Let's Look Again At Roman History

[phil25]

But that was the German bodyguard wasn't it - not the Praetorians?

 

I agree with your estimate of Germanicus - to me he was a pretty-boy hysteric. He over-reacted to most things. In that he was aided and abetted by his wife (the almost insanely jealous elder Agrippina).

 

But it remains very odd to me that Augustus was so keen on Germanicus taking a place in the line of succession (maybe the device was to by-pass him but await his sons being ready for power)... certainly, I see in all practical terms the emphasis being on preserving the supreme position in the state for scions of Augustus' blood.

 

Sejanus too seems to have seen his main obstacle as Augustus'/Germanicus' heirs - and hence he attacked them. He could make a claim to be regent (in practice princeps) for Gemellus - especially if he married Livilla. But he could be nothuing if Agrippina and her sons remained in the frame.

 

Tiberius understood that - hence he protected Gaius (the last male heir).

 

All of this, of course, suggests that up to 37, the republic was still operating in a modified form, with the julians and Claudians vying for mastery, and clans like the Ahenobarbi, and others like Sejanus seeing opportunities as real as pre-44BC. Indeed, the civil war of 69 AD suggests to me that the principle was still alive as late as that date. Does that mean that the principiate (ie the period from Augustus to the death of Nero) is actually the last period of the republic not the first of empire - or, at best, a transitional stage?

 

But my aim here is not to refute anyone's pet theories - simply to point up different perspectives, and challenge orthodoxy. I don't claim to be right - but I do seek to consider alternatives to the conventional wisdom.

 

I'm a little disappointed that responses all appear to dwell on detail rather than the big picture which is my focus - the patterns and sweep of history. Does no one else have a taste for that perspective?

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

I'm a little disappointed that responses all appear to dwell on detail rather than the big picture which is my focus - the patterns and sweep of history. Does no one else have a taste for that perspective?

 

I don't think anyone is opposed to the broader view of the theory, but it's the details that help us define the potential of proving that theory. The more the details are challenged the more theoretical merit the overall concept should have. Conversely, if all details are taken at face value without challenge, then aren't we doing exactly what you are in part trying to counter... the universal acceptance of the ancients? At least in my opinion... and if I am understanding correctly.

[phil25]

I would take the view that the "aerial view" looking at a larger canvas (to mix metaphors!!) shows us the relationship between the facts in a different way.

 

Stay among the weeds, you may never get that view.

 

I'm not sure any of the factual queries raised so far impact very deeply on my overall hypothesis, because no one has looked at that.

 

So I'm not sure i do agree with you, PP.

 

Phil

[frankq]

I would take the view that the "aerial view" looking at a larger canvas (to mix metaphors!!) shows us the relationship between the facts in a different way.

 

Stay among the weeds, you may never get that view.

 

I'm not sure any of the factual queries raised so far impact very deeply on my overall hypothesis, because no one has looked at that.

 

So I'm not sure i do agree with you, PP.

 

Phil

 

Phil,

 

I have to agree with Primus. And actually, I see where and why people are reacting critically. It's because your presentation is very sweeping and majestic, but it is also very detailed, too. While you may be presenting an aerial view, you are also giving us such a detailed picture that, naturally, people are going to critique if they disagree. Moreover, while I flow with 90% of your presentation, when I do hit something I do not agree with, it suddenly jolts me out of the pleasant flow.

 

You are covering so much territory that you're naturally going to be subject to pointed feedback. It might have been safer to present this by pin pointing just your theory and not events, but then we wouldnt have had the fun of traveling with you through this time period.

 

It's a tough call. This is an ambitious thread.

 

FQ

[phil25]

Franq - I'm happy for people to react as they will.

 

For me the balance is about right, I think. To present the "arc2 without the colour would leave it without any foundations. What i hope is that the arc might draw people at least to question the individual elements in a different way.

 

I'll just push on over the coming long weekend and complete the vista, then stand back.

 

But thanks for your supportive and helpful post.

