September 2016 – Seventh Coalition: History

Nick Richwagen, October 2016

Ancient Greek Political Thought and the model of Roman Government Influenced America’s Foundations

Note (2020): this article was based off a paper written ten years ago, and has been revised to fit the format of the website. Since its publication here, it has proven to be the most popular page on our site with multiple links to primary and secondary education resources. Language elements have been updated from time to time. For all students, I would encourage you to engage with the resources cited and provided at the bottom of the text.

Introduction

The founding fathers of the United States drew upon two main streams in the designing of American government: (1) Enlightenment philosophy and (2) the Ancient (Classical) world of Greece and Rome. Enlightenment era (18th century) philosophy was important, particularly the ideas of Montesquieu, Rousseau, and John Locke. The founders also looked towards the heritage of the Ancient world. This was a natural development, because Greco-Roman history and literature was considered an essential part of education in the American colonies. Philosophers from classical Greece proposed the separation of powers in government, an idea that the American founders adopted for their new nation. In addition, The Roman Republic (509-27 BC) served as a direct model of government for the writers of the constitution. In short, Greek and Roman political thought was critical in shaping the government of the United States.

Content Sections:

I. Plato’s Mixed Government

II. Aristotle: Separation of Powers

III: Polybius and the Roman Republic

IV: Classical Education and Influence in Revolutionary America

V: American Mixed Republican Government

Continue reading “Classical Influence in American Government” →

By Steven Knorr

tibero — The second Roman Emperor, Tiberius (r. 14-37 AD) was much loathed by the Senate. As a later member of the senatorial aristocracy, Tacitus (56-120) did not consider Tiberius favorably.

The Bias of Tacitus

The Annals by Tacitus is a written account of Roman history covering the period from the death of Augustus in 14 A.D to the reign of Nero (r. 54-68). Tacitus states that his purpose is to write without bitterness or partiality, but much of his account of the Emperor Tiberius (r. 14-37) seems biased given what we know about his reign. For the large majority of the Roman public, the rule of Tiberius was relatively peaceful. A person would not be in danger of violence unless they were a member of the imperial family or a member of the aristocracy. Tacitus demonstrates his inability to be impartial by stating that historians during the reigns of Augustus through Nero were unable to write the truth out of fear. He writes:

“Fine intellects were not wanting to describe the times of Augustus, till growing sycophancy scared them away. The histories of Tiberius, Caius, Claudius, and Nero, while they were in power, were falsified through terror, and after their death were written under the irritation of a recent hatred.” The Annals, I

Rome during the imperial age had lost its “fine Roman character” that it had during the republican period and the harsh criticisms of Tacitus come from holding up the empire to the standard of the republic. The personal bias of Tacitus towards Roman Republican virtue seeps into his writing. He is often very critical of the imperial system and the Emperors themselves in the context of Republican virtue.

The Murder of Agrippa Postumus (14 AD)

p1080702_louvre_agrippa_postumus_mnd1961_rwk — **Agrippa Postumus** was the son of Marcus Agrippa and the daughter of Augustus, Julia. Unlike his father, a favored general and close friend of the first emperor, Postumus was known for his brutish and unpalatable character. His murder in AD 14 was likely orchestrated to prevent him from challenging the succession of Tiberius.

According to Tacitus, the corruption of Rome began with Augustus, who with money and cheap food was able to concentrate on the functions of the senate . With all rivals dead, Augustus ruled unopposed and (according to Tacitus) the remaining nobility were more than willing to accept slavery for the sake of wealth and titles. Tiberius wasn’t originally interested in donning the purple but out of sheer luck (or Livia’s intervention) he became emperor after the death of Augustus. The opening act of his reign was a crime committed in the securing the throne. Agrippa Postumus, another one of Augustus’ adopted children, was murdered by his guards. Tacitus called this a crime, ignoring Tiberius’ claims that he was acting out on Augustus’s orders. Since Tiberius mentioned the death of Postumus to the senate one has to wonder how Tacitus would have known what was said on the matter outside of court records. The historian Walter Allen Jr. claims that historians accept the claim of assassination is because of the opportune time in which it came. Allen states:

“while stories about the death of Agrippa Postumus very likely arose out of similar gossip, Tacitus feels at liberty to treat them as fact because he has a reputable source upon which he depends; since the gossip had somehow crept into history, Tacitus had no qualms about repeating it.”

The liberal usage of gossip as fact is just one of many instances of Tacitus trying to blacken Tiberius’s character.

Continue reading “Emperor Tiberius According to Tacitus” →