Category: Augustus

Emperor Augustus of Rome was born Gaius Octavius on September 23, 63 B.C. Augustus took power in 44 B.C. after the murder of his uncle, Julius Ceaser. Augustus was a wise, bright and astute politician. He was able to restore peace in Rome after 100 years of civil war. Augustus was able to commission the following works which influenced the Rome politics (Kleiner, 385).

Emperor Augustus ordered Vergil to write an ambitious poem that would represent a legendary origin of the Roman Empire and the Roman people as well. This gave an opportunity to Vergil to fulfill his life time ambition to write a Homeric like epic about the adventures of Aenneas, the ancestor of Romulus and the whole Julian line.

He worked on a book called the Aeneid whose subject was not Aeneas. The poem told about Rome and the glories of the Empire. It was a difficult undertaking, and after eleven years of working on it, it was completed when the poet had been already dead. Vergil wished the poem to be burned if it had been unfinished. Augustus ordered Lucius, Varius, Rufus and Plotus Tucca to publish the poem with as minor editorial alterations as possible.

The Aeneid was recognized as a legendary masterpiece and a testament to the dignity of the Roman Empire (Kleiner, 540). Vergils name was thereafter covered with myths and legends, and his tomb became one of the most popular places of interest. Some Christians believed Vergil to be even a foreteller because he was considered to predict the appearance of Christ in some of his works.

Augustus commissioned the erection of a mausoleum for himself and his family in the present Piazza Augusto Imperatore. The mausoleum was set in a sacred precinct and used for religious purposes.

Augustus inaugurated the altar of the Augustan peace in Rome. The altar was carved by the best sculptors of the day. It took 3 years and a half to create this masterpiece which was dedicated to celebration of Augustus victorious campaigns in Spain and Gaul on January 30, 9 BC.

Changes in the representation of Christ and how they reflect the spread of Christianity and its acceptance by the Romans

Christianity was drastically transformed when Emperor Constantine defeated his main rival Maxentius at the battle of Milvian Bridge. Description of the battle revealed that Constantine saw a sign in the heavens foretelling his victory. After the victory, Constantine became a supporter of Christianity. This made it possible to transform Rome into a Christian Empire. Representation of Christ has been also changed in many ways.

In the fourth century, a mosaic in Santa Pudenziana represented Christ sitting at the centre on a jewel coated throne. He was dressed in a gold toga with purple trim, the colors showed imperial authority. His right hand was extended in the ad locutio gesture conventional in representations. Holding a book in his right hand signified that Christ was proclaiming his commandments to the word.

This representation was accepted in the Roman Empire as another convention of the Roman imperial art of traditio legis or handling down the law. This made a silver plate for Emperor Theodosius seem similar to that of Christ. Christianity was spread through the Roman Empire as the Romans wanted to identify themselves with Christ. Christianity underwent fundamental transformation after Constantine accepted it.

The Christian art according to Constantine was to emphasize on the authority of Christ and His church in the world. A good example proving this fact is presented in the Mosaic of Christ in the archiepiscopal palace in Ravenna. Christ is depicted there wearing the cuirass or the breastplate worn by Emperors. This represented the acceptance of Christ as a leader by the Romans (Kleiner, 335).

Byzantine ideal of sacred kingship

In the basilica S. Vitale, two popular mosaics are used to link it with the Byzantine court. Altar design comes from the imperial work shop. Justinian and his empress, Theodora, are accompanied by representatives, the local clergy, and ladies in waiting to attend the service. We see Justinian and Theodora as analogous to Christ and the Virgin Mary.

On the edge of Theodoras cloak, we see three magi carrying their gifts to Mary and the new born king. Justinian is flanked by twelve men who personify the twelve apostles. This union of political and spiritual authority shows the divine kingship of the Byzantine emperor. Justinian, Theodora and their neighbors are intended to be of the same likenesses, but their features are differentiated from those of Archbishop, Maximianus.

Influence of 3^rd century Frescoes of Dura Europas on Byzantine art

The oldest surviving examples of art decorating the early churches were found in a synagogue in the town of Dura-Europos, modern Syria. Its walls are painted with animals, people and objects that represent a whole story or a theme across the wall, including Jesus miracles.

The Dura Europas has influenced the growth and development of byzantine art in several ways. The byzantine art emphasized on scriptures which did not depict Christ. In the byzantine era, painters were encouraged by the sculptures from Dura Europas, such as The purim Triumph, and from these ancient paintings, they generated their ideas for their new masterpieces.

Work Cited

Kleiner, Fred. Gardners Art through the Ages: The Western Perspective. Beverly, MA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2009. Print.

Introduction

Augustus was born in 63 BC and in 44 BC he was adopted by his uncle Julius Cesar; it was during the same year that he became Romes emperor after the sudden demise of his uncle. He ruled the empire till he died in AD 14. In 43 BC he collaborated with Mark Anthony and Marcus Lepidicus and together they introduced a form of dictatorship which was known as the Second Triumvirate. He ruled Rome and numerous of its provinces and even took consular power after the demise of consuls Hirtius and Pansa, he even made himself be re-elected continuously.

Dictatorship however came to an end due to its rulers ambitions; Lepidus went into exile while Anthony strangled himself to death after he was defeated by Augustus in the battle of Actium in 31 BC. After the death of dictatorship, Augustus revived the outward frontage of the Roman republic, with governmental powers entrusted on the Roman Senate. Augustus took a couple of years to come up with a structure of a republican state that could be ruled by a single ruler. The result of the developed structure came to be known as the Roman Empire.

Augustus successes

The reasons behind Augustus success in moving Rome from a republican form of government to an imperial one lies within the successes and victories he had in major combats. One of the reasons of his success was the hurting taunts that were hurled by anti cesaerian individuals; such comments made the senate induct him as senator and gave him commanding power which legalized his command on troops. In 43 BC Augustus went for war together with consuls Hirtius and Pansa against Anthony, he managed to defeat Anthony army, however he lost both of the consuls leaving him in full command of the army (George, 38).

After the war Decimus Brutus received more praises than Augustus and even the senate wanted to give him command of the consular legions, but Augustus declined. In August 19, 43 BC Augustus was elected as consul to fill the vacancy that was left by the demise of Hirtius and Pansa. In October of 43 BC, Augustus, Anthony and Lepidus established the second triumvirate. The triumvirate set up proscriptions which saw 300 senators branded as outlaws and were striped of their property and those who never escaped were killed. This was a means of obtaining cash to pay soldiers salary for the war against Cesar murderers. The demise of republican senators enabled the triumvirs occupy their positions. The scenario is branded the name Roman revolution; it cleared the old order and formed a basis of Augustus form of leadership.

On January 1, 42 BC, the senate declared Caesar as a divine figure of the Roman state. This strengthened Augustus leadership as he was seen as the son of God by his subjects. In the same year Augustus divorced his wife Clodia claiming that his marriage to her had not been legal. Clodia wanted to revenge for the humiliation she had undergone due to the divorce. She collaborated with Lucious Antonious who was Antonys brother and the two waged a war against Augustus. The two however lost the war as they were forced to surrender. Augustus victory over this war further heightened his political career (George, 42).

The rivalry between Anthony and Augustus had heightened and the two even were planning to wage a war against each other in 40 BC. However the war never occurred since the Centurions of both the two who were very important political figures refused to participate in the war. The sudden death of Antonys wife Fulvia made the centurions on both sides force the two to reconcile. In the year 40 BC, both Augustus and Anthony signed the treaty of Brundisium, which saw Lepidus remain in Africa, Anthony remain in the East and Augustus in the West. The agreement strengthened the alliance of the two.

As time went on Augustus and Sextus Pompeius were involved in a territorial conflict; the conflict resulted in the two signing a temporary peace treaty. However with time the peace treaty began to fall. Augustus needed Antonys help to invade Pompeius, the two signed an agreement would see Anthony supply 120 ships for Augustus to use against pompadours and Augustus to supply 20,000 soldiers to support Anthony in his war against Parthia.

However Augustus never kept his promise as he only supplied a tenth of the number of soldiers he had agreed to supply. After the war against Parthia, Augustus managed to convince Lepidas army to defect to his camp since he enticed them with high salaries. This made Lepidus surrender to him which brought an end to Lepidus career. The Romans were now divided between Anthony in the East and Augustus in the West. Augustus was able to maintain peace and stability in his empire by ensuring the rights of his citizens property (Emilio, 106).

The war Anthony waged against Parthia tarnished his image; he further tarnished his image by having an affair with Cleopatra and sending his wife Olivia back to Rome. In 34 BC after the Roman troops invaded Armenia, Anthony made his son Alexander King of Armenia and he also named Cleopatra Queen of Kings. Augustus used this to convince the Roman senate that Anthony characters were meant to tarnish the Romans name.

Many of the Consuls defected from Antonys side to support Augustus. In 32 BC the senate took off Antonys power as consul and waged a war against Cleopatra in Egypt. Augustus emerged victorious in the war. Anthony and Cleopatra managed to escape and after another loss that occurred in Alexandria in 30 BC both Anthony and Cleopatra committed suicide. Augustus went ahead to kill Caesarion so that he could remain as the only Caesar.

