The Arras Medallion was issued to commemorate Constantius Chlorus recovery of Britain’s and the rescue of London in 296 AD . It is the intention of this source criticism to evaluate the medallion and determine its value to the study of government and society under Diocletian. The source provides valuable insight into how the tetrarchs presented themselves. It will be suggested that the source reveals the tetrarchs promotion of images that portray them as united and equal. In addition there is a sense of militarism and just rule that the tetrarchs where also keen to promote. Along with corroboration of literary sources and a possible, however slight, example of individualism makes the sources valuable with regards to tetrarchic propaganda.
The deciphered legend on the obverse of the coin (Flavius Valerius Constantius noble Caesar) indentifies the figure as Constantius Chlorus. The inclusion of PTA on the bottom of the reverse side indicates that it was made it Trier. Given that he is identified as Caesar the coin can be attributed to anywhere between 293 and 305 AD. However, as the reverse shows a depiction of the re-conquest of Britain it was likely commissioned in 296/7 AD .
Constantius is seen wearing a laurel wreath and armour and looking to one side. These features along with the stubble beard are key similarities that many tetrarchic coins shared . Indeed the coins of the tetrarchs are so similar in form that without the legend, identification of the individual would be difficult. This was part of the tetrarchs desire to appear united and equal to create contrast with the destructive divisions that occurred during the early third century. According to Southern the adoption of Flavius Valerius into his name was also...
... middle of paper ...
...s an example of the tetrarchic unity being challenged. The source also corroborates the literary account and reveals the desire of the tetrarchs to appear just in rule. Whether the source is an accurate depiction of the reaction to the tetrarchs is another matter entirely. Overall, the Arras medallion proves valuable in the study of Diocletian’s reign as it provides insight into how the tetrarchs wanted to be perceived.
Bibliography
Casey, P,J,. 1994 Carausius and Allectus: The British Usurpers, Routledge, London, 1994
Rees, R., 2004 Diocletian and the Tetrachy, Edinburgh University Press Ltd, Edinburgh,
2004
Southern, P,. 2001 The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, Routledge, London,
2001
Internet resource
http://tetrarchy.com/coppermine/(accessed 07/04/2012)
In this documentary report I shall look at the account of Urban II’s speech we are given by Fulcher of Chartres and assess it’s usefulness according to it’s likely reliability and it’s concurrence with the other accounts of Urban’s speech and the evidence we have from his letters. I shall first look at who Fulcher of Chartres was, as his role in society is important for understanding how he may have come to be aware of or present at the council of Clermont. A brief look at Fulcher will also provide an insight into what his opinions may have been and how this may colour his representation of the events. I shall also look at the message as we see it in Fulcher’s version of events and then at the overall view we are given from the evidence. I shall also look at the conclusions that ‘modern’ scholars have come to. Finally I shall look at the outcomes of this council and how much the outcomes reflect the aims we are told about in the accounts of the council of Clermont.
In contrast to the publicity spin of today’s tabloids, ‘losers attract notoriety,’ (Fear, 2008, p, 6) Roman society was no different with one’s reputation of paramount importance and continually defended. Antony and Cleopatra’s union was ammunition for Octavian and propaganda used against the couple in their pursuing battle of Actium. (Fear, 2008, p.7.)
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
Publius (Gaius) Cornelius Tacitus was a Roman historian and senator who wrote several historical documents, including some discussing ancient Britain. In approximately 98 CE, Tacitus wrote a particular document called, “Galgacus: On Roman Imperialism,” which focused on a speech supposedly delivered by Galgacus, a Briton military leader. If Tacitus in fact did write this speech celebrating the Britons and calling them to fight for freedom, why would he use Galgacus’s name? Firstly, Tacitus was a Roman senator who witnessed imperialism’s negative impact so he imagined this speech to criticize the Roman Empire’s barbarism without incriminating himself. Secondly, this speech celebrates the Britons while demonizing the Romans, which again, would be dangerous to claim as one’s own. Finally, by being a historian, Tacitus was interested in recording the past, so through this speech, Tacitus preserves a history that would have been lost otherwise. Clearly, from the reasons behind using Galgacus’s name and the words he uses, Tacitus did write this speech, and an analysis of the work will show this. Analyzing the words Tacitus uses will also highlight his authorship, but they also provide readers with an insight into both societies.
