Let's Look Again At Roman History

[phil25]

There was nothing wrong with Antony's eastern policy as it pertained to the east. But it left him wide open to Octavian's propoganda in Rome. Hence a mistake.

 

You have to answer your own questions.

 

My impression of argument up to now has always been that questions are answered not by the poser but by his adversaries...

 

What is simpler (Occum's razor and all that) than this:

 

Antony knows his days are numbered unless he can gain prestige enough to challenge Caesar's heir, and funds and army also.

 

Prestige will only come through beating the Parthians (as no other foes are readily available).

 

Money is readily available in the east.

 

His army will be hardened by the Parthian campaign and paid through the riches of the east.

 

Hence he must go east.

 

The path to prestige in the east is through portrayal as a hellenistic monarch.

 

To meet his short term needs (prestige, money etc) he adopts a policy of apparent hellenisation.

 

Sadly for him this is portrayed in the worst possible light in Rome.

 

Now there is no need in any of the above to assume that he wished to become king/god of Rome. So why introduce something unecessary to the argument?

 

If that works for you, that's fine.

 

I think though there is an element of hindsight in the approach. Antonius did not always know that it would come to a showdown with his fellow triumvir.

 

Among the things i think need to be taken into account are:

 

* Sulla, Pompeius, and other generals had found fame, wealth and clients in the rich east

* Antonius was in any case a lover of greek things

* Caesar had intended to take on the Parthians next - there was clearly a problem - and Antonius was Caesar's political heir

* Antonius may have been privy to some of Caesar's plans which involved Cleopatra and gold/ wheat rich Egypt

* Antonius banked (wrongly as it turned out, but not stupidly) that Octavian would not be able to deal with the problems of Italy

* the division of the provinces had (leaving Lepidus aside) been west/east - so Antonius could plausibly think that he could deal with the east in eastern ways

* the Ptolemies had been immersed in levantine politics for centuries and may have won him to their approach (god-kings suited the east)

* as Octavian adopted Apollo as his deity, Antonius adopted Dionysus (worth reading up what that god signified) and paraded himself as that god - perhaps deliberately as successor to Alexander

* Antonius regarded himself as a Roman of the Romans and underestimated the impact of Octavian's propaganda on the City

* had he won Actium, Antonius would have dealt with his image in Rome

* in the period it was not amiss for a Roman to have one projected image in Rome and another in the east - later emperors had temples to themselves in Asia long before they were treated as living gods in Rome. It was only Octavian who used propaganda cleverly to subvert Antonius image as a true Roman. That was novel and need not have been foreseen by Antonius who was wrong-footed. But there was not necessarily anything foolish about the dual-self-images.

 

That'll do for now.

 

Phil

[Furius Venator]

* Sulla, Pompeius, and other generals had found fame, wealth and clients in the rich east

 

Agreed, and fits with my post above.

 

* Antonius was in any case a lover of greek things

 

As were many Romans. But to suggest that Antony 'went native' is to go beyond a mere fondness for things Greek.

 

* Caesar had intended to take on the Parthians next - there was clearly a problem - and Antonius was Caesar's political heir

 

Problem or not, yes Caesar had intended to take on Parthia. And Antony could make political capital from that. Still fits with my post above.

 

* Antonius may have been privy to some of Caesar's plans which involved Cleopatra and gold/ wheat rich Egypt

 

Indeed, indeed. Equally he may have believed himself the reincarnation of Camillus but as we have no evidence for either they remain speculation.

 

* Antonius banked (wrongly as it turned out, but not stupidly) that Octavian would not be able to deal with the problems of Italy

 

Given the spectacular rise of Octavian, I think that it was a major misjudgement, but yes, not stupid. His stupidity lay elsewhere. Antony already had evidence that young Caesar was a shrewd political operator.

 

* the division of the provinces had (leaving Lepidus aside) been west/east - so Antonius could plausibly think that he could deal with the east in eastern ways

 

Yes. And that as I said, was sensible. If he was thinking only of the east. But he wasn't. He was concerned with Rome too. And the examples of Pompey anf the Liberators were before him.

 

* the Ptolemies had been immersed in levantine politics for centuries and may have won him to their approach (god-kings suited the east)

 

They suited Egypt. And to a lesser extent the east as a whole. But what evidence would a rational roman have that it could be transported to Rome?

