Did Livia Have Gaius Caesar Poisoned?

[frankq]

Did Livia have Gaius Caesar poisoned?

 

I am not big on jumping on conspiracy bandwagons, and I'm actually pretty much in the revisionist camp and strongly behind re-editing false notions we have about political figures, the Romans prime among them. I take a very firm ''Oh, this yet another a la Robert Graves slant'' on many of the things I read about the imperial family. This, of course, includes Livia. Yet the rumors about her Xing opponents were up and running even way back then. In any case, whether true or not, you can't help but marvel at how all the other candidates to the throne conveniently died.

 

While researching about Gaius Caesar, Augustus' grandson by Julia's union with M. Agrippa, I dug into the histories by Paterculus, who was actually on hand as a legionary while Gaius was on his mission in the East to negotiate with the Parthians. He saw the treaty-banquet on the Euphrates and then:

 

''Then Gaius entered Armenia and at first conducted his campaign with success; but later, in a parley near Artagera, to which he rashly entrusted his person, he was seriously wounded by a man named Adduus, so that, in consequence, his body became less active, and his mind of less service to the state. Nor was there lacking the companionship of persons who encouraged his defects by flattery - for flattery always goes hand in hand with high position - as a result of which he wished to spend his life in a remote and distant corner of the world rather than return to Rome. Then, in the act of returning to Italy, after long resistance and still against his will, he died in a city of Lycia which...''

 

Now read this from Dio Cassius:

 

''Gaius became ill from his wound, and since he was not robust to begin with and the condition of his health had impaired his mind, this illness blunted his faculties still more. At last he begged leave to retire to private life..''

 

OK, call in raw instinct, but something struck me here. Especially the line ''the condition of his health had impaired his mind, this illness blunted his faculties still more.'' Now, although I've never been stuck with a spear or arrow, I can well guess that any Roman like Gaius, trained early to serve, and to fight, is not going to let a wound deter him from his destiny. Nor the expectations of a man as overriding and domineering as Augustus. But poison, carefully administered and riding on the coattails of a combat wound could very well alter one's mind. The devious of antiquity were well versed in all kinds of poisons. If we are to set any stock in Graves' notions, Livia was a master at the art.

 

Again, I'm not a conspiracy fan by rule. But when I read a line like that about a retreating mindset suddenly altering a young imperator (or being permitted to finally surface), I can't help but think something's going on here.

 

Dio Cassius goes on to lay suspicion at Livia's feet, especially since Tiberius shortly thereafter returned from exile in Rhodes. Paterculus, of course, writing with Tiberius as patron, didn't dare.

[P.Clodius]

In any case, whether true or not, you can't help but marvel at how all the other candidates to the throne conveniently died.

Alot of people died back then from relatively trivial causes in todays terms.

[frankq]

In any case, whether true or not, you can't help but marvel at how all the other candidates to the throne conveniently died.

Alot of people died back then from relatively trivial causes in todays terms.

 

True but still, look at the odds; Marcellus, Drusus, Lucius, and finally Gaius. It's like a Kennedy bad streak.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Now, although I've never been stuck with a spear or arrow, I can well guess that any Roman like Gaius, trained early to serve, and to fight, is not going to let a wound deter him from his destiny. Nor the expectations of a man as overriding and domineering as Augustus.

 

Maybe that's just it--he didn't want to go to war in the first place but for Augustus' expectations, and he was looking for the first way out. Who says what his 'destiny' was? Maybe his 'destiny' was to go fishing.

[frankq]

Now, although I've never been stuck with a spear or arrow, I can well guess that any Roman like Gaius, trained early to serve, and to fight, is not going to let a wound deter him from his destiny. Nor the expectations of a man as overriding and domineering as Augustus.

 

Maybe that's just it--he didn't want to go to war in the first place but for Augustus' expectations, and he was looking for the first way out. Who says what his 'destiny' was? Maybe his 'destiny' was to go fishing.