Zaho’s work like Noel’s, is in a way classical in nature but for a different reason, she interacts heavily with Dante and Boccaccio, but even more so with Petrarch. Zaho traces the classical roots of triumphal imagery and its relation to Petrarch’s Africa. She argues that the revival of the antique triumph was the most significant tool, propagandistic or otherwise, in legitimizing the rules of Italian Renaissance rulers. She looks at Sigismondo Malatesta, Federico de Montefeltro, and the Duke Borso d’Este for her case studies. She lends a key contribution to the field, in that she argues a point perhaps somewhat contradictory to that of Jane Black who takes a far more legal approach to the topic of Renaissance ruler’s justifications for their
Emperor Justinian is identified as one of the greatest Caesars to ever rule in Europe during his reign from 527-565, during this he succeeded in reviving Roman Authority throughout his growing Byzantium Empire . As Emperor of the Byzantium Empire in the sixth and seventh century he conquered many parts of Europe restoring the control of the Roman Authority once again if only for a while . This essay will point out the extent in which Justinian succeeded Roman Authority. Although many depictions that can be argued, closer examination can be shown that through huge military successes, Architectural activities that changed the Empires value and enhanced Constantinople as the centre of the Christian World, and the legal work of the ‘Code of Justinian’ helped Justinian to revive Roman Authority. In the seventh century saw the collapse of the Byzantium Empire, which was defeated and taken over by the Ottoman-Turk Empire from the East of Constantinople. This Essay will access the reasons for decline of such a powerful empire, hit with the ‘Justinian Plague’ and eventually deteriorating after Justinian death . This saw the end to any last element of any Roman Authority in Europe.
We have now examined Thucydides' strongest arguments for Athenian rule. It is clear that Athens had a stronger claim to rule than the Melians had to remain sovereign. We also know that Athens' claims hold up when we examine them for validity. Thucydides beliefs in Athens' claims were therefore well founded.
Livy’s The Rise of Rome serves as the ultimate catalogue of Roman history, elaborating on the accomplishments of each king and set of consuls through the ages of its vast empire. In the first five books, Livy lays the groundwork for the history of Rome and sets forth a model for all of Rome to follow. For him, the “special and salutary benefit of the study of history is to behold evidence of every sort of behaviour set forth as on a splendid memorial; from it you may select for yourself and for your country what to emulate, from it what to avoid, whether basely begun or basely concluded.” (Livy 4). Livy, however, denies the general populace the right to make the same sort of conclusions that he made in constructing his histories. His biased representation of Romulus and Tarquin Superbus, two icons of Roman history, give the readers a definite model of what a Roman should be, instead of allowing them to come to their own conclusion.
Dionysius I of Syracuse garnered a reputation as a warmongering tyrant who harmed his people with his oppressive regime. However many surviving sources that explore his rule were written by people who were ideologically opposed to perceived tyrants. It is therefore quite possible that aspects of Dionysius rule where left out or exaggerated to suit the author`s anti-tyrannical agenda. It is the intention of this paper to argue that Dionysius rule did in fact benefit Syracuse more than he harmed it during his lifetime. His domestic and foreign affairs will be explored in order to show how he in fact benefitted the Syracusan state as well as the majority of its people. It will however also be argued that his legacy did harm the Syracusan state but that overall Dionysius rule was beneficial in his lifetime.
On that first fateful day, when Romulus struck down his own brother Remus, the cauldron of Rome was forged in blood and betrayal. The seeds on the Palatine hill cultured one of the most potent and stretching empires of human history. Though this civilization seemingly wielded the bolts of Zeus, they were infested with violence, vanity, and deception. Yet, one man—or seemingly “un”-man—outshone and out-graced his surroundings and everyone within it. He brought Rome several victories and rescued his beloved country from an early exodus, thus providing her a second beginning. This man was Marcus Furius Camillus, and against a logical and emotional mind, he was oft less than loved and celebrated. At times he was disregarded, insulted and even exiled—irrevocably an unwarranted method to reward Rome’s “Second Founder.” This contrast of character between hero and people was perhaps too drastic and too grand. The people were not yet ready to see Marcus Furius Camillus as a model of behavior to be emulated—to be reproduced. Hence, much of Livy’s Book 5 provides a foundation for the Roman people to imitate and assimilate a contrasting, honest, and strong behavior and temperament
In Titus Livius’, The Early History of Rome, Livy takes on the task of documenting Rome’s early history and some of the famous individuals who help contribute to the ‘greatness’ of Rome. Livy dedicates an entire portion of his writing to describe the reigns of the first seven kings of Rome; all who influence the formation and governance of Rome in some way. However, of the seven kings in early Roman history, King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius achieved godlike worship and high esteem from their fellow Romans. While both highly important and respected figures in Rome’s history, the personalities and achievements of King Romulus and King Numa Pompilius are complete opposites of one another. Despite the differences found in each king and of their rule over Rome, both Romulus and Numa Pompilius have a tremendous influence in the prosperity and expansion of Rome in its early days.
Rich, John and Graham Shipley. War and Society In The Roman World. London: Routledge, 1993.
4)Rosenstein, Nathan Stewart., and Robert Morstein-Marx. A Companion to the Roman Republic. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2006. Print.
But while the histories’ plots are largely concerned with the acquisition of political power, their themes can be said to focus more on the exercise of such power. At its heart, the Great Tetralogy is a discourse on the qualities of the ideal ruler. A comparison of Richard II and Henry V, and the way each wields political power, will serve to illuminate this point. Ultimately, Henry V is an effective king bec...
Matyszak, Philip the enemies of Rome: from Hannibal to Attila the Hun, London, Thames & Hudson,