Hi folks! I want to use this week’s responses to dig into some of the key ideas of the course. Choose a question that you’re not sure about and talk about what you think is most important to understanding this aspect of the story.

Remember, the point here is not listing facts but interpretation. The questions on the review are meant to help you find a way of talking about the course material and making evidence-based assertions about how we can best understand the ancient Roman world.

The question I decided to answer was Why (for what reasons) did the Romans eject their kings? How does this give insight into the Roman idea of the state? Romans eject kings because they fear the idea of a single person holding maximum authority. Their last king, Tarquin the Proud, was widely hated for his abuse of power and ignorance. This helped the Romans build a system to divide powers to prevent any abuse of power. They ejected Kingship because the Romans valued balance over one absolute ruler. In order to prevent tyranny and past struggles.

• How did Romans tend to think about religion and the gods?

The Roman's beliefs were influenced by Greek religious ideas, this often led to Greek and Roman goddesses blending into one. Initially Romans believed in divine powers within nature. As Roman expanded they adopted different beliefs within different cultures. Roman were open to new religions which led them to dislike the idea of worshipping a living ruler as a god. This could often lead to tension with groups like Jews and Christians. Romans often thought everyone had a "genius", a personal spirit that deserved respect. Romans thought that honoring the gods and the state was important, the Roman state religion influenced public life as it involved rituals and festivals that reinforced public authority. Over time, Romans adopted local traditions and other ideas that influenced Roman society.

Some may argue that the Golden Age of Rome ends with Marcus Aurelius because Rome gradually becomes unstable due to his successors. Marcus Aurelius and his predecessors were capable rulers who mainly kept the principate at peace. Each of the Five Good Emperors was hand-picked and adopted by previous Emperors to rule; this method ensured the most qualified person was chosen for the job. However, this form of succession ended with Commodus, the biological son of Marcus Aurelius. Knowing from a young age that he was to be his father’s successor made him entitled, and unlike his predecessors, he had no reason to prove himself. Commodus was also vastly different as he compared himself with the Gods instead of accepting Stoic principles. In addition, the prestige and respect that is associated with being an Emperor diminished drastically, and the Empire never truly recovered after Marcus Aurelius. Leadership rapidly changed, and the country became more and more autocratic. 

The sources we have for Rome's early history are very few. Priests of the time kept records of magistrates' names and significant events, but other than that, the sources we do have, like Livy, Plutarch, and Dionysus, recount these events centuries after the events occurred. The recounting is a mixture of myth and historical facts, which allows the history to be skewed, not making it the most reliable for us as historians. However, it provides insight into the Roman people of the early beginnings and the current time (Early Republic). Early Romans didn't see the value of recording their history and viewed it as something lazy people did, as the Etruscans and Greeks did. And the Romans of the Early (Livy, Plutarch, and Dionysus) wanted us, the reader, to interpret the greatness of the seven hills in their early beginnings.

• What difficulties were involved in succession under the principate? What key factors in succession develop in the principate?

The succession of the principate was so difficult because there was no legal system for its succession.The future of the principate wasn't clear mainly because it was a recently created title. Princeps is latin for first citizen and the title made the person emperor of Rome. Another reason why the succession under the principate was difficult is because Augustus held the title for 41 years. That's a lifetime for Romans and everyone only knew Augustus as their princeps. Augustus was a great leader and beloved by the citizens of Rome. He left a legacy that nobody could equal. So for whoever was next in line it was a lose, lose situation. They couldn't live up to the expectations that Augustus set and were sure to disappoint the people of Rome. Key factors that develop in the principate is succession through adoption. Emperors adopted capable heirs and they didn't have to be blood related.

• What was the significance of the Year of Four Emperors (69 CE) and the resulting principate of Vespasian?

The significance of the Year of Four Emperors as the outcome had set a new precedent for how Emperors could be proclaimed. The period following the death of Nero was a period of chaos for the Roman Empire, with the Emperor dead with no named heir, it would seem that a power vacuum had occurred. While Vespasian was the best figure to emerge from this conflict, due to him being proclaimed the Emperor in Syria not when he was in Rome, led to the precedent that the Legion could choose the next leader and did not have to be in Rome to choose the next leader, the Emperor did not need to be in Rome to be made Emperor. This would not be an issue but because Romans loves to work off of precedent and due to the fact their wasn't any precedent known about the Emperor and appointing one, when Vespasian was a successful it led to how he rose to power to be seen as legitimate. During his reign he would go on to found the Flavian Dynasty, end the Jewish revolt and expand Rome's borders, he would accomplish a lot in his time and that would not have been possible if not for the instability of the Year of Four Emperors.