 

Here I disagree. How cavalier to assume that anyone groomed the way he was for power was going to just retire away. Indeed, Tiberius' exile in Rhodes was initiated in part to stir and rile Augustus up. What Tiberius hadn't counted on was that Augustus would play the game and keep him there to stew. Still, Tiberius wanting to ''retire'' caused waves.

 

Fishing? Come on...

[Pertinax]

My contribution here is twofold

 

:part A:

1. a badly cleaned wound can lead to sepsis and death (simplest course)

2. a cleaned traumatic wound can leave a person open to further debility and mental trauma.

3. anesthesia is debilitating and lingers in the body (in modern usage), as the likely ancient medication was henbane, poppy or datura , if an inexperienced doctor had made a poor admixture then poisoning by mistake is plausible.(check my roman poisons list in the gallery and blog).Germ theory was unknown.

 

part B

1.poisoning in modern times is a predominantly female occupation so we may conjecture that this was plausible in ancient times.

2. the range of known classical poisons overlapped with well known general medical herbs.A conniving doctor could poison by careful accident .

but

3. persons of rank would have been well aware of the possibility of poisoning as an assasination technique.

 

hard to call 2000 years on without a body.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Fishing? Come on...

"Destiny" is a load of mystical BS; so, yes, you might as well argue that fishing was Gaius' "destiny" and Augustus stupidly stood in the way of Gaius fulfilling his birth-right--catching a really big bass.

[Primus Pilus]

Fishing? Come on...

"Destiny" is a load of mystical BS; so, yes, you might as well argue that fishing was Gaius' "destiny" and Augustus stupidly stood in the way of Gaius fulfilling his birth-right--catching a really big bass.

 

Aren't we really talking about the logical assumption of a societal career path for a young and prominent member of the imperial family vs. pre-destined course of events? Before we delve on it too long, I think we might have a simple semantical argument going on here methinks. (sometimes the most entertaining kind)

[Neos Dionysos]

Fishing? Come on...

"Destiny" is a load of mystical BS; so, yes, you might as well argue that fishing was Gaius' "destiny" and Augustus stupidly stood in the way of Gaius fulfilling his birth-right--catching a really big bass.

 

Destiny, (if you believe all that), is one's pre-determined fate. So Gaius NOT becoming someone great, or Drusus dying at a young age or Germanicus the same fate was thier DESTINY as ordained for them, so you cannot argue that it was somone's destiny to become great, if they did not then what they ended up becoming was thier destiny, you can argue they had a good chance to fulfill an expected place in the world... being who they were and of what blood... but to say he would have become something great due to destiny does not fly by using the definition alone.

[frankq]

Fishing? Come on...

"Destiny" is a load of mystical BS; so, yes, you might as well argue that fishing was Gaius' "destiny" and Augustus stupidly stood in the way of Gaius fulfilling his birth-right--catching a really big bass.

 

You hair splitting semantics here, Cato, and once again seeing things in post-modernist terms.

 

Let me reword it and state that Gaius was SLATED for great things. When one refers to the term ''destined'' they should usually reword it and say ''seemed destined'', which is to say the general course of events seemed to be guiding one in a set direction. And to return to the original argument, in a society that was as duty bound as the Roman, and where people were often expected to marry and procreate as early as 15 years of age, Gaius, by this time a good 24 years old, was not your modern college school boy wondering what he was going to be doing with himself. Already he had served as consul, and was high enough in esteem for Augustus to send him East to make a settlement with Parthia over Armenia. Suddenly there is this breakdown of character, possibly induced by wounds, or poison, or possible an innate sense of dislike for the whole power process. But duty bound he was.

 

And fishing? the luxury of a private life with his credentials in the lineage? Ha! he could wait for the bass to bite and the assassins to arrive and chuck his head into the pond for the fish to feed upon.

 

As for ''destiny'' being mystical rubbish, destiny is known by many other terms. Providence. Karma. We could entertain hours of debate on the topic, but certainly not in this particular forum. Elsewhere, Hora Postilla or Romana Humanitas....

 

Far be it for me to turn down an exchange of swords on the subject of free will vs. determinism, which what it all boils sown to.

