The rule of Roman emperors was defined by their imperial image which is cultivated as a reflection of the time in which they ruled. Nero is perceived typically as a very poor emperor who brought ruin to Rome while Hadrian is portrayed as a successful emperor who ensured imperial and Roman continuity. Both emperors, however, shared similar traits and activities outside of their imperial duties which were at once similar in their oddity and uniquely different in their portrayal. While both emperors were interested in Greek culture Nero's excesses and patronage of the arts were viewed as emblematic of the decline of the Roman state, while Hadrian's “philhellenism” was viewed as positive adaption of provincial practices. This difference in imperial perception is attributable to both the military and administrative success, or lack thereof, of each emperor but also relative to the time and under what conditions each emperor ruled. Imperial behavior outside of what was considered appropriate, therefore, only became a problem if the emperor proved to be incompetent. Nero's patronage of Greek art was viewed as indicative of his imperial excesses and derelictions of duty rather than a cultural appropriation. Nero spent recklessly both in the building of public works but also in the building of his personal palace.1 He relied on the resources of the empire to fund his extravagance, insofar that following the great fire in 64CE he was forced to debase the currency in order to fund rebuilding.2 Nero most likely was simply devoid of any financial and administrative sense, as it was believed that the only pleasure he derived from possessing riches was spending it, and those who kept account of their expenditures were miserly.3 He moreover was... ... middle of paper ... ...ties and respective strengths and shortcomings. Nero's lavish spending, while similar in scope to even Augustus, was imprudent at the time simply because the empire could not support the expenditure due to a shortcoming in military conquest and therefore a decline in income. In similar fashion, Nero's provincial travels were imprudent because they had no applicable imperial purpose for the state. Whereas Hadrian traveled largely to fortify and codify Roman presence in the provincial areas, Nero traveled for leisure and self interest. While Hadrian no doubt enjoyed himself thoroughly in similar fashion, the travels were none the less official in purpose and intent. The empire, moreover, in the time of Hadrian was at it's most powerful territorially, and his excursions to the provincial areas kept grain and money flowing and ensured a smooth transition of power.
From ages past, the actions of conquerors, kings and tyrants had brought the Roman Republic to a stance that opposed any idea of a singular leader, of a single man that held total power over the entirety of the state. Their rejection of the various ruthless Etruscan rulers that had previously dictated them brought the Republic to existence in 509 BC , and as a republic their prominence throughout the provinces of the world exponentially expanded. Throughout these years, the traditions of the Romans changed to varying degrees, most noticeably as a result of the cultural influence that its subject nations had upon the republic, as well as the ever-changing nature of Roman society in relation to then-current events. However, it was not until the rise of Augustus, the first of a long line of succeeding emperors, that many core aspects of the Republic were greatly changed. These were collectively known as the “Augustan Reforms”, and consisted of largely a variety of revisions to the social, religious, political, legal and administrative aspects of the republic’s infrastructure. Through Augustus, who revelled in the old traditional ways of the past, the immoral, unrestraint society that Rome was gradually falling to being was converted to a society where infidelities and corruption was harshly looked upon and judged. The Roman historian Suetonius states, “He corrected many ill practices, which, to the detriment of the public, had either survived the licentious habits of the late civil wars, or else originated in the long peace” . Through Augustus and his reforms, the Republic was transformed into an Empire, and through this transformation, Rome experienced one of its greatest and stabl...
Upon evaluating each empire, there are likings between both the Carolingian Empire and the Roman Empire, along with their leaders, Charlemagne and Augustus. Both leaders in their own veneration were experienced military men with dexterity in engaging in war to expand their sway and authority. Each had attained an abundance of land at the beginning of their sovereignty, and during their walk of life had exponentially accumulated an extensive empire. The crucial variance that permitted the Roman Empire to continue to withstand itself was the supervision of the
Goodness is a subjective term, one that tends to represent a person’s righteousness and generous actions. However, when speaking of a good emperor in the Roman Empire, one must also realize that goodness must also relate to how that emperor made the empire better. The five so-called good emperors were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. How were they good? Trajan was the best emperor because he was able to have not only a great relationship with the Roman Senate and people, but also because he was able to make the empire greater, whereas the other emperors were only moderately good because they accomplished only one of the above qualities.
While watching the film Gladiator with my girlfriend I realized the striking similarities that heroes share. However, I always wonder who is more of a hero. The definition or hero is a person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life. So let us compare the two heroes as the dictionary defines them. In the end I hope to be able to define who is a greater hero.
Augustus created the office of emperor with the Augustan Principate, which was “to have no institutionalized authoritarian power, no perpetual dictatorship such as Julius Caesar had had himself voted early in 44, or anything like it (Stockton, 124).” Despite his wishes the people of Rome ended up giving Augustus eternal office, and powers to control the Senate with the rights to dictate agendas and veto (Stockton, 128). The people of Rome had created a position of absolute power, the exact thing Augustus was attempting to prevent. At the time the people of Rome could not have realized what they were creating in the office of emperor, for Augustus was a great man whose leadership created a great shadow over the shoulder of any future emperor.
