The Life of Augustus

  • What did Augustus accomplish as emperor? In military operations he brought back some of the old school fighting techniques. And he also came up with entirely new techniques. He greatly improved "the city" (not positive what city that refers to) and built a great number of public buildings and temples. Augustus also fixed the problem with robbers capturing travelers by "establishing posts of soldiers in suitable stations." Augustus also tightened up the legal system so some of the accused were not just rotting there because their enemies didn't like them. He also restored some of the disputed public land to the rightful owners.
  • How did Augustus attempt to avoid appearing as a dictator? Can you cite an example from Suetonius's Life? Augustus attempted to avoid appearing as a dictator by seeming to be reluctant to take command or high office. For instance, when they first offered him "the title of Father of His Country" he declined the honor. Although the next time they offered it to him, he "reluctantly" accepted. I think he also avoided appearing as a dictator by attempting to include others. For instance when his friend was on trial he "consulted the senate for their opinion what was his duty under the circumstances."
  • Would an author such as Suetonius be limited in his freedom to write a biography of a Roman emperor? What factors might he have to consider in assessing Augustus's Accomplishments? Yes, I think he would defiantly be limited in his freedom to write a biography. Most writers don't like to die for their biographies. He probably had to worry about how the people would react, not to mention actual political leaders. If the truth were told the leaders might get upset because it could undermine their authority or leadership.
  • What skills did Augustus need to manipulate the extremely complex Roman Political system? How did he manage? Augustus needed a very complex set of skills. He needed to have foresight. Like when he mentioned restoring the republic he said, "it would be both hazardous to himself... and might be dangerous to the public." He also defiantly had leadership skills. It would have taken a strong leader to organize some of the projects like on the city where he "found it of brick, but left it of marble." I think he managed all this by giving at least the impression that other people had some control.
  • Was Augustus's regime appreciated? How did Rome show its gratitude toward the emperor? I think his regime was appreciated. But the most of the gratitude was probably shown after he died. When he died they gave him a very elaborate ceremony with "children of the highest rank and of both sexes singing the funeral dirge." I don't think that was normal for the time. The people showed their lasting gratitude by naming a month of the year after him.
    1. Gregory's story illustrates competing ideas about the nature of kingship among the Franks. Define these ideas. Which view seems to triumphs? The Franks were divided between whether a king was a mortal being vs. a divine being. The "mortal kings" were kings because of their abilities. They had great fighting skills, planning skills, and/or leadership skills. The divine kings were there because they were appointed by god. Clovis was king because of his abilities because he "made many wars and gained many victories" all before he was converted. Although at the end of his reign, it looked like society was leaning more and more toward the divine being.
    2. Christians such as Queen Clotilda went to great lengths to convert the pagans around them. What arguments did they use to convince non-believer? How might nonbelievers have responded? The queen used the argument "the gods you worship are nothing, and they will be unable to help themselves or anyone else." But also a lot of times they "convinced" nonbelievers by using force. The king at least responded by doing absolutely nothing. It was only when he received perceivable help in battle that he even thought about converting. "...how he had had merit to win the victory by calling on the name of Christ." I think if they were pushed hard enough, they converted in appearance, but probably not in heart.
    3. How would Gregory's position as a Christian and a bishop of the Church affect his presentation of the history of the Franks? Being a bishop would tilt his writing angle toward the church. Most likely he would give facts a slant so the church would come out looking clean whether in actual fact it was clean or not. I highly doubt he would write any history that would hurt the church or his position in anyway.
    4. Converting the Franks to Christianity was more than a matter of persuasion. How was this accomplished? In the case of the Franks, it was accomplished by royal example. The king publicly became a Christian then "and of his army more than 3,000 were baptized." The army won the battle because the king asked for divine help, so they followed whoever would make them militarily sound.
    5. Many of Clovis's subjects converted to Christianity. What conclusions could you draw about the process of conversion from Gregory's account? The main conclusion is that the subjects (and the king) seemed to convert for person gain. Clovis converted for military gain. If Clovis could call god anytime to help him with a battle, he would be invincible. The Soldiers I converted because it was the popular thing to do. If they followed the king's example, they wouldn't seem different.
    You have been warned
    All these papers and documents were originally written and/or compiled by myself, by friends, or by people who donated their computer to me without wiping the harddrive first. I'm making them available in the hopes that someone else might be able to make use of them. I make no claims as to the accuracy of content, grammar, or spelling. Everything you use is at your own risk ...