 

* as Octavian adopted Apollo as his deity, Antonius adopted Dionysus (worth reading up what that god signified) and paraded himself as that god - perhaps deliberately as successor to Alexander

 

Please don't patronise me. But yes, he may have cultivated an Alexander image, much like Pompey had.

 

* Antonius regarded himself as a Roman of the Romans and underestimated the impact of Octavian's propaganda on the City

 

I agree entirely. So his godhood was for the east and the practical man for the west. But of course Octavian could paint him as an oriental despot and it worked.

 

* had he won Actium, Antonius would have dealt with his image in Rome

 

Well he might have done. But we'll never no that. Old Julius didn't do so well on the image front did he?

 

* in the period it was not amiss for a Roman to have one projected image in Rome and another in the east - later emperors had temples to themselves in Asia long before they were treated as living gods in Rome. It was only Octavian who used propaganda cleverly to subvert Antonius image as a true Roman. That was novel and need not have been foreseen by Antonius who was wrong-footed. But there was not necessarily anything foolish about the dual-self-images

 

Again, I agree. But that was the whole flaw in Antony's strategy, by chasing money and glory in the east he forfeited the real centre of power. Rome.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Furius Venator

[phil25]

one can either stare at the single squares and ignore the patchwork patterns as a whole, or seek to try to work out what the maker intended.

 

You seem to see Antonius in a negative way. I think i detect hints of a different interpretation. But I'm moving on - so my next post (tomorrow, I hope) will pick up the themes of my first, in this thread.

 

I don't think we are disagreeing FV - I am just seeking to look widely and speculatively. Happy for you to disagree all you want. Your posts have been very stimulating so far, however.

 

Phil

[Furius Venator]

Oh, I don't single Antony out, I take a pretty dim view of most 'great men'. I actually think he probably did the best he could given that he was somewhat constrained by circumstances and Octavian's ambition and ability must have been a real surprise. By the time he'd identified the threat, it was to late...

 

It's been interesting, thanks, though as I said, I think you're on stronger ground with your other points.

[phil25]

Oh, I don't single Antony out, I take a pretty dim view of most 'great men'.

 

Doesn't that make the study of ancient history rather difficult?

 

And doesn't the prior moral judgement rather situate the appraisal of any issues rather than appraising the situation?

 

phil

[Furius Venator]

No moral judgement. By 'dim view' I mean merely that I will suspect short-termism as motive unless evidence suggests otherwise and that self interest (which of course may masquerade as high principle) will, in general, be the primary factor in men's motives.

[phil25]

PART TWO

 

In the context of this thread, it is my contention that until the middle of the (what we now think of as the "reign") of Tiberius, the average Roman would have noticed little change in life. Constitutional changes - almost constant since the days of Sulla and before - continued. But in many ways, Augustus and Tiberius wore their dignitas and auctoritas less ostentatiously than had Caesar or Pompeius.

 

They lived modestly for aritocrats, walked among their people, did public works, and consuls and other magistrates continued to be appointed. If the princeps exercised some directive functions in the state, then given Augustus' achievements in restoring the republic, that was neither unexpected nor unwelcome.

 

The change, if any, perhaps became more noticeable when Tiberius withdrew to Capreae, and Sejanus took control in Rome. But Augustus has a helper/deputy/partner in his labours in Agrippa and later Tiberius. Why should not the latter also have a partner?

 

Note here a pattern -

 

Augustus had heirs and partners.

 

His heirs, successively, were Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, and Germanicus

 

His partners were Agrippa and later Tiberius. Agrippa, although a potential "regent" had to adopt the eventual heir, Germanicus, while his own son Drusus was consigned to a lower place. Thus the succession would not run through Tiberius but would remain with the Julian family.

 

Tiberius had as his helper Sejanus, but his heirs were the family of Germanicus and failing that, Gemellus, his own grandson. Hence, having achieved the place once occupied by Tiberius, Sejanus may well have seen himself following a similar course - as regent for Gemellus (especially if married to the latter's mother) and possibly a future princeps himself.

 

But I suspect an absentee princeps made people aware for the first time that the constitution had markedly changed.

 

During this extend neo-republican period, inter clan rivalry continued. The Claudians and the Julians both contended for the position of first man/dominance. Thus livia endorsed and fostered Tiberius' claims, while Augustus wished his own blood to succeed.

