Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Despite his initial appearance of modesty, Tiberius was a tyrant and enjoyed watching other people suffer. However, his actions, in themselves, did not make Tiberius a bad ruler as much as his intentions behind them. Tiberius was a bad emperor because his actions were driven by his own desire for pleasure, which is evident in his cruelty, his sexual endeavors and his alcoholism. Although Tiberius was known for his unjust cruelty, the cruelty, itself, is not what made Tiberius a terrible ruler, as much as his enjoyment of it. Tiberius punished people for minor crimes, including his own family, and had people executed daily. “Tiberius did so many other wicked deeds under the pretext of performing public morals- but in reality to gratify his
lust for seeing people suffer”; the lack of severity of his victims’ crimes suggests that Tiberius was engaging in cruelty for cruelty’s sake instead of for the purpose of upholding Roman values (Seutonius 134). While Tiberius is most known for his excessive violence, he also shows selfishness and a lack of restraint in his sex life and drinking. He had a house at Capreae where he engaged in sexual indulgences, which included performing sexual acts with children. Tiberius earned the nickname “Biberius Caldius Mero” by consuming an excessive amount of alcohol. The name is a play on the Latin words bibere (to drink), calidus (hot), and merum (unmixed wine). Wine was usually mixed with water because of its potency. Having the word merum in his nickname emphasized Tiberius’s lack of restraint while drinking, because the word implies that the wine he drank would have been incredibly strong. Tiberius lacked the will to resist temptation. He found pleasure in drinking, sex and torturing others, and engaged in all three excessively. By indulging in his desires, he became a tyrannical and cruel emperor. Tiberius’s inability to resist killing, drinking and sex was more instrumental in the people’s hatred towards Tiberius than the acts themselves.
Throughout Gaius Gracchus life, events changed his motivation and desire in public office. At first, he designed his primary goal to rouse the populace against the current government in a personal goal for the death of Tiberius. Following the initial upset in the system of government, he moved to create an improved system for the people of Italy through social reform. Many laws and decrees enacted favored the populace, but offended the senators. Even though Gaius created progress for the Senate for decades, it came at a price of death for him.
Augustus Caesar was very ambitious leader. He is best known for bringing peace to Rome. Augustus was considered the first great roman emperor, because He didn’t care about wealth and fortune. Augustus cared about the people of Rome. He was a great military leader and was successful in most of his missions. He showed people that being a good ruler requires a lot of hard work and dedication. He was a very generous man. Augustus was greatly admired by the Roman people.
Tiberius is remembered as a tightfisted and paranoid emperor. Tacitus goes against this view of Tiberius by giving examples of extreme generosity. However Tacitus doesn 't present Tiberius as a perfect emperor and his portrayal of Tiberius isn 't just propaganda. When it comes to military affairs Tacitus paints a very unflattering picture of Tiberius turning his back on the frontier while Romans are killed. Tacitus stated that his accounts on the Julio Claudian emperors was made without prejudice and the fact that he highlights both positive and negative aspects of Tiberius ' rule indicates that he was probably telling the truth.
...ion this all showed that style of governing and ruling an empire started a century long pattern of events that eventually lead to the fall and destruction of the old oligarchy led by the Senate. The combination of desire for personal gain and glory of a politician or general was what weakened the Roman customs and the Senate. This was a cycle among the Senate, to find themselves stuck in a problem and to find others to fix with of course military means but in turn make everything more corrupt with their disruptive practices such as Pompey and Julius Caesar. But they were not the only ones there were others who were to blame for causing such decay and corruption such as Marius, Sulla, Gaius and Tiberius Gracchus. They were the ones who kept this corruption cycle going and it was Augustus Caesar who finally broke the cycle and brought stability and order back to Rome.
Tiberius Sempronius and Gaius Sempronius Gracchus were born into one of Rome’s most politically connected families of their generation. This in turn, benefitted both of their short controversial political careers. Tiberius Gracchus, the eldest of the two, was described by Florus as “a man who easily stood out from others in birth, appearance and eloquence...” (n.d., p. 221) and Velleius identified Tiberius as being the epitome of perfection (p. 55). These sources, created nearly 100 years after the death of Tiberius Gracchi, describe Tiberius to be the ‘perfect’ human-being which could demonstrate a bias accou...
...for success, he robs his audience of the right to make certain determinations about characters such as Tarquin Superbus and Romulus because of his bias toward the motivation behind their actions. Livy’s The Rise of Rome was a grand effort and an amazing undertaking. Cataloguing the years of Roman history consolidated rumor and legend into fact, creating a model for Rome to follow. Livy’s only error in this vast undertaking was in imprinting his own conception of morality and justice onto his work, an error that pulls the reader away from active thought and engaging debate. In doing so, Livy may have helped solidify a better Rome, but it would have been a Rome with less of a conception of why certain things are just, and more of a flat, basely concluded concept of justice.
Tiberius was a man of just reasoning and great honor. To have been a son of Tiberius Gracchus the elder, virtue was one of the traits that would pass along with his name. Tiberius married the daughter of the great Scipio who defeated Hannibal. This not only added to his fame, but also provided support. “We are told, moreover, that he once caught a pair of serpents on his bed, and that the soothsayers, after considering the prodigy, forbade him ...
Tiberius lost his life because he put too much trust in the people to back hime up, and Gaius met the same fate because the Roman constitutional system had check and balances specifically designed to keep power from staying in one place for too long. The Populist Gracchan government met a bloody end.
Goodness is a subjective term, one that tends to represent a person’s righteousness and generous actions. However, when speaking of a good emperor in the Roman Empire, one must also realize that goodness must also relate to how that emperor made the empire better. The five so-called good emperors were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. How were they good? Trajan was the best emperor because he was able to have not only a great relationship with the Roman Senate and people, but also because he was able to make the empire greater, whereas the other emperors were only moderately good because they accomplished only one of the above qualities.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
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 was proven as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire was outstanding as he was coherent to Augustus’ policy and kept the provinces content by governing them well. The financial status of the Empire was boosted 20 times that at his accession by building highways and saving money through hosting less games and repairing buildings. Tiberius followed Augustus’ steps and maintained a respectful relationship with the Senate by showing courtesy to the consuls and the body as a whole. The rise of Sejanus proved devastating to Tiberius’ rule as his execution fueled Tacitus’ claim of a ‘reign of terror’ and angered the people of Rome.
entertainment was cruel and brutal it satisfied the Roman's need for excitment and relaxation. In
Even though he eventually did believe in complete dictatorship, primarily he was quite promising because of his moderate approach to governance. His tutor and advisor Seneca, who was one of the great intellectuals and philosophers at the time, taught Nero from a young age about mercy, justice and the sacredness of human life. These ideas appealed to Nero and he tried to gain popularity by following these moral ideas. He also allowed the senate to make more decisions which was appreci...
His fourteen-year reign represented everything decadent about the Julio-Claudian period of the Roman Empire. His self-indulgent, cruel and violent affairs continued the economic chaos that had plagued the Roman citizenry since the days of Tiberius (Champlin, 1990). In the first five years as emperor, Nero gained a reputation for political generosity, promoting power sharing with the Senate and ending closed-door political trails. However, he generally pursued his own passions and left the ruling to his three key advisers – the Stoic Philosopher Seneca, the prefect Burrus and Nero’s mother Agrippina (Armstrong, 2012). Nero was a reckless and selfish adolescent when he ascended to Emperor, as highlighted by Suetonius within his historical scripture, ‘The Twelve
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.