Were the Julio Claudians really as bad as they seem?

             The Julio Claudian dynasty refers to the first five emperors who ruled in the Roman Empire. These rulers consisted of Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. They held their reign in the time of the second half of the first century, ending when Nero took his own life. Both ancient historical writers did not write about any of the five emperors in a positive way, instead making them out as unsuccessful and even a bit crazy. Augustus kept on remarrying his only daughter, Julia, so he could possess an heir to the thrown after he died. Tiberius was next who was officially adopted by Emperor Augustus. Tiberius was known for his extreme cruelty, breaking a young boy’s legs when he complained. Then there was Caligula who became the first actual “Julio Claudian” emperor, belonging to both ancestries. Not only that however, he was also a direct descendent of Augustus Caesar. But even with his powerful dynasty, Caligula was still a little insane. To ensure his right to the throne, he killed his own cousin Tiberius Gemellus. Caligula also found amusement in death, money, and sexual intercourse. Following Caligula was Claudius who was Caligula’s uncle. Claudius was found hidden behind a curtain when told he was the new ruler of the Roman Emperor. His great nephew, Nero, was next in line to the throne when Claudius died from poison. Nero also being another direct descendant from Augustus Caesar, executed his own mother then framed it as a suicide. It was also said that he sang and dressed up in costume when the Roman Empire erupted into flames, destroying three out of the fourteen Roman districts and severely damaging seven more. These first five emperors of the Roman Empire were all too eager to commit murder if to only guarantee their own rule to the throne. They only cared about the power instead of the greater good of the Roman Empire. These rulers were not extraordinary instead they were ordinary at the most.          

Do you think Caesar's killers were justified in their actions?

            On March 15, 44 before the Common Era, Julius Caesar was supposed to attend a senate meeting. This was the perfect opportunity for the conspirators or as they would like to be called “Liberators” to assassinate Caesar. Since he would be by himself because only senators could attend such a meeting, they decided this was the time. When he got there he was presented with a petition to recall his exiled brother. The other senators then crowded around him, trying to give their own consent. When Cimber grabbed Caesar’s shoulders and pulled down his tunic. Casca then brought forward a dagger and attempted to stab Caesar in the next. Quickly, Caesar turned around and caught Casca’s arm. Casca then shouted for help, creating commotion from all the other senators. Caesar then tried to escape but could not see from all the blood. The rest of the senators ran after him and then stabbed him to death. According to historians, sixty or more men participated in the assassination of Julius Caesar. He got stabbed twenty three times, but only one was considered to be lethal which was the second one to his chest. The reason for his assassination as far as I can tell, is basically because the other senators didn’t want Caesar to possess the power of dictatorship anymore over the Roman Empire. They didn’t want him to have access to anymore more power than he already did. And as a solution they decided to plan an assassination. Now was this right? No, I do not personally think so. Just because you do not like someone ruling over your town, city, or country does not mean that you have the right to go and murder them. I don’t think anyone no matter what circumstance has any right to take another human being’s life away from them. That just isn’t fair.        

Why do many historians consider Hadrian to have been the "best emperor"?

            Publius Aelius Hadrianus or also known as Hadrian ruled as emperor in Rome from one hundred seventeen to one hundred thirty eight. Many historians consider Hadrian to be the “best” emperor in the time of the Roman Empire. And in there justification, Hadrian did accomplish many great achievements in his lifetime. He is best known for constructing Hadrian’s Wall, which was built for defensive purposes for Rome’s northern land. In addition he also built the Pantheon and the Temple of Venus and Roma. During his reign, Hadrian traveled through almost every province that was located in the Roman Empire. He also has a great reputation as a military commander even though during his rule there were no significant military conflicts that occurred. However, Hadrian was not only intellectual in the knowledge of ruling the Roman empire or in the field military strategy. He was also very intelligent academically too especially anything involving art. Another one of his interests was architecture, poetry, and hunting. Compared to many of the other Roman emperors that came before and after him, Hadrian was one of the more successful. I don’t know about the “best” but he definitely made one of the biggest impacts on Roman empire. For starters, he was sane. He was not found hidden behind a curtain when told he was empire. His nose did not run whenever he became excited. He did not push his enemies off cliffs to have them met their death head first, literally. Or he did not sit on his balcony playing an instrument while watching the Roman Empire erupt in flames. All of these emperors were at the very least a little crazy. Sure they might have made some great accomplishments, but were they really good leaders? Hadrian was.          

