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.
I chose to read about Septimius Severus and the line I cited was:
ReplyDelete"When the report of Severus' victory was made public, dissension immediately arose in the cities of all those provinces, not so much because of affection or good will toward the warring emperors but from mutual jealousy, envy, and hatred, together with indignation over the slaughter of their fellow citizens."
This line showes the lack of support that Severus had over the citizens and the way they did not approve of some things that he was doing. This is a difficult problem for someone to overcome.
I chose Septimius Severus, what he showed was lack of competence by just wanting glory from fights and no letting his army rest but just continue to fight with them, and problems with the Roman army because the soliders felt that Severus was leading them to death and not letting them rest but just press on; and his difficulties as a emperor was to control Rome when he was always away fight battles for glory and the expanion of Rome.
ReplyDeleteCommodus was seen by herdion as a competant ruker but he never really took the responsibility of emperor he was of doing what he wanted to do and rome suffered for it. it was evidence that he was a subpar emperor in the fact that so many plots against his life were attempted before they finally succeeded
ReplyDeleteI looked at Commodus in chapter nine. The part where a plot against him was brought to light involving Perennis and son. He had handled it swiftly having them beheaded although that isn't what I found interesting from this event.
ReplyDeleteAfterward, he decided to dividing the power of the praetorian perfects by appointing two of them instead of leaving power in the hands of just one man. From then on he appointed two to the position.
It seems like there is a bit of, at least attempted prevention here, which I think shows a bit of compentancy on the part of commodus.
The lines I chose came from Book 6, Chapter 5, about Severus Alexander's counterattack on the new Persian king. He had split his army into three, keeping the larging portion to himself. The goal was to divide the enemy's forces, but one section moved quicker than the others, and came under fire from the entire Sassanid army.
ReplyDelete"But Alexander failed them: he did not bring his army or come himself into barbarian territory, either because he was afraid to risk his life for the Roman empire or because his mother's feminine fears or excessive mother love restrained him."
This shows that Alexander was far too weak as a leader, and bowed to his mother, Julia Mamea, on decisions he, as emperor and commander in chief, should have made. It isn't very surprising that the Roman armies didn't think much of his (rather Mamea's) rule, and decided to get rid of them and put a more competent general on the throne.