Claudius II Gothicus [und Quintillus]  (268-270)

von Richard D. Weigel (Western Kentucky University)

[http://www.roman-emperors.org/Claudius_Gothicus.jpg]

M. Aurelius Claudius, known to history as Claudius Gothicus or Claudius II, was born in either Dalmatia or Illyria on May 10, probably in A.D. 213 or 214.[[1]] Although the most substantive source on Claudius is the biography in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae (SHA), this account is riddled with fabrications and slanted with fawning praise for this particular emperor, who in the fourth century was viewed as an ancestor of Constantine’s father and thus of the ruling imperial family. This biography, attributed to one Trebellius Pollio, must be read with extreme caution and supplemented with information from other sources, including Aurelius Victor, the Epitome de Caesaribus, Eutropius, Orosius, Zonaras, and Zosimus, as well as coins and inscriptions.

The SHA account describes Claudius as being tall, with fiery eyes, and so strong that he could knock out the teeth of man or beast with one punch. It also says that Trajan Decius rewarded him after Claudius demonstrated his strength while wrestling another soldier in the Campus Martius.[[2]] The SHA author suggests that Claudius may have been descended from the Trojan King Ilus and even from Dardanus, son of Zeus and ancestor of the Trojan royal family, but these suggestions are very likely fabricated to further ennoble Claudius and his putative descendants, the family of Constantine.[[3]] The SHA biography also includes false letters attributed to the emperors Trajan Decius, Valerian, and Gallienus, all attesting to their high opinions of Claudius. Reference is made in these letters to Claudius‘ service as tribune in an otherwise unattested legion V Martialis and also as general in command of Illyria, but these positions may also be fictitious. [[4]] One can assume that Claudius had served for some time in the army, at least under Gallienus and perhaps also under several earlier emperors.

There is some evidence that Claudius was wounded in Gallienus‘ campaign to put down the revolt of Ingenuus and that he later served with Aureolus under Gallienus in the war with Postumus.[[5]] By 268, when Gallienus took his troops into Italy to put down Aureolus‘ revolt, Claudius had emerged as heir-apparent to Gallienus and may also have been involved in the plot to assassinate the emperor.[[6]] Aurelius Victor says that when Gallienus was killed by his own troops besieging Aureolus in Milan, Claudius as tribune was commanding the soldiers stationed at Ticinum, some twenty miles to the south, and that prior to dying Gallienus designated Claudius as his heir. Victor goes on to claim that after succeeding to the purple Claudius forced the Senate to deify Gallienus.[[7]] The SHA account states that the soldiers mutinied after Gallienus‘ death and had to be quieted with a donative of twenty aurei each before settling down and accepting their new emperor.[[8]] Once in power, Claudius quickly dealt with Aureolus, who surrendered and was killed almost immediately. The new emperor also demanded clemency for the supporters of Gallienus.[[9]]

The story of Gallienus‘ deathbed selection of his successor is doubtful at best and is very likely an attempt to deflect blame for the assassination plot from Claudius. The suggestion that the new emperor pressured the Senate to deify Gallienus is more difficult to assess. It is true that securing divine status for one’s predecessor is generally seen as a pious act (e.g. Antoninus Pius requesting deification of Hadrian) that reflects positively on the initiator and the story, recorded only in Aurelius Victor, could just be a fabrication used to build up Claudius‘ moral reputation. What is difficult to penetrate is the biased condemnation
of Gallienus that particularly dominates the Latin sources. They make it hard to see why anyone would want to deify Gallienus and so the story seems out of place. However, deification of a predecessor could also be interpreted as the expected thing to do and the act could have fostered legitimacy of the new emperor and gained support from those who were still loyal to Gallienus so it may well have taken place.

The first major challenge facing the new emperor was that of the Alemanni, who had invaded Raetia and Italy. After an early defeat, Claudius replaced some irresponsible officers and soldiers, designated Aurelian as cavalry commander, and led the army to a decisive victory over the Alemanni.[[10]] This victory earned Claudius the title of Germanicus Maximus and several of his coin-types appear to refer to victory over the Germans.[[11]]

In 269 Claudius served as consul with Paternus.[[12]] This year would also feature his major campaign against the Goths. There are indications that Spain separated itself from the Gallo-Roman Empire of Postumus and Tetricus and recognized Claudius, at least nominally, as emperor. In addition, rebellion within Gaul itself demonstrated the weakening of this independent state, although Claudius avoided engagement at Augustodunum and chose only to send a small force to protect Narbonese Gaul.[[13]] While Claudius concentrated on protecting Roman territory against the Alemanni and Goths, Zenobia extended her Palmyrene Empire by taking Antioch, parts of Asia Minor, and most of Egypt.[[14]] Although Eusebius and Sulpicius Severus portray the period between the reign of Valerian and that of Diocletian as a peaceful pause in the persecution of Christians, the Acts of the Martyrs does list some individuals allegedly martyred during Claudius II’s reign.[[15]]

The coins issued by Claudius II provide some limited insight into his reign.[[16]] In addition to the standard „personified virtues“ coins that are common with most emperors of the second and third centuries, Claudius struck coin-types proclaiming the security of the Empire (SECVRITAS PERPETVA and PAX AETERNA), the fidelity of the army (FIDES MILITVM), and military victories over the Germans and Goths (VICTORIA GERMAN and VICTORIAE GOTHIC).[[17]] In addition, Claudius Gothicus‘ mints struck some other interesting and unusual coin-types. For example, Claudius is one of very few emperors who issued coins portraying the god Vulcan. These must have been limited issues because they are struck only by the Antioch mint and are very rare. The type shows Vulcan standing, with his special tools, the hammer and tongs, and features the unique inscription REGI ARTIS. A variant type with a similar image has been described as carrying another unique coin inscription, DEO CABIRO, and interpreted as depicting one of Vulcan’s sons, the Cabiri, with the same tools. However, the existence of this variant type is doubtful.[[18]] Although the reason for honoring Vulcan (and his sons?) with these coins is unclear, there may be a connection to the fact that the Cabiri were patron gods of Thessalonica who had protected that city against an attack by the Goths.[[19]] Although a connection between Claudius Gothicus and the Cabiri as defenders against Gothic attacks is relatively attractive, it is weakened somewhat by the fact that Valerian and Gallienus had also issued coins with Vulcan in a temple so there may be some other reason for his reappearance on coins in this period.[[20]]

Claudius II issued an unusual and scarce series of coins that features a pair of deities, who are presumably conservatores Augusti, on each reverse. The AETER AVG type depicts Apollo and Diana, who, as gods of the sun and moon, are associated with the concept of aeternitas.[[21]] A type featuring Serapis and Isis is combined with a CONSER AVG inscription and one of Hercules and Minerva with one of CONSERVATORES AVG.[[22]] Apollo and Diana are depicted with a SALVS AVG inscription, Aesculapius and Salus with one of SPES PVBLIC, and Vulcan and Minerva with VIRT AVG. [[23]] The general message is that these deities will protect the future of the empire and the emperor.[[24]]

Other unusual coin-types include MARS VLTOR, the god Augustus had honored with a temple for securing revenge for Caesar’s assassination. This deity had appeared on Roman coins in the reigns of Galba and Severus Alexander.[[25]] Claudius II also minted coins with rarely-seen NEPTVN AVG and SOL AVG types.[[26]] The latter coin indicates some early interest in the god who would become so dominant a few years later on the coins of Aurelian, yet Claudius also used the INVICTVS AVG inscription that Gallienus had paired with an image of Sol with one of Hercules.[[27]] ROMAE AETERNAE coin-types were fairly common in the mid-third century, but Claudius II issued an unusual variant type on an aureus that showed the goddess in her temple and echoed the SAECVLVM NOVVM images associated with Philip I.[[28]] In addition, Claudius introduced a IOVI VICTORI reverse combined with the image normally paired with a IOVI STATORI inscription and a IOVI FVLGERAT reverse inscription, both of which had not been used by any of his predecessors.[[29]] Andreas Alföldi suggested that Claudius‘ GENIVS SENATVS type signified improvement of the relationship between emperor and Senate following the senatorial hostility toward Gallienus.[[30]]

Claudius Gothicus also produced coin-types with reverses of goddesses customarily found paired on coins with images of the Roman empresses. The deities portrayed include Ceres, Diana, Diana Lucifera, and Diana Victrix, Minerva, Venus, and the goddess naturally associated with the image of an empress, Juno Regina.[[31]] One might suggest that Claudius issued these images because he had no empress with which to pair them, but an examination of other emperors‘ reigns during this period reveals that those emperors who did not issue coins bearing the empress‘ image also did not strike these particular goddess types. Although Ceres and Venus images are sometimes paired with an emperor’s portrait, Diana Lucifera is rarely found on emperors‘ coins and Claudius II is the only emperor paired on coins with Juno Regina. In addition, Claudius was the first emperor to issue imperial coins that featured an isolated image of the exotic Egyptian goddess, Isis Faria.[[32]]

Claudius II’s short reign was vulnerable to internal as well as external attack. There may have been a revolt in 269-270 led by a Censorinus, although the date and even the existence of this usurper remain in doubt. The SHA includes him as the last of the „thirty tyrants“ and lists a whole series of offices for him, including two consulships, but no other record exists to confirm such service. The SHA account states that he was proclaimed emperor by his soldiers, but soon afterwards killed by them because of his enforcement of strict discipline. His tomb is listed as being in Bologna, which may provide some idea of the location for the revolt. Henry Cohen dates the revolt to the beginning of the year 270, perhaps on the basis of a reference in the Epitome de Caesaribus, but suggests that coins attributed to Censorinus in earlier works may not exist.[[33]]

The Gothic challenge in 269 proved to be the greatest that Claudius II would face. The Goths assembled a large invading force, reportedly amounting to 320,000 men transported on a fleet of at least 2,000 ships, and first attacked coastal cities along the Black Sea in Moesia. After passing into the Aegean the Goths besieged Thessalonica. At this point, in 269, Claudius left Rome to stop the invasion. The Goths then sent the larger segment of their troops on land toward the Danube, while the fleet took the remaining group to continue the naval attack on Aegean coastal cities. Claudius sent Aurelian’s cavalry to Macedonia to protect Illyria from attack, while he commanded the forces blocking the route to the Danube. In the area of Doberus and Pelagonia, the Goths lost 3,000 men to Aurelian’s cavalry. At Naissus in Moesia, Claudius‘ force succeeded in killing some 50,000 Goths. There were follow-up operations on both land and sea, but the Gothic War had essentially been won.[[34]] Staving off the attacks of the Goths was a major contribution to the survival of the Roman Empire. It was a significant step leading to the subsequent success of Aurelian and the resurrection of the Empire under Diocletian and Constantine. When the Goths eventually succeeded in taking parts of the western Empire in the fifth century, their disruption to the course of civilization was likely much less violent than it would have been had they succeeded in the third century.

In addition to bad weather, a lack of supplies, and hunger, plague was a major factor in the defeat of the Goths. Many of the Gothic prisoners were either impressed into Roman military service or settled on farms as coloni. [[35]] Claudius received the title Gothicus in recognition of his triumph over the Goths. At some point he had also been given the title Parthicus, but the unlikelihood of any conflict with the Parthians in his short reign makes this difficult to explain. Perhaps Damerau was correct in his suggestion that a Parthian unit may have been involved in one of the battles with the Palmyrenes, although on this front there were few achievements to claim.[[36]] In any case, Claudius‘ victory over the Goths was short-lived. The emperor himself caught the plague and died at Sirmium early in 270. He was 56 years old.[[37]] Claudius‘ brother, Quintillus, became emperor briefly before losing out to Aurelian. Claudius also had another brother, Crispus, and the SHA traces the link to Constantius through Crispus‘ daughter Claudia.[[38]]

The Roman Senate showed its respect for Claudius Gothicus by setting up a gold portrait-shield in the Curia and by approving his deification. He was also honored with a golden statue in front of the great temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus and a silver statue set on a column on the Rostra.^[[39]]

In many ways, Claudius II received more adulation and honor in his Nachleben than he had during his lifetime. In the fourth century, attempts to link Constantine’s family to Claudius resulted in the phrases of adoration and outright fabrication that dominate the SHA life and most of our other sources. Constantine even issued commemorative coins honoring Claudius. These carried inscriptions such as: DIVO CLAVDIO OPT[IMO] IMP[ERATORI], MEMORIAE AETERNAE, and REQVIES OPT[IMORVM] ME[RITORVM].[[40]] A tradition grew that changed the story of Claudius‘ death in some sources.
In this version, Claudius, instead of dying from the plague, had actually performed a devotio, in response to an oracle found in the Sibylline Books, and sacrificed his life so that Rome could win the Gothic War.[[41]] One of the most surprising things about the SHA account is that it ignores this more dramatic tradition and has Claudius simply dying from the plague.[[42]]

One must, of course, reject the excessive claims of the SHA to the effect that Claudius II was „destined to rule for the good of the human race“ and would, had he lived longer, „…by his strength, his counsel, and his foresight have restored to us the Scipios, the Camilli, and all those men of old.“[[43]] However, Claudius Gothicus was clearly a good emperor who made a significant contribution to protecting and restoring the Empire. In the third century there aren’t too many emperors who merit such an assessment.

Bibliography

Secondary Sources:

Alföldi, A. „The Crisis of the Empire“ chapter 6 in Cambridge Ancient History 12, 165-231

________.“Zur Kenntnis der Zeit der römischen Soldatenkaiser“ in Zeitschrift für Numismatik (1927), 197-212

Ancona, M. Claudio II e gli usurpatori (Messina, 1901)

Baldini, A. „Claudio Gotico e Costantino in Aurelio Vittore ed Epitome de Caesaribus“ in G. Bonamente and F. Fusco, editors, Costantino il Grande 1 (2 vols., Macerata, 1992-1993), 73-89

Barnes, T. „Some Persons in the Historia Augusta“ in Phoenix 26 (1972), 140-182

Bird, H., translator, Liber de Caesaribus of Sextus Aurelius Victor (Liverpool, 1994)

________. „The Historia Augusta on Constantine’s Lineage“ in Arctos 31 (1997), 9-17.

Cohen, H. Description historique des monnaies frappées sous l’empire romain 6 (Paris, 1880-1892)

Cope, L. „The Nadir of the Imperial Antoninianus in the Reign of Claudius Gothicus“ in Numismatic Chronicle (1969), 145-161

Damerau, P. Kaiser Claudius II. Goticus (Leipzig, 1934)

Duncker, A. Claudius Gothicus (Diss: Marburg, 1868)

Henze, W. „Aurelius Claudius #82“ in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E. II, 2458-2462

Homo, L. De Claudio Gothico, Romanorum Imperatore (268-270) (Paris, 1903)

Kettenhofen, E. „Die Einfälle der Heruler ins Römische Reich im 3. Jh. N. Chr.“ in Klio 74 (1992), 291-313

Kotula, T. Cesarz Klaudiusz II I Bellum Gothicum lat 269-270 (Wroclaw, 1994)

Lippold, A. „Constantius Caesar, Sieger über die Germanen. Nachfahre des Claudius Gothicus?“ in Chiron 11 (1981), 347-369

________. „Kaiser Claudius II. (Gothicus), Vorfahr Konstantins d. Gr., und der römische Senat“ Klio 74 (1992), 380-394

E. Merten, Stellenbiographie zur Historia Augusta 4 (Bonn, 1987)

Parker, H. A History of the Roman World A.D. 138-337 (London, 1958)

Robertson, A. Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet IV (Oxford, 1978)

Stein, A. „Censorinus #4“ in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E.. III.2, 1908

________. „Zeitbestimmungen von Gallienus bis Aurelian“ in Klio 21 (1927),, 78-82

Stevenson, S. A Dictionary of Roman Coins (London, 1889)

Strootmann, W. „Der Sieg über die Alamannen im Jahre 268“ in Hermes 30 (1895), 355-360

Syme, R. Emperors and Biography: Studies in the Historia Augusta (Oxford, 1971)

________. „The Ancestry of Constantine“ in J. von Straub, editor, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1971 (Bonn, 1974), 237-253

Watson, Alaric, Aurelian and the Third Century (London, 1999)

Webb, P. Roman Imperial Coinage 5.1 (London, 1927)

Weigel, R. „Juno Regina and the Roman Empresses“ in SAN 12 (1981), 31-32

Wolfram, H. History of the Goths (Translated by T. Dunlap, Berkeley, 1988)

Notes:

[[1]] Damerau, 39. Henze (2458) suggests 219 or 220, but the earlier date has greater support.

[[2]] SHA Claud. 13.5-8.

[[3]] SHA Claud. 11.9.

[[4]] SHA Claud. 14-17; see Damerau, 21-24 and Syme, 215-216.

[[5]] SHA Gall. 7.1; Damerau, 43.

[[6]] Zosimus 1.40.

[[7]] Aur. Vict. 33; Bird, Liber, 34-35, 143 n.26, and 144 n.27.

[[8]] SHA Gall.15.1-2.; Parker, 187

[[9]] Aur. Vict. 33; SHA Claud. 5; Parker, 187.

[[10]] SHA Aur.18.1; SHA Claud. 11.6-9; Damerau, 52-54, Parker, 187-188.

[[11]] CIL 3.3521 and 12.2228; RIC 108 and 247-250; Damerau, 53, Henze, 2459. For lists of inscriptions pertaining to the reign of Claudius II, see Damerau, 103-107 and Homo, 97-106.

[[12]] Damerau, 38.

[[13]] Henze, 2459-2460; Parker, 188.

[[14]] Zos. 1.44-45; SHA Claud. 11.1-2;
SHA
XXX Tyr. 30.3, 11; Ancona, 32-44; Damerau, 54-61; Henze, 2460-2461;
Parker, 190-191.

[[15]] Homo, 116-118.

[[16]] A. Markl published a seies of articles on the coins of Claudius II in Wiener Numismatische Zeitschrift over the period from 1876 to 1905. Several are referenced in Henze, 2458 and Webb, xi. In addition to Cohen, Robertson, and Webb, see the lists in Homo, 107-115 and Damerau, 92-103.

[[17]] See RIC 230, 237-239, 243, 246-252, 282.

[[18]] RIC 204 and 215. A. Robertson (p. lxxii, n.3) raised the possibility that the DEO CABIRO coin is only a misreading of the REGI ARTIS type, but the scarcity of these coins makes that difficult to verify. See also Homo, 108, citing Markl.

[[19]] P. Webb, 203-204. Webb cites Banduri as his source.

[[20]] RIC Valerian 1, Gallienus 633, and Valerian II 2.

[[21]] RIC 198.

[[22]] RIC 202 and 203.

[[23]] RIC 219, 222, and 224.

[[24]] Three other scarce issues from Antioch, RIC 200 (CONCOR AVG with two veiled figures holding torches and ears of corn), 206 (FELIC AVG with Felicitas and a female figure), and 211 (IOVI CONSERV AVG with Jupiter and the Emperor) could also be included in this series.

[[25]] Stevenson, 541; RIC 66-67 and 126..

[[26]] RIC 214 and 221.

[[27]] RIC 50, RIC Gallienus 640; Homo, 109, citing Markl, doubted the authenticity of this piece.

[[28]] RIC 132.

[[29]] RIC 6, 51, 53, and 124.

[[30]] Alföldi, Crisis, 191. An improved relationship between emperor and Senate is certainly in accord with the reported senatorial honors given to Claudius II following his death. See below.

[[31]] RIC 24, 29, 144, 205, 212, 236, and 245. Weigel, 31-32.

[[32]] RIC 217-218; see also 202 with Isis and Serapis, discussed above.

[[33]] SHA XXX Tyr. 33; Epitome de Caesaribus 34.3; Cohen VI, 173; Henze, 2461; Stein, „Censorinus“, 1908.

[[34]] Zos. 1.42-46; SHA Claud. 6-9, 11.3-4, 12.1; Damerau, 62-75; Henze, 2460.

[[35]] Zos. 1.46; SHA Claud. 9.4-7; Wolfram, 55.

[[36]] Damerau, 61; Henze, 2461.

[[37]] SHA Claud. 12.2-3; Oros. 7.23; Eutr. 9.11; Henze, 2460. Alaric Watson (221-222) places Claudius‘ death in August of 270, citing evidence from Egyptian coin issues, but this view was raised over a century ago and has not generally prevailed. See Stein, „Zeitbestimmungen“, 80-82.

[[38]] SHA Claud.13.1-4; see Watson, 47, 222.

[[39]] SHA Claud.3.3-5; Eutrop. 9.11; Oros. 7.23; Henze, 2462; Parker, 191-192.

[[40]] RIC V.1, pp. 203, 236-237 (coins 292-299); Damerau, 82-84; Homo, 92-96.

[[41]] Aur. Vict. 34; Amm. Mar. 16.10.3 and 31.5-7; Syme, 203-205, 234-235; Lippold, „Kaiser“, 389-390.

[[42]] SHA Claud. 12.2-3; Syme, 203-205, 234-235.

[[43]] SHA Claud. 1.3 (Loeb translation by David Magie).

Copyright © 2001, Richard D. Weigel. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Valerian (A.D. 253-260) and Gallienus (A.D. 253-268)

Richard D. Weigel (Western Kentucky University)

P. Licinius Valerianus, or Valerian, was unusual for his time period in that he was an emperor who came from an old Roman senatorial family. He was likely born shortly before 200 A.D., but little is known of his early life. Valerian married Egnatia Mariniana and had two sons, Gallienus and Valerian Junior. Gallienus was born around 218.[[1]] Valerian makes his first appearance in the sources in 238 A.D. as an ex-consul and princeps senatus negotiating with (more likely than serving on) the embassy sent to Rome by Gordian I’s African legions to secure senatorial approval of Gordian’s rebellion against and replacement of Maximinus Thrax as emperor.[[2]] The Scriptores Historiae Augustae probably report accurately that Trajan Decius, on the recommendation of the Senate, offered Valerian the censorship in 251. Although the senatus consultum cited and the specific office are of doubtful authenticity, the high reputation Valerian possessed in the Senate and his association with the government under Decius probably are truthful aspects of the story.[[3]] In 253 Valerian was apparently commanding in Raetia and Noricum when Trebonianus Gallus sent him to bring legions from Gaul and Germany to Italy for the struggle with the forces of Aemilianus. After Gallus‘ troops killed him and his son and joined Aemilianus, Valerian’s men proclaimed their general emperor and their arrival in Italy caused Aemilianus‘ soldiers to desert and kill their commander and join Valerian’s forces in acclaiming Valerian as emperor.[[4]]

The Senate presumably was pleased to ratify the position of Valerian, one of their own, as emperor and they also accepted his son and colleague, P. Licinius Egnatius Gallienus, as Augustus, rather than just as Caesar.[[5]] Valerian apparently realized the necessity of sharing power equally with his son and of dividing their efforts geographically, with Gallienus responsible for the West and Valerian himself concentrating on the East. The biographies of Valerian and Gallienus in the Scriptores Historiae Augustae, attributed to Trebellius Pollio, are not especially helpful in putting together an account of their joint reign. The life of Valerian is fragmentary and that of Gallienus projects an extremely biased negative interpretation of his career.

Gallienus in the early years of the joint reign concentrated, with some success, on protecting Gaul and the Rhine frontier by driving back Germanic tribes and fortifying cities such as Cologne and Trier. In a move which would characterize later diplomacy with Germans, Gallienus concluded an alliance with one of their chieftains, presumably to assist the Romans in protecting the empire from other Germanic tribes.[[6]] The invasions increased in number around 257-258 as the Franks entered Gaul and Spain, destroying Tarraco (Tarragona), and the Alamanni invaded Italy. Gallienus defeated the Alamanni at Milan, but soon was faced with the revolts in Pannonia and Moesia led first by his general there, Ingenuus, and then by Regalianus, commander in Illyricum. Gallienus put down these rebellions by 260 and secured stability in the region by concluding an alliance with the Marcomannic king, whose daughter Pipa the emperor apparently accepted as his concubine although he was still married to Cornelia Salonina.[[7]]

In the East, Valerian had succeeded by A.D. 257 in rescuing Antioch in Syria from Persian control, at least temporarily, but was soon faced with a major invasion of the Goths in Asia Minor.[[8]] The Scriptores Historiae Augustae biography of Aurelian has Valerian appear to speak in the Baths at Byzantium to publicly commend Aurelian for his success in driving back the Goths and reward him with the consulship and even with adoption as imperial successor.[[9]] However, it is not clear that Valerian even reached Byzantium because he sent Felix to that city while he remained to protect the eastern section of Asia Minor and then returned to Antioch to guard it against renewed Persian attacks.[[10]] It was at this point, around 259, that Valerian moved to defend Edessa and his troops lost significant numbers to the plague. Valerian tried to negotiate a peace with the Persian king, Sapor, but was captured by treachery and taken into captivity. The ultimate humiliation of a Roman emperor by a foreign leader was enacted through Sapor’s use of Valerian as a human stepping-stool to assist the Persian king in mounting his horse and Valerian’s body was later skinned to produce a lasting trophy of Roman submission.[[11]]

Eusebius discusses the policy of Valerian toward the Christians and says that, after initially treating them most positively, Valerian was persuaded by Macrianus to lead another persecution against them.[[12]] Valerian in fact after his brutal imprisonment and death in Persia would serve as a negative moral exemplum for some Latin Christian writers who gleefully pointed out that those who oppose the true God receive their just desserts.[[13]] Eusebius also credits Gallienus with reversing his father’s policy and establishing peace with the Church, citing imperial edicts which established freedom of worship and even restored some lost property.[[14]] Paul Keresztes claims that Gallienus in fact established a peace with Christians that lasted for forty-three years, from A.D. 260 until 303, and gave the community a kind of legal status which they had previously lacked.[[15]]

Andreas Alföldi details a growing separation between Gallienus and his father which goes well beyond the geographical one which had developed out of military necessity. In addition to the strikingly different policies, just described, which they pursued toward the Christians, Gallienus began to make his military independence clear through changes in coin inscriptions and by 258 he had created his central cavalry unit and stationed it at Milan. This independent force, which was under the command of a man of equestrian rank and soon stood on a level at least equal to that of the Praetorian Guard, would play a significant role in Gallienus‘ upcoming battles and, of course, was a foretoken of a new trend for military organization in the future.[[16]] Alföldi cites as evidence of the increasing separation between the joint emperors the statement that Gallienus did not even seek his father’s return from captivity, which Lactantius of course interpreted as part of Valerian’s divine punishment, but one wonders what indeed Gallienus might have done and his „indifference“ may have been instead his attempt to reassert confidence in his armies and not dwell on the depressing and humiliating servitude and ultimate death of Valerian.[[17]] Another reform which Alföldi discusses as part of Gallienus‘ independent stand is his exclusion of the senatorial class from major military commands. H.M.D. Parker credits Gallienus with beginning to separate the civil and military functions of Rome’s provincial governors, thus making senatorial governors purely civil administrators and starting to replace them even in this reduced role by equestrians.[[18]] The disappearance in this period of the S.C. stamp of senatorial authority on bronze coins was probably also seen as an attack on the prestige of the order, although the debasement of the silver coinage had by this time practically reached the point where the „silver“ coins were themselves essentially bronze and the change may have been more for economic than for political reasons. Gallienus‘ exclusion of senators from military command further broke down class distinctions because sons of centurions were by this time regularly given equestrian rank and the move further accelerated the alienation of Rome as center of the Empire. In addition, the bitterness of the senatorial class over Gallienus‘ policy most likely explains the hatred of Latin writers toward this particular emperor.[[19]]

Although Gallienus‘ military innovations may have made his forces more effective, he still had to face numerous challenges to his authority.In addition to systemic invasions and revolts, the plague wreaked havoc in Rome and Italy and probably in several provinces as well.[[20]] It must have seemed that every commander he entrusted to solve a problem later used that authority to create another threat. When Gallienus was involved in putting down the revolt of Ingenuus in Pannonia, he put Postumus in charge of the armies guarding the Rhine and Gaul. There is some doubt about which of Gallienus‘ sons, Cornelius Valerianus or P. Cornelius Licinius Saloninus, was left in Cologne under the care of the Praetorian Prefect Silvanus and perhaps also Postumus. In any case, when Postumus revolted and proclaimed his independent Gallic Empire, Silvanus and one of the emperor’s sons were killed. Gallienus probably restricted Postumus‘ expansion, but he never gained the personal revenge that, according to one source, drove him to challenge Postumus to single combat.[[21]] While Gallienus was thus engaged, and after Valerian’s capture by the Persians, Macrianus had his soldiers proclaim his sons, Macrianus and Quietus, emperors in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt. Gallienus sent Aureolus to defeat Macrianus and one son in the area of Illyria and Thrace; Odenathus of Palmyra defeated the other son and restored stability in Syria and, with Gallienus‘ approval, followed that up with a victory over the Persians.[[22]] After Odenathus‘ assassination ca. 267, his wife Zenobia continued to rule the independent Palmyrene section of the Empire.[[23]]

In A.D. 262 Gallienus concluded his tenth year in office by celebrating in Rome his Decennalia with a spectacular procession involving senators, equestrians, gladiators, soldiers, representatives of foreign peoples, and many other groups. This festival included feasts, games, entertainment, and spectacle which probably reminded Romans of the millennial Secular Games celebrations of Philip I and likely were intended to secure popular support at home for Gallienus. Over the next five years little is known about specific activities of the emperor and he presumably spent more time in Rome and less along the frontiers.[[24]]

Gallienus and Salonina as rulers patronized a cultural movement which collectively is known as the Gallienic Renaissance. The imperial patrons are most directly connected with the philosophical aspects of this movement because Porphyry testifies to their friendship for the Neoplatonic philosopher Plotinus. Porphyry goes on to say that Plotinus asked Gallienus to rebuild an abandoned former city of philosophers in Campania, rename it Platonopolis, and govern it as a kind of Platonic Republic, but that the jealousy and spite of others at court scuttled the plan.[[25]] In addition to Neoplatonic philosophy, according to Gervase Matthew, the Gallienic Renaissance included the „upward glance“ and other stylistic changes in imperial sculpture and religious beliefs that were characterized by „an overwhelming sense of the transcendent and immutable.“ Matthew points out both the return to artistic models of Augustus, Hadrian, and even Severus Alexander and also „a new Romantic tension“ which breaks with the past and points toward a new and very different world.[[26]] The Hellenic character of much of the Gallienic Renaissance is also stressed in the emperor’s trip to Athens where he, likely in imitation of Hadrian, became eponymous archon and received initiation into the Eleusinian cult of Demeter.

Late in his reign, Gallienus issued a series of coins in Rome which honored nine deities as Conservator Augusti or protector of the emperor by pairing his portrait with reverses picturing an animal or animals symbolic of each deity. Included in this group of celestial guardians are Apollo, Diana, Hercules, Jupiter, Juno, Liber Pater, Mercury, Neptune, and Sol. For example, Apollo’s coin-types portray a centaur, a gryphon, or Pegasus; Hercules is represented by either the lion or the boar. It appears that Gallienus was issuing the „animal series“ coins both to secure, through some religious festival, the aid of Rome’s protective gods against continuing invasions, revolts, and plague and to entertain the Roman populace with pageantry and circus games, thus to divert their attention away from the same problems and maintain the security of the regime in power.[[27]]

In A.D. 268, Gallienus saw his third son, Marinianus, become consul, but in the spring another Gothic invasion brought the emperor back to Greece. He defeated the invaders at Naissus in Moesia , but was deterred from pursuing them further by a revolt of the commander of his elite cavalry, Aureolus. He besieged this last rebel emperor in Milan, but a plot involving his Praetorian Prefect and two future emperors, Claudius and Aurelian, all three men Illyrians popular with many of the soldiers, lured Gallienus away from the city on a false pretext and assassinated him. The emperor’s brother Valerian and young son Marinianus were also murdered.[[28]] In spite of the bitter resentment which many of the senators must have felt toward the dead emperor and his reform policies, Claudius II, perhaps only to legitimize his own reign, persuaded the Senate to deify Gallienus.[[29]]

Bibliography

Primary Sources:

• Scriptores Historiae Augustae (Loeb translation by David Magie), including The Two Valerians, The Two Gallieni, The Thirty Pretenders, and The Deified Claudius by Trebellius Pollio
• Aurelius Victor, Liber De Caesaribus (translation by H. Bird)
• Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History (Loeb translation by J. Oulton)
• Eutropius, Breviarium (translation by H. Bird)
• John Malalas, Chronographia (translation by Elizabeth Jeffreys, Michael Jeffreys, and Roger Scott)
• Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum (translation by M. F. McDonald)
• Orosius, The Seven Books of History Against the Pagans (translation by R.J. Deferrari)
• Porphyry, Life of Plotinus (translation by S. MacKenna)
• A. Robertson, Roman Imperial Coins in the Hunter Coin Cabinet IV (Oxford, 1978)
• Zonaras, Epitome Historiarum (Pinder edition, Bonn, 1841-1897)
• Zosimus, Historia Nova (translations by J. Buchanan and H. Davis or by R. Ridley)

Secondary Sources:

• Alföldi, A. Studien zur Geschichte der Weltkrise des dritten Jahrhunderts n. Chr. (Darmstadt, 1967).
• Alföldi, M. Zu den Militärreformen des Kaisers Gallienus (Basel, 1957).
• Altheim, F. Die Soldatenkaiser (Frankfurt, 1939).
• Baynes, N. „Three Notes on the Reforms of Diocletian and Constantine.“ JRS 15 (1925), 195-208.
• Bleckmann, B. Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung (Munich, 1992).
• Brauer, G. The Age of the Soldier Emperors (Park Ridge, NJ, 1975).
• Christol, M. „Les règnes de Valérien et de Gallien (253-268): travaux d’ensemble, questions chronologiques.“ Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt II.2 (Berlin, 1975), 803-827.
• Cook, S., F. Adcock, M. Charlesworth, and N. Baynes, The Cambridge Ancient History, volume XII (Cambridge, 1939).
• De Blois, L. The Policy of the Emperor Gallienus (Leiden, 1976).
• Demougeot, E. La Formation de l’Europe et les Invasions Barbares, vol. 1 (Paris, 1969).
• De Regibus, L. La Monarchia Militare di Gallieno (Recco, 1939).
• Gagé, J. „Programme d’italicité et nostalgies d’hellénisme autour de Gallien et Salonine.“ ANRW II.2 (Berlin, 1975), 828-852.
• Göbl, R. „Der Aufbau der römischen Münzprägung in der Kaiserzeit.“ Numismatische Zeitschrift 74 (1951), 8-45 and 75 (1953), 5-35.
• Grosse, R. Römische Militärgeschichte von Gallienus bis zum Beginn der Byzantinischen Themenverfassung (Berlin, 1920).
• Grunwald, R. Studies in the Literary Sources for the Emperor Gallienus, 253-268 A.D. (Diss: Minnesota, 1969).
• Healy, P. The Valerian Persecution (London and Boston, 1905).
• Homo, L. „L’empereur Gallien et la crise de l’empire romain au IIIe siècle.“ Revue Historique 113 (1913), 1-22 and 225-257.
• Kent, J.P.C. „Gallienae Augustae.“ Numismatic Chronicle 13 (1973), 64-68.
• Keresztes, P. „The Peace of Gallienus: 260-303 A.D.“ Wiener Studien 9 (1975), 174-185.
• Kuhoff, W. Herrschertum und Reichskrise: Die Regierungszeit der römischen Kaiser Valerianus und Gallienus (253-268 n. Chr.) (Bochum, 1979).
• Manni, E. L’impero di Gallieno (Rome, 1949).
• Matthew, G. „The Character of the Gallienic Renaissance.“ JRS 33 (1943), 65-70 and plates 4-6.
• Oost, S. „The Alexandrian Seditions under Philip and Gallienus.“ Classical Philology 56 (1961), 1-21.
• Parker, H. A History of the Roman World A.D. 138 to 337 (London, 1958).
• Pekáry, T. „Bemerkungen zur Chronologie des Jahrzehnts 250-260 n. Chr.“ Historia 11 (1962), 123-128.
• Pflaum, H.-G. „Zu Reform des Kaisers Gallienus.“ Historia 25 (1976), 109-117.
• Pugliese-Caratelli, G. „La crisi dell‘ impero nell‘ età di Gallieno.“ Parola del Passato 2 (1947), 48-73.
• Rosenbach, M. Galliena Augusta (Tübingen, 1958).
• Rothkegel, F. Die Regierung des Kaisers Gallienus von 253 bis 268 n. Chr. (Glatz, 1894).
• Simon, H.-G. „Die Reform der Reiterei unter Kaiser Gallien“ in W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, Studien zur Antiken Sozialgeschichte: Festschrift Friedrich Vittinghoff (Cologne and Vienna, 1980), 435-452.
• Voetter, O. „Die Münzen des Kaisers Gallienus und seiner Familie.“ Numismatische Zeitschrift (1900), 117-147 and (1901), 73-110.
• Vorbrodt, T. Kaiser Gallienus (Diss: Halle, 1923).
• Weigel, R. „Gallienus‘ ‚Animal Series‘ Coins and Roman Religion“, The Numismatic Chronicle 150 (1990), 135-143.
• Wickert, L. „Licinius 173“ and „Licinius (Egnatius) 84“ in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie 13.1 (1926), 350-369 and 488-495.
• Zaccaria, C. „Contributo alla storia dei Cesari dell III. sec. d.C. I figli dell’imperatore Gallieno.“ Quaderni di Storia antica e Epigrafia 2 (1978), 59-155.
• ________. „Successione ereditaria e propaganda dinastica nelle emissioni monetali del regno di Valeriano e Gallieno.“ Annali dell’Istituto Italiano di Numismatica 25 (1978) 103-138

Footnotes

[[1]]S.H.A. Val. 8 and Gal. 14.9-11; L. Wickert, „Licinius 84, 172, and 173“ in Pauly-Wissowa, Realencyclopädie 13.1 (1926), 352, 486-488, 494 .
[[2]] S.H.A. Gord. 9.7-8; Zosimus I.14; Wickert, 488.
[[3]]S.H.A. Val. 5-7; Wickert, 488-489.
[[4]] Zosimus I. 28-29; Orosius 7.22; Eutropius 9.7; Aurelius Victor 32.
[[5]]Eutropius 9.7-8 and Bird’s tr. n. 16, pp. 138-139.
[[6]]Zosimus I.30; H. Parker, A History of the Roman World A.D. 138 to 337 (London, 1958), 167.
[[7]]Aur. Vict. 33; S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 9-10; Parker, 167-168.
[[8]]Zosimus I.31-37; Wickert, 491; Parker, 168-170.
[[9]]S.H.A. Aurel. 13-16.1.
[[10]]Zosimus I.36.
[[11]]Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 5; Wickert, 492-493; Parker, 170.
[[12]]Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 7.10.
[[13]] Lactantius, 5; Orosius 7.22.
[[14]] Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 7.13.
[[15]] P. Keresztes, „The Peace of Gallienus,“ Wiener Studien 9 (1975), 174-185.
[[16]] A. Alföldi in S. Cook et al., Cambridge Ancient History XII (Cambridge, 1939), 181-184, 216-217.
[[17]] Lactantius 5; Alföldi, 183; Parker, 180-181. Hans-Günther Simon, in „Die Reform der Reiterei unter Kaiser Gallien“ in W. Eck, H. Galsterer, and H. Wolff, Studien zur Antiken Sozialgeschichte (Cologne and Vienna, 1980), 435-452, questions the „reform“ nature of Gallienus‘ changes and tries to place them within a broader context.
[[18]] Aur. Vict. 33 (see also Bird’s n.31 on p. 145); Alföldi, 183-184, 219-220; Parker, 178-180.
[[19]] Alföldi, 183, 219-221.
[[20]] Aur. Vict. 33; S.H.A. Gall. 5.6; Parker, 176.
[[21]] S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 3.1-7; Wickert, 355-357; Parker, 167-168. On Gallienus‘ sons, see C. Zaccaria, „Contributo alla storia dei Cesari dell III. sec. d.C. I figli dell‘ imperatore Gallieno,“ Quaderni di Storia antica e Epigrafia 2 (1978), 59-155.
[[22]] S.H.A. Tyr. Trig. 12.11-14; Parker, 172-175.
[[23]] Zosimus 39; Alföldi, 176-178.
[[24]] S.H.A. Gall. 7.4-9.8; Parker, 176-177, 181-182.
[[25]] Porphyry, Life of Plotinus 12 in Stephen MacKenna’s translation of Plotinus: The Enneads (New York, 1957), 9.
[[26]] G. Matthew, „The Character of the Gallienic Renaissance,“ J.R.S. 33 (1943), 65-70 and plates IV-VI.
[[27]] R. Weigel, „Gallienus‘ ‚Animal Series‘ Coins and Roman Religion,“The Numismatic Chronicle 150 (1990), 135-143.
[[28]] Zosimus I.39-41; S.H.A. Gall. 13.6-15.1; Aur. Vict. 33; Eutrop. 9.11; C.A.H. XII, 189-190; Parker, 177-178. John Malalas preserves a different tradition, stating that Gallienus died from illness (Chronographia 12.27).
[[29]] Aur. Vict. 33.

Copyright (C) 1998, Richard D. Weigel. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus (ca. July – ca. Sept. 253)

von Thomas Banchich (Canisius College)

[Abb. einer Münze]

Biography

The anonymous late 4th-century Epitome de Caesaribus sets the birthplace of Aemilianus (PIR² A330) „on the island Meninx, which is now called Girba,“ modern Gerba, off the coast of western Tunisia and calls him a Moor (31.1-2, ed. Pichlmayer, p. 159), while John Zonaras styles him a Libyan (12.21, ed. Büttner-Wobst, p. 590). On the basis of another detail provided by the Epitome (31.3, p. 159) — that at the time of his death Aemilianus had lived „fifty less three years“–, his birth-date can be situated ca. 207. However, Zonaras (12.22, p. 592) and anonymous 13th-century Chronological Survey [hereafter Syn. Sath.], often identified as the work of Theodore Scutariotes (SUNOCIS XRONIKH, ed. Sathas, p. 38), both make him forty (i.e., in his fortieth year) when he met his end in 253. The assertions of Eutropius‘ (Breviarium 9.6, ed. Droysen, p. 152) that he was „from a very insignificant family,“ and of Paeanius, who (ca. 380) translated into Greek and expanded Eutropius that „Aemilianus, not being able to trace himself back to illustrious ancestors, but, rather, having been born from entirely insignificant ones, having ruled for three whole months, died“ (9.6, ed. Droysen, p. 153) may be nothing more than baseless defamation of a failed usurper. On the other hand, John of Antioch’s claim that Aemilianus used his ancestry to justify his grab for imperial power (Fr. 150, ed. Müller, FHG IV, p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, ed. de Boor, p. 110) may reflect fabricated self-promotion rather than accurate information about Aemilianus‘ lineage. His wife was C. Cornelia Supra (PIR² C1502), whom an inscription from Cuicul, Algeria (Dessau, ILS 9498), styles Augusta, and who is otherwise known only from numismatic evidence.The date of their union is a mystery, but her African origin suggests a time before Aemilianus left his native province.

Sometime during the reigns of Gallus and Volusianus (ca. June 251 – ca. August 253), Aemilianus was sent to the Balkans, his position variously described as archon of Moesia (John of Antioch fr.150, p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60), „being in command of the Pannonian units“ (Zosimus 1.28, ed. Paschoud, I, p. 27), „being in command of Paeonians“ (Syn. Sath., p. 38), „in command of the army in Moesia“ (Symeon the Logothete = Leo Grammaticus, ed. Bekker, p. 77), and “ commander of the army of Moesia“ (Zonaras 12.21, p. 590). John of Antioch, either independently or under the influence of his sources, attributes to Aemilianus envy and seditious intentions which preceded the deaths of Gallus and Volusianus and also implies serious discontents on Aemilianus‘ part with the Senate of Rome. In his translation of Eusebius, Jerome, mirrored by Jordanes, gives no motive but states that Aemilianus „was plotting revolution in Moesia“ (Chronicon, Ol. 258, ed. Helm, p. 219: „in Moesia res novas machinabatur;“ Jordanes Romana 285, ed. Mommsen, p. 37: „in Moesia res novas moliebatur„). Zosimus and Zonaras offer the fullest account of what transpired in the summer of 253.

The former, perhaps echoing a point of view of inhabitants of Asia that he found in his ultimate or intermediate source, is unqualified in his praise of Aemilianus: „Meanwhile, the Scythians who had taken over the whole of Europe quite unhindered now crossed into Asia and plundered as far as Cappadocia, Pessinus, and Ephesus. Aemilianus, commander of the Pannonian legions, did his best to encourage his troops, who did not dare resist the successful barbarians, and reminded them of their Roman honor. He then made a surprise attack on the barbarians in the district and killed most of them. Next he crossed over into the enemy territory, destroyed every obstruction and, contrary to every expectation, freed Rome’s subjects from their tormentors. For this he was chosen emperor“ (1.28.1-2, pp. 26-27; trans. Ridley, slightly adapted).

For his part, Zonaras maintains that Scythians, i.e., Goths, who had been charged with the collection of a payment promised them by the Romans, alleged that they had not received the agreed-upon amount and departed in anger. Despite comments to the contrary in several influential modern accounts, neither Zonaras nor any other ancient source attributes this to some change in Roman policy or to the specific initiative of Aemilianus. Indeed, Zonaras implicitly leaves open the possibility that the Goths‘ allegations may in fact have been a ploy aimed at extorting more of Moesia’s wealth. What Zonaras does say is that after the departure of the Goths: „A certain Aemilianus, a Libyan man, commander of the army of Moesia, promised that he would give to the soldiers all that had been given to the Scythians, if they would engage in war with the barbarians. Catching the Scythians by suprise, they killed all but a few and collected much booty from them, overrunning their territory. Afterwards, Aemilianus, having become haughty in his success, canvassed the soldiers under him. They proclaimed him emperor of the Romans“ (12.21, p. 590).

The rough parallel of Syn. Sath. 38 — „And a certain Aemilianus, being in command of Paeonians, emboldening the troops under him and having attacked the barbarians there, destroyed many, and was recognized sovereign by the troops there.“ — is probably of no independent value. Jordanes (Getica 105, ed. Mommsen, p. 85), on the other hand, has Aemilianus and his troops plundering Moesia after the example of the Goths rather than, as Zonaras maintains, recovering through victory the bribes paid to them (i.e., to the Goths). Brief notices in several other sources (Eutropius 9.5, p. 152; Paeanius 9.5, p. 153; Aurelius Victor 31.1, ed. Pichlmayr, p. 107; Epitome de Caesaribus 31.1, p. 159) add nothing. It is impossible to decide if the claim of Symeon ( = Leo Grammaticus, pp. 77-78) that Aemilianus had the support of an army in Libya reflects reality or a garbling of sources.

As Aemilianus entered Italy with an army of uncertain size and proceeded southward along the Flaminian Way, the Emperors Gallus and Volusianus moved against him.[[1]] Their action makes the most sense if the usurper’s forces were not overly imposing. Indeed, Aemilianus could never have contemplated investing Rome, and, given what had just transpired in Moesia, it seems doubtful that he would have chosen to leave that province denuded of defenders or that his troops would have acquiesced in such a move. His best hope would have been a rapid advance facilitated by modest numbers in order to bring matters to a head before his rivals could assemble a force sufficient to destroy him.[[2]] Whatever their size and the intentions of their commanders, the opposing sides met at Interamna Nahars, near the southern terminus of the eastern branch of the Flaminian Way, with Aemilianus emerging the victor (Eutropius 9.5, p. 152; Paeanius 9.5, p. 153; Aurelius Victor 31.1, ed. Pichlmayr, p. 107). In the aftermath, Gallus and Volusianus apparently retreated northward up the western branch of the same road, only to be murdered at the Forum Flaminii by their own men – motivated, according to Aurelius Victor (31.2, pp. 107-108), by the hope of rewards – , who then went over to Aemilianus. John of Antioch (Fr. 150, FHG IV p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, p. 110) refers to the killers as domestici, i.e.,members of a regiment of imperial guards or simply officials or retainers–, which may suggest that Gallus and Volusianus fled with only a relatively small force of guardsmen. Their betrayal also militates against the notion that Gallus and Volusianus had marched against Aemilianus in the expectation of the imminent arrival of large numbers of reinforcements.

Aemilianus, in turn, marched toward Rome where – though, despite the testimony of Syn. Sath. 38, he may never have actually entered the city – formal recognition was forthcoming from an initially recalcitrant Senate (Aurelius Victor 31.3, p. 108). Zonaras (12.22, p. 591) says that Aemilianus „wrote to the Senate, promising that he would rid Thrace of barbarians, that he would campaign against Persia, and that, having turned the realm over to the Senate, he would do everything and fight as their general.“ A fragment of the so-called Anonymous Continuator of Cassius Dio (Fr. 2, FHG IV, pp. 190-199 = Excerpta de Sententiis158, ed. Boissevain, p. 264), perhaps to be identified with Peter the Patrician, reflects this same tradition: „After he had been acclaimed sovereign, Aemilianus wrote to the Senate: ‚I leave the realm to you, and I strive in every way as your general.“ Aurelius Victor (31.3, p. 108) calls his reign modestum, „moderate“ or „mild;“ the titulature on coins and inscriptions probably reflects, for the most part, honors formally granted by the Sentate.

The first — and the last — challenge to Aemilianus‘ rule came from the future emperor Publius Licinius Valerianus, whom Zosimus (1.28.3, p. 28) unconvincingly alleges had been dispatched by Gallus and Volusianus from Rome to bring to their aid legions from Gaul and Germany. More likely, he was already in command of those forces (perhaps being readied for an eastern campaign), began to move toward Italy after learning of Aemilianus‘ elevation, and resolved to battle Aemilianus for imperial power after the deaths of Gallus and Volusianus.[[3]]

Zonaras (12.22, pp. 591-592), records that Valerian: „commander of the forces beyond the Alps, when he had learned about Aemilianus, himself also became a usurper. After he had concentrated the forces under him, he hastened toward Rome. Then, in fact, those who served with Aemilianus, when they had recognized that they were no match in battle for the army of Valerian, judging that it was not pious that Romans destroy and be destroyed by one another, that wars be joined between men of the same race, and otherwise reckoning, too, that Aemilianus was unworthy of the realm both as ignoble and groveling, and, to be sure, considering that [592] Valerian was better suited for the rule because he would, for certain, assume affairs in a more authoritative fashion, killed Aemilianus, who had not yet reigned four months and was forty years of age. They submitted themselves to Valerian and entrusted the empire of the Romans to him without a fight.“

Aside from Aurelius Victor (31.3, p. 108) who has Aemilianus die of an illness – an error possibly due to confusion as a result of records of plague under Gallus and Volusianus – the ancient sources agree with Zonaras that he was killed by his troops. Indeed, Syn. Sath. 38 is nothing but a close parallel: „Valerianus, general of the one beyond the Alps, rebelled against this one, and moved with a force upon Rome, planning to attack Aemilianus. And the army, seeing Aemilianus weaker with respect to the war, and Valerian a better leader for affairs of state, killed Aemilianus, who happened to be forty years old and gave the power to Valerian.“

The Epitome de Caesaribus (31.2, p. 159) has him „defeated near Spoletium or a bridge which is said to have taken its name from his destruction of the Sanguinarii, between Oriculum and Narnia, positioned in the middle of the area between Spoletium and the city Rome.“ The Chronographer of 354 (ed. Mommsen, p. 148) likewise places Aemilianus‘ death at the Sanguinarian bridge, while Zosimus (1.29.1, p. 28), without naming a location, merely comments that Aemilianus‘ troops „seeing him behaving more like a common soldier than a general, and considering him unfit to be emperor, killed him“ (trans. Ridley). Epigraphic and papyrological evidence point to between late July and mid-September of 253 as the time of his death.[[4]]

In the Latin source tradition, Eutropius (9.6, p. 152), Aureliius Victor (31.3, p. 108), Orosius (7.21, ed. Zangemeister, p. ), Jordanes (Romana 286, p. 37) and Jerome (Chronicon, Ol. 258, p. 219) give three months, while the Chronographer of 354 (p. 148, line 3) specifies eighty-eight days. In the Greek tradition, only Paeanius, mirroring Eutropius, assigns to Aemilianus three months (9.6, p. 153), though George Syncellus‘ three years (Ecloga Chronographia 715, ed. Mosshammer, p. 465) may be an error linked to that figure. The Latin Epitome de Caesaribus (31.2, p. 159) almost certainly reflects a Greek source in its report of a reign of four months, the same duration recorded by Zonaras – „he had not yet reigned four months (12.22, p. 592) – , the Syn Sath. 38, and John of Antioch (Fr. 150, FHG IV p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, p. 110). The one year allotted him by George the Monk (Chronicon, ed. de Boor, Vol. II, p. 467) and Cedrenus (ed. Bekker, Vol. I, p. 454) – both of whom have him killed „in the palace“ – need mean more than „in the first year of his reign,“ which is reconcilable with Symeon’s (Leo Grammaticus, p. 78) figure of two months. These durations probably all in some way reflect a calculation of the length of Aemilianus‘ reign beginning with acclamation in Moesia rather than with his recognition by the Senate. By any measure, for believers events would have confirmed the Sibyl’s prediction (13.146, ed. and trans. Potter, p. 174) that after Gallus „again another man will rule bearing the first letter in his names; but swiftly in his turn he will fall before powerful Ares, smitten by gleaming iron.“

The epigraphic and numismatic evidence for Aemilianus‘ reign is unremarkable. Numerous erasures from inscriptions testify to an official damnatio memoriae, perhaps reflected in John of Antioch’s comment ( Fr. 150, FHG IV p. 598 = Excerpta de Insidiis 60, p. 110) that Aemilianus „disappeared from mankind.“[[5]] Aemilianus‘ historical importance may simply be that his rise and fall offers a signal example of some systemic problems involving the interrelationships between troops, commanders, senate, and emperors that define in part the so-called „Crisis of the Third Century.“ On a specific level, the sequence of events subsequent to his usurpation brought to power the ill-fated Valerian. To students of Roman historiography, Aemilianus is an important „trace element“ whose presence contributes to the critical analysis of the traditions from which much of our most important literary evidence for the events of the Third Century derive.

Notes

[[1]]Potter, p. 322, with n. 341, estimates that Aemilianus‘ march to Italy would have taken about two months.

[[2]]The later betrayal of Aemilianus by his soldiers when faced by the numerically superior forces under Valerian also supports this hypothesis.

[[3]]This seems the most reasonable explanation for Valerian’s clash with Aemilianus about a month after the latter’s victory at Interamna. See Potter, p. 322.

[[4]]For the evidence, critical discussion, and references to additional scholarship, see Peachin, pp. 36-37, and Potter, pp. 320-321. On the setting of the battle, see Talbert, Map 42, D3.

[[5]]Cf. Peachin, pp. 36-37, and Kienast, pp. 212-213.

Bibliography

I. Ancient Sources and Translations

Unless otherwise noted, translations are the author’s. The translation of Zonaras is by Banchich and Eugene N. Lane.

Anonymous Continuator of Cassius Dio. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Edited by
K. Müller. 5 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841-1883. Vol. IV, pp. 191-199.

Aurelius Victor, Sextus. De Caesaribus. Edited by F. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel.
Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1970.

_______ . Translated by H. Bird. Translated Texts for Historians. Vol. 17. Liverpool:
Liverpool University Press, 1994.

Cedrenus, George. Chronographia. Edited by I. Bekker. 2 vols. Corpus Scriptorum
Historiae Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1838-1839.

Chronographer of 354. Edited by T. Mommsen. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi IX. Chronica Minores Saec. IV, V, VI. VII. Vol. 1. Berlin: Weidmann, 1892.

Epitome de Caesaribus. Edited by F. Pichlmayr and R. Gruendel. Leipzig: B. G.
Teubner, 1970.

_______ . Translated by T. Banchich. Canisius College Translated Texts. No. 1.
Buffalo: Canisius College Classics Department, 2000. <http://www.roman-emperors. org/epitome.htm>.

Eutropius. Breviarium ab urbe condita. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores
Antiquissimi II. Edited by H. Droysen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1879.

_______ . Breviarium. Translated by H. Bird. Translated Texts for Historians 14.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1993.

Excerpta de Insidiis. Edited by C. de boor. Vol. III of Excerpta historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti. Edited by U. Boissevain, C. de Boor, and Th. Büttner-Wobst. Berlin: Weidmann, 1905.

