Home > About the Imperial Redemption Exhibition

About the Imperial Redemption Exhibition

This exhibit examines the idea of Tiberius as a “failed emperor” who was unable to live up to the standards set by his predecessor Augustus. We begin by examining a coin from the reign of Tiberius, with an analysis of his failures and shortfalls as both a leader and as a man. We then look back at the origins of the Julio-Claudian dynasty with an analysis of an Augustan age coin. In this section we will outline how Augustus set the framework for imperial power in ancient Rome, with particular focus on the balance between family life and political success. Augustus presented himself as an ideal leader, who was militarily successful, energetically pious and a peace maker. All of these attributes can be seen from his coinage. Having established this standard of apparent imperial perfection, we move on to Caligula’s coinage. As a man who had suffered directly from the cruelty and perversion of Tiberius, the public looked to Caligula to correct his adoptive grandfather’s mistakes and reinstate the era of administrative peace established by Augustus. Caligula’s coinage reflects this attempt. We will show how Caligula’s use of his brothers’ likenesses was used to portray a sense of family stability, when the reality was the complete opposite. Thus, Caligula failed to be a better family man than Tiberius. Then we look to Claudius, and analyse how his coinage attempts to present him as a friend of the senate. The relationship of the imperial family to the senate was a tenuous one, with a constant sense of imbedded anger and revolt. The senate wished to be free of the emperors; thus an emperor’s relationship with the senate could either bring about peace or his destruction. Tiberius had failed on this account, often rousing a sense of anger in the political elite with all of his political and military missteps. Claudius tries to present himself as Tiberius’ better, to recover the imperial household’s relationship with the senate, only to fail in this aim. Thus, Claudius failed to a be a better ally to the senate than Tiberius. Finally, we will look at Nero. This portly and extravagant emperor used his coinage to present himself as a military powerhouse. Tiberius had been an absentee emperor from both Rome and from military campaigns. Tiberius’ choice to be an uninspiring emperor brought extreme tension between him, the Roman military, and the Roman people. To repair this relationship, Nero used coinage to show himself in a much more awe-inspiring light. But, as it will be shown in our analysis, Nero was anything but the heroic military leader which he presents. Thus, Nero failed to be a better military leader than Tiberius. In these ways, our exhibit will show how Tiberius failed to live up to the standards set by the divine Augustus and how Tiberius’ successors failed to remedy his mistakes and shortfalls.