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

Possibly correct, but I have heard that roman *or* has been unearthed in context with Tiberius. He may may not have been a dirty old man, but perhaps he did enjoy the roman equivalent of 'Playboy'?

 

I

[phil25]

PART THREE

 

Claudius no doubt needed military credentials to support his rule, but there was also an army on the Rhine that was restless and needed knocking into shape. Equally, the problems in Britannia, which Gaius had intended to tackle before the mutiny, remained outstanding business. Claudius determined to tackle both.

 

Once again, the army threatened to mutiny on the eve of embarkation. This time the problem was overcome, and a Roman army again campaigned in Britainnia. But it was not an invasion - as archaeological evidence suggests, the landing took place not at Richborough in Kent, but around Chichester and Fishbourne, in Hampshire, where Cogidubnus was to rule in amazing state (viz his villa). Rome was invited in by a client king. The future emperor (I chose my terminology carefully), Vespasian, faced some opposition in the South West, but an occupation - or military zone - was soon established along the line of the future Fosse Way (one end of which was my home town!!).

 

Claudius, travelling personally to Britannia, accepted personal hiomage from client kings who had long paid tribute to Rome, in the fomer stronghold of the catuvellauni at Colchester. Caratacus, heir of Cunobellius and leader of the anti-Roman/exapansionist Catuvallauni, maintained a resistance for some years.

 

But in Rome, claudius' regime appeared to hark back (in policy terms) to the imperial approach of Augustus and Tiberius (whom Claudius knew well and had grown up under their rule). However, Claudius relied more heavily than hitherto (perhaps an inheritance from Gaius) on freedmen for day-to-day administration. We do not hear of such a prominent role for freedmen as narcissus etc undertook before (although it was probably there in embryo). This was a lasting innovation.

 

At some point, Claudius faced a coup from within his party - when Messalina (his Augusta) went through a form of marriage with a senator whiole her husband still lived. The rationale behind this remains obscure and is probably lost, but must be based on more than immorality and reckless foolishness (as the sources would have us believe). As with the two Julias under Augustus, a major plot may have been covered up as a scandal - sexual indiscretion when political danger was the reality.

 

Possibly, aping Agrippina Minor later, Messalina hoped to put her son Britannicus on the throne and rule through him as regent.

 

This (as i have suggested ) was an idea that might have been taken up by Claudius' second wife, Agrippina (his neice and the sister of Gaius). Maybe she saw herself as the inheritrix of Gaius' political agenda?

 

En passant, it is interesting to note the continuity in Roman political life - many of the players in Claudius' latter days could remember or had been active in the reigns of Tiberius and Gaius, and could recall the days of Augustus. There is no reason for instance why the political philosophy of Antonius or Cleopatra could not have been transmitted to, or been alive in this generation.

 

Agrippina II wished her son Ahenobarbus (but known by the Claudian name of Nero) to succeed instead of Britannicus. I suggest that she was keen to model herself on Livia (wife of Augustus) and to have a role in state affairs. Knowing that she would be unable to manipulate Britannicus, Agrippina determined that to make her son, Nero, princeps she had to kill her husband. The timing was governed by Britannicus' coming of age - she had to strike first.

 

In the event, it is possible that Claudius died naturally but suddenly, as the accession of nero had to be delayed until the loyalty and support of the Guard had been assured. This does not sound like pre-planning.

 

Nero, at least initially, was a "puppet princeps". His mother, and advisers such as Burrus (a successor to Sejanus as Praetorian Prefect) and Seneca, dominated the young man and ruled in his stead. Even given the murder of Britannicus - the only serious rival - the first five years of Nero's reign were later regarded as a "golden age" and a model for later rulers.

 

But Nero was not content to be a puppet. As he gained confidence he threw off his controllers - his mother, and Seneca (Burrus died) and entered into a period of sole rule.

