He Who Did Rome It's Greatest Dis-service

[Hamilcar Barca]

What do people think on this. I decided to make this inclusive of all Romans, not just the Emperors.

[P.Clodius]

Varro hands down. He betrayed the confidence the Plebs placed in him after voting him Consul.

[Ursus]

Something tells me if Marc Antony (and Cleopatra) had won, Western civilization would have turned out differently, and most certainly not for the better. This guy was a drunkard, thought he was the god Dionysus, and was steeped in Oriental debauchery. And worst of all, from a Roman standpoint, he let himself be a fool for love and let an ambitious woman get her claws in him. The excesses of an empire run by Antony and Cleopatra would probably have exceeded that of Caligula, Nero and Commodus.

[Augur]

Excellent question, perhaps even more stimulating than "who is Rome's greatest hero."

 

My vote for Rome's dirtiest dog must go to Commodus, a man certainly horrid enough in his personal appetites and abuse of power to match even the worst of them (Sulla, Nero, Calegula, Elegabalus, etc.), but also the person who occupied one of the pivotal, defining points in the fortunes of the entire Roman experience. Here's the logic, take a shot:

 

If one were to draw a hypothetical chart of the ups and downs of Rome's fortunes (in terms of power, wealth, territory, etc), one cannot help but be awed by Rome's remarkable growth, hell, its why we are all devoted Romanofiles. Perhaps even more impressive, however, at least to me, is that our hypothetical chart would have so many "downs," moments and periods when Rome suffered catestropic setbacks, defeats and disasters (Gual's Sack, 2nd Punic, Hadrianople, etc., etc.). The truly unique and remarkable thing about Rome is how it survived and overcame these setbacks so successfully and for so long.

 

To find Rome's greatest villian one must start with Rome's greatest misfortune, which is the decline and eventual collapse of Rome itself, which raises two question: Is there an identifiable point at which Rome's overall growth stopped and its decline began? And is there a particular Roman with whom this change of direction can be identified? There are many nasty candidates for the Dirty Dog Award, of course, but none answers these questions better than: Commodus, whose reign represents a clearcut watershed between the Golden Age that preceeded him and the tragedies and terminal decline that followed (in the West). No, it wasn't all down hill after Commodus, there were still many ups and downs and many great heros and villians to come. But the turning point was Commodus, which explains why Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire begins with his story.

[Marcus Regulus]

Augur,

 

Well posted, I agree Commodus becomes the beginning of the decline of Imperial power. Rome still lasted fora long time but it seems his reign gets the Dirty Dog award in more ways than one.

[Sebastianus]

I voted for Valens. But it wasn't actually only Valens fault that the majority of the Eastern field army went under at Adrianople in AD 378. My namesake Sebastianus was one of the leading generals who was sent by Valens to the Thrace/Moesia Inf. area to try and contain the developing crisis with the Visigoths. His rather succesful tactic, that of some sort of guerilla warfare, made his council, when Valens finally decided to take charge personally, very influencial.

 

Sebastianus was originally a very popular general under the brother of Valens, Valentinian I. He was so popular that he was sent to Valens in the East, and thereby guaranteing Valentinian's son Gratian the succession, to ofset any possibility that he might have been raised to the purple by the troops when Valentinian I died in AD 375. There is some indication, according to the sources, to deduce that Sebastianus didn't take this well.

 

When Valens was trying to decide if he should attack the Visigoths at Adrianople in 378, he was aware that the (junior) Western Emperor Gratian was proceeding with the western field army to meet with him so they could crush the Visigoths together. But Valens had been insulted by Gratians lofty attitude in a letter just before the final war council, so he was not looking forward to meeting his brothers son and sharing the glory. But according to several sources, Ammianus being the most notable, what made him go it alone, was Sebastianus advice to do so. Since Sebastianus was the most succesful of his generals in the area, Valens had no reason to doubt his grasp of the situation.

 

We all know what happened, a disaster as devastating and horrific as that of Cannae, Ammianus says (worse than Varus's debacle?). Valens was killed as was Sebastianus together with at least 66 % of the east's crack troops. Weakening the entire empire for at least a generation.

