Historiae

Tacitus presents different viewpoints on Roman events, which feels quite nuanced. I wonder if he aimed to show the chaos of conflicting narratives or if it was a stylistic choice.

The power struggles seem timeless, and I can't help but think about modern politics. Did others find parallels between Roman corruption and current events?

His tone seems skeptical yet insightful, but I wonder if he was more biased than he admits. What do you think led to his particular perspective on the imperial family?