Excerpta de Sententiis. Edited by U. Boissevain. Vol. IV of Excerpta historica iussu Imp. Constantini Porphyrogeniti. Edited by U. Boissevain, C. de Boor, and Th. Büttner-Wobst. Berlin: Weidmann, 1906.

George the Monk. Chronicon. Edited by C. de Boor and P. Wirth. 2 vols. Corrected
Reprint of 1904 ed. Stuttgart: B. G. Teubner, 1978.

John of Antioch. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Edited by K. Müller. 5 vols.
Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841-1883. Vol. IV, pp. 535-622, and V.1, pp. 27-38.

Jerome. Chronica. Edited by R. Helm. Die Chronik des Hieronymus. Eusebius Werke.
Vol. VII. 2nd ed. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956.

Jordanes. Romana et Getica. Edited by T. Mommsen. Monumenta Germaniae
Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi 5.1. Berlin: Weidmann, 1882.

Jordanes. The Gothic History. Translated by C. Mierow. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1915.

Leo Grammaticus. Chronographia. Edited by I. Bekker. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae
Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1842.

Orosius, Paulus. Historiarum Adversum Paganos Libri VII. Edited by C. Zangemeister.
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vol. V. Vienna: C. Geroldi Filium Bibliopolam Academiae, 1887.

_______ . Seven Books of History Against the Pagans. Translated by I. Raymond. New
York: Columbia University Press, 1936.

Paeanius. METAFRASIS. Monumenta Germaniae Historica. Auctores Antiquissimi II.
Edited by H. Droysen. Berlin: Weidmann, 1879.
Peter the Patrician. Fragmenta historicorum graecorum. Edited by K. Müller. 5 vols.
Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841-1883. Vol. IV, pp. 181-191.

Scutariotes, Theodore = Synopsis Sathas.

Symeon the Logothe = Leo Grammaticus.

Syncellus, George. Ecloga Chronographica. Edited by A. Mosshammer. Leipzig: B. G.
Teubner, 1984.

Synopsis Sathas. ANONYMOU SUNOCIS XRONIKH. Edited by K. N. Sathas.
MESAIVNIKH BIBLIOYHKH. Vol. 7. Paris: Jean Maisonneuve, 1894.

Zonaras, John. Annales. Vol. II. Edited by M. Pinder. Corpus Scriptorum Historiae
Byzantinae. Bonn: Weber, 1844.

Zosimus. Histoire Nouvelle. Livres I-II. Edited by F. Paschoud. Paris: „Les Belles
Lettres,“ 1971.

Zosimus. New History. Translated by R. Ridley. Sidney: Australian Association for
Byzantine Studies, 1982.

II. Modern Studies

Baldini, Antonio. Storie Perdute (III seculo d.C.). Bologna: Patron editorè, 2000.

Bleckmann, Bruno. Die Reichskrise des III. Jahrhunderts in der spätantiken und
byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. Munich: Tuduv-Verlagsgesellschaft, 1992.

Christol, Michel. L’Empire Romain du IIIe Siècle. Paris: Editions Errance, 1997.

Kienast, Dietmar. Römische Kaisertabelle. 2nd ed.; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1996.

Peachin, Michael. Roman Imperial Titulature and Chronology, A.D. 235-284
Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1990.

Potter, David S. Prophecy and History in the Crisis of the Roman Empire. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1990.

Southern, Pat. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. London and New York:
Routledge, 2001.

Talbert, Richard. The Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton:
Princeton University Press, 2000.

Wolfram, Herwig. History of the Goths. Translated by Thomas J. Dunlap. Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1988.

Copyright (C) 2002, Thomas Banchich. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Thomas Banchich: Marcus Aemilius Aemilianus (ca. July – ca. September, 253), in: De Imperatorbibus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [21.07.2007], http://www.roman-emperors.org/aemaem.htm.

Trebonianus Gallus (251-253 A.D.) and Gaius Vibius Volusianus (251-253 A.D.)

von R. Scott Moore (Indiana University of Pennsylvania)

[Abb.en zu Gallus und Volusianus]

Early Career and Accession

Gaius Vibius Trebonianus Gallus was born around the year 206 AD in Perugia (Italy). He married Afinia Gemina Baebiana and had two children with her, a son Gaius Vibius Volusianus and a daughter Vibia Galla. He appears to have had a traditional political career, serving as a senator and as consul. In 250, he became governor of Upper Moesia and as governor became deeply involved with Decius‘ Danube wars, including the successful defense of the city of Novae.[[1]]

After repeated incursions into Moesia and Dacia by the Goths, the emperor Decius and his son Herennius Etruscus led a military expedition into the Lower Danube and forced the Goths to withdraw. In an effort to trap the retreating Goths, Decius was tricked into fighting from a poor position at Abrittus in June of 251 AD and he and his son were killed before a relief force could arrive.[[2]] With the death of Decius, the army immediately proclaimed Trebonianus Gallus as emperor. He adopted Decius‘ surviving son Hostilian, who was too young to succeed his father, and proclaimed him as co-emperor. He also elevated his son Volusianus to the rank of Caesar.[[3]]

Gallus‘ Reign

Concerned with reaching Rome quickly and solidifying his position as emperor, Gallus signed an unpopular peace treaty with the Goths. In return for their withdrawal, he agreed to allow them to keep the loot and Roman prisoners gained from their incursions and to pay them an annual tribute.[[4]] While this allowed him to proceed immediately to Rome, when he arrived he found the city suffering from the plague.[[5]] Soon after the imperial arrival in the city, Hostilian contracted the plague and died in July 251 AD. Gallus then elevated his son Volusianus to the position of co-emperor.[[6]]

As the plague continued to ravage the city, Gallus gained popular support within the city by providing proper burials for all plague victims, even those too poor to afford it.[[7]] While Gallus acted decisively regarding the plague in Rome, in all other matters, both internal and foreign, he was either slow to react or failed to take any serious action at all.[[8]] There were rumors that he renewed the persecution of Christians, but the only evidence is the arrest and imprisonment of Pope Cornelius in 252 AD.[[9]]

In 252 AD, the Persian king Shapur I attacked the eastern frontier, perhaps due to a dispute with the Romans over control of Armenia.[[10]] Advancing up the Euphrates, Shapur quickly defeated the the Roman forces at the battle of Barbalissos and soon controlled most of the province of Syria. In 253 AD, he completed the annexation of Syria with the capture of its capital city of Antioch.[[11]] Gallus did not take any action to stop Shapur’s advances or bolster the eastern defenses against further excursions into Roman controlled territory.

While the Persians were attacking the eastern frontier, trouble also occurred on the northern frontier. Gallus‘ replacement as governor of Upper Moesia, Aemilius Aemilianus, refused to pay the annual tribute to the Goths agreed to by Gallus in 251 AD. In retaliation for the Roman breach of the peace treaty, the Goths once again invaded the Lower Danube. Aemilianus gathered an army and was able to defeat the invading Goths and as a reward, his grateful troops proclaimed him as emperor.[[12]] He immediately stripped the area of troops and marched his army towards Rome. In an effort to prevent Aemilianus from reaching Italy, Gallus and Volusianus gathered an army and marched north. Gallus also requested Publius Licinius Valerianus to bring reinforcements south from Germany to join up with his forces marching north, but they never arrived. Gallus‘ army moved slowly and had only reached Interamna by August of 253 AD when word reached them that Aemilianus had already crossed into Italy with a large force and was rapidly approaching. Learning of this and fearing defeat, Gallus‘ troops mutinied and murdered the two co-emperors.[[13]]

Notes

[[1]] Wolfram, History of the Goths, 45-46.

[[2]] Some sources imply that Gallus either actively conspired with the Goths or was deliberately slow in coming to assist Decius hoping that he would be killed. Zosimus 1.23, Eusebius 7.1.

[[3]] Zosimus 1.24.

[[4]] Zosimus 1.24.

[[5]] For a description of the plague see Pontius, Life and Passion of Cyprian, in Cyprian, Writings, 1.21.

[[6]] Some sources imply that Gallus had the young co-emperor assasinated. Zosimus 1.25.

[[7]] Brauer, The Age of the Soldier Emperors, 61.

[[8]] Zosimus 1.26.

[[9]] Eusebius 7.1, Liber Pontificalis 22.

[[10]] Zosimus 1.27, Zonaras 12.21.

[[11]] Maricq, „Res Gestae Divi Saporis,“ 295, Frye, The History of Ancient Iran, 369-373, Zosimus 1.27

[[12]] Zosimus 1.28, Jordanes Getica 105.

[[13]] Zosimus 1.28.

Primary Source Bibliography

Eusebius. Ecclesiastical History.

Jordanes. Getica.

Liber Pontificalis.

Pontius the Deacon. Life and Passion of Cyprian.

Zonaras, Johannes. Epitome Historiarum.

Zosimus. Historia Nova.

Bibliography

Brauer, George C., Jr. The Age of the Soldier Emperors. Park Ridge, New Jersey, 1975.

Frye, R.N. The History of Ancient Iran. Munchen, 1983.

Hanslick, Rudolf. „Vibius Trebonianus Gallus Augustus.“ RE II 16:1984.

Hornblower, Simon and Anthony Spawforth, eds. The Oxford Classical Dictionary. 3rd edition. Oxford, 1996. S.v. „Vibius Trebonianus Gallus“ by John Frederick Drinkwater.

Maricq, A. „Res Gestae Divi Saporis“ Syria 35 (1958), 295.

Millar, Fergus. The Roman Near East: 31 BC – AD 337. London, 1993.

Wolfram, Herwig. Translated by Thomas J. Dunlap. History of the Goths. 2nd edition. Berkeley, 1988.

Copyright (C) 2002, R. Scott Moore. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. R. Scott Moore: Trebonianus Gallus (251-253 A.D.) and Gaius Vibius Volusianus (251-253 A.D.), in: De Imperatorbibus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [01.07.2007], http://www.roman-emperors.org/trebgall.htm.

ANCIENT HISTORY ENCYCLOPEDIA

hrsg. v. Jan van der Crabben u.a.

Maximinus Thrax

by Donald L. Wasson
published on 18 November 2013

[URL: http://www.ancient.eu/Maximinus_Thrax/]

The young Roman Emperor Alexander Severus secured the imperial throne after the assassination of his cousin Elagabalus by the Praetorian Guard in 222 CE. Thirteen years later in 235 CE, after unsuccessful assaults against the Parthians and Germans, the army, tired of his inability to command, murdered him and his mother, Julia Mamaea, and rallied behind a semi-illiterate barbarian commander named Maximinus Thrax. Unfortunately, his lack of support in the Roman Senate and several costly military expeditions would spell his own demise three years later.

Gaius Julius Verus was born in 172 or 173 CE in Thrace, a region northeast of Macedonia near the Black Sea, to a peasant father and an Alanic mother. Because of his place of birth, he became identified with the name of Thrax. In 190 CE he entered the military and because of his immense size and strength, quickly rose through the ranks, eventually commanding a legion in Egypt in 232 CE, governing the Roman province of Mesopotamia, and lastly, in 234 CE leading recruits in Germany. At a very opportune moment, Maximinus would be acclaimed as the empire’s new leader.

In the early spring of 235 CE Alexander Severus and his mother attempted an offensive against the Germans with the sole intent of resurrecting the young emperor’s image with the army and people of Rome. Unfortunately, he chose to negotiate instead of fight. The army was furious and rallied behind Maximinus against Alexander. After the assassination of the emperor and his mother – their bodies were returned to Rome – Maximinus was proclaimed emperor near the present-day city of Mainz on March 20, 235 CE. The Roman Senate reluctantly approved, even though they considered him a barbarian and below their social standing. His son Gaius Julius Verus Maximus would be named Caesar. Historian Herodian in his History of the Roman Empire wrote of the new emperor,

His character was naturally barbaric, as his race was barbarian. He had inherited the brutal disposition of his countrymen, and he intended to make his imperial position secure by acts of cruelty, fearing that he would become an object of contempt to the Senate and the people, who might be more conscious of his lowly origin than impressed by the honor he had won.

After assuming the imperial title, the new emperor recognized his lack of the necessary support in the Senate and remained cautious. Those in Rome, as well as many in the army, preferred a senator named Magnus; however, when news of the plot became known, several of his followers met their untimely death on the orders of Maximinus. Others, who remained loyal to Alexander, chose Titus Quartinus as emperor, but unfortunately he met his death as he slept at the hands of one of his most vocal supporters, a man named Macedo who elected to change sides and support Maximinus instead. Herodian noted,

Although he had no reason for enmity or hatred, Macedo killed the man whom he himself had chosen and persuaded to accept the empire. Thinking that this act would win him great favor with Maximinus, Macedo cut off Quartinus‘ head and brought it to the emperor. When he learned of the deed, Maximinus, though he believed that he had been freed from a dangerous enemy, nevertheless had Macedo killed, when the man had every reason to hope and believe that he would receive a generous reward.

Building a pontoon bridge and crossing the Rhine, the new emperor moved further into Germany, plundering and burning villages as he went. After a fierce battle near Wurttemberg and Baden and despite heavy losses, he was proclaimed Germanicus Maximus. Peace in the region was restored. From 235-236 CE he advanced towards the Danube, earning the titles of Dacius Maximus and Samaticus Maximus. However, his problems lay not in Germany but back in Rome – a city he would actually never see. His push into Germany had drained the finances of the empire, and his cuts in subsidies on the city’s grain supply harmed his reputation with the people, especially the poor. Herodian remarked,

After Maximinus had impoverished most of the distinguished men and confiscated their estates, which he considered small and insignificant and not sufficient for his purposes, he turned to the public treasuries; all the funds which had been collected for the citizens‘ welfare or for gifts, all the funds being held in reserve for shows or festivals, he transferred to his own personal fortune.

Realizing they could no longer tolerate the excesses of Maximinus, the Senate threw their support behind the eighty-year-old governor of Africa, Marcus Antonius Gordianus Sempronianus or Gordian I. Maximinus was declared an enemy of the state.

Gordianus and his son Gordian II, who was proclaimed Augustus by his father, may have had the support of the Senate but their days on the throne were numbered. Capellianus, governor of Numidia and an ally of Maximinus, advanced his legions to Carthage and after defeating the small militia killed the forty-six-year-old Gordian II. His father, hearing of his son’s assassination, hanged himself. They had been in power for only twenty-two days. Still refusing to accept Maximinus as emperor, the Senate appointed co-emperors –  Decius Caelius Calvinus Balbinus and Marcus Clodius Pupienus Maximus. They also named a Council of Twenty to advise them. Regrettably, the new emperors were not welcomed warmly by the people of Rome, indeed the two received a hail of stones are they walked through the streets and the citizens preferred the thirteen-year-old nephew of Gordian II, Marcus Antonius Gordianus. To appease the citizenry, the boy who would become Gordian III was named Caesar.

After hearing of the Gordian appointment and despite the growing animosity of his troops, Maximinus moved his army towards Italy. He reached the city of Emosa but found it to be evacuated. He travelled further to the walled city of Aquileia, but his repeated attacks on the city failed. Emperor Pupienus set out from Rome to meet Maximinus. The losses at Aquileia, combined with the shortage of food, were too much for the Praetorian Guard and in May of 238 CE they murdered both the emperor and his son with their heads being escorted back to Rome. Pupienus entered Aquileia a hero. Herodian, who refers to the victorious co-emperor as Maximus, wrote that the city opened their gates and welcomed Maximus into the city. According to Herodian, many of the defeated men of Maximinus remained angry, grieving their fallen commander,

The men cheered Maximus and scattered leaves in his path. The soldiers who were besieging Aquileia came forward carrying laurel branches symbolic of peaceful intent, not because this represented their true feelings but because the presence of the emperor forced them to pretend respect and good will.

The death of Maximinus brought about what many historians consider a period of crisis and chaos. Pupienus returned to Rome a hero but soon quarreled with the jealous Balbinus. Tired of both men the Praetorian Guard stormed the imperial palace. seized the emperors, and dragged their bodies through the streets of Rome. Gordian III was proclaimed the new emperor, the last in the Year of the Six Emperors.

Written by Donald L. Wasson, published on 18 November 2013 under the following license: Creative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon this content non-commercially, as long as they credit the author and license their new creations under the identical terms.

WIKIPEDIA

Die freie Enzyklopädie

Severus Alexander

Von der Wikipedia-Community als lesenswert ausgezeichneter Artikel
Version v. 9. November 2012, http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=110279929

Severus Alexander (* 1. Oktober 208 in Arca Caesarea, Arqa im heutigen Libanon; † im März 235 in der Nähe von Mogontiacum) war vom 13. März 222 bis zu seinem Tod römischer Kaiser. Die in älterer Literatur gängige Namensform Alexander Severus ist nicht authentisch. Sein ursprünglicher Name war Bassianus Alexianus. Ab Juni 221 nannte er sich Marcus Aurelius Alexander, als Kaiser trug er den Namen Marcus Aurelius Severus Alexander.

Im Juni 221 wurde der noch nicht dreizehnjährige Alexander von seinem nur vier Jahre älteren Vetter, Kaiser Elagabal, zum Caesar erhoben und damit zum Nachfolger bestimmt. Im folgenden Jahr konnte er nach Elagabals Ermordung problemlos die Herrschaft antreten. Zeit seines Lebens stand er unter dem dominierenden Einfluss seiner Mutter Julia Mamaea. Sie war die eigentliche Herrscherin und arrangierte auch seine Ehe. Da sie sich aber weder bei den hauptstädtischen Prätorianern noch im Heer Autorität verschaffen konnte, war ihre Machtausübung stets prekär.

Nach einem verlustreichen Perserkrieg mit unentschiedenem Ausgang musste der Kaiser zur Abwehr eines Germaneneinfalls an den Rhein eilen. Dort wurde ihm seine Unbeliebtheit im Heer zum Verhängnis. Er fiel mit seiner Mutter einer Soldatenmeuterei zum Opfer.

Mit Alexanders Tod endete die Dynastie der Severer. Es begann die Epoche der Soldatenkaiser und mit ihr die „Reichskrise des 3. Jahrhunderts“, eine krisenhafte Verschärfung der von den Severern hinterlassenen strukturellen Probleme.

Herkunft, Kindheit und Aufstieg zur Macht

Alexander war von mütterlicher wie von väterlicher Seite syrischer Herkunft. Sein Vater, der Procurator Gessius Marcianus, war ein Ritter aus Arca Caesarea, wo Alexander am 1. Oktober 208 geboren wurde. Seine Mutter Julia Mamaea gehörte dem Senatorenstand an, war also von vornehmerer Abstammung als sein Vater. Sie war eine Tochter der Julia Maesa, der Schwester der Kaiserin Julia Domna, und war, bevor sie die Ehe mit Gessius Marcianus schloss, in erster Ehe mit einem Konsular verheiratet gewesen. Ihre Familie stammte aus der syrischen Stadt Emesa (heute Homs) und war dort sehr angesehen.^[1] Julia Domna, Alexanders Großtante, war die Frau des Kaisers Septimius Severus (193–211), der die Dynastie der Severer gegründet hatte. Alexander war also mit dem Dynastiegründer nicht verwandt, sondern war nur ein Enkel von dessen Schwägerin. Dennoch wird er zu den Severern gezählt.

Alexanders Urgroßvater Julius Bassianus, der Vater von Julia Domna und Julia Maesa, hatte in Emesa das Amt des Oberpriesters des Sonnengottes Elagabal ausgeübt, das in der Familie erblich war. Nach diesem Urgroßvater erhielt Alexander seinen ursprünglichen Namen Bassianus. Schon als Kind wurde er in den Elagabal-Kult eingeführt und mit einer priesterlichen Funktion betraut.^[2]

Am 8. April 217 wurde Kaiser Caracalla, der Sohn und Nachfolger des Septimius Severus, in Mesopotamien auf einem Feldzug ermordet. Nach anfänglichem Zögern erhob das Heer den Prätorianerpräfekten Macrinus, der das Attentat auf Caracalla organisiert hatte, zum neuen Kaiser. Dies bedeutete einen Dynastiewechsel; Macrinus bestimmte sogleich seinen unmündigen Sohn zum künftigen Nachfolger. Damit war die syrische Sippe, der Alexander angehörte, von den Schalthebeln der Macht entfernt. Julia Domna nahm sich das Leben.

Da die männliche Nachkommenschaft von Septimius Severus und Julia Domna nun ausgestorben war, wollte Alexanders Großmutter Maesa ihren eigenen Nachkommen die Kaiserwürde verschaffen. Dafür war ihr vierzehnjähriger Enkel Elagabal, Alexanders Vetter, ausersehen. Er war der Sohn von Julia Soaemias, der älteren Schwester von Julia Mamaea.

Der neue Kaiser Macrinus konnte nur durch einen Militäraufstand zugunsten Elagabals entmachtet werden. Um Elagabal bei den Soldaten Popularität zu verschaffen, behaupteten seine Parteigänger, er sei ein unehelicher Sohn des im Heer sehr beliebten Caracalla. Diese Vorgehensweise erwies sich als erfolgreich. Am 16. Mai 218 wurde Elagabal von einer in der Nähe von Emesa stationierten Legion zum Kaiser ausgerufen, und im Juni besiegte seine Streitmacht in Syrien die Truppen des Macrinus. Damit war der Bürgerkrieg entschieden. Nun konnte sich Maesa mit ihren beiden Töchtern Soaemias und Mamaea und ihren Enkeln Elagabal und Alexander nach Rom begeben, um dort die Macht zu übernehmen und für den jugendlichen Elagabal die Regierung zu führen. Alexander wurde von seiner Mutter und seiner Großmutter erzogen; sein Vater scheint schon früh gestorben zu sein.^[3]

Bald erwies sich aber der junge Kaiser Elagabal als eigenwillig und beratungsresistent und machte sich allgemein verhasst. Dadurch entstand eine für den Fortbestand der Dynastie sehr gefährliche Krise, die sich 220/221 zuspitzte. Daher begannen Maesa und Mamaea Alexander als Nachfolger Elagabals aufzubauen. Der neue Hoffnungsträger wurde schon seit längerem wie Elagabal als unehelicher Sohn Caracallas ausgegeben.^[4] Damit sollte die Sympathie der Soldaten, die Caracalla weiterhin sehr schätzten, gewonnen werden. Im Juni 221 wurde der noch nicht dreizehnjährige Alexander für mündig erklärt und erhielt die Caesarwürde. Elagabal musste ihn adoptieren und so zum Nachfolger bestimmen. 222 bekleideten die beiden zusammen das Konsulat.

Mit der Adoption war ein Namenswechsel verbunden. Der Dynastiegründer Septimius Severus hatte sich zwecks Legitimierung seiner Herrschaft als Adoptivsohn des 180 gestorbenen beliebten Kaisers Mark Aurel ausgegeben.^[5] Damit hatte er sich in die Tradition der Adoptivkaiser gestellt, deren Epoche als Glanzperiode der römischen Geschichte galt. Caracalla und Elagabal hielten an dieser fiktiven Verbindung mit den Adoptivkaisern des 2. Jahrhunderts fest. Sie gaben mit ihren offiziellen Kaisernamen zu erkennen, dass sie sich als Angehörige der gens Aurelia, der Sippe Mark Aurels, betrachteten. Alexander ordnete sich mit seiner Adoption durch Elagabal ebenfalls in diesen Traditionszusammenhang ein. Er nahm den neuen Namen Marcus Aurelius Alexander an, mit dem er seine angebliche Zugehörigkeit zur gens Aurelia ausdrückte. Der Wechsel von Alexianus zu Alexander hängt mit der damals verbreiteten Verehrung Alexanders des Großen zusammen, die vor allem Caracalla praktiziert hatte.^[6]

Kaiser Elagabal erkannte die Gefahr, die ihm von seinem Vetter Alexander drohte, und versuchte wiederholt ihn umzubringen. Vergeblich trachtete er ihm den Caesartitel zu entziehen. So entwickelte sich zwischen den beiden Rivalen und ihren Müttern ein Existenzkampf, in dem Maesa auf der Seite Mamaeas stand. Die Schlüsselrolle kam dabei den in Rom stationierten Soldaten zu, insbesondere den Prätorianern, der hauptstädtischen Gardetruppe, um deren Gunst sich beide Mütter bemühten. Dabei war Mamaea erfolgreicher, aber die beiden Prätorianerpräfekten hielten bis zum Schluss zu Elagabal.^[7] Meuternde Soldaten, die von Mamaea gesteuert wurden, ermordeten Elagabal am 11. März 222. Der dreizehnjährige Alexander übernahm problemlos die Kaiserwürde. Am 13. März wurde er vom Heer zum Kaiser ausgerufen, am folgenden Tag verlieh ihm der Senat den Titel Augustus. Als Grundlage seiner Zugehörigkeit zum Kaisergeschlecht der Aurelier betrachtete er fortan nicht mehr die Adoption durch Elagabal, sondern seine fiktive Abstammung von Caracalla. Auf Inschriften wurde er als Sohn des „göttlichen Antoninus“ (Caracalla) bezeichnet.^[8] Außerdem nahm er den an Septimius Severus erinnernden Namen Severus an.

Regierungszeit

Innenpolitik

Im Unterschied zu Elagabal erwies sich Severus Alexander als lenkbar. Zunächst führten Maesa und Mamaea gemeinsam die Regierung. Sie setzten ein Beratergremium von sechzehn angesehenen Senatoren ein, dem sie erheblichen Einfluss einräumten.^[9]

Maßgebliche Rolle der Mutter

Maesa, die schon betagt war, starb um 224.^[10] Von da an war Mamaea faktisch bis zum Ende von Alexanders Regierungszeit Alleinherrscherin. Inschriften und Münzen dokumentieren ihre außergewöhnliche Rolle. Ab 222 trug sie den Titel Augusta. Weitere Titel waren „Mutter des Senats“ und „Mutter des Vaterlandes“; übereifrige Verehrer in Hispanien bezeichneten sie sogar auf einer Ehreninschrift als „Mutter des ganzen Menschengeschlechts“.^[11] Sie ließ den jungen Kaiser sorgfältig erziehen, überließ ihm aber keine Entscheidungsbefugnisse. Ein gutes Verhältnis zum Senat war ihr wichtig. Sie pflegte demonstrativ traditionelle römische Tugenden und Werte. Eigenwillige Maßnahmen Elagabals, die in der konservativen Führungsschicht Anstoß erregt hatten, wurden rückgängig gemacht.^[12] Der neue, senatsfreundliche Kurs bedeutete eine Abkehr von der Politik der früheren Severer, deren Verhältnis zum Senat gespannt gewesen war.^[13] Dass Mamaeas Kooperationsbereitschaft im Senat Anklang fand, zeigt ein von Johannes Zonaras überliefertes Fragment aus dem Geschichtswerk des Senators Cassius Dio. Dort heißt es, Mamaea habe ihrem Sohn kluge Berater besorgt und unter den Senatoren die besten Ratgeber ausgewählt.^[14]

Meutereien und Aufstände

Die Hauptschwäche der Regierung des von seiner Mutter gelenkten Kaisers war das Fehlen einer eigenen Machtbasis. Mamaea und Alexander waren vom Wohlwollen der Prätorianer abhängig. Das Ausmaß des aus dieser Schwäche resultierenden Autoritätsverfalls trat schon 223 in der Prätorianerkrise dramatisch zutage. Mamaea hatte 222 dem bedeutenden Juristen Ulpian das Oberkommando über die Prätorianer anvertraut, doch gelang es nicht, die Truppe zu disziplinieren. Aus geringfügigem Anlass entwickelten sich dreitägige Straßenkämpfe zwischen den Prätorianern und der Stadtbevölkerung, die zu chaotischen Verhältnissen in der Stadt führten. Erst als die bedrängten Prätorianer Häuser in Brand setzten und eine allgemeine Feuersbrunst drohte, gaben ihre Gegner nach.^[15] Ulpian konnte einen Machtkampf mit seinen Untergebenen, den Prätorianerpräfekten Julius Flavianus und Geminius Chrestus, für sich entscheiden; die beiden Präfekten wurden hingerichtet.^[16] Als aber im folgenden Jahr die Prätorianer meuterten, musste Ulpian in den Kaiserpalast flüchten. Dort konnte ihn Mamaea nicht schützen; in ihrer und Alexanders Anwesenheit wurde er von den Prätorianern ermordet. Der Hauptverantwortliche für den Mord, Epagathus, konnte wegen der Gefahr neuer Unruhen nicht in Rom bestraft werden. Er musste unter dem Vorwand der Ernennung zum Statthalter von Ägypten aus der Hauptstadt entfernt werden. Von Ägypten wurde er nach Kreta gebracht, wo er hingerichtet wurde.^[17]

Im Reich brachen zahlreiche Unruhen und Aufstände aus, die niedergeworfen wurden.^[18]

Gesetzgebung

Die Hauptquelle für die gesetzgeberische Tätigkeit Alexanders ist der Codex Iustinianus, eine Gesetzessammlung des 6. Jahrhunderts. Sie enthält 427 Verordnungen (constitutiones), die nach heutigem Forschungsstand Alexander zuzuweisen sind.^[19] Eine starke legislative Aktivität ist vor allem zu Beginn der Regierungszeit, in den Jahren 223 und 224, zu verzeichnen. In der Darstellung seiner gesetzgeberischen Ziele betonte Alexander einerseits moralische Grundsätze und die Notwendigkeit besonderer Strenge bei Verstößen, welche die soziale Ordnung gefährdeten, andererseits aber auch die herrscherliche Milde (clementia), eine nach alter Tradition wichtige Herrschertugend. Damit gab er seine Distanzierung von der Regierungspraxis seiner Vorgänger zu erkennen.^[20] Ein Themenbereich, dem sein besonderes Interesse galt, war die Regelung der appellatio, der Berufung an den Kaiser nach einem gerichtlichen Verfahren. Er wollte verhindern, dass untere Instanzen durch Einschüchterung die Berufung an den Kaiser unterbanden. Damit versuchte er seine Kontrolle über den Justizapparat zu verbessern.^[21] Ferner stellte er sich als gewissenhaften Verwalter der Staatsfinanzen dar und beteuerte seinen Wunsch, die Steuerlast zu reduzieren, den er ansatzweise in die Tat umsetzte.^[22]

Ehe

Mamaea suchte für Alexander die Patrizierin Orbiana als Ehefrau aus. Orbiana stammte aus einer vornehmen senatorischen, aber politisch unbedeutenden Familie. Die im Jahr 225 geschlossene Ehe blieb kinderlos und hielt nicht lange, denn es kam zu einem Machtkampf zwischen der Mutter und dem Schwiegervater des Kaisers. Orbianas Vater Seius Sallustius versuchte erfolglos die Prätorianer gegen Mamaea aufzuwiegeln. Mamaea setzte sich durch, sie erzwang 227 die Scheidung der Ehe ihres Sohnes. Seius Sallustius wurde hingerichtet, Orbiana nach Afrika verbannt. Diesmal erwiesen sich die Prätorianer als loyal, doch wagte es Mamaea nach dieser Erfahrung nicht, ihren Sohn erneut zu verheiraten.^[23] Das Fehlen eines Nachkommen und einer Nachfolgeregelung verschärfte die prekäre Situation.

Der Geschichtsschreiber Herodian behauptet, Alexander habe eigentlich auf der Seite seiner Frau und seines Schwiegervaters gestanden, aber seiner Mutter nicht zu widersprechen gewagt. Solches Hintergrundwissen ist Herodian aber kaum zuzutrauen; vermutlich gibt er Gerüchte wieder, die damals bei den Gegnern Mamaeas, zu denen er selbst zählt, kursierten.^[24]

In der Historia Augusta, einer spätantiken Quelle, wird mit Berufung auf den athenischen Geschichtsschreiber Dexippus mitgeteilt, Alexander habe seinen Schwiegervater zum Caesar ernannt. Der Schwiegervater wird hier Macrinus oder Macrianus genannt.^[25] In älterer Forschungsliteratur wurde dieser angebliche Caesar entweder mit Seius Sallustius identifiziert oder mit dem Vater einer hypothetischen früheren Ehefrau Alexanders.^[26] Nach heutigem Forschungsstand ist jedoch davon auszugehen, dass Orbiana die einzige Gemahlin Alexanders war und dass Seius Sallustius nicht zum Caesar erhoben wurde.^[27] Möglicherweise ist Sallustius mit Quintus Sallustius Macrinianus identisch, der unter Septimius Severus als Statthalter der Provinzen Mauretania Caesariensis und Mauretania Tingitana amtierte. Dies könnte den in der Historia Augusta angegebenen Namen erklären.^[28]

Religionspolitik

Gegenüber den Christen, die schon unter Elagabal nicht verfolgt worden waren, war die Regierung Alexanders und seiner Mutter tolerant. Mamaea stand mit dem prominenten Kirchenschriftsteller Origenes in Kontakt,^[29] aber die Behauptungen spätantiker christlicher Quellen, ein Teil der Umgebung des Kaisers oder gar seine Mutter selbst habe den christlichen Glauben praktiziert, sind nicht glaubwürdig. Anscheinend neigten Mamaea und Alexander – einer Tendenz ihrer Zeit folgend – zum Synkretismus, zur Vermischung von Einflüssen verschiedener Religionen.^[30] Die erst in der Spätantike auftauchende Behauptung, Alexander habe in einer privaten Kultstätte neben den vergöttlichten Kaisern und anderen vorbildlichen Persönlichkeiten auch Christus, Abraham und Orpheus verehrt,^[31] wird von der Forschung sehr skeptisch betrachtet.^[32]

Bautätigkeit

In der Historia Augusta wird von ausgedehnter Bautätigkeit Alexanders berichtet. Ihren Angaben zufolge hat er sowohl neue Bauwerke errichtet als auch alte renoviert. Die Einzelheiten sind nur teilweise nachprüfbar; zum Teil dürfte es sich um erfundene Behauptungen des unzuverlässigen Geschichtsschreibers handeln. Gut bezeugt ist Alexanders Erweiterung der Nerothermen, die thermae Alexandrinae. Auch ein Aquädukt, den er errichten ließ, die aqua Alexandrina, wurde nach ihm benannt; eine Münze von 226 bestätigt den Bau. Im 17. Jahrhundert konnte der Aquädukt identifiziert werden. Der Verlauf der Wasserleitung außerhalb der Stadt ist nur zum Teil bekannt; wie sie innerhalb des antiken Stadtgebiets verlief, ist unbekannt.^[33] Zu den Bauten, die renoviert wurden oder deren Wiederherstellung zumindest geplant war, sollen ein Theater – offenbar das Marcellustheater –, der Circus Maximus, das Kolosseum und ein Stadion – wahrscheinlich das Stadion Domitians – gehört haben. Ferner ließ er angeblich in Rom zahlreiche Bäder bauen.^[34] Er soll auch von Trajan gebaute Brücken ausgebessert und neue gebaut haben; da eine solche Renovation in einem Fall inschriftlich bezeugt ist, gilt die Nachricht als glaubwürdig.^[35]

Außenpolitik und Kriege

Außenpolitische Konflikte, die ein militärisches Vorgehen erforderlich machten, waren für Alexander wegen seiner schmalen Machtbasis und mangelnden militärischen Kompetenz riskant. Sowohl eine Abwesenheit des Kaisers von der Hauptstadt als auch die Beauftragung eines Kommandeurs mit einem Feldzug bedeutete eine existenzielle Gefährdung, da jede solche Konstellation Anreiz zu einer Rebellion bieten konnte. Diese Labilität der Herrschaft trat in den letzten Jahren von Alexanders Regierungszeit zutage, als es zu zwei großen militärischen Auseinandersetzungen kam: dem Perserkrieg und dem Germanenkrieg. Beide erforderten die Anwesenheit des Kaisers.

Die persische Herausforderung

Im Osten hatte Ardaschir I., ursprünglich ein persischer Vasall des Partherreichs, in den zwanziger Jahren des dritten Jahrhunderts die Macht des parthischen Königsgeschlechts der Arsakiden gebrochen und das persische Sasanidenreich gegründet. In Armenien stießen die Perser allerdings auf hartnäckigen Widerstand, denn dort hatten die Arsakiden starken Rückhalt.^[36] Mit der sasanidischen Expansion bahnte sich eine militärische Konfrontation des römischen und des neupersischen Reichs an. 230 oder 231 drang ein persisches Heer in die römische Provinz Mesopotamia ein, verwüstete sie und belagerte Nisibis. Syrien und Kappadokien waren bedroht.^[37] Auf der römischen Seite wurde die Gefahr sehr ernst genommen; man unterstellte dem Sasaniden die Absicht einer Wiedererrichtung des altpersischen Achaimenidenreichs, zu dem alle später römischen Gebiete Vorderasiens gehört hatten. Tatsächlich scheint Ardaschir an die Tradition altpersischer Machtentfaltung angeknüpft zu haben, wenn auch seine Geschichtskenntnisse wohl bescheiden waren. Allerdings gibt es keinen stichhaltigen Beleg dafür, dass er wirklich eine Forderung auf alle einstmals achaimenidischen Territorien erhob.^[38]

Alexander versuchte zu verhandeln. Nach Herodians Darstellung ließ er Ardaschir durch eine Gesandtschaft ein Schreiben zukommen, in dem er an römische Siege über die Parther erinnerte und den Sasaniden zur Respektierung der bestehenden Grenze aufforderte. Sein Bemühen um eine friedliche Beilegung des Konflikts blieb jedoch erfolglos.^[39] Ardaschir ließ sich nicht beeindrucken, sondern setzte unbeirrt seinen Expansionskurs fort. Daher musste der Kaiser im Frühjahr 231 mit Mamaea Rom verlassen, um den Gegenangriff persönlich zu leiten.

Auf die an der Ostgrenze stationierten Truppen, die bei einer Meuterei ihren Befehlshaber Flavius Heracleo getötet hatten, war wenig Verlass. Ihre Disziplin und Kampfmoral war offenbar schlecht.^[40]

Den Winter 231/232 verbrachte Alexander in Antiocheia, wo er den Feldzug vorbereitete. Erneut schickte er eine Gesandtschaft mit einem Friedensvorschlag zu Ardaschir. Der Sasanide reagierte mit einer Gegengesandtschaft, die aus vierhundert bewaffneten persischen Reitern bestanden haben soll. Herodian behauptet, die persischen Gesandten hätten die Herausgabe Syriens und Kleinasiens verlangt. Zwar ist kaum anzunehmen, dass Herodian die Äußerungen der Gesandten korrekt wiedergibt, doch ist davon auszugehen, dass seine Darstellung einen historischen Kern hat. Dieser besteht wohl darin, dass Ardaschir Forderungen erhob, von denen er wusste, dass sie für die römische Seite unannehmbar und provokativ waren. Alexander ließ die Gesandten festnehmen, was einen schweren Verstoß gegen das Völkerrecht darstellte.^[41]

Der Feldzug gegen die Perser

Im Frühjahr 232 begann die römische Offensive. Das römische Heer rückte in drei getrennt marschierenden Kolonnen vor. Der Angriff zielte auf das Zentrum des Perserreichs, die Doppelstadt Seleukeia–Ktesiphon. Der nördliche Heeresteil drang über Armenien vor. Dort behaupteten sich weiterhin arsakidische Kräfte. Ob die Armenier die Römer unterstützten oder den römischen Durchmarsch nur duldeten, ist in der Forschung umstritten.^[42] Der Kaiser marschierte mit dem Zentrum der römischen Streitmacht über Palmyra in Richtung der damals von Feinden der Sasaniden kontrollierten Stadt Hatra. Die südliche Abteilung bewegte sich dem Euphrat entlang vorwärts.

Der Verlauf der Kämpfe ist unklar. Anscheinend war das römische Oberkommando von der Aufgabe, die anspruchsvolle Strategie mit getrennt marschierenden Heeresteilen plangemäß umzusetzen, überfordert. Die südliche der drei römischen Heeresgruppen wurde vom Perserkönig gestellt und weitgehend aufgerieben. Dabei sollen aber auch die Perser erheblich geschwächt worden sein.^[43] Daraufhin traten die beiden anderen römischen Heeresgruppen den Rückzug an. Dabei erlitten die Römer schwere Verluste, da viele ausgehungerte und erschöpfte Soldaten unterwegs ums Leben kamen. Insbesondere die nördliche Heeresgruppe hatte auf ihrem Rückmarsch durch das armenische Hochland zahlreiche Todesfälle zu beklagen.^[44] So büßten beide Seiten vorerst die Fähigkeit ein, weiterhin offensiv vorzugehen. Die römischen Soldaten machten den Kaiser für den enttäuschenden Verlauf des Feldzugs verantwortlich. Nur mit einem großzügigen Geldgeschenk konnte er ihre Wut besänftigen.^[45]

Obwohl die Römer von der Erreichung ihres Kriegsziels, der Einnahme der feindlichen Hauptstadt, weit entfernt waren, und trotz ihrer schweren Verluste konnte das Ergebnis als römischer Erfolg betrachtet werden, denn die gegnerische Seite hatte ihre Offensivkraft verloren und die Römer mussten keine Gebietsverluste hinnehmen. Ein Friede wurde nicht geschlossen, weitere Kampfhandlungen unterblieben wegen Erschöpfung beider Seiten.^[46] Den Winter 232/233 verbrachten Mamaea und Alexander wiederum in Antiocheia, dann kehrten sie nach Rom zurück. Dort feierte Alexander am 25. September 233 den Ausgang des Feldzugs mit einem Triumph.

Germanenfeldzug und Sturz

Wegen der durch den Perserkrieg bedingten Entblößung der Rhein- und der Donaugrenze hatten 233/234 Germanen größere Beutezüge unternehmen und Befestigungsanlagen zerstören können. Als dies nach dem verlustreichen Feldzug gegen Ardaschir in Alexanders Heer bekannt wurde, verstärkte sich der Missmut der Soldaten aus dem Norden, die für den Perserkrieg in den Osten verlegt worden waren und nun erfuhren, dass ihre ungeschützt gebliebenen Angehörigen den Angriffen der Germanen ausgesetzt waren. Ihre Wut richtete sich gegen den Kaiser.^[47] Die Soldaten waren an ihren gewohnten Stationierungsorten verwurzelt, Einsätze in fernen Regionen waren ihnen verhasst, und Alexander, der aus dem Osten stammte, war dem Verdacht ausgesetzt, dem Schutz seiner Heimatregion den Vorzug zu geben.^[48]

Bei den germanischen Angreifern handelte es sich wohl um den Stammesverband der Alamannen, einen neuen Gegner der Römer. Die Lage war so bedrohlich, dass sich Mamaea und Alexander an die nördliche Front begeben mussten, da sie offenbar niemand das Oberkommando anvertrauen konnten. Sie zogen in der zweiten Jahreshälfte 234 oder Anfang 235 an den Rhein. Das römische Hauptquartier befand sich in Mogontiacum, dem heutigen Mainz.

Die Herrschaft des inzwischen sechsundzwanzigjährigen Kaisers, der weiterhin unter dem übermächtigen Einfluss seiner Mutter stand, war unter diesen Umständen besonders gefährdet, da er von den Soldaten nicht respektiert wurde und Mamaea als Frau an der Front keine Autorität hatte.^[49] Angesichts der Schwäche des Oberbefehlshabers war für einen bei der Truppe beliebten Kommandeur die Versuchung zum Staatsstreich groß, zumal es keinen Thronfolger gab. Im Osten war es anscheinend bereits zur Erhebung des Gegenkaisers Taurinus gekommen, die jedoch folgenlos blieb, da der Usurpator im Euphrat ertrank. Eine weitere Gefahr lag darin, dass Caracalla das Militär finanziell verwöhnt hatte. Die durch solche Großzügigkeit anfallenden Zusatzkosten bildeten eine schwere Belastung des Staatshaushalts. Mamaea sparte konsequent und war daher als knauserig verhasst.^[50] Zurückhaltung bei den gewohnten Sonderzuwendungen (Donativen) an die Soldaten musste bei der Truppe zu einer explosiven Lage führen. Das Ausbleiben schneller Kampferfolge und die unsoldatische Haltung des Kaisers trugen zur schlechten Stimmung bei. Die Kombination all dieser Faktoren führte zur Katastrophe.

Angesichts der prekären Verhältnisse scheuten Mamaea und Alexander das Risiko des Kampfes. Sie erstrebten wie schon im Perserkrieg eine Verhandlungslösung. Dabei fassten sie Zahlungen ins Auge, mit denen sie den Frieden erkaufen und vielleicht auch die Unterstützung germanischer Verbände bei der Grenzsicherung gewinnen wollten. Bei den Soldaten, die auf Sieg und Beute hofften und die Verhandlungsbereitschaft als Schwächezeichen deuteten, löste dieses Vorgehen zusätzliche Erbitterung aus.^[51] Sie verübelten dem Kaiser, dass er nicht ihnen, sondern dem Feind gegenüber finanzielle Großzügigkeit zeigen wollte. Hinzu kam, dass die Soldaten bei einem Regierungswechsel mit dem üblichen großzügigen Donativ des neuen Herrschers rechnen konnten. Daher meuterte ein Teil des Heeres – hauptsächlich Rekruten aus Pannonien – und erhob den für die Rekrutenausbildung zuständigen ritterlichen Offizier Maximinus Thrax zum Kaiser. Maximinus versprach eine Verdoppelung des Soldes, eine üppige Sonderzuwendung und Amnestie bei allen Disziplinarstrafen.^[52]

Es gelang Alexander nicht, loyale Einheiten zum Widerstand zu motivieren. Niemand wollte für ihn und seine Mutter kämpfen, seine Soldaten liefen zum Gegner über.^[53] Auf Befehl des Maximinus wurden Mamaea und Alexander im März 235 in der Nähe von Mogontiacum in ihrem Zelt im Feldlager ermordet. Der Todesort vicus Britanniae wird von manchen Forschern mit Mainz-Bretzenheim identifiziert, doch ist diese Lokalisierung sehr umstritten.^[54] Über Alexander wurde die damnatio memoriae verhängt. Manche Freunde und Günstlinge Alexanders ließ der neue Kaiser töten,^[55] doch ist Herodians Behauptung, er habe sie alle umgebracht, sicher übertrieben.^[56]

Mit Alexanders Tod endete die Dynastie der Severer. Sein Nachfolger Maximinus eröffnete die Epoche der Soldatenkaiser.

Ikonographie

Alexanders Münzen zeigen ihn zum Teil noch als bartlosen Knaben oder mit Bartflaum, später mit Schnurrbart und Backenbart. Auch auf den Münzbildnissen aus dem Erwachsenenalter macht er einen relativ jungen Eindruck. Gewöhnlich trägt er auf den Münzen einen Lorbeerkranz, selten einen Strahlenkranz. Die Rundplastiken lassen sich anhand der Münzbildnisse bestimmen; in manchen Fällen ist unklar, ob es sich tatsächlich um Alexander handelt.^[57]

Rezeption

Antike und Mittelalter

Alexanders Nachfolger Maximinus regierte nicht lange, er wurde 238 von meuternden Soldaten ermordet. Damit trat ein Umschwung ein, denn nun setzten sich seine senatorischen Gegner durch. Maximinus verfiel der damnatio memoriae. Im Zuge dieser Entwicklung wurde Alexander vom Senat rehabilitiert. Es wurde nicht nur seine damnatio memoriae aufgehoben, sondern er wurde sogar zum divus („Göttlichen“) erhoben.^[58] Im Rahmen des Kaiserkults wurde er fortan als Gottheit verehrt.

Die Hauptquellen sind die Geschichtswerke der Zeitgenossen Herodian und Cassius Dio sowie die Lebensbeschreibung Alexanders in der mehr als ein Jahrhundert nach den Ereignissen entstandenen Historia Augusta. Cassius Dio war unter Alexander Konsul. Er repräsentiert die senatorischen Kreise, für die Mamaeas und Alexanders Bilanz positiv war, und schildert den Kaiser wohlwollend. Seine Darstellung bricht vor dem Beginn des Germanenfeldzugs ab. Auch Herodian zeigt Sympathie für den letzten Severer. Er beschreibt ihn als sanft, gutwillig, gerecht und frei von Grausamkeit, betont aber auch missbilligend seine Abhängigkeit von seiner Mutter, der er die Schuld für das Scheitern des Kaisers gibt, und seinen Mangel an soldatischen Tugenden. Die Mutlosigkeit Alexanders in seinen letzten Lebenstagen schildert Herodian drastisch; er vermittelt den Eindruck, dass der Kaiser in einer gefährlichen Situation völlig überfordert war.^[59] Herodians Glaubwürdigkeit wird von seiner Neigung zu dramatischen Effekten und zum Moralisieren beeinträchtigt.

Die positive Einschätzung der zeitgenössischen Geschichtsschreiber steigert sich in der Alexander-Biographie der spätantiken Historia Augusta zu einer Verherrlichung mit ausgeprägt legendenhaften Zügen. Hier verkörpert Alexander das Herrscherideal des unbekannten Autors; seine Lebensbeschreibung ist die längste aller Kaiserbiographien der Historia Augusta. Der Tod des letzten Severers erscheint als Zäsur in der römischen Geschichte, die den Übergang zu einer Periode der Instabilität und des Niedergangs markiert. Der Wert dieser Quelle wird von der Forschung gering veranschlagt. Ihre Angaben über angebliche Reformen Alexanders gelten heute als erfunden.^[60] Auch Aurelius Victor und Eutropius, zwei weitere lateinisch schreibende spätantike Autoren, stellen Alexander als tüchtigen Kaiser und Sieger über die Perser dar.^[61] Aurelius Victor vermerkt auch, dass nach Alexanders Tod der Niedergang des Reichs eingesetzt habe. Diese Geschichtsschreiber bezogen ihre Informationen aus der heute verlorenen Enmannschen Kaisergeschichte, die offenbar bereits ein solches Bild vermittelte.

Das insgesamt vorteilhafte Charakterbild Alexanders, das die erzählenden Quellen zeichnen, kontrastiert scharf mit ihren verdammenden Urteilen über seinen Vorgänger und seinen Nachfolger. Der letzte Severer erscheint als milder, tugendhafter, gerechter und populärer Herrscher.

Im 4. Jahrhundert stellte der pagane Kaiser Julian in seiner Satire Caesares Alexander als Narren und Jammergestalt dar,^[62] wobei er von Herodians Angaben ausging. In der Satire wird Alexander verspottet, da er sich auch als Erwachsener nicht gegen seine Mutter durchgesetzt, sondern ihr die Kontrolle über die Finanzen überlassen habe.^[63]

Bei spätantiken christlichen Autoren und in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung fand die angebliche Frömmigkeit Mamaeas besondere Beachtung. Manche Autoren machten aus ihr eine Christin. Eine relativ ausführliche Darstellung von Alexanders Herrschaft gab im 12. Jahrhundert Johannes Zonaras.^[64]

Forschung

Im 18. Jahrhundert dominierte noch das von der Historia Augusta gezeichnete traditionelle Bild eines klugen, tugendhaften, menschlichen und vom Volk geliebten Herrschers, das Edward Gibbon übernahm.^[65] Noch Jacob Burckhardt war davon stark beeinflusst; er schrieb 1853, Alexander sei „ein wahrer Sanct Ludwig des Altertums“ gewesen, der „aus reinem sittlichem Willen“ den „unendlich vielen Versuchungen zum Despotismus“ widerstanden und „in die Bahn der Gerechtigkeit und der Milde“ eingelenkt habe. Dieser „im Verhältnis zu seiner Gesamtumgebung unbegreifliche Mensch“ habe „in einem Jahrhundert, welches nur von Furcht wusste“, keine Achtung erlangen können, sondern zwangsläufig scheitern müssen.^[66]

Seit dem 19. Jahrhundert hat sich jedoch eine ungünstige Einschätzung durchgesetzt, wobei die verhängnisvolle Unselbständigkeit und mangelnde Entschlossenheit Alexanders hervorgehoben wird. Ein vernichtendes Urteil fällte Alfred von Domaszewski (1909). Er bezeichnete Alexander als den „jammervollsten aller Cäsaren“. Zu seiner Regierungszeit habe sich „auch der letzte Schein der Ordnung im Reiche“ aufgelöst, die Folge einer verfehlten Politik sei ein „vollständiger Zusammenbruch der ganzen Verwaltungsordnung“ gewesen.^[67] Ernst Kornemann (1939) meinte, der „schwache, niemals zum Manne gereifte“ Alexander sei zu Unrecht von einer verdorbenen Überlieferung zu einer „Lichtgestalt mit einem seltsamen Heiligenschein“ gemacht worden. Dieses Bild sei von der kritischen Forschung als unhistorisch erwiesen worden.^[68] Wilhelm Enßlin (1939) stellte fest, der junge Kaiser habe seine Aufgabe nicht erfüllen können, da er trotz seines Namens weder ein (Septimius) Severus noch ein Alexander (der Große) gewesen sei.^[69] Alfred Heuß (1960) charakterisierte Alexander als „unbedeutenden, aber wenigstens harmlosen jungen Menschen“, aus dem „kein Mann geworden“ sei.^[70] Für Hermann Bengtson (1973) war Alexander „ein schwacher, mittelmäßiger Herrscher, der weder auf politischem noch auf militärischem Gebiet irgend etwas Bemerkenswertes geleistet hat“; für seine Regierung sei „das Frauenregiment charakteristisch“ gewesen.^[71] Auch Karl Christ (1988) weist darauf hin, dass Alexander „im Grunde niemals zur völligen Unabhängigkeit“ gelangt sei. Härte und Durchsetzungsvermögen hätten ihm gefehlt, er habe „nur von einer Krise zur andern lavieren“ können.^[72] Bruno Bleckmann (2002), der Alexander als „Muttersöhnchen“ bezeichnet, meint, Mamaeas Machtentfaltung sei nicht mit orientalischer Frauenherrschaft zu erklären, sondern einfach damit, dass „der Kaiser noch ein halbes Kind war“. Zwar habe Alexander in seinen letzten Regierungsjahren wohl auch eigene Entscheidungen getroffen, doch seine Weigerung, den Soldaten die erwarteten Geldgeschenke zu machen, sei Ausdruck einer unrealistischen Haltung und angesichts der Zeitumstände ein fataler Fehler gewesen.^[73]

Literatur

• Bruno Bleckmann: Die severische Familie und die Soldatenkaiser. In: Hildegard Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum (Hrsg.): Die Kaiserinnen Roms. Von Livia bis Theodora. Beck, München 2002, ISBN 3-406-49513-3, S. 265–339, hier: 284–298.
• Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women. Los Angeles 1982 (Dissertation, University of California).
• Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie. Satura, Napoli 2006, ISBN 88-7607-021-4.
• Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum. Die severischen Kaiser im Spannungsfeld innenpolitischer Konflikte. Habelt, Bonn 1990, ISBN 3-7749-2466-X, S. 39–44, 80–91, 125–129.

