Sallust and Tacitus

Many will agree when I say that Sallust and Tacitus were two of the few notable Roman historians that ever existed. Their view of how they saw Rome emerged into a classic in their own lifetime and exercised a intellectual model on the approach and philosophy level of historical writing facing the 18th century.

When I interpreted the passage form Annals of Imperial rome, In a nutshell, I could pick up that Tacitus saw power in the hands of one person as ultimately leading to corruption and being unhealthy.

Tacitus credit that the Roman emperors of the 1st century portrayed a role of evil and unreasonable men who repressed republican independence, whom were proficient and irresponsible with absolute power, yet pretending to request capitol complimentary foundation, and allow themselves in respectable corruption. Beneath such monarchys, it seems to Tacitus, the Roman Senate was changed completely into assembly of doormats who in all just wanted to float right into slavery. One thing we can't forget is that Tacitus lived through out a portion of the worst and a little bit of the highest years of the early Roman times.

When studying Sallust short extract, (which was very hard to grasp at first) I got the feeling that he believed that, the moral decline of the nobility which provided most of the Senators.Sallust describes them as greedy,corrupt,and degenerate. As we know The Senate regulated almost if not all the political power in Rome. Even the Roman upper class that shaped the greater part of the Senate had no passion in restoring a organization that had enhanced powers to be and eventually allow them to manage all the political power. regardless the count of how much the typical Roman community were suffering and going through hardship, the fact of the matter is no one cared enough to strive for change.

Its also important to note that Sallust was born in the era of civil war. As he was becoming mature, foreign war and political friction were very...