Later Chrisitan writers felt it important to answer Julian the Apostate's criticisms of Chritianity in his book Against the Galileans. They quoted liberally from the book, and, partly because of their interest, we have substantial portions of a book that might otherwise have been lost.
The reign of Constantine is certainly an important turning point in the history of Rome and in the history of the church. Please read through the Edict of Milan. Cite one line that particularly well shows a way in which Constantine changes things for the church.
Diocletian and Constantine attempted to solve, not only the political and social problems of Rome, but also fundamental economic problems as well. Bruce Bartlett argues that the two did exactly the wrong thing. Please read Bartlett's article How Excessive Government Killed Rome. Do you think Bartlett's criticisms accurate? Why, or why not?
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.
Plato said that, in an ideal society, the philosophers would be the kings, or the kings would be philosophers. Marcus Aurelius in some ways would seem to be exactly the kind of "philosopher emperor" Plato would have wanted. Please read the opening sections of Marcus Aurelius' Meditations. Choose a line that particularly well shows one of the things Aurelius particularly values, and note whether this value would make him a good emperor or not.
Suetonius' Lives of the Caesars is one of the most important sources for the period following Nero's Death. Among his "Twelve Caesars" are Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian Suetonius includes all sorts of fascinating biographical details about the men he describes--along with plenty of sometimes unverifiable gossip and rumor.
Most of the historical works written by the Romans disappeared long ago. But while other books were lost, Tacitus' works survived--though, sometimes, just barely. Can you guess why this might later figures thought the works of Tacitus worth preserving? Please read the first few paragraphs of Tacitus' Histories, and see if you can find a line or two that explains the appeal of Tacitus and his approach to history.