Weblinks

 Commons: Severus Alexander – Album mit Bildern, Videos und Audiodateien

• Herbert W. Benario: Kurzbiografie (englisch) bei De Imperatoribus Romanis (mit Literaturangaben).
• Alexanders Lebensbeschreibung in der Historia Augusta (englisch)

Anmerkungen

1. ↑ Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 34–48; Barbara Levick: Julia Domna. Syrian Empress, London 2007, S. 6–18.
2. ↑ Herodian 5,3,3–4.
3. ↑ Zu den Einzelheiten dieser Entwicklungen siehe Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 96–106; Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 66–73.
4. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (79),19,4; Herodian 5,3,10 und 5,7,3. Bei der Angabe mancher Bücher von Cassius Dios Werk sind unterschiedliche Zählungen gebräuchlich; die alternative Buchzählung wird jeweils in Klammern angegeben.
5. ↑ Helga Gesche: Die Divinisierung der römischen Kaiser in ihrer Funktion als Herrschaftslegitimation. In: Chiron 8, 1978, S. 377–390, hier: 387f.; Michael Louis Meckler: Caracalla and his late-antique biographer, Ann Arbor 1994, S. 9 und Anm. 34; Anne Daguet-Gagey: Septime Sévère, Paris 2000, S. 255f.; Drora Baharal: Victory of Propaganda, Oxford 1996, S. 20–42.
6. ↑ Herodian 5,7,3; vgl. Cassius Dio 80 (79),17,3. Siehe dazu Auguste Jardé: Etudes critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre, Paris 1925, S. 2f.; Angela Kühnen: Die imitatio Alexandri in der römischen Politik, Münster 2008, S. 186–188; Alfons Rösger: Severus Alexander und Alexander der Große. In: Wolfgang Will (Hrsg.): Zu Alexander d. Gr. Festschrift G. Wirth zum 60. Geburtstag am 9.12.86, Band 2, Amsterdam 1988, S. 885–906, hier: 885–892.
7. ↑ Eine ausführliche Darstellung bietet Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 128–159.
8. ↑ Belege bei Elizabeth Kosmetatou: The Public Image of Julia Mamaea. In: Latomus 61, 2002, S. 398–414, hier: S. 407 und Anm. 30.
9. ↑ Herodian 6,1,2. Siehe dazu Karlheinz Dietz: Senatus contra principem, München 1980, S. 300–305.
10. ↑ Zur Datierung siehe Erich Kettenhofen: Zum Todesdatum Julia Maesas. In: Historia 30, 1981, S. 244–249; James Frank Gilliam: On Divi under the Severi. In: Jacqueline Bibauw (Hrsg.): Hommages à Marcel Renard, Bd. 2, Bruxelles 1969, S. 284–289, hier: 285; Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 236–242.
11. ↑ Zu den Inschriften siehe Erich Kettenhofen: Die syrischen Augustae in der historischen Überlieferung, Bonn 1979, S. 156–163, zu den Münzen Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 189–193.
12. ↑ Herodian 6,1,3; Cassius Dio 80 (80),2,2.
13. ↑ Eine ausführliche Untersuchung bietet Fara Nasti: Note sulla politica filosenatoria di Alessandro Severo con particolare riferimento alla Historia Augusta. In: Annali dell’Istituto italiano per gli studi storici 13, 1995/1996, S. 67–99.
14. ↑ Zonaras 12,15.
15. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),2,3. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 41, 81, 128f.
16. ↑ Nach der in der Forschung vorherrschenden Auffassung waren die beiden Präfekten Ulpian unterstellt. Zu einer abweichenden Hypothese, der zufolge Ulpian alleiniger Prätorianerpräfekt war, siehe Lukas de Blois: Ulpian’s Death. In: Pol Defosse (Hrsg.): Hommages à Carl Deroux, Bd. 3, Bruxelles 2003, S. 135–145, hier: 135–139.
17. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),2,4. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 41, 81–83. Zur Datierung der Vorgänge siehe Cécile Bertrand-Dagenbach: Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire Auguste, Bruxelles 1990, S. 16 Anm. 6.
18. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),3,1. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 40–43, 84–87.
19. ↑ Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie, Napoli 2006, S. 19f.
20. ↑ Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie, Napoli 2006, S. 21f., 109.
21. ↑ Fara Nasti: L’attività normativa di Severo Alessandro. Band 1: Politica di governo, riforme amministrative e giudiziarie, Napoli 2006, S. 41–50.
22. ↑ Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 242f.
23. ↑ Matthäus Heil: Severus Alexander und Orbiana. Eine Kaiserehe. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 2001, S. 233–248, hier: 246f.
24. ↑ Herodian 6,1,9f. Siehe dazu Matthäus Heil: Severus Alexander und Orbiana. Eine Kaiserehe. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 2001, S. 233–248, hier: 234.
25. ↑ Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander 49,3f.
26. ↑ Siehe dazu Tadeusz Kotula: Die zwei Frauen des Severus Alexander: Resonanz einer politischen Spaltung? In: Gerhard Wirth (Hrsg.): Romanitas – Christianitas. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte und Literatur der römischen Kaiserzeit, Berlin 1982, S. 293–307. Kotula vertrat die Hypothese einer früheren Heirat des Kaisers. Er meinte, die nicht namentlich bekannte erste Frau sei Afrikanerin gewesen und von Mamaea ausgeschaltet und nach Afrika verbannt worden. Danach habe Mamaea ihrem Sohn Orbiana als neue Ehefrau ausgesucht.
27. ↑ Matthäus Heil: Severus Alexander und Orbiana. Eine Kaiserehe. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 135, 2001, S. 233–248, hier: 234–244; Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 59.
28. ↑ Markus Handy: Die Severer und das Heer, Berlin 2009, S. 59f.
29. ↑ Eusebius von Caesarea, Kirchengeschichte 6,21,3f. Vgl. Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 365.
30. ↑ Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 360–362, 364f.
31. ↑ Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander 29.
32. ↑ Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 370f.
33. ↑ Lawrence Richardson, Jr.: A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome, Baltimore 1992, S. 15; Herbert W. Benario: Severan Rome and the Historia Augusta. In: Latomus 20, 1961, S. 281–290, hier: 287.
34. ↑ Historia Augusta, Severus Alexander 39,4.
35. ↑ Zu den Angaben der Historia Augusta über Bauwerke Alexanders und zu ihrer Glaubwürdigkeit siehe Herbert W. Benario: Severan Rome and the Historia Augusta. In: Latomus 20, 1961, S. 281–290.
36. ↑ Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 48.
37. ↑ Zum Verlauf siehe Karin Mosig-Walburg: Römer und Perser, Gutenberg 2009, S. 26–28.
38. ↑ Hinsichtlich der territorialen Ansprüche Ardaschirs gehen in der Forschung die Meinungen weit auseinander. Eine Forschungsübersicht bietet Erich Kettenhofen: Die Einforderung der achaimenidischen Territorien durch die Sāsāniden – eine Bilanz. In: Susanne Kurz (Hrsg.): Yādnāme-ye Iradj Khalifeh-Soltani, Aachen 2002, S. 49–75. Zu den Befürwortern der Historizität zählen Josef Wiesehöfer: Ardašīr I. I: History. In: Encyclopædia Iranica, Bd. 2, London 1987, S. 371–376, hier: 373 und Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 31–43, 47f., 50f. Vgl. Dieter Metzler: Ziele und Formen königlicher Innenpolitik im vorislamischen Iran, Münster 1977, S. 138–142. Die Gegenposition vertreten u. a. Karin Mosig-Walburg: Römer und Perser, Gutenberg 2009, S. 27 und Anm. 66, David Potter: Alexander Severus and Ardashir. In: Mesopotamia 22, 1987, S. 147–157 und Erich Kettenhofen: Einige Überlegungen zur sasanidischen Politik gegenüber Rom im 3. Jh. n. Chr. In: Edward Dąbrowa (Hrsg.): The Roman and Byzantine Army in the East, Kraków 1994, S. 99–108, hier: 102–106.
39. ↑ Herodian 6,2,3–5.
40. ↑ Cassius Dio 80 (80),4.
41. ↑ Herodian 6,4,4–6. Siehe dazu Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 51f.
42. ↑ Siehe dazu Karin Mosig-Walburg: Römer und Perser, Gutenberg 2009, S. 67–73; Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 52f.
43. ↑ Herodian 6,6,5–6.
44. ↑ Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 63f.
45. ↑ Herodian 6,6,1–4. Vgl. Julia Sünskes Thompson: Aufstände und Protestaktionen im Imperium Romanum, Bonn 1990, S. 43, 87.
46. ↑ Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 67.
47. ↑ Herodian 6,7,3.
48. ↑ Robert Lee Cleve: Severus Alexander and the Severan Women, Los Angeles 1982, S. 301f.
49. ↑ Herodian 6,8,3 und 6,9,5.
50. ↑ Herodian 6,8,4; 6,9,4–5; 6,9,8.
51. ↑ Herodian 6,7,9.
52. ↑ Herodian 6,8,8. Zur Solderhöhung siehe Michael Alexander Speidel: Heer und Herrschaft im Römischen Reich der hohen Kaiserzeit, Stuttgart 2009, S. 350, 415.
53. ↑ Herodian 6,9,1–5.
54. ↑ Die Identifizierung mit Bretzenheim hat Leonhard Schumacher ausführlich begründet; siehe Leonhard Schumacher: Die Sicilia in Mainz-Bretzenheim. In: Mainzer Zeitschrift. Mittelrheinisches Jahrbuch für Archäologie, Kunst und Geschichte 99, 2004, S. 1–10 und Leonhard Schumacher: Römische Kaiser in Mainz, Bochum 1982, S. 89−92 (mit Zusammenstellung und Diskussion der älteren Literatur). Vgl. Auguste Jardé: Etudes critiques sur la vie et le règne de Sévère Alexandre, Paris 1925, S. 85 und Anm. 4, S. 86 Anm. 1. Gegen die Lokalisierung argumentiert mit großem Nachdruck Astrid Böhme-Schönberger: Wurde Alexander Severus in Bretzenheim ermordet? In: Mainzer Zeitschrift. Mittelrheinisches Jahrbuch für Archäologie, Kunst und Geschichte 99, 2004, S. 11–16. Ihr folgt Ronald Knöchlein: Bretzenheim – Zahlbach – Dalheim. Die archäologischen Zeugnisse bis in die fränkische Zeit, Mainz 2009, S. 28 und Anm. 21 und S. 45. Zur Frage der Datierung siehe Michael Peachin: P. Oxy. VI 912 and the Accession of Maximinus Thrax. In: Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik 59, 1985, S. 75−78.
55. ↑ Herodian 6,9,8.
56. ↑ Karlheinz Dietz: Senatus contra principem, München 1980, S. 305.
57. ↑ Zu den Einzelheiten siehe Max Wegner: Severus Alexander. In: Max Wegner (Hrsg.): Das römische Herrscherbild, Abteilung 3 Band 1, Berlin 1971, S. 177–199 (mit Zusammenstellung der Rundplastiken). Vgl. Klaus Fittschen, Paul Zanker: Katalog der römischen Porträts in den Capitolinischen Museen und den anderen kommunalen Sammlungen der Stadt Rom. Band 1, 2. Auflage, Mainz 1994, Textband S. 117–123.
58. ↑ Zum Hintergrund siehe Karlheinz Dietz: Senatus contra principem, München 1980, S. 340.
59. ↑ Herodian 6,9; vgl. 6,1,6–8. Siehe dazu Thomas Hidber: Herodians Darstellung der Kaisergeschichte nach Marc Aurel, Basel 2006, S. 220–225; Asko Timonen: Cruelty and Death. Roman Historians’ Scenes of Imperial Violence from Commodus to Philippus Arabs, Turku 2000, S. 151–155.
60. ↑ Eine gründliche Untersuchung bietet Cécile Bertrand-Dagenbach: Alexandre Sévère et l’Histoire Auguste, Bruxelles 1990.
61. ↑ Aurelius Victor 24, Eutropius 8,23. Vgl. Engelbert Winter: Die sāsānidisch-römischen Friedensverträge des 3. Jahrhunderts n. Chr. – ein Beitrag zum Verständnis der außenpolitischen Beziehungen zwischen den beiden Großmächten, Frankfurt am Main 1988, S. 56–60.
62. ↑ Julian, Caesares 313.
63. ↑ Zur Interpretation siehe Friedhelm L. Müller (Hrsg.): Die beiden Satiren des Kaisers Julianus Apostata, Stuttgart 1998, S. 188.
64. ↑ Die byzantinischen Quellentexte sind zusammengestellt, übersetzt und kommentiert bei Stephanie Brecht: Die römische Reichskrise von ihrem Ausbruch bis zu ihrem Höhepunkt in der Darstellung byzantinischer Autoren, Rahden 1999, S. 67–92. Vgl. Enrico dal Covolo: La politica religiosa di Alessandro Severo. In: Salesianum 49, 1987, S. 359–375, hier: 366–368.
65. ↑ Edward Gibbon: The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Bd. 1, London 1776, S. 154–161.
66. ↑ Jacob Burckhardt: Die Zeit Constantins des Großen, München 1982, S. 9f. (erstmals 1853 erschienen).
67. ↑ Alfred von Domaszewski: Geschichte der römischen Kaiser, Bd. 2, Leipzig 1909, S. 279f.
68. ↑ Ernst Kornemann: Römische Geschichte, Bd. 2, Stuttgart 1939, S. 347.
69. ↑ Wilhelm Ensslin: The Senate and the Army. In: The Cambridge Ancient History, Bd. 12, Cambridge 1939, S. 57–95, hier: 72.
70. ↑ Alfred Heuß: Römische Geschichte, Braunschweig 1960, S. 352.
71. ↑ Hermann Bengtson: Römische Geschichte, München 1973, S. 329.
72. ↑ Karl Christ: Geschichte der römischen Kaiserzeit, München 1988 (6. Auflage München 2009), S. 629–631.
73. ↑ Bruno Bleckmann: Die severische Familie und die Soldatenkaiser. In: Hildegard Temporini-Gräfin Vitzthum (Hrsg.): Die Kaiserinnen Roms, München 2002, S. 265–339, hier: 291, 298.

Dieser Artikel wurde in die Liste der exzellenten Artikel aufgenommen. Vorlage:Exzellent/Wartung/ohne DatumVorlage:Exzellent/Wartung/ohne Version

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Hadrian (117-138 A.D.)

Herbert W. Benario, Emory University

Abb.: http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/trjan-s1.jpe

Introduction and Sources

„During a happy period of more than fourscore years, the public administrationwas conducted by the virtue and abilities of Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and the two Antonines. It is the design of this and of the two succeeding chaptersto describe the prosperous condition of their empire, and afterwards, fromthe death of Marcus Antoninus, to deduce the most important circumstancesof its decline and fall, a revolution which will ever be remembered andis still felt by the nations of the earth.“

So Edward Gibbon concluded the first paragraph of his massive TheDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire, referring to a period which healso styled the happiest of mankind’s history. Hadrian was the centralfigure of these „five good emperors,“ the one most responsible for changingthe character and nature of the empire. He was also one of the most remarkableand talented individuals Rome ever produced.

The sources for a study of Hadrian are varied. There is no major historianfor his reign, such as Tacitus or Livy. The chief literary sources arethe biography in the Historia Augusta, the first surviving lifein a series intended to continue Suetonius‘ Lives of the Caesars.[[1]]Debate about this collection of imperial biographies has been heated andcontentious for more than a century. The most convincing view is that whichsees the whole as the work of a single author writing in the last yearsof the fourth century. The information offered ranges from the preciselyaccurate to the most wildly imaginative.[[2]]

Cassius Dio, who wrote in the decade of the 230s, produced a long historyof the empire which has survived, for the Hadrianic period, only in anabbreviated version.[[3]] Fourth century historians,such as Aurelius Victor and Eutropius, occasionally furnish bits of information.Contemporaries or near-contemporaries of Hadrian, such as Arrian, Fronto,Pausanias, and Plutarch, are also useful. Papyri, inscriptions, coins,and legal writings are extremely important. Archaeology in all its aspectscontributes mightily to any attempt to probe the character of a man andemperor whose personality and thoughts defy close analysis and understanding.

Early Life and Career

Hadrian was born on January 24, 76. Where he saw the light of day was,even in antiquity, matter for debate. Italica, in Hispania Baetica, wasthe birthplace of Trajan and was also consideredthat of Hadrian. But the HA reports that he was born in Rome, andthat seems the more likely choice, since it is the more unexpected. Theactual place of one’s birth was, however, unimportant, since it was one’spatriawhich was crucial. Hadrian’s ancestors had come to Spain generations before,from the town of Hadria in Picenum, at the end of the Second Punic War.Italica’s tribus, to which Hadrian belonged, was the Sergia.His father, P. Aelius Afer, had reached the praetorship by the time ofhis death in 85/86, his mother, Domitia Paulina, came from a distinguishedfamily of Gades, one of the wealthiest cities in the empire. His sisterPaulina married Servianus, who played a significant role in Hadrian’s career.Trajanwas the father’s cousin; when Afer died, Trajanand P. Acilius Attianus, likewise of Italica, became Hadrian’s guardians.[[4]]

At the age of about ten, Hadrian went to Italica for the first time(or returned, if he had been there earlier in his childhood), where heremained for only a brief time. He then returned to the capital and soonbegan a rapid rise through the cursus honorum; he was a militarytribune of three different legions in consecutive years, a series of appointmentswhich clearly marked him for a military career, and reached the consulateas a suffect at the age of 32, the earliest possible under the principate.At Trajan’s death, he was legate of theprovince of Syria, with responsibility for the security of the east inthe aftermath of Trajan’s Parthian War.

His career as a privatus follows:

decemvir stlitibus iudicandis
sevir turmae equitum Romanorum
praefectus urbi feriarum Latinarum
trib. militum legionis II Adiutricis Piae Fidelis (95, in Pannoniainferior)
trib. militum legionis V Macedonicae (96, in Moesia inferior)
trib. militum legionis XXII Primigeniae Piae Fidelis (97, inGermania superior)
quaestor (101)
ab actis senatus
tribunus plebis (105)
praetor (106)
legatus legionis I Minerviae Piae Fidelis (106, in Germaniainferior)
legatus Augusti pro praetore Pannoniae inferioris (107)
consul suffectus (108)
septemvir epulonum (before 112)
sodalis Augustalis (before 112)
archon Athenis (112/13)
legatus Syriae (117)

(Some of these dates are less than secure; important for much of thisinformation is the Athens inscription [Smallwood 109]).

Relationship to Trajan, Marriage, and Adoption

Hadrian’s only male relative after the death of his father was M.Ulpius Traianus, his father’s cousin, hence his own first cousinonce removed. Trajan and his wife, PompeiaPlotina, had no children, and were surrogate parents to the child Hadrian.Trajan’s influence in government was steadily increasing, both throughhis own merits and because of his father’s great services to Vespasianin the civil wars and afterwards.[[5]] WhenTrajanwas adopted by Nerva and designated successorin late 97, Hadrian carried the congratulations of the Moesian legionsto him along the Rhine, and was kept there by Trajanto serve in a German legion. In 100, largely at the instance of Plotina, Hadrianmarried Trajan’s grand-niece Vibia Sabina,ten years his junior. This marriage was not a happy one, although it endureduntil her death in 136 or 137. There were no children, and it was reportedthat Sabina performed an abortion upon herself in order not to produceanother monster.[[6]] In spite of marital unhappiness,the union was crucial for Hadrian, because it linked him even more closelywith the emperor’s family. He got along very well with his mother-in-lawMatidia and with the empress, whose favor enhanced his career.

In mid-summer 117, when Trajan was returningfrom his Parthian campaigns, he fell ill while at Selinus in Cilicia anddied on August 8. The following day his adoption of Hadrian was announcedby Plotina and Attianus, the praetorian prefect who had earlier been Hadrian’sguardian, with some question whether Trajanhad indeed performed the act or whether it was posthumous, thanks to hiswidow. On August 11, which he considered his dies imperii, the armyof Syria hailed its legate, Hadrian, as emperor, which made the senate’sformal acceptance an almost meaningless event. This was an example of thehistorian Tacitus‘ famous dictum that an emperor could be made elsewherethan at Rome.[[7]]

Succession and the Affair of the Four Consulars

Hadrian chose as his official title Imperator Caesar Traianus HadrianusAugustus (for much of the decade of the 120s, he was simply known asHadrianus Augustus). He must then have proceeded to Selinus at once fromAntioch, to catch up with Attianus, Plotina, and Matidia. He then returnedto his province no later than September and stayed there at least intothe new year, consolidating his administration. He began the year as cos.II; whether he had been so designated by Trajanis unknown. On January 3, 118, the Arval Brethren met in Rome to offervows for the well-being of the emperor, which shows that he was not inthe capital. In June or July they sacrificed because of the arrival ofthe emperor who is present at the ceremony. He therefore may have takenas much as eleven months from his accession to return to Rome. He saw tothe deification of his predecessor and celebrated games in honor of theconsecration. Trajan’s ashes were placedin the base of his column, by special dispensation, since burials wereprohibited within the pomerium.

Anticipation of his arrival had been overshadowed by the execution offour men of great importance, who had all held consulates and commands.This action had been ordered by the senate, perhaps at the instigationof the praetorian prefect Attianus. Hadrian always disclaimed responsibiltybut his relations with the senate were irrevocably damaged, never reallyto improve until his death, when the senate hoped to have posthumous revenge.The four men were Cornelius Palma (cos. II 109), who had been withTrajanin the east and had been governor of Syria, Avidius Nigrinus (cos.110), governor of Dacia, Publilius Celsus (cos. II 113), and LusiusQuietus, a Moorish chieftain (cos. 117), governor of Judaea andone of Trajan’s chief generals. Personalenmity toward Hadrian certainly existed, perhaps because of Hadrian’s moveaway from Trajan’s policy of expansion,perhaps because of jealousy that Hadrian had been preferred for the succession.Be that as it may, they were all Trajan’smen,and their elimination certainly made Hadrian’s course easier. But the odiumthereby raised caused him dismay until the end of his days.[[8]]He was cos. III in 119, which proved to be the last consulship heheld. He thereby showed himself to be different from many of predecessors:Augustus held 13, Vespasian 9, Titus8, Domitian 17, Trajan 6. He was similarly sparing in his acceptance of other titles; he becamepaterpatriae only in 128.

Foreign policy, wars, and travel

In two important passages, Cassius Dio sets the tone for this section:

„Once, when a woman made a request of him as he passed by on a journey,he at first said to her, ‚I haven’t time,‘ but afterwards, when she criedout, ‚Cease, then, being emperor,‘ he turned about and granted her a hearing.“(69.6.3)

„Hadrian travelled through one province after another, visiting thevarious regions and cities and inspecting all the garrisons and forts.Some of these he removed to more desirable places, some he abolished, andhe also established some new ones. He personally viewed and investigatedabsolutely everything, not merely the usual appurtenances of camps, suchas weapons, engines, trenches, ramparts and palisades, but also the privateaffairs of every one, both of the men serving in the ranks and of the officersthemselves, – their lives, their quarters and their habits, – and he reformedand corrected in many cases practices and arrangements for living thathad become too luxurious. He drilled the men for every kind of battle,honouring some and reproving others, and he taught them all what shouldbe done. And in order that they should be benefited by observing him, heeverywhere led a rigorous life and either walked or rode on horseback onall occasions, never once at this period setting foot in either a chariotor a four-wheeled vehicle. He covered his head neither in hot weather norin cold, but alike amid German snows and under scorching Egyptian sunshe went about with his head bare. In fine, both by his example and by hisprecepts he so trained and disciplined the whole military force throughoutthe entire empire that even to-day the methods then introduced by him arethe soldiers‘ law of campaigning.“ (69.9.1-4; both passages in the translation of E. Cary in the Loeb edition)

These views of Hadrian stem from an historian who lived a century afterthe emperor’s reign. He appears as a conscientious administrator, an inveteratetraveler, and a general deeply concerned for the well-being of his armies,and thus of the empire. There was generally peace throughout its lands,although his principate was not entirely peaceful.

First of all, he had to quash the Jewish uprising which had begun underTrajanand spread throughout the diaspora. Then there were disturbances in Mauretania,Dacia, and in northern Britain. Late in his reign, after deciding to resettlethe site of Jerusalem as the city of Aelia Capitolina and build a templeto Jupiter on the site of the Jewish temple, another uprising occurred,more bitter still than its recent predecessor.

Hadrian’s goal as emperor was to establish natural or man-made boundariesfor the empire. He had realized that its extent had severely strained theempire’s capacity to maintain and protect it. Consolidation was his policy,not expansion, and this brought him enmity in the early years, when Trajan’seastern conquests were abandoned (a process already begun by Trajan)and withdrawal from Dacia was contemplated.

Hadrian’s own military experience was extensive. He had served in provincesin the east, along the Danube, and along the Rhine. Soon after his arrivalin Rome, he began the lengthy journeys which took him to almost every province.He was absent from Italy from 121 to 125, from 128 to 132, and from 134to 136. He spent more than half his reign traveling; he displayed a Wanderlustunlike that of any of his predecessors, and sharply contrasting with thepractice of his successor, who never left Italy.

Evidence for his precise routes and his goals is often entirely absent.One must frequently infer from what is known, and most lists differ insome details. The following is exemplary:

121 Gallia
Germania superior
Raetia
Noricum
Germania superior
122 Germania inferior
Britannia (where he began the construction of the
Wall which bears his name)
Gallia
Gallia Narbonensis (Nemausus)
Hispania (Tarraco)
123 Mauretania (?)
Africa (?)
Libya
Cyrene
Crete
Syria
The Euphrates (Melitene)
Pontus
Bithynia
Asia
124 Thrace
Moesia
Dacia
Pannonia
Achaia
Athens
125 Achaea
Sicily
Rome
128 Africa
Rome
Athens
129 Asia
Pamphylia
Phrygia
Pisidia
Cilicia
Syria
Commagene (Samosata)
Cappadocia
Pontus
Syria (Antioch)
130 Judaea
Arabia
Egypt (Nile trip; death of Antinous; Alexandria)
131 Libyan desert
Syria
Asia
Athens
132 Rome
134 Syria
Judaea
Egypt (?)
Syria (Antioch)
135 Syria
136 Rome

His stay in the East these last years was necessitated by the JewishWar. His recurrent visits to Athens stemmed from his devotion to Greekculture and the city itself, which had elected him archon while he wasstill a private citizen (112). He much preferred the eastern provinces,the Greek lands, to the western ones. After 128/9, he was hailed as Olympios,after 132 as Panhellenios, and also as Panionios. Otherwise,his travels were intended to gain intimate knowledge of people and provinces,of the military in all its aspects, and to help produce a better and securerlife for almost all his subjects.

Domestic policy and legal activity

Hadrian was so little in Italy, compared with his time abroad, thathis governmental policies at home play a lesser role in consideration ofhis entire principate. Yet they have significance, because they displaythe same tendency toward order and consolidation as his external policies.When he arrived in Rome in July 118 to a hostile reception on the partof the senate, because of the death of the four consulars, he devoted attentionto matters of significance to the people. He pursued the honors due Trajan,their favorite, examined the financial ledgers of the empire and discoveredthat there was an enormous sum of uncollectable debts, some 900,000,000sesterces. He determined to remove these from the accounts and begin hisreign with a clean slate. Consequently the records of these debts werepublicly burned, an event which, obviously, gained him public favor.[[9]]It was represented in the relief of the plutei Traiani, presentlydisplayed in the Senate house in the Forum.[[10]]He also continued and expanded the practice of the alimenta, wherebystate money was lent to individuals who paid interest to their local communities.This money supported the local economy and helped maintain orphans.[[11]]He also ensured that the grain supply upon which Rome depended became moresecure with his dramatic building program in Ostia.[[12]]

The most significant legal achievement was the codification of the praetorianand aedilician edicts. This task was assigned to Salvius Julianus, whoproduced one of the glories of Roman legal science.

Underscoring the importance of Hadrian’s work, Kunkel in his magisterialsurvey of Roman law indicates, „Edicts were magistral proclamations whosecontent and scope might be very diverse. . . . At least from the late Republiconwards litigants could, vis-à-vis a magistrate, rely onthe contents of the edicts as confidently as on a statute, for magistrateswere by lex Cornelia of 67 B.C. strictly bound by their edicts.“[[13]]

These edicts, covering centuries, Julianus brought together into a straightforwardand modern document, which became the basis of subsequent praetorian andaedilician activity in the field of law. The Edict has been lost, but manyexcerpts made by commentators upon it have survived in Justinian’s Code.[[14]]

Many letters and rescripts of Hadrian have survived, which, in theirvariety, illustrate the almost infinite range of matters which were referredto the emperor. Two important ones may be exemplary. In 121, at the requestof Plotina, who was deeply interested in the Epicurean School at Athens,he permits the presidency of the school to be assumed by someone who isnot a Roman citizen, thereby increasing the pool of potential candidatessubstantially.[[15]] Hadrian’s rescript toMinicius Fundanus is crucial for our understanding of the development ofRome’s relations with the Christians. He essentially reiterates Trajan’sresponse to Pliny (Ep. 10.97). Minicius was governor of Asia in124/5. Hadrian’s communication replied to a question put to him by Minicius’predecessor, Serennius Granianus.[[16]]

Literary and artistic achievements

Hadrian was a man of extraordinary talents, certainly one of the mostgifted that Rome ever produced. He became a fine public speaker, he wasa student of philosophy and other subjects, who could hold his own withthe luminaries in their fields, he wrote both an autobiography and poetry,and he was a superb architect. It was in this last area that he left hisgreatest mark, with several of the empire’s most extraordinary buildingsand complexes stemming from his fertile mind. The anonymous author of theHistoriaAugusta described Hadrian as Fuit enim poematum et litterarum nimiumstudiosissimus. Arithmeticae, geometriae, picturae peritissimus.[[17]]

He rebuilt Agrippa’s Pantheon into the remarkable building that survivestoday, reconstructing the accustomed temple facade, with columns and pediment,but attaching it to a drum which was surmounted by a coffered dome. Thelatter was pierced by an oculus nine meters in diameter, which wasthe main source of illumination. Height and diameter were identical, 43.3meters. The dome remained the largest in the world until the twentiethcentury. As was his custom, he replaced the original inscription of Agrippaon the architrave; seldom did he put his own name on a monument.[[18]]
To complete Trajan’s Forum, which hadbeen planned by Apollodorus on a tremendous scale, he added a large templededicated to the deified Trajan and Plotina.He thereby made this forum more similar to its four imperial predecessors,each of which had a temple as its focus.[[19]]

On April 21, 121, the dies natalis of the city of Rome, Hadrianbegan construction of a temple unique in design and larger than any otherever built by the Romans. Its length of more than 100 meters made it theonly Roman addition to the short list of temples built by the Greeks whichwere at least that long. Even more extraordinary was the interior, withina fully peripteral colonnade. There were two cellae, back to back, withan apse at the end in which were placed the statues of the goddesses Venusand Roma, gigantic statues which, Apollodorus is said to have sneered,would bang their heads if they got up.[[20]]The temple dominated the east end of the Roman forum, built on the heightsof the Velia, overwhelming Titus‘ Arch andfacing the Amphitheatrum Flavium. He thereby linked his own achievementsas conqueror of the Jews and great builder with his Flavian predecessors.Unlike Vespasian and Trajan,who built new fora which bore their names, Hadrian was more interestedin individual monuments, the novelty and magnitude of which would keephis name alive.[[21]] Late in life, he beganconstruction of a mausoleum, larger than that of Augustus, on the otherside of the Tiber and down river from it. It was approached by a new bridgeacross the river, the Pons Aelius. The mausoleum had not been completedat the time of his death.[[22]]His most imaginative,nay stupendous, architectural achievement was his villa at Tibur, the modernTivoli, some 30 kilometers ENE of Rome, in the plain at the foot of theSabine Hills. It covered some 700 acres and contained about 100 buildings,some of which were among the most daring ever attempted in antiquity. HereHadrian reconstructed, so to speak, many of the places which he had visitedin his travels, such as the Canopus of Alexandria and the vale of Tempe.[[23]]

He also left his mark on almost every city and province to which hecame. He paid particular attention to Athens, where he completed the greattemple of Olympian Zeus, some six centuries after construction had begun,and made it the centerpiece of a new district of the city.

Hadrian’s relationship with philosophers and other scholars was generallyfractious. He often scorned their achievements while showing his own superiority.An anecdote about an argument which he had with the eminent philosopherand sophist Favorinus revealed the inequity of such disagreement. AlthoughFavorinus was correct, he gave way to Hadrian, and when rebuked by friends,replied, „You advise me badly, friends, since you do not permit me to believethat he who commands thirty legions is the most learned of all.“[[24]]

Hadrian’s literary taste inclined toward the archaic and the odd. Hepreferred Cato to Cicero, Ennius to Vergil, Coelius Antipater to Sallust,and disapproved of Homer and Plato as well. Indeed, the epic writer Antimachusof Colophon supplanted Homer in Hadrian’s estimation.[[25]]The biographer Suetonius held office under Hadrian but was discharged in122 for disrespect to the empress.[[26]] Thehistorian Tacitus, who may have lived into Hadrian’s reign, seems to havefound no favor with the emperor.

His best known literary work is the short poem which he is said to havecomposed shortly before his death. These five lines have caused commentatorsmuch interpretative woe.

animula vagula blandula
hospes comesque corporis
quae nunc abibis in loca
pallidula rigida nudula
nec ut soles dabis iocos! (25.9)

„Little soul, wandering and pale, guest and companion of my body, youwho will now go off to places pale, stiff, and barren, nor will you makejokes as has been your wont.“[[27]]

Another four lines of verse are preserved by the HA, part ofan exchange with the poet Florus. [[28]] Mentionis also made of his autobiography, which he had published under someoneelse’s name.[[29]]

Antinous

Probably the aspect of Hadrian’s life which is most widely known ishis relationship with the handsome youth Antinous. He was a Bithynian,born about 110, whom Hadrian met when the lad was in his mid-teens. Hejoined Hadrian’s entourage and was with him in Egypt in the fall of 130.During the course of the emperor’s Nile cruise, Antinous drowned. The reason(or reasons) were not known. Conjecture of course abounded. The HAsuggests that Antinous offered himself to save Hadrian’s life and thatthere was a homosexual relationship between them. Tradition also reportedthat Antinous committed suicide because an oracle had stated that, if hedid so, the remaining years of life that he could expect would be transferredto the emperor. There is even the unsensational possibility that the childlessemperor, whose relationship with his wife was at best cool, looked uponthe attractive young man as the son whom he had never had. Whatever thefacts, Hadrian’s grief was extravagant, and he caused the youth to be worshippedas a god throughout the empire and cities in his honor were establishedin many places. An Antinoopolis rose along the Nile near the spot wherehe drowned. Many statues of Antinous have survived, which reveal his fleshyand attractive appearance.[[30]]

End of life and problems of succession

When Hadrian returned to Rome in 136 from the east with its great responsibilitiesof the Jewish War, his health had deteriorated markedly. He was now 60years old, lonely and despondent. The empress Sabina had died, Antinouswas gone, few remained to whom he felt close. He therefore began to contemplatea successor, in order to avoid a situation such as had occurred beforehis own accession. Then, he was the obvious, indeed the only sensible choice;now, there was no one who, by military distinction or close relationshipwith him, would stand out. His choice, L. Ceionius Commodus, was surprising,although he was cos. ord. when adopted. Nothing particularly recommendedhim other than powerful political connections. His health was bad and hehad no military experience, his career having been entirely in the civilianarena. Some scholars have suggested that he was Hadrian’s bastard son,but that need not be believed. Nonetheless, his only recommendation washis good looks; his life was frivolous, his tastes luxurious. Hadrian’schoice seems to have been an aberration of judgment.

Commodus died on the first day of the year 138. Hadrian’s next choice,a much happier one, was T. Aurelius Fulvius BoioniusArrius Antoninus known to history as AntoninusPius. The scion of a distinguished consular family, he had beenborn near Rome in 86, although his patria was Nemausus in GalliaNarbonensis. Consul in 120, at an early age, he soon thereafter servedas one of the four consulares who had jurisdiction of Italy.[[31]]He reached the acme of a senatorial career with his governorship of Asiaabout 134/5. He was one of the most distinguished men of the age.

Hadrian caused Antoninus to adopt twoyoung men, who were intended to succeed him in the fullness of years. Onewas the seven-year-old son of Commodus, now named LuciusAelius Aurelius Commodus, the later LuciusVerus. The other was the seventeen year old MarcusAnnius Verus, now Marcus Aelius AureliusVerus, the later Marcus Aurelius.Upon Antoninus‘ death in 161, they succeededas co-emperors; Hadrian’s foresight was thus rewarded.

Hadrian was at an imperial villa at Baiae, on the Bay of Naples, whenhe died on July 10, 138. The senate now felt it could repay the emperorfor the wrongs done it from the beginning of his reign and undertook tocondemn his memory, in other words, damnatio memoriae. But Antoninusfought against this condemnation of his adoptive father and gained deificationinstead. It is generally thought that it was for this action that he receivedthe name of Pius.[[32]]

Hadrian’s ashes were placed in his mausoleum and he received the customaryhonors of having been recognized as a divus, which above all recognizedthat he had ruled constitutionally. A great temple in the Campus Martiuswas built to his memory in the early 140s, now called the Hadrianeum, oneof the largest in Rome. A substantial part survives. The tall stylobatewas decorated with alternating reliefs of provinces and victories. In alllikelihood, there was a relief of each of the 36 provinces which existedat the time of Hadrian’s death.[[33]]

Reputation

Hadrian died invisus omnibus, according to the author of theVita.[[34]]But his deification placed him in the list of „good“ emperors, a worthysuccessor to the optimus princeps Trajan.Hadrian played a significant role both in developing the foreign policiesof the empire and in its continuing centralization in administration. Fewwould disagree that he was one of the most remarkable men Rome ever produced,and that the empire was fortunate to have him as its head. When AeliusAristides delivered his oration To Rome in 143, he had Hadrian’sempire in mind when he said,
„But there is that which very decidedly deserves as much attention andadmiration now as all the rest together. I mean your magnificent citizenshipwith its grand conception, because there is nothing like it in the recordsof all mankind. Dividing into two groups all those in your empire – andwith this word I have indicated the entire civilized world – you have everywhereappointed to your citizenship, or even to kinship with you, the betterpart of the world’s talent, courage, and leadership, while the rest yourecognizedas a league under your hegemony. Neither sea nor intervening continentare bars to citizenship, nor are Asia and Europe divided in their treatmenthere. In your empire all paths are open to all. No one worthy of rule ortrust remains an alien, but a civil community of the World has been establishedas a Free Republic under one, the best, ruler and teacher of order; andall come together as into a common civic center, in order to receive eachman his due.[[35]]

That being the case, it seems somewhat odd that he is best known tomost people, not from Gibbon’s narrative nor from any specific scholarlytreatment, but from a work of fiction. This is the quite splendid Memoirsof Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar, which became a best-seller abouthalf a century ago. She presents a Hadrian as he might have been, and,although she commands a wide range of source material, the reader mustalways be alert to the fact that this Hadrian is not necessarily the historicalHadrian.[[36]]

Scholarly work on the emperor, above all biographies, has been variedin quality. Much the best, as the most recent, is by A.R. Birley, who presentsall that is known but underscores how much is conjecture, nay even guesswork.We still do not really know the man. An enigma he was to many while alive,and so he remains for us. Semper in omnibus varius; omnium curiositatumexplorator; varius multiplex multiformis: these are descriptions ofhim from antiquity.[[37]] They are still validmore than 1900 years after the emperor’s death.
Appendix: Historians and their Craft: TheEvolution of the Historical Hadrian by Andrew Hill

Bibliography

Bardon, H., Les Empereurs et les Lettres Latines d’Auguste àHadrien (Paris, 1968²)
Benario, H.W., A Commentary on the Vita Hadriani in the HistoriaAugusta (Chico, CA, 1980)
Birley, A.R., Lives of the Later Caesars (Harmondsworth, 1976)
________., Hadrian, The Restless Emperor (London, 1997)
Boatwright, M.T., Hadrian and the City of Rome (Princeton, 1987)
Bowersock, G.W., Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (Oxford,1969)
Braund, D., Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of theClient Kingship (London, 1984)
Chevallier, R., and R. Poignault, L’Empereur Hadrien (Paris,1998)
Clark, E., Rome and a Villa (Garden City, NY, 1952) 141-94
Crook, J.A., Consilium Principis. Imperial Councils and Counsellorsfrom Augustus to Diocletain (Cambridge, 1955)
de Serviez, J.R., tr. B. Molesworth, The Roman Empresses (London,1752; New York, 1913) II 1-20
Eck, W., „Hadrianus,“ in Der Neue Pauly 5 (1998) cols. 59-64
Fein, S., Die Beziehungen der Kaiser Trajan und Hadrian zu den litterati(Stuttgart and Leipzig, 1994)
Garzetti, A., From Tiberius to the Antonines (translated by J.R.Foster, London, 1974)
Gibbon, E., The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, vol. 1,(London, 1776)
Halfmann, H., Itinera principum (Stuttgart 1986)
Hammond, M., The Antonine Monarchy (Rome, 1959)
Lambert, R., Beloved and God. The Story of Hadrian and Antinous(New York, 1984)
Levi, M.A., Adriano Augusto. Studi e ricerche (Rome, 1993)
________. Adriano. Un Ventennio di Cambiamento (Milan,1994)
Macdonald, W.L., The Pantheon (Cambridge, MA, 1976)
Mattern, S.P., Rome and the Enemy. Imperial Strategy in the Principate(Berkeley, 1999)
Millar, F., A Study of Cassius Dio (Oxford, 1964)
________., The Emperor in the Roman World (Ithaca, NY, 1977)
Nash, E., Pictorial Dictionary of Ancient Rome, two volumes (London,1961-62)
Perowne, S., Hadrian (London, 1960)
Smallwood, E.M., Documents Illustrating the Principates of NervaTrajan and Hadrian (Cambridge, 1966)
Syme, R., „Hadrian and Italica,“ in Roman Papers II (Oxford,1979) 617-28
________., „Hadrian and the Vassal Princes,“ in Roman Papers III(Oxford, 1984) 1436-46
________., „Hadrian as Philhellene,“ in Roman Papers V (Oxford,1988) 546-62
________., „The Career of Arrian,“ in Roman Papers V (Oxford,1988) 21-49
________., „Hadrian and the Senate,“ in Roman Papers V (Oxford,1988) 295-324
________., „Hadrian the Intellectual,“ in Roman Papers VI (Oxford,1991) 103-14
________., „Fictional History Old and New: Hadrian,“ in Roman PapersVI (Oxford, 1991) 157-81
________., „Journeys of Hadrian,“ in Roman Papers VI (Oxford,1991) 346-57
________., „Hadrian’s Autobiography: Servianus and Sura,“ in RomanPapers (Oxford, 1991) 398-408
Toynbee, J.M.C., The Hadrianic School (Cambridge, 1934)
Weber, W., „Hadrian,“ in Cambridge Ancient History XI (Cambridge,1936) 294-324
Yourcenar, M., Memoirs of Hadrian (New York, 1954)

Footnotes

[[1]] See Benario, A Commentary, and Birley,Lives.
[[2]] See Syme, The Historia Augusta.
[[3]] See Millar, Cassius Dio.
[[4]] HA Vita Hadriani 1, PIR²A 184.
[[5]] M. Durry, „Sur Trajan père,“ in LesEmpereurs Romains d’Espagne (Paris, 1965) 45-54.
[[6]] Epitome de Caesaribus 14.8.
[[7]] Historiae 1.4.2.
[[8]] Dio 69.2.5-6.
[[9]] Dio 69.8.1.
[[10]] Nash II 176-77.
[[11]] See M. Rostovtzeff, Social and EconomicHistory of the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1957) chap. 8.
[[12]] See W.L. MacDonald, The Architecture ofthe Roman Empire
II (New Haven, 1986) 253-54.
[[13]] W. Kunkel, An Introduction to Roman Legaland Constitutional History, tr. J.M. Kelly, (Oxford, 1966)88-89.
[[14]] S. Riccobono, Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustiniani(Florence, 1941) 335-91.
[[15]] Smallwood 442.
[[16]] Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica 4.8.6,4.9. See R. Freudenberger, Das Verhalten der römischen Behördengegen die Christen im 2. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1967) 216-34.
[[17]] VH 14.8-9; see also Dio 69.3.
[[18]] See MacDonald (above, note 12) I (New Haven,1965) 94-121; Nash II 170-75.
[[19]] Nash I 450-56.
[[20]] MacDonald (above, note 12) I 129-37; Dio69.4.
[[21]] Nash II 496-99.
[[22]] Nash II 44-48.
[[23]] W.L. MacDonald & J.A. Pinto, Hadrian’sVilla and Its Legacy (New Haven, 1995)
[[24]] VH 15.12-13.
[[25]] VH 16.2; Dio 69.4.6.
[[26]] VH 11.3.
[[27]] See B. Baldwin, „Hadrian’s farewell to life.Some arguments for authenticity,“ CQ 20 (1970) 372-74.
[[28]] VH 16.3-4.
[[29]] See Bardon, 393-424.
[[30]] Dio 69.11; see Lambert.
[[31]] VH 22.3.
[[32]] Dio 69.17.
[[33]] Nash I 457-61; see Toynbee.
[[34]] VH 25.7.
[[35]] J.H. Oliver, The Ruling Power (Philadelphia,1953), chaps. 59 and 60, 901.
[[36]] See Syme, Fictional History.
[[37]] VH 14.11; Tertullian, Apologetica5.7; Epitome de Caesaribus 14.6.

Copyright (C) 2000, Herbert W. Benario. This file may be copied onthe condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyrightnotice, remain intact.

Comments to: Herbert W. Benario.
Updated: 24 September 2008

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Herbert W. Benario: Hadrian (98-117 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [24.09.2008], http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/hadrian.htm.

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Nerva (96-98 A.D.)

David Wend

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/nerva.gif

Introduction

Although short, the reign of Marcus Cocceius Nerva (A.D. 96-98) is pivotal. The first of Edward Gibbon’s so-called „Five Good Emperors,“ Nerva is credited with beginning the practice of adopting his heir rather than selecting a blood relative. Claimed as an ancestor by all the emperors down to Severus Alexander, he has traditionally been regarded with much good will at the expense of his predecessor, Domitian.

Ancestry

Nerva could claim eminent ancestry on both sides of his family. On the paternal side, his great-grandfather, M. Cocceius Nerva, was consul in 36 B.C.; his grandfather, a distinguished jurist of the same name, accompanied Tiberius on his retirement to Capri in 26 A.D.[[1]] On his mother’s side an aunt, Rubellia Bassa, was the great-granddaughter of Tiberius. In addition, a great-uncle, L. Cocceius Nerva, played a part in the negotiations that secured a treaty between Octavian and Antony in 40 B.C

Early Career and Life under Domitian

Nerva was born on 8 November, 30 A.D.[[2]] Little is known of his upbringing beyond the fact that he belonged to a senatorial family and pursued neither a military nor a public speaking career. On the other hand, he did hold various priesthoods and was a praetor-designate.[[3]] More importantly, as praetor designate in 65, Nerva was instrumental in revealing the conspiracy of Piso against the emperor Nero.

As a result, he received triumphal ornaments and his statue was placed in the palace.[[4]] Following Nero’s fall in 68, Nerva must have realized that support of Vespasian and the Flavian cause was in his best interests.[[5]] In 71 his loyalty was rewarded with a joint consulship with the emperor, the only time that Vespasian ever held the office without his son Titus. It was under the reign of Vespasian’s other son, Domitian, that Nerva’s political fortunes were ultimately determined, however. He shared the ordinary consulship with Domitian in 90, an honor that was perhaps the result of his alerting the emperor about the revolt of Antonius Saturninus, the governor of Upper Germany, in 89.[[6]] Even so, like so many others of the senatorial class, Nerva came under scrutiny in the final years of Domitian’s reign, when the emperor was unwilling to tolerate any criticism.

Whether or not Nerva was forced to withdraw from public life during Domitian’s final years remains an open question.[[7]] What is not in dispute is that he was named emperor on the same day that Domitian was assassinated in September, 96. Indeed, in some respects the accession was improbable, since it placed the Empire under the control of a feeble sexagenarian and long-time Flavian supporter with close ties to the unpopular Domitian. On the other hand, Nerva had proven to be a capable senator, one with political connections and an ability to negotiate. Moreover, he had no children, thereby ensuring that the state would not become his hereditary possession.

Imperial Initiatives

Upon taking office, Nerva made immediate changes. He ordered the palace of Domitian to be renamed the House of the People, while he himself resided at the Horti Sallustiani, the favorite residence of Vespasian. More significantly, he took an oath before the senate that he would refrain from executing its members. He also released those who had been imprisoned by Domitian and recalled exiles not found guilty of serious crimes.[[8]] Nevertheless, Nerva still allowed the prosecution of informers by the senate, a measure that led to chaos, as everyone acted in his own interests while trying to settle scores with personal enemies.[[9]]

In the area of economic administration Nerva, like Domitian, was keen on maintaining a balanced budget. In early 97, after appointing a commission of five consular senators to give advice on reducing expenditures, he proceeded to abolish many sacrifices, races, and games. Similarly, he allowed no gold or silver statues to be made of himself. Even so, there was some room for municipal expenditure. For the urban poor of Italy he granted allotments of land worth 60 million sesterces, and he exempted parents and their children from a 5% inheritance tax. He also made loans to Italian landowners on the condition that they pay interest of 5% to their municipality to support the children of needy families. These alimentary schemes were later extended by Trajan, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius.[[10]]

Because he reigned only briefly, Nerva’s public works were few. By early 98 he dedicated the forum that Domitian had built to connect the Forum of Augustus with the Forum of Peace. It became known as the Forum of Nerva, or the Forum Transitorium. Nerva also built granaries, made repairs to the Colosseum when the Tiber flooded, and continued the program of road building and repairs inaugurated under the Flavians.[[11]] In addition, pantomime performances, supressed by Domitian, were restored.[[12]]

In the military realm, Nerva established veterans‘ colonies in Africa, a practice that was continued by the emperor Trajan. Normal military privileges were continued and some auxiliary units assumed the epithet Nervia or Nerviana. We are not well informed beyond these details, and any military action that may have occurred while Nerva was emperor is known sketchy at best.[[13]]

Nature of Nerva’s Government

Nerva’s major appointments favored men whom he knew and trusted, and who had long served and been rewarded by the Flavians. Typical was Sextus Julius Frontinus. A consul under Vespasian and governor of Britain twenty years earlier, Frontinus came out of retirement to become curator of the water supply, an office that had long been subject to abuse and mismanagement. He helped to put an end to the abuses and published a significant work on Rome’s water supply, De aquis urbis Romae. As a reward for his service, Frontinus was named consul for the second time in 98.[[14]] Similarly, the emperor’s own amici were often senators with Flavian ties, men who, by virtue of their links to the previous regime, were valuable to Nerva for what they knew. Thus do we find the likes of A. Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiiento, one of Domitian’s ill-reputed counselors, seated next to Nerva at an imperial dinner.[[15]] Nerva was less willing to consult the Senate as a whole. In many cases he preferred the opinions of his own consilium, and was less submissive than many senators would have liked. This attitude may have been responsible for hostile discontent among several senators.[[16]]

Mutiny of the Praetorians and the Adoption of Trajan

It was not long before the assassination of Domitian came to work against the new emperor. Dissatisfied that Domitian had not been deified after his death, the praetorian guards mutinied under Casperius Aelianus in October 97.[[17]] Taking the emperor as hostage, they demanded that Nerva hand over Domitian’s murderers. The emperor not only relented, but was forced to give a public speech of thanks to the mutineers for their actions.[[18]] His authority compomised, Nerva used the occasion of a victory in Pannonia over the Germans in late October, 97 to announce the adoption of Marcus Ulpius Traianus, governor of Upper Germany, as his successor.[[19]] The new Caesar was immediately acclaimed imperator and granted the tribunicia potestas. Nerva’s public announcement of the adoption settled succession as fact; he allowed no time to oppose his decision. From the German victory, Nerva assumed the epithet Germanicus and conferred the title on Trajan as well. He also made Trajan his consular colleague in 98.[[20]]

Death and Deification

On January 1, 98, the start of his fourth consulship, Nerva suffered a stroke during a private audience. Three weeks later he died at his villa in the Gardens of Sallust.[[21]] From his headquarters at Cologne, Trajan insisted that Nerva’s ashes be placed in the mausoleum of Augustus and asked the senate to vote on his deification. We are further told that he dedicated a temple to Nerva, yet no trace of it has ever been found.[[22]] Nor was a commemorative series of coins issued for the Deified Nerva in the wake of his death, but only ten years later.[[23]]

Conclusion

Nerva’s reign was more concerned with the continuation of an existing political system than with the birth of a new age. Indeed, his economic policies, his relationship with the senate, and the men whom he chose to govern and to offer him advice all show signs of Flavian influence. In many respects, Nerva was the right man at the right time. His immediate accession following Domitian’s murder prevented anarchy and civil war, while his age, poor health and moderate views were perfect attributes for a government that offered a bridge between Domitian’s stormy reign and the emperorships of the stable rulers to follow.

Bibliography

Birley, A. Lives of the Later Caesars: The First Part of the Augustan History with Newly Compiled Lives of Nerva and Trajan. London, 1976.

Cary, M. A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine. 2nd ed. New York, 1965.

Earl, D. The Age of Augustus. New York, 1968.

Ehrhardt, C. T. H. R. „Nerva’s Background.“ Liverpool Classical Monthly 12 (1987): 18-20.

Garzetti, A. From Tiberius to the Antonines: A History of the Roman Empire, A.D. 14-192. London, 1974.

Grant, M. The Roman Emperors: A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Rome, 31 B.C. – A.D. 476. New York, 1985.

Scarre, C. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors: The Reign by Reign Record of Imperial Rome. London, 1995.

Sutherland, C. H. V. „The State of the Imperial Treasury at the Death of Domitian.“ JRS 25 (1935): 150-162.

Syme, R. Tacitus. Oxford, 1958.

Notes

[[1]] Tac. Ann. 6.26.

[[2]] Aurelius Victor records the year as 35 (Caes. 12.11), Dio (68.4.4) as 30. The latter has been more widely accepted.

[[3]]Nerva’s priesthoods: ILS, 273; Nerva as praetor: Tacitus, Ann 15.72.2.

[[4]] Tac. Ann. 15.72. Nero also delighted in Nerva’s light verse, saluting him as the „Tibullus of the Age.“ See Mart. 8.70, Pliny Ep. 5.3.5.

[[5]] Even so, Tacitus makes no mention of Nerva at this time in his Histories.

[[6]] C. T. H. R. Ehrhardt, „Nerva’s Background,“ Liverpool Classical Monthly 12 (1987): 18-20.

[[7]] Philostr. VA 7.8; 7.33; Aur. Vict., Caes. 12; Mart. 8.70, 9.26.

[[8]] See, in addition, the cases of Valerius Licinianus, who was allowed only to change his place of exile, and Arria and Fannia, exiled for their opposition to Domitian, but recalled and their possessions restored. Dio 68.3.2, 68.16.

[[9]] Ibid., 68.1.3.

[[10]] Pliny Pan. 37.6.

[[11]] A. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines: A History of the Roman Empire, A.D. 14-192 (London, 1974), 302.

[[12]]Pliny, Pan. 46.2

[[13]] A. Garzetti, From Tiberius to the Antonines, 303-304.

[[14]] For an additional instance, see the case of Corellius Rufus at Pliny Ep. 1.12.

[[15]] Pliny Ep. 4.22.

[[16]] Dio 68.3.2.

[[17]] Ibid., 68.3.3.

[[18]] On Nerva’s speech in gratitude to the mutineers, see Epitome de Caesaribus, 12.8

[[19]] For evidence that it was Domitian who celebrated this Pannonian victory, see James B. Casey, „Minerva Victrix: Domitian’s Final War, A.D. 96,“ Celator (April, 1996): 32-33.

[[20]] Pliny Pan 8.4.5. Victor (Caes. 12) states that Nerva abdicated.

[[21]] Dio (68.4.2) offers a date of January 27, Victor (Caes. 12.2) as January 27 or 28.

[[22]] Pliny Pan. 11.1.

[[23]] A commemorative issue of coins to the „Deified Nerva,“ with the legend Divus Nerva along with Divus Traianus Pater, was not issued until ten years after his death. See H. Mattingly and E. Sydenham, The Roman Imperial Coinage Volume II (London, 1926), 297.

Copyright (C) 1997, David Wend. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: David Wend

Updated: 10 October 1997

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. David Wend: Nerva (96-98 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [08.09.1997], http://www.roman-emperors.org/domitian.htm

Die Studienarbeit aus dem Jahre 2002/03 skizziert das Wirken der karthagischen Barkiden in Spanien im späten 3. Jahrhundert v. Chr. und spannt hierbei einen Bogen von Hamilkar Barkas bis hin zu Hannibal und dem zweiten Punischen Krieg.

Es gab im Osten des römischen Imperiums auf beiden Seiten der Euphratgrenze ein Geflecht aus Staaten, die entweder den Römern oder den Parthern Loyalität schuldeten. In Forschung hat sich für diesen Herrschaftsstatus die Bezeichnung „Klientelstaat“ durchgesetzt.

