The Julio-Claudians . . .?

Question

The Julio-Claudians, according to Suetonius,Tacitus, etc . . ., were a compound of good and evil. Was the age at the time of becoming "First Citizen" the ultimate factor in how each one ruled the Roman Empire?

Answer 1

Augustus was the start of this dynasty
He in my view relieved Rome of the competition that had seen three previous civil wars. Before him Rome was based on competition and Marius reforms had taken this to new heights, the troops loyalties shifted away from the state and to the person who was responisble for them, the likes of Sulla and Julius Caesar. As pater patriae Augustus had exterminated the rivalry amongst the senatorial class. The individual grand triumphs ended, as did funery spectacle. Augustus had secured the state away from civil war by creating the cult of the Emperor in which he controlled military provinces appointed governors and generals. He was patron of all affairs. In his res gestae he notes " I have no more power than a magistrate but more influence than any one" On one hand he was right, the senate was still around and he didnt assume a dictatorship, on the other he was lying and did a good job of manipulating the state. This ensured a secure succession.

Tiberius, he seems to be a rather somber individual spending most of his time on capri, he choose to be absentee, when he did attend his voice was often disrespect to the senate "how willing they are to be slaves" he stated, whether this is true or not it does definatly show feelings towards him was desrespectful. However he put limitations in public expenditure, a very unpopular move. Yet perhaps he was saving money or maybe he was just frugal in the end it does not seem utterly deplorable from our standards. His reign is of course remembered (suet.) by the treason trials and executions of the senate. It is recorded that Serjanus got the blame (read by Tiberius) and it seems this serves logical explanation for a absentee ruler on Capri, or he may have retired there from hostilities from the senate.
Caligula, he was a relieve from the somber Tiberius, he bought back public spectacle and seemed to take a interest in the state. Up till his illness he resumed the treason trials from his kept list (I dont think such a list existed, but he would have noted whom was a trouble maker in Tiberius's reign). Suet. notes is lavish displays and his depravity its very hard to make a judgement, the extent of his depravity remains a open question it seems that relations with the senate were bad at best, as with the military. His German and British campaign seem like they went no where and he seemed to isolate himself and use the state to fund his activities.
Claudius, Suet. reports he recieved a empty treasury, it is strange to think that early in his reign he increased the wage of his gaurd and more importantly the army. He seems to have suffered from plausy, which slurred his speech and caused a twitch. His reign shows co-operation with the senate in the early part and he is noted for intellectual prowess ( I forgot the source but it is stated he attended public orations often). he then left affairs it seems in the hands of his freeman and left affairs alone, focus seems to be on his own family.
Nero
Nero was a showman, he competed in games and at least pictured himself as a god. Though one must confess winning each event is superhuman achievement. The lengths of his depravity are again left to imagination he seemed very popular with the people. Our best source is Seneca (whom hated him). His main downfall is private expenditure, the culling of the christian I often wonder was invented later. Nonetheless the golden palace over burnt Rome was too kingly for the Senate to tolerate.

After this brief overview now for the question. Age seems to have paid a part in it, Augustus aside. Tiberius and Claudius did not obtain this kingly status, in fact Tiberius was too frugal. At age these two seem to have lost interest causing some resentment, the treason trials are interesting and seems Tiberius was being overthrown by his court (Serjanus) and others.
Caligula and Nero are both young and as a result seem to have rather used the state coffers for games and lavish depravity, then actually running a empire. This seemed to be very unpopular with the senate (who write the texts - well vocalize their version which is written by a slave) or with somebody of vested interest in criticizing, I would note modern broadcasters who condemn every move of a politican (which may or may not reflect reality). I would state one thing of the depravity. In a world where bloodsports were common and a young man who is bent on living a exciting life with unlimited power then it could get quite repulsive. My type is overlapping itself indicating I must close this. I think age had alot to do with it and maturity coupled with a bloody society, then things start to add up---> Diocletian. The ultimate factor is a large leap but a strong factor it seems. One of many though

Answer 2

One might argue that the Julio-Claudians actually began much earlier with men like Gaius Marius and Lucius Sulla, through Pompey the Great and the Gaius Julius Caesar.