After Augustus victory over Anthony and Cleopatra, he ruled the entire republic. However to rule effectively he had to increase his powers, courting the senate and people and still maintaining Romes traditions so that he could not be viewed as practicing dictatorship. As him and Agrippa walked into Rome, they were elected as double consuls by the senate. The many years of civil wars had left Rome in a state of disorderliness but the state was also not ready to accept Augustus leadership. Augustus on the other hand was not prepared to give up his power without waging a civil war with the Roman generals. The main aim of Augustus was to return Rome into a state of normalcy (George, 52).

In 27 BC, Augustus gained full authority over the Roman state and also had full authority over all Roman provinces and its armies. Although he had no direct control of the armies, he still was able to have the Roman soldiers remain loyal to him. One of the reasons that made Augustus successful was many clients and adherents depended on him for financial help.

The strength of his power came from the number of offices given to him by the senate and the citizens, second from his wealth, and thirdly from a relationship he had created with a number of individual groups all over the empire. The public in general supported him because they were aware of his immense wealth. At one time when senators failed to finance the construction of roads in Italy, he decided to take over the responsibility, this deed was highly publicized in 16 BC after he supplied enormous amount of money to the public treasury (George, 54).

Augustus authority was based on the practice of a predominant military strength and he also exercised force to his subjects. In the Senate, Augustus maintained the constitution of the Roman republic and he also accepted the responsibility of controlling all the provinces that were in a mismanaged state. He also had to control some of the areas Rome had concurred which included Hispania, Gaul, Syria and Cicilia, Cyprus and Egypt. Augustus control over the provinces provided him with authority of over most of the Rome legions. While he was a consul in Rome, he controlled the other legions by using senators he had appointed as his representatives.

However some of the provinces that were not under his command were controlled by governors who had been appointed by the Roman senate. During his reign Augustus became one of the most authoritative political image in Rome and the rest of its provinces and yet he lacked a single monopoly on political power. The senate managed North Africa which was an essential provider of grain and other regions such as Illyria and Macedonia. However the senate powers could still not compare to those of Augustus since he controlled 20 legions as compared to five which were under the senate (Emilio, 119).

Conclusion

It is clear to state that Augustus was a successful leader, and his success of converting in moving Rome from a republican form of government to an imperial one was made possible from the success he had in the wars he waged in. The war that mostly propelled his success was the one he waged against Cleopatra and Anthony that enabled him to have full control of the whole of Rome as a single emperor. Other reasons that played a huge part are his financial stability and his ruling style which was efficient.

Works Cited

George, M, Rome under Augustus, Oxford press (1992), 38-54.

Emilio, B, Roman history, Princeton publishers (1989), 101-119.

Mosaic Emperor Justinian and Courtiers and Augustan Sculpture are objects of Roman cultural heritage which present mighty rulers from different epochs. At the same time, both pieces of art are created according to artistic canons and reflect cultural, historical and religious situation of their days.

The first and maybe the main point in this opposition of times and customs is the role of a ruler. In the Ara Paris Augustus is represented as the first among equals rather than supreme ruler; although he leads the procession he is marked by no special richness of dress (Cunningham and Reich 98). In fact, the Ara Pacis contains Augustus notions about his reign and his main guidelines. The altar is devoted to the idea of piece and consent between people; it is an altar with opened palm.

As many other Roman works of art, the Ara Pacis combines Greek and Roman standards of art, with vivid and natural way of presenting a composition. Members of emperors family are also included to the scene and depicted with portrait precision; children smile and talk with each other, walk half-turned, in contrast to serious adults. These details emphasize Augustus concern for future generations. Presentation of Aeneas reminds not so much about Augustus divine origin as about Romes fame and glorious past.

Message, included into the mosaic Emperor Justinian and Courtiers is completely different. Justinians presentation does not contain any personal qualities. Emperors eyes are big and aloof, posture is motionless. Cloaks hide shapes of figures, and turn them into flat, fusing with wall silhouettes. There is a great contrast between the idealized picture of the young emperor and his courtiers. A bishop has sparse hair; a monks face is bony and sinewy. Justinian is presented as an ideal ruler, illumined with imprints of divine glory. He is dressed in purple, with crown on his head. In the Byzantine culture purple was the color of the greatest ruler, God on heavens and his regent, emperor, on earth. Gospel bindings were covered with purple textile. Purple is also observed as the color Virgin Maries clothes on sacred icons (Cunningham and Reich 163-164).

The Byzantine artist tried to express the divine nature of emperors power. The composition is V-shaped with Justinian ahead what personifies stern, preterhuman greatness of emperors power. The message is expressed by means of figures, which stand as an impenetrable wall and intently look directly at viewers. It seems that inquiring and searching eyes are only vivid details on the mosaic.

Emperor Augustus is presented as the first between equal. His position was grounded not only by the fame of Augustus family, but also by his personal services. He was the first, as long as he was considered a patron of classical traditions, protector of future generations, and wise and fair ruler. At the same time, he was equal to other Roman people, as long as Roman nation was great and mighty. Belonging to Roman nation was the highest honor.

At the same time, Justinian was the main and the first thanks to divine will and predestination. While Augustus ennobles together with his nation, Justinian is initially superior to his people. While Augustus is depicted vividly, he seems an earthy man, Justinian is presented as a heavenly figure, which is alien to earthy sins. His will is impeccable, and ordinary people should follow it without hesitation. Comparing messages in mosaic Emperor Justinian and Courtiers and Augustan Sculpture one may clearly observe appearance of a gap between an emperor and his nation, which was absent in times of emperor Augusts but emerged in the coarse of Byzantine Empire.

Work Cited

Cunningham, Lawrence and Reich, John. Culture and Values: A Survey of the Humanities. Stamford: Cengage Learning, 2009. Print.

Augustus, a renowned leader of the Roman Empire during the 27 BC, initiated the use of built forms for the ascension and preservation of power. The development of Rome under his rule inaugurated a highly influential style of architecture, establishing a new standard subsequent to the fall of the Roman Empire. His supremacy over the Roman Empire ensued a substantial shift in the urban environment, marking Rome as a prosperous and affluent city. This paper will argue that he used architecture to improve the longevity of his influence subsequent to his reign. Architecture was also a way to celebrate his victories as a powerful conqueror. He also displayed his connection to deity, thus presented himself as divine figure. Through the examination of the planning, style, function and form of specific buildings and monuments, Augustus’ personal symbolism through built forms are evident. Augustus had numerous sites built in recognition of him or is connected to his divine presence in various forms. The Mausoleum of Augustus, Ara Pacis and the Forum of Augustus are a few selected that exemplifies his impact on Roman urbanization.

The Mausoleum of Augustus is a significant building that represents his principate and legacy beyond his time in power. The tomb was commissioned and built for him around 28 to 23 BC to commemorate his absolute rule. The Mausoleum of Augustus was built as a Roman tumulus mound around 89 metres in diameter and 40 metres in height. One of the theories regarding Augustus’ decision in building such large monuments was to challenge and or celebrate defeats of nations of power such as Antony and Cleopatra in the Battle of Actium. Constructing a larger tomb structurally and visually intimidates adversaries. The sheer size of the concrete construction indicates that even after his passing, Augustus will still maintain his omnipotent presence.

The plan of the mausoleum also reveals the unique circular layout. It illustrates the ‘interior construction of five concentric walls’ with the ‘cella at the centre’. The buttress outer walls not only provide protection from vandalism or theft but also supports the ‘mass and weight of the earth’. Moreover, a passage from the entrance of the mausoleum leads into the inner walls that ‘were created for the funerary rites of circumambulation’ and other symbolic rituals dedicated to the gods and Augustus himself. The centre tomb was also created to house his body and deceased family members. Apart from the bodies of the dead, the tomb also includes plaques that commemorates his many achievements.

Furthermore, aside from the symbolic design of the mausoleum, the positioning of the royal tomb in relation to the topography of Campus Martius had great significance. Located by the Tiber River near the northern regions of Campus Martius, the mausoleum is directly across the Pantheon. Interestingly, both colossal structures are of circular forms. The arrangement of the two circular buildings amongst mostly orthogonal buildings aimed to express Augustus’s ‘progression from mortal to an immortal status’, alike the gods worshipped in the Pantheon. Ultimately, such a permanent and enormous burial chamber was to ensure that his presence, thus the longevity of his achievements and legacy will be memorialized long after his death.

The Ara Pacis is a monument located within north of Campus Martius near the Pantheon, designed after Augustus’s military campaign in Spain around 9 BC. The Altar represents Pax Augusta (peace of Roman Empire under Augustan rule). The monument also served as a chronicle and celebration of his conquest of throughout the Roman Empire through three-dimensional art forms. The monument is overlaid with intricate and highly textural carvings that is carved from Lunese marble from the Mediterranean’s. As many of Ancient Roman architecture was greatly influenced by the classical Greek style, not only was the techniques of the classical style adopted, the use of materials such as marble was also implemented in this structure. The use of marble, especially in large and or significant structures helps to state its pertinence.