 

I see no reason to believe that Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, or Germanicus died from other than natural causes. On the other hand it is clear that with Sejanus political murder became a reality. Thus Drusus the son of Tiberius, and Nero son of Germanicus were killed. Agrippina Major and her second son Drusus (the main protagonists of the Julian party) died in the aftermath of sejanus fall, prey to a suspicious and perhaps paranoid Tiberius.

 

But it was the third son, Gaius Caligula, who eventually succeeded Tiberius - a Julian and an Antonian.

 

Born under the principiate as Tiberius had not been, Gaius saw himself as entitled to rule, and in eastern terms.

 

He was neither insane, nor mentally ill in any other sense, but pursued a logical and consistent policy of autocracy. he was a moderniser. He new his predecessors had replaced the republican forms by a monarchy, but had concealed it by slight of hand. Gaius threw off the camoflague.

 

In line with eastern mystic and mystery religeons, his change of persona to a more regal and semi-divine status was masked as death and re-birth - serious illness/an awakening. Either the illness was a pretence; or a minor ailment was used as a useful point of departure.

 

Gaius imposed himself on Rome and made others aware of his new position. he adopted eastern regal etiquette, maybe even the abasement of others which Alexander had adopted as his right. His "marriage"/incest with his sisters mirrored the brother-sister marriages of Ptolemaic Egypt, of which he was Pharoah and personal ruler. (He may even have visted the country with his father.)

 

The new princeps' ironic and sarcastic sense of humour shocked those who heard it and was later deliberately misinterpreted. Incitatus was never made consul; impatience may have caused the remark about wishing all Romans had but one neck.

 

Addressing the problem of the semi-mutinous and ill-disciplined troops in Germany, Gaius visited the area and instituted a thorough and well-thought through programme of re-training which he personally oversaw. His appointed tough new commanders. Then, to test the mettle of his legions he determined to put down a rebellion in Britannia.

 

Britannia had always been considered a part of the empire since caesar's visit, and the kings of the island were clients of Rome by treaty, and paid tribute. This had lapsed. Gaius would have none of it. But on the eve of embarkation the legions mutinied (something that would be repeated a few years later). To humiliate them, Gaius had them collect seashalls.

 

There is something interesting which I do not understand (and others might be able to throw some light on) but which I think is more important than has been discussed before. That is that all the "autocratic" emperors (except Domitian) - Gaius, Nero and Commodus - made a big thing about dressing in ways that scandalised conservative opinion, and about "performing" in public. Gaius drove chariots in public; Nero acted and sang as well as competing in sports; Commodus dressed as a gladiator and fought in the arena. All three were men "born to rule", and other emperors who largely were not, did not apparently indulge themselves in this way. I think there may be a statement of some sort being made by these performances which we are failing to understand, perhaps because we have lost the cultural references.

 

Gaius was eventually assassinated, not by a widespread conspiracy, or because he was unpopular, but because he had offended and belittled a small clique of Guards officers who resented it. His death ended an experiment which was not forgotten, but which was understood and followed by his nephew Nero two decades later.

 

Claudius, who was chosen by the Guards to ascend the throne, understood all too well that the empire could not be held together by the old republican forms of Government, There had to be leadership from one man. But Claudius had been trained under Augustus and Tiberius, and to an extent disliked Gaius experiment - Claudius was conservative in the way Tiberius had been. Thus Claudius returned to the concealed republic approach.

 

More to come, in my next,

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

In the context of this thread, it is my contention that until the middle of the (what we now think of as the "reign") of Tiberius, the average Roman would have noticed little change in life. Constitutional changes - almost constant since the days of Sulla and before - continued. But in many ways, Augustus and Tiberius wore their dignitas and auctoritas less ostentatiously than had Caesar or Pompeius.

 

I agree with your contention.

 

They lived modestly for aritocrats, walked among their people, did public works, and consuls and other magistrates continued to be appointed. If the princeps exercised some directive functions in the state, then given Augustus' achievements in restoring the republic, that was neither unexpected nor unwelcome.

 

By "achievements is restoring the republic" do you mean in appearance only ?

 

The change, if any, perhaps became more noticeable when Tiberius withdrew to Capreae, and Sejanus took control in Rome. But Augustus has a helper/deputy/partner in his labours in Agrippa and later Tiberius. Why should not the latter also have a partner?

