Macrinus - The rise to power

[Viggen]

Macrinus - The rise to power AD 217 - 218 (b. 164 - 218)

 

Marcus Opellius Macrinus was a man who, in more settled times might have made a solid, unspectacular emperor. He was honest, thorough, hard-working and a good administrator. However, in more settled times, Macrinus would never have become emperor at all, for by conventional standards he was completely unqualified for the job....

 

....to the full article of Macrinus - The rise to power

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sonic]

Isn't that the case for many emperors?  I've just finished a book on the Patricians (Due out September 2015 ) and have concluded that most of the 'puppet' emperors of the fifth century were actually decent men who have been hidden from view by the lack of surviving sources.

[Maty]

Maybe not the case for Macrinus' successor?

 

Looking forward to the Patricians book. I've often wondered whether the changing of emperors in the third century - or the fifth - mattered that much. The emperors and their nearest and dearest doubtless had strong sentiments on the topic, but it seems to me that by and large, foreign and economic policy remained pretty much unchanged, no matter who was in charge.

 

Most emperors were competent, because in a crisis - and most of later Roman history in the west is a crisis - the incompetents and the unlucky were taken out very early.

[Viggen]

...second part of the emperor Macrinus article

enjoy!

 

http://www.unrv.com/decline-of-empire/emperor-macrinus.php

[caldrail]

Maybe not the case for Macrinus' successor?

 

Looking forward to the Patricians book. I've often wondered whether the changing of emperors in the third century - or the fifth - mattered that much. The emperors and their nearest and dearest doubtless had strong sentiments on the topic, but it seems to me that by and large, foreign and economic policy remained pretty much unchanged, no matter who was in charge.

 

Most emperors were competent, because in a crisis - and most of later Roman history in the west is a crisis - the incompetents and the unlucky were taken out very early.

 

I have argued the case recently - none to successfully I must admit - that we tend to see 'emperors' in the wrong light. There was no such political office in Rome - it was matter of social status, support, and usually no small degree of machination. Whilst many see the empire as replacing the republic, the Romans do not appear to do so, even though the balance changed from Senate/Voting assemblies to something more like Senate/Military/Caesar & household. Right at the very end it was still SPQR, and the Senate outlived the rule of the Caesars by at least a hundred years or more.

 

I truly believe that the Senate was still in business throughout, albeit with less interest as time goes by, which is why the empire becomes ungovernable by one man later on - the official government had basically taken more and more of a back seat whilst administration became bloated by sinecures and profit making opportunities.

 

For instance, I've seen a version of Suetonius where Caligula is given full and absolute power by the Senate when he becomes the ruling Caesar. Okay... But then, why did he later ask permission of the Senate to hold games? Surely he wouldn't need to? As it happens, this event might be true but look at the context. Caligula, son of war hero Germanicus, is arriving at the SEnate house to be accepted as ruler and the public go wild. There's a huge crush to witness the event and the mob burst into the normally restricted senate house themselves, so I kind of begin to see the pronouncement as something of a publicity stunt rather than a legal transmission of authority. After all, since Caligula had tried to restore the rights of voting assemblies at the expense of the Senate to whom Tiberius had given those powers, why would Caligula do that if he were all-powerful himself? It just doesn't make sense unless the Senate has authority.

 

So your premis, in this context, would make sense, because a civil serice - however inefficien and self-interested - is in operation whilst the Caesar is merely enjoying the status accorded to top dog of Rome. Sure, they could click their fingers and make things happen, but there is always a dangerous balance of power in Rome to which they often fall foul of.

[caldrail]

Well it seems my speculation is a bit off target. Just shows that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing I guess. Although the Senate is described by John Moorhouse in The Roman Empire Divided as meeting annually and electing Consuls even though Odoacer has declared himself King, retired the young Romulus Augustulus, and received assent from Zeno in the east. However, in The Later Roman Empire Averil Cameron tells us that the Senate lost its political purpose in the third century due to a lack of cohesion (That's my fav word of the month by the way ). Therefore it seems that we cannot ascribe continuity to the Senate for the period that you refer to, so if it didn't really matter who was Caesar in the hectic third century succession, then it was inaction, not action, that provides the continuity. In other words, policies made little difference because no-one was getting anything done.

Edited September 16, 2015 by caldrail