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Titus Flavius Vespasianus (A.D. 79-81)

John Donahue

College of William and Mary

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/titus.gif

Early Life

Titus was born on 30 December A.D. 39 in Rome, one of three children of Vespasian, Roman emperor (A.D. 69-79), and Domitilla I, daughter of a treasury clerk. .[[1]] The family’s circumstances were modest, but began to improve during the emperorship of Claudius (A.D. 41-54), under whom Vespasian advanced rapidly. His ascent likely played a role in securing the honor of a court education for Titus, who studied with the emperor’s own son, Britannicus. The two remained close friends until Britannicus‘ death in A.D. 55 under Nero. In affection for his boyhood mate, Titus later preserved his memory by setting up golden statues of him in the palace and by routinely accompanying another statue in processions in the Circus. .[[2]] The intellectual advantages of a palace education, with its emphasis on Greek and Latin literature and declamation, and of a father who had attained the rank of consul, placed Titus firmly upon the path of a young senator. His early posts remain obscure but, perhaps as early as A.D. 61, he served as a military tribune in Upper Germany and Britain, the same provinces in which his father had served as a legionary legate..[[3]] While in Britain, Titus is said to have saved Vespasian’s life; another source records numerous busts and statues in Britain and Germany commemorating his achievements. The accounts lack historical basis but are typical of the fondness of later historians for exaggerating Titus‘ qualities and achievements.. [[4]]Returning to Rome in the early months of A.D. 64, Titus practiced law, most likely with the intention of advancing his own reputation. Little is known of his political career after his return from Britain. In all likelihood, he advanced through the offices typically held by a young senator. It was during this year that he married Arrecina Tertulla. Her background remains obscure, and not long after the marriage, Arrecina died. Soon thereafter, Titus married Marcia Furnilla. The marriage represented a notable success for the Flavians, as Marcia was of a noble family, the granddaughter of a former proconsul of Africa. Suspicions of political intrigue were ever present in first-century Rome, however, and when Marcia’s family fell into disfavor with Nero, the brief marriage ended in divorce. The sources agree that a daughter, Julia, was born, yet it is not clear whether she belonged to Titus‘ first or second marriage. At any rate, Julia’s subsequent life was miserable; she is said to have died in her mid-twenties of an abortion forced upon her by Titus‘ brother and successor, Domitian, in the late eighties A.D.[[5]]

Judaean Campaigns

In A.D. 66 Nero granted to Vespasian a special command in the East with the task of settling the revolt in Judaea. The immediate cause of the war was rioting in Cesaraea and Jerusalem, leading to the slaughter in the latter city of Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers. In response to the crisis, the emperor placed the seven legions in Syria under Vespasian‘ s authority and named Titus as legate of the 15th legion of Apollo, the legio XV Apollinaris. The appointment was unusual, for Titus had not yet held the praetorship, a judicial post normally held by a senator before he became a legionary commander. At the very least, both appointments reflected Nero’s confidence in father and son.It is difficult to assess Titus‘ role in the campaigns of A.D. 67-68. The main source, the Jewish Wars by Josephus, a Jew with strong Roman sympathies, consistently portrays him in highly favorable terms. Titus did figure prominently in the subjugation of at least five rebel centers during this period, but he never wholly subdued any town that had its own defenses. When stripped of Josephus‘ enhancements, therefore, Titus‘ accomplishments seem more modest.[[6]] Nevertheless, he capably performed the tasks assigned to him and, in the process, projected the image of a daring and successful military leader. While not entirely accurate, the portrait is not completely surprising either, for as the son of the supreme commander Titus would have enjoyed more attention than was typically accorded an ordinary quaestorian legionary legate.

With the death of Nero in A.D. 68, the Flavians methodically plotted toward the imperial throne. Little is heard of Titus during this critical period. He likely helped to consolidate support for the Flavians in the East by negotiating with the likes of Gaius Licinius Mucianus, governor of Syria. Even so, it was Vespasian who remained in charge. By mid-July, A.D. 69, legions in Judaea, Egypt, and Syria had declared for him. The Danubian legions soon followed, and on 21 December, the day after the emperor Vitellius‘ death, the senate conferred all the usual powers on Vespasian. Following these events, Titus remained in the East to undertake the siege of Jerusalem, the exploit for which he is most remembered. Beset by violent factional strife and internal discord, Jerusalem was a stubborn obstacle to the Roman pacification of Judaea. Built on two hills and surrounded by walls, the city’s fortifications were formidable. With four legions under his command, Titus began an assault on the city in spring, A.D. 70. In less than four weeks, his forces had breached the walls of the so-called New City, or suburb of Bezetha. Only the inner city and the Temple itself remained to be taken. A siege wall was quickly built around the city, and the circumvallation had the desired effect of increasing starvation. By August, the outer Temple court had been reached and, in the ensuing attack, the Temple was burned to the ground and all captives butchered. Titus was hailed as imperator by his troops. In a final desecration to the Temple, sacrifice was made to the Roman standards in the Temple court.[[7]]

Titus‘ use of defense walls, towers, catapults, and battering rams in overtaking the city – all traditional Roman military tactics – demonstrated that he was a capable, but not an innovative, military leader. In addition, he had sometimes displayed a reckless intervention, especially in the early stages of the siege. .[[8]] These flaws owed more to inexperience than to military incompetence, however, and as a counter-balance Titus displayed remarkable energy in the field and the ability to inspire deep loyalty in his troops. As a result, Jerusalem was efficiently, if not brutally, overcome and the campaign in Judaea was effectively won. Titus spent the winter of A.D. 70 touring the East with a splendid retinue of legionaries and prisoners, presumably to provide a public display of Flavian military prowess and to underscore the consequences of rebellion against his father by the punishments inflicted on Jewish prisoners. Here he revealed a sympathy for brutality and humiliation, most evident in the way in which Jews were thrown to wild beasts or forced to fight each other in shows for public enjoyment. Indiscretion also played a part in his activities, particularly in his dalliance with Berenice, the thrice-married sister of M. Julius Agrippa II, an Eastern monarch with a strong allegiance to Rome. Powerful, wealthy, and experienced in Eastern affairs, Berenice was a formidable match for Titus. Yet, as Cleopatra’s relationship with Mark Antony had earlier shown, involvement with an Eastern queen represented a threat to Roman stability that could not be tolerated. Marriage remained an impossibility. Even so, Berenice visited Rome in A.D. 75 with her brother and openly lived with Titus for a time, although he dismissed her, with mutual regret, upon his accession to the throne.. [[9]]

Role Under Vespasian

Titus returned to Rome in June, A.D. 71 and participated in a lavish joint triumph with Vespasian to celebrate the Judaean campaign. The joint celebration was deliberate, as Vespasian wished to waste no time in establishing an heir-apparent to the throne. Consequently, Titus shared in virtually every honor with the emperor during the seventies A.D., including the tribunician power, seven joint-consulships, and a share of the office of censor. In A.D. 72, Titus was also appointed praetorian prefect with responsibility for the army at Rome, a particularly important post since military loyalty was indispensable to the success of the new regime. It seems clear that not only did Vespasian need a trusted colleague in this post but also one who would do his dirty work. Tradition records that Titus was skilled as a forger. We also learn that he was „somewhat arrogant and tyrannical“ in that he tried suspicious characters in the theater and camp „by popular pressure and not by trial.“. [[10]] A certain amount of bad press was to be expected for the regime’s enforcer, but only a single instance of justice of this kind survives, making any further evaluation of Titus‘ role difficult.[[11]] On the other hand, Titus was also portrayed during these years as a capable and diligent administrator who attended senate meetings, requested advice, and generally mixed well with all parties. At the same time, the sources offer no indication that he was ever considered a „co-ruler‘ with Vespasian, and it was only upon the latter’s death on 24 June, A.D. 79 that Titus assumed full imperial powers.

Titus‘ Reign

Before becoming emperor, tradition records that Titus was feared as the next Nero, a perception that may have developed from his association with Berenice, his alleged heavy-handedness as praetorian prefect, and tales of sexual debauchery.. [[12]] Once in office, however, both emperor and his reign were portrayed in universally positive terms. The suddenness of this transformation raises immediate suspicions, yet it is difficult to know whether the historical tradition is suspect or if Titus was in fact adept at taking off one mask for another. What is clear, however, is that Titus sought to present the Flavians as the legitimate successors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. Proof came through the issuing of a series of restoration coins of previous emperors, the most popular being Augustus and Claudius. In A.D. 80 Titus also set out to establish an imperial cult in honor of Vespasian. The temple, in which cult (the first that was not connected with the Julio-Claudians) was housed, was completed by Domitian and was known as the Temple of Vespasian and Domitian.Legitimacy was also sought through various economic measures, which Titus enthusiastically funded. Vast amounts of capital poured into extensive building schemes in Rome, especially the Flavian Amphitheater, popularly known as the Colosseum. In celebration of additions made to the structure, Titus provided a grand 100-day festival, with sea fights staged on an artificial lake, infantry battles, wild beast hunts, and similar activities. He also constructed new imperial baths to the south-east of the Amphitheater and began work on the celebrated Arch of Titus, a memorial to his Jewish victories.. [[13]] Large sums were directed to Italy and the provinces as well, especially for road building. In response to the eruption of Vesuvius in A.D. 79, Titus spent large sums to relieve distress in that area; likewise, the imperial purse contributed heavily to rebuilding Rome after a devastating fire destroyed large sections of the city in A.D. 80. As a result of these actions, Titus earned a reputation for generosity and geniality. Even so, his financial acumen must not be under-estimated. He left the treasury with a surplus, as he had found it, and dealt promptly and efficiently with costly natural disasters. The Greek historian of the third-century A.D., Cassius Dio, perhaps offered the most accurate and succinct assessment of Titus‘ economic policy: „In money matters, Titus was frugal and made no unnecessary expenditure.“. [[14]] In other areas, the brevity of Titus‘ reign limits our ability to detect major emphases or trends in policy. As far as can be discerned from the limited evidence, senior officials and amici were well chosen, and his legislative activity tended to focus on popular social measures, with the army as a particular beneficiary in the areas of land ownership, marriage, and testamentary freedom. In the provinces, Titus continued his father’s policies by strengthening roads and forts in the East and along the Danube.

Death and Assessment

Titus died in September, A.D. 81 after only 26 months in office. Suetonius recorded that Titus died on his way to the Sabine country of his ancestors in the same villa as his father.. [[15]] A competing tradition persistently implicated his brother and successor, Domitian, as having had a hand in the emperor’s demise, but the evidence is highly contradictory and any wrongdoing is difficult to prove..[[16]]Domitian himself delivered the funeral eulogy and had Titus deified. He also built several monuments in honor of Titus and completed the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, changing the name of the structure to include his brother’s and setting up his cult statue in the Temple itself.Titus was the beneficiary of considerable intelligence and talent, endowments that were carefully cultivated at every step of his career, from his early education to his role under his father’s principate. Cassius Dio suggested that Titus‘ reputation was enhanced by his early death. [[17]] It is true that the ancient sources tend to heroicize Titus, yet based upon the evidence, his reign must be considered a positive one. He capably continued the work of his father in establishing the Flavian dynasty and he maintained a high degree of economic and administrative competence in Italy and beyond. In so doing, he solidified the role of the emperor as paternalistic autocrat, a model that would serve Trajan and his successors well.

Bibliography

The bibliography on Titus is far more comprehensive than can be reasonably treated here. As a result, the works listed below are either main treatments of Titus or have direct bearing on the issues discussed in the entry above. A more complete listing of bibliographical sources can be found in Jones (1984), 181-205.Atti congresso internazionale di studi Flaviani, 2 vols. Rieti, 1983.

Bastomsky, S.J. „The Death of the Emperor Titus: A Tentative Suggestion.“ Apeiron 1 (1967): 22-23.

Bengston, H. Die Flavier. Vespasian, Titus und Domitian. Geschichte eines römischen Kaiserhauses. Munich, 1979.

Bosworth, A. B. „Vespasian and the Provinces: Some Problems of the Early 70’s A.D.“ Athenaeum 51 (1973): 49-78.

Bradley, K. R. Suetonius‘ Life of Nero: An Historical Commentary. Brussels, Collection Latomus no. 157, 1978.

Buttrey, T. V. Documentary Evidence for the Chronology of the Flavian Titulature. Meisenheim, Beitrage zur Klassischen Philologie 112, 1980.

Crook, J. „Titus and Berenice.“ AJPh 72 (1951): 162-175.

D’Espèrey, S. Franchet. „Vespasien, Titus et la littérature.“ ANRW II.32.5: 3048-3086.

Gilliam, J. F. „Titus in Julian’s Caesares.“ AJPh 88 (1967): 203-208.

Grant, M. The Roman Emperors. A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Rome 31 B.C. – A.D. 476 (New York, 1985), 55-59.

Jones, B. W. „Titus and Some Flavian Amici.“ Historia 24 (1975): 453-462.

________. The Emperor Titus. London, 1984.

________. „The Reckless Titus.“ In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History 6 (1992): 408-420.

________. The Emperor Domitian. London, 1992.

Levi, M.A. „I Flavi.“ ANRW II.2: 177-207.

McCrum, M. and Woodhead, A.G. Select Documents of the Principates of the Flavian Emperors Including the Year of Revolution. Cambridge, 1966.

Morford, M. P. O. „The Training of Three Roman Emperors.“ Phoenix 22 (1968): 57-72.

Richardson, L. A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome. Baltimore, 1992.

Rogers, P. M. „Titus, Berenice and Mucianus.“ Historia 29 (1980): 86-95.

Scarre, C. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors. The Reign-by Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome. London, 1995.

Yavetz, Z. „Reflections on Titus and Josephus.“ GRBS 16 (1975): 411-432.

Notes

[[1]] The main ancient sources for Titus‘ life are: Suet. Tit.; Dio 66.17-26; Jos. BJ. On his birthdate, see Philocalus in CIL I, p. 356; for December 28: PIR² F 399. Suetonius assigns the date to the year of Gaius‘ assassination (24 Jan. A.D. 41), but later contradicts himself at Tit. 11. Dio is more accurate, recording that Titus was 39 years, five months and 25 days on his accession (24 June A.D. 79).[[2]] Suet. Tit. 2, where it is also recorded that Titus was present at the poisoning of Britannicus and tasted the cup in affection for his friend. On the poisoning of Britannicus, see also Suet. Nero 33.2-3; Tac. Ann. 13.15-17; Dio 61.7.4; Jos. AJ 20.153; Eutropius 7.14.3; Herodian Hist. 4.5-6.

[[3]] The date of the military tribunate is difficult to establish, but Jones argues sensibly for A.D. 61: The Emperor Titus (London, 1984), 14-16.

[[4]] On the saving of Vespasian’s life: Dio 61.30.1; busts and statues: Suet. Tit. 4.1.

[[5]] The account of Titus‘ offspring is confusing. Suet. Tit. 4.2 says that Titus divorced Marcia „after she had borne a daughter.“ Yet the girl is not named, and Philostratus (Vit. Apoll. 7.7) contends that Titus had more than one daughter. It has also been argued that Arrecina Tertulla, Titus‘ first wife, was Julia’s mother. See H. Castritius, „Zu den Frauen der Flavier,“ Historia 18 (1969): 492-502. On the death of Julia: Suet. Dom. 22.

[[6]]Jos. BJ 3-4. For a useful listing of the sieges of A.D. 67 and 68 and Titus‘ role in them see Jones, The Emperor Titus, 41-42.

[[7]] Titus is cited by almost every ancient author who discusses him or the city: Jos. BJ passim; Hist 5.1; Dio 66.7; Aurelius Victor De. Caes. 11.11; Orosius 7.9; Eutropius 7.21. On the siege of the city itself, Josephus is the only surviving substantial surviving account. See BJ 5-6.

[[8]] For instances of rash behavior: Jos. BJ 5.88, 332-339.

[[9]] On the brutality to prisoners at public shows: Jos. BJ 7.23, 36, 39-40. On Berenice, a useful account appears at Acts 25, in which Paul meets the two Jewish royals. Josephus frequently mentions her wealth (BJ 2.426), her men and arms (BJ 2.312), and her relationship with her brother Agrippa (BJ 2.310), but he avoids mentioning her in relationship to Titus.

[[10]] As praetorian prefect: Suet. Tit. 6; on forgery: ibid., Tit. 3.

[[11]] The single piece of evidence concerns Aulus Caecina, an ex-consul, whom Titus ordered stabbed at an imperial dinner on the suspicion of treason. See Suet. Tit. 6.

[[12]] On the praetorian prefecture, see notes 10, 11 above; on Berenice, note 9 above; on Titus‘ sexual profligacy: Suet. Tit. 7.

[[13]] Flavian Amphitheater and public celebration: Dio 66.25; Suet. Tit.7; baths: Suet. Tit. 7, but likely finished by Domitian, according to the Chronographer of 354: Chron. Min. 1, p. 346; other references to Amphitheater: Martial Ep. 3.20.15, 3.36.6; Arch of Titus: CIL 6.944 for the dedicatory inscription, which reveals that the structure was dedicated after Titus‘ death. See also L. Richardson, Jr., A New Topographical Dictionary of Ancient Rome (Baltimore, 1992) s.v. „Arcus Titi,“ 30.

[[14]] Dio 66.19.3.

[[15]] Suet. Tit. 10.1.

[[16]] The ancient sources are quite inconsistent concerning Titus‘ death. Suetonius records that Domitian ordered Titus to be left for dead when he was ill, and Dio says that Domitian submerged his brother in packed snow while he was still alive in order to hasten his end: Suet. Dom. 2.3; Dio 66.26.2-3. Suetonius also reports an unidentified final regret by Titus (Tit. 10.1), which Dio interpreted as his failure to eliminate his brother (66.26.2-3). Later writers consistently vilified Domitian as the poisoner of Titus: Aurelius Victor, De Caes. 10.11; Philostratus, De Apoll. 6.32. According to Plutarch, Titus died because he unwisely used the baths when ill: De Sanitate Tuenda 3.

[[17]] Dio 66.18.3.

Copyright (C) 1997, John Donahue. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: John Donahue.

Updated: 23 October 2004

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. John Donahue: Titus Flavius Vespasianus (A.D. 79-81), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [23.09.2004], http://www.roman-emperors.org/titus.htm

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Vitellius (69 A.D.)

[Additional entry on this emperor’s life is available in DIR Archives]

John Donahue

College of William and Mary

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/Vitel.jpg

It is often difficult to separate fact from fiction in assessing the life and reign of Vitellius. Maligned in the ancient sources as gluttonous and cruel, he was also a victim of a hostile biographical tradition established in the regime of the Flavians who had overthrown him. Nevertheless, his decision to march against Rome in 69 was pivotal, since his subsequent defeat signalled the end of military anarchy and the beginning of an extended period of political stability under Vespasian and his successors.

Early Life and Career

Aulus Vitellius was born in September, 15 AD, the son of Lucius Vitellius and his wife Sestilia.[[1]] One of the most successful public figures of the Julio-Claudian period, Lucius Vitellius was a three-time consul and a fellow censor with the emperor Claudius. Aulus seems to have moved with equal ease in aristocratic circles, successively winning the attention of the emperors Gaius, Claudius, and Nero through flattery and political skill.[[2]]

Among his attested public offices, Vitellius was a curator of public works, a senatorial post concerned with the maintenance and repair of public buildings in Rome, and he was also proconsul of North Africa, where he served as a deputy to his brother, perhaps about 55 A. D. In addition, he held at least two priesthoods, the first as a member of the Arval Brethren, in whose rituals he participated from 57 A.D., and the second, as one of the quindecemviri sacris faciundis, a sacred college famous for its feasts.[[3]]

With respect to marriage and family, Vitellius first wed a certain Petroniana, the daughter of a consul, sometime in the early to mid thirties A.D. The union produced a son, Petronianus, allegedly blind in one eye and emancipated from his father’s control as a result of being named his mother’s heir. Tradition records that Vitellius killed the boy shortly after emancipation amid charges of parricide; the marriage soon ended in divorce. A second marriage, to Galeria Fundana, daughter of an ex-praetor, was more stable than the first. It produced another son, who was eventually killed by the Flavians after the overthrow of Vitellius, as well as a daughter. Galeria is praised by Tacitus for her good qualities, and in the end it was she who saw to Vitellius‘ burial.[[4]]

Rise to Power and Emperorship

Without doubt, the most fortuitous moment in Vitellius‘ political career was his appointment as governor of Lower Germany by the emperor Galba late in 68. The decision seemed to have caught everybody by surprise, including Vitellius himself, who, according to Suetonius, was in straitened circumstances at the time.[[5]] The choice may have been made to reduce the possibility of rebellion by the Rhine armies, disaffected by Galba’s refusal to reward them for their part in suppressing the earlier uprising of Julius Vindex. Ironically, it was Vitellius‘ lack of military achievement and his reputation for gambling and gluttony that may have also figured in his selection. Galba perhaps calculated that a man with little military experience who could now plunder a province to satisfy his own stomach would never become disloyal.[[6]] If so, it was a critical misjudgement by the emperor.

The rebellion began on January 1, 69, when the legions of Upper Germany refused to renew their oath of allegiance to Galba. On January 2, Vitellius‘ own men, having heard of the previous day’s events, saluted him as emperor at the instigation of the legionary legate Fabius Valens and his colleagues. Soon, in addition to the seven legions that Vitellius now had at his command in both Germanies, the forces in Gaul, Britain, and Raetia also came over to his side.[[7]] Perhaps aware of his military inexperience, Vitellius did not immediately march on Rome himself. Instead, the advance was led by Valens and another legionary general, Aulus Caecina Alienus, with each man commanding a separate column. Vitellius would remain behind to mobilize a reserve force and follow later.

Caecina was already one hundred fifty miles on his way when news reached him that Galba had been overthrown and Otho had taken his place as emperor. Undeterred, he passed rapidly down the eastern borders of Gaul; Valens followed a more westerly route, quelling a mutiny along the way. By March both armies had successfully crossed the Alps and joined at Cremona, just north of the Po. Here they launced their Batavian auxiliaries against Otho’s troops and routed them in the First Battle of Bedriacum. Otho killed himself on April 16, and three days later the soldiers in Rome swore their allegience to Vitellius. The senate too hailed him as emperor.

When Vitellius learned of these developments, he set out to Rome from Gaul. By all accounts the journey was a drunken feast marked by the lack of discipline of both the troops and the imperial entourage. Along the way he stopped at Lugdunum to present his six-year-old son Germanicus to the legions as his eventual successor. Later, at Cremona, Vitellius witnessed the corpse-filled battlefield of Otho’s recent defeat with joy, unmoved by so many citizens denied a proper burial.[[8]]

The emperor entered Rome in late June-early July.[[9]] Conscious of making a break with the Julio-Claudian past, Vitellius was reluctant to assume the traditional titles of the princeps, even though he enthusiastically made offerings to Nero and declared himself consul for life. To his credit, Vitellius did seem to show a measure of moderation in the transition to the principate. He assumed his powers gradually and was generally lenient to Otho’s supporters, even pardoning Otho’s brother Salvius Titianus, who had played a key role in the earlier regime. In addition, he participated in Senate meetings and continued the practice of providing entertainments for the Roman masses. An important practical change involved the awarding of posts customarily held by freedmen to equites, an indication of the growth of the imperial bureaucracy and its attractiveness to men of ambition.[[10]]

In other matters, he replaced the existing praetorian guard and urban cohorts with sixteen praetorian cohorts and four urban units, all comprised of soldiers from the German armies. According to Tacitus, the decision prompted a mad scramble, with the men, and not their officers, choosing the branch of service that they preferred. [[11]] The situation was clearly unsatisfactory but not surprising, given that Vitellius was a creation of his own troops. To secure his position further, he sent back to their old postings the legions that had fought for Otho, or he reassigned them to distant provinces. Yet discontent remained: the troops who had been defeated or betrayed at Bedriacum remained bitter, and detachments of three Moesian legions called upon by Otho were returned to their bases, having agitated against Vitellius at Aquileia.

Flavian Revolt

The Vitellian era at Rome was short-lived. By mid-July news had arrived that the legions of Egypt under Tiberius Julius Alexander had sworn allegiance to a rival emperor, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, the governor of Judaea and a successful and popular general. Vespasian was to hold Egypt while his colleague Mucianus, governor of Syria, was to invade Italy. Before the plan could be enacted, however, the Danube legions, former supporters of Otho, joined Vespasian’s cause. Under the leadership of Antonius Primus, commander of the Sixth legion in Pannonia, and Cornelius Fuscus, imperial procurator in Illyricum, the legions made a rapid descent on Italy.

Although his forces were only half of what Vitellius commanded in Italy, Primus struck first before the emperor could muster additional reinforcements from Germany. To make matters worse for the Vitellians, Valens was ill, and Caecina, now consul, had begun collaborating with the Flavians. His troops refused to follow his lead, however, and arrested him at Hostilia near Cremona. They then joined the rest of the Vitellian forces trying to hold the Po River. With Vitellius still in Rome and his forces virtually leaderless, the two sides met in October in the Second Battle of Bedriacum. The emperor’s troops were soundly defeated and Cremona was brutally sacked by the victors. In addition, Valens, whose health had recovered, was captured while raising an army for Vitellius in Gaul and Germany; he was eventually executed.

Meanwhile, Primus continued towards Rome. Vitellius made a weak attempt to thwart the advance at the Apennine passes, but his forces switched to the Flavian side without a fight at Narnia in mid-December. At Rome, matters were no better. Vespasian’s elder brother, Titus Flavius Sabinus, the city prefect, was successful in an effort to convince Vitellius to abdicate but was frustrated by the mob in Rome and the emperor’s soldiers. Forced to flee to the Capitol, Sabinus was set upon by Vitellius‘ German troops and soon killed, with the venerable Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus set ablaze in the process.[[12]] Within two days, the Flavian army fought its way into Rome. In a pathetic final move, Vitellius disguised himself in dirty clothing and hid in the imperial doorkeeper’s quarters, leaning a couch and a mattress against the door for protection. Dragged from his hiding place by the Flavian forces, he was hauled off half-naked to the Forum, where he was tortured, killed, and tossed into the Tiber. The principate could now pass to Vespasian.

Assessment

Vitellius has not escaped the hostility of his biographers. While he may well have been gluttonous, his depiction as indolent, cruel, and extravagant is based almost entirely on the propaganda of his enemies. On the other hand, whatever moderating tendencies he did show were overshadowed by his clear lack of military expertise, a deficiency that forced him to rely in critical situations on largely inneffective lieutenants. As a result he was no match for his Flavian successors, and his humiliating demise was perfectly in keeping with the overall failure of his reign.

Bibliography:

Bowman, Alan K. et al. The Cambridge Ancient History, X: The Augustan Empire. 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1996).

Chilver, G. E. F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus‘ Histories I and II. (Oxford, 1979).

________. „The War between Otho and Vitellius and the North Italian Towns.“ CSDIR 3 (1970-71): 101-114.

Coale, A. J. Jr., „Vitellius Imperator: A Study in the Literary and Numismatic Sources for the Rebellion and Rule of the Emperor Vitellius, A.D. 69,“ Diss. Michigan, 1971.

Engel, R. „Das Charakterbild des Kaisers A. Vitellius bei Tacitus und sein historischer Kern.“ Athenaeum 55 (1977): 345-368.

Funari, Rodolfo. „Degradazione morale e luxuria nell‘ esercito di Vitellio (Tacito, Hist. II): modelli e sviluppi narrativi.“ Athenaeum 80 (1992): 133-157.

Hanslik, R. „Vitellius“ no. 7b Real-Encyclopädie Supp. IX (1962): 1706-1733.

Keitel, Elizabeth. „Foedum spectaculum and related motifs in Tacitus Histories II-III.“ RhM 135 (1992): 342-351.

Murison, Charles L. Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies. (Hildesheim, 1993).

________. „Tiberius, Vitellius and the spintriae.“ AHB 1 (1987): 97-99.

________. „Some Vitellian Dates. An Exercise in Methodology.“ TAPA 109 (1979): 187-197.

Moog, F. P. „The Smell of Victory: Vitellius at Bedriacum: (Tac. Hist. 2.70).“ CPh 87 (1992): 14-29.

Perkins, Caroline A. „Vitellius the spectaculum: A Note on Histories 3.84.5.“ CB 66 (1990): 47-49.

Suetonius. Galba, Otho, Vitellius. edited with introduction and notes by Charles L. Murison. (London, 1992).

Syme, R. Tacitus. (Oxford, 1958).

________. „The March of Mucianus.“ Antichthon 11 (1977): 78-92.

Townsend, G. B. „Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus.“ AJPhil 85 (1964): 337-377.

Wellesley, Kenneth. The Long Year A. D. 69. 2nd. ed. (London, 1989).

Notes

[[1]] Suetonius offers September 7 and 24 as possible dates for Vitellius‘ birth. For an argument in favor of the earlier date, see Suetonius: Galba, Otho, Vitellius, ed. with notes by Charles L. Murison (Bristol, 1992), 141.

[[2]] On Vitellius as a flatterer, see Suet. Vit. 4.

[[3]] For the sole mention of these honores and sacerdotia, see Suet. Vit. 5.

[[4]] For more on Vitellius‘ wives and children, see Charles L. Murison, Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers And Controversies (Hildesheim, 1993), 150-155.

[[5]] Suet. Vit. 7.2.

[[6]] Ibid., 7.1.

[[7]] The spontaneous nature of these actions as depicted by Suetonius is highly questionable. The revolt was likely well planned in advance. See Charles L. Murison, „Some Vitellian Dates. An Exercise in Methodology,“ TAPA 109 (1979): 188-194.

[[8]] On Vitellius at Lugdunum, see Tac. Hist. 2.59.2-3; at Cremona, see Hist. 2.70. See also Murison, Careers and Controversies, 142-149; F. P. Moog, „The Smell of Victory: Vitellius at Bedriacum: (Tac. Hist. 2.70),“ CPh 87 (1992): 14-29.

[[9]] The date cannot be known with certainty. See further, A. J. Coale, Jr., TAPA 102 (1971): 49-58; C. L. Murison, „Some Vitellian Dates,“ 194-197.

[[10]] On this innovation, see Tac. Hist. 1.58.1.

[[11]] Tac. Hist. 2.93.2, 2.94.1.

[[12]] Responsibility for the temple burning is a vexed issue. Tacitus (Hist. 3.71.4) offers the most careful and thoughtful account. See also T. P. Wiseman, „Flavians on the Capitol,“ AJAH 3 (1978): 163-178; K. Wellesley, „What Happened on the Capitol in December AD 69?“ AJAH 6 (1981): 166-190; R. T. Scott, „A Note on the City and the Camp in Tacitus, Histories 3.71″ AJAH 9 (1984): 109-111.

Copyright (C) 1999, John Donahue. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: John Donahue.

Updated:3 September 1999

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Otho (69 A.D.)

[Additional entry on this emperor’s life is available in DIR Archives]

John Donahue

College of William and Mary

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/otho.jpg

Introduction

In January 69 Otho led a successful coup to overthrow the emperor Galba. Upon advancing to the throne, he hoped to conciliate his adversaries and restore political stability to the Empire. These ambitions were never to be realized. Instead, our sources portray a leader never fully able to win political confidence at Rome or to overcome military anarchy abroad. As a result, he was defeated in battle by the forces of Vitellius, his successor, and took his own life at the conclusion of the conflict. His principate lasted only eight weeks.[[1]]

Early Life and Career

Marcus Salvius Otho was born at Ferentium on 28 April 32 A. D. His grandfather, also named Marcus Salvius Otho, was a senator who did not advance beyond the rank of praetor. Lucius Otho, his father, was consul in 33 and a trusted administrator under the emperors Tiberius, Gaius and Claudius. His mother, Albia Terentia, was likely to have been nobly born as well. The cognomen „Otho“ was Etruscan in origin, and the fact that it can be traced to three successive generations of this family perhaps reflects a desire to maintain a part of the Etruscan tradition that formed the family’s background.[[2]]

Otho is recorded as being extravagant and wild as a youth – a favorite pastime involved roving about at night to snare drunkards in a blanket. Such behavior earned floggings from his father, whose frequent absences from home on imperial business suggest little in the way of a stabilizing parental influence in Otho’s formative years. These traits apparently persisted: Suetonius records that Otho and Nero became close friends because of the similarity of their characters; and Plutarch relates that the young man was so extravagant that he sometimes chided Nero about his meanness, and even outdid the emperor in reckless spending.[[3]]

Most intriguing in this context is Otho’s involvement with Nero’s mistress, Poppaea Sabina, the greatest beauty of her day.[[4]] A relationship between the two is widely cited in the ancient sources, but the story differs in essential details from one account to the next. As a result, it is impossible to establish who seduced whom, whether Otho ever married Poppaea, and whether his posting to Lusitania by Nero should be understood as a „banishment“ for his part in this affair. About the only reliable detail to emerge is that Otho did indeed become governor of Lusitania in 59, and that he assumed the post as a quaestor, a rank below that of praetor or consul, the minimum usually required for the office.[[5]] From here he would launch his initial thrust towards the imperial throne.

Overthrow of Galba

Nero’s suicide in June 68 marked the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and opened up the principate to the prerogatives of the military beyond Rome. First to emerge was Servius Sulpicius Galba, governor of Hispania Tarraconensis, who had been encouraged to revolt by the praetorians and especially by Nymphidius Sabinus, the corrupt and scheming praetorian prefect at Rome. By this time Otho had been in Spain for close to ten years. His record seems to have been a good one, marked by capable administration and an unwillingness to enrich himself at the expense of the province. At the same time, perhaps seeing this as his best chance to improve his own circumstances, he supported the insurrection as vigorously as possible, even sending Galba all of his gold and his best table servants.[[6]] At the same time, he made it a point to win the favor of every soldier he came in contact with, most notably the members of the praetorian guard who had come to Spain to accompany Galba to Rome. Galba set out from Spain in July, formally assuming the emperorship shortly thereafter. Otho accompanied him on the journey.

Galba had been in Rome little more than two months when on 1 January 69 the troops in Upper Germany refused to declare allegiance to him and instead followed the men stationed in Lower Germany in proclaiming their commander, Aulus Vitellius, as the new ruler. To show that he was still in charge Galba adopted his own successor, Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus, an aristocrat completely without administrative or military experience. The choice meant little to the remote armies, the praetorians or the senate and particularly angered Otho, who had hoped to succeed Galba.[[7]] Otho quickly organized a conspiracy among the praetorians with promise of a material reward, and on 15 January 69 they declared him emperor and publicly killed Galba; Piso, dragged from hiding in the temple of Vesta, was also butchered. On that same evening a powerless senate awarded Otho the imperial titles.

Otho’s Principate in Rome

It is not possible to reconstruct a detailed chronology of Otho’s brief eight and a half weeks as princeps in Rome (15 January-15 March). Even so, Galba’s quick demise had surely impressed upon Otho the need to conciliate various groups. As a result, he continued his indulgence of the praetorian guard but he also tried to win over the senate by following a strict constitutionalist line and by generally keeping the designations for the consulship made by Nero and Galba. In the provinces, despite limited evidence, there are some indications that he tried to compensate for Galba’s stinginess by being more generous with grants of citizenship. In short, Otho was eager not to offend anyone.[[8]]

Problems remained, however. The praetorians had to be continually placated and they were always suspicious of the senate. On the other hand, the senate itself, along with the people, remained deeply disturbed at the manner of Otho’s coming to power and his willingness to be associated with Nero.[[9]] These suspicions and fears were most evident in the praetorian outbreak at Rome. Briefly, Otho had decided to move from Ostia to Rome a cohort of Roman citizens in order to replace some of Rome’s garrison, much of which was to be utilized for the showdown with Vitellius. He ordered that weapons be moved from the praetorian camp in Rome by ship to Ostia at night so that the garrison replacements would be properly armed and made to look as soldierly as possible when they marched into the city. Thinking that a senatorial counter-coup against Otho was underway, the praetorians stormed the imperial palace to confirm the emperor’s safety, with the result that they terrified Otho and his senatorial dinner guests. Although the praetorians‘ fears were eventually calmed and they were given a substantial cash payment, the incident dramatically underscored the unease at Rome in the early months of 69.[[10]]

Otho’s Offensive against Vitellius

Meanwhile, in the Rhineland, preparations for a march on Rome by the military legions that had declared for Vitellius were far advanced. Hampered by poor intelligence gathering in Gaul and Germany and having failed to negotiate a settlement with Vitellius in early 69, Otho finally summoned to Italy his forces for a counterattack against the invading Vitellian army. His support consisted of the four legions of Pannonia and Dalmatia, the three legions of Moesia and his own imperial retinue of about 9,000. Vitellius‘ own troops numbered some 30,000, while those of his two marshals, Aulus Caecina Alienus and Fabius Valens, were between 15,000 and 20,000 each.[[11]]

Otho’s strategy was to make a quick diversionary strike in order to allow time for his own forces to assemble in Italy before engaging the enemy. The strategy worked, as the diversionary army, comprised of urban cohorts, praetorians and marines all from Rome or nearby, was successful in Narbonese Gaul in latter March. An advance guard sent to hold the line on the Po River until the Danubian legions arrived also enjoyed initial success. Otho himself arrived at Bedriacum in northern Italy about 10 April for a strategy session with his commanders. The main concern was that the Vitellians were building a bridge across the Po in order to drive southward towards the Apennines and eventually to Rome. Otho decided to counter by ordering a substantial part of his main force to advance from Bedriacum and establish a new base close enough to the new Vitellian bridge to interrupt its completion. While en route, the Othonian forces, strung out along the via Postumia amid baggage and supply trains, were attacked by Caecina and Valens near Cremona on 14 April. The clash, know as the Battle of Bedriacum, resulted in the defeat of the Othonian forces, their retreat cut off by the river behind them. Otho himself, meanwhile, was not present, but had gone to Brixellum with a considerable force of infantry and cavalry in order to impede any Vitellian units that had managed to cross the Po.

The plan had backfired. Otho’s strategy of obtaining victory while avoiding any major battles had proven too risky. Realizing perhaps that a new round of fighting would have involved not only a significant re-grouping of his existing troops but also a potentially bloody civil war at Rome, if Vitellius‘ troops reached the capital, Otho decided that enough blood had been shed.[[12]] Two weeks shy of his thirty-seventh birthday, on 16 April 69, he took his own life.[[13]]

Assessment

To be sure, Otho remains an enigma – part profligate Neronian wastrel and part conscientious military commander willing to give his life for the good of the state. Our sources are at a loss to explain the paradox. Perhaps, like Petronius, he saw it was safer to appear a profligate in Nero’s court? In the final analysis, Otho proved to be an organized and efficient military commander, who appealed more to the soldier than to the civilian. He also seems to have been a capable governor, with administrative talents that recalled those of his father. Nevertheless, his violent overthrow of Galba, the lingering doubts that it raised about his character, and his unsuccessful offensive against Vitellius are all vivid reminders of the turbulence that plagued the Roman world between the reigns of Nero and Vespasian. Regrettably, the scenario would play itself out one more time before peace and stability returned to the empire.

Bibliography

Bowman, Alan K. et al. The Cambridge Ancient History, X: The Augustan Empire. 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1996).

Braun, Ludwig. „Galba und Otho bei Plutarch und Sueton.“ Hermes 120 (1992): 90-102.

Chilver, G. E. F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus‘ Histories I and II. (Oxford, 1979).

Nagl, A. „Salvius.“ no. 21 Real-Encyclopëdie IA 2035-2055 (1920).

Greenhalgh, P. A. L. The Year of the Four Emperors. (New York, 1975).

Keitel, E. „Plutarch’s Tragedy Tyrants: Galba and Otho.“ Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8, Roman Comedy, Augustan Poetry, Historiography, edited by Roger Brock and Anthony J. Woodman. (Leeds, 1995): 275-288.

________. „Otho’s Exhortations in Tacitus’s Histories.“ Greece & Rome 34 (1987): 73-82.

Murison, Charles L. Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies. (Hildesheim, 1993).

________, editor. Suetonius: Galba, Otho, Vitellius. (London, 1992).

Perkins, Caroline A. „Tacitus on Otho.“ Latomus 52 (1993): 848-855.

Syme, R. Tacitus. (Oxford, 1958).

Townsend, G. B. „Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus.“ AJPhil 85 (1964): 337-377.

Wellesley, Kenneth. The Long Year A. D. 69. 2nd. ed. (London, 1989).

Notes

[[1]] The main ancient sources for the life of Otho are: Tac. Hist. 1.50-2.49; Suet. Otho; Plut. Otho; Cassius Dio 64.10-15. In addition, there were major works for this period by Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder, but they have not survived. For an important discussion, see G. B. Townsend, „Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus,“ AJPhil 85 (1964): 337-377.

[[2]] For a family tree of the Sulpicii Galbae, see Charles Murison, editor, Suetonius: Galba, Otho, Vitellius (Bristol, 1992), Appendix A.

[[3]] Suet. Otho 2.1; Plut. Galba 19.4.5; cf. Plin. NH 13.22.

[[4]] Poppaea possessed charm, beauty, fame and wit (Ann. 13.45.2) and was eventually married to Nero, for whom she bore a daughter, Claudia Augusta (PIR2 C 1061); she was pregnant again when Nero reportedly kicked her to death(Ann. 16.6.1; Suet. Ner. 35.3). There are five extant accounts of the Nero-Otho-Poppaea love triangle: Plut. Galba 19.2-20.2; Suet. Otho 3.1-2; Tacitus‘ two versions: Hist. 1.13.3-4; Ann. 13.45-46; and Dio 61.11.2-4. For a useful discussion of this episode and of all the problems of source criticism contained therein, see Charles L. Murison, Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies (Hildesheim, 1993), 75-80.

[[5]] Plutarch records that Otho’s life was in danger after this episode but that Seneca persuaded Nero to send him to Lusitania. See Galba 19.9-20.1. No other source cites Seneca’s involvement.

[[6]] On gold and table servants, see Plut. Galba 20.3.

[[7]] On Otho’s reaction to Galba’s selection of Piso as his heir, see Tac. Hist. 1.21.1.

[[8]] On Otho’s indulgence towards the praetorians, see Tac. Hist. 1.46.1; on his shameless flattery of them, see Tac. Hist. 1.36, 45-46, 80-85; Plut. Otho 1.2; 3.11-13. On his relationship with the senate, especially appointments to the consulship, see Tac. Hist. 1.77.2 and G. B. Townsend, „Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus,“ AJP 83 (1962), 113-124. On Otho’s interactions with the provinces, see Tac. Hist. 1.78.1, where the emperor tries to compensate for Galba’s shortcomings in Spain and Gaul. Significant in this regard was that Galba was also able to maintain the loyalty of the legions in Pannonia, Dalmatia and Moesia.

[[9]] On the praetorians‘ suspicions of the senate, see Tac. Hist. 1.80.2, 82.1; cf. Plut. Otho 3.3-10; on senatorial and popular horror at Otho’s manner of coming to power, see Tac. Hist. 1.50.1. Otho also appropriated funds to finish Nero’s Golden House, the Domus Aurea; see Suet. Otho 7.1. For a fuller description of the property, see Tac. Ann. 15.42-43; Suet. Nero 31.

[[10]] For accounts of the praetorian outbreak at Rome, see Tac. Hist. 1.80-85; Plut. Otho 3.3-13; Suet. Otho 8.1-2; and Dio 64.9.2-3.

[[11]] For a discussion of the size of the forces, see Murison, Careers and Controversies, 85-86.

[[12]] This decision was made despite the fact that Otho seemed to have had an adequate number of troops for a second engagement and that his forces were not demoralized by the defeat. See Suet. Otho 9.3.

[[13]] Otho’s dramatic death is treated in some detail by all of the sources. See: Plut. Otho 15-18; Tac. Hist. 2.46-50; Suet. Otho 9.3-12.2; Dio 64.11-15.

Copyright © 1999, John Donahue. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Updated: 17 August 1999

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. John Donahue: Otho (69 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [17.08.1999], http://www.roman-emperors.org/otho.htm

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Galba (68 – 69 A.D.)

[Additional entry on this emperor’s life is available in DIR Archives]

John Donahue

College of William and Mary

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/Galba.jpg

Introduction

The evidence for the principate of Galba is unsatisfactory. The sources either concentrate on the personality of the man, thereby failing to offer a balanced account of his policies and a firm chronological base for his actions; or, they focus on the final two weeks of his life at the expense of the earlier part of his reign.[[1]] As a result, a detailed account of his principate is difficult to write. Even so, Galba is noteworthy because he was neither related to nor adopted by his predecessor Nero. Thus, his accession marked the end of the nearly century-long control of the Principate by the Julio-Claudians. Additionally, Galba’s declaration as emperor by his troops abroad set a precedent for the further political upheavals of 68-69. Although these events worked to Galba’s favor initially, they soon came back to haunt him, ending his tumultuous rule after only seven months.

Early Life and Rise to Power

Born 24 December 3 BC in Tarracina, a town on the Appian Way 65 miles south of Rome, Servius Galba was the son of C. Sulpicius Galba and Mummia Achaica.[[2]] Galba’s connection with the noble house of the Servii gave him great prestige and assured his acceptance among the highest levels of Julio-Claudian society. Adopted in his youth by Livia, the mother of the emperor Tiberius, he is said to have owed much of his early advancement to her.[[3]] Upon her death, Livia made Galba her chief legatee, bequeathing him some 50 million sesterces. Tiberius, Livia’s heir, reduced the amount, however, and then never paid it. Galba’s marriage proved to be a further source of disappointment, as he outlived both his wife Lepida and their two sons. Nothing else is known of Galba’s immediate family, other than that he remained a widower for the rest of his life.

Although the details of Galba’s early political career are incomplete, the surviving record is one of an ambitious Roman making his way in the Emperor’s service. Suetonius records that as praetor Galba put on a new kind of exhibition for the people – elephants walking on a rope.[[4]] Later, he served as governor of the province of Aquitania, followed by a six-month term as consul at the beginning of 33.[[5]] Ironically, as consul he was succeeded by Salvius Otho, whose own son would succeed Galba as emperor. Over the years three more governorships followed – Upper Germany (date unknown), North Africa (45) and Hispania Tarraconensis, the largest of Spain’s three provinces (61). He was selected as a proconsul of Africa by the emperor Claudius himself instead of by the usual method of drawing lots. During his two-year tenure in the province he successfully restored internal order and quelled a revolt by the barbarians. As an imperial legate he was a governor in Spain for eight years under Nero, even though he was already in his early sixties when he assumed his duties. The appointment showed that Galba was still considered efficient and loyal.[[6]] In all of these posts Galba generally displayed an enthusiasm for old-fashioned disciplina, a trait consistent with the traditional characterization of the man as a hard-bitten aristocrat of the old Republican type. Such service did not go unnoticed, as he was honored with triumphal insignia and three priesthoods during his career.

On the basis of his ancestry, family tradition and service to the state Galba was the most distinguished Roman alive (with the exception of the houses of the Julii and Claudii) at the time of Nero’s demise in 68. The complex chain of events that would lead him to the Principate later that year began in March with the rebellion of Gaius Iulius Vindex, the governor of Gallia Lugdunensis. Vindex had begun to sound out provincial governors about support for a rebellion perhaps in late 67 or early 68. Galba did not respond but, because of his displeasure with Neronian misgovernment, neither did he inform the emperor of these treasonous solicitations. This, of course, left him dangerously exposed; moreover, he was already aware that Nero, anxious to remove anyone of distinguished birth and noble achievements, had ordered his death.[[7]] Given these circumstances, Galba likely felt that he had no choice but to rebel.

In April, 68, while still in Spain, Galba „went public,“ positioning himself as a vir militaris, a military representative of the senate and people of Rome. For the moment, he refused the title of Emperor, but it is clear that the Principate was his goal. To this end, he organized a concilium of advisors in order to make it known that any decisions were not made by him alone but only after consultation with a group. The arrangement was meant to recall the Augustan Age relationship between the emperor and senate in Rome. Even more revealing of his imperial ambitions were legends like LIBERTAS RESTITUTA (Liberty Restored), ROM RENASC (Rome Reborn) and SALUS GENERIS HUMANI (Salvation of Mankind), preserved on his coinage from the period. Such evidence has brought into question the traditional assessment of Galba as nothing more than an ineffectual representative of a bygone antiquus rigor in favor of a more balanced portrait of a traditional constitutionalist eager to publicize the virtues of an Augustan-style Principate.[[8]]

Events now began to move quickly. In May, 68 Lucius Clodius Macer, legate of the III legio Augusta in Africa, revolted from Nero and cut off the grain supply to Rome. Choosing not to recognize Galba, he called himself propraetor, issued his own coinage, and raised a new legion, the I Macriana liberatrix. Galba later had him executed. At the same time, 68 Lucius Verginius Rufus, legionary commander in Upper Germany, led a combined force of soldiers from Upper and Lower Germany in defeating Vindex at Vesontio in Gallia Lugdunensis. Verginius refused to accept a call to the emperorship by his own troops and by those from the Danube, however, thereby creating at Rome an opportunity for Galba’s agents to win over Gaius Nymphidius Sabinus, the corrupt praetorian prefect since 65. Sabinus was able to turn the imperial guard against Nero on the promise that they would be rewarded financially by Galba upon his arrival. That was the end for Nero. Deposed by the senate and abandoned by his supporters, he committed suicide in June. At this point, encouraged to march on Rome by the praetorians and especially by Sabinus, who had his own designs on the throne, Galba hurriedly established broad-based political and financial support and assembled his own legion (subsequently known as the legio VII Gemina).[[9]] As he departed from Spain, he abandoned the title of governor in favor of „Caesar,“ apparently in an attempt to lay claim to the entire inheritance of the Julio-Claudian house. Even so, he continued to proceed cautiously, and did not actually adopt the name of Caesar (and with it the emperorship) until sometime after he had left Spain.[[10]]

The Principate of Galba

Meanwhile, Rome was anything but serene. An unusual force of soldiers, many of whom had been mustered by Nero to crush the attempt of Vindex, remained idle and restless. In addition, there was the matter concerning Nymphidius Sabinus. Intent on being the power behind the throne, Nymphidius had orchestrated a demand from the praetorians that Galba appoint him sole praetorian prefect for life. The senate capitulated to his pretensions and he began to have designs on the throne himself. In an attempt to rattle Galba, Nymphidius then sent messages of alarm to the emperor telling of unrest in both the city and abroad. When Galba ignored these reports, Nymphidius decided to launch a coup by presenting himself to the praetorians. The plan misfired, and the praetorians killed him when he appeared at their camp. Upon learning of the incident, Galba ordered the executions of Nymphidius‘ followers.[[11]] To make matters worse, Galba’s arrival was preceded by a confrontation with a boisterous band of soldiers who had been formed into a legion by Nero and were now demanding legionary standards and regular quarters. When they persisted, Galba’s forces attacked, with the result that many of them were killed.[[12]]

Thus it was amid carnage and fear that Galba arrived at the capital in October, 68, accompanied by Otho, the governor of Lusitania, who had joined the cause. Once Galba was within Rome, miscalculations and missteps seemed to multiply. First, he relied upon the advice of a corrupt circle of advisors, most notably: Titus Vinius, a general from Spain; Cornelius Laco, praetorian prefect; and his own freedman, Icelus. Second, he zealously attempted to recover some of Nero’s more excessive expenditures by seizing the property of many citizens, a measure that seems to have gone too far and to have caused real hardship and resentment. Third, he created further ill-will by disbanding the imperial corps of German bodyguards, effectively abolishing a tradition that originated with Marius and had been endorsed by Augustus. Finally, he seriously alienated the military by refusing cash rewards for both the praetorians and for the soldiers in Upper Germany who had fought against Vindex.

This last act proved to be the beginning of the end for Galba. On 1 January 69 the troops in Upper Germany refused to declare allegiance to him and instead followed the men stationed in Lower Germany in proclaiming their commander, Aulus Vitellius, as the new ruler. In response, Galba adopted Lucius Calpurnius Piso Frugi Licinianus to show that he was still in charge and that his successor would not be chosen for him. Piso, although an aristocrat, was a man completely without administrative or military experience.[[13]] The choice meant little to the remote armies, the praetorians or the senate, and it especially angered Otho, who had hoped to succeed Galba. Otho quickly organized a conspiracy among the praetorians with the now-familiar promise of a material reward, and on 15 January 69 they declared him emperor and publicly killed Galba; Piso, dragged from hiding in the temple of Vesta, was also butchered.

Assessment

In sum, Galba had displayed talent and ambition during his lengthy career. He enjoyed distinguished ancestry, moved easily among the Julio-Claudian emperors (with the exception of Nero towards the end of his principate), and had been awarded the highest military and religious honors of ancient Rome. His qualifications for the principate cannot be questioned. Even so, history has been unkind to him. Tacitus characterized Galba as „weak and old,“ a man „equal to the imperial office, if he had never held it.“ Modern historians of the Roman world have been no less critical.[[14]] To be sure, Galba’s greatest mistake lay in his general handling of the military. His treatment of the army in Upper Germany was heedless, his policy towards the praetorians short sighted. Given the climate in 68-69, Galba was unrealistic in expecting disciplina without paying the promised rewards. He was also guilty of relying on poor advisors, who shielded him from reality and ultimately allowed Otho’s conspiracy to succeed. Additionally, the excessive power of his henchmen brought the regime into disfavor and made Galba himself the principal target of the hatred that his aides had incited. Finally, the appointment of Piso, a young man in no way equal to the challenges placed before him, further underscored the emperor’s isolation and lack of judgment. In the end, the instability of the post-Julio-Claudian political landscape offered challenges more formidable than a tired, septuagenarian aristocrat could hope to overcome. Ironically, his regime proved no more successful than the Neronian government he was so eager to replace. Another year of bloodshed would be necessary before the Principate could once again stand firm.

Bibliography

The works listed below are main treatments of Galba or have a direct bearing on issues discussed in the entry above.

Benediktson, Dale T. „Structure and Fate in Suetonius‘ Life of Galba.“ CJ 92 (1996-97): 167-172.

Bowman, Alan K. et al. The Cambridge Ancient History, X: The Augustan Empire. 2nd ed. (Cambridge, 1996).

Brunt, P. A. „The Revolt of Vindex and the Fall of Nero.“ Latomus 18 (1959): 531-559.

Chilver, G. E. F. A Historical Commentary on Tacitus‘ Histories I and II. (Oxford, 1979).

Fluss, M. „Sulpicius (Galba).“ Real-Encyclopädie IVA2.772-801 (1932).

Greenhalgh, P. A. L. The Year of the Four Emperors. (New York, 1975).

Haley, E. W. „Clunia, Galba and the Events of 68-69.“ ZPE 91 (1992): 159-164.

Keitel, E. „Plutarch’s Tragedy Tyrants: Galba and Otho.“ Papers of the Leeds International Latin Seminar 8, Roman Comedy, Augustan Poetry, Historiography. edited by Roger Brock and Anthony J. Woodman. (Leeds, 1995): 275-288.

Kleiner, Fred S. „The Arch of Galba at Tarragona and Dynastic Portraiture on Roman Arches.“ MDAI(M) 30 (1989): 239-252.

________. „Galba and the Sullan Capitolium.“ AJN 1 (1989): 71-77.

________. „Galba Imperator Augustus P(opuli) R(omani).“ RN 32 (1990): 72-84.

Murison, Charles L. Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies. (Hildesheim, 1993).

________. Suetonius: Galba, Otho, Vitellius. (London, 1992).

Nawotka, Krzysztof. „Imperial Virtues of Galba in the Histories of Tacitus.“ Philologus 137 (1993): 258-264.

Sutherland, C. H. V. Roman Imperial Coinage, vol 1. (London, 1984).

Syme, R. „Partisans of Galba.“ Historia 31 (1982): 460-483.

________. Tacitus. (Oxford, 1958).

Townsend, G. B. „Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus,“ AJPhil 85 (1964): 337-377.

Wellesley, Kenneth. The Long Year A. D. 69. 2nd. ed. (London, 1989).

Zimmerman, M. „Die restitutio honorum Galbas.“ Historia 44 (1995): 56-82.
 

Notes

[[1]] The main ancient sources for Galba’s life are: Suet. Galba; Tac. Hist. 1.1-49; Plut. Galba; Dio 63.22-64.7. In addition, there were major works for this period by Cluvius Rufus, Fabius Rusticus and Pliny the Elder, but they have not survived. For an important discussion, see G. B. Townsend, „Cluvius Rufus in the Histories of Tacitus,“ AJPhil 85 (1964): 337-377.

[[2]] Galba’s birthdate is impossible to determine. Suetonius give it as 24 December, 3 B.C. (Galba 4.1), yet in the final chapter of Galba’s Life, he presupposes 5 B.C. as the date (Galba 23). Dio (64.6.52), taken with Tacitus‘ evidence (Hist. 1.27.1), also gives his birthdate as 5 B.C. The evidence given here is preferable, since Suetonius provides the information precisely and is concerned with Galba’s actual birthdate, not the length of his life or his reign.

