The emerging tribes of LPRIA in southern and eastern Britain had a long history of contact with the Roman world and were heavily influenced by Roman attitudes and actions because Rome saw all her neighbours as within her sphere of influence. Whether or not the British tribes still paid tribute, some of them had been subject to Roman control following the invasion of Julius Caesar in 55 and 54 BC (DBG V.22). This precedent meant, for the Roman emperors, that the island lay within their legitimate sphere of interest. This interest had already been shown by both Caligula (Suetonius, Caligula 44, 46) and Augustus (Dio 49.28, 2; 53.22, 5; 53.25, 2), who had contemplated and prepared for invasion. Such direct intervention following a long period of indirect contact had precedents, for the general pattern of Rome’s expansion saw her first taking an indirect interest, then a successively more active role before assuming absolute control. In the case of Britain this process was slow, since annexation had been delayed first by the civil wars, next by Augustus’ interests in Germany and elsewhere, then by Tiberius’ static frontier policy and finally by the troubles of Caligula. Notwithstanding this, the question should not be why Claudius invaded Britain, but why it had not happened earlier.

The specter of maiestas looms large over narratives of the reign of Tiberius, especially that of Tacitus. We begin with an overview of maiestas laws predating the reign of Augustus. We then analyze known cases of maiestas from the reign of Augustus, particularly those towards the end involving attacks on Augustus and his family. Next, we explore the early trials for maiestas in the reign of Tiberius, observing that in the vast majority of those cases the charges were dismissed. The trial of Libo and the maneuverings of Agrippa Postumus’ freedman Clemens indicate, however, larger issues in the domus Augusta. The deaths of Germanicus and Drusus produced a power vacuum, filled by Tiberius’ Praetorian Prefect, Sejanus. As the relationship between Tiberius and his daughter-in-law Agrippina became increasingly strained, members of the Senate were unsure as to how to express their loyalty. The problem was exacerbated by Tiberius’ permanent removal from Rome. Ultimately, the situation devolved into a "reign of terror." Nevertheless, Tiberius was careful to preserve Augustus’ position for a member of the domus Augusta, Augustus’ great-grandson Caligula.

This chapter examines the nature of political activity at Pompeii and explores and describes in detail the central role that sponsorship of theatrical performance played in its political life. It identifies some of the prominent political figures at Pompeii, and the evidence for their sponsorship of theatrical entertainments. In looks at the houses and décor of several such politicians, and explores how their espousal of theatre may be reflected in their homes.

This chapter examines monuments and objects depicting the Roman emperor as a violent agent of conquest which were produced in the eastern provinces during the first and second centuries CE. Imagery of the emperor subjugating and enslaving peoples and provinces could be found on large public buildings, such as the Sebasteion at Aphrodisias, as well as on statues, coins, and terracotta votives. The creators and patrons of these imperial representations were influenced both by local (Greek, Egyptian) and by Roman concepts of rulership and artistic traditions. This desire to depict the violent treatment of foreign peoples by Roman emperors demonstrates that eastern patrons and artists sought to identify themselves with the civilised world of Rome, rather than with the subjugated barbarian ‘other’. The Roman emperor was thus envisioned as a protector of his people, and a guarantor of their safety and security. But it is probable that these images also carried a more sinister message, reminding the emperor’s subjects that he could punish them as well.