Iconography has a major role in delivering intense and somewhat unfamiliar ideologies in accessible forms to garner support from all classes of citizens. The exterior walls were decorated with statuary like carvings of people related to Augustus such as his family and political allies. The altar portrays scenes of civilian life during that time, with animals, children and women shown performing agricultural tasks. The contrasting scenes on the other panels also show both the politics of the higher powers and the apparent serene and fulfilling lifestyle of Roman citizens. Other carvings depict figures in victorious scenes; one holding laurel wreath to symbolise victory, further implementing the idea of Augustus’s many victorious conquests. The Altar of Peace included obvious choices of deities such as the Pax (Goddess of Peace). The idea not only provides respect to the god, but further reinforce Augustus’s new regime that promised to bring peace and prosperity to the Roman citizens. Figures along the long friezes of the altar includes many figures related to Augustus; either familial, political and or religious. Political and religious figures display the authority of such members over the city as they support and strengthen Augustus’s principate. At face level, familial figures such as women and children provide people with less intimating figures that are softer and more congenial. However, the choice of including familial members aims to accentuate the prosperity of Augustus reign through his heirs and other authority of his family members. Portraying a unified family are vital for his success as autocracy and the power of his family was synonymous at the time. Furthermore, certain parts of the frieze has the inclusion of guest or hostage children from other places, suggesting his successful conquests outside of Rome and his control over the future generation as a result.

The propaganda through built forms and art made his schemes less overt, as the empire was moving from a democratic society to a dictatorship. The idea of propaganda through more visually appealing forms such as art and architecture instead of dialogue are repeated throughout many of Augustus’ buildings. The use of permanent marketing is more effective than ordinary acts of publicity such as speeches as they are limited to groups of people and are temporary, thus easily forgotten. Buildings are a large scale, permanent forms of promotion that constantly reminds all civilians the continuous triumphs of Augustus over the empire.

Augustus wielded his power to renew the old and develop the new parts of the city. In doing so, he sustained his figure as a supreme, godly leader. Of the countless buildings Augustus led to restore and construct, the Forum of Augustus with its Temple of Mars Ultor is one of the more renowned pieces of architecture that demonstrates his promotional schemes that solidified his authoritarian rule over the city of Rome. Such ideas were implemented through continuing Julius Caesar’s plan to pay respects to Mars (the God of War) by building the Temple of Mars Ultor within the his own forum. The Forum was constructed in 2 BC during major transitions of power and seats of within the government. The large and domineering structure aimed to evoke strong feeling of admiration and compliance from the citizens. This was achieved by the distinct arrangement and use of topography to devote the sacred space to the Roman Gods of War, Mars. Augustus utilizes the power of a god to connect his reign to the divine power of a deity.

The Forum was constructed with mostly marble, which is many reserved for the rich and privileged. However, Augustus’s new authority indicated more marble was imported from Africa to be used to build new structures, including civic spaces. Such bold decisions highlight his leadership and great sense of innovation, as he claimed to have “…found Rome built of bricks; and left her clothed in marble”. The white marble of implemented throughout the exterior and interior as not only was it a durable material but left a beautiful polished finish that exudes elegance and opulence. Aside from the notable use of marble, the use of Roman concrete as an all-purpose building material was included in certain aspects of the structure as another innovative creation during Augustus’s reign.

To reflect the apparent perfection of Augustus, the dedicated space must also equate to such precise excellence. This was achieved by the emphasis on proportion, scale, and symmetry. The overall design of the Forum was inspired by classical Greek architecture that symbolizes the transcendence of Augustus’ mortality to a status of divinity. Roman temples’ overall form, proportions and use of Orders were derived from Greek traditions, with that architecture style applied heavily to many of the buildings’ Augustus commissioned. A clear distinction from Greek to Augustus’ interpretation of classic architecture was that whilst the Romans kept the columns and decorative style, the idea of frontality was adopted instead of approaching the site at a perspectival angle. Viewers approach the building from the front, thus perceiving it as t a two-dimensional structure of perfect symmetry and proportion. The building asserts the grandiose and awe-inspiring mood by the extravagant solidity of the structure. However, Corinthian columns spanning around 30 metres held up the post and beam construction with the extension the upper column leading the viewer’s eyes upwards, providing an illusion of height. The entablature was also covered in detailed decorations of flora which is also harmonious with the leaves carved on the columns. Above was the richly decorated pediment, detailed with colorful imagery that of deities. However, it correspondingly uses the spacious interior to highlight the elegance of the space through the ample lighting the softly illuminates the interior, thus giving a sense of ethereality. The forum has pycnostyle columns (1.5 ratio spacing between each column) and followes the architectural traditions of the Late republic: with the inclusion of elements such as a high ‘podium’, an impressive front stair, a deep front porch and the cella, the house of the deity”. The elevated platform in the stairs allowed victory speeches and public meetings in take place. The raised podium also sets the contrast of status between Augustus and everyone peering up from below. Overall, this choice of planning and construction had the intention generating a sense of reverence and fear from the people. Such a strategic move also covertly.

His authority resulted in a significant revolution in the importance of built form during Ancient Rome. Augustus use of built forms promoted his longevity of a powerful ruler. His conquests as a military leader and emperor was showcase through monuments dedicated to him. To further reinforce his association to divinity, architecture was an enduring form of propaganda that rallied support for his campaigns. The numerous sites built in recognition of him only demonstrates is everlasting influence not only in Rome, but many years after his reign.

Augustus was in theory Rome’s first emperor (although he never had the official title nor did he ever try to call himself an emperor). He steered Rome’s evolution from a republic to an empire during the turbulent years after the assassination of Augustus’s great-uncle and adoptive father Julius Caesar.

It is undisputed that his administrative prowess was astounding, ultimately giving Rome 200 years of relative peace. But a concrete account of the man himself is more difficult to find as historical accounts of Augustus are fairly unreliable. We have excessive accolades of Paterculus, intimate narration and hearsay from Suetonius, ominous innuendos by Tacitus and lastly the unfriendly republican narrative of Augustus’s prior work.

History shows that Augustus could certainly be brutal, a determined, scheming and some moments merciless personality in his earlier years and on the flip side the honourable, enlightened emperor that he became. This may have been perplexing for ancient historians but today we can see that Augustus during his fight for power did what he had to without thought of morality or law. His ambition clearly directed to gain power for the reform of Rome. Once this was established, he commanded skilfully and honourably. His ambition always directed towards his Rome keeping his personal life simple and ordinary.

Birth and Inheritance

In the year 63BC Augustus was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus, his father a governor of Macedonia and Atai his mother Caesar’s niece. At the passing of his father at the age of 4 his mother remarried and sent Augustus to be raised by his grandmother Julia, Julius Caesar’s sister.

At the age of 16 he officially became a man which meant taking on more adult obligations within the family one of which was his decision to travel to Hispania to battle by the side of his great uncle. He became shipwrecked during the course of the journey and had to move across enemy terrain to reach Caesar’s side, this accomplishment impressed Caesar to such a degree that he named Augustus his successor in his will.

A 18 year old Augustus was at Apollonia receiving military training when the report of Caesars assassination in 44BC and his subsequent ascension to the uppermost ranks of Roman politics.

Romes Conflict Ridden Politics

Augustus had a 100 years of Rome’s caustic and brutal in-house rivalry to clean up. Two previous generals Sulla in 81BC and Julius Caesar in 49BC, upon seizing power had tried to establish revisions that would hopefully put an end to the ongoing fighting but neither achieved great reform, the Senate fighting them at every turn. The time honoured structure of the Roman Republic was justifiably unreliable. Conflicts were always resolved by brutal means rather than politically.

Augustus learns a great deal from his great uncles mistakes, his primary intention throughout his career would be to avoid the same outcome as Caesar. Which meant minimising his influence and monarchist qualities. Caesar’s ultimate belief that the Republic could not be saved drew him to assert his dictatorship. This, not surprisingly, riled the influential nobles in the Roman Senate. In a short period of time Caesar had slighted the Senate, eliminated Peoples Tribunes and supposedly was planning to become King. This last concern may not have been truthful as Suetonius wrote 150 years later “as the fateful day approached, a crowd shouted to him ‘Rex’ (‘King’), to which Caesar replied, ‘I am Caesar’”.

Road to Power

In 44BC Augustus finds himself at the age of 19 a powerful man and having to deal with Caesar’s rival Mark Antony. After raising a private army and defeating Antony in Italy Caesar’s allies stood behind Augustus and his decision for a precarious affiliation instead of continued fighting.

This leads to the creation of the Second Triumvirate in October 43BC, a leadership distribution agreement that divides up Rome’s provinces among Antony who was given the East, Lepidus got Africa and Augustus the West. The three, each who thought they should rule solely, did in fact have some common ground. They wanted to avenge Caesar’s death and secure a more stable Roman Republic.

The triumvirate was officially accepted by the Senate in November 43BC the trio now having absolute authority for the next five years. The first task at hand was finding and executing 300 senators and over 2000 knights for their involvement in the assassination of Caesar.

Not surprisingly the triumvirate broke in the year 37BC as the strong personalities of the three continuously clashed and all would eventually meet in battle leading to a civil war. Poor political judgment gave Augustus the excuse to finally remove Lepidus. He was deprived of power and title and then exiled in Circeii in 36BC. Antony is finally defeated in 31BC during the Battle of Actium, and dies the following year.

His Legacy

Augustus started his sole rise to power in 31BC which was truly imbedded by 27BC when the Senate granted him the name Augustus. In that four year interval he ensured his control in multiple ways. Cleopatra’s treasure ensured the soldiers were paid attaining their allegiance. To appease the Senate and nobles he developed laws, that at least appeared to reflect the culture of the Republic. And to gain the peoples trust he enhanced and adorned the city.