 

Gratian, who arrived too late, was forced to continue with the containment policy, and to help him he appointed Theodosius (later 'the Great') as Eastern Augustus (AD 379). But because of the devastating defeat, Theodosius failed to eject the marauding Visigoths and had to agree to a settlement treaty in AD 382 in which they gained considerable autonomy as federates on Roman territory. This decision of Theodosius served as a dangerous precident when consequent rulers dealed with invading tribes the following almost 100 years. And in my view was a very important factor in the fall of the Western Empire in 476.

 

So I think Sebastianus is one of the worst Romans ever, followed by Valens, simply because the empire (most notably the western part, who had to transfer some of its forces to the east) never recovered after this defeat (unlike after both Cannae and Varus debacle).

[Hamilcar Barca]

Yes I thought Commodus and Valens would be firm candidates, Commodus started the decline and Valens pretty much nailed it home. I've been reading Gibbons masterpiece the last few months and it really is a fantastic scholary work.

[Sebastianus]

Yes Gibbon is funny to read. It was the second book series I ever bought myself. The first being the heavily Gibbon 'Decline & Fall...' influenced 'Foundation Trilogy' by Isaac Asimov. So one can say that I actually read two versions of 'Decline & Fall'

 

I don't agree with Commodus being the starting point of the decline, because I think that most of the 4th century (up until 378) is rather good for the empire. The Empire regains some strenght in the late 3rd century, and the social and cultural developments during this period is almost as great as the imperial high period in the 1st and 2nd centuries. The economy also recovers somewhat. And there were some good emperors during this later period.

 

It is not until the disaster of Adrianopel that the empire loses much of its ability to defend itself successfully, and had to allow foreign barbarian nations to exist inside its borders. The solution to the manpower loss, especially in the west was to make use of those (independent) barbarian tribes in the Roman army. Which led to double loyalties when dealing with barbarian invasions and raiders. Eventually even the majority of the generals were barbarians (who only slightly were Roman loyalists), the courtiers advicing the emperor were barbarians, it was no wonder that the western empire dissolved itself from within. Odoacer deposing Romulus Augustulus was just a natural progression of the trend that started when, because of the defeat at Adrianople, Theodosius had to agree to give lands to the Visigoths.

 

Besides this the increasing independence of the two imperial parts was most negative for the west. The money was in the east and they made use of this, buying off invading tribes and recruiting non-barbarians for the military, and thus avoiding much of what happened to the west.

 

And to get back to my favorite subject; there were several glorius centurys left for the Romans. The 6th century was fantastic, when Justinian re-conquered most of the old western provinces. the 9th and 10th century saw both a cultural and territorial expansion marveled at by western visitors. I would say that the 4th crusade would be the definite nail in the coffin for the Romans, eventually leading the the fall in 1453.

[Augur]

Yes Gibbon is funny to read. It was the second book series I ever bought myself. The first being the heavily Gibbon 'Decline & Fall...' influenced 'Foundation Trilogy' by Isaac Asimov. So one can say that I actually read two versions of 'Decline & Fall'

 

 

"Gibbon is 'funny'"? I'm sure you ment "fun," yes?, as in enjoyable, interesting, etc. Though actually there are some places where Gibbon did subtly inject humor, like this description of one Pope in which the reasons for the Pope's trial, conviction and removal were "limited to just rape, incest and murder."

 

"Gibbon and Azimov," interesting connection. I have met few who love history who do not also share some interest in science fiction (ie "future history"), and certainly no one was more adept at spinning furture history tales than was Azimov (petty claim to fame: before his death Azimov lived in my neighborhood here in NYC, and we actually exchanged greetings on several occasions.). I must admit, however, that I have never seen a connection made between "Decline and Fall" and the "Foundation Trilogy." If there was a Roman author's work that is "similar" to Azimov's I would have assumed it might be someone like Plutarch and his personality-dominated "Lives" -- but that is quite a stretch.

 

I think that most of the 4th century (up until 378) is rather good for the empire.

 

 

Cannot agree on this one, if for no other reason than that it was the 4th Centhury during which Christianity gained its dominant powers and immediately began its persecution of all others. I will not re-argue the recent string asking the question: "what was the primary cause of Rome's fall?," but as you may remember, in that string many of our colleagues identified the rise of Christianity as that primary cause.