 

I would argue that whil;e Agrippina and Seneca maintained the ethos but not the policies of Claudius (ie a concealed monarchy), Nero sought to emulate his uncle Gaius. His was an Hellenistic monarchy, open, absolute, extrovert and which sought cultural change in Rome along eastern (Greek) lines. (Domitian would copy this - see his stadium, now the Piazza Navona.)

 

The construction of the Golden House (Domus Aurea) after the catastrophic fire was clearly a statement along grandiose lines. This was a statement about the nature of government and the purpose of a city. It could not have been anything else.

 

I would also question whether Nero was the persecutor of Christians that tradition marks him as being. Could there have been, by 64ish, the number of converts in Rome to permit the scale of persecution that we are told happened? I wonder whether the undoubted later persecutions are being reflected here in retrospect - sure Peter and Paul may have died, but I doubt that the reputation is reliable. Scapegoats for the fire sure - mass deaths - unlikely!!

 

But Nero was too self-indulgent and self-absorbed to make a good ruler - though the impact on the Roman world as a whole appears to have been minimal. perhaps this is an argument that the princeps had little personal impact outside his own immediate vicinity.

 

He did try to make reforms, but he clearly alienated the Senate (many of whom conspired against him) and the army. He is the only early princeps not to have campaigned. Faced with rebellion in 68, he did not fight, but crumbled and gave up quickly. Had he fought he might have retained his position, but depressed by the revolt he committed suicide. (Perhaps the 18th Dymasty Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten might be a parallel for Nero - a visionary who never raelly communicated his vision?)

 

That Nero was not wholly unpopular is shown that various pretenders that arose after his death, saying that he had not died - and the response to them. On the other hand, he appears to have so cowed the Senate that there was no attempt to re-establish the republic (as is claimed happened after Gaius' murder) but four pretenders to the principiate emerged.

 

It was now that the Roman republic faced its worst crisis since the civil wars that preceeded Augustus' constitutional settlement. Tacitus recognised that the year 68/69 revealed where the true power of the period lay - ie with the army who could make and uphold emperors. But I think there is another truth here - without a single strong hand at the helm, the Senate and the republican forms of government could no longer maintain stability.

 

At any event, having raised up and sacrificed Galba, Otho, and Vitellius, the Roman people settled on Vespasian as sole princeps - or, as I believe we can now truely aver - emperor of Rome.

 

NEXT - The Flavians and Nerva.

 

Phil

[phil25]

I have been asked to pick the key points of what I am trying to say in this thread.... I'm not sure about that.

 

I am happy to give of my light... should I give of my oil? In my experience things that come to easily or are not worked for, are under-valued. And I don't think that my points have been very obscure or unclear.

 

But for those not willing to put any intellectual effort into reading the thread...

 

My main point is that we lose the snse of Roman history when we look at it as a series of episodes and personalities (laced with scandal); and that:

 

* there are continuities of policy and theme through a period of several decades;

 

* I believe one can detect hints of an "Antonian" (maybe Ptolemaic) imperial policy through the whole period down to Nero which was transmitted down his blood line - (Julius Caesar?) - Antonius (& Cleopatra) - Antonia Augusta - Germanicus - Gaius - Agrippina Minor - Nero;

 

* and that this policy (world view) was Hellentic/eastern and different to and in conflict with "Augustan" imperial policy;

 

* that the Hellenistic principes - Gaius and nero need to be reassessed and that, whatever their personal failings, much of what is sometimes dismissed as "madness" was actually coherent and consistent policy.

 

I have also sought to draw attention to a pattern that I have pondered on, of each princeps having both an heir and a helper (which emerges strongly in the early period) begore Claudius institutionalises the role of freedmen in an imperial bureaucracy.

 

Finally, I have tried to start a discussion as to whether the republic should, as usually stated, be thought of as ending with one or the other of Augustus' constitutional settlements after actium; or whether the republic should be perceived to have continued (at least in a modified form) until later - the full monarchy of Gaius? or even as later as the failure to pursue a republican alternative in 69?