“Livia Drusilla, a manipulative, power-hungry killer or a victim of gendered history? How accurate are the primary sources in their depiction of Livia Drusilla and how have they affected how she is perceived today?”

Sophie Lee (z3373017)

Outline

Livia Drusilla (58BCE~29CE) is a character of great mystery and controversy. She was the 3rd wife to the Roman Emperor, Augustus Caeser, and mother to Tiberius, the emperor that came after Augustus Caeser. Much of our knowledge on her character is reliant on the primary sources available to us today such as Suetonius’, The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, and Tacitus’, the Annals. Primary sources depict Livia in a negative light and imply that she was conniving and manipulative, using any means she could, including murder, to achieve her goals. This essay will analyze the details primary sources available to us today while drawing on secondary sources in order to answer the thesis question. Livia Drusilla was a woman of noble birth and was one who possessed a significant amount of power and authority in a time where very few women could do the same. During a time where women “couldn’t vote, hold public office, or appear in public without a guardian”, Livia was capable enough to use her situation to gain access to “unprecedented freedom” (Kleiner, 2000). Despite her controversial image in history, it is well accepted that she was a woman of great intelligence and was very influential as Augustus’ wife. While some argued that Livia was the living embodiment of what was considered to be the ideal picture Augustan modesty and womanhood, there were several others who argued that she was a manipulative woman who used, not only her power and influence but the people around her to achieve her goals (Button, 2009). Primary sources such as Suetonius and Tacitus allude to the rumors that surround Livia and the questionable timing of the death of those around her. It was rumored that she not only poisoned her husband, Augustus (Button, 2009), but also the chosen heirs of Augustus who stood in the way of her son, Tiberius, ascending to the throne (Lightman, 2008). As mentioned above, the coincidental and untimely deaths of Augustus and his heirs allowed for her own son and Augustus’ stepson, Tiberius, to succeed Augustus. When considering these primary accounts of Livia, it is vital to understand that these sources were written in a time where the ideal woman was pictured to be submissive and domestic, playing a heavier role at home than in politics, and how such values would have had an impact on her portrayal.

Research essay

When studying ancient primary sources there are several problems that may arise, ranging from the prevalent use of fictional history to the bias and the inaccurate depiction of specific characters. Livia Drusilla is a notorious character depicted in ancient sources as evil and corrupt. However, it is important to consider that this so-called power-hungry and murderous woman, as well as the sources we have available about her, are both coming from a time where it was “strictly curtailed” for women to be involved in the political scene (Hillard, 2013). In addition to this, the sources available to us today by the historians and writers of the time are all males, meaning that we are only provided a singular perspective into a world where there was a strict restriction on women and their role in society (Zager, 2014). These contemporary values were male-centric and therefore, would have led to contemporary sources to possess a predisposition to view women like Livia, who went against traditional values, in a negative light (Zager, 2014). This is likely to be a strong catalyst behind the contradictions within the accounts and their portrayal of her. When considering Livia’s true character, the role as a woman, wife, and mother all need to be taken into consideration and compared to what was believed to be socially ideal and appropriate at the contemporary time. Barret contributes to this argument, claiming that during this time, it was inevitable that writers were “preoccupied with the central figure of the emperor” which, in turn, imposed problems on secondary figures surrounding these central figures (Barrett, 2002). This was particularly the case for women such as Livia as they, despite their own accomplishments and character, would have been subject to bias because the focus of their depiction was not on themselves as individuals within history but on their relation to the emperor and/or the men around them (Zager, 2014). This biased depiction of not only Livia, but the contemporary women of the time, makes it difficult to say that the contemporary depictions we have today are accurate and fair.

Suetonius is a contemporary source that many historians refer to in their pursuit of determining Livia’s character. Barrett’s (2002) argument that the portrayal of women was heavily dependent on the depictions and story of the male presence around them can be perceived in Suetonius’ writings. Suetonius had a noticeable tendency to focus his writing and his portrayal of women against “standardized rubrics (ancestry, marriage, the birth of children)” (Pryzwansky, 2008), which reflected the moral and marriage laws of the time (Kleiner, 2000). This indicates that it is likely that he possessed a specific standard that he considered to be appropriate when it came to the role and behavior of women, looking to fit them into “pre-defined” types that reflect the contemporary beliefs and values of the time (Pryzwansky, 2008). This approach in his depiction of Livia is most likely the reason behind his inconsistent image of her character. This inconsistency can be seen when he depicts Livia as a wife compared to when he depicts Livia as a mother. As a wife, in The Life of Augustus, he portrays her as a “good and ideal”, a loyal wife who assists her husband in any way she can. However, in The Life of Tiberius, she is portrayed as a bad woman, a mother who meddles and tries to manipulate her son into doing what she wants (Pryzwansky, 2008). It is in these instances that the problems of primary sources become obvious. As the illustration of women is not focused on themselves but on the male presence around them, it is inevitable that the depictions would vary, leading to an unreliable final picture.

As a wife, Suetonius considered Livia to be “good”. Like other imperial women, he focused his depiction of Livia through the lens of marriage. Livia was an ideal wife who did her duty to her husband. Unlike Augustus’ first wife, Scribonia, Livia was depicted in a favorable light. While Suetonius claimed that Scriobonia was abandoned by her husband because of her “shrewish disposition”, he states that Livia, despite the fact that she was not yet divorced and even pregnant by her then-current husband, was “loved and esteemed … without rival” (Suetonius, n.d.). It is from this varied depiction that he implies what was ideal and desirable at the time and what was not, further implying that Livia’s successful marriage came down to the fact that she was not like Scribonia. This positive depiction of her allowed for Livia, despite being the catalyst behind, not only her divorce but Augustus’ as well, to be seen as a loving wife rather than a seductress (Pryzwansky, 2008). She is depicted as having to be obedient and under the control of her husband, the emperor, and completing her duties as a wife, making his clothes and doing as she was told. Suetonius’ stance, unlike other contemporary sources, was that her dutifulness would have allowed her to be loved and have a level of influence and a chance to contribute to Augustus’ thoughts and decisions, but was never the one to have the final say. This portrayal of Livia is depicted in a light that is societally appropriate to the contemporary belief and values of the time, showing her to be a dutiful and ideal wife who is obedient and submissive to her husband’s words. However, it is important to note that this positive portrayal of her would most likely have come in the interest of portraying Augustus in a positive light, not Livia. Suetonius’ aim was to promote Augustus as an emperor and husband who was capable of controlling his own wife and resisting manipulation (Pryzwansky, 2008).

In contrast to this, Suetonius’ depiction of Livia is negative in his account of Tiberius. This, again, likely fell to the fact that Suetonius’ opinion of Tiberius was not positive and his depiction of Livia was instrumental in his portrayal of Tiberius. Livia, as a mother, is shown to be meddling and domineering, often interfering in her son’s decisions and rules (Pryzwansky, 2008). Suetonius’ depiction of Livia in this account contradicts his own portrayal of her in his previous account because his portrayal of her is dependent on the emperor he is writing about. For instance, in his previous account he mentioned that although she was given a voice when speaking to her husband, ultimately, the person in authority was Augustus (Suetonius, n.d.). However, in his second account, he mentions that Tiberius warned his mother that the freedom she had possessed while Augustus was emperor would not be allowed while he ruled (Suetonius, n.d.). Tiberius, unlike Augustus, is depicted as being unable to “control” his mother and was incapable of ruling without Livia’s interference. This “uncontrollable” and “meddlesome” behavior was likely emphasized in this account in order to bring emphasis to Tiberius’ inferiority. His entire life, from his return to Rome after his exile to his succession as emperor, was made possible by his mother. Suetonius’ negative depiction of Livia as a mother was done with the purpose of bringing attention to Tiberius’ incompetence in mind.

Similar to Suetonius, Tacitus is another literary source that historians refer to in order to create a picture of what the Julio-Claudian period was like (Zager, 2014) and, likewise, also holds a predisposed standing as a contemporary historian. Tacitus adhered to the values of the lost republic and held a deeply rooted abhorrence towards the Principate. This bias is noticeable in his writings and, in addition to this, shows his disapproval towards women who went against what was characteristic of the “traditional Republican ideal” (Zager, 2014). The Republican ideal image of a woman was one was submissive and focused on her husband and children (Treggiari, 2005). Livia’s well-known active role in politics completely went against this ideal image which likely lead to Tacitus’ negative depiction of her. Furthermore, Tacitus Is well known to have openly detested Tiberius who, despite being an uncompelling leader, was characteristic of the Principate and imperial rule (Dunstan, 2010). This detest is evident in his portrayal of Livia and she is portrayed as a “scheming murderess who promotes the interests of her younger son by systematically destroying all those who stand in his way” (Kearsley, 2017). According to Kearsley, Tacitus is the one who paints Livia in the most negative light but, like all other contemporary sources, relies heavily on rumors to do so. Like Suetonius, he too possesses a strong view on what is the ideal image of the world, and this world for him was characterized by Republican values. This is mirrored in his distaste towards the Principate and his writing focuses on emphasizing the flaws within the Principate and the Imperials (Zager, 2014). He equivalates Livia’s presence to “noverca” which translates to “stepmother”, an image that is viewed negatively in Roman culture as an individual who was driven to promote her own biological children no matter the damage that may occur to her stepchildren (Brannstedt, 2016). For instance, in his writing, Tacitus states that this “stepmother” nature and hatred is what caused the death of Agrippa Postumus (Tacitus, n.d.). The fact that this feature is not mentioned in any other source again points to the fact that this portrayal of Livia as a representation of the evil “stepmother” was due to his own opinion and not coming from a reliable source.

