Leaderboard

Hey there guys, i am doing a dissertation style qualification, roughly 8,000 words and i would like to see if you could help me with 2 problems i am currently facing. 1. Is this topic a little too broad, i intend on focusing on Carthage and the incurring barabrian tribes such as the Germans and later such tribes from the steppe as well as parthia a section of Attila and other imporant invaders of the late roman and the Ottoman and Sassanian empires. The essay is supposed to be understandable for those with little prior knowledge. I feel it may be, if there are any suggestions for a more refined title i am open to suggestions. 2. I need some good people to help me stay on track who know there way around the period/s and will likely help me. FYI supervisors are not required to work late nights or even more than an hour, it is purely up to them when they help. They are under no obligations and have no need to sign anything. I am based in the UK but international contacts are absolutely fine. Thanks

The issue is not easily resolved. Nero had become deeply unpopular with the upper classes for his blatant un-roman behiour, outrageous money making schemes, and grandiose self absorption. As at any time in the latter half of Roman history, any perceived weakness or lack of opularity invites ambitious men to conspire or mount coups, especially since the communication disctances to provincial areas and the availability of standing armies loyal to personality and paypacket rather than patriotism, was all the more dangerous. Nero had been for a long time trying to push the Senate down. It's believed by some that whilst the Great Fire of Rome in 64 was an accident, it was further enflamed by conspiracy in order to destroy the homes of the landed wealthy in Rome, where all the political dealing was done behind closed doors. Very much "An act of God" then . For these reasons it's not beyond speculation that a great many senators were already conspiring to get rid of the Caesars and restore full republican rule - they had almost done so earler after the death of Caligula, but the Praetorians intervened and installed Claudius to safeguard their jobs. People routinely assume that the Republic had finished and Empire begun with Augustus - that's merely a historical convenience and not a condition of political reality. There was a Roman empire during the late Republic, and the Empire still called itself a Republic with most of the institutions still intact to some degree. Caesars were not absolute rulers either - their powers were granted by the Senate, though obviously in some cases the reasons a particular man came to power meant that giving them the power they wanted was a better bet, and then again, in the case of rulers like Nero, some simply ruled as if they were absolutely in charge regardless of the actual situation. So could the Empiure have split in 69? yes, it could have, but note that none of the usurpers stayed in the provinces and set up a breakaway state. They all headed for Rome and fought it out, or perhaps took advantage of a situation. So in reality, sooner or later, someone was going to take control of Rome and its provinces. It really was a case of winner takes all.

The concept of ancestor worship was partly to maintain family tradition, as well as maintaining a suiperstitious approval and protection of the departed. However, Romans were often, by their nature, expedient and exploitative. The standards of old declined as the amount of cash floating around in society increased. Success and prosperity somewhat eroded these standards in other words. Also we know from the sources that whilst some Romans were very strong on public morality and behaviour, others were not, and indeed, that span of behaviour had always existed in Roman society - it was that rebellious and aggressive aspect of the Romans that had been with them from the start and was esconsed in their myths and legends of their origins. Also there were increasingly families with little ancestory to be proud of. As time went by the older families tended to die out, and it was said that eventually the Senate was manned by men descended from slaves. Augustus, for instance, was chided by Antony for having humble ancestors.

I agree that propaganda, i.e. wanting to boast, subtly or not, about one's famous and ancient lineage, was probably a factor for many Romans in their ancestor veneration. But I also want to hope and consider that for many others, and even for those seeing it in propaganda terms, they still honestly did honor their ancestors. Ancestor veneration, which thrives today in many cultural and religious aspects of society around the world, is a noble and worthy part of life, in my opinion. We all came from somewhere, from some one. And some day we too will be ancestors in some or other way. It's humbling to consider that we may be remembered by future generations. The most pitiable part, I think, of the Romans venerating their ancestors, is that too often they did not learn anything moral or ethical (or if they did they took it all to the wrong extremes of behavioral standards).