Sources from ancient historians tend to be more hostile towards Agrippina because she was a woman and she stepped outside the expected role of a Roman matron. In contrast to this, modern historians consider the context of her time and approach her with a neutral attitude. However, most of the historians present her according to three main stereotypes- the seducer and murderer of Claudius, the scheming and dominating mother figure or the imperial woman who …
showed first 75 words of 788 total

showed last 75 words of 788 total
…of Agrippina's "blood-stained" character was because "there was a lack of an accepted method of succession to the imperial office". He claims that there couldn't have been any amicitus relationships between Seneca, Burrus and Agrippina since any open political participation by a woman was "absolutely excluded". Therefore, it can be seen that judgements made on Agrippina's actions and her relationships mostly depends on the historian's context, his/her values and purpose for writing the source.