This sort of bias in his writing is the reason many historians such as Kearsley and Gorman to view him as unreliable. Kearsley (2017) states that Tacitus can be seen as a “political commentator” rather than a historian which is supported by O’Gorman’s (2000) statement that Tacitus’ writing is more of a comment on the failings of the Principate rather than an observation of history itself. Livia was not only a symbol of the Principate’s ideals that went against his own Republican belief, she was the mother of the “hated” Tiberius who endorsed the values of the Principate. This is visible in the fact that his disapproval towards independent and opinionated women like Livia did not apply to other women such as Agrippina. This, similarly to Suetonius, was due to his tendency to write about women in accordance to their male counterparts. Although Agrippina, as per his own words, had a temper with “fire” and was “rebellious”, she controlled this with “purity of mind and wifely devotion”, which supposedly kept her “rebellious spirit on the side of righteousness” (Tacitus, n.d.). Despite having similar qualities to Livia, her relation to her husband, Germanicus, who was said to wanted to restore the Republic similarly to Tacitus (Dunstan, 2010), probably spared her from the scorn Livia faced. Livia’s corruption and evil nature is, therefore, not so much a comment on her but on the society that is the result of the imperial age (Brannstedt, 2016).

Despite the unreliability of the primary sources available, popular culture chooses to adhere to their depiction of Livia in order to create a depiction of a murderous and scheming woman who was willing to murder her own husband as well as anyone else who stood in her way, even if they were children. She is depicted as cruel and evil in her interactions with others and calculating in nature. This can be seen in the television series, I, Claudius, which is an illustration of how the primary sources depict her. Despite this, many historians recognize the limitations of the contemporary literature available and attempt to provide a different interpretation of her character. However, without the presence of unbiased primary evidence, it is difficult to do so accurately as they instead have to rely on the inconsistencies and faults within the current sources to draw a conclusion. Although every contemporary source mentions accusations against her, no single source mentions all the accusations (Kearsley, 2017). Her portrayal is inconsistent and full of bias but the one thing each source has in common is that they all indicate that in a world that was male-centric, filled with restrictions on women, and written about by male historians and writers, it is undeniable Livia was a woman who exercised an abnormal amount of influence and authority. Her negative portrayal is based on a questionable combination of a kind of fictional history that was made on the backs of rumors and a version of counterfactual history that focused on drawing attention to the flaws of the Principate rather than on providing an account of her character as a singular individual. The only thing that can be said with certainty is that Livia was a public figure that rose above the limitations of her time to become the most powerful woman in her time.

Bibliography

Primary sources

1. Suetonius. (n.d.). The Life of Augustus. Retrieved from The Lives of the Twelve Caesars: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Augustus*.html
2. Suetonius. (n.d.). The Life of Tiberius. Retrieved from The Lives of the Twelve Caesars: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Tiberius*.html
3. Tacitus. (n.d.). The Annals. Retrieved from http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/home.html

Secondary sources

1. Barrett, A. A. (2001). Tacitus, Livia and the Evil Stepmother. Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 171-175.
2. Barrett, A. A. (2002). Livia: First Lady of Imperial Rome. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.
3. Brannstedt, L. (2016). Femina Princeps: Livia’s Position in the Roman State. Lund: Lund University.
4. Button, M. (2009). Livia Drusilla: Deciphering Between Traditional Views of Rome’s First Lady. Oregon: Western Oregon University.
5. Dunstan, W. E. (2010). Ancient Rome. Washington: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
6. Gorman, E. O. (2000). Irony and Misreading in the ANnals of Tacitus. Cambridge: Campbridge University.
7. Hillard, T. (2013). Livia Drusilla. Groniek, 5-22.
8. Kearsley, Rosalinde. Livia: wife, mother, And daughter [online]. Ancient History: Resources for Teachers, Vol. 46 (2017), p.102-116.
9. Kleiner, D.E.E. (2000) Review: Livia Drusilla and the Remarkable Power of Elite Women in
10. Imperial Rome: A Commentary on Recent Books on Rome’s First Empress. International Journal of the Classical Tradition, Vol. 6, No. 4 (Spring, 2000), pp. 563-569
11. Lightman, M. L. (2008). A to Z of Ancient Greek and Roman Women. New York: An Imprint of Infobase Publishing.
12. Pryzwansky, M. M. (2008). Feminine Imperial Ideals in the Caesers of Suetonius. North Carolina: Duke University.
13. Treggiari, S. (2005). Women in the Time of Augustus. In K. Galinsky, Age of Augustus. Austin: Cambridge University Press.
14. Zager, I. (2014). The Political Role of Women of the Roman Elite, with Particular Attention to the Autonomy and Influence of the Julio-Claudian Women (44BCE to CE68). South Africa: University of South Africa.

Question: examine the significant contributions of the Augustan army to the achievement of pax Romana and the subsequent development in Roman north Africa.

Augustus was a Roman Statesman and a military leader who became the first Emperor of the Roman Empire. Augustus reigned from 27 BC until his death in 14 AD. His status as a founder of the Pax Roman has consolidated an enduring legacy as one of the most effective and controversial leaders in human history. Augustus was the first Emperor of ancient Rome. Augustus came to power after the assassination of Julius Caesar in the 44BCE. In 27 BCE Augustus restored the republic of Rome. Augustus created a standing army made up of up to 28 legions. Each of these armies consisted of roughly 6000 men. There was also a similar number of auxiliary troops.

Augustine’s army actually helped to achieve the Pax Romana which caused the subsequent development in the Roman army. The Pax Romana (Roman peace) was a period of relative peace and stability across the Roman Empire which lasted for over 200 years. This began during the reign of Augustus (27BCE-14CE). This Pax Romana was established by Augustus Caesar which is why he is sometimes referred to as Pax Augustus. The Pax Romana ended when the barbarians, Vandals, Huns, and Goths sacked the Empire in the 4th century. This made the people go back into fighting and wars. Augustus chalked a lot of successes that are worthy of note. Below are some of his major achievements.

First and Foremost, Augustan’s army was credited for the two centuries of Pax Romana, that Rome enjoyed. There had been ensuing warfare in the Roman Republic domain for centuries. Augustus’s victory at Actium in 31 BC brought the lengthy civil wars to an end and transformed the decaying republic into a stable monarchic regime. It initiated a period of relative peacefulness and minimal expansion in the Roman Empire which lasted for over two centuries from 27 BC to 180 AD and is known as Pax Romana (Roman Peace). The Pax Romana is said to have been a “miracle” as before it there had never been such a long period of peace in the history of the region. Augustus is credited for ensuring durable peace in the Roman Empire through his administrative genius and reforms which brought stability and prosperity.

Secondly, Augustus established a very effective financial system in the Roman Empire;

The financial reforms of Augustus played a critical role on the subsequent success of the Roman Empire. Arbitrary taxation had often led to resentment among taxpayers increasing the chances of revolts. Augustus imposed consistent and more direct taxation on the provinces in the empire. Augustus created two kinds of taxes; a poll tax which was called “tribute capitis”. This type of tax was paid by all adults in most provinces but sometimes by males only. The second tax which is the land tax and (tribitum soil) were also kinds of indirect taxes like a 4% tax on the price of slaves. Augustus Caesar’s financial system was far more effective than any implemented in the empire before. It greatly increased Rome’s net revenue and established stability among Rome and its Provinces.

Furthermore, Augustus maintained the order and peace of Rome by commissioning an executive and Fire Fighting Forces. Augustus started a new fire-fighting force in Rome called Vigiles Urbana (“Watchmen of the City”). Apart from combating the common problem of fires, it also acted as a night watch and maintained order in the streets. Vigiles was complimented by Rome’s first institutionalized police force known as Cohortes Urbana (urban cohorts). It was divided into three cohorts with each containing around 500 men. While the Vigiles performed the day-to-day role of policing the streets and protecting against fires, the urban cohorts acted as a heavy-duty police force, capable of riot control duties.

Again, Augustus created a permanent office to effectively administer Rome; to ensure regulation of public lands as well as proficient census and tax collection, Augustus divided Italy into eleven regions. To efficiently administer Rome, it was divided into 14 administrative regions. Augustus converted the occasional appointment of the prefect of the city (of Rome into a permanent office. The Perfect held the responsibilities of supervising all guilds and corporations, ensuring the provision of grains from overseas, maintaining the city’s sewers and water supply system, keeping the Tiber River clean, and maintaining the monuments of the city. To enable the Prefect to exercise his authority, the Cohortes, Urbana, and Vigilei were placed under his command.