[[3]] Suet. Galba 4. This must be a testamentary adoption, since a woman in classical law was not allowed to adopt during her lifetime. See the commentary of Charles L. Murison, editor, Suetonius: Galba, Otho, Vitellius (London, 1991), 33.

[[4]] Suetonius‘ claim that Galba was the first to offer an exhibition of rope-walking elephants has been refuted. See J. M. C. Toynbee, Animals in Roman Life and Art (London, 1973), 48-49, 352 nn. 103-110. See also H. H. Scullard, The Elephant in the Greek and Roman World (London, 1974), 250-259.

[[5]] This governorship is slightly unconventional, since most nobiles in this period usually governed senatorial provinces as praetorian proconsuls, not important imperial provinces like Aquitania. Galba was perhaps being groomed for a career as a vir militaris. Regarding the consulship, there may have been a delay at some point in Galba’s accession to the office. For a more complete discussion on this point, see Charles L. Murison, Galba, Otho and Vitellius: Careers and Controversies (Hildesheim, 1993), 35-36.

[[6]] On Galba’s behavior in Spain, see Suet. Galba 9 and Murison, Careers and Controversies, 37-38. Galba’s eight-year term, although lengthy, was not unprecedented. The time spent by an imperial legate as a provincial governor was entirely at the discretion of the emperor.

[[7]] On Nero’s order for Galba’s death, see Suet. Galba 9.2.

[[8]] On Galba’s coinage, see C. H. V. Sutherland, Roman Imperial Coinage I.2, (London, 1984), 197-215, 216-257. On Galba as a strict constitutionalist in the Augustan mold, see Murison, Careers and Controversies, 31-44.

[[9]] To obtain the necessary financing Galba confiscated and sold all of Nero’s property in Spain (Plut. Galba 5.6) and received a large amount of gold and silver from Otho (Plut. Galba 20.3). He also seems to have demanded contributions from communities in Spain and Gaul. See Tac. Hist. 1.8.1 and 1.53.3.

[[10]] On the chronology of Galba’s journey from Spain to Rome, see Murison, Careers and Controversies, 27-30. On events at Rome, see K. Wellesley, The Long Year A.D. 69. 2nd ed. (Bristol, 1989), 15-30.

[[11]] For the most complete account of the Nymphidius affair, see Plut. Galba 2; 8-9; 13-15.

[[12]] Tac. Hist. 1.6.2; Plut. Galba 15; Dio 64.3.1-2. See also Murison, Careers and Controversies, 63-64.

[[13]] Piso Licinianus was the son of M. Licinius Crassus Frugi, consul in 27, and of Scribonia, a direct descendant of Pompey the Great. He was only about eight years old when his parents and eldest brother were executed as part of the senatorial opposition to the later Julio-Claudians. Tacitus records that he was diu exul (Hist. 1.48.1; cf. Hist. 1.21.1; 1.38.1), which would explain his lack of experience.

[[14]] Tac. Hist. 1.6.1; 1.49. R. Syme, „Partisans of Galba,“ Historia 31 (1982): 460-483. See also K. Nawotka, „Imperial Virtues of Galba in the Histories of Tacitus.“ Philologus 137 (1993): 258-264.

Copyright © 1999, John Donahue. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: John Donahue.

Updated:7 August 1999

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. John Donahue: Galba (68 – 69 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [07.08.1999], http://www.roman-emperors.org/galba.htm

Die Auswahlbibliographie zur Alten Geschichte bietet einen Einstieg in die verschiedenen Bereiche der Alten Geschichte. So sind neben Titeln zu den verschiedenen Eopchen der Griechischen und Römischen Geschichte zahlreiche Hinweise zu hilswissenschaftlichen Bereichen wie Epigraphik, Numismatik und Chronologie, aber auch zu Teildisziplinen wie der Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte sowie der Rechtsgeschichte enthalten.

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Claudius (41 – 54 A.D.)

Garrett G. Fagan

Pennsylvania State University

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/claudius.jpg

Introduction

Ti. Claudius Nero Germanicus (b. 10 BC, d. 54 A.D.; emperor, 41-54 A.D.) was the third emperor of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. His reign represents a turning point in the history of the Principate for a number of reasons, not the least for the manner of his accession and the implications it carried for the nature of the office. During his reign he promoted administrators who did not belong to the senatorial or equestrian classes, and was later vilified by authors who did. He followed Caesar in carrying Roman arms across the English Channel into Britain but, unlike his predecessor, he initiated the full-scale annexation of Britain as a province, which remains today the most closely studied corner of the Roman Empire. His relationships with his wives and children provide detailed insights into the perennial difficulties of the succession problem faced by all Roman Emperors. His final settlement in this regard was not lucky: he adopted his fourth wife’s son, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, who was to reign catastrophically as Nero and bring the dynasty to an end. Claudius’s reign, therefore, was a mixture of successes and failures that leads into the last phase of the Julio-Claudian line.

Early Life (10 BC – 41 A.D. )

Claudius was born on 1 August 10 BC at Lugdunum in Gaul, into the heart of the Julio-Claudian dynasty: he was the son of Drusus Claudius Nero, the son of Augustus’s wife Livia, and Antonia, the daughter of Mark Antony. [[1]] His uncle, Tiberius, went on to become emperor in AD 14 and his brother Germanicus was marked out for succession to the purple when, in AD 4, he was adopted by Tiberius. It might be expected that Claudius, as a well-connected imperial prince, would have enjoyed the active public life customary for young men of his standing but this was not the case. In an age that despised weakness, Claudius was unfortunate enough to have been born with defects. He limped, he drooled, he stuttered and was constantly ill. [[2]] His family members mistook these physical debilities as reflective of mental infirmity and generally kept him out of the public eye as an embarrassment. A sign of this familial disdain is that he remained under guardianship, like a woman, even after he had reached the age of majority. Suetonius, in particular, preserves comments of Antonia, his mother, and Livia, his grandmother, which are particularly cruel in their assessment of the boy. From the same source, however, it emerges that Augustus suspected that there was more to this „idiot“ than met the eye.[[3]] Nevertheless, Claudius spent his entire childhood and youth in almost complete seclusion. The normal rites de passage of an imperial prince came and went without official notice, and Claudius received no summons to public office or orders to command troops on the frontiers.[[4]] When he assumed the toga virilis, for instance, he was carried to the Capitol in a litter at night; the normal procedure was to be led into the Forum by one’s father or guardian in full public view. How he spent the voluminous free time of his youth is revealed by his later character: he read voraciously. He became a scholar of considerable ability and composed works on all subjects in the liberal arts, especially history; he was the last person we know of who could read Etruscan. [[5]] These skills, and the knowledge of governmental institutions he acquired from studying history, were to stand him in good stead when he came to power.

It should not be forgotten that Claudius’s wing of the family suffered terribly in the internal struggles for succession that racked the imperial house. His father died on campaign when Claudius was only one year old, and his beloved brother, Germanicus, succumbed under suspicious circumstances in AD 19. His only other sibling to reach adulthood, Livilla, became involved with Sejanus and paid the ultimate price in the wake of the latter’s fall from grace in AD 31. Through all this turmoil Claudius survived, primarily through being ignored as an embarrassment and an idiot.[[6]]

Claudius’s fortunes changed somewhat when his unstable nephew, Gaius (Caligula), came to power in the spring of 37 A.D. Gaius, it seems, liked to use his bookish, frail uncle as the butt of cruel jokes and, in keeping with this pattern of behavior, promoted him to a suffect consulship on 1 July 37 A.D. At 46 years of age, it was Claudius’s first public office. Despite this sortie into public life, he seemed destined for a relatively quiet and secluded dotage when, in January 41, events overtook him.[[7]]

Accession (24-25 January, 41 A.D.)

Arguably the most important period of Claudius’s reign was its first few hours. The events surrounding his accession are worthy of detailed description, since they revealed much about the true nature of the Augustan Principate.

In the early afternoon of 24 January 41 A.D., the emperor Gaius was attending a display of dancers in a theater near the palace. Claudius was present. Shortly before lunch time, Claudius took his leave and the emperor decided that he, too, would adjourn for a bath. As Gaius was making his way down an isolated palace corridor he was surrounded and cut down by discontented members of his own bodyguard. In the aftermath of the assassination — the first open murder of a Roman emperor — there was widespread panic and confusion. The German elements of the emperor’s bodyguard, who were fiercely loyal to their chief, went on the rampage and killed indiscriminately. Soldiers of the larger Praetorian Guard began looting the imperial palace. According to the best-known tradition, some Guardsmen found Claudius cowering behind a curtain and, on the spot, they declared him their emperor and carried him off to their camp. In this story, a hapless Claudius falls into power entirely as a result of accident, and very much against his will. It is not hard to see why, with its implicit theme of recusatio imperii, it is the story of his accession that Claudius himself favored.[[8]] Vestiges, however, can be traced of another tradition that paints a somewhat different picture. In this version, the Guardsmen meet in their camp and discuss the situation facing them in light of Gaius’s murder. Their pleasant, city-based terms of military service were in jeopardy. They needed an emperor. Fixing their intentions on Claudius as the only surviving mature member of the Julio-Claudian house, they sent out a party of troops to find him and bring him back to their camp so he could be acclaimed emperor, which is what happened. In this story, the elevation of Claudius to the purple was a purposeful plan on the part of the soldiers, even if Claudius remains a passive and reluctant partner in the whole process.[[9]]

The possibility has to be entertained that Claudius was a far more active participant in his own elevation than either of these traditions let on. There is just reason to suspect that he may even have been involved in planning the murder of Gaius — his departure from the theater minutes before the assassination appears altogether too fortuitous. These possibilities, however, must remain pure speculation, since the ancient evidence offers nothing explicit in the way of support for them. On the other hand, we can hardly expect them to, given the later pattern of events. The whole issue of Claudius’s possible involvement in the death of Gaius and his own subsequent acclamation by the Praetorian Guard must, therefore, remain moot.[[10]]

Despite the circumstances that brought him there, the hours following Claudius’s arrival at the Praetorian Camp and his acceptance as emperor by the Senate are vital ones for the history of the Principate. Events could have taken a very different course, but that they worked out as they did speaks volumes as to how far seven decades of the Augustan Principate had removed Rome from the possibility of a return to the so-called free Republic.

News of Gaius’s death prompted a meeting of the Senate. Initially, there was talk of declaring the Republic restored and dispensing with emperors altogether. Then, however, various senators began proposing that they be chosen as the next princeps. Debate was in progress when news reached the senators that the Guard had made the decision for them: Claudius, the soldiers‘ choice, was sitting in the Praetorian Camp.[[11]] The main historical difficulty in what happened next is due to confusion in Josephus’s account (which is the fullest). In one version, the Senate sent two tribunes to the Camp to demand that Claudius step down. Once in the Camp, however, the tribunes were cowed by the ardent support for Claudius among the soldiers and instead requested that he come to the Senate to be ratified as emperor. In Josephus’s alternate version, however, Herod Agrippa is summoned by the senators and employed as an envoy between the Camp and the Senate.[[12]] Clearly, Josephus is conveying two traditions about these events, one Roman (featuring the tribunes), the other Jewish (highlighting the role of Herod Agrippa). Suetonius, naturally enough, follows the Roman tradition, as does Dio in his main account; interestingly, the latter shows awareness of some participation on the part of Herod Agrippa in a later passage.[[13]]

Regardless of how the negotiations were conducted, the Senate quickly realized it was powerless in the presence of several thousand armed men supporting Claudius’s candidacy. The impotence that the esteemed council had experienced time and again when dealing with the military dynasts of the Late Republic was once more revealed to all, and the meeting dissolved with the fate of the Empire left undecided. When the Senate met again later that night in the Temple of Jupiter Victor, it found its numbers much depleted, since many had fled the city to their country estates. The senators assessed their military strength: they had three or four urban cohorts under the command of the City Prefect, numbering perhaps 3,000 men. With these, they occupied the Forum and Palatine. Plans were laid to arm some ex-slaves to provide reinforcements. By these actions the senators were accepting that supreme power in post-Augustan Rome could be achieved only by military force; all questions of legal niceties were irrelevant. But the Senate could not control their troops — they all deserted to the Praetorian Guard, with whom they shared the Camp.[[14]]

Now completely powerless, the senators hurried off to the Praetorian Camp to pay their respects to Claudius. On 25 January 41 A.D. Claudius was formally invested with all the powers of the princeps, becoming Ti. Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus. (Since Claudius had no legal claim to it whatsoever, the appearance of „Caesar“ in his imperial name marks the first step in this word’s transmutation from a family name to a title denoting ruler, and so begins a tradition that stretches into the modern era with „Kaiser,“ „Czar,“ and possibly „Shah.“)

These events have been treated in some detail because of their immense historical importance. Gaius was the first emperor of Rome to be openly murdered, and Claudius’s accession marks the first overt and large-scale intrusion of the military into post-Augustan politics. The basic fact of the Principate, which had always been implicit in the Augustan settlement but heretofore carefully disguised, was now made plain: the emperor’s position ultimately rested not on consensus but on the swords of the soldiers who paid him homage. From one perspective, the Principate had been revealed for what it truly was — an exercise in managing the military’s loyalties, and not a form of government rooted in law and consensus. The Senate, in attempting to block Claudius with troops of their own, had acquiesced in this structure of power. For ever afterward, emperors sat on the throne on the sufferance of the troops they commanded, and a loss of army loyalty necessarily entailed a loss of power, usually accompanied by the loss of the incumbent’s life. But the harder lessons in these realities lay in the future; for the moment order had been restored, and Claudius embarked on his reign in relative security.

The Early Years: Britain, Freedmen, and Messalina (AD 41 – 48)

Among Claudius’s first acts was the apprehension and execution of Gaius’s assassins. Whatever his opinion of their actions, politics and pietas required that Claudius not be seen to condone men who murdered an emperor and a member of his own family.[[15]] He also displayed immediate understanding of the centrality of the military to his position and sought to create a military image for himself that his prior sheltered existence had denied him. Preparations got under way soon after his accession for a major military expedition into Britain, perhaps sparked by an attempted revolt of the governor of Dalmatia, L. Arruntius Camillus Scribonianus, in 42 A.D.. The invasion itself, spearheaded by four legions, commenced in the summer of 43 and was to last for decades, ultimately falling short of the annexation of the whole island (if indeed that was Claudius’s final objective at the outset). This move marked the first major addition to the territory of the Roman empire since the reign of Augustus.[[16]] Claudius himself took part in the campaign, arriving in the war zone with an entourage of ex-consuls in the late summer of 43 A.D. After a parade at Camulodunum (Colchester) to impress the natives, he returned to Rome to celebrate a triumph in 44 A.D. His military credentials had been firmly established.[[17]]

The sources are united in portraying Claudius as a dupe to his imperial freedmen advisors as well as to his wives. It is possible that the hostile stance of the elite toward Claudius extended back into his reign — he was, after all, a usurper who had been foisted on the aristocrats by the soldiers. If so, Claudius’s reliance on his freedmen may have stemmed from this circumstance, in that the ex-slaves were (as far as he was concerned) more trustworthy than the sullen aristocracy. For whatever reasons, there is no doubt that Claudius’s reign is the first era of the great imperial freedman. To be sure, the secretariat had existed before Claudius and members of it had achieved some prominence (notably Helicon and Callistus under Gaius), but the rise of powerful individuals like Narcissus, Polybius, and Pallas was a distinctive mark of Claudius’s reign. The power of these men was demonstrated early on when the emperor chose Narcissus as his envoy to the legions as they hesitated to embark on their invasion of Britain.[[18]] According to our sources, the freedmen were frequently to exert less beneficent influences throughout Claudius’s reign.

In 38 A.D. Claudius had married Valeria Messalina, a scion of a noble house with impressive familial connections. Messalina bore him a daughter (Octavia, born in 39) and a son (Britannicus, born in 41): she was therefore the mother of the heir-apparent and enjoyed influence for that reason. In the sources, Messalina is portrayed as little more than a pouting adolescent nymphomaniac who holds wild parties and arranges the deaths of former lovers or those who scorn her advances; and all this while her cuckolded husband blunders on in blissful ignorance. Recently, attempts have been made to rehabilitate Messalina as an astute player of court politics who used sex as a weapon, but in the end we have little way of knowing the truth.[[19]] What we can say is that either her love of parties (on the adolescent model) or her byzantine scheming (on the able courtier model) brought her down. While Claudius was away in Ostia in AD 48, Messalina had a party in the palace in the course of which a marriage ceremony was performed (or playacted) between herself and a consul-designate, C. Silius. Whatever the intentions behind it, the political ramifications of this folly were sufficiently grave to cause the summary execution of Messalina, Silius, and assorted hangers-on (orchestrated, tellingly, by the freedman Narcissus).[[20]] Claudius was now without a wife.

The Rise of Agrippina and Claudius’s Death (48-54 A.D.)

In our sources, the death of Messalina is presented as initiating a scramble among the freedmen, each wishing to place his preferred candidate at Claudius’s side as the new empress. In the end, it was Pallas who prevailed when he convinced Claudius to marry Agrippina the Younger. The marriage took place within months of Messalina’s execution. Agrippina was a colorful figure with extensive and far-reaching imperial connections: she was the daughter of Claudius’s brother, Germanicus, and a sister of Gaius Caligula, by whom she had been exiled for involvement in the conspiracy of Gaetulicus; moreover, she had been married before. She therefore brought to the marriage with Claudius — which necessitated a change in the law to allow uncles to marry their brothers‘ daughters — a son, L. Domitius Ahenobarbus. Agrippina’s ambitions for this son proved the undoing of Claudius.[[21]]

The years between his marriage to Agrippina in 48 and his death in 54 were difficult ones for Claudius. Whether or not sources are right to portray him as a dupe of his wives and freedmen throughout his reign, there can be little doubt that Agrippina’s powerful personality dominated Claudius’s last years. Her position, openly influential in a manner unlike any previous empress, was recognized by those attuned to imperial politics, and she appears more and more prominently in official inscriptions and coins. In 50 the Senate voted her the title „Augusta,“ the first prominent imperial woman to hold this title since Livia — and the latter had only held it after Augustus’s death. She greeted foreign embassies to the emperor at Rome from her own tribunal, and those greetings were recorded in official documents; she also wore a gold-embroidered military cloak at official functions. It is a sign of her overt influence that a new colony on the Rhine bore her name.[[22]]Agrippina’s powerful position facilitated the advancement of her son Domitius and was, in turn, strengthened by it. Claudius already had a natural son, Britannicus, who was still a minor. Domitius, at 13, was three years older. Now Claudius began to advance Domitius through various signs of favor, the most important being his adoption as Claudius’s son on 25 February AD 50. Henceforth Domitius was known as Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus Caesar and known to posterity simply as „Nero“. But Claudius openly advanced Nero in other ways, too: the emperor held the consulship in 51, which was the year Nero took the „toga of manhood,“ and that event was itself staged several months before the customary age for Roman teenagers; Nero was granted imperium proconsulare outside the city, addressed the Senate, appeared with Claudius at circus games (while Britannicus appeared still in the toga of a minor), and was hailed as „Leader of the Youth“ (princeps iuventutis) on the coinage; in AD 53 Nero married Claudius’s daughter, Octavia.[[23]] All of these are sure signs of preference in the ever-unstable imperial succession schemes. The main difficulty for modern scholars lies in how to explain Claudius’s favoring of Nero over his natural son, Britannicus; the reasons remain a matter of intense debate.[[24]]

No matter what the reasons were, there can be little doubt that Nero, despite his tender age, had been clearly marked out as Claudius’s successor. Agrippina, according to Tacitus, now decided it was time to dispose of Claudius to allow Nero to take over. The ancient accounts are confused — as is habitual in the cases of hidden and dubious deaths of emperors — but their general drift is that Claudius was poisoned with a treated mushroom, that he lingered a while and had to be poisoned a second time before dying on 13 October 54 A.D. At noon that same day, the sixteen-year-old Nero was acclaimed emperor in a carefully orchestrated piece of political theater. Already familiar to the army and the public, he faced no serious challenges to his authority.[[25]]

Claudius and the Empire

The invasion and annexation of Britain was by far the most important and significant event in Claudius’s reign. But several other issues deserve attention: his relationship with and treatment of the aristocracy, his management of the provinces and their inhabitants, and his judicial practices, and his building activities. Before looking at these subjects, however, we should note that the long-lived notion that Claudius initiated a coherent policy of centralization in the Roman Empire — evidenced in the centralization of provincial administration and judicial actions, in the creation of a departmental bureaucracy, his interference in financial affairs, and so on — has been decisively disproven by a recent biography of Claudius.[[26]] Whatever actions Claudius took in regard to the various wings of government, he did so without any unifying policy of centralization in mind.

Claudius’s relationship with the Senate did not get off to a good start — given the nature of his succession and the early revolt of Scribonianus with its ensuing show trials — and it seems likely that distrust of the aristocracy is what impelled Claudius to elevate the role of his freedmen. During his reign, however, Claudius made efforts to conciliate Rome’s leading council, but he also embarked on practices that redounded to his detriment, especially those of sponsoring the entrance men considered unworthy into the Order and hearing delicate cases behind closed doors (in camera). In the last analysis, the figures speak for themselves: 35 senators and several hundred Knights were driven to suicide or executed during the reign. The posthumous vilification of Claudius in the aristocratic tradition also bespeaks a deep bitterness and indicates that, ultimately, Claudius’s relationship with the Senate showed little improvement over time. His reviving and holding the censorship in 47-48 is typical of the way the relationship between Senate and emperor misfired: Claudius, no doubt, thought he was adhering to ancient tradition, but the emperor-censor only succeeded in eliciting odium from those he was assessing.[[27]]

Claudius was remembered (negatively) by tradition as being noticeably profligate in dispensing grants of Roman citizenship to provincials; he also admitted „long-haired“ Gauls into the senatorial order, to the displeasure of the snobbish incumbents. Both of these practices demonstrate his concern for fair play and good government for the provinces, despite his largely sedentary reign: under Claudius are attributed the first issues of standing orders (mandata) from emperor to governor.[[28]] In the organization of the provinces, Claudius appears to have preferred direct administration over client kingship. Under him the kingdoms of Mauretania, Lycia, Noricum, and Thrace were converted into provinces. Stable kingdoms, such as Bosporus and Cilicia, were left untouched. A good example of the pattern is Herod Agrippa I. This client prince had grown up at Rome and had been awarded tetrarchic lands in Galilee by Gaius (Caligula). As we saw above, he had been involved in the accession of Claudius and, as a reward for services rendered, he was granted Judaea and Samaria in addition to his former holdings. He fell from grace, however, when he suspiciously extended Jerusalem’s walls and invited other eastern kings to a conference at Tiberias. He died suddenly in 44 A.D., after which his former kingdom again came under direct Roman rule.[[29]]

One feature of Claudius’s reign that the sources particularly criticize is his handling of judicial matters. While he was certainly diligent in attending to hearings and court proceedings — he was constantly present in court and heard cases even during family celebrations and festal days — the sources accuse him of interfering unduly with cases, of not listening to both sides of a case, of making ridiculous and/or savage rulings, and of hearing delicate cases in closed-door private sessions with only his advisors present. The most celebrated and infamous of the latter cases is that of Valerius Asiaticus, the Gallic ex-consul and one-time friend of Claudius, who fell from grace in 47, reputedly at Messalina’s instigation. His case was heard in the emperor’s bedroom and Asiaticus was forced to suicide. Even if a survey of surviving rulings by Claudius do not show him making silly decisions, his judicial practices caught such attention that Seneca’s Apocolocyntosis ends with a courtroom scene with Claudius as the accused: he is not allowed to make his defence, is convicted, and condemned to be a powerless courtroom clerk. Such an image must have been most pleasing to the senatorial imagination.[[30]]

Finally, there is Claudius’s building activities. Public building was de rigueur for Roman emperors, and ancient accounts of individual reigns routinely include mention of imperial munificence. Matters hydraulic account for Claudius’s greatest constructional achievements, in the form of a new aqueduct for the city of Rome, a new port at Portus near Ostia, and the draining of the Fucine Lake. The sources are at pains to highlight the almost catastrophic outcome of the latter project, but its scale cannot be denied. Suetonius’s assessment that „his public works were grandiose and necessary rather than numerous“ is entirely correct[[31]].

Conclusion

Robert Graves‘ fictional characterization of Claudius as an essentially benign man with a keen intelligence has tended to dominate the wider public’s view of this emperor. Close study of the sources, however, reveals a somewhat different kind of man. In addition to his scholarly and cautious nature, he had a cruel streak, as suggested by his addiction to gladiatorial games and his fondness for watching his defeated opponents executed.[[32]] He conducted closed-door (in camera ) trials of leading citizens that frequently resulted in their ruin or deaths — an unprecedented and tyrannical pattern of behavior. He had his wife Messalina executed, and he personally presided over a kangaroo court in the Praetorian Camp in which many of her hangers-on lost their lives. He abandoned his own son Britannicus to his fate and favored the advancement of Nero as his successor. While he cannot be blamed for the disastrous way Nero’s rule turned out, he must take some responsibility for putting that most unsuitable youth on the throne. At the same time, his reign was marked by some notable successes: the invasion of Britain, stability and good government in the provinces, and successful management of client kingdoms. Claudius, then, is a more enigmatic figure than the other Julio-Claudian emperors: at once careful, intelligent, aware and respectful of tradition, but given to bouts of rage and cruelty, willing to sacrifice precedent to expediency, and utterly ruthless in his treatment of those who crossed him. Augustus’s suspicion that there was more to the timid Claudius than met the eye was more than fully borne out by the events of his unexpected reign.

Bibliography (see also the bibliographies for Gaius and Nero)

Barrett, A. A. Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire. New Haven, 1996.

Braund, D. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 BC – A.D. 68. London, 1985.

Eck, W., A. Caballos, and F. Fernández. Das Senatusconsultum de Cn. Pisone Patre. Munich, 1996.

Ehrhardt, C. „Messalina and the Succession to Claudius.“ Antichthon 12 (1978): 51-77.

Sherk, R. K. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Cambridge, 1988.

Levick, B. Claudius. New Haven, 1990.

Momigliano, A. Claudius: The Emperor and his Achievement.² Oxford, 1961.

Schwartz, D. R. Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea. Tübingen, 1990.

Scramuzza, V. M. The Emperor Claudius. London, 1940.

Sherwin-White, A. N. The Roman Citizenship². Oxford, 1973.

Smallwood, E. M. Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius, and Nero. Cambridge, 1967.

Strocka, V.M. (ed.) Die Regierungszeit des Claudius. Mainz 1993.

Sutherland, C. H. V. Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy. London, 1951.

________. The Roman Imperial Coinage. Vol. 1,² London, 1982. (= RIC)

Talbert, R. J. A. The Senate of Imperial Rome. Princeton, 1984.

Vivo, A. de. Claudio e Tacito: Storia e codificazione letteraria. Naples, 1980.

Wellesley, K. „Can You Trust Tacitus?“ GaR 1 (1954): 13-33.

Wiseman, T.P. Flavius Josephus: Death of an Emperor. Exeter 1991.

Notes

[[1]] The main ancient literary sources for Claudius’s reign are: Tac. Ann. 11-12; Dio 59.1-60(61).4; Seneca, Apocolocyntosis; Suet. Claudius. Supplementary information is found in Josephus, and inscriptions and coins are collected in Smallwood, Documents (many of the latter’s entries are translated in Braund or Sherk). Birth: Suet. Claud. 2.1.

[[2]] Defects: Suet. Claud. 2.1-2. Claudius may have suffered from cerebral palsy, but medical diagnoses in the absence of physical remains and at a distance of 2,000 years are not the soundest.

[[3]] Antonia, reports Suetonius [Claud. 3.2], used to call him „a half-formed monster“ and berated fools as „more stupid than my son Claudius.“ These assessments may well derive from the imperial archives, to which Suetonius had access. For citations from Augustus’s correspondence that reveal a more balanced view of the young Claudius, see Suet. Claud. 4. Recent confirmation of Claudius’s low status in the dynasty comes from the SC de Cn. Pisone Patre (AD 20): in the lengthy praises of members of Germanicus’s family, Claudius, Germanicus’s brother, is barely mentioned (line 148) ; see W. Eck et al., Das Senatusconsultum de Cn. Pisone Patre (Munich, 1996), ll. 136-50.

[[4]] He did hold an augural priesthood, but nothing else. The flimsiness of Augustus’s bequest to him, in naming him an heir in the third degree among complete strangers, is a further indication of his almost total marginalization from the center of the dynasty, see Suet. Claud. 4.7.

[[5]] Suet. Claud. 3.1, 41-42. Among his works, which were composed in Greek and Latin and none of which survive, were: 43 books of Roman history, 21 books of Etruscan history, and 8 on Carthaginian; a book on philology; a rhetorical defence of Cicero; and an autobiography in 8 books. The latter have been fictionalized by Robert Graves in his masterly novels „I, Claudius“ and „Claudius the God.“

[[6]] Suetonius (Claud.5-6) records various incidental honors and respects paid to him from various quarters, such as his representation on two occasions of the equestrian order as their patron. However, as he was an under-utilized and therefore accessible member of the imperial house, it would have been more surprising had some party not attempted to use him as an avenue of approach into more powerful inner circles.

[[7]] Consulship and rough treatment under Gaius: Suet. Claud. 7-9.

[[8]] Suet. Claud. 10; Dio 60.1.2-3a. Josephus (AJ 19.212-20) is largely in agreement, but unwittingly contradicts an earlier passage in his work (see next note). Another possibility (see Scramuzza, 56-57) is that Josephus in AJ 19.212-20 is portraying the sequel of the events he describes in AJ 10.162-65.

[[9]] The tradition of the „active Guard“ is preserved in Jos. AJ 19.162-65.

[[10]] The danger here is that we enter a pattern of circular reasoning: because Claudius was involved in the assassination and his own accession, he suppressed the evidence and put out the „hapless accession“ story; therefore, the absence of evidence for his active involvement is to be read as proof of it! Levick (29-39) skirts this sort of logic, but falls short of endorsing it.

[[11]] Suet. Claud. 10.1-3; Dio 60.1.3a; Jos. AJ 19.229, BJ 2.206-7.

[[12]] Tribunes: Jos. AJ 19.229-35; Herod Agrippa: Jos. AJ 19.239-45.

[[13]] Suet. Claud. 10.3; Dio 60.1.4 (tribunes), 60.8.2 (allusion to Herod Agrippa’s role). Josephus’s account of these Roman events, in fact, is part of an extended, self-contained subdivision of his AJ that could easily be entitled „The Adventures of Herod Agrippa Among the Romans.“ There is just cause to doubt the degree of prominence he affords Herod in these events, but that the Jewish prince played some role is hardly to be doubted.

[[14]] Depleted Senate: Jos. AJ 19.248-49. Senatorial military strength and actions: Suet. Claud. 10.4; Jos. AJ 19.188, 242, BJ 2.205. Desertions: Dio 60.1.4; Jos. AJ 19.259-60, BJ 2.211-12. The most likely reason for the sudden desertion of the Senate’s troops late on 24 January was not fear of a restored Republic or an unwillingness to fight their comrades (as Josephus claims in the AJ and BJ, locc. citt., respectively), but the announcement on the evening of that day of Claudius’s huge donative to the urban and provincial troops (Jos. AJ 19.247, Suet. Claud. loc. cit.).

[[15]] Suet. Claud. 11.1; Dio 60.3.4; Jos. AJ 19.268-71. Chaerea had virtually ensured his own death by insisting that Claudius be killed along with Gaius.

[[16]] Scribonianus’s rebellion: Suet. Claud. 13.2; Dio 60.15-16; Tac. Hist. 1.89, 2.75, Ann. 12.52.2. The invasion of Britain has been analyzed in minute detail by many British scholars: e.g., S. Frere, Britannia,³ (London, 1987), 16-80; J. Peddie, Invasion: The Roman Conquest of Britain (New York, 1987); P. Salway, Roman Britain (Oxford, 1981), 65-99; G. Webster and D. Dudley, The Roman Conquest of Britain,² (London, 1973). Claudius’s initial objective may have been the annexation of the southern shoreline only; see Levick, 137-48.

[[17]] The bombastic inscription from his (lost) triumphal arch, now in a courtyard of the Musei Capitolini in Rome, declares that „he received the surrender of eleven British kings who had been defeated without loss in battle, and was the first to bring barbarian peoples from across the Ocean under the sway of the Roman people“ (CIL 6.920 = ILS 216). There were other military actions. Claudius inherited a war in Mauretania from Gaius’s reign and, once fighting subsided, organized the former kingdom into two provinces (Mauretania Tingitana and Caesariensis) perhaps as early as AD 43; he subdued trouble in Lycia and annexed the region as a province, probably around AD 47 or 48; and he saw fighting along the Rhine and Danube frontiers; for all this, see Levick, 149-61. By the end of his reign, he had been hailed as imperator twenty-seven times (see, e.g., CIL 6.1256 = ILS 218), more than any emperor until Constantine the Great.

[[18]] On the imperial freedmen, see Levick, 53-79; Scramuzza, 5-34. Claudius’s relations with the aristocracy: Levick, 93-103. Narcissus and the legions: Dio 60.19.2-3. A classic example of the growing power of the freedmen is Claudius’s abolition of the senatorial post of quaestor Ostiensis and its replacement with a freedman procurator portus Ostiensis in 44; see Suet. Claud. 24.2.

[[19]] Messalina was Claudius’s third wife: previous unions with Plautia Urgulanilla and Aelia Paetina had failed for various reasons; see Suet. Claud. 26.1-2. Messalina’s influence is indicated by her appearance on the obverse of coins of Claudius’s reign (where one would expect the head of the emperor), or in the cameo now in Paris depicting Messalina, Octavia, and Britannicus. Messalina’s excesses are reflected in such sources as Sen. Apoc., passim and Juv. Sat. 6 and 10.

[[20]] Messalina’s fall: Tac. Ann. 11.26-37; Suet. Claud. 26; Dio 60(61).31.1-5; Sen. Oct. 257-61.

[[21]] Timing of marriage: Tac. Ann. 12.6-8. Agrippina’s life and connections: Barrett, Agrippina, 1-94 (before marriage to Claudius).

[[22]] Augusta: Dio 60(61).33.2a. Greeting ambassadors: Tac. Ann. 12.37.5; Dio 60(61).33.7. Cloak: Pliny HN 33.63, Dio 60(61).33.3. Colony: Tac. Ann. 12.27.1-2. Tacitus, typically, contrives the most biting aphorism to describe Agrippina’s ascendancy: „she presided over an almost masculine servitude“ (adductum et quasi virile servitium — Ann. 12.7.5).

[[23]] Adoption: Tac. Ann. 12.25; Suet. Claud. 27, Nero 7; Dio 60(61).32.22. Toga virilis and public appearances: Tac. Ann. 12.41-42; Suet. Nero 7; Dio 60(61).32.5, 33.2c, 33.9. Imperium proconsulare: Tac. Ann. 12.41.2. Princeps Iuventutis: C.H.V. Sutherland, Coinage in Roman Imperial Policy (London, 1951), pp.143-44 and id., RIC 126 (nos. 75. 80, 82) (many of these coins also celebrate Agrippina independently of Claudius — e.g., Sutherland, Coinage, 146 and id., RIC, 125 [no. 75] — a sure sign of her overt influence). Marriage to Octavia: Tac. Ann. 12.58.1; Dio 60(61).33.11.

[[24]] Tacitus is unequivocal in attributing Nero’s advancement to Agrippina’s efforts (studiis matris at Ann. 12.9.2). Modern attempts to counter this judgment (e.g., Scramuzza, 91-92) are unconvincing, though Barrett’s (Agrippina, 95-142) portrayal of Agrippina and Claudius acting in concert has its attractions. Tacitus portrays Pallas, Agrippina’s ally, as persuading Claudius to advance Nero for reasons of state, slyly appealing to the sort of historical precedents he knew would appeal to Claudius’s antiquarian sensibilities (Tac. Ann. 12.25). It is noteworthy that in his epigraphically preserved speech to Lugdunum (dated to AD 48, and thus before Nero was a factor), Claudius had referred to just such precedents regarding monarchic succession (Smallwood, Documents, no. 369.8-27). Levick (69-79) argues for the „pairing“ of Britannicus and Nero in a joint-succession scheme she sees extending back to Augustus. However, her „dynastic collegiality“ format for the imperial succession is rather thin for evidence and, tellingly, was not realized even once when power changed hands in the first century AD. Barrett (Agrippina, loc. cit.) argues that Claudius intended to promote Nero from the outset, since the prince could claim direct descent from Augustus and that this claim buttressed his own regime. This position seems a little stretched, since Claudius must have known that to do so would result in Britannicus’s death (as indeed it did, within weeks of Nero’s accession; see Tac. Ann. 13.15-17). Another possibility, little more than mentioned in the modern authorities but entirely possible, is that Claudius saw some flaws in Britannicus that turned him toward Nero (Tac. Ann. 13.16.5).

[[25]] Death of Claudius: Tac. Ann. 12.64-67; Suet. Claud. 43-44; Dio 60(61).34.1-3. Scramuzza (92-93) believes that Claudius died naturally, and Barrett (Agrippina, 139-42) leans in the same direction, on the basis that the confused and conflicting accounts of our sources make murder unlikely. Levick (76-77), while stating that murder cannot be proven, nonetheless finds Claudius’s death altogether too timely to have been natural. The aging emperor had fallen ill frequently in the years leading up to his death, but the fortuitous timing of his death is indeed highly suspicious.

[[26]] Proponents of centralization: e.g., Momigliano, passim; H.H. Scullard, From the Gracchi to Nero⁵ (London, 1985), 292-95. Disproven: Levick, 81-91.

[[27]] Consulting the House: Claudius’s record of attendance at meetings of the Senate is among best for the emperors; see R.J.A. Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1984), 174-84, esp. 176-77. Conciliatory gestures: he declared amnesty for senators implicated in Gaius’s death (Dio 60.3.5-4.2); he adopted a general demeanor of deference to the House (Suet. Claud. 12.1-2, 35.1); he rose to greet consuls and dressed unassumingly for meetings (Dio 60.6.1, 9); and so on. Unworthy senators: e.g., Tac. Ann. 11.20.4-21.4. Numbers of dead: Sen., Apoc. 14.1 (who numbers 35 senators and 221 equites); Suet. Claud. 29.2 (35 senators and over 300 equites). Censorship: Tac. Ann. 11.13, Suet. Claud. 16.

[[28]] Excessive grants of citizenship: Sen. Apoc. 3.3; his grant of citizenship en masse to the Alpine tribe of the Anauni (CIL 14.85 = ILS 206) is a particularly famous example. Levick (165) has pointed out, however, that in the indices of provincial citizens „Claudii“ are far outweighed by „Iulii“ or „Flavii,“ suggesting that the tradition has exaggerated this tendency of Claudius’s; see also see A.N. Sherwin-White The Roman Citizenship² (Oxford, 1973), 237-50. Admission of Gauls to the senate: Tac. Ann. 11.23-25; Smallwood, Documents, no. 369 (see also K. Wellesley, „Can You Trust Tacitus?“, GaR 1[1954]: 13-33). Mandata: Levick, 164.

[[29]] Career of Herod Agrippa I: D.R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen, 1990); above, nn. 12-13.

[[30]] Hearing cases: Suet. Claud. 14, Dio 60.4.3, 17.1. Suetonius (Claud. 14-15) sums up his judicial failings with many examples; see also Dio 60.5.6-7. Closed hearings: Tac. Ann. 11.2.1, 13.4.2. Valerius Asiaticus and survey of rulings: Levick, 61-63 (with sources in notes) and 123-26, respectively. Seneca: Apoc. 12-14 (where there are many echoes of Suetonius’s charges).

[[31]] Suet. Claud. 20 (quote at 20.1: opera magna potius et necessaria quam multa perfecit). See also F.C. Bourne, The Public Works of the Julio-Claudians and Flavians (Princeton, 1946), 42-48; Levick, 108-11.

[[32]] Cruelty: Suet. Claud. 34.

Copyright 1998, Garrett G. Fagan. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: Garrett G. Fagan

Updated:30 April 2004

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Garrett G. Fagan: Claudius (41-54 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [30.04.2004], http://www.roman-emperors.org/claudius.htm

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Gaius (Caligula) (A.D. 37 – 41)

Garrett G. Fagan

Pennsylvania State University

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/upload/caligula.gif

Introduction

Gaius Caesar Augustus Germanicus (b. A.D. 12, d. A.D. 41, emperor A.D. 37-41) represents a turning point in the early history of the Principate. Unfortunately, his is the most poorly documented reign of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. The literary sources for these four years are meager, frequently anecdotal, and universally hostile.[[1]] As a result, not only are many of the events of the reign unclear, but Gaius himself appears more as a caricature than a real person, a crazed megalomaniac given to capricious cruelty and harebrained schemes. Although some headway can be made in disentangling truth from embellishment, the true character of the youthful emperor will forever elude us.

Gaius’s Early Life and Reign

Gaius was born on 31 August, A.D. 12, probably at the Julio-Claudian resort of Antium (modern Anzio), the third of six children born to Augustus’s adopted grandson, Germanicus, and Augustus’s granddaughter, Agrippina. As a baby he accompanied his parents on military campaigns in the north and was shown to the troops wearing a miniature soldier’s outfit, including the hob-nailed sandal called caliga, whence the nickname by which posterity remembers him.[[2]] His childhood was not a happy one, spent amid an atmosphere of paranoia, suspicion, and murder. Instability within the Julio-Claudian house, generated by uncertainty over the succession, led to a series of personal tragedies. When his father died under suspicious circumstances on 10 October A.D. 19, relations between his mother and his grand-uncle, the emperor Tiberius, deteriorated irretrievably, and the adolescent Gaius was sent to live first with his great-grandmother Livia in A.D. 27 and then, following Livia’s death two years later, with his grandmother Antonia. Shortly before the fall of Tiberius’s Praetorian Prefect, Sejanus, in A.D. 31 he was summoned to join Tiberius at his villa on Capri, where he remained until his accession in A.D. 37. In the interim, his two brothers and his mother suffered demotion and, eventually, violent death. Throughout these years, the only position of administrative responsibility Gaius held was an honorary quaestorship in A.D. 33. [[3]]

When Tiberius died on 16 March A.D. 37, Gaius was in a perfect position to assume power, despite the obstacle of Tiberius’s will, which named him and his cousin Tiberius Gemellus joint heirs. (Gemellus’s life was shortened considerably by this bequest, since Gaius ordered him killed within a matter of months.) Backed by the Praetorian Prefect Q. Sutorius Macro, Gaius asserted his dominance. He had Tiberius’s will declared null and void on grounds of insanity, accepted the powers of the Principate as conferred by the Senate, and entered Rome on 28 March amid scenes of wild rejoicing. His first acts were generous in spirit: he paid Tiberius’s bequests and gave a cash bonus to the Praetorian Guard, the first recorded donativum to troops in imperial history. He honored his father and other dead relatives and publicly destroyed Tiberius’s personal papers, which no doubt implicated many of the Roman elite in the destruction of Gaius’s immediate family. Finally, he recalled exiles and reimbursed those wronged by the imperial tax system [[4]]. His popularity was immense. Yet within four years he lay in a bloody heap in a palace corridor, murdered by officers of the very guard entrusted to protect him. What went wrong?

Gaius’s „Madness“

The ancient sources are practically unanimous as to the cause of Gaius’s downfall: he was insane. The writers differ as to how this condition came about, but all agree that after his good start Gaius began to behave in an openly autocratic manner, even a crazed one. [[5]] Outlandish stories cluster about the raving emperor, illustrating his excessive cruelty, immoral sexual escapades, or disrespect toward tradition and the Senate. The sources describe his incestuous relations with his sisters, laughable military campaigns in the north, the building of a pontoon bridge across the Bay at Baiae, and the plan to make his horse a consul. [[6]] Modern scholars have pored over these incidents and come up with a variety of explanations: Gaius suffered from an illness; he was misunderstood; he was corrupted by power; or, accepting the ancient evidence, they conclude that he was mad.[[7]] However, appreciating the nature of the ancient sources is crucial when approaching this issue. Their unanimous hostility renders their testimony suspect, especially since Gaius’s reported behavior fits remarkably well with that of the ancient tyrant, a literary type enshrined in Greco-Roman tradition centuries before his reign. Further, the only eye-witness account of Gaius’s behavior, Philo’s Embassy to Gaius, offers little evidence of outright insanity, despite the antagonism of the author, whom Gaius treated with the utmost disrespect. Rather, he comes across as aloof, arrogant, egotistical, and cuttingly witty — but not insane. The best explanation both for Gaius’s behavior and the subsequent hostility of the sources is that he was an inexperienced young man thrust into a position of unlimited power, the true nature of which had been carefully disguised by its founder, Augustus. Gaius, however, saw through the disguise and began to act accordingly. This, coupled with his troubled upbringing and almost complete lack of tact led to behavior that struck his contemporaries as extreme, even insane.

Gaius and the Empire

Gaius’s reign is too short, and the surviving ancient accounts too sensationalized, for any serious policies of his to be discerned. During his reign, Mauretania was annexed and reorganized into two provinces, Herod Agrippa was appointed to a kingdom in Palestine, and severe riots took place in Alexandria between Jews and Greeks. These events are largely overlooked in the sources, since they offer slim pickings for sensational stories of madness. [[8]] Two other episodes, however, garner greater attention: Gaius’s military activities on the northern frontier, and his vehement demand for divine honors. His military activities are portrayed as ludicrous, with Gauls dressed up as Germans at his triumph and Roman troops ordered to collect sea-shells as „spoils of the sea.“ Modern scholars have attempted to make sense of these events in various ways. The most reasonable suggestion is that Gaius went north to earn military glory and discovered there a nascent conspiracy under the commander of the Upper German legions, Cn. Lentulus Gaetulicus. The subsequent events are shrouded in uncertainty, but it is known that Gaetulicus and Gaius’s brother-in-law, M. Aemilius Lepidus, were executed and Gaius’s two surviving sisters, implicated in the plot, suffered exile. [[9]] Gaius’s enthusiasm for divine honors for himself and his favorite sister, Drusilla (who died suddenly in A.D. 38 and was deified), is presented in the sources as another clear sign of his madness, but it may be no more than the young autocrat tactlessly pushing the limits of the imperial cult, already established under Augustus. Gaius’s excess in this regard is best illustrated by his order that a statue of him be erected in the Temple at Jerusalem. Only the delaying tactics of the Syrian governor, P. Petronius, and the intervention of Herod Agrippa prevented riots and a potential uprising in Palestine. [[10]]

Conspiracy and Assassination

The conspiracy that ended Gaius’s life was hatched among the officers of the Praetorian Guard, apparently for purely personal reasons. It appears also to have had the support of some senators and an imperial freedman. [[11]] As with conspiracies in general, there are suspicions that the plot was more broad-based than the sources intimate, and it may even have enjoyed the support of the next emperor Claudius, but these propositions are not provable on available evidence. On 24 January A.D. 41 the praetorian tribune Cassius Chaerea and other guardsmen caught Gaius alone in a secluded palace corridor and cut him down. He was 28 years old and had ruled three years and ten months. [[12]]

Conclusion

Whatever damage Tiberius’s later years had done to the carefully crafted political edifice created by Augustus, Gaius multiplied it a hundredfold. When he came to power in A.D. 37 Gaius had no administrative experience beyond his honorary quaestorship, and had spent an unhappy early life far from the public eye. He appears, once in power, to have realized the boundless scope of his authority and acted accordingly. For the elite, this situation proved intolerable and ensured the blackening of Caligula’s name in the historical record they would dictate. The sensational and hostile nature of that record, however, should in no way trivialize Gaius’s importance. His reign highlighted an inherent weakness in the Augustan Principate, now openly revealed for what it was — a raw monarchy in which only the self-discipline of the incumbent acted as a restraint on his behavior. That the only means of retiring the wayward princeps was murder marked another important revelation: Roman emperors could not relinquish their powers without simultaneously relinquishing their lives.

Bibliography

The bibliography on Gaius is far too vast for comprehensive citation here. Most of the ancient material can be found in Gelzer and Smallwood. Ample reference to relevant secondary works is made in Barrett, Caligula (319-28) and Hurley (219-30). The works listed below are therefore either the main treatments of Gaius or are directly pertinent to the issues discussed in the entry above.

Balsdon, J.P.V.D. The Emperor Gaius. Oxford, 1934.

________. „The Principates of Tiberius and Gaius.“ ANRW 2.2 (1975): 86-94.

Barrett, A.A. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. New Haven, 1989.

________. Agrippina. Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire. New Haven, 1996.

Benediktson, D.T. „Caligula’s Madness: Madness or Interictal Temporal Lobe Epilepsy?“ Classical World 82 (1988-89), 370-5.

Bicknell, P. „The Emperor Gaius‘ Military Activities in AD 40.“ Historia 17 (1968): 496-505.

Bilde, P. „The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)’s Attempt to Erect his Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem.“ STh 32 (1978): 67-93.

Boschung, D. Die Bildnisse des Caligula. Berlin, 1989.

Charlesworth, M.P. „The Tradition About Caligula“ Cambridge Historical Journal 4 (1933): 105-119.

Davies, R.W. „The Abortive Invasion of Britain by Gaius.“ Historia 15 (1966): 124-28.

D’Ecré, F. „La mort de Germanicus et les poisons de Caligula.“ Janus 56 (1969): 123-48.

Ferrill, A. Caligula, Emperor of Rome. London, 1991.

Gelzer, M. „Iulius Caligula.“ Real-Enzyclopädie 10.381-423 (1919).

Grant, M. The Roman Emperors. A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Imperial Rome 31 BC – AD 476 (New York, 1985), 25-28.

Hurley, D.W. „Gaius Caligula in the Germanicus Tradition.“ American Journal of Philology 110 (1989): 316-38.

________. An Historical and Historiographical Commentary on Suetonius‘ Life of C. Caligula. Atlanta, 1993.

Jerome, T.S. „The Historical Tradition About Gaius,“ in id., Aspects of the Study of Roman History. New York, 1923.

Katz, R.S. „The Illness of Caligula.“ Classical World 65 (1971-72): 223-5

McGinn, T.A.J. „Caligula’s Brothel on the Palatine,“ EMC 42 (1998): 95-107.

Massaro, V. and I. Montgomery. „Gaius: Mad Bad, Ill or All Three?“ Latomus 37 (1978): 894-909

________. „Gaius (Caligula) Doth Murder Sleep.“ Latomus 38 (1979): 699-700.

Maurer, J. A. A Commentary on C. Suetoni Tranquilli, Vita C. Caligulae Caesaris, Chapters I-XXI. Philadelphia, 1949.

Morgan, M.G. „Caligula’s Illness Again.“ Classical World 66 (1972-73): 327-9

Philips, E.J. „The Emperor Gaius‘ Abortive Invasion of Britain.“ Historia 19 (1970): 369-74.

Simpson, C. J. „The ‚Conspiracy‘ of AD 39.“ In Studies in Latin Literature and Roman History II, edited by C. Deroux, 347-66. Brussels, 1980.

Smallwood, E.M. (ed.). Documents Illustrating the Principates of Gaius, Claudius and Nero. Cambridge. 1967.

Wardle, D. Suetonius‘ Life of Caligula: A Commentary. Brussels, 1994.

Woods, D. „Caligula’s Seashells.“ Greece and Rome 47 (2000): 80-87.

Wood, S. „Diva Drusilla Panthea and the Sisters of Caligula.“ AJA 99 (1995): 457-82.

NOTES

[[1]] The main ancient sources for Gaius’s reign are: Suet. Gaius; Dio 59; Philo In Flaccum and Legatio ad Gaium; Jos. AJ 19.1-211. Tacitus’s account of the reign is lost. However, he makes occasional references to Gaius in the extant portions of his works, as does Seneca. All of these sources have reason to be hostile to Gaius’s memory: Seneca’s style was roundly abused by the emperor (Suet. Gaius 53.2; Dio 59.19.7-8); Philo and Josephus, as Jews, resented Gaius’s blasphemous demands for divinity that almost roused Palestine to rebellion (see above, Gaius and the Empire); and the later sources inherited a tradition about Gaius that can be shown to be biased and exaggerated, cf. Charlesworth, „The Tradition about Gaius.“ Besides these literary sources, inscriptions and coins also offer some information, see Smallwood, Documents Illustrating.

[[2]] Tac. Ann. 1.41.3; Suet. Gaius 9.1.

[[3]] Death of Germanicus and aftermath: Tac. Ann. 2.69-3.19; Gaius with Livia, Antonia, and Tiberius: Tac. Ann. 6.20.1; Suet. Gaius 10.1, 23.2; fate of Agrippina: Tac. Ann. 5.3.2 – 5.5.2, 6.25.1; and of Nero and Drusus Caesar: Tac. Ann. 5.3.2, 6.23.4-5, Suet. Tib. 54, Gaius 7; Gaius’s quaestorship: Dio 58.23.1. For the alleged involvement of Gaius in his father’s death, see D’Ecré, „La mort de Germanicus.“

[[4]] Early reign and first acts: Suet. Gaius 13-16; Philo Leg. 8-13; Dio 59.2-3. Macro’s full name: Smallwood, Documents Illustrating, no. 254. Date of Gaius’s arrival in Rome: Acta Fratrum Arvalium (Smallwood, Documents Illustrating, no. 3.15-17). Gemellus: Suet. Gaius 14.1, 15.2, 23.3; Dio 59.1.2-3, 59.8.1-2; Philo Leg. 23-31.

[[5]] Seneca, without explanation, believes he went mad (Brev. 18.5-6; Helv. 10.4; Tranqu. 14.5; Ben. 7.11.2). Josephus also thinks that Gaius went mad but alludes to a love-potion administered by his wife Caesonia as the cause (AJ 19.193), apparently after two years of good rule (AJ 18.256). Philo blames an illness in the fall of A.D. 37 (Leg. 14-22). Suetonius mentions simply a „brain sickness“ (valitudo mentis; Gaius 51.1). Dio thinks that faults of character led to a deterioration in his behavior (59.3-4). Surviving references suggest that Tacitus thought Gaius at least of troubled and impulsive mind, which is not the same thing as crazed (Agr. 13.2; Ann. 6.20.1, 6.45.5, 13.3.6; Hist. 4.48.2).

[[6]] Incest: Suet. Gaius 24.1; Dio 59.3.6; Jos. AJ 19.204. Military campaigns: Tac. Hist. 4.15.3, Germania 37.5, Suet. Gaius 43-46, Dio 59.21.1-3. Bridge at Baiae: Suet. Gaius 19; Dio 59.17; Jos. AJ 19.5-6. Horse as consul: Suet. Gaius 55.3; Dio 59.14.7; His alleged setting up of a brothel in the palace may contain a kernel of truth, even if the story is much embellished, see T.A.J. McGinn, „Caligula’s Brothel on the Palatine,“ EMC 42 (1998): 95-107.

[[7]] Alcoholism: Jerome, „Historical Tradition“; hyperthyroidism/thyrotoxicos: Katz, „Illness of Caligula“; mania: Massaro and Montgomery, „Gaius: Mad, Bad, Ill or All Three“ and „Gaius (Caligula) Doth Murder Sleep“; epilepsy: Benediktson, „Caligula’s Madness.“ Morgan („Caligula’s Illness Again“) makes some astute observations on the weakness of the medical approach as a whole. He points out that the ancient concept of physiognomy — that people’s characters are manifest in their appearance — makes any diagnosis highly suspect. In fact, all such medical explanations are doomed to failure. The sources simply cannot be trusted, and diagnosing a patient 2,000 years dead is, at best, a stretch. Balsdon (The Emperor Gaius) argued that Gaius was misunderstood and attempted to offer rational explanations for all of his apparently deranged antics. A useful summary and critique of „madness“ theories is to be found in Barrett, Caligula, 213-41. For a recent acceptance of the madness thesis, cf. Ferrill, Caligula, Emperor of Rome.

[[8]] Mauretania: Dio 59.25.1; see also Barrett, Caligula, 115-20. Agrippa: Jos. AJ 18.228-37; Phil Leg. 324-26; see also E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden, 1976), 187-200. Alexandrian riots: Philo Flacc and Leg.

