In book five the death of Tiberius in 37 B.C had a very interesting segment in which there were two sections that intrigued me, but gave me complications. Tiberius is suppose to die and Marco who should feel sympathy for him is more concern with his death along with Caligula. Tiberius starts to feel better and this information about his recovering health makes it back to Caligula and Marco. Marco orders someone to kill Tiberius under a heap of clothes. I wonder why would Marco and Caligula want Tiberius dead. I wondered who killed Tiberius and why did no one do anything to investigate his death when he was supposedly healing. I wonder why did Caligula and Marco wanted him dead so bad when they did not necessarily receive anything, but maybe they wanted him dead because of his rulings and ways of command. …show more content…
This lead me to the assumption that Caligula and Marco were either working together or working for someone else who persuaded them to do so, and I came up with the assumption it was his brother Drucas. Drucas was in a relationship with Julia in which there were bad situations and circumstances and this could have been a perfect opportunity for him as he was loved by the people and lived in the house for twelve years. When realizing how Caligula and Marco wanted him dead, i wondered who else would want Tiberius dead. I wonder was the physician sent there to ease the tension of his pre-determine death and was appointed to Tiberius by Caligula. Caligula possibly could have made Tiberius sick in order to rid him of his throne. Caligula and Marco seem to have their hands in a part of his illness as they were happy of his upcoming death and when he begins to feel better they take matters into their own hands to kill Tiberius without anyone knowing they were involve eliminating the trails by hiring the physician who was not necessarily qualified to understand the health of
"When Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus sought to establish the liberty of the common people and expose the crimes of the oligarchs, the guilty nobles took fright and opposed their proceedings by every means at their disposal" - Cicero. The Gracchi brothers were clearly well intentioned men who had the interests of Rome at heart, instead of their own, which was a common attitude amongst the other senators. The reforms of the Gracchi were long over-due and their programs were genuine attempts to deal with Rome's problems. During the Gracchi's existence, Rome was facing a number of social, political and economic problems. They were frustrated with the conservatism and selfishness of the oligarchy and so adopted methods which threatened the balance between the senate, the magistrates and the people which had existed for a very long time - in this way they can be regarded as revolutionary. It is likely that they interpreted the problems far too simply, and they failed to see that Roman society had changed. The Senate also failed to see these changes and reacted to the Gracchi's actions in the only way they could - violence. The senate felt threatened by the Gracchi's methods, and as a result violence was used for the first time in Roman politics.
Julius Caesar (July 100 BC – 15 March 44 BC) was a Roman general, statesman, Consul, and author of Latin prose. He played a critical role in the events that led to the demise of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire. On March 15 44 B.C.E, the Roman dictator Julius Caesar was murdered. There are multiple accounts of this incident, while all accounts came after the death of Caesar, the writing on the incident portray Julius Caesar to have been a selfish dictator.
After watching all the various versions of Mercutio’s death in Romeo and Juliet, I enjoyed the final one the most. I felt like it was more modern but still stayed true to the original script Shakespeare is famous for. Also there was a deeper connection between Romeo and Mercutio in the most recent one. You could tell the Romeo was truly sorry and saddened by his cousin's passing. Another factor that made the 1996 version stand out to me was its use of music and setting to further the sad feeling. Thunder rumbled and solemn music played as Mercutio walked away from the group. These small details gave the scene an added effect on the viewer’s emotion. Although each rendition of the Mercutio’s death scene were very well portrayed and thought out,
They begin by telling the history of how Caligula’s great uncle Tiberius was chosen to reign after the passing of Augustus, the great grandfather of Caligula. An account of Caligula’s family me...
Upon expansion of the Roman Empire, lie trials and tribulations for the government to rule the foreign lands and keep the population in check. The Gracchi brothers grew up during a time when the Roman Empire was still under civil unrest. The Roman people were divided, lands were unevenly distributed, the government was disorderly, patriotism ceased to exist, and slave labor made it harder for citizens to uproot themselves from poverty. Tiberius, the elder brother, was the first to bring up the agrarian laws, and was followed after his death by his younger brother, Gaius Gracchus. The brothers knew of the significance of winning the side of the commoners to assert their power over the empire. By ways of the agrarian laws, and other reforms, the two brothers were able to win control of the masses, leaving the senate to fear what could happen if these two rise in power. According to Gaius Gracchus, “in a certain pamphlet, has written that as Tiberius was passing through Tuscany on his way to Numantia, and observed the dearth of inhabitants in the country, and that those who tilled its soil or tended its flocks there were imported barbarian slaves, he then first conceived the public policy which was the cause of countless ills to the two brothers.” (Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 8.7)
In the early first century AD, the Roman Empire was subject to autocratic rule and the old Republic was long dead. Augustus had been ruling for forty years and most of that time he was loved and praised by the Senate and the people of Rome. Throughout his reign, Augustus had the one lingering problem of finding a successor to take over the role of Emperor. He had chosen 3 different heirs in his time of rule; however, they all passed before they had the chance to inherit Augustus’ esteemed power. His fourth choice, Tiberius, was the one to succeed Augustus. He was often referred to, by Augustus, as an outstanding general and the only one capable of defending Rome against her enemies. The statement, ‘Tiberius is condemned by many ancient historians (including Tacitus), and his reign is often portrayed as being detrimental to the welfare of the Roman Empire’ is invalid as he treated the senate fairly, created strong economics and security in the state and boosted the empire into an unprecedented state of prosperity. This hypothesis will be proven through this essay by analyzing factors such as Tiberius’ administration of the Empire, his relationship with the senate, his financial control, the effect of Sejanus over his rule and why were his last years as Emperor referred to as a ‘reign of terror’ by Tacitus.
