History of civ paper: two passage analysis about kings being strong or kings being weak - Essay Example

It is neither the case for Otto and Vitellius nor King Stephen. For these reasons kings and Emperors are weak. 1 The King is Thou Fear as Thou Emperor Fears You The year of four Caesars hardly means that these Emperors were in control of their empires. "Otho and Vitellius were the worst and the weakest of the kings, but their immorality actually increased their strength. In these instances kings are weak, but their armies were well fed and coffers full of sustenance.The lack of discipline in Vitellius' troops actually improved his favor with the legions and made them more loyal.

The troop understood his needs and enjoyed their own desecration of the people. Vitellius turning a blind eye cultivated a better relationship and overall gave him more stability and increased potency as an emperor". His blind eye was met as a general in his desire for a gluttonous eye that need the wealth of the land to pay for his guise. The people paid dearly as they suffered. His soldiers followed in fear of their life but in joy of being part of the legion. "In a complete lack of morality Otho was welcomed by his people of the countryside and returned their kindness by burning and plundering as if his own people were the enemy.

It meant little to him that he was betraying his own subjects. The actions selfishly benefitted himself and the needs of the army. Vitellius’ soldiers were especially brutal to their own people. Sexual assault and ravaging were rampant among his troops. Vitellius’ legions were not always disciplined enough to maintain order. Kings from time to time definitely have these occurrences and displays of weakness. Otho and Vitellius were the worst and the weakest of the kings, but their immorality actually increased their strength.

In these instances kings are weak, but their armies were well fed and coffers full of sustenance".1 "It was much more economical for the emperors to kill farmers and take their fields than pay the farmers for the tons of sustenance".2 An army marches on its stomach and there was no shortage of legions to be fed. This also puts in perspective for the soldiers to see how far emperors were willing to go to achieve total victory. It would be impossible to question orders after innocent lives and crops were taken for the good of the empire.

The people were hungry for the wealth of the army. Is this not a sign of weakness as the populace is not an everlasting commodity though the acquisition of land is ever growing. If strength is based on land, it is false for those on the land must be fed to work the fields. It was the year of four Caesars, never to be seen in the whole of the Roman empire. From June of AD68 to December AD69, defeat was met by two suicides first by Otho who "disliked the policy of fighting. Am I, he said, 'to expose all your splendid courage and valor to further risks?

That would, I think, be too great a price to pay for my life."3 (85) Vitellius had begun the "civil war: he initiated our contest for the throne."4 (85) At the lost of the war, three months after taking power, Otho terminated his life. 2Gary Richardson " Strength through Cruelty, Economy, and Military” 3 "1135-1154 The Present Time" 85 4 ibid. "However, Italy found peace a more ghastly burden than the war. Vitellius' soldiers scattered through all the boroughs and colonial towns, indulging in plunder, violence and rape".

5 "The soldiers marked down the richest fields and