A historian is interested to learn whether a new biography about a Roman Emperor is likely to be biased. which piece of information would be helpful to her?

Answer 1

A letter from the books writer discussing how much he hates the emperor. (APEX)

Answer 2

It depends which emperor. For the first 200 years they did not call themselves emperors, avoiding any suggestion of kingship, which is what brought out the knives on Julius Caesar. They called themselves Princeps = first citizen, and that period is called the Principate, not the empire (at the time, Emperor was Imperator, which was what the soldiers called out to a successful general on a battlefield, not a title of a ruler.

Another thing is not to talk of them as absolute autocrats - they tended to stay in the background pulling the strings, not sitting on a throne, but sitting in the Senate which was the arm of government. Their power came from having the powersof a tribune of the plebs (veto), the powers of a pro-consul (outside Rome) and control of the border provinces (where the army was stationed) leaving the rest to senatorial control.

There were variations of this with some Princeps acting irrationally, but the stability of the empire depended on this control Behind the Scenes. Representation of this is a good test of understanding and accuracy rather than peddling the blatant authoritarian power misrepresentation line. Even Caligula started out responsibly until epilepsy sent him nutty.

Answer 3

A letter from the book's writer discussing how much he hates the Emporer.