[[9]] Fake Germans in triumph: Suet. Gaius 47. Military campaigns: see above, note [6]. For modern rationalizations of these campaigns, cf., e.g., Bicknell, „Military Activities“; Davies, „Abortive Invasion“; Philips, „Abortive Invasion“; Barrett, Caligula, 125-39, and Woods, „Caligula’s Seashells.“. Execution of Gaetulicus and exile of sisters: the Gaetulicus affair is ably assessed in Barrett, Caligula, 91-113, and id. Agrippina, 60-70; for a contrasting view, see Simpson, „The ‚Conspiracy‘ of AD 39.“

[[10]] The Jerusalem affair is described most fully by Josephus (AJ 18.261-309; BJ 2.184-203) and Philo (Leg. 188, 198-348). Thorough modern assessments can be found in Barrett, Caligula, 188-91, cf. 140-53 (on Gaius’s demand for divine honours, which Barrett argues are exaggerated by the sources); Bilde „Statue in the Temple“; and Smallwood, Jews (above, note [8]), 174-80. Drusilla: Suet. Gaius 24.2-3; Dio 59.11; Smallwood, Documents Illustrating, nos 5.12-15, 11, 128, 401.12; Wood, „Diva Drusilla.“

[[11]] The named Praetorian conspirators include three tribunes — Cassius Chaerea (Suet. Gaius 56.2; Dio 59.29.1; Sen. Const. 18.3; Jos. AJ 19.18, 21, 28-37); Cornelius Sabinus (Suet. Gaius 58.2; Dio 59.29.1; Jos. AJ 19.46, 48, 261); Papinius (Jos. AJ 19.37) — and the Prefect M. Arrecinus Clemens (Jos. AJ 19.37-46). Senators associated with the plot are M. Annius Vinicianus (Jos. AJ 19.18, 20, 49-51), M. Valerius Asiaticus (Tac. Ann. 11.1.2), Cluvius Rufus and L. Nonius Asprenas (Jos. AJ 19.91-92, 98). Gaius’s freedman Callistus is also a named participant (Tac. Ann. 11.29.1; Dio 29.29.1; Jos. AJ 19.63-69).

[[12]] The possible involvement of Claudius in the plot is assessed by B. Levick, Claudius (New Haven, 1990), 33-39. The fullest account of the assassination is that of Josephus (AJ 19.70-113), with more summary accounts found in Suetonius (Gaius 58) and the epitome of Dio (59.29.5-7).

Copyright © 1997, Garrett G. Fagan. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: Garrett G. Fagan

Updated: 28 October 2004

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Garrett G. Fagan: Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [28.10.2004], http://www.roman-emperors.org/gaius.htm

http://www.aussichten-online.net/category/prospectiva-imperialia

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Tiberius (A.D. 14 – 37)

Garrett G. Fagan

Pennsylvania State University

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/Tiberius.gif

Introduction

The reign of Tiberius (b. 42 B.C., d. A.D. 37, emperor A.D. 14-37) is a particularly important one for the Principate, since it was the first occasion when the powers designed for Augustus alone were exercised by somebody else. [[1]] In contrast to the approachable and tactful Augustus, Tiberius emerges from the sources as an enigmatic and darkly complex figure, intelligent and cunning, but given to bouts of severe depression and dark moods that had a great impact on his political career as well as his personal relationships. His reign abounds in contradictions. Despite his keen intelligence, he allowed himself to come under the influence of unscrupulous men who, as much as any actions of his own, ensured that Tiberius’s posthumous reputation would be unfavorable; despite his vast military experience, he oversaw the conquest of no new region for the empire; and despite his administrative abilities he showed such reluctance in running the state as to retire entirely from Rome and live out his last years in isolation on the island of Capri. His reign represents, as it were, the adolescence of the Principate as an institution. Like any adolescence, it proved a difficult time.

Early life (42-12 B.C.)

Tiberius Claudius Nero was born on 16 November 42 B.C. to Ti. Claudius Nero and Livia Drusilla. Both parents were scions of the gens Claudia which had supplied leaders to the Roman Republic for many generations. Through his mother Tiberius also enjoyed genealogical connections to prominent Republican houses such as the Servilii Caepiones, the Aemilii Lepidi, and the Livii Drusi. From his birth, then, Tiberius was destined for public life. But during his boyhood the old Republican system of rule by Senate and magistrates, which had been tottering for decades, was finally toppled and replaced by an autocracy under the able and ambitious Octavian (later named Augustus). It proved fateful for Tiberius when, in 39 B.C., his mother Livia divorced Ti. Claudius Nero and married Octavian, thereby making the infant Tiberius the stepson of the future ruler of the Roman world. Forever afterward, Tiberius was to have his name coupled with this man, and always to his detriment. [[2]]

Tiberius’s early life was relatively uneventful, even if the times were not. In 32 B.C, as civil war loomed between Antony and Octavian, Tiberius made his first public appearance at the age of nine and delivered the eulogy at his natural father’s funeral. In the years following the battle of Actium in 31 B.C., as Augustus secured his position at the head of the state, Tiberius grew to maturity and took his first real steps in public life. In 29 B.C. he took part in Augustus’s triumph for the Actium campaign, riding on the left of Augustus in the triumphal chariot. Two years later he assumed the gown of manhood (toga virilis) and Augustus led him into the forum. Three years after that, at the age of 17, he became a quaestor and was given the privilege of standing for the praetorship and consulship five years in advance of the age prescribed by law. He then began appearing in court as an advocate and was sent by Augustus to the East where, in 20 B.C., he oversaw one of his stepfather’s proudest successes. The Parthians, who had captured the eagles of the legions lost in the failed eastern campaigns of M. Crassus (53 B.C.), Decidius Saxa (40 B.C.), and Mark Antony (36 B.C.), formally returned them to the Romans. Tiberius may have received a grant of proconsular power (imperium proconsulare) to carry out this mission, but, if so, the sources do not mention it. After returning from the East, Tiberius was granted praetorian rank and, in 13 B.C., he became consul. Between his praetorship and consulship he was on active duty with his brother, Drusus Claudius Nero, combatting Alpine tribes; he also was governor of Gallia Comata for one year, probably in 19 B.C. His personal life was also blessed at this time by a happy marriage to Vipsania Agrippina, the daughter of Augustus’s longstanding friend and right-hand man, M. Vipsanius Agrippa. The marriage probably took place in 20 or 19 B.C. When he was consul, his wife produced a son, Drusus. [[3]]

Determining the significance of all these offices, delegations, and the marriage to Vipsania largely depends on what view is taken of Augustus’s efforts for the succession. In one sense, Tiberius’s early career was an entirely natural one for a young man so close to the center of power; it would have been more remarkable had he stayed at home. Tiberius’s career, however, cannot be so easily divorced from the larger context of the Augustan succession. The issue is a major one and hotly contentious. [[4]]For the present, it is worth noting that Augustus, in his arrangements for the succession, appears to have indulged a Republican instinct for favoring his immediate family and accordingly focused his attentions on the Julii. First, his nephew Marcellus was favored. Following this young man’s premature death in 23 B.C., Augustus used his daughter Julia to tie his friend M. Vipsanius Agrippa into his family by marriage. The union, solemnized in 21 B.C., was a fertile one and produced two sons within four years, both of whom Augustus adopted in a single ceremony in 17 B.C. Modern scholarship has puzzled over these labyrinthine arrangements, in which there seems no place for the stepsons, Tiberius and Drusus. The best explanation is that Augustus’s succession scheme was a flexible one, comprising a pool of princes from which the emperor could draw in the event of emergencies — a wise counsel, as matters turned out. On this view, Tiberius’s early career was not insignificant, but his position was not as elevated and evidently favored as that of Agrippa, now the heir-apparent, and the boys, Gaius and Lucius Caesar, who seemed marked out to succeed in the third generation. Whatever personal ambitions Tiberius had, or his mother Livia had for him, were to be utterly subordinated to Augustus’s wish to see a Julian at the helm of the Principate. As it was, fate was on Tiberius’s side.

The Heir to Augustus: The First Attempt and the „Retirement“ to Rhodes (12 B.C-A.D. 2)

Agrippa died in 12 B.C. Tiberius, on Augustus’s insistence, divorced Vipsania and married Agrippa’s widow, Julia. The union was not a happy one and produced no children. Tiberius had been happily married to Vipsania and, following an embarrassing display in public, he was ultimately forbidden by Augustus even to see her. Nevertheless, Tiberius’s elevation in his stepfather’s succession scheme continued. He received important military commissions in Pannonia and Germany between 12 and 6 B.C. and proved very successful in the field. He was consul for the second time in 7 B.C., and, in 6 B.C., he was granted tribunician power (tribunicia potestas) and an extensive commission in the East [[5]]. In essence, Tiberius had replaced Agrippa as Augustus’s successor. He was Julia’s husband, the leading general in the state, and he enjoyed a share of the emperor’s power. Everything seemed settled, until the darker side of Tiberius’s personality intervened.

Without warning, in 6 B.C. Tiberius — the visible heir to Augustus — announced his withdrawal from public life and went to live on Rhodes with some personal friends and an astrologer, Thrasyllus. His reasons for doing so have fueled intense speculation in ancient and modern sources. [[6]] Whatever his motivation, the move was not only a snub to Augustus, but it was also highly inconvenient to the latter’s succession plans. Gaius and Lucius Caesar were still too young to assume the heavy responsibilities of the Principate, and Augustus now had no immediate successor to assume power and see the boys to maturity, since Tiberius’s brother Drusus had died of an illness in 9 B.C. If anything should befall Augustus now, the Principate might be washed away or, if it should continue, his family’s position at the head of it was placed in jeopardy. Finally, and not the least concern, there was the danger that an imperial prince removed from Augustus’s ambit could afford a focus for conspiracy. [[7]] Whatever had been Augustus’s opinion of Tiberius to this point, henceforward he seems to have had little patience with, or affection for him. Something of Augustus’s irritation is revealed by his repeated refusal to allow Tiberius to return to Rome after the latter realized the delicacy of his position on Rhodes; and this in spite of pressure brought to bear on Augustus by his influential and persuasive wife, Livia. When Tiberius’s powers ran out in 1 B.C. they were not renewed, and his situation became even more precarious. According to the sources, he was expecting a ship bearing the order for his death. When the ship arrived in A.D. 2, however, it brought quite different tidings. [[8]]

The Heir to Augustus: The Second Attempt (A.D. 2-14)

Tragedy worked for the benefit of Tiberius. In A.D. 2 Lucius Caesar died of an illness at Massilia. Augustus, resistant to the idea of allowing Tiberius to return, finally yielded to the requests of Livia and Gaius Caesar on his behalf. Tiberius returned to Rome and lived in the political wilderness until, unexpectedly, Gaius Caesar died of a wound received during a siege in Armenia. [[9]]Augustus, devastated, was left without his adoptive sons and, more importantly, without an heir and successor. His careful planning for the succession had come to nothing. In the crisis, he turned once more to Tiberius. The wayward prince was summoned from private life and adopted as Augustus’s son. Also adopted by Augustus was Agrippa Postumus, the third son of Julia and Agrippa. Tiberius, despite having a natural son, was required to adopt his nephew, Germanicus, the son of his brother Drusus and married to M. Antony’s daughter, Antonia. Once more, these complicated manoeuvres surrounding the succession have generated scholarly debate, but the best interpretation seems to be that Augustus was re-establishing a slate of candidate princes, with Tiberius at its head and the others as potential substitutes in the event of disaster. Tiberius’s forced adoption of Germanicus appears to have been Augustus’s attempt to mark out the succession in the third generation of the Principate. For through Germanicus lay the only route for a Julian to the purple: Germanicus’s children would have Augustus’s blood in their veins. Augustus’s continued coldness toward Tiberius is suggested in the melancholic comment in his will about these arrangements, echoed in the Res Gestae: „Since cruel fate has robbed me of my sons, Gaius and Lucius …“ [[10]]

From A.D. 4 to 14 Tiberius was clearly Augustus’s successor. When he was adopted, he also received grants of proconsular power and tribunician power; and in A.D. 13 his proconsular power was made co-extensive with that of Augustus. [[11]] In effect, Tiberius was now co-princeps with Augustus so that when the latter finally died on 19 August A.D. 14, Tiberius’s position was unassailable and the continuation of the Principate a foregone conclusion. After 55 years living at the behest of his stepfather, Tiberius finally assumed the mantle of sole power.

Accession and Early Reign (A.D. 14 – 23)

The accession of Tiberius proved intensely awkward. After Augustus had been buried and deified, and his will read and honored, the Senate convened on 18 September to inaugurate the new reign and officially „confirm“ Tiberius as emperor. Such a transfer of power had never happened before, and nobody, including Tiberius, appears to have known what to do. Tacitus’s account is the fullest. Tiberius came to the Senate to have various powers and titles voted to him. Perhaps in an attempt to imitate the tact of Augustus, Tiberius donned the mask of the reluctant public servant — and botched the performance. Rather than tactful, he came across to the senators as obdurate and obstructive. He declared that he was too old for the responsibilities of the Principate, said he did not want the job, and asked if he could just take one part of the government for himself. The Senate was confused, not knowing how to read his behavior. Finally, one senator asked pointedly, „Sire, for how long will you allow the State to be without a head?“ Tiberius relented and accepted the powers voted to him, although he refused the title „Augustus.“ [[12]]

In fact, that first meeting between the Senate and the new emperor established a blueprint for their later interaction. Throughout his reign, Tiberius was to baffle, befuddle, and frighten the Senators. He seems to have hoped that they would act on his implicit desires rather than on his explicit requests. Again, this behavior may have been an attempt to imitate Augustus’s careful and tactful use of auctoritas, but, if so, it backfired and became a pathetic charade. Tiberius’s opinion of the revered body as it struggled with his oblique approach to rule was not high: „Men fit to be slaves.“ [[13]]

There was trouble not only at Rome, however. The legions posted in Pannonia and in Germany, the most powerful concentration of troops in the empire, took the opportunity afforded by Augustus’s death to voice their complaints about the terms and conditions of their service. Matters escalated into an all-out mutiny that was only repressed by the direct intervention of Tiberius’s sons, Germanicus and Drusus. There was bloodshed at both locations, but in Germanicus’s sector, Germany, there was particularly chaotic disorder and frightful scenes of mayhem. [[14]]

Despite his difficult relationship with the Senate and the Rhine mutinies, Tiberius’s first years were generally good. He stayed true to Augustus’s plans for the succession and clearly favored his adopted son Germanicus over his natural son, Drusus. (Agrippa Postumus, also adopted by Augustus in A.D. 4, had suffered demotion and exile in A.D. 6-7, and upon Augustus’s death he was murdered; responsibility for the crime remains obscure.) On Tiberius’s request, Germanicus was granted proconsular power and assumed command in the prime military zone of Germany, where he suppressed the mutiny there and led the formerly restless legions on campaigns against Germanic tribes in A.D. 14-16. After being recalled from Germany, Germanicus celebrated a triumph in Rome in A.D. 17. In the same year, he was granted imperium maius over the East and, in A.D. 18, after being consul with Tiberius as his colleague , he was sent East, just as Tiberius himself had been almost four decades earlier. Unfortunately for Tiberius, Germanicus died there in A.D. 19 and, on his deathbed, accused the governor of Syria, Cn. Calpurnius Piso, of murdering him. Piso was a long-time friend of Tiberius and his appointee to the Syrian governorship, so suspicion for Germanicus’s death ultimately came to rest at the palace door. When Germanicus’s widow, Agrippina (the Elder), returned to Italy carrying her popular husband’s ashes, she publicly declared Piso guilty of murder and hinted at the involvement of more hidden agents. Piso was put on trial in the Senate, where he expected some help from his friend, Tiberius. Instead, Tiberius sat statue-like and let the proceedings take their course. In Tacitus’s account, Piso realized his peril and threatened to make public certain documents that would embarrass the emperor. The ploy failed and Piso committed suicide; the documents were never made public. Recently, a remarkable inscription has been found in Spain, containing the text of the „Senatorial Decree concerning Cn. Piso, Senior.“ It largely corroborates Tacitus’s account, including Germanicus’s death-bed accusation of Piso. But naturally, in this „official“ account, there is no mention of Tiberius’s alleged involvement in Germanicus‘ death. [[15]]

With Germanicus dead, Tiberius began elevating his own son Drusus to replace him as the imperial successor. Relations with Germanicus’s family were strained, but they were to reach a breaking point when Tiberius allowed a trusted advisor to get too close and gain a tremendous influence over him. That advisor was the Praetorian Prefect, L. Aelius Sejanus, who would derail Tiberius’s plans for the succession and drive the emperor farther into isolation, depression, and paranoia.

Sejanus (A.D. 23-31)

Sejanus hailed from Volsinii in Etruria. He and his father shared the Praetorian Prefecture until A.D. 15 when the father, L. Seius Strabo, was promoted to be Prefect of Egypt, the pinnacle of an equestrian career under the Principate. Sejanus, now sole Prefect of the Guard, enjoyed powerful connections to senatorial houses and had been a companion to Gaius Caesar on his mission to the East, 1 B.C. – A.D. 4. Through a combination of energetic efficiency, fawning sycophancy, and outward displays of loyalty, he gained the position of Tiberius’s closest friend and advisor. One development that favored Sejanus was the concentration of all nine cohorts of Praetorian Guardsmen into a single camp at Rome. Augustus had billeted these troops discretely in small towns around Rome, but now Tiberius — undoubtedly with Sejanus’s encouragement, perhaps even at his suggestion — brought them into the city, probably in A.D. 17 or 18. Sejanus, therefore, commanded some 9,000 troops within the city limits. As Sejanus’s public profile became more and more pronounced, his statues were erected in public places, and Tiberius openly praised him as „the partner of my labors.“ But Sejanus had his own ideas. [[16]]

According to Tacitus, Sejanus’s first subversive act was the seduction of Tiberius’s daughter-in-law, Livilla, at the time married to Drusus, Tiberius’s son. Drusus, it seems, resented Sejanus’s influence over his father so the Prefect, in conjunction with Livilla, poisoned him in A.D. 23. [[17]] There followed a series of attacks on Agrippina’s friends, mostly played out in the courts in the guise of charges of treason (maiestas) but, in Tacitus’s account, actually the work of Sejanus. [[18]]

Then, in A.D. 25, Sejanus asked Tiberius for permission to marry Livilla, Drusus’s widow. Tiberius refused. This setback for Sejanus was offset the following year, when the ageing emperor withdrew from Rome to live on Capri; he was never to return to the city. Tiberius was most probably encouraged in his decision to retire by Sejanus, who now became the chief vehicle of access to the emperor. With Tiberius absent, Sejanus vented his full fury against Agrippina’s family, whose demise he had been plotting for some time. In rapid succession Agrippina and her eldest son, Nero Caesar, and eventually also Drusus Caesar, who had been involved in his brother’s downfall, were arrested, convicted, and imprisoned. By A.D. 31 Sejanus had reached the pinnacle of his power and was effectively emperor himself. The sources paint a grimly comic picture of senators lining up to pay respects to a man they considered their social inferior. [[19]]

What exactly Sejanus was aiming at remains a matter of intense debate. [[20]]The Prefect’s attacks against Agrippina and his proposal to marry Drusus’s widow, Livilla, suggest that he was attempting to follow the precedent of Agrippa, that is, an outsider who became the emperor’s successor through a combination of overt loyalty, necessity, and a family alliance forged by marriage. Tiberius, perhaps sensitive to this ambition, rejected Sejanus’s initial proposal to marry Livilla in A.D. 25, but later put it about that he had withdrawn his objections so that, in A.D. 30., Sejanus was betrothed to Livilla’s daughter (Tiberius‘ granddaughter). The Prefect’s family connection to the Imperial house was now imminent. In A.D. 31 Sejanus held the consulship with the emperor as his colleague, an honor Tiberius reserved only for heirs to the throne. Further, when Sejanus surrendered the consulship early in the year, he was granted a share of the emperor’s proconsular power. When he was summoned to a meeting of the Senate on 18 October in that year he probably expected to receive a share of the tribunician power; with that he would, after all, have become Tiberius’s Agrippa. [[21]]

But in a shocking and unexpected turn of events, the letter sent by Tiberius from Capri initially praised Sejanus extensively, and then suddenly denounced him as a traitor and demanded his arrest. Chaos ensued. Senators long allied with Sejanus headed for the exits, the others were confused — was this a test of their loyalty? what did the emperor want them to do? — but the Praetorian Guard, the very troops formerly under Sejanus’s command but recently and secretly transferred to the command of Q. Sutorius Macro, arrested Sejanus, conveyed him to prison, and shortly afterwards executed him summarily. A witch-hunt followed. Sejanus’s family was arrested and executed; Livilla perished; followers and friends of Sejanus were denounced and imprisoned, or tried and executed; some committed suicide. All around the city, grim scenes were played out, and as late as A.D. 33 a general massacre of all those still in custody took place. [[22]]

Tiberius himself later claimed that he turned on Sejanus because he had been alerted to Sejanus’s plot against Germanicus’s family. This explanation has been rejected by most ancient and modern authorities, since Sejanus’s demise did nothing to alleviate that family’s troubles: Agrippina remained under house arrest, Drusus was still housed in the Palatine’s basement, and both died violently within three years of the Prefect’s fall. Tiberius is also said to have discovered Sejanus’s part in his own son’s death in A.D. 23; the source of this information, however, is suspect (see n. [[23]]). Possibly, in the highly charged atmosphere surrounding Sejanus’s fall, the news acted as a catalyst, but its truth cannot be verified. Whatever the precise reasons, Sejanus’s career and demise, and that of those around him, was an object lesson in the dangers of imperial politics. To achieve power under the emperors, the ambitious needed to get close to the source, but getting too close could lead to catastrophe, for both the aspirant and any who rode his coattails. [[23]]

The Last Years (A.D. 31-37)

The Sejanus affair appears to have greatly depressed Tiberius. A close friend and confidant had betrayed him; whom could he trust anymore? His withdrawal from public life seemed more complete in the last years. Letters kept him in touch with Rome, but it was the machinery of the Augustan administration that kept the empire running smoothly. Tiberius, if we believe our sources, spent much of his time indulging his perversities on Capri. He also became all but paranoid in his dealings with others and spent long hours brooding over the death of his son, Drusus, which had now been revealed to him as the work of his „friend“ Sejanus; all who were implicated, he had executed in barbaric fashion. As a result, no measures were taken for the succession, beyond vague indications of favor to his nephew Gaius (Caligula) and his grandson Tiberius Gemellus.[[24]]

Tiberius died quietly in a villa at Misenum on 16 March A.D. 37. He was 78 years old. There are some hints in the sources of the hand of Caligula in the deed, but such innuendo can be expected at the death of an emperor, especially when his successor proved so depraved. The level of unpopularity Tiberius had achieved by the time of his death with both the upper and lower classes is revealed by these facts: the Senate refused to vote him divine honors, and mobs filled the streets yelling „To the Tiber with Tiberius!“ (in reference to a method of disposal reserved for the corpses of criminals). [[25]]

Tiberius and the Empire

Three main aspects of Tiberius’s impact on the empire deserve special attention: his relative military inertia; his modesty in dealing with offers of divine honors and his fair treatment of provincials; and his use of the Law of Treason (maiestas).

At the meeting of the Senate in September A.D. 14 when Augustus’s will was read, another document was produced. It was a sort of posthumous „State of the Empire“ address that listed all the resources, army postings, etc. of the state. Part of the document urged future rulers to leave things as they were, and not to expand the empire further. This so-called „Testament of Augustus“ appears to be the basic reason why Tiberius did not expand the empire, though the authenticity of the „Testament“ itself has divided scholars. Nevertheless, throughout his reign, Tiberius embarked on no major wars of conquest, although he did order punitive campaigns against the Germans across the Rhine in A.D. 14-16; the suppression of a Gallic national revolt under Julius Sacrovir in A.D. 21-22; and the suppression of a persistent guerilla war in North Africa under Tacfarinas in A.D. 17-24. Tiberius seemed adept at choosing provincial governors, with some notable exceptions, and his diplomatic management of potentially disruptive instabilities in Armenia was exemplary — no Roman intervention in force was required. [[26]]

In general, Tiberius dealt fairly and well with the provincials. The emperor’s absence from Rome hardly affected the majority of the empire’s population, for whom the emperor was already a shadowy and distant figure. His generally sound choices of provincial governors have already been noted. When the provincials overstepped themselves and offered Tiberius divine honors, or other tributes that struck him as excessive, he declined to accept. Tacitus and Suetonius infer hypocrisy, but there is no reason to suspect that the lugubrious emperor was not acting in good faith in abiding by Augustus’s precedent, which was always a paramount concern for him. [[27]]

One area of administration where Tiberius did diverge from Augustan practice was his increasingly frequent invocation of the treason law (maiestas) to attack his enemies. Since his working relationship with the Senators was not a good one, repression was a convenient method in dealing with them. This legislation was one of Sejanus’s chief tools, but Tiberius himself used it liberally. Dozens of Senators and equites are on record as having fallen to it. It was a precedent followed in later years by emperors more tyrannical still than Tiberius had ever been. [[28]]

Conclusion

It is all but inevitable that any historical assessment of Tiberius will quickly devolve into a historiographical assessment of Tacitus. So masterful is Tacitus’s portrayal of his subject, and so influential has it been ever since, that in all modern treatments of Tiberius, in attempting to get at the man, must address the issue of Tacitus’s historiographical methods, his sources, and his rhetoric. The subject is too vast to address here, but some points are salient. Tacitus’s methods, especially his use of innuendo and inference to convey notions that are essentially editorial glosses, makes taking his portrayal of Tiberius at face value inadvisable. Further, his belief in the immutable character of people — that one’s character is innate at birth and cannot be changed, although it can be disguised — prevents him from investigating the possibility that Tiberius evolved and developed over his lifetime and during his reign. Instead, Tacitus’s portrayal is one of peeling back layers of dissimulation to reach the „real“ Tiberius lurking underneath. [[29]]

Overall, Tiberius’s reign can be said to show the boons and banes of rule by one man, especially a man as dark, awkward, and isolated as Tiberius. For the people of the provinces, it was a peaceful and well-ordered time. Governors behaved themselves, and there were no destructive or expensive wars. In the domestic sphere, however, the concentration of power in one person made all the greater the threat of misbehavior by ambitious satellites like Sejanus or foolish friends like Piso. Furthermore, if the emperor wished to remain aloof from the mechanics of power, he could do so. Administrators, who depended on him for their directions, could operate without his immediate supervision, but their dealings with a man like Sejanus could lead to disaster if that man fell from grace. As a result, although he was not a tyrant himself, Tiberius’s reign sporadically descended into tyranny of the worst sort. In the right climate of paranoia and suspicion, widespread denunciation led to the deaths of dozens of Senators and equestrians, as well as numerous members of the imperial house. In this sense, the reign of Tiberius decisively ended the Augustan illusion of „the Republic Restored“ and shone some light into the future of the Principate, revealing that which was both promising and terrifying.

Bibliography

Listed below are the main works on Tiberius’s life and reign, mostly in English; the bibliographies of each entry can be checked for more detailed studies of various aspects of his reign and career. Also included below are works, not directly related to Tiberius, but which address broader issues raised in the biography above.

Balsdon, J. P. V. D. „The Principates of Tiberius and Gaius.“ Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 2.2 (1975): 86-94.

Birch, R. A. „The Settlement of 26 June, A.D. 4 and its Aftermath.“ Classical Quarterly 31 (1981): 443-56.

Bird, H. W. „L. Aelius Sejanus and His Political Influence.“ Latomus 28 (1969): 61-98.

Boddington, A. „Sejanus: Whose Conspiracy?“ American Journal of Philology 84 (1963): 1-16.

Bonamente, G. Germanico: La persona, la personalità, il personaggio. Rome, 1987.

Bowersock, G. „Augustus and the East: The Problem of the Succession,“ in F. Millar and E. Segal, eds, Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford, 1984), 169-88.

Braund, D. Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History, 31 BC – A.D. 68. London, 1985.

Charlesworth, M. P. „Tiberius and the Death of Augustus.“ American Journal of Philology 44 (1923): 145-157.

Durry, M. Les cohortes prétoriennes. Paris, 1938.

Eck, W. „Das s.c. de Cn. Pisone patre und seine Publikation in der Baetica.“ Cahiers du Centre Glotz 4 (1993): 189-208.

________, A. Caballos, and F. Fernandez. Das Senatus Consultum des Cn. Pisone Patre. Munich, 1996.

Ehrenberg, V. and A. H. M. Jones, eds. Documents Illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. Oxford, 1970.

Grant, M. Aspects of the Principate of Tiberius. New York, 1950.

________. The Roman Emperors. A Biographical Guide to the Rulers of Rome, 31 BC-A.D. 476 (New York, 1985), 16-24.

Gruen, E. S. „The Imperial Policy of Augustus.“ In Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate, edited by K. Raaflaub and M. Toher, 395-416. Berkeley, 1990.

Heinrichs, A. D. Sejan und das Schicksal Roms in den Annalen des Tacitus. Marburg, 1976.

Hennig, D. L. Aelius Seianus. Untersuchungen zur Regierung des Tiberius. Munich, 1975.

Levick, B. „Tiberius‘ Retirement to Rhodes in 6 BC.“ Latomus 25 (1972): 779-813.

________. „Julians and Claudians.“ Greece and Rome 22 (1975): 29-38.

________. Tiberius the Politician. London, 1976.

Marsh, F. B. The Reign of Tiberius. Oxford, 1931.

Martin, R. H. „Tacitus and the Death of Augustus.“ Classical Quarterly 5 (1955): 123-28.

Nicols, J. „Antonia and Sejanus.“ Historia 24 (1975): 48-58.

Ober, J. „Tiberius and the Political Testament of Augustus.“ Historia 31 (1982): 306-28.

Pelling, C. „Tacitus and Germanicus.“ In Tacitus and the Tacitean Tradition, edited by T. J. Luce and A. J. Woodman, 59-85. New Jersey, 1993.

Rapke, I. T. „Tiberius, Piso and Germanicus.“ Acta Classica 25 (1982): 61-69.

Rogers, R. S. „The Conspiracy of Agrippina.“ Transactions of the American Philological Association 62 (1931): 141-68.

________. Criminal Trials and Criminal Legislation under Tiberius. Middletown, 1935.

________ Studies in the Reign of Tiberius. Baltimore, 1943.

Ross, D. C. „The Tacitean Germanicus.“ Yale Classical Studies 23 (1973): 209-27.

Sattler, P. „Julia und Tiberius: Beiträge zur römischen Innenpolitik zwischen den Jahren 12 vor und 2 nach Chr.“ In Augustus, edited by W. Schmitthenner, 486-530. Darmstadt, 1969.

Seager, R. Tiberius. London, 1972.

Sealey, R. „The Political Attachments of L. Aelius Sejanus.“ Phoenix 15 (1961): 97-114.

Sherk, R. K. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian.Cambridge, 1988.

Shotter. D. C. A. „Tacitus, Tiberius and Germanicus.“ Historia 17 (1968): 194-214.

________. „Julians, Claudians and the Accession of Tiberius.“ Latomus 30 (1971): 1117-23.

________. „The Fall of Sejanus — Two Problems.“ Classical Philology 69 (1974): 42-46.

________. „Cnaeus Calpurnius Piso, Legate of Syria.“ Historia 23 (1974): 229-45.

________. Tiberius Caesar. London, 1992.

Sinclair, P. „Tacitus‘ Presentation of Livia Julia, wife of Tiberius‘ son Drusus.“ American Journal of Philology 111 (1990): 238-56.

Smith, C. E. Tiberius and the Roman Empire. Oxford, 1942.

Stewart, Z. „Sejanus, Gaetulicus and Seneca.“ American Journal of Philology 74 (1953): 70-85.

Sumner, G. V. „Germanicus and Drusus Caesar.“ Latomus 26 (1967): 413-35.

________. „The Family Connections of L. Aelius Sejanus.“ Phoenix 19 (1965): 134-45.

Syme, R. „Sejanus on the Aventine.“ Hermes 84 (1956): 257-66.

Tuplin, C. J. „The False Drusus of A.D. 31 and the Fall of Sejanus.“ Latomus 46 (1987): 781-805.

Wellesley, K. „The Dies Imperii of Tiberius.“ Journal of Roman Studies 57 (1967): 23-30.

NOTES

[[1]] The main ancient literary sources for the reign of Tiberius are: Tac. Ann. 1-6; Dio 57-59; Suetonius, Tiberius and Gaius; Josephus BJ 2.204-17 and AJ 18.181-87, 205-25; Velleius Paterculus, esp. 2.94-131. References to Tiberius are also found in Pliny the Elder, Philo, Seneca and others. Coins and inscriptions are, as always, helpful and are readily accessible in Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents Illustrating (in original languages) and in collections such as those of Braund and Sherk (in English translation).

[[2]] Family background and connections, birth, and adoption: Suet. Tib. 1-5.

[[3]] First public appearances: Suet. Tib. 6.4. Toga virilis: Suet. Tib. 7.1. Quaestor and age privileges: Dio 53.28.3-4; Vell. 2.94.1. Commands, esp. in the east: Dio 54.8.1-2, 9.4-5; RG 27.2. First consulship: Dio 54.10.4, 54.25.1; governorship in Gaul: Dio 54.22.1; Suet. Tib. 9.1. Marriage to Vipsania: Suet. Tib. 7.2.

[[4]] See, for instance, the theories of Seager, Tiberius, 18-38 (regency); Levick, „Tiberius’s Retirement to Rhodes“ and ead., Tiberius the Politician, 19-67 (joint succession); see also, Corbett, „Succession Policy“ (Tiberius was always to succeed from 12 B.C. onward).

[[5]] Tiberius/Vipsania: Suet. Tib. 7.2-3. Military commissions and honors: Dio 54.29.1, Suet. Tib. 9.2. Second consulship: Dio 55.8.1. Tribunician power: Dio 55.9.4, Suet. Tib. 9.3.

[[6]] The following reasons are posited in the literary sources, which often present several rumored possibilities in conjunction: he wanted a rest from work (Suet. Tib. 10.2; Vell. 2.99.1-2); he hated his wife Julia and wanted to be away from her (Dio. 55.9.7; Suet. Tib. 10.1, 11.4; Tac. Ann. 1.43); he wished to avoid a possible confrontation with Gaius and Lucius Caesar, with whom he did not get along (Dio 55.9.1-6; Suet. Tib. 10.1, 11.5); he wished to enhance his prestige by being absent from Rome (Suet. Tib. 10.1). According to Suetonius, Tiberius himself initially claimed that he was weary and wanted a rest, but later changed his story and said he did not want a confrontation with Gaius and Lucius (Suet. Tib. 10.2, 11.5). For a more Machiavellian interpretation of the reasons behind the retirement, see Levick, „Tiberius’s Retirement to Rhodes“ and Tib. the Pol., 31-46; Levick postulates the rise of a „Julian“ party within the imperial house that drove Tiberius underground. For a further analysis of this party’s activities, see her „Julians and Claudians.“ The reconstruction is a clever one, although largely without ancient attestation. For a similarly „political“ interpretation of the relationship between Tiberius and Julia, see also, Sattler, „Tiberius und Julia.“ A recent theory, that Tiberius was on an undercover mission to the East at Augustus’s behest, is imaginative but unconvincing; see P. Southern, Augustus (London, 1998), 173-76

[[7]] Death of Drusus: Dio 55.1-2. The existence of some worry concerning a possible conspiracy is borne out by the rumors of Tiberius’s dealings with military commanders while on Rhodes, thereby exciting his stepfather’s suspicions, see Suet. Tib. 12.3; Bowersock, „Augustus and the East.“ Another prince held on an island, Agrippa Postumus, later proved the point: a slave claiming to be the prince garnered some support until he was captured and executed, see Tac. Ann. 2.39-40; Suet. Tib. 25.

[[8]] Tiberius stuck on Rhodes: Suet. Tib. 11.4 – 13.2. The precariousness of Tiberius’s position is reflected in the open destruction of his statues at Nemausus (Suet. Tib. 13.1). If this anecdote is true, it reflects the low level of Tiberius’s public image at this time.

[[9]] Deaths of Gaius and Lucius Caesar: Dio 55.10a.6-9; RG 14.1; Suet. Aug. 65.1, Tib. 15.2; Tac. Ann. 1.3. Recall of Tiberius and quiet existence at Rome: Suet. Tib. 13.2, 15.1

[[10]] Citation from the will: Suet. Tib.23; RG 14.1. Adoptions of A.D. 4: Dio 55.13.1a-2; Suet. Tib. 15.2-16.1; Tac. Ann. 1.3; Vell. 2.103.2-3; see also Birch, „The Settlement of 26 June, A.D. 4.“ Augustus’s cold attitude to Tiberius is perhaps also echoed in the rather distant way he refers to him in the RG, „Tiberius Nero, who was at that time my stepson“ (RG 27.2, 30.1: … per Ti. Neronem, qui tum mihi privignus erat … ). Tiberius, in fact, is never referred to as Augustus’s son in the RG, despite its composition some nine years after Tiberius’s adoption. In contrast, Gaius and Lucius Caesar are always termed „my sons“ by Augustus (RG 14, 20.3, 22, 27.2). In addition, Augustus added the phrase „This I do for reasons of State“ to the official formula when adopting Tiberius. The statement is ambiguous, however, and can be read either as a clear statement of Tiberius’s qualities and suitability for the Principate or as an indication of Augustus’s lack of affection for him (Suet. Tib. 23). It is noteworthy that Suetonius (Tib. 21) provides ample testimony from Augustus’s own correspondence of the latter’s affection for Tiberius.

[[11]] Suet. Tib. 21.1; Vell. 2.121.1.

[[12]] Tiberius’s accession: Tac. Ann. 1.11-14; Suet. Tib. 22-26; Dio 57.2. See also the modern commentaries in Seager, Tiberius, 48-57; Levick, Tib. the Pol., 68-81; Marsh, Reign, 45-69.

[[13]] Quote at Tac. Ann. 3.65 (O homines ad servitutem paratos). A good example of his perturbing correspondence is the opening of the letter of A.D. 32, cited by Suetonius (Tib. 67.1) and Tacitus (Ann. 6.6): „If I know what to write to you, gentlemen, or how I should write it, or, indeed, what I should not write at this time, may the gods ruin me more horribly than I feel myself dying everyday.“ The quote is also indicative of Tiberius’s dark mental state.

[[14]] Pannonia: Tac. Ann. 1.16-30; Dio 57.4. Germany: Tac. Ann. 1.31-48; Dio 57.5-6.1.

[[15]] Demotion, exile, and murder of Agrippa Postumus: Dio 55.32.1-2; Suet. Aug. 65.1 (demotion and exile), Tac. Ann.1.6; Suet. Tib. 22; Dio 57.3.5-6 (murder). Elevation of Germanicus: proconsular power: Tac. Ann. 1.14; campaigns in Germany: Tac. Ann. 1.31-51, 55-71, 2.5-26; consulship and imperium maius: Tac. Ann. 2.43, 53, Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, p. 41. Tiberius’s consulship with Germanicus in A.D. 18 is particularly instructive, since he only held the office three times after his accession, all with the favored heirs at the time (Drusus in A.D. 21 and Sejanus in A.D. 31). Death of Germanicus and aftermath: Tac. Ann. 2.43, 53-3.18 (Dio and Suetonius provide only summary accounts; the former survives only in fragments at this point). Senatorial decree on Piso: W. Eck et al., Senatus Consultum de Cn. Pisone Patre. (The death of Germanicus and Tiberius’s real or imagined place in it has generated intense debate in modern scholarship, see the DIR’s Germanicus.)

[[16]] On Sejanus’s background, see Bird „Sejanus and His Political Influence“; Levick, Tib. the Pol., 158-60; Sumner, „Family Connections.“ Sejanus as sole Prefect/moving the guards into Rome: Tac. Ann. 4.2; Dio 57.19.6, see also Durry, Cohortes prétoriennes, 43-63. Partner of my labors: Tac. Ann. 4.2. A good example of Sejanus’s overt loyalty to Tiberius is the incident in Spelunca (Sperlonga) in A.D. 26. When a rockfall buried the imperial party as it dined in a natural cave, Sejanus covered Tiberius’s body with his own and remained in that position until the rescuers reached them, see Tac. Ann. 4.59 (Suet. Tib. 39 makes no mention of Sejanus’s role in the incident). Was this a genuine act of loyalty, or an ostentatious display designed to impress the Emperor?

[[17]] Tac. Ann. 4.3-8; Suet. Tib. 39; Dio 57.22.1. It remains suspicious that no inkling of foul play in Drusus’s death was entertained until eight years later, when Sejanus’s ex-wife, Apicata, „revealed“ the matter in her suicide note, see below note [23]. Quite possibly, Drusus died of natural causes and Sejanus’s involvement is a myth.

[[18]] Sejanus’s attacks on Agrippina’s family friends: see C. Silius and Sosia Galla in A.D. 24 (Tac. Ann. 4.18-20 ), Claudia Pulchra in A.D. 26 (Tac. Ann. 4.52), and T. Sabinus in A.D. 28 (Tac. Ann. 4.68-70; Dio 58.1.1b-3). There is some doubt, however, as to how many of the cases Tacitus ascribes to him were actually the work of Sejanus, see Levick, Tib. the Pol., 163-64. The cases just listed, however, seem securely Sejanian.

[[19]] Marriage proposal: Tac. Ann. 4.39-40, see also Seager, Tiberius, 195-96; Levick, Tib. the Pol. 164-65. Tiberius’s withdrawal to Capri: Tac. Ann. 4.41, 57; Suet. Tib. 39-41; Dio 58.1.1. Downfall of Nero Caesar and Agrippina in A.D. 29: Tac. Ann. 4.59-5.4 Suet. Tib. 53-54; ; of Drusus Caesar in A.D. 30: Tac. Ann. 6.23; Suet. Tib. 53.2, Gaius 7; Dio 58.3.8. Sejanus as de facto emperor: Dio 58.5.1. Senators courting Sejanus: Dio 58.2.7-8.

[[20]] The ancient sources are vague on Sejanus’s goals: Tacitus (Ann. 4.1, 3) merely states that he wanted regnum; Dio (57.22.4b) says he aimed at power; Suetonius (Tib. 65.1) claims the prefect was a revolutionary; and Josephus (AJ 18.181) comments that Sejanus led a conspiracy, but omits mention of its purpose. Modern opinion is divided. Marsh (Reign, 166) and Seager (Tiberius, 180-81) see Sejanus as aiming at regency over Caligula and Gemellus; Smith (Tiberius and Empire, 152-53) sees Sejanus as a naive innocent who rose too high for his own boots; Rogers („Conspiracy‘) argues that Agrippina was plotting against Tiberius and Sejanus was merely defending him. The notion that Sejanus was attempting to topple Tiberius (Suet. Tib. 48.2, 65.1) has been rightly questioned by modern scholars (e.g., Marsh, Reign, 204-10). Sejanus was an underling whose career was tied to Tiberius. He never reached a point where he was equal, never mind superior to the emperor, and so he could not have replaced him successfully. The best explanation for Sejanus’s goals is that put forward by Levick (Tib. the Pol., 170-71), since taken up by Shotter (Tiberius Caesar, 42-44), that Sejanus aimed at being to Tiberius what Agrippa had been to Augustus: the trusted servant who would succeed to the throne. This explains Sejanus’s attacks on Tiberius’s successors (Drurus and the family of Germanicus) and is echoed in two comments in the sources: in Tacitus (Ann. 4.3) when he comments that a house full of Caesars was an obstacle to Sejanus’s plans, and in Dio (57.22.4b) when he expressly says that Sejanus wanted to succeed Tiberius.

[[21]] Betrothal to Livilla: Dio 58.3.9; Suet. Tib. 65.1; Tac. Ann. 5.6, 6.8. Consulship: Suet. Tib. 65.1, Ehrenberg and Jones, Documents, p. 32 and nos. 50a, 358a. Imperium pronconsulare: Dio 58.7.4. The comments about Sejanus in Velleius Paterculus, whose work was published in A.D. 30 or early in 31, show the extent of Sejanus’s power: Velleius praises Sejanus at length, calling him the „helper“ of Tiberius (Vell. 2.127-28; see also Tac. Ann. 4.7). Dio (58.4.3-4) reports also that Sejanus was consul designate for A.D. 31 and that sacrifices were offered to his image along with Tiberius’s.

[[22]] Fall of Sejanus: Dio (58.5.5 – 11.5) provides the only narrative account, but see also Suet. Tib. 65. Witch-hunt: Tac. Ann. 5.8, 11. 6.14, 19, 47; Suet. Tib. 61; Stewart, „Sejanus, Gaetulicus, and Seneca.“

[[23]] Tiberius’s claim for ruining Sejanus: Suet. Tib. 61. Letter from Apicata, Sejanus’s ex-wife: Tac. Ann. 4.10-11; Dio 58.11.6. For modern discussions of the problem of the Prefect’s fall, see Levick, Tib. the Pol., 173-74; Marsh, Reign 192-99; Nicols, „Antonia and Sejanus“; Shotter, „Fall of Sejanus“; Smith, Tiberius, 145-52; Seager, Tiberius, 214-23.

[[24]] Perversities and paranoia: Suet. Tib. 43-44 (perversities) 63-64, 66-67 (paranoia). Brooding over Drusus: Suet. Tib. 62.1-2, Tac. Ann. 6.1, Dio 58.11.6-7. Ignoring the succession: see the DIR’s Gaius (Caligula).

[[25]] Death of Tiberius: Tac. Ann. 6.50; Dio 58.28.1-4; Suet. Tib. 73, Gaius 12.2-3; Jos. AJ 18.225. Posthumous insults: Suet. Tib. 75.

[[26]] „Testament of Augustus“: Tac. Ann. 1.11, see also Gruen, „Imperial Policy of Augustus“; Ober, „Tiberius and the Political Testament.“ Lack of conquest: Suet. Tib. 37.4. German campaigns of A.D. 16-17: Tac. Ann. 1.49-52, 55-71, 2.5-26; Sacrovir: Tac. Ann. 3.40-47; Tacfarinas: Tac. Ann. 2.52, 3.20-21, 72-74, 4.23-26. Most of Tiberius’s choices for governorships were successes; a notable exception is Piso in Syria when Germanicus was there.

[[27]] Respect for Augustus’s precedents: Tac. Ann. 1.77, 4.37; Dio 57.7-10. Modesty: Suet. Tib. 26-27, see also Tac. Ann. 6.51. Note especially the incident in A.D. 26 when Tiberius rejected petitions from several Asian communities to erect temples to him, Tac. Ann. 4.55-56. For a summary of Tiberius’s dealings with excessive honors and the provincials, see the relevant chapters in Levick, Tib. the Pol., Marsh, Reign, and Seager, Tiberius. Note also, Shotter, Tiberius Caesar, 51-58.

[[28]] Among the most shocking invocations of the law was the case in A.D. 24 of the Vibii Sereni, father and son, who found themselves in the roles of defendant and prosecutor respectively (Tac. Ann. 4,28-30). Tacitus (Ann. 4.32-33), in fact, apologizes for the monotony of his narrative in documenting these „show trials“ in such detail. See Levick, Tib. the Pol., 180-200; Marsh, Reign, 289-95; Chilton, „Roman Law of Treason“; Rogers, Criminal Trials.

[[29]] This is particularly evident in Tacitus’s scathing „obituary“ of Tiberius at Ann. 6.51.

Copyright © 1997, Garrett G. Fagan. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: Garrett G. Fagan

Updated: 22 December 2001

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Garrett G. Fagan: Tiberius (A.D. 14-37), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [22.12.2001], http://www.roman-emperors.org/tiberius.htm

Neueste Rezensionen zu Restauration und Vormärz (Januar 2013) Fahrmeir, Andreas: Europa zwischen Restauration, Reform und Revolution 1815-1850 (= Oldenbourg Grundriss der Geschichte; Bd. 41), München 2012. Rezensiert f. sehepunkte 13 (2013), Nr. 1 [15.01.2013] v. Manfred Hanisch, http://www.sehepunkte.de/2013/01/22085.html Gruner, Wolf D.: Der Deutsche Bund 1815-1866 (= C.H. Beck Wissen; 2495), München 2012. Rezensiert f. sehepunkte […]

………………………………………….

Tagesschau vom 28. November 1989: Helmut Kohls Zehn-Punkte-Programm zur Deutschen Einheit
http://www.aussichten-online.net/2013/02/3506/

http://tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video608108.html In der Sitzung des Bundestages vom 28. November 1989 legte Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl ein Zehn-Punkte-Programm vor, welches den Weg zu einer Deutschen Wiedervereinigung ebnen sollte; das Programm thematisierte wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit, konföderative Strukturen und sicherheitspolitische Aspekte. Diese Ausgabe der Tagesschau bietet Einblicke in die Debatte des Bundestages sowie dei Reaktionen in der DDR und dem […]

………………………………………….

Ausführliche Linkliste zur Geschichte des Kolonialismus
http://www.aussichten-online.net/2013/02/3523/

Andreas C. Hofmann 3:59pm Feb 22 Ausführliche Linkliste zur Geschichte des KolonialismusDie Epoche des neuzeitlichen Kolonialismus begann Ende des 15. Jahrhunderts und reichte bis in die erste Hälfte des 20. Jahrhunderts. Die Seite bietet eine ausführliche Liste an kommentierten Links, welche teilweise von einschlägigen und renommierten Institutionen angeboten werden. http://blog.zeit.de/schueler/2012/03/30/kolonialismus/

………………………………………….

Kaiserbiographien. Herrscherviten aus zwei Jahrtausenden
http://www.aussichten-online.net/2013/02/3516/

prospectiva imperialia Nr. 0 [25.02.2013] Es gibt in der europäischen Geschichte nur wenige Traditionen, welche auf ein derart langes Bestehen zurückblicken können, wie das römische Kaisertum mit seinen mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Nachfolgern. Mit Kaiserbiographien. Herrscherviten aus zwei Jahrtausenden entsteht ein prosopographisches Kompendium, das die Biographien derjenigen Herrscher zusammenstellt, die sich auf eine Kontinuität des Imperium […]

………………………………………….

Weitere Einträge finden Sie unter http://www.aussichten-online.net/date/2013/02

DE IMPERATORIBUS ROMANIS

An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers

DIR Atlas

Augustus (31 B.C. – 14 A.D.)

[Additional entry on this emperor’s life is available in DIR Archives]

Garrett G. Fagan

Pennsylvania State University

Abb.: http://www.roman-emperors.org/Augustu1.jpg

Introduction

Augustus is arguably the single most important figure in Roman history. In the course of his long and spectacular career, he put an end to the advancing decay of the Republic and established a new basis for Roman government that was to stand for three centuries. This system, termed the „Principate,“ was far from flawless, but it provided the Roman Empire with a series of rulers who presided over the longest period of unity, peace, and prosperity that Western Europe, the Middle East and the North African seaboard have known in their entire recorded history. Even if the rulers themselves on occasion left much to be desired, the scale of Augustus’s achievement in establishing the system cannot be overstated. Aside from the immense importance of Augustus’s reign from the broad historical perspective, he himself is an intriguing figure: at once tolerant and implacable, ruthless and forgiving, brazen and tactful. Clearly a man of many facets, he underwent three major political reinventions in his lifetime and negotiated the stormy and dangerous seas of the last phase of the Roman Revolution with skill and foresight. With Augustus established in power and with the Principate firmly rooted, the internal machinations of the imperial household provide a fascinating glimpse into the one issue that painted this otherwise gifted organizer and politician into a corner from which he could find no easy exit: the problem of the succession. [[1]]

The Background

To understand Augustus, it is necessary to appreciate briefly the nature of the Roman Revolution and, in particular, the place of Julius Caesar within it. The Roman Republic had no written constitution but was, rather, a system of agreed-upon procedures crystallized by tradition (the mos maiorum, „the way of our ancestors“). Administration was carried out by (mostly) annually elected officials, answerable to the senate (a senior council, but with no legislative powers) and the people (who, when constituted into voting assemblies, were the sovereign body of the state). Precedent prescribed procedure and consensus set the parameters for acceptable behavior. Near the end of the second century BC, however, the system started to break down. Politicians began to push at the boundaries of acceptable behavior, and in so doing set new and perilous precedents. Violence also entered the arena of domestic politics. (This long process of disintegration, completed a century later by Augustus, has been termed by modern scholars the „Roman Revolution.“) By the time of Caesar’s dominance in 49-44 BC the Republic had not been functioning effectively for at least a dozen years, some would argue for longer. Politics had come to be dominated by violence and intimidation; scores were settled with clubs and daggers rather than with speeches and persuasion. Powerful generals at the head of politicized armies extorted from the state more and greater power for themselves and their supporters. When „constitutional“ methods proved inadequate, the generals occasionally resorted to open rebellion. Intimidation of the senate through the use of armies camped near Rome or veterans brought to the city to influence the voting assemblies also proved effective and was regularly employed as a political tactic from ca. 100 BC onwards. These generals also used their provincial commands to extract money from the locals as a way of funding their domestic political ambitions. As the conflict in the state wore on, popular assemblies, the only avenue for the passage of binding legislation in the Roman Republic, routinely ended in disorder and rioting. The senatorial aristocracy, riven by internal disputes, proved incapable of dealing effectively with the mounting disorder, yet the alternative, monarchy, was not openly proposed by anyone. When civil war erupted between Pompey and Caesar in 49 BC, few could have been surprised. These two men were the strongest personalities in the state, each in command of significant military forces, and they were mutually antagonistic. [[2]]

Despite vanquishing his opponents in the long series of civil wars 49-45 BC, Caesar did little to address the underlying ills of the Republic. His concerns were first and foremost the defeat in the field of his political opponents. During these years, and following his final victory, he was content to maintain control by a combination of the consulship and the revived, albeit reviled, dictatorship. Extensive and excessive honors of all sorts were also voted to Caesar by a sycophantic senate: he refused none, save attempts to crown him king. Nevertheless, his broad disregard for tradition and precedent, and the general air of arrogance and high-handedness that marked Caesar’s dealings with his peers, made him appear Rome’s king in all but name. To be sure, he passed various items of legislation dealing with immediate problems (for instance, debt relief or the calendar), but he made no serious effort to systematize his position or tackle the issues that had generated the Roman Revolution in the first place. In fact, in the last months of his life he was planning to leave Rome for several years to campaign against the Parthians in the East. That the cabal of nobles who conspired to kill Caesar included disaffected members of his own party constitutes stark testimony as to the effects of Caesar’s tactlessness. On 15 March, 44 BC C. Julius Caesar, dictator for life, was surrounded by the conspirators at a meeting of the senate and cut down with twenty-three stab wounds. He died at the foot of a statue of his great rival, Pompey. The senatorial „Liberators,“ covered in blood and brandishing their daggers, rushed out to accept the gratitude of the liberated. They met with a somewhat different reception.

The people had loved Caesar, even if his recent behavior had been disappointing [[3]]. The Liberators, who were led by L. Cassius Longinus and M. Junius Brutus, held public meetings in the Forum, but the reaction of the people was equivocal at best. The senate, meeting on March 17, vacillated and declared an amnesty for the Liberators (inferring legitimacy for their act of tyrannicide) while ratifying all of Caesar’s acts and decreeing him a public funeral in the Forum (inferring legitimacy for Caesar’s power). It may have seemed a workable compromise, but when Caesar’s mutilated body was displayed to the crowd and the contents of his will were made public–in which some gardens were bequeathed to the public and an individual stipend given to each member of the Roman people–the dam of emotion burst and rioting ensued. The Liberators fled the city. Power seemed firmly in the hands of the pro-Caesar camp and, in particular, in those of M. Antonius (Mark Antony), Caesar’s right-hand man. The dictator’s will, however, had contained something of a political bombshell that was to shake this situation to its foundations. For Caesar named as his chief heir and adopted son one of his three great-nephews, C. Octavius.