By the time Hadrian's contributions to his country had succeeded, and death was near; he was the most hated man in Rome. However, throughout his reign, he was regarded as a noble leader. "The Roman emperor Hadrian exercised a profound organizational influence on the Greco-Roman world. He worked successfully toward the codification of Roman law and the strengthening of imperial border defenses (Eadie 8)." Emperor Hadrian made many important contributions to Roman culture, and he was also known as one of the greatest Roman emperors in history.Hadrian was born on January, 26 76 a.d. in Spain. In his youth, he developed a strong interest in Hellenic culture.
While Suetonius’s scriptures of Nero may pose a risk of bias, similar perversions were discussed within Edward Champlin’s ‘Nero Reconsidered’. Champlin discuses Nero’s descent into debauchery and malfeasance; how his personal exploits gradually began to corrupt his political and military affairs (Champlin, 1990). Nero began alienating and persecuting much of the elite for higher interests in personal concerns, as well as neglecting military advances and affairs completely. Nero’s exorbitant personal affairs and expenditures left the treasury thoroughly exhausted. His period was riddled with deflation as shortage of money began to emerge (Champlin, 1990). Nero’s adolescence and unruly upbringing was largely contributory to his inadequacy during his years as Roman Emperor. While Nero contributed significantly to the city, his reign demonstrated the unravelling of the Roman
Bravery, strength, and leadership are just a few of the characteristics possessed by Theseus of Greece and Romulus of Rome. Plutarch, a Greek historian, explains lives each of these men. These men were different from any of the other men during Ancient Greece and Rome; according to Plutarch, they were descendants of the divine, which ultimately destined them for greatness. Throughout their lives, they would achieve power through various events and establish the societies and politics of two the greatest cities in history. The paths that each took and the events that occurred in their lives molded them into the heroes while also contributing to the legacy they would leave behind.
The construct of the ‘Roman copy’ in art history has deeply rooted and extensive origins. Whilst this prejudiced was attached to Roman sculpture from an extremely early time in modern archaeology and art history, the construct viewed in a current context reveals issues with both its development and contribution to historical understanding and education. The construct is formed upon several main factors that have recently been called into question by revisionist historians. Firstly, the development of the construct by conservative historians during the 18th century, a context that valued artistic originality and authenticity, lead to it’s popularisation and circulation as a respected model. Secondly, the construct rests entirely on the presumption that Greek art is in fact aesthetically and artistically superior, insinuating a negative predisposition towards Roman artistic workmanship and aesthetics. Lastly, technological advancements aiding historiography have asserted the fact that many conclusions drawn by conservative historians through their methodology are in fact irrefutably incorrect. While the basis for much of the conservative historians argument has been seen as flawed, or otherwise seriously questioned in terms of accurate and reliable history, the construct of ‘Roman copies’ of Greek originals has remained a legitimised understanding and interpretation of Roman art for centuries. The question can then be raised as to whether the attention given to this aspect of history is worth the fact that much of the history being taught is now being heavily questioned.
The Roman Empire of the third century saw a period of great instability due to the short reigns of its many emperors. It was dangerous to be the emperor in an era that was filled with rebellions and multiple men vying for the throne. In response to their precarious position at the head of the empire, many third century emperors tried to bolster their power through whatever means necessary. These men bought the loyalty of the army while subduing the political and military threat that the Senate posed. This created an emperor, who by the fourth century was vastly more powerful than those of the principate and who saw their power expand beyond the government.
...perity to Rome. Romans appreciated his way of maintaining laws and keeping the government organized and efficient.
Vespasian emerged as Emperor after the Year of the Four Emperors, and he brought the princeps and the Empire back to stability. His son and successor, Titus, took power in 79 c.e. and reigne...
Hadrian is Emperor of the vast Roman Empire, and when he first comes into power he is afire with new ideas of beautification and improvements for all the provinces of the Empire, whether the people of said provinces wanted to be improved or not. He is secure enough in himself to consider himself, while not a god, something like a lieutenant, “seconding the deity in his effort to give form and order to a world, to develop and multiply its convolutions, extensions, and complexities.” (Yourcenar, 144) After many personal triumphs, he still refuses the accolades that previous Emperor’s have felt were rightfully theirs, preferring to let his people and his ...
Roman art was also deeply influenced by the art of the Hellenistic world, which had spread to southern Italy and Sicily through the Greek colonies there. The Etruscans and Babylonians can also be seen as inspirations. “With the founding of the Republic, the term Roman art was virtually synonymous with the art of the city of Rome, which still bore the stamp of its Etruscan art” (Honour and Fleming,1999). During the last two centuries, notably that of Greece, Roman art shook off its dependence on Etruscan art. In the last two centuries before Christ, a distinctive Roman manner of building, sculpting, and painting emerged. Indeed, because of the extraordinary geographical extent of the Roman Empire and the number of diverse populations encompassed within its boundaries, “the art and architecture of the Romans was always eclectic and is characterized by varying styles attributable to differing regional tastes and the...
The purpose of this essay is to intricately elaborate on the culture of the Romans, along with its similarities and discrepancies, or uniqueness, in relation to Ancient Greek culture. This is achieved by providing background to both Roman and Greek culture, analyzing how Rome technically purloined Greek culture, describing how unique Roman culture is, and explaining its long lasting impact on today's society.