• Got a question on how to use our new website? Check out our user guide here!

julio claudians (1 Viewer)

Danm999

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
27
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
The question didn't really ask what happened in the Year of the Four Emperors at all, and if you know your material, you could answer it without even studying the period.

It was "WHY were there four Emperors". You only needed to talk about Nero's reign, the political instability it caused and some of the fundamental problems with the principae (ie, the power of military bodies, declining influence of the Senate etc).

You don't need to know the actions of Galba, Otho, Vitellus and Vespasian, because Civil War was made not by them, but those before them.

The question was very responsible, and an excellent way for students who could think critically and across the entire period to step up their responses.
 

atreus

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
261
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Danm999 said:
The question didn't really ask what happened in the Year of the Four Emperors at all, and if you know your material, you could answer it without even studying the period.

It was "WHY were there four Emperors". You only needed to talk about Nero's reign, the political instability it caused and some of the fundamental problems with the principae (ie, the power of military bodies, declining influence of the Senate etc).

You don't need to know the actions of Galba, Otho, Vitellus and Vespasian, because Civil War was made not by them, but those before them.[
/quote]

i think the question demanded that you not only provide reasons for nero's demise, but also for the demise of each of galba, otho and vitellius. vespasian's sucess would also have to be discussed to completely answer the question.
 

Danm999

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
27
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
atreus said:
Danm999 said:
The question didn't really ask what happened in the Year of the Four Emperors at all, and if you know your material, you could answer it without even studying the period.

It was "WHY were there four Emperors". You only needed to talk about Nero's reign, the political instability it caused and some of the fundamental problems with the principae (ie, the power of military bodies, declining influence of the Senate etc).

You don't need to know the actions of Galba, Otho, Vitellus and Vespasian, because Civil War was made not by them, but those before them.[
/quote]

i think the question demanded that you not only provide reasons for nero's demise, but also for the demise of each of galba, otho and vitellius. vespasian's sucess would also have to be discussed to completely answer the question.
There is only so much, about a paragraph or two say, you can intelligently mention about that. And I'd probably avoid it. The question seems to be looking more for a cause of the entire period, rather than a blow by blow. The fact that Vespasian was a successful commander is not the reason there was 4 Emperors, thats simply why the Flavian dynasty was established.

There was 4 Emperors because there was a Civil War with no clear line of sucession. The seeds of the civil war had been sown long before them (sorry for the corny metaphor). Had there been a regular sucession, there would not have been 4 Emperors.

Once Nero died it was a free for all and every legionary commander gave it a shot. But the real reasons for the Year of the 4 Emperors, and WHY there were 4 Emperors, is because of a break in the sucession line by Nero and principate problems.

I mean, one can write, Galba fell because Otho beat his army, who got beaten by Vitellius, who troops loyal to Vespasian dealth with, but this answer has no real flesh.
 

atreus

Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2006
Messages
261
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
i think that u could write a felshy essay on the year of the four emperors, especially if referring to wiedemann's view. he compares each of the three emperor's failures to that of Nero, and then ultimately Vespasian's successes were as a result of his avoiding the problems that plagued nero. so really, u could mention all of vespasian's success as a comparison, and also to demonstrate that vespasian's success meant that there were only four emperors and not a fifth emperor. well thats the way i took it. i tried to avoid writing a 'consequences of the death of nero' essay.
 

Danm999

New Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2006
Messages
27
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
atreus said:
i think that u could write a felshy essay on the year of the four emperors, especially if referring to wiedemann's view. he compares each of the three emperor's failures to that of Nero, and then ultimately Vespasian's successes were as a result of his avoiding the problems that plagued nero. so really, u could mention all of vespasian's success as a comparison, and also to demonstrate that vespasian's success meant that there were only four emperors and not a fifth emperor. well thats the way i took it. i tried to avoid writing a 'consequences of the death of nero' essay.
I suppose it's really how you interpret the question, and your views on whether or not the actions of the Julio-Claudians caused an environment where the Civil War of the 4 Emperors was inevitable, or whether it was largely the actions of the men in that year who meant there would be Civil War.
 

laura_beth

Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Messages
53
Location
in the rain
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Danm999 said:
The question didn't really ask what happened in the Year of the Four Emperors at all, and if you know your material, you could answer it without even studying the period.

It was "WHY were there four Emperors". You only needed to talk about Nero's reign, the political instability it caused and some of the fundamental problems with the principae (ie, the power of military bodies, declining influence of the Senate etc).

You don't need to know the actions of Galba, Otho, Vitellus and Vespasian, because Civil War was made not by them, but those before them.

The question was very responsible, and an excellent way for students who could think critically and across the entire period to step up their responses.
yeah - that's exactly how i took the question. it was asking why there were four emperors in the one year - it didn't say to explain, analyse or even outline the reign of those four emperors. it just asked why. so i did the same thing - wrote about the conditions set up by the julio-claudians - the power being taken away from the senate and being put into the hands of individuals and the praetorian guard. i went through each julio claudian and looked at the shift in power, and then said that this was why people were able to fight over Princeps - because the senate wasn't really in control anymore etc etc blah blah blah
i'm glad you did it like that too though... because i wasn't so sure afterwards. i did breifly outline each princeps in the year of the 4 emperors but only at the start. so... YES.
i liked the question. allowed lots of scope to reflect back on the entire period.
 

~Han~

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
56
Gender
Female
HSC
1998
pink668 said:
i chose question a, on tiberius- in terms of reforms and policies- i talked about the senate, building, political, administration, frontier, provincial, is that enough? post test worrying... what else should i have included?
how many quotes did you guys include?
Haha well im glad my notes could have been of use to you! i also did tiberius and talked about exactly what u said loL!
 

..DaZzAZiPpA..

New Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2007
Messages
2
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
lol...u did the four emperors and didnt write about them . . . . . .hahahahaha i thought when they said, how did the julio claudians deal with succesion and what not, they emant the JULIO CLAUDIANS not galba the servii or vitellius the flavian or such. but i did get 96 so i think i went ok . . . . .
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top