Scavenger hunt for as many pictures relating to the places mentioned as you can find and chart them on a Google Map.

Please write a brief biography of Hannibal and explain whether or not you think his reputation (in Roman eyes) as a monster was deserved.

             Hannibal lived in the period of when the Roman Republic established more power over other great cities such as Carthage and the Hellenistic kingdoms which include Macedon, Syracuse, and the Seleucid Empire. He was born in two hundred forty eight before the Common Era and died in the year of one hundred eighty three before Common Era. Hannibal was the son of Hamilcar Barca who like him was also a Carthaginian military commander. Mago and Hasdrubal were his two younger brothers but he also had several sisters and two brothers in law, Hasdrubal the Fair and the Numidian king Naravas. It is said that his father, Hamilcar, held his son over a roaring fire in the sacrificial chamber and made him swear to never be a friend of Rome. So in the First Punic War when Carthage was defeated, Hamilcar set out to reclaim Carthage’s fortune. When his father was then killed in battle, Hasdrubal got promoted to his father’s earlier position. Hannibal then served as an officer under him. Then in two hundred twenty one before the Common Era Hannibal’s brother, Hasdrubal, was assassinated. Hannibal then took his place as commander in chief by the army. For the next two years he fought in battle for the conquest of Hispania south of the Ebro. Throughout the rest of his life, Hannibal fought and also led many battles. Some of the most memorable are the defeats and victories against the Roman Empire. Hannibal was the Roman’s biggest enemy at the time. So yes I do think that Hannibal got the reputation he deserved if only because he is the Roman’s enemy. When you have an enemy in this time or theirs, you are going to stretch the truth to your advantage. This is what I think Rome did to Hannibal.              

What elements of the Roman Republican political and legal system appear present in the systems of modern democracies?

            Back in the time of Ancient Rome, the government was called Roman Republic. This government was ruled by separation of powers and checks and balances. The Roman Republic also had an unwritten constitution called the Constitution of the Roman Republic, which was a set of rules and guidelines that was passed down through generations. The main job of the Roman senate was related to foreign policy. However, it did not have any official role in the management of military conflicts. Instead this branch was to administrate such affairs. Another focus for the Roman senate was to maintain civilization over the town and city. When it came to the election of new magistrates, the enforcement of new laws, carrying out for capital punishment, the declaration of war and peace, and finally the establishment or destruction of alliances with other cities the people of Rome had the final say in this decision. As for law enforcement and rights, the law of the twelve tables was the main foundation for Roman law. These twelve laws consist of civil procedure, debt, inheritance, property, marriage, crimes, excreta. Today in the United States there are some similarities with government and law. Such as the Roman Republic had we too possess different branches of the law for separation of powers and checks and balances. The United States also has a constitution called the United States Constitution, which is the supreme law in United States of America. However, this document is a written record. As for the election of any new authority, citizens of the United States get to vote as long as they are older than eighteen. The Roman Republic contains many similarities compared to the government in the United States today.       

Please take a picture of something in your own neighborhood or town that appears to have been influenced by Ancient Rome.

The housing in Ancient Rome had both public and private bathrooms.

Many buildings in the time of Ancient Rome used bricks and concrete throughout the empire.

How was the Struggle of the Orders influential on later Roman politics?

            The struggle of the orders was a political conflict between the plebeians who were the commoners in Ancient Rome and the patricians who were the aristocrats. In the senate, plebeians did not have any power at the time. So in four hundred ninety four before the Common Era, the plebeians all left the city creating the first plebeian secession. As a result of this secession, the government created the plebeian tribune which is the first kind of power any plebeian was given in the Roman Senate. These plebeian tribunes were elected by other fellow plebeians instead of the people of Rome. They had the same amount of rights as any other magistrate, meaning that it was a capital offense to harm a tribune, disregard his veto, or it interfere with the tribune himself. Eventually, more and more power was given to the plebeians over time. So not long after, the senate contained not only patricians but now also plebeians. In two hundred eighty seven before the Common Era, this conflict was now resolved with having the plebeians possess just as much power as the patricians. However, the plebeians’ predicament did not change. Then in forty nine before the Common Era, Julius Caesar began a civil war against Ancient Rome. He eventually overthrows the Roman Republic and instead created the Roman Empire. The struggle of orders greatly changed the plebeians’ rights, and it also was a main component in the Constitution of the Roman Republic. Because of this conflict, plebeians now had the final power to pass or veto a law. The power of democracy now was not only controlled by the patricians, but instead the new Patricio plebeian aristocracy.