[Primus Pilus]

I had a fairly long debate with someone, some time ago regarding Tiberius and Germanicus. What it all comes down to for me is the fact that despite all the rumor and innuendo, there simply is no direct evidence. Might Gaius have been poisoned? Sure, but where is the proof that Livia did it. Its all very hypothetical and a matter that is purely conjecture. Had the Romans had the criminology abilities that we do today, things may have been different, but for now we are simply left with alot of 'I heard it from soandso' suggestions.

 

Personally I would be surprised if Livia wasn't involved in a nasty deed or three along the way, but I often wonder why the reviled Claudius didn't recieve a bowl full of poisoned something or other simply because of the embarrassment he caused. I know Claudius wasn't a comparable threat in terms of heredity and advancement, but there are plenty of cases of murder, confiscation and exile based on what we might deem trivial concerns.

[eggers]

For those who say he may have been poisoned there is the possibility that he may not have been purposely poisoned. Some medicines they used back then have actually been discovered to be poisonious when taken in large enough quantities. There's a theory that Alexander the great was killed by this because he wanted to get better earlier to continue his conquests, and pushed his physician to up his dosage of "medicine".

 

Also some of the glues and fastenings for things like arrows can also be toxic. English longbow during the 100 years war (quite a few centuries past the roman era i know, but they are good example) used a copper based glue to fix the arrow heads onto the arrows. Copper is toxic.

 

He may have caught some form of illness while he was wounded. After all, if you get shot by an arrow your not likely to run the London maration. Chances are you will be in your tent, immobile for several days, even weeks if bad enough. That would be a prime time to catch something like malaria, typhoid (yes you can catch malaria in armenia) or tetanus (from rusty weapon). The list goes on, especial when you wounded because you immune system is weakened. Without his moldy corpse it'll be hard to say what happened to him..... except the fact that he's dead.

[frankq]

I had a fairly long debate with someone, some time ago regarding Tiberius and Germanicus. What it all comes down to for me is the fact that despite all the rumor and innuendo, there simply is no direct evidence. Might Gaius have been poisoned? Sure, but where is the proof that Livia did it. Its all very hypothetical and a matter that is purely conjecture. Had the Romans had the criminology abilities that we do today, things may have been different, but for now we are simply left with alot of 'I heard it from soandso' suggestions.

 

Personally I would be surprised if Livia wasn't involved in a nasty deed or three along the way, but I often wonder why the reviled Claudius didn't recieve a bowl full of poisoned something or other simply because of the embarrassment he caused. I know Claudius wasn't a comparable threat in terms of heredity and advancement, but there are plenty of cases of murder, confiscation and exile based on what we might deem trivial concerns.

 

Indeed, and on that note and this topic, one might cite Agrippa Posthumous, Gaius' youngest brother.

[phil25]

The Julian family in the early principiate was not something out of Dynasty, Dallas or the Godfather - pace Graves.

 

Life was often short and brutal in imperial Rome - disease, inbreeding, lack of health and safety rules may all have contributed.

 

All the sources seem agreed that Livia was a woman of impeccable descent, strongly Roman virtues, and a model wife. She may well have worked for her family (ie Tiberius) to inherit power over Julia/Agrippas, but I don't think for a moment she could have had people assasinated over the distances involved.

 

We must avoid getting sucked into the Roman view that as a man was at the end of his life, so he was (even if it was concealed) earlier. Tiberius may always have been a reluctant soldier and a happy philosopher. He may have been quite content to be on Rhodes in "exile"; more so than on duty on the Rhine. he may have loathed marriage to Julia - and leaving aside the rather unbelievable allegations of sexual misconduct - may have preferred to distance himself from anti-Augustan political machinations.

 

Gaius and Lucius would not be the first hopeful young men to die prematurely. In part the number of deaths of heirs is simply a factor of Augustus' very long lifespan in an era when men were said to reach their prime at 42!! he lived too long.

 

No, Livia, IMHO may have been a consummate politician, she may have conspired and may not have been as virtuous as her public persona would have us believe - but a murderess? I think NOT.

 

Phil

[frankq]

By the way, I checked my initial above posts and there's no where that I can see that I used the word ''destiny''.