Why did you Julio-Claudian line fall to pieces after Augustus? Two of the worst emperors came from the line alone
>>316708
>Why did you Julio-Claudian line fall to pieces after Augustus?
It didn't "fall to pieces". The principate had only just been established and was still in its formative period.
>Two of the worst emperors came from the line alone
But were they actually that bad?
>>316708
Because they weren't Augustus.
>>316734
>were Nero and Caligula really that bad
>>316708
fuck you're an idiot, they obviously couldn't live up to the name of augustus and choked the fuck up. Man seriously go take a fucking history lesson before making such stupid posts, faggot.
>>316734
>But were they actually that bad?
I get that some people suggest that they might have just been badmouthed a lot by Roman historians and possibly weren't as bad - namely Caligula supposedly got a bad rap - but they definitely weren't up to snuff as leaders. Tiberius was a paranoid autocrat cunt, Caligula was childish at best and completely insane at worst, Claudius was alright if you follow the scholarship that he was a reasonably stable ruler but also definitely not impressive. Nero a shit.
>>316749
>being this abrasive with such a shit, underdeveloped argument
You don't come off as intelligent anon, just stop.
>>316745
Exactly.
If you rule an empire and happen to piss off exactly that group which is in charge of historiography it's no surprise that you end up with a bad image.
>>316750
Not the guy you're replying to, but you're wrong about Tiberius and Nero. Tiberius never wanted to be Princeps in the first place, begged the Senate to make their own decisions without him and bring back the Republic,and ended up giving up on life and enjoyed himself on Capri. He ruled through autocrats because it was the only guaranteed way of staying alive.
Nero started off great, then went crazy and a shit.
>>316779
That doesn't change that they were both shit rulers, what they wanted is irrelevant to how they behaved in practice.
Tiberius not wanting to be emperor made him a vindictive paranoid cunt who wasn't actually interested in governance, just saving his hide.
>>316708
I think a major part of the Julio-Claudian line going to shit has something to do with the fact that the principate was never meant to be permanent. Nearly every successor after Augustus in the Julio-Claudian bloodline had to desperately prove their entitlement to the purple. Usually with pompous and ego-expanding ceremonies.
it was mostly due to the republican veneer coming off of the office, the paint chipping
it wasn't entirely a charade to Augustus, but it was increasingly with each passing emperor. So they had to become more traditional dictators, with all the friction and chaffing that goes along with that. They did not have that Caesar luster that lasted even until Tiberius, had chips on their shoulders, and were exceedingly bad at governance. It's very little to do with the 'blood line' or anything like that. Most of these people were barely related.
>>316786
Actually Tiberius not wanting to be Caesae makes him a sane, relatable person. Only a psychopath would want that office, and it's too bad no "good" psychopath willing to better Rome and himself at the same time stepped up. Imagine the philosophical works we'd have had from Tiberius if Augustus and Livia hadn't forced him to become Caesar.
Honestly it's too bad Germanicus didn't survive. That way Tiberius could've retired after ten years, as he intended.
>>316786
>tfw Augustus bans you from seeing your waifu
>>316848
>Actually Tiberius not wanting to be Caesae makes him a sane, relatable person.
No it doesn't, and it doesn't make his reign any better.
Saying "if he hadn't been caesar he and everyone else would be better off." doesn't do anything in relation to the argument "Tiberius was a shit ruler"
>>316854
At least Tiberius left the treasury with 2,700,000,000 Sesterces, more than the rest of the retarded Julios could do
>>316854
Yes, it does.
Name anybody else who could've ruled so well after Augustus's death, from the get-go.
What exactly was so shit about him, in your opinion? He kept the empire safe and left a full treasury. If that doesn't at least make him neutral, then you must think 95% of the emperors were shit.
>>316854
>Tiberius was a shit ruler
Why? Just because of Sejanus at the end? While he actually ruled he was a kickass general and an excellent administrator.
>>316708
Tiberius was a bit shit, but not totally awful. He basically just wanted the senate to be more autonomous, whereas the senate were used to just doing whatever Augustus said
