Gold and Silver Emperors

[GhostOfClayton]

I have a mouse mat showing all the Roman Emperors up to Diocletian.  (http://www.westair-reproductions.com/popup_image.php?pID=1062ℑ=0)

 

Question:  Why are  Maximinus Thrax Gordian I, Gordian II and Blabinus & Pupienus shown in silver, while the rest are in gold?

[sonic]

Year of the six emperors??

[Onasander]

They all had largely worthless reigns. Thrax killed Severus Alexander, who was a legitimate claimant to a long serving dynasty (I'm opposed to tyranny, but am aware of the advantages of a stable, educated dynasty.)

 

His death marked the start of the First Pagan Revolt, and the decline of the city, and the rise of serfdom.

 

The other emperors you mentioned tried to knock Thrax off. Gordianus III didn't have to deal with the mess.

 

I notice, besides not being able to read any names on your pic, you have less emperors than there was claimants. I wouldn't read too much into this, he likely had higher ambitions and just occurred to him one day he could modify a larger work of his, poster size, into a mouse pad and make a few quick bucks.

 

That revolt by Thrax was the beginning of the end for the west. It was the first pagan revolt (spurned on by Thrax's thick headed prejudices). Had Christianity been adopted then, instead of a more militant Constantine, it likely would of been state recognized and much more pluralistic in it's tolerance, as it would of been one sect among many.

 

The second pagan revolt brought down the empire in the west, the pagan landowners in the west were throwing hissy fits, caused the legions to push west to pacify it, tripped up Rome's military balance at the wrong time, they never really recovered, and the decline was much sharper and longer lasting than when Severus was assassinated.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Onasander

[GhostOfClayton]

All reasonable theories, but not so clear cut to me.  Year of 6 emperors was my first thought, but why not year of the 4 emperors and year of the 5 emperors.  Why not have those in solver?  And why not include Gordian III?

[Onasander]

Because, he didn't have to contend with a second emperor.

 

All those emperors had at least one, if not two, emperors lurking around.

 

Honestly, we're trying to solve the mystery of a two shade classification system from a mousepad dating to the 90s more likely than not, and it's a incomplete list. I honestly think the artist just modified a older, larger work of his for a quick buck and didn't care to reshade it. He might not of even of finished said work, not fully realizing the ligic of it.

 

Would the emperors later on be shhaded silver if there was both a eastern and western emperor? Perhaps, but did this guy get that far in thinking it out, unlikely. Hence why it's not a famous well known image on forums.

 

Thrax overlapped each of their reigns. He was a douchebag. Thrax the Douche.

[caldrail]

Isn't this all a bit arbitrary and nothing more than an exercise in categorisation that has no useful value?

[GhostOfClayton]

Thrax overlapped each of their reigns. He was a douchebag. Thrax the Douche.

 

We don't use the word 'douchebag' half enough over here.   It's a great word!  Personally, I would welcome it into our vernacular.

[Auris Arrectibus]

Hi all,

 

Gold was scarce in that period. Supplies of gold dry up.
Gold flowed abroad to the Sassanids who demanded large sums of gold. Also a lot of gold was paid to german chieftains.

So, gold drained from the roman monetary system. When I google on pictures of coins in 238 AD, it's just silver/ metal ones.

 

So I think your mouse mat is one for coin-collectors.

Maybe someone with such an interest could confirm this.

 

Auris Arrectibus

Edited January 28, 2015 by Auris Arrectibus

[GhostOfClayton]

Most convincing answer so far, Meneer Arrectibus.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

... the First Pagan Revolt...

Salve!

You mentioned a first and a second pagan revolt. I have not heard these terms before. What events do they refer to?

And regarding the topic, shouldn't the emperors Galba, Otho and Vitellius then be silver too? Their reigns were just as worthless.

Vale!

[Onasander]

First one was when Alexander Severus was assassinated. Christianity entered into a period of plural ascendency (but not really above any of the other cults of the empire, just the beginnings of acceptance). Had he not been killed, Christianity likely never would of sought to stamp out paganism in the manner it did, as it theologically at its root was a nonviolent, socialist movement. Old style paganism might still be around if not for this period of decline, if not Rome itself, as it suffered a economic collapse it never fully recovered. Hence why I call Emperor Thrax "Thrax the Douche" (Dux), a play of words of sorts. He is the one who killed him out of prejudice. The persecutions carried on Till Constantine, but by that point Christianity got vindictive for rather understandable reasons. Wish it hadn't, but human nature is human nature, and the church went overnight from a persecuted underground religion to defacto governing of aspects of roman society, including those who used to just recently persecute them.