 

Sure, nothing wrong with a partner/helper.

 

His heirs, successively, were Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, and Germanicus

 

His partners were Agrippa and later Tiberius. Agrippa, although a potential "regent" had to adopt the eventual heir, Germanicus, while his own son Drusus was consigned to a lower place. Thus the succession would not run through Tiberius but would remain with the Julian family.

 

Augustus adopted Tiberius in 7AD, and it was he who was forced to adopt Germanicus, not Agrippa. So in forcing the adoption of Germanicus I think it more likely that Augustus just wanted a capable heir - certainly either a Claudian or a Julian, but either would do, as both Tiberius and Germanicus were Claudian. If at all possible, I agree, he would have like a capable son, but as it wasn't to be - was happy with a capable adopted one, even a Claudian.

 

Tiberius had as his helper Sejanus, but his heirs were the family of Germanicus and failing that, Gemellus, his own grandson. Hence, having achieved the place once occupied by Tiberius, Sejanus may well have seen himself following a similar course - as regent for Gemellus (especially if married to the latter's mother) and possibly a future princeps himself.

But I suspect an absentee princeps made people aware for the first time that the constitution had markedly changed.

 

Sure, I'm with you here.

 

I'm out of time, but you've some interesting specualtions regarding Gaius which I'll try to comment on later.

[frankq]

Phil,

 

You wrote:

His heirs, successively, were Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, and Germanicus...

 

By Germanicus do you mean the elder Drusus who, though favored by Augustus over his brother Tiberius, died too early to be slated as an heir?

 

Secondly, you wrote:

 

His partners were Agrippa and later Tiberius. Agrippa, although a potential "regent" had to adopt the eventual heir, Germanicus, while his own son Drusus was consigned to a lower place. Thus the succession would not run through Tiberius but would remain with the Julian family.

 

That should have read Tiberius, not Agrippa. Tiberius had to adopt Germamicus. Moreover, just to note, Drusus the younger really didnt resent his first cousin's preferential treatment. The two were very close and Drusus the younger felt that he was too much like his father and that Germanicus was better suited to the task.

Edited April 27, 2006 by frankq

[frankq]

Gaius was eventually assassinated, not by a widespread conspiracy, or because he was unpopular, but because he had offended and belittled a small clique of Guards officers who resented it. His death ended an experiment which was not forgotten, but which was understood and followed by his nephew Nero two decades later.

 

 

Phil,

 

I have to disagree here. The Senate from top to bottom was behind this, or knew of it. They just used Chaerea as the patsy and striking hand. After he had killed Caligula the Senate, backed by the city cohorts, seized control of the Capitol and planned on reinstating the Republic. Yet they were divided on whether or not they should also reorganize the principate. And while they lost time, the Guard acted. Moreover, not all the Guard was involved. The acting prefect, Clemens, was busy dilly-dallying with the senators.

 

I do agree that Caligula was popular with the masses. In fact, when the people heard about the hit, they were really pissed.

Edited April 27, 2006 by frankq

[caldrail]

On Tiberius death (not a seedy, decadent paedophile by the way but a consistently reclusive philosopher) his grand-nephew Gaius (Caligula) acceeded to power.

 

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'?

[phil25]

Augustus adopted Tiberius in 7AD, and it was he who was forced to adopt Germanicus, not Agrippa. So in forcing the adoption of Germanicus ....

 

You are quite right germanicus - in my haste, writing the post before i went to work this morning - I did not proof read it. Both references should properly be to Tiberiius. Agrippa was, of course, dead by that date.

 

His heirs, successively, were Marcellus, Gaius and Lucius, and Germanicus...

 

By Germanicus do you mean the elder Drusus who, though favored by Augustus over his brother Tiberius, died too early to be slated as an heir?

 

No, I mean Drusus Major's son, Claudius' brother. I don't think the elder Drusus was ever considered a possible heir.

 

 

Drusus the younger really didnt resent his first cousin's preferential treatment. The two were very close and Drusus the younger felt that he was too much like his father and that Germanicus was better suited to the task.

 

Frankq - from what source does that statement come? As again your following statement:

 

I have to disagree here. The Senate from top to bottom was behind this, or knew of it. They just used Chaerea as the patsy and striking hand.

