I have two mid-term exams today. After I'm finished with those, I have to complete my computer class training online, then complete finishing my notes for my Caesar and Christ mid-term tomorrow (which is going to be my back breaker). For my other exams, I can pretty much bullshit my way out of any question. But with Caesar and Christ, you really can't bullshit your way out of a paper bag.
Example:
Did Augustus restore the Roman Republic like he claimed? Why or why not? And what did Augustus learn from Julius Caesar that helped him succeed politically to the point where he held more power in Rome than any other politician? And why is Augustus' actions of passing on his political position of power so vital in the progression of Roman history?
You can't bullshit your way outta that! (I pulled that question out of my ass, btw... I feel quite proud of myself haha).
I'm really looking forward to spring break! I'll write more later, but until then I leave you with good ol' useless cuteness:
OK! Shower, then exam time! XOXO
8 comments:
"Did Augustus restore the Roman Republic like he claimed? Why or why not?"
No, it maintained an appearance of the Republic by keeping the Senate as a figurehead institution. He maintained sole power to overturn the Senate and tell the Senate what to vote for. He called himself the "First Citizen", but his real title was Dictator.
" And what did Augustus learn from Julius Caesar that helped him succeed politically to the point where he held more power in Rome than any other politician?"
Tell the people what they want to hear (you're not going to like this), 'Hope and change!' but don't openly take the role of Dictator for life, make sure the Senate continually 'offers' it to you, and you, reluctantly, accept it. Augustus was a dictator, a benevolant one, but a dictator none the less.
"And why is Augustus' actions of passing on his political position of power so vital in the progression of Roman history?"
'His' view was that to return to the days of the Republic was to return to the corruption of the Senate. An end to the 'reforms' he instituted. It really opened the door to even greater corruption.
How's that?
Quod in vitae spatium agimus
in aeternum resonat (What we do in life, echoes in eternity)
wow, you really went the extra mile with that one :) Pretty much, yeah. Except you have to take into account that the definition of dictator then and now are not the same. There was the official title of dictator in Roman government which granted someone (of the senate's choosing) unlimited power when Rome was in crisis, and that person could only hold power for 2 years before having to relinquish his title. (and it was recommended that he give up his power as soon as the crisis was over to assure good faith with the senate). So really, yes he was a dictator because they continuously granted him that position, but it does not have the same definition as it does today as a tyrant.
And yes he learned to tel the people what they wanted to hear, but he honestly did follow through and transformed Rome to "marble" as he would like to say. But he also learned from Caesar to not openly proclaim himself in a king-like position because he would get himself killed, and made the senators think they still had political power and sway.
Lastly, by establishing an heir for his title, Augustus created the monarchical tradition that the Roman Republic worked so hard to overcome and do away with. Death to the republic, long live the empire, per say.
lets keep that "hope and change" out of this discussion because it isn't relevant... thanks... lets not push buttons okay? I don't push yours.
Well, I said you wouldn't like it, but that is what Julius Caesar promised them....along with Augustus. I know 'dictator' had a different connotation then as from now. But that was the term. Senators owed their position to Augustus, so..... He really did turn out to be a 'good' dictator, but woe unto anyone who opposed him!
Brutus thought the Romans would praise him as a hero of the Republic when he killed Caesar...far from it.
As far as Christ and Caesar, I always saw it as logical why Christ would come then...He's the antithesis of Imperial Rome!
.... alright. whatever.
love you.
AH! Love you too!
pretty sure there were a few christ figures during the first century CE. so Jesus' 'timing' was nothing unique. lots of folks weren't cool with the Romans occupying them in their backyard, particularly Jews who felt they were only subject to YHWH-not Caesar.
"Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, give to God what is God's."
Jesus wasn't anti-Rome so much, he was anti being subject to other than YHWH, which by default included Rome. He'd be Anti Egypt if Egypt ruled Judea, etc..
Who said anything about Jesus being anti-Roman?
oh my, must we really??
Post a Comment