 

Beyond the tragedies of Hadrianople and an empowered, increasingly venal Christianity, what else does the 4th Century have to smile about? Diocletion's stultifying "reforms?" The standing-room-only Tetarch and House of Constantine? That curious collection from Valentian I to the 28 years of that bolt-of-lightening, Honorius? No, despite some noteworth ups and downs, heros and villians, I find any study of Rome's 4th Century is much like reading the medical chart of a dying friend. The friend may have good and bad days, but the direction and final outcome seems inevitable.

 

[Dumb, totally unrelated footnote: As you probably know, Azimov's Foundation Trilogy ended up containing five (or was it six) books. Remarkabely, the last Foundation book seamlessly connected that storyline with the storyline of Azimov's even more extensive Robots series.]

[Augur]

Sorry to take additional room, but couldn't help but respond to:

 

...there were several glorius centurys left for the Romans. The 6th century was fantastic, when Justinian re-conquered most of the old western provinces. the 9th and 10th century saw both a cultural and territorial expansion marveled at by western visitors.

 

 

I wish I could see the major upswings of imperial fortunes that you see during the 6th, 9th and 10th centuries, but I'm afraid I cant. First, Justinian's re-conquest of the West was more a temporary occupation, and seems more a result of the weakness and collapse of the successor, barbarian-based states that were shoved aside so easily. Certainly it was not a result of Imperial strength -- have you ever looked at the paltry resources Justinian's generals had available to them? When compared to the glory days, pathetic.

 

Justinian was, to be sure, one of those remarkably capable and energetic -- but rare -- leaders to come along during the later centuries of Rome/Byzantium, but for how long did his conquests survive? Some history buffs have even speculated that Justinian's impressive but brief exploits in the West may have actually weakened the Empire in the long term -- ie, for the catastrophy coming in the next century. One thing is certain: If you want to be truly impressed with Justinian's legacy, send some time under the dome of St. Sophia.

 

As for the 9th and 10th centuries, how can anything be a long term "up" after the arrival of Muhammed, Abu Bakr and the many to follow, particularly after Manzikurt? As for the glorius impression that the 10th century Empire may have made upon Western visitors, I think that can safely be attributed to: first, the depths of contemporary squalor, ignorance and barbarity of the West to which they were comparing it. And, second, the remarkable fortifications that successfully protected the small island of wealth and grandure that existed within Constantinople for over 1,000 years. The surviving grandure and the walls are still damned impressive.

[Julius Caesar]

Sejanus -- for destroying the eldest sons of Germanicus (Nero and Drusus) and thus inadvertantly paving the way for Caligula.

[Acaddon]

Well, I'm not too knowledgeable about anything after Domition so I'd have to say Marc Antony. I mean, he betrayed the Roman principles and went "oriental". Who's to say what would have happened if he and Cleopatra had taken power? Still, I only know about him for Augustus's point of view so I might have a biased opinion...

[Hamilcar Barca]

Yes, but Marc Antony never did take power. This isn't a hypothetical topic.

[Germanicus]

I think Septimus Severus should be on the list Hamilcar. While he may not have come to the prominence he did without the Commodus' disaster, it was to a cerain extent the shift in attitude he displayed toward the senate that began to push that body heavily toward irrelevance. For sometime already it had been largely irrelevant anyway, but it always appeared to function, and Romans still liked to think they lived in a republic of sorts. After Severus, this illusion vanished with the Emperor no longer requesting the senate to ratify his laws or edicts, he simply issued them, like an eastern monarch - to quote Gibbon:-

 

The contemporaries of Severus, in the enjoyment of the peace and glory of his reign, forgave the cruelties by which it had been introduced. Posterity, who experienced the fatal effect of his maxims and example, justly considered him as the principle author of the decline on the Roman empire.

[Pantagathus]

The Empire recovered fine after folks like Nero & Caligula.

 

Commodus squandered the great work of all his immediate predecessors and it was all downhill from there.

 

With Valens, I don't think things would have ended up much differently if it had been someone else in there.