 

The second revolt occurred in the western empire, which I had to change my ultimate cause for the western imperial collapse on. Many of my older posts on this dite , whenever we would debate what caused the collapse of the western empire, I would defiantly point out every argument OTHER than the Romans not caring to maintain their military in a manner capable of holding its territory. No cause other than this can be blamed, not lead pipes or low birth count, etc. Had Rome kept a stro g military, it would of stayed put.

 

Well, I've partially changed my opinion. Its still strongly military oriented, but I have to acknowledge, the Romans DID have a western army at the time, however disappointing. It was based in Italy, but had to head out west because some Pagan landowners were throwing hissyfits, at just the wrong moment. The Roman Army was caught off balanced and barbarian tribes came rolling in. Had they been better centrally positioned, they could of better held the west and the imperial authority, but they weren't. The Irony is these Pagan landowners unlikely got to keep their lands long term, as they were better off with Rome. Not that I can say with certainty any given estate was dispossessed and taken over, just seems logically that would be the case, especially considering many of the barbarians were somewhat Christianized by this point, and unlikely inclined to a Pagan large landowner successfully presenting a case at to why he should continue to be a local big shot while the new rulers all start from scratch.

 

The reasons why I emphasized the two revolts was, especially in the late 20th century, but also including today, we get a lot of heavily biased and deeply ignorant Neo-Paganist who rewrite history along Nietzschean lines of arguments that Christianity destroyed the Roman Empire, that it brought ignorance and disease, and Paganism was Rome's true strength. This is a retarded argument. The Eastern Empire lasted till the mid 15th century under Christianity. It was going strong till Justinian's Plague hit.... was even reconquering the Western Empire, including retaking the City of Rome. Plague stopped that. Not to mention severe exhaustion from a mutually cataclysmic war with the Persians, which the Muslims exploited. Even then, Christians survived, Pagan Persia went bye-bye, and Catholic Church in west expanded.

 

So I use the term more or less as a counter emphasis.

 

Now a deeper truth is, the pagan groups most these modern pagans long for had already kicked the bucket effectively by time of the First Pagan Revolt. In John of Salisbury largest work, there is a fragment in the opening of a work slamming who I'm perceiving to be Emperor Augustus (Seneca in his "Pumpkinification of the Divine Claudius" based his book on this theme)

 

If I recall, book 3, chapter 14 "Flatters Should Be Punished":

 

 

J. Sar. Pol. III. 14. Adulatores puniendos esse, tamquam hostes Deorum et hominum, et veritatem gratanter amplectendam, et patientiam custodiendam, tam rationibus quam exemplis maiorum.

 

1. Sed, ut vulgari proverbio dicitur, Deus ille prae ceteris colendus creditur, qui subvenit in praesenti. Ideoque non curant quomodo, dum tamen hoc quod expetunt faciant. Egregie quidem Caecilius Balbus, Imperator, inquit, Auguste, tum in multis, tum in eo maxime elucet prudentia tua, quod isti nondum te omnino insanum reddiderunt, qui ut tibi applaudant, non modo Diis, sed tibi ipsi et populo iniuriam faciunt. Deorum siquidem minuunt reverentiam, quo parificant tibi. Te arguunt insipientiae, dum conditionis tuae repugnante natura, te parem numinibus esse persuadere praesumunt. Nota superstitionis inurunt populum, cui mortales Deos pro immortalibus persuadent esse colendos.

2. Sane in eo aliquid divinum tibi inesse monstrabis, si omnes istos, qui divinitati tuae fraudulenter applaudunt, rapi feceris ad tormenta. Quis enim Deorum ei parcat, a quo se deceptum iri intelligit? Quis non irruat in eum, qui aureos Jovis oculos eruit, aut argento gemmisque sublatis Vestam nititur excaecare? Quis de Martis capite adamantinum lumen impune temerariis effodit unguibus?

3. Nempe Deos invisibiles et immortales circumvenire, et eis fallaciae parare insidias, gravioris culpae est, eo quod ab his visibilium Deorum fabrica sustentatur et regitur, et honorem aut contemptum qui istis exhibetur, illi remunerant. Si sapis ergo, Auguste, in Deorum hostes insurges, et te, si non Deum, quod nequaquam es, vel Deorum te docebis esse cultorem, si deceptores istos exterminaveris, excaecatores tuos, Deorum contemptores, et utrorumque iniuniam punias. Haec Caecilius.

 

English can be found in book 3, 14 of John of Salisbury's Poliocratus, just the link isn't working on my phone this moment.