In Addition to that, Augustus introduced a religious reform to revive the beliefs of his people toward their traditional gods; According to Augustus, lengthy civil wars had led to the moral deterioration of Rome; temples across the empire had fallen into decay and its people had lost faith in the gods. He believed that there was an urgent need to reawaken the importance of religion among his subjects. Augustus Caesar oversaw the renewal and repair of numerous temples across his empire and initiated projects to build many more. He worked towards renewing the trust of people in the traditional gods to revive the spirit of Rome. Augustan era also saw the return of many of the old, popular festivals.

In conclusion, the Pax Romana did not mean Rome was at peace vis-a-vis the peoples at its borders. Peace in Rome meant a strong professional army stationed mostly away from the heart of the Empire, and instead, at the roughly 6000 miles of frontiers of the imperial frontier. There weren’t enough soldiers to spread evenly, so the legions were stationed at the locations thought most likely to cause trouble. Without a shadow of a doubt, Augustan’s army did not only achieve the Pax Romana but also helped with the development of Roman North Africa.

References

1. Retrieved from:https://www.thoughtco.com/what-was-the-pax-roman
2. Retrieved from:https://www.britannica.com/biography/Augustus-Roman-emperor
3. Retrieved from: https://learnodo-newtonic.com/augustus-accomplishments

Augustus, during the hour of his rule as princeps of the Roman individuals, developed for himself a picture of military ability, liberality, goodness, and leniency. Octavian, before known as Augustus was believed to be one of the most significant pioneers in Roman history. His character as a pioneer, criminal, and statesman was raised through the intense challenge. Additionally being the received child of Julius Caesar, has raised more character in him than before as he needed to satisfy individual special case as next Caesar. Indeed, even antiquarians today, when contrasted with his assenting father Julius Caesar, Augustus, helped out the nation more than did him.

The attributes of Octavian (later known as Augustus) immediately developed as an increasingly noticeable political figure, soon after the demise of Julius Caesar in 44 BC. Octavian, albeit just 18 at the time, had little in the method for legitimacy to go off of other than his connection to Caesar. He depended vigorously on this association which can be seen through different techniques for purposeful publicity which were intensely advanced at the time.

One of the main techniques promulgation utilized in old Rome both during and outside of this timespan was through people in general. This was finished by presenting coins, and games and furthermore by improving way of life which was finished by the development of open structures and landmarks in his name. He made the denarii, a silver coin that made exchange between various pieces of the domain a lot simpler. Exchange likewise turned out to be quicker when Augustus dispensed with all burdened products which blended the Roman terrains into one huge economy. He additionally made quicker transportation between urban areas by streets. The last significant commitment was setting up the common assistance. These administrations were available to anyone of all positions in the military and were made to work for an occupation as a slave. This establishment dealt with Rome’s grain supply, street fixes, the postal framework, and the various everyday work of running the realm. Under Augustus incredible achievements and headways which were made throughout the years has driven Roman Realm to thrive.

However in inquiring about Augustus, one must suggest the conversation starter, would he say he was genuinely an incredible pioneer whose genuine mean to cherish Rome and its kin at the core of his choices, or would it say it was breathtakingly controlling and accomplishing what he needed? Or on the other hand, would it be able to perhaps achieve both? From numerous points of view, Augustus has left a more profound engraving on the world than Julius Caesar at any point did. Notwithstanding having an imperialistic methodology, he comprehended the idea of foundations and majority rule government and drove them forward. However, the man, Caesar Augustus, stays a figure of shadows that gets lost behind the subtleties of his accomplishments and purposeful publicity of the time.

Throughout the span of his profession, Augustus did a lot to control his picture so as to serve the necessities of his nation. He figured out how to adequately and moderately rapidly gain control and reestablish harmony to Rome. His picture kept on transforming and change for an amazing duration experiencing the boundaries of moderately obscure, to heartless retribution carrier, to the devout, only pioneer of a reestablished republic.

Another perspective is the manner by which Octavian (later known as Augustus) was the utilization of the military which prompted significant developments and upkeep of intensity. Octavian’s essential point was to retaliate for backstabber who executed Julius Caesar. He initially picked up the help of the senate by making a hatred among him and Antony. This helped Octavian after some time which helped him to turn out to be progressively well known. The ubiquity helped him to deliver retribution on Cicero and Brutus. Hence, Octavian shaped a union with Marcus Antonius and Marcus Lepidus prompting the subsequent triumvirate. The primary activities by the individuals were to slaughter the incredible speaker and author Cicero alongside different legislators and double-crossers. The following move was to retaliate for the homicides of Julius Caesar for the most part Brutus and Cassius. They crushed and slaughtered Brutus and Cassius at the skirmish of Philippi in Macedonia in 42 B.C. The Subsequent Triumvirate were presently predominant in the republic, yet this didn’t keep going exceptionally long. The next individual who fell into Octavian’s rundown was Marcus Lepidus and Antony. Marcus Lepidus attempted to topple Octavian, yet fizzled and was deprived of his title. Octavian kept Lepidus to house capture and Lepidus later passed on. This occasion has left Antony and Octavian to partition the entire domain which was under the influence of the senate. Octavian accepted control of the Roman powers in the West and Antony controlled the Roman powers in the East. Definitely, the fight for control of the entire domain among Octavian and Marcus Antonius was guaranteed. This fight would have become the biggest common war Rome had ever observed. Marcus Antonius was upheld by the pharaoh of Egypt, Cleopatra as they arranged to arrive their powers and naval force at the skirmish of Actium on September 2, 31 BC trying to oust Octavian. The maritime powers of Octavian, directed by General Agrippa, came to be successful. ‘The Clash of Actium is thought of as one of the most definitive fights at any point battled in light of the fact that it built up Octavian’s situation as the ace of the whole Greco-Roman world’.Octavian currently had the assets from the victory of Egypt to pay his military and he additionally had expanded the size of his own military because of the absconding of Antonius’; armed force to his side. Octavian was currently the sole administrator of Rome and came back to Rome in triumph.

The production of another picture was a urgent advance to change ‘Octavian’ to Augustus, who had submitted some brutal goes about as a Triumvir and held power wrongfully. At the core of this situation in the state was laying the military. It had been a significant player in the disordered occasions of the Late Republic and it had conveyed Augustus to control. Worry for its appropriate support and for the compelling diverting of its loyalties was in this way one of the central objectives of the Augustan settlement. In accomplishing these objectives, Augustus’ activities were an energizing achievement, since the military was restrained as a power in majestic governmental issues for most of a century.

This demonstrated Augustus was triumvir and his support in the butchery, has driven numerous to believe that this man would apparently persevere relentlessly to accomplish enduring political power. However, we have the apparently observed that this man had become kind ruler which was viewed as last piece of his rule, as he was hailed as pater patriae (father of the country) in 2 BCE. We have the man from a commonplace Italian foundation who rose to control Rome, who passed a scope of preservationist laws on marriage and the multiplication of the overseeing classes, yet who was likewise the man whom, as Suetonius reports ‘Not, in any case, his companions could deny that he frequently dedicated infidelity’ [1]. These divisions rotate around the 27 BCE. Octavian the ‘malicious’ triumvir was supplanted by Augustus, the altruistic pioneer of the (reestablished) Republic who managed with ‘all-inclusive assent’

His standard was pre-predetermined and was seen well by the Divine beings. He had a heavenly family and all Roman history had been paving the way to the new Brilliant Time of harmony, thriving, devotion, ethical quality, and equity which he introduced.

The picture of Augustus changed fundamentally for an incredible duration. He began as meager more than the child of Caesar and he came to procure the regard and confidence of his country. He controlled his picture through an incredible span so as to be what the individuals required so as to trust later on for Rome and a period or harmony rather than common war. He stayed away from the presumptuous defects of his dad for keep up the companionship of the senate yet wound up similarly as incredible as the tyrant.

As a long-haul ruler, he built up another arrangement of government that dealt with the picture of his standard as a feature of the system for progress. Augustus more likely than not been one of the absolute best controllers of his own picture as he remains as correlated with the turn specialists of the cutting-edge political scene. He was a preservationist father figure, shepherding the country into another brilliant age, and an advocate. The majority of his standard depended on by making, by structure, and by experimentation which made another arrangement of government and just as another administering system. Despite the fact that his capacity through Merciless power, yet one would guarantee his standard accompanied a general assent.

In order to assess how the conception of the role of a Roman emperor changed over this period of time, and how his subjects reacted to him, we must first ascertain how the original role of the emperor was presented. For an emperor to have subjects to reign, and in order to gain himself the title of emperor, there must first be an empire to rule over. The Roman Empire formed after the fall of the Roman Republic and following the victory at the Battle of Actium, Augustus, nephew of Julius Caesar, became the first emperor of Rome. Contrary to popular belief, Julius Caesar was not officially an ‘emperor’ but a ‘dictator’, a title that granted him great power, but not that of an emperor. Those who did hold the status of the emperor could choose from a variety of titles such as princeps, imperator or consul. The first 200 years of the empire saw relative peace and stability, a time in which many emperors ruled and was often referred to as ‘Pax Romana’, translating to Roman Peace, a time of prosperity. Two prominent emperors from this period are Augustus, born Gaius Octavian Thurinus, and Trajan, born Caesar Nerva Trajan. In this essay it is Augustus and Trajan that I will discuss, focusing on how each emperor presented himself, how he defined, or in Trajan’s case redefined, the role of the emperor and how his subjects reacted to him. Firstly, I will discuss how Augustus presented himself as the saviour and restorer of Rome and traditional Roman values, how he incorporated his family into his role as emperor and how he was perceived by his subjects as a ‘pater.’ Secondly, I will discuss how Trajan came to be considered the best emperor and so-called ‘Optimus Princeps, and how he garnered respect from his subjects, army, curia and senate alike.

