Let's Look Again At Roman History

[phil25]

I think Hellenistic kingship - in contra-distinction to early Roman or Egyptian - seems to me pretty clear. It was based on the Alexander model, did not reject monarchical symbols - the diadem - and was at least semi-divine. prostration, titles and separateness divided ruler and subject. Palaces, costume and ceremonial marked the kingship.

 

I don't accept that Pharoahs of Egypt (even Ptolemaic ones) simply had a more religious role. That misunderstands Egypt, to my mind. Pharoahs were gods, but there seems to be question whether all the Ptolemies controlled the priesthood.

 

Antonius entered into the Hellenistic spirit by his identification and appearance as Dionysus, and by the spectacle and political thrust of the "Donations of Alexandria" 9so-called). This was an Hellenistic political settlement - quite unlike anything (say) Augustus would have attempted - though Augustus might have done the same things but in a Roman context and vocabulary.

 

So I am not seeking to define hellenistic kingship, simply using it as a comparison and to define a change in Roman government.

 

As to Otho and Vitellius - they failed, and in my view, never really had much hope of success or prolonged rule. Try looking at Otho as the successor to Nero's political philosophy and gaining the support of those who wanted least change (as a Thatcher-like politician in the UK can attract support from those who admired the Iron Lady). By and large such support is emotional and luke-warm, rather than pragmatic and interest based. I think Vespasian had the latter, because others saw in him a "winner" not an "heir".

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

If the models of a hellenistic king were Alexander and Bachuss we can see that Marcus Antonius respected that, but Caligula and Nero did not.

A hellenistic king was martial and wanted military glory. Nero and Caligula never led an army on the battlefield like Augustus, Trajan or Marcus Aurelius.

A "bachic" king will be generous with his friends. The two killed many of those around them.

And none of them drinked to much!

[phil25]

I think you take my references and analogy too literally, Kosmo.

 

If I say that a film has Disney-like qualities, I do not necessarily mean that it is a remake of Bambi, or Lady and the Tramp!! Rather, I might refer to stylistic resemblances; similarities of approach, or even it's "spirit".

 

I have the same thing in mind with "Hellenistic kingship" in relation to the principiate. It would have been quite impossible simply to apply an eastern concept to Rome - it would neither have been appropriate nor acceptable. But if an eastern concept were adopted and adapted using Roman political vocabulary; forms and a sense of "what the market will bear", then i think it might be done. Indeed, I think there are clear indications that it IS what was done.

 

When Alexander was accused by his contemporaries of "going Persian" it was not that he adopted wholesale the rituals and regalia of the Persian autocrats. No, he borrowed parts - the diadem from the mitra; the proskynesis (which he sought to introduce subtley) - parts of the ceremonial.

 

I see no difference between that, and what i am proposing for Gaius - or earlier Antonius.

 

Phil