This piece is essentially Emperor Augustus summarizing his achievements, both political and military, and his contributions to the Roman state. He was successful in winning wars with other cities, he was able to avenge Caesar's death and recovered Roman military standards from the Parthians and others. He also founded colonies across the empire for veterans and extended Rome’s borders. -- Overall I feel like this is a praise to himself -- he shares how he is this amazing ruler, a savior of Rome, a restorer of peace, a generous person and a "divinely" favored ruler. If we were voting for presidents he would deft. be top notch because his account on his achievements is pure propaganda for the television.

I read The Battle of Teutoburg Forest this week to gain a better grasp of the disaster that halted Roman ambitions to conquer Germania in one fell swoop. I was surprised to find that the part which grabbed my attention the most was the section where Paterculus talks about Arminius’ background, the prince who laid the ambush for Varus and his 3 legions. Paterculus mentions how “He had associated with us constantly on private campaigns and had even attained the dignity of equestrian rank” – implying that he was well-acquainted the Roman politics and military strategy. While we can take this at face value, it’s worth taking a moment to consider the implications of what he said. This image of any barbarians who manage to defeat a Roman army in battle having at one point been trained by them is found in Roman histories, reflecting their self-confidence of the Romans in their own military superiority. If the Varian disaster had not occurred, would Augustus, or his heirs, have invested the massive time and resources to conquer the rest of Germania, or settled for stopping at the Elba?

The reading I chose was The Death of Augustus and the Accession of Tiberius because I was interested in Roman lives after the death of Augustus, who was in power for a long time, and what acts were made to keep stability in Rome, which has lasted for some time because of Augustus. What jumped out to me was Tiberius acts to gain favor as well as eliminate those that opposed what he was trying to work for. I think the author was trying to tell us the things Tiberius did in order to stay in power and gain power, as he knows having the same influence as Augustus is impossible. I think the time and place represented how Tiberius was trying his hardest, as many people were probably unsure of his leadership, as he isn't Augustus in any way, shape, or form. This supports a lot of the readings we have read. For example, Caesar and other leaders tried to gain power even if it meant eliminating their opposition. 

My question is, why did the Senate continue to follow such a man? Was it to keep stability and not have a repeat of Caesar?

For this week I read the Acts of the Divine Augustus because it is a commendation of the actions of Augustus written by himself to promote himself. The quote that stuck out to me is "While I held my thirteenth consulship the Senate and the Equestrian class and the People of Rome universally named me Father of our Fatherland, and resolved that this should in the porch of my dwelling be inscribed and in the Curia Julia and in the Forum of Augustus under the chariot which for me by the Senate’s decree had been placed there". This quote to me highlights just how much Augustus was able to wrap Rome around his finger, he was able to get the senate to proclaim him, a individual in a society that used to prefer the collective over focusing on the individual, as the Father of the Fatherland. Augustus had changed Rome from a collective to a society of strong individuals and Rome celebrated him for it. The text is Augustus trying to prop up his own legacy to tell a tale that will paint him as a mythical figure, to leave a legacy that will be difficult to succeed. This document is likely how the citizens of Rome would go on to remember Augustus as, but this was likely by design and was exactly what Augustus wanted. Why didn't any of the Romans question the shift towards the praises given to Augustus and even Caesar, did the Senate not see the change in the culture and nip it in the butt before it became the cultural shift it is.

The reading I chose for this week is, “The Death of Augustus and the Accession of Tiberius” by Tacitus. I chose this reading because I was interested in how Tiberius chose to rule Rome after the death of his father. I noticed that Tacitus is quite critical of both Augustus and Tiberius, implying that they were both able to successfully hide their ill intentions. While Tacitus claims to be impartial, it is clear through this reading that this is not entirely true. Tacitus starts off the reading by commenting on Tiberius’s first act as Emperor, the killing of P. Agrippa. Tiberius does not take responsibility for this matter and claims that he was carrying out his father’s orders. Tacitus insinuates that P. Agrippa was actually considered a threat to Tiberius’s rule and this is why he needed to be killed. He also claims that Augustus wouldn't have been cruel enough to kill members of his own family. This passage alone shows how the rest of the reading will go. Tacitus constantly questions Tiberius’s intentions and offers differing perspectives on matters that could seem innocent and commendable such as Tiberius’s hesitation to take control over, Rome claiming “‘Only,’ he said, ‘the intellect of the Divine Augustus was equal to such a burden.’” By bringing up this quote, Tactius is trying to get readers to see that Tiberius’s behavior is merely a facade and that this modest act is simply a way to gain popularity with the public. Overall, I believe that Tacitus is writing from a biased standpoint but he's made me reconsider my own opinion on Augustus’s rule. 

