Cluvius: Difference between revisions
From MediaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "Cluvius Rufus was a consul and a comtemporary and colleague of [[roman::Caligula], roman::Claudius and roman::Nero. He was also an author of histories of these emperor...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Cluvius Rufus was a consul and a comtemporary and colleague of [[roman::Caligula], [[roman::Claudius]] and [[roman::Nero]]. He was also an author of histories of these emperors who is quoted by [[author::roman::Suetonius]], [[roman::author::Tacitus]] and [[roman::author::Cassius Dio]] among others. He would have been able though his close association would have provided first hand evidence of the actual events that shaped their reigns although one cannot say whether they were biased. Subsequent authors however rely on his accounts heavily but the extend to which they do this is subject to conjecture as unfortunately his histories are now lost. | Cluvius Rufus was a consul and a comtemporary and colleague of [[roman::Caligula]], [[roman::Claudius]] and [[roman::Nero]]. He was also an author of histories of these emperors who is quoted by [[author::roman::Suetonius]], [[roman::author::Tacitus]] and [[roman::author::Cassius Dio]] among others. He would have been able though his close association would have provided first hand evidence of the actual events that shaped their reigns although one cannot say whether they were biased. Subsequent authors however rely on his accounts heavily but the extend to which they do this is subject to conjecture as unfortunately his histories are now lost. | ||
[[category:Ancient Rome]] | [[category:Ancient Rome]] | ||
Latest revision as of 07:43, 25 April 2013
Cluvius Rufus was a consul and a comtemporary and colleague of Caligula, Claudius and Nero. He was also an author of histories of these emperors who is quoted by roman::Suetonius, author::Tacitus and author::Cassius Dio among others. He would have been able though his close association would have provided first hand evidence of the actual events that shaped their reigns although one cannot say whether they were biased. Subsequent authors however rely on his accounts heavily but the extend to which they do this is subject to conjecture as unfortunately his histories are now lost.