 

My approach to history is always to challenge conventional wisdoms and traditional interpretations (though I love those for their old familiar sakes as much as anyone). I am not so arrogant as to believe that my propositions in this thread are an alternative to academic views, but I do think there is merit in free and hard discussion - and that is what I have tried to promote.

 

Interestingly - ideas seem to have their moment - I saw yesterday in a local Waterston's bookshop - that the author of "Enemy of Rome" has now published a study of the early Julio-Claudians. I don't know what his thesis is but he too seems to be saying, at least, that we should re-assess some of gaius' actions and his reputation!!

 

Over to you.

 

On a separate point, I was asked about what Ii meant by my references to "line" and "blood". (Interestingly, the book I refer to above seems to try to express something similar in tabular form.)

 

My (and I stress the word "my" - I have not read the new book) intent was to try to make a distinction between Augustus' attempts to keep the succession/ position of First Man in Rome, within his own broad family (call them the Julio Claudians if you will and include Livia's sons); and his pre-occupation with, if possible, ensuring that his own genetic line (blood) would ascend to the throne, even after a generational gap.

 

Hence we see Augustus seeming to prefer Marcellus (husband of his daughter Julia) to Agrippa - as their children would have been of Augustus' blood.

 

When Marcellus died young, Julia married Agrippa (there may have been a hidden coup behind this) as their children would inherit (again restoring Augustus' bloodline after a generation).

 

Their children - Gaius and lLucius were adopted and favoured by Augustus and were his blood - but died young. Their sibling, Posthumus Agrippa (considered unsuitable for some reason and exiled), remained a problem specifically because of his blood descent.

 

Agrippina Major (Julia's daughter), and her children by Germanicus, and granchildren such as Nero, then become central. All in my estimation, Augustus bloodline.

 

His "line" by adoption etc, I would say covers Tiberius, Germanicus, Claudius etc - who had either a "step" relationship to him (through Livia) or an indirect bloodlink through his sister Octavia.

 

Does that make things clearer?

 

Note, I make no absolute claims - this is all for discussion.

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

But for those not willing to put any intellectual effort into reading the thread...

 

Whatever you want to assume Phil is fine by me, but thanks anyway.

[phil25]

I'm sorry if my comment came across more harshly than I'd intended, Germanicus.

 

I suppose i was hoping that at least one poster here would have taken up a discussion on the wider picture - perhaps have picked up my drift without my having to spell it out.

 

Apologies, the remark wasn't aimed at any individual - but I won't change it now, as to do so would render your remark contextless.

 

Phil

[phil25]

The new book to which I referred above is actually:

 

"The Sons of Caesar" by Philip Matyszak. Thames and Hudson

[phil25]

Time I moved to complete this review of the empire down to Commodus. The only reason I haven't is that the thread has become a dialogue with myself!! That's never a good thing. Sorry if this has bored others.

 

A quick run through the Year of four emperors and the Flavians to nerva, then a last fling on the Adoptive Emperors to follow. I don't have much to say on either.

 

Of the four candidates that emerged in 69, only two strike me as remotely realistic. Galba and Vespasian, both soldiers.

 

Galba is an interesting comparison with the later Pertinax - both failed and died because they were too conservative, too old-fashioned and too strict and severe. Galba - thegeneral - might have made a good transitional emperor to a different kind of monarchy/constitution, but did not last long.

 

Vitellius and Otho I cannot take seriously as candidates. Otho, I think, was just an opportunist. Vitellius unfortunate at being tempted. But they do provoke some questions and comment for me:

 

* did Otho watch Gaius and Nero and draw the wrong lessons? He saw their extroversion, their panache, even charisma, but failed to perceive the ruthlessness which lay under the luxury.

 

* both Gaius and Nero were in direct descent (to some extent) from Augustus - albeit in the female line - but they WERE Julio-Claudians. Otho and Vitellius had no such connection and were rejected. This perhaps explains why, even if misunderstood, Gaius and Nero had been able to rule effectively until overthrown. The hereditary principiate thus might be seen to have considerable popular, if not senatorial support.

