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? A) A photograph showing the ruins of the emperor's enormous palace B) A secondary source that describes the emperor as somewhat incompetent C) A Roman primary source describing the emperor as arrogant and unkind D) A letter from the book's writer discussing how much he hates the emperor
Answers
Answer:
THE ANSWER IS D HAVE A GOOD DAY
Explanation:
APEX
Answer:
A secondary source that describes the emperor as somewhat incompetent
Explanation:
The Roman emperor was the ruler and monarchial head of state of the Roman Empire during the imperial period (starting with the granting of the title augustus to Octavian in 27 BC). The emperors used a variety of different titles throughout history. Often when a given Roman is described as becoming "emperor" in English it reflects his taking of the title augustus (and later basileus). Another title often used was caesar, used for heirs-apparent, and imperator, originally a military honorific. Early emperors also used the title princeps civitatis ("first citizen"). Emperors frequently amassed republican titles, notably princeps senatus, consul, and pontifex maximus.
The legitimacy of an emperor's rule depended on his control of the army and recognition by the Senate; an emperor would normally be proclaimed by his troops, or invested with imperial titles by the Senate, or both. The first emperors reigned alone; later emperors would sometimes rule with co-emperors and divide administration of the empire between them. The Romans considered the office of emperor to be distinct from that of a king. The first emperor, Augustus, resolutely refused recognition as a monarch.
Modern historians conventionally regard Augustus as the first emperor, whereas Julius Caesar is considered the last dictator of the Roman Republic, a view having its origins in the Roman writers Plutarch, Tacitus and Cassius Dio. Conversely, the majority of Roman writers, including Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Appian, as well as most of the ordinary people of the Empire, thought of Julius Caesar as the first emperor. At the end of the Republic no new, and certainly no single, title indicated the individual who held supreme power. Insofar as emperor could be seen as the English translation of the Latin imperator, then Julius Caesar had been an emperor, like several Roman generals before him. Instead, by the end of the civil wars in which Julius Caesar had led his armies, it became clear that there was certainly no consensus to return to the old-style monarchy, but that the period when several officials, bestowed with equal power by the Roman Senate, would fight one another had come to an end. Julius Caesar, and then Augustus after him, accumulated offices and titles of the highest importance in the Republic, making the power attached to those offices permanent, and preventing anyone with similar aspirations from accumulating or maintaining power for themselves. Julius Caesar held the Republican offices of consul four times and dictator five times, was appointed dictator in perpetuity (dictator perpetuo) in 45 BC and had been pontifex maximus for a long period. He gained these positions by senatorial consent, and just prior to his assassination was the most powerful man in the Roman world.
https://brainly.in/question/20129725
#SPJ3