Tacitus tells us in the introduction to his Annales that his intent is to “relate a little about Augustus, Tiberius, et cetera” and to in fact do so “sine ira et studio” -- without bitterness or bias.1 Experience, however, tells us that this aim is rarely executed, and that we must be all the more suspicious when it is stated outright. Throughout the Annales, Tacitus rather gives the impression that his lack of bias is evidenced by his evenhanded application of bitterness to all his subjects. But is this really the case? While Tacitus tends to apply his sarcastic wit universally – to barbarian and Roman alike – this is not necessarily evidence of lack of bias. Taking the destruction of Mona and Boudicca's revolt (roughly 14.28-37) as a case study, it is evident that through epic allusion, deliberate diction, and careful choice of episodes related, Tacitus reveals his opinion that the Roman war machine first makes rebels by unjust governance, and then punishes them.
Finally his sudden death was the result of various personal factors that insulted the senators and created hate between Caesar and them, believing his death was expected. His death then led to a domino effect, which ends in the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire. Caesar was assassinated by his own Senate. Julius Caesar had many men conspiring against him with a plot to assassinate him. Among the 60 men plotting to murder him, many were senators, which included Marcus Junius Brutus, Decimus Brutus Albinus and Gaius Cassius Longinus. Brutus believed the death of Caesar would bring the return of the old Roman spirit unfortunately, the city was in shock, and people became increasingly more aggressive, because Caesar was popular with the people of Rome. Unfortunately, peace was impossible and the conspirators fled to
While Britannicus was still a minor, he was Claudius’ original heir. Agrippina’s theory was that because of Britannicus being Claudius’ blood son, Rome would see him as the rightful emperor once he was of legal age. Her theory was never proved correct or incorrect because the day before Britannicus became an adult, he died mysteriously. Nero claimed that his stepbrother died from a seizure, but many people believed that Nero poisoned Britannicus at a dinner party. Octavia, Nero’s wife and Britannicus’ sister became very unhappy as did Agrippina who was ordered out of the royal
Following the death of Augustus in 14CE, his experienced and esteemed successor Tiberius, was sworn allegiance to by the Senate, and the armies. During the first years of his reign, the Praetorians, lead by Prefect Sejanus, attempted to consolidate their influence on Tiberius; alongside disposing of
... too late to do anything about it. So, he kills himself. He did this because he realized what he had done and felt he needed to take accountability. Before he died, he says “Caesar, now be still, I killed not thee with half so good a will.” He is now realizing that he really didn’t have as good a reason as he thought to kill Caesar.
After Augustus's death, his successors had varying degrees of effectiveness and popularity. Caligula – bloodthirsty and mentally unstable Claudius – conqueror of Britannia, and Nero – uninhibited spender and disinterested ruler, all were in Augustus's dynasty. After Nero's suicide in the face of assassination in 68 c.e., the principate was held by four different Emperors in the span of 18 months.
The decline and fall of the Roman Empire is a scholarly article written by Justin Ott about the Roman Empire and the events leading up to its fall. The article mostly focuses on the military and economy of Rome in the third century A.D. It lists in the beginning a few of the different theories people have of how Rome fell, including led poisoning and the spread of Christianity. The article seems to want to disprove these theories, showing how they are not the main causes for the collapse of Rome. “Gibbon’s arguments in these sections can be accurately summarized as “the insensible penetration of Christianity in the empire fatally undermined the genius of a great people.” The problem with this conclusion is two-fold. First of all, this explanation is too narrow as it is difficult to believe one single factor brought down the empire. More importantly, it is clear that the Eastern Roman Empire was by far more Christian than the West, therefore if Christianity was behind the fall, the East should have fallen first.” The article’s audience appears to be historians, or those who are interested in history, or just the Roman Empire. It
Caesar was sole consul and at times acted like a king. The senate did not like this because the Romans held the tradition of a hatred of kings. It was then that the senate believed that Julius Caesar was a threat to the Republic. The senate and everyone liked Caesar, but they had decided that the best way to save the Republic was to assassinate Caesar. This was yet another piece of the game that was pulled out of the structure of the Roman Republic. Yes, the Romans were able to destroy the person that they thought was the threat to the Republic, but it was the position not the person that was the threat. With Julius Caesar gone, the void was still there for someone to fill.
Claudius letter to the Alexandrians was a valuable piece in Roman history that has given a personal insight into the social and political scene of Alexandria. Much has been said about the Jewish people of Alexandria, the most influential, as well as the most outspoken people in the community. Yet, the principal problem, which has provoked the publication of violent riots is the civic status that surrounds the Jewish people. While Claudius first discusses the statues, monuments, and temples that were given in his honor, he goes on to give his thoughts concerning the Jewish and Greek communities in Alexandria. From his decree we can infer that