Negative aspects of augustus
Economic, political and geographic affects of Rome during Augustus
Negative aspects of augustus
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“Augustus inaugurated Rome’s golden age” (HIST 101 Western Civilization I, Section 8). In other words, he helped to create the Roman Empire. Another name for this empire is “Pax Romana (Roman Peace)” (Section 8: Romanitas). Yes, this was a period of peace for Rome, and it lasted about “two hundred years” (Section 8). This raises some important questions. What caused this great era of peace in Rome? Was it one specific thing? Or, was it a mixture of things? Well, to answer these questions, you must consider the three different perspectives concerning this issue. They are the following: The Augustus, Talcitus, and Christian viewpoints.
The first perspective comes from Augustus Himself. “Augustus”, along with many Romans at the time, believed
…show more content…
that their empire was successful “because of the unique strength and virtues of the Roman people” (HIST 101 Western Civilization I, Section 8). A poet named Virgil agreed with Augustus’ conclusion. He also believed that greatness was Rome’s destiny, and that this greatness was rooted in the empire’s attributes. This is the reason why Virgil focused “on national glory” in his poetry (Section 8). It also explains why he expressed “Roman virtues” in his writings. These virtues included “patriotism, devotion to the family, duty to the state and a sense of religion” (8). Such attributes, in Virgil’s view, were key to Rome’s “glory”. Some people really disagreed with Virgil’s perspective.
One of them was “Talcitus, the greatest of the Roman historians” (HIST Western Civilization I, Section 8). His perspective was based solely on the way he viewed the Roman emperors. How did he view the emperors? Well, he believed that the Roman Empire was not completely successful and good. Why? Because it was controlled by emperors who were extremely flawed. Some of them had good intentions, but the other ones did not. The ones that did not were “power hungry” and could hinder Rome’s success (Section 8). This really bothered Talcitus, and it did for the right reasons. What if the emperors decided to do their will instead of the people’s will? Or even worse, what if the emperors became tyrannical? This could lead to the enslavement, arrest, and torture of innocent citizens. Such horror is already occurring in modern-day countries around the world. Yes, Talcitus’ worries have become today’s …show more content…
nightmares. With Talcitus’ fears and Augustus’ optimism, it is hard to tell who is right. However, before deciding, there is another perspective to consider. It is the divine or godly perspective. In other words, it is God’s way of looking at the issue. What does God think about Rome and its success? Well, to find out, you must look at how God’s followers, the Christians, view this topic. How did Christians at the time view the Roman Empire? And, to whom did they credit its success? Also, was their opinion considered valid and significant by other Romans? Well, at the time, Christians were a minority in Rome. So, their opinions were most likely over-looked and overruled. However, eventually, their “community made steady growth”, and their influence became more impactful on Roman society (HIST 101 Western Civilization I, Section 12). The believers in Rome thought that “love and charity” were the “values” that made the empire great (HIST 201 Western Civilization I, Section 12). This is the reason why many of them volunteered and worked in the community. Their work, however, was not done occasionally. In fact, they “devoted themselves to philanthropy” as a way of helping others. See, they were the type of people who “looked out for” their fellow man (12). Because of this, the “rates of survival” increased in Rome. This increase was so astonishing that some called it “miraculous” (12). The credit for this can solely be attributed to the fact that believers in Christ took unbelievers under their care when disasters hit the empire. Without Christians, the pagan Romans probably would not have survived. What else did Christians consider to be the source of Rome’s success?
Was it just love and charity? No. There is another piece to the puzzle. This piece is called evangelism. Followers of Christ believed that evangelism was extremely important for Roman society. Why? Well, at the time, many Roman citizens were pagan. Instead of following the one true God of the Bible, they believed in and followed multiple false gods. They did not want the truth of God. In fact, they suppressed “the truth by their wickedness” (Romans 1:18, NIV). Did this make them enemies of believers? Of course not. They were the mission field, and Christians were eager to plant seeds. Romans, like every other human being, are sinful. Without Christ changing their hearts, they would act however they wanted. Depending on how heinous their actions were, they could have affected society in a negative way. They needed their “hearts sprinkled” to “cleanse” them “from a guilty conscience” (Hebrews 10:22, NIV). Without being cleansed, they could corrupt the nation of Rome. Now, remember, “all the nations that forget God shall be turned into hell” (Psalm 9:17, KJV). Believers knew this, and evangelism was their only way of doing something about it. This raises an interesting question. How did they accomplish their evangelism? They accomplished it by focusing “on demonstrating Christian love and preaching the gospel to their neighbors” (Section
12). Before concluding this paper, there is one more area of Christian influence that made Rome great. It is called the Christian family. In fact, this institution made up for one of Rome’s biggest flaws. During its empire, Roman birth rates decreased dramatically. In other words, its citizens were not having enough children to sustain the empire’s future existence and success. With such low birth rates, the Romans would have slowly died out. Before continuing, it is important to ask a vital question. What caused this dramatic drop in Roman birth rates? It was caused by rampant homosexuality and prostitution. Men started to sleep with other men more than women. This resulted in Roman men not having children. So, who stepped in to fix this? The Christians did. By engaging in and practicing the traditional marriage and family institution, Christian birth rates started to heavily increase in the empire. Thanks to followers of Christ, the Roman people did not completely die out. To conclude, it was Christian values, not Roman virtues, that made the Roman Empire great. Why? Because these values come from God. Yes, it was God Himself who made Rome a successful empire. He “blessed them” and commanded them to “be fruitful and increase in number” (Genesis 1:28, NIV). So, those who followed God did. They got married, had multiple children, and built strong families together. This act of obedience toward God, coupled with Christian charity work and evangelism, is what caused the Roman Empire to prosper and succeed. Bibliography: “HIST 101 Western Civilization I”, Sections 8 and 12.