The first period of the empire is known as the ‘principate’ and is defined as a system of the monarchy led by an emperor maintaining power for life. However, Augustus refused to be recognised as King and created a distinct difference between the office of an emperor and that of a king. Therefore, Augustus founded the principate, instead of declaring himself monarch or as a dictator as his great-uncle Julius Caesar did. Augustus’ self- presentation was as a saviour and restorer of the state in the first decade of his rule after his victory at the battle of Actium. “I transferred the res publica from my power to the discretion of the senate and people of Rome.” To achieve this, he used his reputation and substantial wealth whilst also maintaining the appearance of the senate’s authority. Augustus put the needs and morals of his subjects at the centre of his ruling, and amongst Augustus’ first set of reforms was the restoration and refashioning of the legal and political system that was idealised during the Republic. Additionally, Augustus prided himself in being the leader responsible for the restoration of not only matters of public interest but matters of the private family home, gaining him the affectionate nickname of ‘pater Patria, Latin for ‘father of the fatherland.’ To understand how revered and respected the title of pater was we must delve into the meaning of the word in a literal sense. The role of a Roman ‘pater’ was both benevolent and beneficial, driven by affection and a sense of responsibility for his family when making religious, social and political decisions on their behalf. More than that, however, was the role of the father as a moral guide, entrusted with the purity and sanctity of the women in his charge. Augustus inserted himself in the role of pater as he made some critical changes to the powers held by the father in a family versus the powers held by the state. For example, in enforcing laws that made adultery a state crime, removing a father’s right to have the final say in the marriage of his children and the politicising of women’s roles, it complicated family and political identities. Furthermore, Augustus went as far as creating the perfect Roman family by introducing legislation that required marriage and child-rearing for participation in public life, as well as financially rewarding married patents. These new laws created a whole new level of involvement into the private family and put Augustus as the role of pater over all households and the final source of moral authority within each household.

Augustus strengthened the foundation of his leadership by transforming his family into something not dissimilar to a royal family. The members of his immediate family developed public roles as models of proper aristocratic behaviour, the females integrating themselves socially and the males taking responsibility for the military. This approach to ruling gained approval amongst his subjects as they felt more connected to their emperor. This is further exaggerated by Augustus’ consistent disassociation from anything that would overly institutionalise his role as emperor for fear of causing resentment and provoking conspiracy, especially amongst the senatorial class. This was an attempt to separate his role as an emperor from that of a dictator, as Dio Cassius reports, with regards to Augustus’ declining of dictatorship, “Augustus already had more power than the old dictators so why incite jealousy and hatred by assuming the position.” However, not all of his subjects were enamoured by Augustus’ decisions and resented his monarchical and dynastic aspirations whilst simultaneously refusing the role of an actual monarch. Just as he had those who opposed him, he had widespread support throughout the empire. After his moral reformations, an event was formulated to celebrate Augustus and the revival of morality in Rome after the Civil War. “Thus, choruses of Roman maidens, of matrons and of young boys sang hymns thanksgiving to the Roman state Gods and Augustus’ leadership. “

There are many debates as to which emperor was the better ruler, Trajan or Augustus? It can perhaps be considered an unfair question, as each ruled the empire in vastly different political climates. Trajan ruled for nineteen years between 98 AD to 117 AD and is considered to be one of the greatest emperors in the history of Rome. Known as ‘Optimus Princeps,’ which translates to ‘greatest of princes,’ Trajan’s rule is believed to be “the period in history during which the human race was most happy and prosperous.” So much so that subsequent emperors often attempted to elevate their own reign by association with Trajan. He conquered many lands and grew the Roman Empire to its largest expanse in history which resulted in his rule being a time of great prosperity for Rome. Similarly to Augustus, Trajan embraced his role as emperor by showing his support for adhering to traditional hierarchies and senatorial morals. He did this by openly shunning many of Domitian’s policies, such as his preference for equestrian officers. Many political writers of the Imperial Roman Age considered this to be one of the many reasons Trajan was such a well-received emperor, as he ruled less by fear such as Domitian and Titus, and more by acting as a role model and setting a good example, “men learn better from examples.” Aligning himself with Augustus’ autocratic way of ruling, Trajan “wielded autocratic power through moderatio instead of contumacia – moderation instead of insolence.” It was this approach to autocracy, his deferential behaviour towards his peers, that garnered him the respect and regard as a virtuous monarch.

Trajan is acknowledged to have created the best model of ruling an empire than any emperor before or after him. Domitian only strived to please the military and paid little attention to the Senate and Nerva concentrated his efforts on the Senate and disregarded the army whereas Trajan proved that actions could be taken to satisfy both the Senate’s and the army’s needs. However, in direct contrast with Augustus’ way of ruling, Trajan transformed the role of the emperor as he encroached on the senate’s authority, turning several senatorial provinces into imperial provinces in order to quell out-of-control spending on the local magnates part. Trajan essentially absolved the role of the senate as, according to Pliny, Trajan was a good emperor due to him approving and blaming the same things that the Senate would have approved or blamed.

Trajan garnered widespread support from his subjects as he presented himself very differently than previous emperors. Upon Trajan’s arrival in Rome he displayed a refreshing and grounding humble personality, as instead of arriving in a litter or chariot, he walked amongst the streets, greeting his subjects, senators and knights with equal warmth. Trajan did what no emperor had done before him, when referring to his subjects and in particular the army, Trajan uses the term ‘we’ instead of ‘them,’ showing solidarity and fellowship with those others considered to be below them. Trajan even went as far as becoming a ‘regular’ soldier himself; eating in the military mess, marching on foot, fording rivers, campaigning in person and honouring his fellow fallen soldiers with an annual ceremony. It is a measure of a great leader when one can inspire bravery and action in so many, and it is because of the way Trajan presented himself as ‘one of them’ that his troops were willing to risk all and display great prowess on his behalf, as he would do for them. This is further exaggerated when we look at documents written regarding Trajan’s death,

“After his death, it was said that no other emperor excelled or even equalled him in popularity with the people and his memory remained green for centuries. It was said that he displayed the utmost integrity and virtue in affairs of state and arms. The forum of Trajan, no matter how often we see it, is always wonderful.”

In conclusion, the conception of the role of the emperor across the years, particularly between the rule of Augustus and Trajan, experienced many changes. Augustus established the empire after his victory at the Battle of Actium and therefore began his rule as a strong and respected leader. He transformed the crumbling ruins of the Republic into a thriving and successful empire. Augustus’s role as emperor consisted of heavy intervention into both private and public affairs, undertaking the role as ‘pater’ for all Roman households and sculpting the ‘perfect’ Roman family. He delegated much of his power to the senate and the people of Rome, whilst simultaneously establishing himself as an autocratic ruler. Additionally, Augustus believed that one’s family also played a part in the role of an emperor. Augustus was well-received and liked by his subjects, especially after his revival of traditional Roman morals and many popular policies of the idealised Republic. Although Trajan and Augustus shared many similarities in the role they performed as emperors, the main difference in the conception of the role of the emperor was Trajan’s decision to effectively absolve the power of the Senate and rule on their behalf. Trajan is considered to be the most loved of all the Roman Emperors as he presented himself as a humble, well-meaning and hard-working man. From walking on foot with his fellow soldiers to walking the streets and greeting his subjects, Trajan appeared to align himself as a fellow subject and soldier. If one is to attempt to answer the question of who was the better emperor, one can consider the quote, “May he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan,” which suggests that Augustus was a good emperor establishing the empire at a terrible time of turmoil and that Trajan was a good emperor because he began his rule at a time when Rome was already stable and flourishing. However, both emperors presented themselves as one who wanted to rule with the intent to improve the political, legal and social systems of Rome and did so without the use of fear or intimidation.

The Greek and Roman Golden ages are responsible for some of the world’s greatest advancements. They each had major contributions to the world of Arts and Sciences, but their reaction to different challenges resulted in the Greek Age of Pericles not having the longevity as Augustus; Pax Romana.

Rome was a giant military power in the ancient world, conquering all, making them virtually unstoppable. This is due to the change from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, under the leadership of Augustus. Augustus was the first Roman Emperor and can be seen as the founder of the Roman Empire.

Before Augustus achieved success in The Roman Empire, Rome was in complete chaos. Julius Caesar was murdered by the senate, causing widespread anarchy and civil wars. Augustus was a masterful general, politician, and manipulator. Eventually, Augustus defeated Marc Antony at the battle of Actium. “The battle was the culmination of over ten years of rivalry between Octavian and Antony following the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BCE and the resultant alliance of Octavian, Antony, and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (l. 89-12 BCE) known as the Second Triumvirate (43-36 BCE) formed to pursue and defeat Caesar’s assassins, which they did at the Battle of Philippi (42 BCE)”(2). Soon the Senate would offer all the powers and honors on Augustus Caesar. Augustus was the Emperor in Rome, and he led Rome to a prosperous and great state. Augustus wanted to bring Rome to a prosperous state by expanding on what Julius Caesar had done. Augustus brought about a number of reforms, including social, financial, and religious reforms. This can be seen in the Roman society, as he went about restoring pride and dignity to the Roman character, he encouraged morals from the early days of Rome, he introduced legislation to protect and promote the family unit, and he discouraged divorce and encouraged marriage. For Commerce, he created the Roman coin. This allowed all segments of the Roman empire to trade easily. He also constructed roads throughout the Roman empire. These facilitated trade as well as allowed the Army to mobilize and move quickly to all reaches of the empire.