 

Basically, the old Roman conservatism in approaching its old order of Gods was collapsing under Julius Caesar's cult. Caldrail has given many reasons why, but this IS the reason, this guy and the faction he represented cause Augustus to seriously back off. As we were translating this (prior to knowing it was already translated in John of Salisbury) I did a massive amount of background research in just how Augustus dealt with these flatters and synchophants. He went out of his way to distance himself, more or less playing to Balbus' tune, in giving just such a conservative air himself. When people went out of their way to applaude him in the Senate, he rejected it. It was assumed prior to my finding thus fragment it was because of Caesar's end. But now I'm more or less convinced he was just scared of this clique, and found it easier to play on their side than against them, as he needed their support the most, and they were his main threat to boot, likely the most prone to republicanism given their extreme religious conservative outlook and passionate hatred of the cult of the divine emperor, be he dead or living. This fragment is the key, the most essential key, to understanding Augustus and the principate.

 

Rome already started to lose the emphasis of its old religions to new religions coming in from Syria and Egypt, such as the cult of ISIS.

 

The Neo-Pythagorean Philosopher Numeniys tried to JumpStart the Pythagorean Philosophy, and was a massive influence on the rise of Neo-Platonism, but Numenius was influenced by Judaism and Christianity as well, and Christianity and Neo-Platonism were both influenced by Platonism, and Neo-Platonism had heavy elements imported from India, the Vedanta religion, inherent in it.... which the older spectrum of Roman Paganism most definately was NOT a part of.

 

In the end, you had Vedantic Neo-Platonist arguing with a religion actually native to the Roman Empire, Christianity, bashing heads, while many independent pagan groups migrated more and more towards simple Sun Worship, as recorded by Macrobius, who was himself a pagan. The understanding of pagan rites deteriorated in terms of understanding. Christians thrived under pogroms and bloody persecutions, but much less was launched against the pagans and they cracked. Their schools (some) were outlawed. Hypatia was killed (which was wrong, but I assure you, the Romans of Scorpio's time would of done worst to her) and the branch library was PARTIALLY burned, after the mist important books were set aside for the university of Constantinople, where the neoplatonist school was eventually moved.

 

Honestly, as bad as it was, the Christians and the ISIS cults had it worst. The pagan religions had a remarkable tendency to die off if not state supported, and crumbled easily under mild persecutions. Now I use mild relative, and only in regards to other persecutions the romans in their long spectrum engaged in. Dying under a mild persecution was really a horrible experience, no doubt and not to be overlooked by historians, but at the same time we must ask why they lacked the institutional and psychological resiliency as a group to carry on when other religions obviously could under more stifling circumstances.

 

So that is the two pagan revolts. The Christian abhorance to the deification of emperors have ideological roots to the older, pre-augustan religion that rejected just as much the concept of a sick little tyrant being paraded around and fawned over.... however, Christianity until the first pagan revolt wasn't political either, or even republican or monarchial.

 

I recommend reading that quote in English (I can't provide my translation without my partners permission, and vice versa), and The Pumpification of the Divine Claudius (by Seneca) immediately afterwards. Then read about what happened to Alexander Severus, and how bad the empire got under his replacement, and its resurgence under Constantine.

 

Furthermore, the movements of the western roman army in putting down rebellions right before the barbarians started pouring in.

 

I never would of emphasized the two revolts if it wasn't for the very bad, and deeply hipocritical assault by modern pagans upon Christianity. It was in Rome's latter days its last bastion of strength. Rome morphed religiously, a lot. You had to be a very big state funded temple to last centuries without much change, but the paganism on the street would of been constantly changing. Just look at Hippolytus, he lists a whole bunch of variation, the vast majority of which never got recognition or official imperial christian shutdown. A little of it exists to this day in fact.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Thank you very much for this detailed answer. I have understood your point, though I cannot fully agree to this interpretation.

There is no evidence to support that the assassination of Alexander Severus happened for religious reasons. He had sympathies for the christian religion, but he was no formal member of this cult. The legions disliked him for his appeasement policy when dealing with the Germanic barbarians.

This can rather serve as another example how sympathy and tolerance towards christianity led ultimately to a loss of military discipline and the necessary strength to administrate an empire. It was Alexander Severus weakness as an emperor that enabled people like Maximinus Thrax and initiated the Crisis Of The Third Century, as it is more commonly called.

You will probably not agree with this interpretation, but different religious backgrounds necesarily lead to different viewpoints about this topic.

Nevertheless I have to admit that you have an impressive knowledge about this time and made a convincing point. Thank you again for your elaborated answer.