 

* the senate, unlike after Gaius, made no serious attempt to try to change the constitution - even a half-hearted one!! This perhaps shows that time, and maybe the executions after the Piso conspiracy, had sapped will and inclination in the curia.

 

* neither Otho nor Vitellius stood a chance against the legionary candidates. Neither really possessed the will to maintain the position.

 

Vespasian is a wonder - I am no expert on Constantine, but I see resemblances - men of a practical nature, up for the job and willing to look at quite radical solutions to restore the constitution in a workable form. I'd like to do more work on the extent of Titus' importance while his father lived. I think the two worked as a team, and were effective, but that Titus' role was crucial. As i say, this is just a hunch at presewnt and i need to do more research.

 

As Tacitus said, the year 69 showed that power lay with the legions - and no emperor could henceforth be safe or secure unless he ensured their loyalty by means of huge cash bonuses. After this point, many of the successful emperors would indeed spend much of their time with the legions or be military men - Titus, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Verus, pertinax, Severus, Caracalla...and then we are soon into the admittedly "military" emperors.

 

I think also though that Vespasian is the first man who can properly be called "Emperor". The term or saultation of "Imperator" had, of course, been used by previous rulers and Augustus had early in his career taken it into his name. But I think the sequence of men from Augustus to Nero should properly be titled the principiate - in that their power and the origin of it - was usually concealed under republican forms.

 

I think also that the republic itself survived largely intact (though with major constitutional changes) until the middle of the reign of Tiberius. I might even go further and say that while there was any chance that the Julio-Claudians might die out or surrender power (as I believe Tiberius hoped to do) then some form of republic was in being.

 

Gaius and Nero changed that because they made it clear that the gap between respecting republican forms and absolute autocracy was small and fragile. their experiments failed, but they prepared the way for - and perhaps showed the inevitability of - the rulers who grasped the sceptre on the shoulders of their legions.

Gaius and Nero (or their advisers) grasped the fact that senatorial rule, the annually/monthly changing magistrates; the revolving governors etc, would not provide the essential consistency that the empire required. Central and consistent guidance was what was needed. Gaius was the first to experiment with that openly. Vespasian revealed the truth that that rule (as it has for Augustus) rested on effective weilding of the sword.

 

Vespasian marked a reduction in the naked display of his autocracy by demolishing much of nero's grand palace and restoring the centre of the imperial capital to the people - the great amphitheatre which bore his name was an ostentatious demonstration of his recognition that "bread and circuses" was the second leg of the imperial stool - th third was ability.

 

It is regrettable that Titus did not live longer - his actions and reputation suggest a Trajan (optimus princeps) in embryo, and one wonders how much Trajan may have based his approach on that of his predecessor?

 

With Domitian, I see a new and important development. He is part of an approach trail-blazed less successfully by Gaius and Nero. They ultimately failed in their imposition of an absolute, Hellenistic monarchy. Domitian did not. But to some extent, while shrewdly recognising the political realities, Gaius and Nero had "played" their roles - the externals (and often trivial externals) were as important to them as the power-brokering and decision-making. Domitian, as i see it, did not make that mistake. His undeniable and awe-inspiring externalities were always firmly harnessed to the realities of absolute power.

 

He wished to be called "Lord and God" (something none of his predecessors had claimed); his palace on the Palatine was surely a deliberate and unmistakeable signal that power had shifted from the Forum and the Curia (which the new palace dominated). The likely vestibule of the public areas, behind the Temple of Castor, almost confronts the entrance to the Curia Julia.

 

Domitian would surely have loved the later Byzantine tricks of the throne that elevated the emperor in his golden robes above his court. But, for his time, the Aula Regia of the palace with its apse for the throne; the basilica for hearing cases, etc, and the monumentality of the whole thing, would have to do. I am sure that Rome in its day must have been agog. Even the Golden House (essentially a residence and pleasure palace) had not implied what Domitian's new edifice did. This was more a "White House" - a centre of government and power that included a residence.

