Julio Claudian Essay - Senate PDF

Preview

Summary

Julio Claudian Senate essay drafted by teacher and received an A range mark...

Description

Julio-Claudian Essay SENATE Thesis: • Source __ presents the view that • Judgement: Senate princeps relationship dramatically deteriorated, with both the senate’s role and status significantly decreasing. • Areas of impact: Decrease in senates role meant that more power was distributed elsewhere by the respective emperors, their wives, freedmen and PG • Reasons for their decreasing role: Circumstances, priorities and personalities of an individual princeps, particularly their failure to emulate the model of ‘partnership’ established by Augustus, albeit largely a facade to maintain senatorial dignity and the senates inability to adapt with the changes emperors brought • Impact: Change in the government model within the principate BP1: Early Senate Tiberius Argument 1: The initial reasons for Tiberius’ deteriorating relationship with the senate were twofold; Tiberius’ failure to adopt the Augustan absolute authority, concealed with a republican facade, and the senates inability to work with the emperor. • Why: Upon accession "equivocal and obscure" language of Tiberius lost the respect of the Senate who misunderstood and didn’t trust Tiberius (Tacitus) • Failed to emulate Augustus’ model: (Suetonius) where Tiberius “avoided” titles adopted by Augustus such as “imperator” and “pater patriae” • Why: Failed attempt to promote a “freedom of discussion” that encouraged a divided and shared administration of the empire, by giving increased responsibilities to senators, such as the election of magistrates (Tacitus) cause: lack of independent ideas • Impact: The Senate responded to Tiberius' effort with "most abject appeals" (Tacitus) • Levick summarises that Tiberius’ attempts to share power with senate was impossible as the senate were used to the “indivisible” power under Augustus. This lead to a deteriorating relationship. BP2: Late Senate Tiberius Argument 2: Disappointed by the senate’s inability to work with him, Tiberius dismissed his initial respect towards, and attempts to work with the senate, particularly through his move to Capri • Why: Tacitus Rising role of Sejanus and the praetorian guard as a substitute to the senate - The introduction of the “maiestas trials” which were often instigated by Sejanus or other senators, directly accusing “52” people of treason, many of which were senators. • Impact: Shotter inspired greater sycophancy amongst senators due to a “spirit of fear, suspicion and hostility” for which Tiberius deserves a lot of criticism • Why: Tacitus: Tiberius’ move to Capri in AD 26 meant there was no chance of repairing relationship with senate and instead it deteriorated further. • Overall, it is apparent that although Tiberius’ leadership was largely at fault for this unstable relationship, the senators also contributed by their inability to recognise Tiberius’ good intentions. The senate therefore loss power and influence under Tiberius.

BP3:Early Senate Gaius

Argument 1: Contrarily, Gaius immediately declared his intention to rule differently to Tiberius by emulating Augustus, resulting in an initially strong relationship with the senate. • Why: Suetonius Gaius reminded senate of Augustus - Gaius given “full and absolute power” by an unanimous Senate although he was not chosen initially by the senate • Impact: Believed younger ruler who was the great grandson of Augustus would be a more capable rule and easier to control due to his youth • Why: Similarly Suetonius shows respect for senate reflected in ending the maiestas trials - popular gesture + alleged destruction of documents linked to earlier allegations/ trials BP4: Late Senate Gaius Argument 2: However, fuelled by his monarchical pretensions, Gaius decreased the senates roles from Tiberius’ and Augustus’ reign, meaning his relationship with the senate broke down completely. • Why: Dio Reintroduction of the maiestas trials; reflects his more erratic and repressive nature when compared with Tiberius • Why: Suetonius Humiliated the senate, by reducing senatorial powers & responsibilities + return of the election of magistrates to the people = change in model of governance • Why: Lowered senate’s status + influence to suit his goal, possible of an eastern style monarchy: Suetonius wrote that Gaius held the consulship in every year but 38 AD • Impact: Major change to the principate as a model of gov, as Augustus and Tiberius had specifically avoided monopolisation of the consulship to maintain the status of senators and mirage of equality Completely undermined role and status of senate resulting in a complete breakdown in relationship and therefore some senators were involved in Gaius’ assassination. BP5: Senate Claudius Argument: Similarly, Claudius also limited the roles and responsibilities of senators through reforms in order to enact his priority of centralising power in the imperial domus. • Why: Suetonius poor relationship with senate from the outset (meant Claudius shifted power to imperial domus) because of PG accession + Scribonianus coup; he did not have the senates support + did not trust them • Why: Suetonius - Claudius set up special departments, staffed by his own personal freedmen who acquired significant oversight responsibility = reduced responsibilities of the senate - lost importance as partner in gov Example: Tacitus senators replaced by Pallas and Narcissus as head of financial department and as head of correspondence. • Impact: Thus senators new roles included answering to these freedmen, undermining their status and role, reflecting a significant shift in the principate as a model of gov. This set the precedence for Claudius to similarly rely on his wives. BP6: Senate Claudius Argument: However, whilst the senate as a class faced a reduction of responsibilities, some individual senators received a huge increase in roles under this centralisation of power • Why: Tacitus: Vitellius, a prominent senator, was left in charge of government when Claudius left Rome to conquer Britain • Impact: individual senators could reach more power than most senators if they managed to include themselves in the imperial household, which represented a change in the principate as a model of gov • Why: Barrett: saw some improvement in relationship with senate as a result of AY

Yet, ultimately, Tacitus: Proud senatorial aristocracy became embittered as they watched emperor entrust confidential tasks to the group of freedmen and wives belonging to his household - undermined senates status and role BP7: Early Senate Nero Argument: Initially sustained a good relationship with Senate, returning their typical role as set out by Augustus • Tacitus: praetorian guard immediately hailed Nero as “imperator” + brought him to the senate -> unwillingly granted various honours and powers expected of the emperor • Tacitus: First speech (written by Seneca), distinguishes himself from Claudius; by modelling his principate purely on Augustus + removal of maiestas trials in the palace • Tacitus Seneca and Burrus played significant roles in returning this relationship between Nero and senate

BP8: Late Senate Nero • Nero relationship with senate deteriorated concluding the reduction of their status and role Tacitus: Loss of Seneca and Burrus who played a significant role in upholding cordial • relations between Nero and Senate - Balanced out AY’s influence on Nero - encouraged a good relationship with senate • Sources align: Increasing indulgence in personal interests draining the treasury confiscated property of Senators to finance his expenditure • Tacitus: Pisonian conspiracy reflected the eventual breakdown between Nero and senators • Senators were involved in rebellion that forced Nero’s overthrow + suicide • Concluded the deteriorating role, status and relationship of the senate with the princeps....