For this week's reading, I picked "The Secular Hymn by Horace." The passage describes the celebration of the "Secular Games" in 17 BCE, a significant event in ancient Rome commemorating peace and prosperity during Augustus's reign. This event was marked by the performance of the "Secular Hymn" composed by the poet Horace. The hymn is a prayerful invocation to various gods, including Phoebus and Diana, asking for their blessings on Rome and its people. The references in the poem showcase the importance of the gods in Roman society, as they are called upon to ensure fertility, prosperity, and the continuation of Rome’s greatness.

One particularly detail from the passage that stood out for me is the invocation of the gods, especially the lines that call upon Phoebus and Diana, “Look down on worlds outspread, yet nothing see greater than Rome, and Rome’s high sovereignty,” it portrays the pride and respect Romans held for their civilization, elevating it above all others in the eyes of the gods.

I believe the author was trying to emphasize a sense of pride, unity, and responsibility among Romans, encouraging them to look toward a future of greatness while remaining grounded in their rich cultural and spiritual heritage.

Finally, this passage reveals that it comes from a period of political stability and prosperity in Rome during Augustus's reign around 17 BCE. It highlights the central role of religion in Roman society, where divine favor was believed to directly influence the well-being of the state. The hymn underscores Rome's legendary past and emphasizes the importance of moral values, family, and the upbringing of youth to ensure the continuity of the empire.

What were the specific rituals and significance of the Secular Games in ancient Rome, and how did they reflect the cultural and religious values of the time?

This week I chose to write about the reading"Selections" by Catullus. This reading is a collection of poems by Catullus which he made during the late republic. During this time of uncertainty and chaos these poems offered a form of escape. It shows life went on the same during this period for a lot of people. The language Catullus uses in his poems can be seen as crude and might offend people. But I feel like it makes them not so serious and dark instead funny and light hearted. The selection of poems feel like short stories that shed light on different things. None of them connect to each other and have different characters.There's one that points out the state that the city is in. Another where people are having a casual conversation about Bithynia. The poems don't tackle any political problems that are affecting the people. But tell stories about casual life among the ordinary citizen.

I chose the reading The Death of Augustus and the accession of Tiberius by Tacitus due to my interest in how the power was transitioned from the first to the second in the line of principate since this was the first time such a thing would've happened. This quote from the passage stood out, " There was more grand sentiment than good faith in such words". This stood out because we've seen in some different readings how the authors are at times in favor or biased toward a certain individual or ideology which could be a possibility in this case yet it stands that Tiberius is described here as being disingenuous and as exhibiting false humility to hide his true aspiration to control and take power for himself. A characteristic that showed perhaps why he wasn't well liked by the people of Rome as it made him come across as manipulative and untrustworthy which is what I believe the author Tacitus was trying to communicate. Along with showing how such a high standard of Augustus could not possibly be matched as his immediate successor was already less popular than he was. This document is telling us about the transition and uncertainty that was present during this time. No one knew what would happen but all they could do was hope that the peace and stability Augustus brought would be able to stay and to be expanded upon. This seems to contradict some of the other readings about how Rome should never again return to a totalitarian government and yet here was Rome transitioning absolute power from one man to another yet again. My question about the reading is why did Tiberius appear to be reluctant when the power was given to him? What kind of image was he trying to set for himself in front of the people of Rome?

This week I chose to read “Acts of the Divine Augustus” by Augustus himself. This reading interested me since Augustus himself wrote it. Augustus paints himself as a selfless restorer of Rome a generous benefactor and statesman of Rome who was laying the foundation for the Roman Empire solidifying his legacy as the first great Roman princeps. In my opinion, this document gave an insightful look into Augustus's perspective on what he did for Rome. In many ways, Augustus did restore the Republic though things weren't like the old days with the nobility August brought peace and order that lasted 50 years. And though his perspective might be biased his actions showed his words to be true.