Caesar, who was seen as a great leader of Rome. This point of view has
P Bradley. Ancient Rome, using evidence. (2000) [United Kingdom] Cambridge University Press. Pgs 516-519, 534-535, &555-557
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
It is also interesting to note that Augustus is never referred to as an Emperor in this text- this is the best evidence of how the Res Gestae was tailored to please the people as much as possible, as the title Emperor shows the power Augustus had too clearly- the Romans had a hatred of dictators and tyrants inspired by the Roman Kingdom. Instead of referring to himself as Emperor, Augustus uses his consulship or tribunician power for a time frame,
The rise of Christianity in Rome did not come easily. It came with much destruction and death. The spark of Christianity in Rome came from an appearance of Martyrs in Rome. Martyrs were people that were executed for going against the common beliefs of pagan (polytheistic) ways. (Tignor, 2011, p. 286) Because of these awful executions, Christianity is said to be based off of “the blood of martyrs.” One of their main ways of spreading Christianity was through the sharing of their writings and by 300 CE there was an exceptional amount of book production throughout Rome. (Tignor, 2011, p. 289) “Christianity operated as one among many minority religions in the Roman Empire, and on several occasions experienced widespread persecution, especially under the emperors Nero (r. 54–68), Decius (r. 249–251), and Diocletian (r. 284–305). However, the situation changed radically under the emperor Constantine (r. 306–337), who in 313 issued the Edict of Milan that made Christianity a legitimate religion in the empire.” (Melton, 2010, p. 634)
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 constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero, p.221 (as presented in Antiquity 2). Peter Roberts Excel HSC Ancient History, Copyright 2001, pages 316 – 324. http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/caesar-sugustus/ http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/augustus.html http://www.roman-emperors.org/auggie.htm
Livius, Titus. The Early History of Rome. Trans. Aubrey De Sélincourt. London: Penguin Group, 2002. N. pag. Print.
In my opinion this book is not the evaluation of how approximately fifty million people from two thousand years ago thought about the world that they lived in at the time, but about how a few dozen men wrote about it, in a viewpoint illustrative of only a few thousand. In order to support her view, Edith Hamilton tries to bring these people together, threading together their common thoughts and ideologies. Save for the fact that this book only represents a handful of Roman citizens and the way that they saw the world in which they lived, I do feel like I got a better understanding of the “Roman Way” and the way that life was back then. Along with the history that I learned in class on the subject it makes me be able to picture it better in my mind’s-eye.
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 historians (including Tacitus), and his reign is often portrayed as being detrimental to the welfare of the Roman Empire’ is invalid as he treated the senate fairly, created strong economics and security in the state and boosted the empire into an unprecedented state of prosperity. This hypothesis will be proven through this essay by analyzing factors such as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire, his relationship with the senate, his financial control, the effect of Sejanus over his rule and why were his last years as Emperor referred to as a ‘reign of terror’ by Tacitus.
The Romans could learn to live with other religions, but not when they were harmful to public order. At one point, Romans viewed it to be just that. Christians tended to hold get-togethers in private places and communicated with other groups from outlying places. Christians only recognized their own god, and because of that they didn’t attend festivals that were a tribute to the more popular gods and goddesses. Romans thought that since the Christians didn’t wish to worship state gods, they were just in punishing them for being atheist.
He “shunned any role as a crude purveyor of imperial propaganda” but the narrative itself and the intentional use of symbolic elements tied the Augustan reign back to Rome’s legendary foundation. Regardless of his intentions, his great literary work, which would become an integral book in Roman education, was immensely pro-Augustus, and the Aeneid worked in the emperor’s favor as a medium for his cultural, social, and political agenda. The incorporation of historic enemies, such as Carthage, traditional values, such as pater familias, religiosity, from Apollo to Jupiter, and duty, from founding cities to maintaining an empire, worked harmoniously to create a picture of stability and prosperity under Augustus. He was quite literally a promised leader, as depicted on a shield crafted by a god illustrating Rome’s future, and such passages, even if used to relate past and present events, served as propaganda. Virgil’s epic epitomized the restored cultural identity Augustus pursued through social and legislative means, and worked successfully to instill a sense of nationalism in his imperial
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
Octavian, or Caesar Augustus, was an effective ruler, implementing reforms that positively affected virtually all areas of life throughout the Empire. Social, economic, and political tensions that had led to so much violence in earlier years were calmed by Augustus's policies. Corruption and abuses of the people were also given attention by the Emperor. The borders of the Roman Empire grew dramatically under Augustus's rule, adding material wealth and manpower to Rome's already significant resources.
Across cultures, continents, and worlds, the majority of things within the scope of our very own humanity can be boiled down to two things: those who are dominant, and those who get dominated. Within these statuses lie stories of power struggles, rebellion, the rising and falling of those with influence, and the interconnection between a being with power and the people under his ruling. Through the visual works catered to this subject, we will discuss themes such as the power of immortalization, divinity amongst humans, what it really means to be a ruler, and many other details making up the ever-present, multifaceted relationship between rulers and their subject. With the assistance of the Blanton Museum of Art, I will be able to showcase