Augustus quickly became the unquestioned master of the Roman world, by befriending the Senate as well as the Populous of Rome. He was so worshipped by the people that when the Senate gave him the name Augustus it was only previously bestowed on gods. This is an example of how vital he was to the Roman way of life and that they would give him the name of a god. He was able to craft an empire that would focus as much if not more energy on the quality of the life of its subjects than on just acquiring new territories. This was one of the major reasons that Augustus ushered in the Pax Romana Athens is known as the birthplace of democracy, but it was also home to one of the greatest leaders of the Ancient world. Pericles born in 495 BC ruled Athens for 50 years. During his rule, Athens ushered in her Golden Age. During these 50 years Greek democracy, arts, sciences, and culture reached their highest levels. Athens became the richest most powerful city-state. It also became the cultural center of Greece.

Pericles was born in 495BC to one of Athens’ most prominent families. His father was a general in the Greek Navy and was responsible for defeating the Persian Navy. His Mother’s family was part of Athenian high society. His birthright facilitated his rise to power. His family’s privilege, power, and money allowed Pericles to be taught by the greatest teachers in Athens. He was taught the art of debate and to be critical of the existing laws and culture. Pericles used his persuasive speaking ability and family’s fame to enter politics in 472. Eventually, he was elected strategos in 461BC which was the most powerful position a citizen could hold in ancient Athens.

Pericles started his political career with a mission to help the lower classes. His laws leveled the playing field to allow those that were not born with money and influence to be able to see a path to serve the state. He passed laws that removed the financial qualifications for people to hold certain offices, and he allowed jurors to be paid for their work. He was looking out for the common man.

He then turned his sights to culture and the Gods. He rebuilt the temples on the Acropolis that were damaged during the Persian war. Then he decided to honor the Goddess Athena by building what is today considered to be one of the 8 wonders of the world, The Parthenon. This program also helped make Athens the cultural center of Greece, because architects, artists, and mathematicians all took part in the construction.

Pericles also had the desire of Power and did all he could to make Athens a strong military and political power. The Delian League was a confederacy of Greek City States that were allied in the fight against the Persians. Under Pericles, the League transformed into a tool for Athens to exert power. Basically, the Delian League was dominated by Athens’ desires and ambitions.

Pericles’ desire to make Athens the most dominant city-state in Greece created several enemies and caused its downfall. In order to stay in control of most of the Greek world, Athens had to fight in an increasing number of wars. Athens involved itself in numerous political and military conflicts, both local and foreign; and it inevitably overextended itself, wasting many of its resources in an attempt to achieve too much too fast.

Pericles was elected to the position of strategos for 29 straight years(1). He had unchecked military power. This eventually led him to be more imperialistic. This in turn led to Athens’ conflict with Sparta in the Peloponnesian Wars and his eventual downfall

Rome’s Golden Age, also known as Pax Romana, was not only a long period of relative peace and minimal expansion by military force, but also a time where order, efficient administration, and prosperity arose. This was also a time when commerce brought great wealth to its citizens.

Pax Romana is literally translated as ‘the Roman Peace”. This period of time was between the reign of Augustus Caesar through the death of Marcus Aurelius. This 200-year period brought many changes to the Roman Empire and was a time for unity, peace, and national stability. The Pax Romana was started by Augustus Caesar, born Gaius Octavius – the grandnephew and adopted son of Julius Caesar. After the assassination of Julius Caesar by members of the Roman Senate, Octavius eventually won full rule over the Roman Empire from his rivals. His goal of having power over all of Rome was finalized when Octavius defeated his former ally, Mark Antony, and Cleopatra at Actium. His rule signified the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire. Octavius changed his name to Augustus Caesar as he took supreme control over the Roman Empire and was given the ‘authority of tribune’ which gave him the ultimate power of veto over the senate. He became Rome’s first true Emperor and ruled until his death 45 years later in A.D. 14 . Augustus used this time to restore peace, reform, and reconstruct the Roman Empire. Augustus was successfully able to unite all of the different conquered city-states of the Roman Empire under one rule by allowing each to retain their own identity – yet encouraging them to adopt the Roman rule. He did this by making everyone a citizen of Rome and therefore equal. . This was a huge driving force for the success of his reign over the empire as it inadvertently discouraged rebellion and revolt. In addition to incorporating conquered lands, Augustus created the “Denarius” the Roman coin. This uniform currency facilitated trade within the vast empire. It was another way of how the conquered lands were part of the Roman world. Augustus also saw the need to have improved transportation between the cities. His program to build roads facilitated trade between the city-states and it also was a great advantage for the Roman military to quickly respond and move within the empire to protect it from external threats

The greatest facet of the Roman Golden Age may be that Augustus’ successors, although somewhat different in many ways, preserved the way of life he had put into practice. “The Time of Happiness” as the Romans called it continued. Roads were built, aqueducts and bridges were constructed, and a stable currency was maintained without depreciation. Conditions for the Roman empire improved for those at the bottom of society (slaves and women); an orderly world community unfolded; literature and history reached its highest point; philosophy, science, art, architecture, laws, and Engineering were transformed and revolutionized, and Entertainment was also at a high with the Gladiator Games at the top of the list. What was the key to the longevity of the Pax Romana? By limiting themselves to minimal expansion, the Romans were at a point where they could stop thinking about expanding the Empire and instead start thinking of ways of improving the quality of

Following the Persian Wars, the Delian League was formed and an exceptional leader emerged. Pericles was born into a wealthy aristocratic family in 495 B.C.E. Then around 462 B.C.E., Pericles was deemed leader of the democratic faction in Athens. Around the same time, the Golden Age was dawning on 5th century Athens. With Greece shifting into its Classical Period of art and the Parthenon rising from the site of a previously destroyed temple in 447 B.C.E, Pericles shaped a sublime Greek democracy.

The Golden Age of Greece started with its great leader Pericles. This period of time included many key innovations such as flourishing art, astonishing architectural feats, and a revolutionary government. Despite the impeccable works of this time, prolonged peace and a steady government proved to be the most significant impression left from the Golden Age of Pericles. Beginning around 480 B.C.E., Athens went through many reforms; the art and sculpture slipped into the Classical Period. Sculptures like the Athena Parthenos were constructed to honor the gods, as well as symbolize prosperity and sacrifice. Although Athenian art and architecture glorified Athens during a time of boundless prosperity, the true legacy left of the Athenians is their revolutionary government. Many facets of this 5th-century idea are alive and well in our American society of 2020. In Greece Democracy was direct. This meant that Athenian citizens. held all of the power, and if you were a male over 18 you could propose, vote on, or even reform a law. It is easy to see the similarities between the Greek government of then and today’s American democracy. The Greek Assembly essentially did everything that makes up the three branches of American democracy. The Athenian Assembly tried political crimes, elected certain officials and executives, made certain pronouncements like deciding to go to war, and wrote up legislation for Athens.

Once in power, Pericles made many popular changes to Athens’ society and made the city a world power. He led Athens to its highest achievements by creating policies that expanded democracy to the poor and promoted architecture and art. However, by overextending the empire, it caused his and Athens’s eventual demise. Sparta felt more and more threatened and began to demand concessions from the Athenians. Pericles refused which led to the Peloponnesian War in 431 B.C. Pericles decided to have everyone retreat from the countryside and gather within the city walls. This strategy backfired, however, when plague broke out among the Athenian refugees in their unsanitary encampments and swept the city. As a result, a third of the population perished. Then in 429 B.C., Pericles died from the same disease and the Golden Age of Athens came to an end. Today, world leaders can learn from the lessons of Pericles. Democratic freedoms are important to help a country’s society succeed, but trying to gain too much power at the expense of others can lead to failure.

The Greek and Roman Golden ages delivered amazing advancements in the worlds of art, and major breakthroughs in the fields of Science, Mathematics, and Philosophy. The democracy that emerged from Greece is still visible in the US and other modern democracies. The architecture that came out of Rome is still used in many of today’s modern cities. Although the Greek and Roman Empires both experienced eras of prosperity, the Greek empire did not have the longevity of the Pax Romana. Did the Greek era end too quickly, or did The Romans do some extraordinary things to make it last so long? Greece was involved in many conflicts with city-states within their region as well as having sectional differences when it came to a central power. On the other hand, the Roman Empire prospered. They had an overpowering military and more importantly, they incorporated their conquered lands into the Roman empire. They became citizens so this sense of belonging helped lower disagreements. There was uncertainty in Greece between Athens and Sparta; they both wanted to be the central power. Sparta had the upper hand being a militaristic island and Athens was not; they were more into the arts and learning. Rome didn’t have to face any hardships like this because of their empire being united. They also are so big that they don’t have any major enemies.