First of all, remind yourself of who Suetonius was and of the per spective from which he was writing (consult the first paragraph to the instructions for the Caligula MEMO/RESPONSE, or read the 'foreword', pp. 7-11 to your Suetonius text).
In many ways, following the great imperial figures from Augustus to Nero, Titus Flavius Vespasianus was a rather unlikely candidate to be an emperor of Rome. He was of rather humble origin, and certainly could boast of no great wealthy ancestors or socially prestigious senatorial leaders in his background. Nor was he related to the great figures of the imperial household. Nor did he have a long and illustrious aristocratic family background. Quite the reverse. And he became emperor in most adverse circumstances, following a bloody civil war that rent the Roman state with the downfall of Nero. Vespasian was only one of the many possible contenders for the throne (for the others, look at Suetonius' biographies of Galba, Otho and Vitellius: chapters 7-9 in your textbook: they are not long chapters and for good reason!). Yet in the end, Vespasian succeeded where they failed and, as emperor, his image as a good ruler flourished while those of his predecessors like Caligula and Nero were besmirched as those of madmen and eccentrics.
Questions: Why Vespasian? If he was so impoverished in all of the criteria required to hold absolute power in the Roman world, why did he succeed where others had failed? And if his power was not based on wealth, social status and prestige, then on what was it based? And why did he succeed so well as emperor? What did Vespasian do that enabled the memory of his regime and his deeds to be held in such high regard? In short, why was he a model of a 'good' emperor?
Discussion and Questions Copyright 2000/2001, Prof. Brent D. Shaw. Image Copyright 2001, by Eric Kondratieff