If it weren't for men like Gaius Marius and Lucius Corneilus Sulla the Julian family name would have been just another patrician name not the first family of Rome. If Gaius Marius had not married into the Julian family they would never have received a financial infusion which would not have allowed Gaius Julius' father to have enough money as inheritance to run for consul and other offices and therefore Gaius Julius' future would have been very different, if not at all, for Caesar's father may not have married his mother without the money or influence of Gaius Marius and Sulla.

Answer 3

I don't think so; I think it was more a matter of individual personality. Augustus was truly a compound of good and evil, Tiberius was 'good' only in comparison with what followed, Caligula was crazy, Claudius was not the disaster his contemporaries assumed (I think Robert Graves had some real insights there, and even before reading *I, Claudius* I never felt he was as bad as 'advertised'), Nero was a spoiled, crazy little wimp - and as far as can be determined, these were their characters *before* they came to power. Power just gave them more opportunity to indulge their character.

Answer 4

a super e book to examine is 'The Twelve Caesars' by way of Suetonius. It starts off with Julius Caesar and is going by using, properly, the subsequent 12. it's going to provide you some first hand counsel. you additionally can go with to be conscious Plutarch's 'the fall of the Roman Republic'.

Answer 5

The Julio-Claudians

JULIAN-CLAUDIAN HOUSE

TIBERIUS Claudius Nero (b. 42 B.C.E.) became emperor, when the senate conferred on him the powers and titles of Augustus. He transferred the elections from the assemblies to the senate. Already the passage of laws in the assemblies had become a formality.

The revolt of the Pannonian legions was suppressed by Tiberius's son, the younger Drusus. The son of Tiberius's brother Drusus, who is known by his father's title, Germanicus, and whom Augustus had forced Tiberius to adopt as a possible successor, suppressed the German mutiny and campaigned in Germany with some successes. He defeated Arminius, and recovered the eagles of Varus's legions. He was, however, recalled, probably not because Tiberius begrudged his victories, but because he found them too costly.

On the death of their kings, Cappadocia and Commagene became a province.

Germanicus, sent to install a king in Armenia, conducted himself in a high-handed manner both in Syria and in Egypt. When he died in Syria, however, the enemies of Tiberius rallied about his wife Agrippina.

A revolt against Rome broke out in Gaul among the Treveri, led by Julius Florus, and the Aedui, led by Julius Sacrovir. Although suppressed, it showed that anti-Roman feeling was still strong in Gaul.

Tiberius fell increasingly under the influence of the ambitious equestrian prefect of the guard L. Aelius Sejanus who quartered the praetorian cohorts in one camp in Rome. He encouraged the gathering of information against those hostile to Tiberius by informers (delatores) and the prosecution of the accused under the law of treason (lex de maiestate imminuta). When such trials involved senators or important equestrians, they were heard by the senate, which came increasingly to act as a court under the presidency of the emperor or the consuls. In 23, Sejanus probably poisoned Tiberius's son Drusus, in order to plot his own succession.

Tiberius retired from an increasingly hostile Rome and eventually settled on Capreae (Capri).

Livia, accused of attempting to dominate the Empire after Augustus's death, died. Sejanus secured the exile of Agrippina, wife of Germanicus (she died in 33), and the arrest of his two eldest sons, Nero and a third Drusus

The plots of Sejanus finally came to the notice of Tiberius, who engineered his arrest and execution. Tiberius remained in seclusion in Capreae.

Artabanus, king of Parthia, made peace with Rome.

Tiberius, dying at Misenum (Mar. 16), indicated as his successors his young grandson, Tiberius Gemellus, and the twenty-four-year-old surviving son of Germanicus, Gaius Caesar, nicknamed Caligula (“Bootsy”). Gaius soon put Gemellus to death.