 

You also wrote:

 

After he had killed Caligula the Senate, backed by the city cohorts, seized control of the Capitol and planned on reinstating the Republic. Yet they were divided on whether or not they should also reorganize the principate.

 

That could be because their response was knee jerk to the deed, rather than thought through. More evidence of my contention than your's surely?

 

I have heard that roman *or* has been unearthed in context with Tiberius.

 

interesting statement, and one of which I was unaware - give me a source and I'll discus it, but I doubt such evidence exists. How could such a link be established?

 

Phil

 

 

 

 

PART TWO (ADDENDUM)

 

I ought to have added about gaius, but forgot in my haste:

 

If there was any question of instability in this princeps it was perhaps a megalomania that arose from him being as close to "porphrogenitus" as was possible at that time. He was born under the principiate, and new from birth his mother's hunger for power. He lived close to the centre of government and was for some years conscious that he would one day be princeps.

 

This may account for some of his eccentricities, and perhaps some of his ruthlessness, but I not think he was "mad" per se.

 

I see interesting similarities and parallels again with Nero, Domitian and Commodus - all aware before their teens that they would one day be likely to rule. All exhibit similar traits - extroversion; a desire to be extolled and lauded; an exalted idea of their station. All are sometimes dismissed as insane - while commodus (as we shall see) may have been weak-minded - none of the others appear to have exhibited any real signs of insanity. those sometimes claimed can almost all be explained another way.

 

Phil

[frankq]

My source on the plot RE Gaius is from Scramuzza, probably the most noted biographer of Claudius. My most recent source on Tiberius and his son Drusus is from Barrett's work on Caligula.

 

 

 

 

No, I mean Drusus Major's son, Claudius' brother. I don't think the elder Drusus was ever considered a possible heir.

 

 

I do not recall any source stating that Augustus ever was considering Germanicus as an heir. And considering Augustus' dislike for Tiberius, had he had the option to override him, he would have taken it. What is your source on Augustus considering Germanicus as an heir?

Edited April 27, 2006 by frankq

[phil25]

My take on Germanicus as Augustus' heir is based on logic and events rather than sources:

 

Augustus dictated the terms by which he adopted Tiberius (no blood relation to Augustus) and the latter adopted Germanicus (Augustus' great-nephew through Antonia and his in-law by marriage to Agrippina Major). Thus Augustus got an experienced successor and yet ensured that the throne would descend through his own blood.

 

Tiberius' son Drusus was ignored, as eventually was his son Gemellus at the end of Tiberius' reign (in favour of the surviving son of Germanicus). the fact that Gemellus was joint- or co-heir, means nothing in my view, as his chances of survival must have seemed slim.

 

We see the throne coming back to Germanicus'/Augustus' line after Claudius, with the accession of Nero, Germanicus' grandson.

 

These actual events, more than perhaps distorted sources, tell me that something was going on.

 

I thought that this was supported by at least some statements by ancient authors, but as you have challenged it, I'll check it out.

 

I'm writing these posts from memory and an over-view (so I readily apologise for lapses in memory or mistakes and ask any of you who read them, to correct me if you see a need).

 

Phil

[frankq]

I've combed material regarding Augustus' succession and passing and no where have I encountered any reference to Germanicus being considered a direct and immediate heir. That he was more popular than Tiberius there is no denying, but Augustus, always the wise ruler, despite his antipathy for Tiberius, had had him serving as colleague for too long, and could never deny Tiberius superior skills in the field and in administration. Germanicus, despite Tacitus' grand picture of him, wasn't the great field genius that history was later to deem him. If Augustus was one thing, he was a good judge of character. This is not denying that, as he passed away, there was some hope that Germanicus would outlive Tiberius and take his place.

 

 

RE the Caligula hit. This was no knee jerk on the part of the Senate. They had been itching to X him since 39. And the popular legend that Claudius was found hiding and selected as a spur of the moment thing I feel can be ruled out. The Praetorians went along with the Senators but were never so foolish as to put themselves out of a job. IMHO, Claudius had already been approached and if he was found behind that curtain it was not hiding but waiting to enter center stage.

 

That the senators played their hand is also revealed by the fact was that, once Gaius' bodyguard's found him dead they went looking for senators with a vengeance, killing as many as they could get their hands on.