 

Domitian was not, strictly, born to the purple. But he did have time under his father and brother to think what he might do and prepare himself. Thus, I think he probably succeeded to the throne with a manifesto planned. His failure was largely due to his own deep failings of character and judgement rather than of politics. I see Domitian as the first TRUE emperor - the model for what was to come, not immediately, but before too long. he marked the way.

 

I wonder, in leaving Domitian, whether his experiences in Rome during the chaos between Nero's fall and Vespasian's success, were a very deep and significant influence on him. One could see in them the origins of insecurity, paranoia, contempt for the mob, a belief in a firm hand... augmenting and further wrecking an already damaged personality. I see him as a man with a good intellect and political instinct, which were warped and limited by personality defects.

 

Finally for now, Nerva is chiefly remembered for the things that bear his name or image (Forum Transitorium; equestrian statue now in Naples Museum, Chancellaria reliefs) rather than for anything he was able to do in a brief reign. Almost certainly chosen as a stop-gap, and that is another sign that the republic was now extinct, his main achievement was to prepare the way for the glory that was Trajan.

 

Of whom, more anon.

 

Phil

[phil25]

Finally, time to put this thread out of its misery.

 

I shall be brief in dealing with the adoptive emperors and Commodus, so as not to bore you more than essential.

 

Trajan may not have been born to the purple, but he was born to wear it.

 

It is a shame we know so comparatively little about him except from visual sources. Perhaps the greatest of all emperors in his charisma, ability to attract loyalty, military ability, and skill as an administrator, he might rival Augustus if only we had the written sources. As it is, we have to interpret what he meant from his column, from inscriptions and from oblique angles.

 

Yet this was a man for whom his fellow Romans broke all the rules, even taboos. Exceptionally, uniquely, the ashes of this "Optimus Princeps" were interred within the ancient walls of Rome - within his column.

 

This was the emperor who extended the empire - almost the last great expansionist gasp of the old style. His generalship in the Dacian wars appears to have been excellent. But though he spent so much time at the wars, he yet was a civil ruler loved and inspiring devotion (without the softer aura of the philosopher which Aurelius bore).

 

Was Trajan homosexual? Maybe, if such a distinction had meaning in Rome. But there is no hint, if so, of effeminacy or weakness - no hint of the melancholy or introspection, the restless unease of Hadrian.

 

The slightly bland face that stares out of his portrait busts and the carvings on the column, with his almost monastic haircut, is a man - and he won laurels indeed. I like to think of him as the Roman Churchill - not the founder, but a man whom a whole people learned to love and esteem.

 

Again, such a pity that we have not even the scurrilous gossip of a Suetonius (genius at bringing men to life, even if with tawdry innuendo) let alone the chronicles of Tacitus. With them, this non-pareil of rulers might ascend to his rightful place in the pantheon of Augusti, and cause us to reassess the whole middle phase of the early empire.

 

In my judgement, for those born in the right place and level in society, few eras in history can have been so pleasant to live in as that between Trajan and the death of Aurelius. And Trajan introduced that era, as Augustus did the principiate.

 

Hadrian - so much could be said about this (in some ways) most human of emperors. Trajan's loyal lieutenant (remember that when we come to discuss co-emperors) he yet seems to have had to gain the throne by subterfuge. Staring his reign by alientating the senate, he ended it sunk in a dreadful, mournful fog of illness and despair. A man capable of the deepest love, it was not for his life but for a boy - variously claimed to have been sacrificed; committed suicide, or been murdered by his lover and master.

 

Yet this emperor was a new model - a restless traveller - an innovator, an activist, a reformer. Like no emperor before him, he went to see for himself, knew his empire, and his peoples. Was he a genius? the temple of Rome and Venus adjacent to the Flavian amphitheatre (so innovative in form and elegant in structure) might proclaim him such. But even that is excelled by the restored Pantheon. And what of the spreading villa at Tivoli - a scrapbook of imperial memories and keepsakes?

