69 CE was a tumultuous period in the Roman Empire with significant military and political implications for years to come. The remaining sources, notably Tacitus’ The History, Suetonius’ The Twelve Caesars, and Plutarch’s The Lives of Noble Greeks and Romans, of which will not be included in this study, all contained significant differences from the other accounts in regards to the two more contentious and disagreed upon emperors, Galba and Otho. The authors’, despite drawing material from the ‘common source’, continue to undergo pressure concerning the validity of the information. Behind the stark contrasts and disagreements, Suetonius’ and Tacitus’ agendas appear, similar in overall style as ‘moralizing’ accounts, yet remarkably different in the innate implications. Although the conclusions regarding Galba and Otho remained contested between Suetonius and Tacitus, the precedents and implications of not only the emperors, but of the writers …show more content…
A straight forward categorization system had developed, in which the living emperor was a hero while the senate was vilified, and vice versa. This practice, as could be imagined, was not conducive to writing about persons of contradictory natures, yet it was well-suited for Plutarch’s moralizing style in his Lives. The explicit use of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as categories can be seen in how Suetonius and Tacitus depict Galba and Otho. For Suetonius, this was a style well-suited, for lack of a better word, for moralizing, whereas Tacitus used these categories as a means of giving voice to senatorial concerns. Where Suetonius vilified emperors based on the categorization system in perspective with his moralizing and instructional reasons for writing, Tacitus avoided Livy’s form of escapism by placing the emperors on a pedestal , rather, he vilified them to act as the voice for the senate and