Early Life and Adoption

C. Octavius (later Augustus) was born on 23 September, 63 BC, the son of a man from Velitrae who had reached the praetorship before dying unexpectedly when Octavius was four. His father Octavius had earned the hand of Atia, daughter of Caesar’s sister, Julia, and this seemingly remote family link between the young Octavius and Caesar was to play a determinative role in shaping the rest of Octavius’s life. When his grandmother Julia died in 51 BC, Octavius delivered the eulogy at her funeral, which was his first public appearance. [[4]]

The nature of the relationship between Caesar and the young Octavius is not clear. Dio claims (45.1.2) that after Octavius reached maturity (in 48 BC), Caesar took him in and began training him to be his successor. This assertion is clearly more informed by later imperial behavior than by Late Republican practice, and is unlikely in any case, since Caesar was much occupied with the civil wars at this time (49-45 BC). There is no evidence that the two actually met before Octavius was in his mid-teens, but that the dictator noticed Octavius is hardly to be doubted. Suetonius (Aug. 8.1) presents a more likely series of events. In 48 BC the young Octavius was elected to the pontifical college. When Caesar celebrated his multiple triumphs in September 46 BC, Octavius took part in the procession and was accorded military honors. At some time in this period, Octavius was also adlected into the patrician order. He then followed Caesar to Spain when the latter went to fight the Pompeians at Munda (45 BC). He earned the admiration of the dictator for the daring of his journey, which included a shipwreck; he was to show this same daring repeatedly in future months and years. In 44 BC Caesar nominated the magistrates several years in advance (another shunning of tradition on Caesar’s part), and the young man was included as his Master of Horse for 43 or 42 BC. Despite these indications of favor, it is fair to say that in the broad scheme of things Octavius was a non-player and a political nobody in March 44 BC, when his great-uncle was killed.

When he heard of Caesar’s murder, Octavius was in Apollonia in Illyricum, preparing to join Caesar on his Parthian campaign. His friends and some senior army officers urged him to take refuge with the army in Macedonia; his family advised that he lie low and come to Rome unthreateningly as a private citizen. He opted for the latter course of action and arrived in southern Italy, south of Brundisium. Here, he heard more details about Caesar’s death and of his own adoption. His family, now fearful for his life, urged him to renounce the adoption and inheritance in order to secure his personal safety. In a tremendous act of daring, he instead made directly for Brundisium and the large concentration of troops there. [[5]]

Entrance into Politics: April 44-November 43 BC [[6]]

By virtue of his adoption, following Roman custom, Octavius now assumed the name C. Julius Caesar Octavianus (hereafter „Octavian“). To identify himself fully with his adoptive father and to lend his subsequent actions a veneer of legitimacy, he simply called himself „Caesar,“ and is usually so named in ancient sources. [[7]] The name had a tremendous pull and Octavian’s use of it represents his first major political reinvention: from unknown Octavius to Caesar, son of Caesar. Many of the troops at Brundisium joined his cause, and as he moved toward Rome his retinue grew in size, especially from among the ranks of veterans settled by Caesar in Italian colonies. By mid-April, he was nearing Rome. [[8]]

Antony paid no attention, at least officially. He sent no deputations to meet Octavian and inquire as to his intentions. Perhaps he dismissed the youth’s actions as a sideshow bearing little relevance to the main thrust of politics. [[9]] At that time Antony was deeply occupied with several important matters, not the least being to secure powerful provinces for himself while downgrading those of Cassius and Brutus, the leaders of the Liberators. Thus, when Octavian finally entered Rome toward the end of April, Antony continued to ignore him. Octavian kept his cool and arranged a meeting. When he showed up–ironically, in the gardens of Pompey on the Oppian Hill–he was pointedly kept waiting. The ensuing exchange did not go well. [[10]] In subsequent weeks, Antony blocked Octavian’s moves to have his adoption officially recognized and also prevented him from standing for public office. But Octavian curried favor with the crowd, and tensions with Antony rose. [[11]]

Events around Mutina in northern Italy brought matters to a head, both between the Caesarian camp and the Liberators and between Antony and Octavian. Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus had been a supporter of Caesar’s — and one of his assassins. The dictator had appointed him to the governorship of Cisalpine Gaul (roughly the Po Valley region of modern Italy), an appointment confirmed by the senate. The senate had also assigned Antony, consul in 44 BC, the province of Macedonia. Through tribunician legislation in June 44 BC, Antony had his command in Macedonia exchanged for that in proximate and powerful Cisalpine Gaul. Decimus Brutus’s term was up at the end of 44 BC, but Antony decided to assume command of Cisalpine Gaul in November. Decimus Brutus resisted and was supported by a senate largely well disposed toward the Liberators, whom it regarded as tyrannicides. [[12]]

Against this backdrop of looming crisis between the Caesarians and the Liberators, the relationship between Antony and Octavian continued to deteriorate, despite occasional public reconciliations. Antony accused Octavian of plotting against him, while Octavian attempted, through agents, to undermine the loyalty of the army that Antony was bringing to Italy from Macedonia. Antony went to Brundisium to secure his army (things did not go well there for him), at which juncture Octavian showed his daring once more. Despite the risk of being branded a public enemy, he toured the Caesarian colonies of Campania and, relying on old loyalties, raised a private army from among Caesar’s veterans, perhaps 10,000 strong. It was a vivid demonstration of the power of the name „Caesar.“ Antony, meanwhile, returned to Rome and intended to denounce Octavian to the senate when he heard that two of his five legions from Macedonia had defected to Octavian. Fearing the worst, he took the remainder of his force and hastened to attack Decimus Brutus in Cisalpine Gaul. [[13]]

The situation was now highly volatile. Decimus Brutus, backed by the senate, was resisting Antony under arms, and retired to the fortified town of Mutina in Cisalpine Gaul. Antony had four legions, Octavian had five. All the armed parties were mutually antagonistic. The senate, led by Cicero in his last great political action, identified Antony as the greater threat. [[14]] Cicero and Antony were now on opposing sides, following an acrimonious oratorical exchange in the senate that started in September 44 BC. At this crucial juncture, then, Cicero deployed his considerable rhetorical skill to Octavian’s benefit and began to champion his cause as a foil to Antony’s power. As a result, on 1 January, 43 BC Octavian’s essentially illegal command of men under arms was legitimized with a grant of propraetorian power. As such, Octavian continued his preparations to attack Antony, now declared a public enemy, who had begun besieging Decimus Brutus at Mutina. Octavian, now an official representative of the republic, led his force into the region and moved against Antony. [[15]]

In two engagements in April, Antony was bested and fled over the Alps to his political allies in Transalpine Gaul. Both consuls for 43 BC, however, perished in the fighting around Mutina, and Octavian, as the senior commander on the spot, refused to cooperate any further with Decimus Brutus, a murderer of his father. The senators, it appears, hoped that Octavian would now go away. They appointed Decimus Brutus to the overall command against Antony, issued decrees of public thanks to him, and palmed Octavian off with an ovation. When a commission to distribute land to veterans was set up, Octavian was pointedly omitted. Smarting at such insulting treatment, Octavian bided his time and put in requests for a consulship (with Cicero as his colleague) and a triumph. Meanwhile, Antony was preparing to return to Cisalpine Gaul with enormous forces gained from Caesarian commanders in Transalpine Gaul. The situation remained unstable.[[16]]

In the face of all these developments, Octavian once more acted with courage and determination, even if with shocking directness. Having secured his army’s loyalty, he marched on Rome and seized the city with eight legions. Three legions brought from outside Italy to counter him defected. Unsurprisingly, Octavian was elected consul to replace the deceased consuls of 43 BC. He now carried the long-delayed ratification of his adoption, paid out the remainder of Caesar’s legacy, revoked the amnesty for the Liberators, and tried and convicted them en masse and in absentia on a single day. Despite his control of Rome, Octavian’s position was perilous. Antony was massing huge forces in Cisalpine Gaul and, across the Adriatic, Cassius and Brutus had taken the opportunity offered by the enmity between the Caesarian leaders to gain control of most of the eastern empire, it might be noted, with no great regard for either legality or scruple. [[17]]

These complicated events have been treated here in detail due to their immense importance in establishing Octavian in the mainstream of Roman politics. Dismissed by Antony and then by the senate as a bit player, he proved repeatedly capable of deft and resolute action in defence of his interests. On account of his tender years, he lacked the nexus of influential support that most leading Roman politicians, including Antony, found essential to their success and therefore he had to rely more on direct appeals to the mob, his troops, and supporters of Caesar. His actions might not have been always scrupulous or admirable, but Late-Republican politics was a vicious and cutthroat business and few involved adhered solely to principle (the Liberators, for instance, went about the eastern empire seizing provinces and only had their acts ratified post factum by a compliant senate). Octavian had only two reliable tools available to him at this early stage in his career: his name, Caesar, and promises of bounty to the soldiers, and he deployed both with daring and decisiveness when he had to. In the autumn of 43 BC, he was to make his most ambitious move yet.

The Triumvirate I: Early Challenges, 43-36 BC

Shortly after Mutina, Octavian had begun showing signs of seeking a reconciliation with Antony; now, he acted resolutely. On the pretence of preparing his army for campaign, he moved north in November and met with his rival; while Octavian was en route, his consular colleague had secured the repeal of the decrees declaring Antony a public enemy. The two met, with Antony’s supporter, M. Aemilius Lepidus, on an island in a river near Bononia. Two days of difficult negotiation produced an agreement: the three Caesarians were to form a „Board of Three for Organizing the State“ (triumviri rei publicae constituendae) that would run for five years, until 31 December, 38 BC. Unlike the so-called „First Triumvirate“ (comprised of Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus), this „Second Triumvirate“ was legally constituted by a tribunician law, the lex Titia, passed on 27 November, 43 BC. The triumvirs also agreed to divide the western provinces of the empire among themselves, with Octavian drawing seemingly minor allocations in Sardinia, Sicily, and Africa while Antony retained Cisalpine and Transalpine Gaul, and Lepidus got Spain and Gallia Narbonensis. In effect, the Second Triumvirate was a military junta whose decisions were made without reference to the senate or any other traditional organ of the Roman state. [[18]]

The rule of the three got off to an inauspicious start. Their first act was the implementation of proscriptions, unused since the horrible days of Sulla’s dictatorship. Since the property of the proscribed was forfeited, the main motive of the triumvirs in instigating the terror appears to have been financial, as many of their most implacable enemies were not in Rome or Italy at all but with Brutus and Cassius in the East. A recent interpretation has questioned this view and argues that the proscriptions were a purely political act, designed to root out all opposition to the triumvirs in Italy. Our sources preserve, in excruciating detail, dozens of tragic anecdotes about the proscribed as well as the text of the chilling proclamation announcing the proscriptions. Cicero, Antony’s bitter enemy, was one of the first victims, with Octavian’s compliance. The apparent financial reason for the triumvirs‘ need for money was soon to be made clear, when mass veteran settlements took place. Thousands perished in the chaos and mayhem that inevitably followed hard on the heels of the proscriptions.[[19]]

Next, the Liberators had to be dealt with. After a prelude in Africa early in 42 BC, in which a pro-senate governor was ousted by Octavian’s appointee, Antony and Octavian moved on Cassius and Brutus in the summer and autumn of that same year. The campaign took place in the Balkans and culminated in a double battle some weeks apart in October at Philippi in Macedonia. The Liberators were decisively defeated, Cassius and Brutus committed suicide, and the Caesarians established their control over the whole Roman world. Octavian, who had not played a glorious part in the battles, showed complete implacability in executing any and all of those implicated in the murder of Caesar who fell into his hands. A reshuffling of the provinces was required in light of the new situation: Antony got the East but retained Transalpine and Narbonese Gaul; Octavian got most of the West; Lepidus, fast being overshadowed by his more ambitious and ruthless partners, was effectively sidelined in Africa. Following Philippi, Antony moved east, Octavian returned to Italy, and a new polarization of the Roman world began to manifest itself. [[20]]

In the West, Octavian faced an immediate problem: the settlement of some 40,000 veterans in Italian communities. Veteran settlement was of paramount concern, since it spoke to Octavian’s trustworthiness as a patron and so could influence the future loyalty of his armies. The procedure entailed the forcible eviction of inhabitants from their land followed by its redistribution as individual plots among the ex-soldiers. Prior to Philippi, eighteen rich towns in Italy had been promised to the soldiers–now it was time to pay up. Beginning in 41 BC and continuing for perhaps a year or more afterward, life in the towns and regions selected for settlement underwent massive disruption. It seems that the dispossessed were not compensated for their loss, so that the whole process made Octavian enormously unpopular in Italy. [[21]]

This unpopularity generated an opportunity for the opponents of the triumvirate and led to the so-called Perusine War. One of the consuls of 41 BC was L. Antonius, brother of Mark Antony. Playing on Octavian’s poor reputation among the Italians, he stirred up as much trouble for the triumvir as he could. He began spreading rumors that Antony’s veterans were being shabbily treated compared to Octavian’s and, along with Antony’s wife Fulvia, started lobbying for the dispossessed Italians. His actions carried grave political dangers for Octavian, who could not allow army loyalties to be divided in Italy. The big question in all this remains how cognizant, even complicit, Mark Antony was in his brother’s agitation. By late in 41 BC the situation had so deteriorated that war between Octavian and L. Antonius in Italy was inevitable. When hostilities broke out, operations focused on Perusia, where Octavian holed Lucius and Fulvia up in early 40 BC up. After several months of siege, Lucius surrendered and was magnanimously spared by Octavian, though the councilors and people of Perusia were not so fortunate: Octavian executed the local council and gave the town over to his soldiers to plunder. He then adjourned to Gaul, there to supervise the transfer of the region to his own command, since the Antonian governor had died. [[22]]

Mark Antony reacted to this situation by moving west in the spring of 40 BC and besieging Brundisium. Octavian gathered his forces and marched south to confront him. The triumvirate appeared to be over, its two chief members at war. However, neither army was keen for war and negotiations produced an agreement instead, termed the „Pact of Brundisium.“ By means of this agreement, Antony ceded Gaul to Octavian, relinquishing his last foothold in the West, but was confirmed in the East. Lepidus continued to languish in Africa. Further, Antony was married to Octavian’s sister, Octavia. (Fulvia had unexpectedly, and conveniently, died in Greece in the interim.) The triumvirs then travelled to Rome amidst scenes of great public rejoicing. [[23]]

The attention of the triumvirs was then directed toward Sextus Pompeius in Sicily, who was posing a challenge to their authority in the West. Sextus, the youngest son of Pompey, is one of the more colorful characters of the Roman Revolution. Surviving the Pompeian defeat at Munda in 45 BC, he fought guerilla warfare in Spain and then took to the sea as a pirate leader. When he was recalled to Rome following Caesar’s murder, he cautiously sailed to Massilia and awaited developments. During the war at Mutina, when the fortunes of the senate and the Liberators appeared to be in the ascendant, he found himself appointed prefect of Rome’s fleets and Italy’s coastal zones (on 20 March, 43 BC). With the establishment of the triumvirate six months later, he seized Sicily and, as a beacon of resistance against the triumvirs, was greatly reinforced by refugees from the proscriptions, survivors of Philippi, those dispossessed by the veteran settlements in Italy, and any remaining forces of republican sentiment. He beat off attempts by Octavian to oust him from Sicily. Antony formed a pact with him, in order to make his move against Octavian in 40 BC but, if Sextus had hoped for some concrete reward for this service, he got none: he benefited in no way from the Pact of Brundisium and was not officially recognized by the triumvirs. Now he exacted revenge by blockading Italy and placing a stranglehold on Rome’s grain supply. Antony and Octavian were forced to act. Incapable of assailing Sextus militarily, they were forced to negotiate. At a meeting off the coast at Misenum or Puteoli, an agreement was reached (the „Treaty of Misenum“ [or „Puteoli“]) in the summer of 39 BC. This agreement saw Sextus’s control over Corsica, Sardinia, and Sicily made „official“ with a promise that he’d be given the Peloponnese and a consulship in due course. Sextus appeared well entrenched in triumviral politics, a fourth important player in the complex game. [[24]]

The Treaty of Misenum was to have a short shelf life. Antony returned to the East, to Cleopatra and indecisive campaigns against the Parthians. Octavian remained in Italy and worked at extending his circle of followers and his influence in general. Toward that end, the presence of Sextus Pompeius was an obstacle. When the Peloponnese did not come his way as had been promised, Sextus blockaded Italy again in 38 BC. Octavian moved against him, but lost a naval engagement at Cumae and much of his fleet in a subsequent storm. He now appealed to Antony for help. The two met at Tarentum in the summer of 37 BC. Aside from Octavian’s acquisition of some 120 ships from Antony for the effort against Sextus (in return for a promise of 20,000 Italian troops for Antony’s planned Parthian campaign), the meeting saw the triumvirate renewed for a further five years. The office had expired on 31 December, 38 BC, but none of the incumbents had paid any attention to that inconvenient detail and continued to exercise its prerogatives (illegally) for the first months of 37 BC. Now their power was renewed. [[25]]

Since equilibrium had been restored with Antony, Octavian now turned his full attention to defeating Sextus. Elaborate preparations, mostly under the direction M. Vipsanius Agrippa, finally readied Octavian’s fleet for action in 36 BC. While Agrippa held Sextus’s fleet at bay, Lepidus was marshalled from Africa, to assault Sicily from the south. Another of Octavian’s generals was to converge on Italy from the northeast, while Octavian himself would move from Campania. But ship-destroying storms and another naval defeat for Octavian at the hands of Sextus seemed to signal the failure of the entire operation. Agrippa, however, saved the day and took several of Sextus’s ports before engaging and destroying the rebel’s fleet at the battle of Naulochus on 3 September, 36 BC. Sextus fled east but was murdered not long afterward. Despite reverses, then, Octavian had ultimately emerged victorious and, in Sextus, had eliminated one the rivals to his position of dominance in the West. Fate allowed him to neutralize the other. Lepidus, so long in the shadows, now decided to make a play for power. Finding himself in control of twenty-two legions in Sicily, he defied Octavian and made demands that he quit the island for good. Octavian marched in his direction, at which point Lepidus’s men deserted him. At an embarrassing scene in Lepidus’s camp, Octavian spared his former triumviral colleague but stripped him of his powers and confined him to house arrest at the pleasant seaside town of Circeii. There he lived out his life unmolested until he died, of natural causes, in 12 BC.[[26]]

Octavian was now the unchallenged master of the Roman West. In one campaigning season he had rid himself of the open challenge of Sextus Pompeius and the sleeping challenge of Lepidus. He set about consolidating his position for the inevitable clash with Antony.

The Triumvirate II: Showdown with Antony, 36-30 BC

When Octavian returned to Rome in triumph following the defeat of Sextus, the senate naturally moved to honor him extravagantly. Among the proposed honors was the suggestion that Octavian be named pontifex maximus, pagan Rome’s chief priest. Octavian refused. Lepidus, though disgraced, was pontifex maximus; and it would be against established practice for an incumbent to be stripped of this august priesthood while still alive. Here emerges the first sign of a second major political reinvention on Octavian’s part, from avenger of Caesar and militarist revolutionary to upholder and guardian of Roman tradition. The war against Sextus had been tremendously difficult. Despite his popularity in some circles, Sextus had been successfully cast as an enemy of the Roman people, the one who threatened them with famine and starvation by cutting off grain shipments. Conversely, Octavian had presented himself as the defender of the people’s interests. For this reason, his victory was immensely popular. It also seems that the war caused Octavian to consider what alternative bases for his power were available to him, and to seek new and broader platforms of support beyond the army. His political reinvention was symbolized by Octavian’s decree that all records of his acts up to that point be burned. He was starting over. From this perspective, the Principate may be argued to have had its roots not with Caesar’s murder in March 44 BC but with Sextus Pompeius’s defeat in September 36 BC.[[27]]

In the East, Antony was not faring terribly well. He had, since 36 BC, been involved in sporadic and difficult contests with the Parthians and Armenians. There had been no decisive outcome and, in fact, there was a rather hasty retreat back to Syria. This was all the more regrettable (in Antony’s eyes), since Octavian had been successful against Sextus and then, in 35-33 BC, against the tribes of Illyricum. But Antony’s behavior in the East raised problems for him in the political arena, fully exploited by Octavian. His continuing link with Cleopatra, despite his marriage to Octavia, was among the most troublesome, and it had produced two children. Antony also appeared to have „gone native,“ wearing eastern dress, with an eastern despot as a consort, and practising eastern customs. Even more appalling, having seized Armenia in 34 BC, Antony staged a spectacle in Alexandria’s gymnasium known since as the „Donations of Alexandria.“ In this spectacle, Antony declared Cleopatra „Queen of Kings“ and her son by Caesar, Caesarion, „King of Kings“; he then divided up the eastern Roman Empire among Cleopatra, Caesarion, and his own children. It seemed, from an Italian perspective, that Antony was under the spell of Cleopatra, whose ultimate goal, it was rumored, was to become Queen of Rome. Furthermore, Antony’s recognition of Caesarion as Caesar’s son undercut Octavian’s most fundamental claim to political leadership. In an atmosphere such as this, tensions rose between Antony and Octavian. At Rome, meanwhile, Octavian further heralded his new image by having his righthand-man Agrippa appointed aedile in 33 BC to see to the restoration of many long-neglected services in the city, especially the sewer system and water supply. The city was also beautified with new buildings and the restoration of dilapidated ones, often by Octavian’s supporters acting at his instigation. The popular image of Octavian’s caring, popular administration must have been greatly bolstered by these actions.[[28]]

The year 32 BC was a difficult one and saw Octavian and Antony finally embark openly on the road to war. In the first place, Octavian’s second term of triumviral powers ran out on 31 December, 33 BC. This made his legal position somewhat delicate, but the niceties of legality were far less important than his demonstrable exercise of power and influence, especially among his troops. Who was going to challenge him? It is interesting to observe that Octavian immediately ceased using the title „triumvir“; Antony did not. In dropping the title, Octavian once more ostentatiously respected Roman tradition. As matters turned out, events at Rome were to offer Octavian a new basis for claiming legitimate leadership of the Roman people, albeit a non-legal one. On 1 January, 32 BC, the Antonian consul, C. Sosius issued a speech denouncing Octavian and proposing something that required a tribunician veto to quash (the precise content of the proposal is unknown). Octavian, not in the city at the time, soon entered with an armed escort, convened the senate, and denounced Antony. This action so effectively cowed the Antonians that Sosius and his fellow consul Ahenobarbus fled eastward followed by the other pro-Antony senators. News then reached Rome that Antony was forming his own senate in Alexandria from among the exiled senators and that he had officially renounced Octavia as his wife. Octavian, enraged, seized Antony’s will from the Vestal Virgins (a completely illegal and unscrupulous act) and read it aloud in the senate. Its contents shocked Roman sentiment: Antony wished to be buried in Alexandria, next to Cleopatra. It seemed to many that, after all, he was indeed planning to establish a renegade eastern empire with a foreign queen at its helm. War was declared on Cleopatra, and traditional rituals revived to emphasize that the official enemy was a foreigner, not a fellow Roman. As preparations for war geared up in the summer of 32 BC, a remarkable thing happened. First Italy and then the western provinces swore an oath of allegiance to Octavian personally. Whether the oath was voluntary, as Augustus later claimed in his Res Gestae, or a more carefully orchestrated piece of political theater, Octavian could now claim to be the people’s choice for the war against Cleopatra. It was not a legal position, but it was an unassailable one. [[29]]

In prospect, the war between Antony and Octavian promised to be the largest civil conflict ever conducted by the Romans. Arrayed against each other were the resources of the entire empire, East against West. The not inconsiderable resources of Ptolemaic Egypt, the last surviving major Hellenistic kingdom, were also in the mix. In the end, however, the war ended not with a bang but with a fizzle. The massive forces moved against each other and converged in Greece, as had Caesar and Pompey at the outset of an earlier great conflict. The two sides encamped on the north side of the Ambracian gulf, near the promontory of Actium. Cleopatra’s presence proved problematic for Antony, and there were defections to Octavian. Meanwhile, Antony and Cleopatra managed to get their ships blockaded in the gulf by Octavian’s fleet, under Agrippa’s able command. In an attempt to break out on 2 September, 31 BC (almost five years to the day since Sextus‘ defeat at Naulochus) Antony was decisively defeated. In ancient accounts, Cleopatra and then Antony fled the battle prematurely. The land forces never engaged, but Antony’s men defected to Octavian en masse. Everything had been decided in a few hours of naval warfare. [[30]]

The victory of Octavian was complete. Antony and Cleopatra fled to Egypt. Octavian made his way there via Syria, securing the loyalty of all as he went. Antony’s forces and former supporters defected in droves. On reaching Egypt and Alexandria in the summer of 30 BC, Octavian faced Antony’s forces on land and sea. A great battle seemed imminent — until Antony’s navy and cavalry defected en masse before the very eyes of their general and his infantry were defeated (1 August, 30 BC). Antony and Cleopatra committed suicide, and passed from historical reality into the realm of romantic legend. Octavian had Caesarion and Antony’s eldest son (Antyllus) executed, and he annexed Egypt as a province of Rome, ending the Ptolemaic period of that country’s history. He was now sole master of the entire Roman world. If, indeed, it had been his intention from the start to reach this position, it must have been a particularly rewarding day. For fourteen years he had played a careful, dangerous, and patient game. Now it was time to secure the future, for himself and for Rome.[[31]]

From Octavian to Augustus: A New Order Established

The third and final political reinvention of Augustus was about to take place. That the Republic needed a guiding hand was beyond doubt. The old system had failed utterly and, if reinstated, would do so again. Even someone as republican in sentiment as Cicero had finally admitted the need for a „governing leader“ of the state (rector). Octavian was to remain in control, that much was clear. But how? Over the next three decades, his position in the state was established in a complex amalgam of legal and non-legal powers and privileges. The process was not instantaneous nor did it adhere to a single agenda relentlessly pursued; rather, it evolved piecemeal over time, occasionally reactionary, occasionally with foresight. Many details remain debated or uncertain, but the overall process is clearly discernible: it extends through two main „Constitutional Settlements“ in 27 and 23 BC respectively, some refinements in 19 BC, and sporadic assignations of numerous rights and privileges down to the granting of the ultimate title, „Father of his Country“ (Pater Patriae), in 2 BC.

In the wake of Actium, however, there was work to be done. After taking Egypt and settling affairs there, Octavian stayed away from Rome as he saw to the organization of the East. For the most part, Antony’s arrangements were left in place, as long as old loyalties were suitably redirected. Octavian returned to Rome and Italy, amid tumultuous celebrations, in August of 29 BC. Large numbers of veterans were settled (perhaps 25 legions totalling 40,000 men or more) both in Italy and the provinces, this time without complaint, since the vast wealth of Egypt allowed for ample compensation. When he entered Rome, he celebrated three triumphs over three days (over Dalmatia, Actium, and Egypt). Legally, his difficult position of 32 BC had been bypassed and Octavian held the consulship every year from 31 BC onwards (until 23 BC). Just as important, however, was the non-legal basis for his dominance, later expressed by Augustus as „universal consent.“ The roots of this consent must lie in the oath of 32 BC, now extended in principle, if not in practice, to embrace the entire empire and all its armies. Octavian was, as he later put it, „in complete control of affairs“ precisely because everyone wanted him to be and, just as significantly, because he was the last man standing. There is political posturing in his claim to „universal consent,“ to be sure, but possibly also some kernel of truth. He had ended the civil wars, and all hopes for a peaceful future now rested with him and him alone. In light of this, the senate and people voted him numerous honors in 29 BC, some of which Octavian judiciously refused, consonant with his image as respecter of tradition. [[32]]

Octavian’s holding continuous consulships would be insufficient as a mode of administration in the long term, especially if, as he intended, the old order was to be seen to be restored. He needed, somehow, to find a firm place simultaneously within and above established norms. His position at the head of affairs therefore needed careful consideration, and this no doubt explains the eighteen-month gap between his return to Rome in August 29 BC and the so-called First Constitutional Settlement of 13 January, 27 BC which, with the broadest of brush strokes, began painting the portrait of the new order. Memories of Caesar’s fate must have loomed large. Despite that dictator’s huge popularity among the masses, his complete victory over his enemies in civil war, and the devotion of his troops, he had been laid low by a few dozen disillusioned aristrocrats. Among the uppermost considerations pressing on Octavian, therefore, must have been the need to appease the sensibilities of the elite. In addition, the divided loyalties of highly politicized armies had been a plague on the Late Republic. This situation too would require remedying. These two issues, in fact, were at the heart of the „First Settlement,“ staged in the senate on 13 January, 27 BC.[[33]]

On that day, Octavian entered the senate and, to the shock of those not in the know, surrendered his position and retired to private life. The senators, possibly confused, reacted with indignance and insisted that Octavian remain at the helm of the state. After a show of reluctance, Octavian graciously accepted a share in the running of the state, gaining command of Spain (except Baetica), Gaul, Syria, Cyprus, and Egypt while the senate and people kept the rest. Within his extended provincia, granted for ten years, Octavian could appoint legates to administer regions on his behalf. Modern scholars have failed to reach agreement on the exact legal status of Octavian’s command over his provinces (was it by virtue of imperium consulare or proconsulare, imperium maius or aequum?), but the case for imperium proconsulare is the stronger; it also had precedents, in the form of the „extraordinary commands“ of Pompey or Caesar in the Late Republic. This situation would have appealed to Octavian’s desire to appear to be maintaining traditions while also doing nothing alarmingly new or innovative. Other honors and privileges were also forthcoming, at a second meeting on 16 January. Here Octavian was named Augustus, a word ringing with religious (augur) and social (auctoritas) meaning but not suggestive of overt political dominance. C. Julius Caesar Octavianus now became Imperator Caesar Augustus. Other honors carried more symbolic meaning (laurels placed on the door of his house; award of the corona civica for saving the lives of citizens; the „Shield of Virtues“ erected in his honor) but they were no less significant for that: they helped establish Augustus’s pre-eminent place in the state and craft the beginnings of an Augustan ideology. By means of this settlement, Augustus was simultaneously commander, leader, savior. [[34]]

In the summer following the settlement, Augustus left Rome to tour Gaul and Spain. The journey kept him away from Rome until 24 BC–probably a wise choice on his part, to be out of the public eye while the new arrangements took root. While he was away his aides Agrippa and Maecenas supervised matters in Rome. The summer after his return, probably in June or July, the „Second Constitutional Settlement“ was staged. At around this time a conspiracy was unearthed and two principals, Fannius Caepio and Varro Murena, were executed. In the absence of evidence, scholarly debate has raged about the timing, aims, methods, and members of the conspiracy: was the „Second Settlement“ a reaction to the conspiracy, or vice versa? Or were the events unrelated? In the end, the conclusion has to be left open, but the case for the conspiracy’s occurring after the settlement seems the stronger, though any causative links between events remains little more than putative. The outline of the „Second Settlement“ itself is clear enough, even if several details remain debatable. Augustus relinquished the consulship (which he had been monopolizing since 31 BC) and was only to take it up on two further occasions in the rest of his life, for dynastic reasons. In return, he received an empire-wide grant of proconsular power (imperium proconsulare) for five years. It is debated whether this imperium was „greater“ (maius) than that of any other governor or „equal“ (aequum) to it. Five decrees found in Cyrenaica, dated to the period 6-4 BC, show Augustus intervening in the internal affairs of this province. The implication is that his imperium overrode that of the governor on the spot (and so was maius), though the possibility that it was co-extensive with it must also be allowed (making the imperium aequum). Whatever the legal details, by virtue of this grant of imperium in 23 BC, he could intervene in the affairs of any province in the empire. Unlike other governors, he was also given dispensation to retain his power within the city limits of Rome (the pomerium), probably for purely practical reasons: otherwise, every time he left the city, his proconsular power would need to be renewed. In relinquishing the consulship, Augustus lost certain powers and privileges within the city of Rome and its polity (his proconsular power notwithstanding). These were now compensated for by a grant of tribunician power (tribunicia potestas), also for five years, that allowed him all the rights and privileges of a tribune of the people, without actually holding that office: he could summon the people, propose legislation, veto meetings and proposals, and so on. With both his tribunician power and proconsular power, Augustus now had the ability to direct affairs in every wing of domestic and foreign administration. These two powers were long to remain the twin pillars of the Roman emperors‘ legal position. [[35]]

While the major settlements of 27 and 23 BC established the bases of Augustus’s position, further refinements were necessary. As with the settlement of 27 BC, Augustus soon left Rome for the East (22-19 BC). Before he left, he was forced to refuse offers of the dictatorship or perpetual consulship pressed on him by the people, who appear to have completely missed the subtleties of the Second Settlement the year before. Over the coming years, he received, piecemeal, some significant privileges and honors. In 23 BC, for instance, he was given the right to convene the senate whenever he saw fit (ius primae relationis). In 22 BC, he was appointed to oversee Rome’s grain supply (for how long is unclear). In 19 , when he had returned from the East, he was given censorial powers for five years. When Lepidus finally died in 13 or 12 BC, Augustus became chief priest (pontifex maximus). Finally, in 2 BC, he was granted the title „Father of his Country“ (pater patriae), a title of which he was immensely proud. It is not hard to see why, since the title placed Augustus in a relationship with the Roman state analogous to that of a paterfamilias over his charges: he was to be in complete control of everything. In addition, there was his membership of all the colleges of priests, numerous symbolic privileges (e.g., immunity from taxes), and the matter of auctoritas. This personal quality, impossible to translate into English with a single word, was a combination of authority and influence derived from one’s social and political position, family, abilities, and achievements. It was, most importantly, an informal virtue: it could not be voted to anyone by the senate or the people. In this way, the extent of Augustus’s auctoritas reflected the extent and success of his life’s work, and it helped him get a lot of business done without constantly invoking his legally-conferred powers. Augustus simply had to make known his preferences for matters to transpire accordingly, so that, for instance, candidates for office whom he favored invariably got elected. No wonder he was proud to boast that he „surpassed all in auctoritas.“ [[36]]

The complex edifice of the Augustan Principate was, at heart, a sham. But, like any successful sham, it was one that people could believe in. Above all, there was political genius in Augustus’s slow and careful acquisition of overarching authority in every area of public life. At every step of the way–from the oath of 32 BC through the „constitutional settlements“ and the honors and privileges conferred upon him piecemeal–he could present himself as the passive partner. On all occasions, the senate and people of Rome voluntarily conferred powers, privileges, and honors on him. He sought nothing for himself; he was no Caesar. Indeed, he often expressed reluctance to accept offices and honors that struck him as excessive, and occasionally he refused them outright. In sharp contrast to Caesar, Augustus constantly had one eye on aristocratic sensitivities. Furthermore, none of his cardinal powers were conferred for life but, rather, for fixed periods of five or (later) ten years. That these powers were never rescinded when they came up for renewal is entirely beside the point: there was the illusion of choice. That is what mattered. The vocabulary Augustus chose to express his power, too, was a model of tact: „leading citizen“ (princeps) not dictator, „authoritative influence“ (auctoritas) not „command“ (imperium). Throw into the equation his modest lifestyle, affable approachability, routine consultation of the senate, and genuinely impressive work ethic, and we have in Augustus one of the greatest and most skillfully manipulative politicians of any nation in any age.

The Nature of the Principate and The Problem of the Succession

While his tact and the careful construction of his position shielded Augustus from contemporary accusations of grasping ambition and lust for power, it did bring with it an unpleasant corollary: tremendous uncertainty as to happened when the „leading citizen“ died. Technically, Augustus’s position was a particular package of powers granted to him by the senate and people, for fixed periods. When he died, therefore, technically, it was up to the senate and people to decide what happened next. They could appoint another princeps to replace Augustus, or return to the republican system of popular votes and annual magistrates. Both of these options, however, would undoubtedly lead to civil war. What would stop army commanders, particularly those related to Augustus, from challenging a princeps chosen by the senators? If there were a return to the „free republic,“ what would prevent a resurgence of the chaos that had preceded Augustus? Indeed, paradoxically, Augustus’s very position had set a new precedent for what one could achieve: others would almost certainly aspire to it, even it were officially abandoned. In short, there was no possibility of Augustus leaving the choice of what happened after his death to the senate and people, despite their legal position as the source of his powers. He himself realized this. Suetonius reports his published ambition that the new order continue after his death. But there was a problem here, too. If, as Augustus himself claimed in his Res Gestae, he really „possessed no more official power than the others who were my colleagues in the several magistracies,“ then he had as little right to appoint a successor as did a governor, or a consul, or a praetor. Such an action would traduce tradition and smack too openly of the despised kingship. So Augustus was in a real bind in the matter of the succession. His solution will be familiar to Kremlinologists: the granting of signs of preference to favored individuals, in this case drawn largely from within the princeps‘ own house. In selecting members of his extended family, Augustus was behaving entirely within the ethos of the Roman aristocracy, for whom family was paramount. It would also ensure that the name „Caesar,“ which had been so vital in establishing Augustus’s own control over the armed forces, would remain at the head of the state. But the informal nature of Augustus’s succession arrangements, even if forced on him by the nature of his position, opened the door to domestic turmoil and proved the single most consistently destabilizing political factor in his reign and those of future emperors. [[37]]

After Actium, Augustus moved on the succession problem quickly. He began to show signs of favor to his nephew, Marcellus. He himself only had one natural child, Julia, his daughter by his second wife, Scribonia. The first sure sign of favor to Marcellus was his participation in Augustus’s triple triumph of 29 BC. In 25 BC, Marcellus was married to Julia, forming a closer family link with Augustus. The following year, Marcellus became aedile and, on Augustus’s request, was granted the privilege of sitting as an ex-praetor in the senate and of standing for the consulship ten years in advance of the legal age. By 23 BC he was widely considered, in Velleius’s words, Augustus’s „successor in power“ (successor potentiae). Then, a surprise. Augustus fell seriously ill in 23 BC. As he lay on what he thought was his deathbed, he handed an account of the state’s resources to the consul Cn. Calpurnius Piso, and his signet ring to Agrippa. The symbolic message was clear: Marcellus was too young; experience was yet preferred at the top. Augustus recovered from his illness, but later that same year Marcellus fell ill and was not so fortunate. He was nineteen when he died and was entombed with all due pomp and ceremony in Augustus’s family mausoleum. [[38]]

The career of Marcellus, short though it was, already revealed the elements of Augustus’s methods: he was to use family links (marriage or adoption) in conjunction with constitutional privileges (office-holding and the privilege of standing for office early) to indicate his successor. His inspiration appears to have been his personal experience: as Caesar had presented Octavius to the public at his triumphs of September 46 BC, so now did Augustus display Marcellus at his own triumphs in August 29 BC; as the senate had Octavius granted the right to stand for the consulship ten years in advance of the legal age in 43 BC, so Augustus had the same right granted to Marcellus in 24 BC; and just as Caesar had bound Octavius to him by a familial link, so now did Augustus with Marcellus’s marriage to Julia (although such political alliances through family ties had long been a staple of the Roman nobility). Each event had its precedent; it was their combination that was significant. [[39]]

Marcellus was soon replaced by Agrippa. Shortly before Marcellus’s death, Agrippa had left for the East. In the face of Marcellus’s earlier preferment, the sources abound with rumors of Agrippa’s voluntary departure in high dudgeon or of his forcible exile, but such speculations are demonstrably without merit. Agrippa had been favored when Augustus was ill in 23 BC and subsequently went East with a grant of imperium proconsulare, a share in Augustus’s own powers. This is not what Augustus would have done with a man of whom he was suspicious or who had fallen in any way from favor. Augustus had business in the East, to which he was shortly to attend personally, and Agrippa was doubtless sent ahead to pave the way. Maecenas, Augustus’s other chief advisor and no friend of Agrippa, is reported to have commented in 21 BC that Agrippa had now been raised so high that either Augustus must marry him to Julia or kill him. Augustus chose the former route. Julia was married to Agrippa in that year. Until his death in 12 BC, Agrippa was clearly intended to be Augustus’s successor. Aside from his marriage to Julia, in 18 BC Agrippa’s proconsular power was renewed and, more significantly, he received a share of tribunician power (renewed in 13 BC). [[40]]

By virtue of these powers and privileges, had anything happened to Augustus in the years 21-13 BC, Agrippa would have been ideally placed to take over the reins of government. Coins of the period 13-12 BC depict Agrippa as virtual co-emperor with Augustus, although the latter was always the senior partner. This straightforward interpretation of the situation in these years has been complicated by Augustus’s treatment of Agrippa and Julia’s sons, Gaius (born in 20 BC) and Lucius (born in 17 BC). When Lucius was born, Augustus adopted them both as his own sons and they became Gaius and Lucius Caesar. A further complication is added when the ongoing careers of Augustus’s stepsons, Tiberius and Drusus, who were also advanced over these years, are taken into consideration. The intent behind these labyrinthine machinations appears to have been to create a pool of eligible candidates, headed by a frontrunner. Any other princes as were advanced in the background are best considered as insurance against fate or as indicators of Augustus’s preferences for the third generation of the Principate. In this way, Agrippa was to succeed Augustus, but the adoption of Gaius and Lucius signalled Augustus’s desire that one of them succeed Agrippa (which one was to be preferred remains unclear, given subsequent events). Tiberius and Drusus, as imperial princes, can be expected to have enjoyed high public profiles and earned various privileges, but they were very much on the backburner in these years. Notions of Regency (Agrippa over Gaius and Lucius) or paired succession (Gaius and Lucius, Tiberius and Drusus) proposed by modern scholars seem remoter possibilities. [[41]]

Augustus’s vision for the succession can be seen in action again in 12 BC, when Agrippa died. Julia, now widowed a second time, was married to Tiberius the following year. Tiberius was Augustus’s stepson and the most senior and experienced of the „secondary“ princes in the imperial house. As such, he was a natural choice. Not long afterward, Tiberius left for campaigns in Germany and Pannonia, possibly with a grant of proconsular imperium. In 7 BC he entered his second consulship and the following year his position was made plain when he received a large commission in the East and a grant of tribunician power. In short, between 12 and 6 BC Tiberius was upgraded to take Agrippa’s place in Augustus’s scheme and was installed to be Augustus’s successor. But it was to be a rocky road indeed that led to his eventual succession in AD 14. In 6 BC Tiberius unexpectedly „retired“ to Rhodes, despite his prominent public position. Augustus, apparently angered by Tiberius’s action, had little choice (Drusus, Tiberius’s brother had died in Germany in 9 BC). He appears to have relied on his increasingly robust health to see his adopted sons Gaius and Lucius Caesar to their maturity. But fate intervened once more and both young men died, Lucius in AD 2 and Gaius two years after that. In a burst of dynastic activity in June of AD 4, Tiberius was rehabilitated and adopted by Augustus, as was Agrippa Postumus (the youngest child of Julia and Agrippa); Tiberius was constrained to adopt his nephew Germanicus. Again, debate has swirled around these arrangements but, following the suggestions made above, it is probably best to avoid notions of regency or paired succcession and see here an attempt by Augustus to re-establish a „pool“ of princes from which to draw candidates, with Tiberius as the favored successor and Germanicus to come behind him. The adoption of Agrippa Postumus remains puzzling, but he was still only a teenager at the time and the move may have been intended only to secure his prominence in future succession plans. Germanicus, twenty years old at the time of his adoption by Tiberius, was clearly the frontrunner for the third generation of the Principate. Through him, also, Augustus could hope for a Julian heir to the throne, but it is far from clear whether this remote consideration played any decisive role in Augustus’s thinking. [[42]]

The succession issue was not a happy one for the imperial house and carried in its train some domestic tragedies. Aside from the deaths of the various princes, Augustus banished his own daughter Julia in 2 BC and her daughter, also named Julia, in AD 8. In AD 6-7 Agrippa Postumus was disinherited and banished to the small island of Planasia, only to be murdered shortly after Augustus’s death. The banishment of Julia the Elder is emblematic of this group of events. Julia’s marriage to Tiberius had not been successful and she appears to have sought solace in the arms of various noblemen and equestrians. In 2 BC her indiscretions were brought to Augustus’s attention and, enraged, he banished her to the island of Pandateria. She never returned to Rome. The sources unanimously ascribe Julia’s fate to her licentiousness and immorality, but modern scholars have rightly questioned this presentation and seen instead dynastic scheming behind Julia’s actions and subsequent banishment. Whatever the actual degree of Julia’s political acumen, the informal and allusive nature of the succession system itself was the root cause of her demise. For, in the Augustan system, an imperial princess who had been married to no less than three indicated favorites (Marcellus, Agrippa, and Tiberius) and who then brought outsiders into her bed was also bringing them into the heart of the dynasty. That could not be tolerated. That Augustus interpreted his daughter’s misdeeds in political terms, at least in part, is suggested by the trial for treason of one of Julia’s lovers, Iullus Antonius, and his subsequent execution or suicide; others of her lovers were banished. The same can be said for the fall of Agrippa Postumus and then of Julia the Younger. However murky the details in each case, they can all be seen as victims of the Augustan succession system. [[43]]

In all, then, the succession problem was a difficult one for Augustus, and his solutions only perpetuated it for all future emperors. Despite the internal difficulties engendered by the issue, Augustus was keen to present a united image of the imperial house to the populace. This is best illustrated by the „Altar of the Augustan Peace“ (Ara Pacis Augustae), dedicated in January, 9 BC, and laden with symbolic significance largely outside the purview of this biography. For our current purposes, most important is the presentation to the people, on the south frieze, of the imperial family–women and children included–as a corporate entity. The message of dynastic harmony and the promise of future stability emanating from the imperial house is palpable. The reality, as we have just seen, was rather different.

Augustus and the Empire I: the Army

At the heart of Augustus’s position in the state lay the army. It had been a major player in the chaotic events of the Late Republic and it had carried Augustus to power. Concern for its proper maintenance and for the effective channelling of its loyalties was therefore one of the chief goals of the Augustan settlement. In achieving these goals, Augustus’s actions were a rousing success, since the army was tamed as a force in imperial politics for the better part of a century.

Augustus completed the ongoing professionalization of the Roman military by establishing a force of 28 standing legions (three were to be lost in Germany in AD 9), made up of volunteer recruits. For the citizen soldiers of the legions, service was for a prescribed period (first 16, then 20 years), on a regular wage, and with fixed rewards upon discharge. After 14 BC, land grants were discontinued in favor of cash pension payments; such payments were funded, after AD 6, by a new public treasury (the aerarium militare). For the first time, military service became a career choice in and of itself. Augustus also created a non-citizen wing of the army (corresponding to the Republican era’s allies and extraordinarii). These auxiliary troops were formed into cohorts of infantry and wings (alae) of cavalry, usually 500 or 1000 strong, sometimes under their own commanders, sometimes under a Roman officer (an ex-centurion or tribune). Under Augustus, auxiliary units were mostly raised as needed and disbanded when the campaign(s) ended; some units were incorporated into the new permanent force, on terms of service similar to those for the legionaries. Augustus also regularized the organization and terms of service in the Roman navy and created the praetorian guard, a personal force which he discreetly and tactfully billeted in townships around Rome. [[44]]

Augustus was careful to channel the loyalties of this new professional army solely in his direction. The troops‘ loyalty to Augustus was assured by their taking a personal oath of loyalty to him and by his role as their sole paymaster and guarantor of their rewards on discharge. In short, he was their patron. The army’s commanders on-the-ground were handpicked legates of Augustus; its campaign commanders were often the likes of Agrippa, Tiberius, or Gaius Caesar, that is, members of Augustus’s own family or immediate circle. He also kept the army busy in major campaigns in Spain, the Alpine regions, along the Danube and Rhine rivers, across the Rhine in Germany, and in numerous small-scale actions all along the empire’s frontiers. Where active campaigns were not prosecuted, as in Gaul or in the East, the army was used as a means of aiding political settlements (as in the return of the Parthian eagles in 20 BC or the meeting of C. Caesar and the Parthians on an island in the Euphrates in AD 2) or as a garrison over local populations (as in Gaul). While Augustus did not go so far as to station the legions along the frontier as a defensive garrison force (as was to happen in later ages), he at least removed them from the center of power and began the process of keeping them in the vicinity of the frontiers. Although Augustus appears to some scholars to have been aiming at establishing „scientific frontiers“ along the Rhine/Elbe and Danube lines, the whole issue of his foreign policy–indeed, whether even such a policy existed–remains most unclear. For the „scientific frontiers“ view to be true, certain problematic assumptions are requisite, not the least concerning the Romans‘ cartographic capabilities and their appreciation of geographic realities well beyond their immediate purview; it is also questionable to what degree the administration of the empire in general adhered to clearly conceived „policy“ on anything, rather than reacting ad hoc as circumstances and local conditions dictated. On the whole, then, we should probably avoid notions of Roman „imperial policy“ on the model of modern national policies. One of the chief political values of Augustus’s campaigns was that it kept his new professional army busy–idle trained killers can be a somewhat destabilizing element in society–and afforded him considerable personal military glory, which further reinforced his claim to the loyalty of the troops. [[45]]

The importance to Augustus, as well as to the state, of his monopolization of army loyalties is revealed in two suggestive incidents in 27 BC, when the Augustan order was still in its infancy. At this delicate time, M. Licinius Crassus, grandson of the great Late Republican magnate, raised a serious problem for Augustus. As governor of Macedonia he had undertaken successful campaigns south of the Danube in 29-28 BC and had personally killed the enemy leader in battle. In 27 BC, then, he was awarded a triumph but he went further: he claimed the ancient honor of spolia opima („the most honorable spoils“), awarded to a Roman commander who had slain his counterpart with his own hand. These honors, involving the dedication of the enemy commander’s captured panoply to Jupiter Feretrius, had only been earned on three prior occasions in all of Roman history. Since Crassus’s claim to the spolia opima would have raised Crassus into the uppermost echelons of military glory, it had the potential to confuse the soldiers‘ loyalty toward Augustus. So Augustus blocked the claim on a technicality. Crassus held his triumph and promptly disappears from our records. (It is unlikely that he was killed but, rather, that his public profile died a death in the face of Augustus’s displeasure, a good example, if true, of the workings of auctoritas.) Not long afterward, another governor proved problematic. C. Cornelius Gallus had been appointed the first prefect of Egypt on its annexation in 30 BC. Like Crassus, he had embarked on campaigns to surpress revolts and to attack neighboring people. He then celebrated his successes with statues of himself and bragging inscriptions, one of which has survived. Enraged, Augustus let it be known that he no longer considered Gallus his friend. Charges were immediately brought and proposals laid that Gallus be convicted in absentia, exiled, and his property given to Augustus. His social status and political career in ruins, his very life perhaps in danger, Gallus committed suicide (possibly in 26 BC). Both of these men had behaved fully within the boundaries of republican precedent but had failed utterly to appreciate a fundamental rule of the new order: there was to be no military glory but Augustus’s. In contrast, Agrippa, for so long Augustus’s right-hand man, repeatedly refused honors and triumphs granted to him; all his victories were celebrated by Augustus. [[46]]

Augustus and the Empire II: Administration

Augustus also reformed and refined the administration of the Roman empire in many respects. In the domestic sphere, the senate had moved from being the chief organ of the state to being a subordinate entity, an assemblage of administrators at the disposal of Augustus. What was essential from Augustus’s viewpoint was that the senators not have this fact dangled before their faces, hence his tact in dealing with them. Consuls, for instance, continued to hold office annually but the need to pass the honor around more liberally required Augustus to create „suffect“ consulships, a sort of supplementary consulship that doubled the number of men holding the consulship per year (the suffects replaced the „ordinary“ consuls, who stepped down from office in mid-term, so there was always the traditional pair of consuls in office at any given time). This is a good illustration of the mixture of tradition and innovation that marks so much of Augustus’s activity. Augustus also appointed senators to newly-created positions such as the curatorships of the aqueducts or of the public works, the prefecture of the city, and so on. Throughout, he consulted the senate frequently and fully and treated it with respect. More significantly, he formed an inner „cabinet“ (consilium) from the two presiding consuls, a representation of minor magistrates, and fifteen senators chosen by lot. Nevertheless, in Dio’s revealing words, „nothing was done that did not please Caesar.“ As the administration of the state became more regularized, Augustus also drew administrators from the non-senatorial section of the elite, the equites. A variety of new posts was created exclusively for equestrians, including command of the praetorian cohorts and of the vigiles (firefighters), and the important prefectures of the corn supply and of Egypt; their role as army officers also appears to have expanded in these years. As a result, the equites benefited enormously from Augustus’s rule, and that of future emperors. Altogether, the thrust of Augustus’s administrative reforms was to create permanent, standing offices headed by longer-term appointments where the Republican system had preferred occasional or rotating appointments, or none at all. [[47]]

In the sphere of external affairs, many of the army’s conquests were formed into new provinces, especially along the south shore of the Danube (Moesia, Pannonia, Noricum, and Raetia) and the Alps (Alpes Cottiae and Maritimae). In the East and in Mauretania in North Africa, client kingdoms and principalities were allowed to exist, sometimes in very complex arrangements, as with the Tetrarchs in Palestine or the numerous lesser kingdoms that dotted the interior and eastern reaches of Asia Minor. From 27 BC onward these provinces were divided into those that fell into the vast provincia of Augustus (the „imperial“ provinces) and those that were retained by the senate and people (the „senatorial“ or „public“ provinces; see above, „From Octavian to Augutus: A New Order Established“). When the disposition of the provinces is examined (as it stood on Augustus’s death in AD 14), it shows that the imperial territories outnumber the public ones by a factor of almost two, and that all but one of the empire’s twenty-five legions then in service fell under the emperor’s command. Further, the Cyrenaica decrees reveal the emperor making decisions about the internal operation of this, a public province. Such interference on Augustus’s part was legitimated by the improved imperium proconsulare granted him in the settlement of 23 BC and brings into question any notions of joint rule by senate and princeps (so-called dyarchy). Ultimately, all the provinces were Augustus’s concern. [[48]]

Overall, it is fair to say that the provinces, whether public or imperial, benefited enormously from Augustus’s reign. Not only had he brought them peace, he also brought them good government. Legates in imperial provinces were appointed by Augustus for periods of three years or more depending on local conditions, whereas proconsuls in the public provinces continued to rotate annually. The men varied in rank from senators (proconsuls, usually of praetorian rank, in public provinces; legates of praetorian or consular rank in imperial ones) to equites (governing as prefects, as in Egypt and some of the smaller, unarmed provinces). Whatever their status, under the new order governors had no reason to extort from their provinces the huge sums of money that Republican-era proconsuls and propraetors had used to bankroll their domestic political careers, since the success of those careers now depended less on victory at the polls and more on the emperor’s favor. Indeed, extortion in the provinces could be positively dangerous, as it raised suspicions about the nature of one’s ultimate ambitions. These strictures applied no less in the public than in the imperial provinces, since all governors were now answerable to a single source of authority in a way they had not been under the Republic. This does not mean that rapacious governors entirely disappeared as a breed but that, for the most part–the disappointments of Gallus and Crassus aside–Augustus’s gubernatorial appointments were sound. We hear of no major failings in the management of the provinces during his reign and certainly nothing on a par with the rapacious activities of the likes of Caesar or Sulla under the Republic. Augustus, by virtue of proconsular power, could also intervene directly in any provincial dispute, as he did famously in Cyrenaica. Hardly surprising, then, is the fact that of all the emperors, Augustus’s image is the most commonly found in the provinces, even long after his death. The remarkable period of peace and prosperity ushered in by Augustus’s reign is known not only as the Pax Romana but also as the Pax Augusta. [[49]]

Augustus, as the protector and guardian of Roman tradition, also sought to inculcate a return to that tradition by means of legislation: „by new laws passed at my instigation, I brought back those practices of our ancestors that were passing away in our age“ (RG 8.5). Thus, for instance, he passed laws limiting public displays of extravagance (so-called sumptuary legislation) in the manner of the old Republican senate, and he attempted through marriage regulations to put a cap on divorces and punish childlessness and adultery among the elite. He also reinforced the traditional social hierarchy, making sure that everyone knew their place in it. Minimum property qualifications for membership of the upper orders were reinforced, and status symbols for all the classes, especially the amorphous equestrians, clearly established. The convergence of this sort of legislation is illustrated by the series of laws pertaining to freed slaves, passed between 17 BC and AD 4. In the first place, the numbers of slaves that could be informally manumitted or freed in wills was restricted in proportion to the total number of slaves owned. This is a piece of sumptuary regulation, limiting overly extravagant displays of wealth and generosity in public. Second, informally freed slaves were placed into a special class of quasi-citizenship termed Junian Latinity that was capable of being upgraded to full citizenship only after the Junians had proved themselves worthy; one way of achieving worthiness was to have children. Such regulations, then, encapsulated the Augustan attitudes toward public extravagance, maintenance of the social hierarchy, and marriage and reproduction. In his private life, Augustus fell short of his own ideals (witness the turmoil engendered in his family by adultery and infidelities of all sorts), but the thrust of his social legislation was less to regulate individuals‘ private behavior than to maintain the proper outward appearance of dignitas and decency that Augustus felt had been lost during the Late Republic. As such, it pertained to the ruling classes of the state and hardly at all affected the commoner on the street. [[50]]

Finally, there is the issue of the worship of Augustus. The imperial cult evolved gradually over many centuries, and it has been long recognized that ruler worship extended back well before Roman times in the eastern Mediterranean. In the East, then, the worship of Augustus as a god commenced not long after Actium. Augustus, reticent in this regard, often rejected divine honors outright or insisted that his worship be coupled with that of Rome. He probably had an eye on Caesar’s fate in so acting. The situation in the West, however, was more difficult. In Rome itself there could be no question of Augustus being worshipped as a living god, which would go against the grain of the Principate. In any case, he was already the son of a god and the „revered one“ (Augustus). A compromise solution appears to have been to have his will (numen) or essence (genius) recognized as divine. In Italy and out in the western provinces Augustus did not actively block direct worship, and two major cult centers were established at Lugdunum in Gaul and Cologne on the Rhine with altars at each place to Rome and Augustus, maintained by officials drawn from the local elite. In communities all across the West, in fact, altars and temples to Rome and Augustus and to Augustus himself are attested, all staffed by locals. Such cult centers therefore acted not only to promote unity in the previously barbarous western provinces and to direct loyalties accordingly, but they also facilitated the assimilation of local populations into a Roman way of life. [[51]]

„The Augustan Age“

As Rome’s pre-eminent citizen, Augustus quickly became the empire’s pre-eminent patron of the arts, and many of the people within his ambit enjoyed similar roles. In the sphere of art and architecture, the Augustan building programme was extensive, prompting his famous quote: „I found Rome a city of brick and left it a city of marble.“ Augustus himself proudly boasted of the dozens of building projects (constructions, restorations, and adornments) he undertook at his own expense. These projects exclude the innumerable acts of munificence carried out by members of his household, his inner circle, or the elite at his instigation. Among his major monuments in the city were his Forum (still an impressive ruin), the Ara Pacis Augustae, and Agrippa’s extensive activity in the Campus Martius, which generated the Baths of Agrippa, the Stagnum and Euripus, the Pantheon, and the Saepta Julia. Throughout, the Augustan style is a mixture of conservatism and innovation and often strives for a Greek look so that it has been termed „classicizing“ in tone, which is aptly demonstrated by the way Augustus’s ageless portraits stand in sharp constrast with the sometimes brutally frank „veristic“ representations of the Late-Republican elite. [[52]]

The Augustan literary scene was also exceptionally vibrant. This is the era of some of Rome’s most famous and influential writers, including Vergil, Horace, Ovid, Propertius, and Tibullus in poetry, and Livy in prose. Vergil, in particular, crafted a new national epic for the Romans in the Aeneid, which quickly came to replace Ennius’s Annales as the poem every schoolchild learned by heart. This great flowering of literary activity was generated by the development of literary circles of patronage, which had been mostly in abeyance since the second century BC. The most famous literary, indeed artistic, patron of his day was C. Maecenas, a close associate of Augustus from the very beginning but one who never played an active role in politics (in contrast to Agrippa). Something of a bon vivant, he actively supported the careers of Vergil and Horace, for instance, until his death in 8 BC. Another circle formed around M. Valerius Messalla Corvinus, who promoted the careers of Tibullus and Ovid. For the historian the most intriguing question such literary circles prompt is the degree to which the political and cultural sentiments expressed by these writers were officially directed, and so in effect provided propaganda for the Augustan regime. When all the evidence is weighed, there can be no question of a state-controlled literature (on the model of media in modern totalitarian states) but there may have been encouragement from the top to express the correct view coupled, no doubt, with genuine gratitude and relief on the part of the patrons and writers alike that Augustus had restored peace and stability to public affairs. In this way, Vergil’s Eclogues and Georgics can reflect the hope Augustus brought for a restoration of peace to the Italian countryside, while the Republican sentiments of Livy’s history could be so pronounced that Augustus jokingly termed him „my Pompeian.“ The point is that both authors flourished under the regime. [[53]]

Death and Retrospective

In his later years, Augustus withdrew more and more from the public eye, although he continued to transact public business. He was getting older, and old age in ancient times must have been considerably more debilitating than it is today. In any case, Tiberius had been installed as his successor and, by AD 13, was virtually emperor already. In AD 4 he had received grants of both proconsular and tribunician power, which had been renewed as a matter of course whenever they needed to be; in AD 13, Tiberius’s imperium had been made co-extensive with that of Augustus. While traveling in Campania, Augustus died peacefully at Nola on 19 August, AD 14. Tiberius, who was en route to Illyricum, hurried to the scene and, depending on the source, arrived too late or spent a day in consultation with the dying princeps. The tradition that Livia poisoned her husband is scurrilous in the extreme and most unlikely to be true. Whatever the case about these details, Imperator Caesar Augustus, Son of a God, Father of his Country, the man who had ruled the Roman world alone for almost 45 years, or over half a century if the triumviral period is included, was dead. He was accorded a magnificent funeral, buried in the mausoleum he had built in Rome, and entered the Roman pantheon as Divus Augustus. In his will, he left 1,000 sesterces apiece to the men of the Praetorian guard, 500 to the urban cohorts, and 300 to each of the legionaries. In death, as in life, Augustus acknowledged the true source of his power. [[54]]

The inscription entitled „The Achievements of the Divine Augustus“ (Res Gestae Divi Augustae; usually abbreviated RG) remains a remarkable piece of evidence deriving from Augustus’s reign. The fullest copy of it is the bilingual Greek and Latin version carved into the walls of the Temple of Rome and Augustus at Ancyra in Galatia (for this reason the RG used to be commonly referred to as the Monumentum Ancyranum). Other evidence, however, demonstrates that the original was inscribed on two bronze pillars that flanked the entrance to the Mausoleum of Augustus in Rome. The inscription remains the only first-person summary of any Roman emperor’s political career and, as such, offers invaluable insights into the Augustan regime’s public presentation of itself. [[55]]

In looking back on the reign of Augustus and its legacy to the Roman world, its longevity ought not to be overlooked as a key factor in its success. People had been born and reached middle age without knowing any form of government other than the Principate. Had Augustus died earlier (in 23 BC, for instance), matters may have turned out very differently. The attrition of the civil wars on the old Republican aristocracy and the longevity of Augustus, therefore, must be seen as major contributing factors in the transformation of the Roman state into a monarchy in these years. Augustus’s own experience, his patience, his tact, and his great political acumen also played their part. All of these factors allowed him to put an end to the chaos of the Late Republic and re-establish the Roman state on a firm footing. He directed the future of the empire down many lasting paths, from the existence of a standing professional army stationed at or near the frontiers, to the dynastic principle so often employed in the imperial succession, to the embellishment of the capital at the emperor’s expense. Augustus’s ultimate legacy, however, was the peace and prosperity the empire was to enjoy for the next two centuries under the system he initiated. His memory was enshrined in the political ethos of the Imperial age as a paradigm of the good emperor; although every emperor adopted his name, Caesar Augustus, only a handful earned genuine comparison with him.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

As always, but perhaps more so in this case, the potential bibliography for this subject is daunting. Listed below are only the most influential and/or recent works, the bibliographies of which can be plundered profitably for more focused studies. The author welcomes notification of errors, omissions, or updates. The Cambridge Ancient History, vol. 10 (2nd ed., 1996) offers an excellent starting point for the interested reader.