[Onasander]

It definitely was for religious reasons. The persecutions more or less (the final push for them culturally, not the early ones like Nero) began ironically during his reign, by one of his administrators (anyone know what to call his close ministers/cabinet members? Its a default administration, how ever ad hoc).

 

His mother was openly Christian, and he was seen as a mild manner, timid, war avoiding emperor. These are classical signatures of Turn The Other Cheek Christianity.

 

The Pogroms from this point on took a radical shift, the pagan emperors systematically targeted Christianity on a priori ideological grounds, on the assumption that killing Christians = more stable government (or at least a more successful one).

 

I obviously can't rule out that some of these assumptions came prior to Alexander Severus' flirtation with Christianity, but they seemed to solidly of formed. Pursuing Scapegoats make of crappy reforms, and the empire sorely needed some good ones.

 

The question of this period arises is, why did this fixation land in the minds of the imperium in the first place. We had a disturbing amount of emperors during this period, but some came to power already with this assumption that this is exactly what was needed. In hindsight, we can see it backfired, but must of made cultural sense in certain military and civil circles throughout this period. The end of this period you had effective outsiders like Julian the Apostate holding to these circles trying to figure out just how the policy went so very wrong, ironically importing elements of Christianity while finally becoming friendly and tolerant (I really do wish it would of lasted, the tolerance too, as its what the Christians themselves sought prior, but they held grudges, eye for an eyeeye sort of mentality).

 

Its this culture that catches my eye. Upon Alexander Severus' death, we can safely say that the Senate was largely tolerant of its own members being members of foreign religions. We see this tolerance in members of other eastern religions. The Senate however really didn't understand Christianity either, as they deified Alexander Severus after his death. To them outside of a few well informed members, was just one religion among many, who had this odd willingness to defy imperial decreed sacrifices under past emperors. A few laws on the book, admended by president in how to deal with this civil disobedience. This is about as upsetting as say, the modern Jehovah Witness refusal to be drafted in Wars. The Jehovah Witnesses are not about to collapse any government.

 

So what really concerns me is tracking this period. I haven't hardly exhausted the sources, if anything I'm starting to see how little studied and examines the sociology of this period is.

 

Its a bit like the transition from Buddhist hegemony into Vedanta, or the Buddhist struggling against the Taoist and Confucians. Lots and lots of texts, but the principal actors are known, but the reasons why aren't well understood.

 

Im thinking we will have to govfurther back into the Severan Dynasty and look at the mores that flourished then. Why the military became so bitterly anti-christian in part, and so incredibly unstable to the point that every other commander thought it was a swell idea to set themselves up as emperor. It was obviously a increasingly autonomous and self minded force by this point.

 

When we deal with Emperors who tolerated or just ignored Christianity, whereas before it was policy to persecute, we have to ask why?

 

Whenever you institute hatred, bevit against a race or an idea, there will be constituents who become attached to that ideal of such attacks. It isn't always rational. These emperors had to deal with letting these people down. It be a bit like a successor to Hitler in the Nazis Empire (a successful one still fighting a long-term world war) saying "Were wasting time hunting for Jews, Gays, Catholics, and Surrealist painters, let's focus our resources on fighting"..... you know many in the military are going to pout, and every military setback, however poorly understood in actuality, will be attributed to NOT continuing the genocide. Its just how some people are. You see them in every political party on the planet. The Ought-Is mindset isn't really good at statistical analysis and grasping underlying logistics that form strategic thought.... its conservative and pleasure driven, and is simple minded.... pain vs utopia, and utopia is always pleasurable, and they always identify themselves individually and ideologically with that. Your basic monoamine cascade.

 

Its important to figure this period out, as it looks rather cyclic. A lot of countries like Iran and Syria are in the deep end of this cycle right now, while countries like England and Sweden are slipping back into it with mild persecutions. Chinese are further along in the process and feel it backfiring... some Chinese history sites are aware of this and clamp down on overly antichristian, overly nationalistic tendencies in some Chinese posters, them know the long term effect and inherent "logical fallacies" it produces. In Countries like Nigeria, with Boko Harem and the recent election, you see how much farther along and self aware they are on all sides of this fundamental issue.

[C. Fabius Lupus]

There were at least six major persecutions of Christians before Maximinus Thrax:

- under Nero

- under Domitian

- under Trajan

- under Hadrian

- under Marcus Aurelius

- under Septimus Severus

The persecution under Maximinus was neither something new, nor did it stand out in any way.

It was followed by further persecutions:

- under Decius

- under Valerian

- under Diocletian