 

But was genius simply a dilettante playing - did his jealousy kill his essential architect?

 

As with Trajan we know so little, though with Hadrian somewhat more is hinted at. But what an amazing, romatic, tragic figure he might be, if we could but see him in the round.

 

Antoninus Pius - bland, unknowable - yet his temple (not Hadrian's) sits by the Forum Romanum to record his memory and that of Faustina his wife. Whatever his deeds or achievements, his people gave him the epithet "Pius" which none of his predecessors gained, not even Augustus.

 

His successor Aurelius has been the subject of many volumes - his graceful rule recorded by films and a vivid perfrmance by Alec Guiness (or later a frail Richard Harris!!). Stoic, general, benevolent dictator, it is sometimes forgotten that he used the dual rule - intoduced and road-tested by Augustus and Tiberius; Tiberius and Sejanus; Vespasian and Titus and perhaps Trajan and Hadrian, that would be a feature of future centuries. Lucius Verus appears an insipid caricature of his senior partner, but this was in retrospect and important partnership that does not win the recognition it deserves.

 

But Aurelius failed, where Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian and Pius had scored - he bequeathed his throne not to the fittest but to his blood. In that he failed, and Rome suffered for generations to come.

 

Commodus, I see as a direct "heir" to the imperial approach and style of Gaius, Nero and Domitian - showy, self-centred and unwise. Unlike the others, except Nero, I think he was a puppet. Agrippina Minor intended her son to be a puppet, but Nero successfully threw off his handlers. Commodus, dim-witted, physical, an athlete not a thinker - he was used as a tool by Cleander and others, finally to die pitifully in his cups at the hands of a wrestler.

 

I have pity for Commodus when I see his bust as Hercules in the Capitoline Museum. It seems to exemplify him, preened, polished, tanned and fit. But it stares out blankly and without comprehension. It does not understand - and I have no sympathy for this muddled youth, who brought to an end the great historical drama of the early principiate and empire.

 

What preceeded him was the stuff of epic and legend. What followed was bloodshed without purpose; internicine strife; civil war and short-lived adventurism. When stability was restored by Diocletian and Constantine, the imperial government was a beast transformed. Apollo had finally yeilded to Mars

 

And thus my account draws to its close - not too soon you may say.

 

If there is anyone who wants me to expand on this, or wants to attack my analysis - please do. I'd welcome the creative tension.

 

But for now, that's it.

 

My next thread will pobably seek to extend this discussion in a parallel way - by exploring Roman politics.

 

Phil

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

* neither Otho nor Vitellius stood a chance against the legionary candidates. Neither really possessed the will to maintain the position.

 

What do you think would have happened had Vitellius not rebelled, or had rebelled but had not had two so capable and unscrupulous generals as Caecina and Valens ? After the assasination of Galba, Otho had firm loyalty from the Praetorians, and the Legionaries in Dalmatia, Pannonia, Moesia, Syria, Judea(Vespasian), Egypt and Africa, and at least in the beginning of his very short reign, those of Narbones Gaul, Aquitania and Hispania Tarraconensis as well, and was of course conferred all titles and powers of Emperor by the cowered senate. Had he had decent generals in command (his war councils to me have a similarity to those of Pompey in that Civil War) and had managed to put down Vitellius' officers rebelion - would he have made a go of being Emperor ?

 

When you say Otho and Vitellius were rejected - who do you mean they were rejected by ? The soldiers ? Offficers ?

[Kosmo]

Some roman "emperors" kept the fiction of the republic while others behaved more autoritharian. Some authoritarian emperors behaved strangely. What does this prove?

Was the behaviour of Caligula and Nero in the line of ideal hellenistic kings? Being a warior was the main character of a macedonian, seleucid or pontic king while a king of Egypt or Ephes will have a more religious role.

How many hellenistic kings raced chariots themselves and played music in public?

To prove that those roman emperors adopted a hellenistic model you must show how this model was used by the hellenistic kings themselves.