Benario, H.W., „Octavian’s Status in 32 BC,“ Chiron 5 (1975): 301-9.

Birch, R.A., „The Settlement of 26 June, AD 4 and its Aftermath,“ CQ 31 (1981): 443-56.

Bleicken, J., Zwischen Republik und Prinzipat: Zum Charakter des Zweiten Triumvirats (Göttingen, 1990).

________. Augustus (Berlin, 1998).

Bradley, K.R., Slaves and Masters in the Roman Empire (Oxford, 1987).

Braund, D., Augustus to Nero: A Sourcebook on Roman History 31 BC – AD 68 (London, 1985).

Carter, J. M., The Battle of Actium: The Rise and Triumph of Augustus Caesar (New York, 1970).

Conlin, D.A., The Artists of the Ara Pacis (Chapel Hill, 1997).

Corbett, J.H., „The Succession Policy of Augustus,“ Latomus 33 (1974): 87-97.

Crook, J., Consilium Principis: Imperial Councils and Counsellors from Augustus to Diocletian (Cambridge, 1955).

Demougin, S., L’Ordre equestre sous les Julio-Claudiens (Rome, 1988).

Durry, M., Les Cohortes Prétoriennes (Paris, 1938).

Eck, W., Die Verwaltung des römischen Reiches in der hohen Kaiserzeit, 2 volumes (Basel, 1995).

W. Eck, The Age of Augustus (Oxford: Blackwell’s, 2003)

Eder, W., „Augustus and the Power of Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link between Republic and Empire,“ in Raaflaub and Toher, 71-122.

Fishwick, D., The Imperial Cult in the Latin West (Leiden, 1987).

Galinsky, K., Augustan Culture: An Interpretive Introduction (Princeton, 1996).

Gowing, A.M. The Triumviral Narratives of Appian and Cassius Dio (Ann Arbor, 1992).

Gray, E.W., „The Imperium of M. Agrippa,“ ZPE 6 (1970): 227-38.

Gruen, E. S., „The Imperial Policy of Augustus,“ in Raaflaub and Toher, 395-416 (expanded on in his entry in CAH vol. 10)

Gurval, R.A., Actium and Augustus: The Politics and Emotions of Civil War (Ann Arbor, 1995).

Hadas, M., Sextus Pompey (New York, 1930; reprint, 1966).

Issac, B., The Limits of Empire: The Roman Army in the East, revised edition (Oxford, 1992).

Jameson, S., „Augustus and Agrippa Postumus,“ Historia 24 (1975): 287-314.

Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik, eine Ausstellung im Martin-Gropius-Bau, Berlin, 7. Juni-14. August 1988. (Mainz, 1988).

Keppie, L., Colonisation and Veteran Settlement in Italy, 47-14 BC (London, 1983).

________. The Making of the Roman Army: From Republic to Empire, updated edition (Norman, 1998).

Kienast, D., Augustus: Prinzeps und Monarch (Darmstadt, 1982).

________. Römische Kaisertabelle, 2nd edition (Darmstadt, 1996).

Kolb, F., „Zur Statussymbolik im antiken Rom,“ Chiron 7 (1977): 239-59.

Lacey, W.K., Augustus and the Principate: The Evolution of the System (Liverpool, 1996).

Lanza, C., Auctoritas Principis (Milan, 1996).

Levick, B., „Drusus Caesar and the Adoptions of AD 4,“ Latomus 25 (1966): 227-44.

________. „Abdication and Agrippa Postumus,“ Historia 21 (1972): 674-97.

________. „Julians and Claudians,“ Greece and Rome 22 (1975): 29-38.

Lintott, A., Imperium Romanum: Politics and Administration (London, 1993).

Jones, A.H.M. Augustus (London, 1970)

Magdelain, A., Auctoritas Principis (Paris, 1947).

Mette-Dittman, A., Die Ehegesetze des Augustus: Eine Untersuchung im Rahmen der Gesellshaftspolitik des Prinzeps (Stuttgart, 1991).

Millar, F., „The Emperor, the Senate and the Roman Provinces,“ JRS 56 (1966): 156-66.

________. „Triumvirate and Principate,“ JRS 63 (1973): 50-67.

________. The Emperor in the Roman World (London, 1977).

________. The Roman Empire and its Neighbours, 2nd edition (London, 1981).

Millar, F. and E. Segal, Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects (Oxford, 1984).

Ostrow, S.E., „The Augustales in the Augustan Scheme,“ in Raaflaub and Toher, 364-78.

Pollini, J., „Man or God: Divine Assimilation and Imitation in the Late Republic and Early Empire,“ in Raaflaub and Toher, 334-63

Prince, S.R.F., Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1984)

Raaflaub, K., and L. J. Samons II, „Opposition to Augustus,“ in Raaflaub and Toher, 417-54.

________. and M. Toher (eds.), Between Republic and Empire: Interpretations of Augustus and his Principate (Berkeley, 1990).

Ramage, E.S., The Nature and Purpose of Augustus’s Res Gestae (Stuttgart, 1987).

Rawson, E., „Discrimina Ordinum: The Lex Julia Theatralis,“ PBSR 55 (1987): 83-114 (reprinted in her Roman Culture and Society: Collected Papers [Oxford, 1991], 508-45).

Rich, J.W., Cassius Dio and the Augustan Settlement (Warminster, 1990).

Reinhold, M., Marcus Agrippa: A Biography (Rome, 1965).

Roddaz, J.-M., Marcus Agrippa (Rome, 1984).

Salmon, E.T., „The Evolution of Augustus’s Principate,“ Historia 5 (1956): 456-78.

Schlüter, W. „The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest: Archaeological Research at Kalkreise near Osnabrück,“ in J.D. Creighton and R.J.A. Wilson (eds), Roman Germany: Studies in Cultural Interaction (Portsmouth, RI, 1999), 125-59.

Shotter, D.C., Augustus Caesar (London, 1991)

Simon, E., Augustus: Kunst und Leben in Rom um die Zeitenwende (Munich 1986).

Southern, P., Augustus (London, 1998).

Syme, R., The Roman Revolution, rev. ed. (Oxford, 1952).

________. History in Ovid (Oxford, 1978).

________. The Augustan Aristocracy (Oxford, 1986).

Talbert, R.J.A., The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton, 1984).

Taylor, L. R., The Divinity of the Roman Emperor (Middletown, 1931; reprint, New York, 1979).

Von Premerstein, A. Vom Werden und Wesen des Prinzipate. (Munich, 1937).

Ward-Perkins, J.B., Roman Imperial Architecture, 2nd edition (Hammondsworth, 1981).

Weigel, R.D., Lepidus: The Tarnished Triumvir (London, 1992).

Whittaker, C.R., Frontiers of the Roman Empire: A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore, 1994).

Williams, G., „Did Maecenas ‚Fall from Favor‘? Augustan Literary Patronage,“ in Raaflaub and Toher, 258-75

Zanker, P., The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus (Ann Arbor, 1988).

NOTES (throughout the notes, items in the bibliography are referred to in abbreviated form)

[[1]] The chief ancient sources for the life of Augustus (mostly available as Penguin Classics or in the Loeb Classical Library) are: Appian B. Civ. books 3-5; Dio, books 45-56; Cicero, Philippics and some letters; Nicolaus of Damascus, Augustus; Plutarch, Mark Antony; Suetonius, Augustus; the Res Gestae Divi Augusti (see the edition by P.A. Brunt and J.M. Moore [Oxford, 1967]). Fragments of the biography of Augustus by Nicolaus of Damascus (fl. ca. 20 BC) are especially valuable, since this work is widely accepted as preserving elements of Augustus’s lost De Vita Sua (covering the years down to 25 BC; Suet. Aug. 1-18 appears also to be based on this autobiography). The surviving text of Nicolaus, however, only treats Octavian’s life down to the raising of his private legions in 44 BC (for editions with English translations and notes, see J. Bellemore, Nicolaus of Damascus: Life of Augustus [Bristol, 1984]; C.M. Hall, Nicolaus of Damascus: Life of Augustus [Baltimore, 1923]). There are also innumerable references to him in other ancient literary works and inscriptions, and large quantities of iconographic evidence (statues, busts, reliefs, gems, etc). The number of modern accounts is also formidable, with useful and concise introductions to be found in Shotter, Augustus Caesar and Jones, Augustus. More thorough and specific treatments include Bleicken, Augustus; Kienast, Augustus; Millar and Segal, Caesar Augustus: Seven Aspects; Raaflaub and Toher, Between Republic and Empire; Southern, Augustus; Syme, Roman Revolution; id. History in Ovid. In the interests of conciseness, the notes emphasize the ancient evidence; most of the secondary studies just cited tackle the issues addressed in this article.

[[2]] The fall of the Roman Republic has also generated vast quantities of bibliography; see, esp., P.A. Brunt, The Fall of the Roman Republic and Related Essays (Oxford, 1988); M. Crawford and M. Beard, Rome in the Late Republic (Ithaca, 1985); F. Millar, The Crowd in Rome in the Late Republic (Ann Arbor, 1998); E. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic (Berkeley, 1974); Syme, Rom. Rev.

[[3]] The lack of popular enthusiasm for Caesar’s naked autocracy is reflected in a famous incident during the Lupercalia (15 February) in 44 BC. Caesar had twice been offered a royal diadem in front of the crowd. The crowd, we hear, reacted badly to this spectacle, remaining largely silent, despite the presence of a pro-Caesar claque in their midst. Only when Caesar refused the crown did the crowd cheer wildly. See Dio 44.11-12; App. B. Civ. 2.109; Plut. Caes. 61-62. Suet. Caes. 79.2 only alludes to the incident.

[[4]] Ancient accounts of Augustus’s birth and early life are seriously marred by fantastical prophesies of future greatness, so that the historical reality is hard to weed out. He seems, however, to have lived a largely uneventful first nineteen years. See Dio 45.1-2; Suet. Aug. 1-8; Nic. Aug. 2-5; Tac. Dial. 28.5 Cicero’s letters provide the only contemporary evidence for Augustus’s early career, and are indispensable for that, but provide little information on his early life. A note on names: Augustus was born C. Octavius, became C. Julius Caesar Octavianus (usually abbreviated „Octavian“ in modern sources) in 44 BC, and was renamed yet again as Imperator Augustus Caesar in 27 BC. Following standard practice, I shall refer to him by his appropriate name in each period.

[[5]] Association with Caesar: Nic. Aug. 7-12. Aftermath of murder: App. B. Civ. 3.9-11. Octavian seems to have arrived in Italy in early April or late March: Cicero, in a letter from Astura dated 11 April, inquired of Atticus how it went (Att. 14.5.3 = SB 359). Note that the influential Caesarian L. Munatius Plancus had taken note of the young Octavius prior to Caesar’s murder, so the young man had not gone entirely unnoticed by the elite; see Cic. Fam. 10.24.5

[[6]] For ancient narratives of the events here described, see App. B. Civ. 3.11-98; Dio 45.5.1-46.52.4; Nic. Aug. 16-31; Suetonius (Aug. 8.3-12) presents a conflated and rather confused account. Augustus’s own summary of this phase of his career (RG 1.1) is restricted to the simple and tendentious assertion he „successfully championed the liberty of the republic when it was oppressed by the tyranny of a faction.“

[[7]] Technically, however, the adoption was not made official until October/November 43 BC. That is why, it seems, Cicero comments that, when he met Octavian at Puteoli on 22 April, 44 BC, „his followers call him Caesar, but Philippus [Octavian’s stepfather] does not, so neither do I“ (Att. 14.12.2 = SB 366); the Liberator M. Junius Brutus also refers to Octavian as „Octavius“ (Cic. Ad Brut. 17.5-6, 25.1, 2, 7, 8, 11; dated June and July 43 BC). In contrast, L. Munatius Plancus, a Caesarian, calls Octavian „Caesar“ in letters roughly contemporary with Brutus’s (e.g., Cic. Fam. 10.23.6, 10.24.4-8). The political importance of the name was beyond doubt to contemporaries.

[[8]] Cicero first met Octavian in Naples on 19 April, 44 BC, one day after Octavian had arrived in the city (Att. 14.10.3 = SB 364). A few days later, on 22 April, he had decided that Octavian’s influence on events could not be good, since his supporters were threatening death to the Liberators (Att. 14.12.2 = SB 366).

[[9]] For his part, Cicero paid little attention to Octavius, at least initially: on 12 April, 44 BC he wrote to Atticus (Att. 14.6.1 = SB 360), „As for Octavius — it’s neither here not there.“

[[10]] Appian (B. Civ. 3.14-21) puts windy speeches into both their mouths: Octavian asks for his inheritance, Antony refuses by claiming the money is tied up in litigation, largely spent already, or not yet counted. In contrast, Dio (45.5.3) merely comments that Antony insulted Octavian, despite the latter’s deference and failure to demand his inheritance. Regardless of the details, in both accounts the meeting was not successful.

[[11]] Cicero, in letters to Atticus dated 11 and 18 May, 44 BC (Att. 14.20.5 = SB 374, 14.21.4 = SB 375, and 15.2.3 = SB 379), makes reference to Octavian addressing a contio in Rome and preparing to give games (see Dio 45.6.4). C. Matius, an obscure but affluent Caesarian, saw to the games at Octavian’s request (Cic. Fam. 11.28.6).

[[12]] See App. B. Civ. 3.27, 30; Dio 45.9.3.

[[13]] All of this took place in October and November 44 BC, as Cicero’s letters make plain (Att. 16.8.1-2 = SB 418; Fam. 12.23.2). See also App. B. Civ. 3.40-48; Dio 45.12.

[[14]] Cicero, however, had been from the outset doubtful about Octavian’s nature and intentions; see Att. 14.12.2 = SB 366 (April 44 BC) and 16.9 = SB 419 (November 44 BC). Needless to say, it was also to the political benefit of the Liberators and their supporters (Cicero among them) to keep the Caesarian leadership quarrelling.

[[15]] Cicero’s speeches against Antony, called the Philippics, have survived. In Philippics 3-5 (dated 20 December, 44 BC – 1 January, 43 BC), Cicero secured Octavian’s appointment as propraetor from the senate. See also Cic. Fam. 10.28.3 (dated 2 February, 43 BC)

[[16]] App. B. Civ. 3.49-73; Cic. Fam. 11.8.2 (Cicero to Decimus Brutus, dated late January, 43 BC), 10.30.4 (letter from Ser. Sulpicius Galba serving with consuls at Mutina, dated 15 April, 43 BC), 10.33.3-4 (letter from C. Asinius Pollio, dated late May, 43 BC); Cic. Phil. 14; Dio 45.12-46.38. Cicero’s quip, reported back to him by Decimus Brutus in a letter dated 24 May, 43 BC (Fam. 11.20.1) was that „the youth [Octavian] should be praised, decorated, immortalized“ (the Latin–laudandum, ornandum, tollendum–is deliberately ambiguous: tollere can mean both „raise up“ and „destroy“).

[[17]] App. B. Civ. 3.74-95; Cic. Fam. 11.10.2, 11.13.1, 11.14.2 (correspondence to and from Decimus Brutus, dated May, 43 BC), 10.23.6 (letter from Plancus, dated 6 June, 43 BC). Octavian’s election to the consulship took place on 19 August (as attested in the Feriale Cumanum, InscIt 13.2.278ff.), though his demand for the consulship appears to have begun in June (Cic. Ad Brut. 18.3); Dio 46.39-49. On Cassius and Brutus in the East, see App. B. Civ. 3.26, 63, 77-79, 96; Dio 47.20-36.

[[18]] Overtures to Antony: App. B. Civ. 3.80-81. Meeting and formation of the triumvirate: App. B. Civ. 3.96-4.3 (Appian places the meeting at Mutina); Dio 46.54.3-55.5. Passage of the lex Titia: App. B. Civ. 4.7; Dio 47.2.2. The terminal date of the triumvirate is unequivocally established by the Fasti Colotiani. On the legalities of the Second Triumvirate, see Bleicken, Zwischen Republik und Prinzipat; see also Millar, „Triumvirate.“

[[19]] See App. B. Civ. 4.8-9 (text of proclamation) and 4.10-51 (anecdotes of the proscribed); see also Dio 47.9-13. Death of Cicero: App. B. Civ. 4.19; Dio 47.8.3-4; Plut. Cic. 46-49. Plutarch (Cic. 49.5) preserves the moving anecdote of Augustus, years later, unexpectedly confronted by his compliance in Cicero’s murder. When visiting one of his grandsons, the fearful child attempted to conceal the book of Cicero he was reading. Augustus took the book, read it for some time, and gave it back to the boy saying, „A learned man, my boy, learned and a true patriot.“ Dio (47.8.1), Pliny (HN 7.147), Plutarch (Ant. 21), Suetonius (Aug. 27.1), and Velleius (2.66.1-3) unite in blaming the proscriptions mainly on Antony (and Lepidus), the former „public enemies“ out for revenge; there has to be a suspicion of pro-Augustan retroactive finger-pointing here. (Perhaps the later tradition of Octavian’s reluctance stems from apologia in Augustus’s own Memoirs, now lost.) The final count of the dead is given by Appian (B. Civ. 4.5) as 300 senators and 2,000 Knights. Southern (57-59) joins Kienast (35) in arguing forcefully that the proscriptions were motivated by the mentality of the political purge, not financial need.

[[20]] Africa: App. B. Civ. 4.53-56. Campaign of Philippi: App. B. Civ. 4.86-139; Dio 47.37-49. Octavian’s limited role in the fighting: Dio 47.41.1-4; Pliny HN 7.148. Re-alignment of the triumviral provinces: App. B. Civ. 5.3, 12; Dio 48.1.2-3. (Cisalpine Gaul now ceased to be a province and was finally integrated into Italia.)

[[21]] On the depradations of the soldiers in Italy, see Dio 47.14.4-5. On this settlement, see Keppie, Colonisation, 58-69. On the methods and impact of veteran settlement, see ibid., 87-133. The eighteen towns: App. B. Civ. 4.3 (Appian says the towns were „remarkable for their wealth and fine lands and houses“). It should be noted that where the territory of a designated veteran colony proved insufficient for the requirements of settlement, the territory of neighboring towns would be encroached upon, occasionally to the point of total subsumption (e.g., Caudium, entirely absorbed by the settlement at Beneventum). Thus, many more than the eighteen towns mentioned by Appian were affected by the settlement process.

[[22]] On the Perusine War, see App. B. Civ. 5.14, 30-51; Dio 48.13-14 . Antony’s complicity: App. B. Civ. 5.21-22; Dio 48.28. Execution of councilors: App. B. Civ. 5.48; Dio 48.14.3. Acquisition of Gaul: App. B. Civ. 5.51, 53; Dio 48.20.1, 3.

[[23]] Threatened war and „Pact of Brundisium“: App. B. Civ. 5.52-65; Dio 48.28-30.

[[24]] Career of Sextus: App. B. Civ. 2.105, 122, 3.4, 4.25, 36-54 (passim), 83-85, bk. 5 (passim); Dio 47.36.4, 47.49.4, 48.16-20. Date of appointment of Sextus to the prefecture of the fleet: Cic. Phil. 13.13. Sextus’s pact with Antony: App. B. Civ. 5.56. „Treaty of Misenum/Puteoli“: App. B. Civ. 5.67-74 (Appian places the meeting at Puteoli); Dio 48.36-38. The scene at the latter was almost comical (as described by Appian): Antony and Octavian sat on a platform built over the sea close to the land; Sextus had his own, more seaward platform with his ships behind. A narrow strip of water separated the two platforms. Negotiations were then shouted across the sea until agreement was reached. On Sextus Pompeius, see also Hadas, Sextus Pompey. In Syme’s view (Rom. Rev., 221), the „Peace of Puteoli enlarged the Triumvirate to include a fourth partner,“ which is something of an overstatement, given its evidently expedient nature.

[[25]] Collapse of Misenum/Puteoli agreement and war: App. B. Civ. 5.77-92; Dio 48.45.4-49 . „Treaty of Tarentum“ and renewal of triumvirate: App. B. Civ. 5.93-95; Dio 48.54.1-6. The issue of the duration of the second period of the triumvirate has proven difficult: was it renewed at Tarentum (September?, 37 BC) retroactively from 1 January, 37 BC (to end on 31 December, 33 BC) or did it run directly from September(?), 37 BC (to end sometime toward the end of 32 BC)? The more convincing case is on the side of the „retroactive“ view: see the excellent summary in Benario, „Octavian’s Status.“ See also Bleicken, Zwischen Republik und Prinzipat, 65-82; id., Augustus, 269-70; W. Eder, „Augustus and the Power of Tradition: The Augustan Principate as Binding Link Between Republic and Empire,“ in Raaflaub and Toher, 97-98; Jones, 31; Kienast, 55; Southern, 94. In all likelihood, Republican legalities played a lesser part in the considerations of the time than the observable reality of the triumvirate’s dominance and, therefore, in the actual operation of its power; see below, n. 29. On the growth of Octavian’s „party“ at this time, see Syme, Rom. Rev., 227-42.

[[26]] Final campaign against Sextus: App. B. Civ. 5.96-144; Dio 49.1-18. Lepidus: App. B. Civ. 5.123; Dio 49.11.2-12.4; see also Weigel, Lepidus. Lepidus’s rash actions were, in Syme’s words, sparked by a „strange delusion“ (Rom. Rev., 232). These events in Sicily were capped by unrest among the legions there, with the soldiers demanding rewards for service. Octavian discharged 20,000 of them on the spot and promised the rest bounties after campaigns in Illyricum; see Appian and Dio locc. citt.; Keppie, Colonisation, 69-73.

[[27]] One of the honors allegedly given to Octavian after Naulochus, late in 36 BC, was the tribunician power (App. B. Civ. 5.132). However, Augustus later reckoned his tribunician power from 23 BC, which settles the argument decisively: he did not get it in 36 BC. Dio is probably correct (49.15.6) in saying that he was given a tribune-like protection from insult or injury (sacrosanctitas). Refusal of the pontificate: App. B. Civ. 5.131; Dio 49.15.3; Suet. Aug. 31.1. Burning of the records: App. B. Civ. 3.132.

[[28]] Antony’s wars in the East: Dio 49.19-30; Plut. Ant. 37-52. Octavian in Illyricum: App. Ill. 12-28. Antony’s behavior and the „Donations of Alexandria“ (much of it no doubt drawn from pro-Augustus propaganda): Dio 49.41, Plut. Ant. 54.3-6 (Donations); Dio 50.4-5 (behavior). Cleopatra’s ambitions: Dio 50.4.1, 5.4. Rising tensions: Plut. Ant. 54-55. Agrippa’s aedileship and munificence instigated by Octavian: Dio 49.43.1-4; Pliny HN 36.121; Roddaz, 145-57 (aedileship); Suet. Aug. 29.4-5; Vell. Pat. 2.89.4 (munificence).

[[29]] On the date of the expiration of the triumviral powers, see above n. 25. It is my opinion that many modern scholars, wedded to contemporary paradigms of legally-sanctioned government, have overstated the importance of legalities in establishing the powers of Roman Republican officials; precedent, ritual, and appearance were just as important, if not more so. Certainly traditional procedures and practices were used during the Republic to legitimate magisterial authority, but many of these niceties had fallen by the wayside in the years since Pompey and Caesar. Time and again in the period after Sulla extraordinary powers and privileges had been voted to generals in recognition of their de facto supremacy. So too now, with Octavian. Technically, his triumviral powers had lapsed. No one, however, not even the Antonian consuls for 32 BC, C. Sosius and Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, were going to point that out publicly; although the content of Sosius’s anti-Octavian speech of 1 January, 32 BC has not survived, that he focused on the expiration of the triumviral powers is unlikely, since the lapse applied to Antony as well. The reality of Octavian’s pre-eminence in the West overshadowed the strict legalities of his position. On ritual, ceremony, and appearance in Republican magistracy, see D.J. Gargola, Lands, Laws and Gods: Magistrates and Ceremony in the Regulation of Public Lands in Republican Rome (Chapel Hill, 1995), esp. 16-24; R. Stewart, Public Office in Early Rome: Ritual Procedure and Political Practice (Ann Arbor, 1998). The 1 January meeting of the senate and aftermath: Dio 50.2.3-7. Reading Antony’s will: Dio 50.3.1-4.1, Plut. Ant. 58.3-4. Oath: RG 25.2; Dio 50.6.3-4 (where the oath is unmentioned but implicit); Suet. Aug. 17.2. Augustus himself (RG, loc. cit.) states that the oath was voluntary (sponte sua), but it may not have been (see Dio and Suetonius, locc. citt.). Syme (Rom. Rev., 284) was convinced the oath came before the denunciation of Antony in the senate and the declaration of war and, in a rousing phrase, believed the oath „riveted the shackles of [Italy’s] servitude.“

[[30]] Campaign at Actium: Dio 50.10-35; Plut. Ant. 61-68.3; Vell. Pat. 2.84-85; Carter, Battle of Actium. The forces on each side were monumental: about 30 legions apiece, and Antony had 500 warships to Octavian’s 250 (Plut. Ant. 61). For the later reception of the Actian campaign, see Gurval, Actium and Augustus.

[[31]] Aftermath of Actium: Dio 51.1-17; Plut. Ant. 68.4-86. Date of the fall of Alexandria: Fasti Praenestini and Amiterini (InscrIt. 13.2.107 and 13.2.185). Cleopatra, according to Plutarch (Ant. 78-86.3), was taken alive by Octavian, who planned to display her at his triumph. But she had an asp smuggled into a banquet she was holding, hidden among a plate of figs. (The asp bit her on the arm, not the breast, according to Plutarch [Ant. 86.1-3] and Dio [51.14.1-2].) The revolt or plot of Lepidus is a shadowy affair: Vell. Pat. 2.88; Dio 54.15.4; Suet. Aug. 19.1.

[[32]] Settling affairs in the East: Dio 51.18. Veteran settlements: Keppie, Colonisation, 73-82. Wealth of Egypt used for settlements: Dio 51.17.6-8. Three triumphs: Dio 51.21.6-9. „By universal consent I was in complete control of affairs“: RG 34.1. On 11 January, 29 BC the doors of the Temple of Janus in Rome were closed, symbolizing that the entire Roman world was at peace (though Dio is quick to point out the various wars still in progress in diverse locales): it had only happened twice before in all of Roman history (Dio 51.20.4-5). Such a symbolic gesture must have had a powerful effect on those who witnessed or heard about it and reinforced the notion of Octavian as the bringer of peace. Honors: Dio 51.19-21.

[[33]] None of this is meant to suggest that the system later called the Principate was, in its entirety, planned out and effected according to a pre-ordained blueprint, but rather that Octavian, in the run up to the First Settlement, must have given careful thought to his position and acted accordingly. That attitude, in fact, had marked his behavior from the very outset of his career and was encapsulated in his favorite aphorisms, „Rush slowly“ (festina lente) and „Whatever is done well enough is done quickly enough“ (sat celeriter fieri quidquid fiat satis bene; see, for both, Suet. Aug. 25.4). These are the mottoes of a patient and careful planner. Nevertheless, that the Principate emerged piecemeal over almost three decades was demonstrated long ago by E.T. Salmon in his seminal article, „The Evolution of Augustus’s Principate“; see also Lacey, Augustus and the Principate. Need for a rector: Cic. Rep. 2.51; 5.5, 6; 6.13. As consul in 28 BC, Octavian had annulled all the „illegal“ acts of the triumvirate, effectively wiping the slate clean in that department (Dio 53.2.6); his behavior in this year, with Agrippa as his colleague, was generally traditional, generous, and exemplary (Dio 53.1-2). A new beginning was being heralded, support for it organized, and its nature indicated: later, Augustus himself considered the events of 28 and 27 BC as part of a single process of transferring „the republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome“ (RG 34.1).

[[34]] First Settlement: Dio 53.3-17.1; RG 34.1-2; Suet. Aug. 28.1; Vell. 2.89. „Settlement“ staged: Dio 53.2.7. Division of provinces: Dio 53.12; see also Millar, „The Emperor, the Senate and the Roman Provinces.“ Debate over legal status of Octavian: Southern, 111-13. Imperium proconsulare is more likely to have been granted for ten years than imperium consulare, which Octavian already held by virtue of his consulship: or was it expected he would be consul every year for the following ten years? On the settlement, see, e.g., Bleicken, 315-42; Rich, Cassius Dio; Southern, 111-17; Syme, Rom. Rev. 313-30.

[[35]] Travels of Augustus: Dio 53.22.5. Illness and recovery: Dio 53.30.3; Hor. Epist. 1.15; Pliny HN 25.77; Suet. Aug. 81.1. Conspiracy: Dio 54.3.2-3 (who dates the event to 22 BC, so breaking the direct link between it and the Settlement of 23); Vell. Pat. 2.91.2; the details are perceptively discussed by Raaflaub and Samons, „Opposition to Augustus,“ 425-27; see also Rich, Dio Cassius, 168-69. „Second Settlement“: Dio 53.32; RG 10.1; Suet. Aug. 28.1. For the Cyrenaica decrees, see below n. 48.

[[36]] Refusal of dictatorship et al.: Dio 54.1.3-4; RG 5.1-2; Vell. Pat. 2.89.5; Suet. Aug. 52. Cura annonae: Dio 54.1.3. Ius primae relationis: Dio 54.3.3. Privileges of 19 BC: Dio 54.10.3-7; RG 6.1; Suet. Aug. 27.5. „Father of the Country“: Dio 55.10.10; RG 35.1; Suet. Aug. 58. Priesthoods: RG 7.3. Auctoritas: RG 34.3; see also Cic. Off. 2.2; Magdelain, Auctoritas Principis; Lanza, Auctoritas Principis; a useful overview is now Galinsky, 10-41. Dio (55.34.2) reports that in AD 8, when he had become too infirm to attend elections in person, Augustus would post the names of the candidates for office he favored; it’s hard to imagine such candidates failing. Galinsky (42-79) surveys the establishment of the Principate with emphasis on the terminology of power Augustus uses to describe it.

[[37]] Continuity of Principate: Suet. Aug. 28.1-2.

[[38]] Before marrying Livia Drusilla in 39 BC, he had been married to Clodia, stepdaughter of Antonius (PIR² C 1057), from 43-41 BC; and then to Scribonia (PIR S 220), from 40-39 BC. Appearance at triumph: Suet. Tib. 6.4. Marriage: Dio 53.27.5. Aedile/legal age: Dio 53.28.3. „Successor in power“: Vell. Pat. 2.93.1. „Deathbed“ scene: Dio 53.30.1-2; Suet. Aug. 28.1. Death and burial of Marcellus: Dio 53.30.4. Livia’s rumored hand in his demise (Dio 53.33.4.) is entirely unproven; that summer in Rome was considered particularly unhealthy and death by illness was widespread (Dio loc. cit.). Marcellus was not adopted by Augustus: the RG (21.1) refers to him as „my son-in-law“ as does Marcellus’s epitaph (Braund, 27).

[[39]] Octavius in Caesar’s triumph: see n. 5. Octavius granted right of standing early: App. B. Civ. 3.51.

[[40]] Agrippa goes East: Dio 53.31.2-4; Pliny HN 7.149; Tac. Ann. 14.53.3; Suet. Aug. 66.3, Tib. 10.3. Agrippa’s power in the east: Gray, „Imperium of M. Agrippa.“ Maecenas’s quip: Dio, 54.6.5. Marriage: Dio 54.6.5; Suet. Aug. 63.1. Agrippa’s powers: Dio 54.12.4-5 (18 BC), 54.28.1 (13 BC).

[[41]] Coins: RIC nos. 407, 408, 414. Gaius and Lucius Caesar: Dio 54.18.1, Tac. Ann. 1.3. Tiberius and Drusus‘ advancement: see DIR’s Tiberius. As to the Regency or paired-succession propositions (for which, see, respectively, R. Seager, Tiberius [London, 1972], 18-22, 24-26, 29-38, recently restated in Southern, 162, 168; and B. Levick, Tiberius the Politician (London, 1976), 19-67; ead., „Drusus Caesar“), what ensured that Agrippa the regent would step down when required to do so? What mechanisms realistically existed for depriving an incumbent regent or princeps of his powers? Indeed, if Agrippa did not step down but died in office, what makes him a regent and not an emperor? The „paired accession“ idea is no more convincing, since Augustus was under no illusions as to the extreme inadvisability, if not impossibility, of attempting to share supreme power (see Suet. Aug. 28.1): his own career as triumvir was illustration enough of that. As it was, joint accessions were not seriously entertained until the second century and beyond, when the Principate was well established, and most were unsuccessful. That Augustus was blind to the danger of presenting two equally qualified and favored candidates to the armed forces is all but inconceivable.

[[42]] Death of Agrippa: Dio 54.28.2-3, 29. Marriage of Tiberius and Julia: Dio 54.31.2. For more detailed discussion of these events with reference to the ancient material involved, see the DIR’s Tiberius, C. and L. Caesar, Germanicus, Agrippa Postumus. See also, Birch, „Settlement“; Levick, „Drusus Caesar“; Seager, Tiberius, 35-38. Germanicus, the son of Tiberius‘ brother Drusus, was himself a Claudian but his marriage to Agrippina (Augustus’s granddaughter) offered hope of a Julian heir in the fourth generation.

[[43]] Fall of Julia the Elder: Dio 55.10.12-16; Suet. Aug. 65.1, Tib. 11.4; Tac. Ann. 1.53.1; Vell. Pat. 2.100.2-5. For the „political scheming“ view, see Levick, „Julians and Claudians.“ Fall of Agrippa Postumus: Dio 55.32.1-2; Suet. Aug. 65.1, 65.4; Levick, „Abdication“; Jameson, „Augustus and Agrippa Postumus.“ Fall of Julia the Younger: Suet. Aug. 19.1, 65.1.

[[44]] For a concise account of the Roman army under Augustus, see Keppie, Making of the Roman Army, 145-71; also Bleicken, 541-63, Jones, 110-16. On the praetorians, see Durry, Cohortes Prétoriennes, esp. 65-89.

[[45]] On Augustus’s campaigns, see RG 26-27; Keppie, loc. cit. in n. 44. On the Varan disaster, see Schlüter, „The Battle of the Teutoburg Forest.“ For an overview of Augustus’s „foreign policy,“ see Gruen, „Imperial Policy.“ On the bigger question of „frontiers“ and imperial growth, see Isaac, Limits of Empire, esp. 372-418; Whittaker, Frontiers of the Roman Empire, esp. 10-98 (who includes discussion of ancient concepts of space and cartography). On the reactive nature of ancient government, see Millar, Roman Empire and its Neighbours, esp. 52-80. For the stations of the legions on Augustus’s death, see n. 48.

[[46]] On the Crassus affair, see Dio 52.23.2-27.3; Livy 4.19-20 (the previous awards of spolia opima were to A. Cornelius Cossus in the late fifth century BC and M. Claudius Marcellus in 222 BC). On Gallus, see Dio 53.23.5-24.1. The inscription (ILS 8995) is worth quoting: „C. Cornelius Gallus, son of Cnaeus, Roman knight, appointed the first Prefect of Alexandria and of Egypt after its kings had been defeated by Caesar, son of a god; he [Gallus] was twice victor in pitched battles during the Theban revolt, within 15 days, in which he defeated the enemy; he took by assault five cities (Boresos, Coptus, Ceramice, Diospolis Magna, and Opheium) and captured the leaders of their revolts; he led an army beyond the cataphract of the Nile, into which region arms had not previously been borne either by the Roman people or by the kings of Egypt; he took Thebes, the shared fear of all the kings (of Egypt); he received ambassadors of the Ethiopian king at Philae and received that king into his protection; he appointed a ruler over the Ethiopian region of Triacontaschoenus. He [Gallus] gave and dedicated this monument to the ancestral gods and the Nile, his helper.“ A useful overview of both incidents is provided by Southern (115-17). Augustus arrogated for himself victories won by his generals: the successes of Tiberius and Drusus on the Rhine and Danube in 12 and 11 BC caused him to add two imperatorial acclamations to his titles; Tiberius and Drusus got none (Dio 54.33.5). Agrippa refusing triumphs: Dio 53.23.4 (general modesty of Agrippa), 54.11.6 (over the Cantabri), 54.24.7 (over the Bosporus).

[[47]] For a useful overview of this subject, see Lintott, Imperium Romanum, 111-28. On the consilium, instituted between 27 and 18 BC, see Dio 53.21.3-5 (quote at 53.21.6); Suet. Aug. 35.4; Crook, Consilium Principis. On the role of the imperial senate, see Talbert, Senate of Imperial Rome, esp. Part Three: Functions. On suffect consuls, see ibid., 202-7. Newly-created positions: Suet. Aug. 37. On the equestrians, see Demougin, Ordre Equestre. The rosy picture of imperial rule painted by Velleius Paterculus (of equestrian status) reflects, perhaps, not only Velleius’s sycophantic personality but also a genuine sense of gratitude toward the imperial regime on the part of his class as a whole. Note also Syme, Augustan Aristocracy.

[[48]] Cyrenaica decrees: SEG 9 (1944) 8 = FIRA 1.68. The disposition of the empire’s territories on Augustus’s death was as follows:

Territory Status Type of Governor Legions

Spain

Baetica Public proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Lusitania Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-praetor) –

Tarrocensis Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-consul) 3

Gaul

Narbonensis Public (23 BC) proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Aquitania Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-praetor) –

Belgica Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-praetor) –

Lugdunensis Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-praetor) –

Germany (after AD 9, the area west of the Rhine)

Military zone n/a 2 legat. Aug. (ex-consuls) 8 (4 and 4)

(Upper and Lower)

Alps

Cottian Imperial equest. pref. –

Maritime Imperial equest. pref. –

Upper Danube region

Raetia Imperial equest. pref. –

Noricum Imperial equest. pref. –

Lower Danube region/northern Balkans

Illyricum Imperial (11 BC) legat. Aug. (ex-consul) 2

Pannonia Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-consul) 3

Moesia Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-consul) 2

Southern Balkans/Greece

Macedonia Public proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Achaea Public proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Thrace Client kingdom – –

Asia Minor

Asia Public proconsul (ex-consul) –

Bythinia-Pontus Public proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Galatia Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-praetor) –

Lycia Free federation – –

Pontus Client kingdom – –

Cappadocia Client kingdom – –

Several client principalities – –

Near East

Syria Imperial legat. Aug. (ex-consul) 4

Judaea Imperial equest. pref. –

Several client principalities – –

Africa

Egypt Imperial equest. pref. 2

Cyrenaeca Public proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Africa Public proconsul (ex-consul) 1

Mauretania Client Kingdom – –

Islands

Sicily Public proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Sardinia Imperial (AD 6) equest. pref pro legato –

Corsica Imperial (AD 6) equest. pref pro legato –

Cyprus Public (23 BC) proconsul (ex-praetor) –

Crete was part of Cyrenaeca

[[49]] For a concise overview of Augustus’s arrangement and administration of the provinces, see Jones, 94-109. See also Bleicken, 391-438; Eck, Verwaltung, 1.83-158. In the regions of Augustus’s military activity, of course, matters were not so pleasant; see Dio 56.16.3 on the comment of Bato, leader of the Pannonian revolt of AD 6-9, that the Romans were responsible for the war, since „you send as guardians of your flocks not dogs or shepherds, but wolves.“ Sulla in the East: Plut. Sulla 12.3-9 (pilfering of Greece), 22.5 (indemnity from Mithridates), 25.2 (vast fine extorted from Asian communities). Caesar in Spain and Gaul: Plut. Caes. 12.4 (Spain), 29.3-4. On Augustus’s image, see Zanker’s seminal work, The Power of Images.

[[50]] There remains to be written a comprehensive account of Augustus’s legislation and social programmes; most of the standard biographies contain pertinent chapters or sections of chapters (e.g., Jones, 131-43; Southern, 146-52). On the marriage laws, see Mette-Dittman, Ehegesetze. On the status symbols of the equestrians, see Kolb, „Status-symbolik.“ A good example of his stiffening of the social hierarchy was the regulation of seating arrangements at spectacles by social class, enforced empire-wide: see Suet. Aug. 44.1; Rawson, „Discrimina Ordinum.“ Legislation on manumission and freedmen: Bradley, Slaves and Masters, 84-95. Augustus’s private foibles: Suet. Aug. 68-71.

[[51]] On the imperial cult, see the still classic study of Taylor, Divinity. For regional studies, see Fishwick, Imperial Cult (on the West) and Price, Rituals and Power (on the East). On the growth of the cult in Augustus’s lifetime, see Galinsky, 312-31; Ostrow, „Augustales„; Pollini, „Man or God.“ On the contemporary worship of Augustus’s numen, see, e.g., Hor. Epist. 2.1.15; Ovid Trist. 3.8.13.

[[52]] Quote: Dio 56.30.3; Suet. Aug. 28.3. Building projects: RG 19-21, 24. Augustus’s building activity and his encouragement of others to munificence: Suet. Aug. 28.2-29.5; Vell. Pat. 2.89.4. A succinct survey of the Augustan building programme in Rome remains Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture, 21-44. On the much-studied Ara Pacis, see RG 12.2; Dio 54.25.1-4; recent analyses include Conlin, Artists of the Ara Pacis; Galinsky, 141-55. For a survey of the varied artistic achievements of the period, see Galinsky, 141-224; Kaiser Augustus und die verlorene Republik.

[[53]] On the literature of the period, consult any standard history of Latin literature (e.g., the Cambridge History of Classical Literature, vol. 2, ed. E.J. Kenney, [1982]); for a concise overview, see Galinsky, 225-87. On Maecenas, see Williams, „Did Maecenas ‚Fall from Favor‘?“ (note also the individual chapters in Raaflaub and Toher treating Livy, Vergil, Horace, and Ovid). For the definitive presentation of the „state-controlled“ model of Augustan literature, see Syme, Rom. Rev., 459-75. For more moderated views, see., e.g., Galinsky, passim (esp. 229-34). „My Pompeian“: Tac. Ann. 4.34.4 (the anecdote, ironically, appears in the context of the trial of a later historian, A. Cremutius Cordus, charged with maiestas under Tiberius in AD 25 for praising Brutus and Cassius in his history).

[[54]] Withdrawal: Dio 55.33.5, 55.34.2, 56.26.2-3, 56.28.1-2; see also Southern, 181-90. Tiberius’s position: Suet. Tib. 21.1; Vell. Pat. 2.121.1. Livia’s alleged involvement: Dio 56.30. Death and burial: Dio 56.29-42; Suet. Aug. 98-101. Will: Dio 56.32; Suet. Aug. 101.4.

[[55]] Original position of the RG: RG pr.; Suet. Aug. 101.4. ). For a recent analysis, see Ramage, Nature and Purpose.

Copyright © 1999, Garrett G. Fagan. This file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact.

Comments to: Garrett G. Fagan

Updated: 5 July 2004

Unveränd. Zweitpubl. v. Garrett G. Fagan: Augustus (31 B.C. – 14 A.D.), in: De Imperatoribus Romanis. An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers [05.07.2004], http://www.roman-emperors.org/auggie.htm

Es gibt in der europäischen Geschichte nur wenige Traditionen, welche auf ein derart langes Bestehen zurückblicken können, wie das römische Kaisertum mit seinen mittelalterlichen und neuzeitlichen Nachfolgern. Mit Kaiserbiographien. Herrscherviten aus zwei Jahrtausenden entsteht ein prosopographisches Kompendium, das die Biographien derjenigen Herrscher zusammenstellt, die sich auf eine Kontinuität des Imperium Romanum berufen.

Hierbei werden mit der Antike, dem Mittelalter und der Neuzeit alle drei Epochen der europäischen Geschichte abgedeckt. Das Kompendium beginnt mit den römischen Kaisern, um sich nach den Reichsteilungen des Jahres 395 den weströmischen Kaisern sowie deren bis in die Zeitgeschichte reichenden Traditionslinien zu widmen. Hierunter werden somit auch die Monarchen des Frankenreichs, des Heiligen Römischen Reichs, Österreichs und Deutschlands verstanden.

Die Lebensläufe stammen hierbei aus bereits urheberrechtsfreien oder zur Nachnutzung freigegebenen Werken. Es kann und wird somit nicht der Anspruch sein, neueste Tendenzen der Forschung zu berücksichtigen.

Das Werk versteht sich als fortlaufende Reihe, wobei alle Beiträge mit dem latiniserten Titel prospectiva imperialia und einer fortlaufenden Nummer versehen werden.

Oberschleißheim bei München, den 22. Januar 2013
Andreas C. Hofmann

De Imperatoribus Romanis (DIR) ist ein Portal zu den römischen Kaisern und deren Familien, wobei es sich auf die weströmischen und oströmisch-byzantinischen Kaiser beschränkt. Es untergliedert sich in folgende Abschnitte: Imperial Index (chronological & alphabetical) bietet meist sehr ausführliche Biogramme. Imperial Stemmata zeigt zu den einzelnen Dynastien synoptische Stammbäume, welche die familiären Zusammenhänge graphisch verdeutlichen. Imperial Battle Index vermittelt miltärhistorische Hintergründe, wobei Kartenmaterial hinterlegt ist und Querverlinkungen vorgenommen wurden. Abgerundet wird DIR durch Karten, welche jeweils in Jahrhundertschritten angeboten sind sowie eine externe Verlinkung auf  den Virtual Catalogue of Roman Coins.

An den von ausgewiesenen Altertumswissenschaftlern verfassten Biogrammen ist höchstens auszusetzen, dass die teilweise Mitte der 1990er Jahre verfassten Texte bislang nur vereinzelt überarbeitet worden sind. Die Texte selbst sind von unterschiedlicher Länge, wobei sie in jedem Fall weiterführende Literatur enthalten, was den Einstieg in die Materie erheblich erleichtert. Während die Liste der weströmischen Kaiser annähernd komplett ist, stehen zahlreiche Lemmata zu oströmischen Kaisern noch aus. Eine wahre Freude bereiten die Imperial Stemmata, welche die feinsten Verästelungen der jeweiligen Dynastie mit Farbcodes aufbereitet darstellen. Etwas dürftig erscheint die Lage beim Imperial Battle Index, welcher – so zumindest die Einschätzung eines fachlichen Laien – von der Vollständigkeit noch weit entfernt ist. Besonders erfreulich ist, dass die Biogramme, die Stammbäume sowie die Schlachtbeschreibungen einer frei formulierten Open-Access Lizenz unterliegen, wonach sie in unveränderter und sämtliche Präliminaria und Postscripta enthaltender Form weiterverwendet werden dürfen. Dies gilt leider nicht für das Kartenmaterial, welches in der vergrößerten Ansicht auch nur einen Ausschnitt der angezeigten Karte darstellt.

Wissenschaftlich geleitet wird DIR von einem Herausgeberkollegium aus etwa 30 Fachwissenschaftlern, welche bei neuen Artikeln ein Peer-Review vornehmen. Lobenswert ist, dass DIR Hinweise für Autoren, zur Texterstellung und zur Einreichung bereitstellt. Auch wenn es technisch sicherlich nicht mehr dem neuesten Stand entspricht, kann das Portal sowohl Studierenden, als auch Wissenschaftlern nur empfohlen werden. Es bietet einen soliden Einstieg in die nicht immer leichte Materie römischer Kaiser, ihrer Dynastien und ihrer Schlachten.

Die Studie behandelt die zentrale Rolle der römischen Republik für das „kulturelle Gedächtnis“ der Spätantike. Sie untersucht den  Umgang mit den exempla maiorum, auf die man meistens in den Reden der spätantiken Panegyriker stößt. Eine Untersuchung ihres spätrömischen Gebrauchs ist besonders aufschlussreich für das Geschichtsbild des Westreichs. Dabei zeigt sich, dass im kulturellen Gedächtnis der West-Römer Frühzeit und Republik eine Zeit des Werdens mit geradezu „mythischen“ Qualitäten waren, die überraschenderweise aber selten verklärt wurde.

Zusammenfassung des Verlagstextes; Erschlossen via Propylaeum/KIRKE

Die als „Katalog der Internetressourcen für die Klassische Philologie aus Erlangen“ etablierte Linksammlung zu den Altertumswissenschaften ist mittlerweile mit den von der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek als zuständige SSG-Bibliothek erschlossenen Internetressourcen zusammengeführt und innerhalb von „Propylaeum. Virtuelle Fachbibliothek Altertumswissenschaften“ verfügbar.

Die Aufstellung gibt in ihrem ersten Teil einen Überblick über die wichtigsten Daten der griechischen und römischen Antike, wobei die Regierungszeiten der Kaiser nicht aufgenommen sind. Der zweite Teil liefert biographische Daten zu den wichtigsten griechischen und römischen Autoren. Die Angaben sind gezielt auf Grundwissenstests für Magisterstudiengänge der Alten Geschichte abgestimmt und verstehen sich ohne Gewähr.

Das erste Triumvirat war zum einen bemüht, sich den formalen Vorrang in den Machtstrukturen der römischen Republik zu sichern; zum anderen musste es auch darauf bedacht sein, im Sinne faktischer Unterstützung sich die materiale Macht zu erhalten. Das 2002 erarbeitete Handout zeichnet diese Entwicklung nach.