Herodian of Antioch's History of the Roman Empire is an important source for the AD 180-238 period. Choose one of the emperors from this period (possibilities include Commodus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Septimius Severus, Macrinus, Bassianus, and Alexander Severus) and note what Herodian has to say about that emperor. Cite here an example of that emperor's competence (or lack thereof) and an example of the difficulties that emperor faced, looking especially for problems that emperor had with the Roman army.If you prefer, you might comment on one of the important women leaders, e.g., Julia Maesa or Julia Mamea. You might also like looking at what Herodian has to say about Xenobia, the queen of Palmyra.
You may find the site linked here a bit difficult to navigate. Persevere! Use the "page" button at the top to navigate through the eight *books* of this history looking at the book heading to see which emperors are included in that book. Once you find the right book, click through each of the chapter links to find the material on the emperor you want to talk about.
4 comments:
Herodian seems to keep his history as just that, a history. He doesn't seem to be predjudice towards any one feeling be it either a hatred or love for Commodus. This is what makes this a very good history. He does make a few remarks about how Commodus erected statues of himself as an archer poised to shoot in an effort to get people to fear him. He also referred to his assassination as an effort to end his mad reign. These seem to show that Herodian was predjudice but I think that his statements weren't anything anyone else wouldn't have said about the lunatic Commodus.
"When Septimius Severus became emperor in 193, Rome had a Syrian empress, Julia Domna. When Caracalla became emperor in 211, Rome had a half-Syrian emperor; when Elagabalus became emperor in 218, Rome had a Syrian emperor."
I find this column interesting and a little surprising. Rome had some emperors who were of Syrian ethnicity. The Romans were a strong powerful people that viewed themselves as the ultimate people of the World. They were the most racially superior people. In way they were old fashioned nationalists. During this time in Roman history they had a emperor who was Syrian? Syria is in the middle east and was a disputed region among the Romans, Persians, and other tribes. Now they had a person with a background from this disputed region leading the Romans? That is interesting. Alex Mason
He had inherited the brutal disposition of his countrymen, and he intended to make his imperial position secure by acts of cruelty, fearing that he would become an object of contempt to the senate and the people, who might be more conscious of his lowly origin than impressed by the honor he had won.
Maximinus with his crul ways shows us that in a way he was in lack of good compentence. Yes, for awhile being a crul ruler can make people fear you, but after so long it will trun most against you.
Maximinus at the time of him before he became the emperor was respected by the army, but when he learned of a possible conspiracy when he was about to take on the Germans he without notice or warning took the men who were accused of conspiracy and had them exicuted without a trial and this caused some of the other men to be unsure of Maximinus and in a way he lost some of that respect from his men.
Eric Bengs
After readingHerodian of Antioch's History of the Roman Empire I think so little of what he has to say about the emeperors that i can not comment on any of them because he somes it over his writings in the link you posted. All of them were weak and bad for Rome. None of them lasted overly long and did any true good for rome. they were weak by the fact that several were influenced highly by woman and it is commanly known. they were bad for rome and no arguements can strongly counter this assumption so nothing else can be said on this subject.
Post a Comment