"extrovert Emperors"

[phil25]

In my thread on taking a new look at Roman history, I posed a question that fascinates me, and on which i would welcome views and advice.

 

It seems to have got lost in the other thread, so I thought I'd pose it as a separate question here? Some of those who have no interest in my wider ramblings, might be interested in this!!

 

In the other thread I wrote:

 

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.

 

One might add that all three men came to the throne when comparatively young; all almost flaunted this aspiration to "perform" and dress differently (and in a manner related to lowly, unsuitable and even usually-despised professions) even on public occasions - Commodus is said to have wished to open the Senate dressed as Hercules, isn't he?

 

I'd be fascinated to hear views - I have no explanation at this stage, though I am working on it.

 

Phil

 

[Edited to correct spelling in title.]

Edited April 30, 2006 by phil25

[caldrail]

People like Caligula, Nero, Didius Julianus, Commodus etc played in front of the public for two reasons. The first was ego. They were people who wanted adoration - What better way to gain that than public performance? Our Tony Blair has done the same thing. The second was a more practical reason - it improved the public image of the ruler. It showed he was superior, clever, artistic, creative, or just about anything else he could claim.

 

Of course, Caligula thought he was better than everyone else. As a psychopath, he had nothing but contempt for people below him and that included senators. He was after the most powerful and important person on the planet wasn't he? I seem to remember he put a foreign ruler to death for wearing a purple cloak. So it comes as no suprise that he decided to prance about in front of the public. Poor old Caligula. He just wanted to be loved, but he just couldn't handle it when he was.

 

Nero on the other hand was a born celebrity. He really was. Although his talent for music and theater wasn't exceptional, he wasn't going to let that get in the way of achieving applause from his adoring audience.

 

Didius Julianus is a little different. He pretended to be a gladiator when he was consul - why? - to prop up his image and political support. I don't think he made a good impression though. Didius comes across as someone who just didn't shine.

 

Commodus wanted to display manhood - his virility. He wanted to be admired for his prowess in the arena, to take a share of the adulation that successful gladiators attracted.

[phil25]

I can see where you are coming from, Caldrail, although I don't think the emprors in question can be dismissed simply as psychopaths, but the explanation doesn't convince me.

 

All the ancient sources agree that the roles adopted - charioteer, gladiator, dancer/singer - were those most designed to SHOCK the public and DEGRADE the individual concerned.

 

Sure politicians, then and now, aimed to attract attention. Whether Tony Blair is driven by "ego" and a desire to be adored, I don't know. But I am certain that were he to have revealed himself as a porno-film director; a drug peddler, a graffiti-artist, or an ex-member of the National Front (old racist party in UK); it would have gained him EXACTLY the wrong sort of publicity. It would not have made him adored.

 

OK - in the modern world sportsmen (including wrestlers and boxers); racing car drivers and film stars are much admired and emulated. But that wasn't the case in C1st Rome. The parallels were of the sort that I have mentioned.

 

Rome was highly class ridden, all three emperors were born aristocrats, and while the things they did and the way they dressed might have appealed (shall we say) to the working classes, it would, and did, alienate the people he had to work with day in, day out. There is certainly no reason to assume that any of the three regarded themselves as other than aristocrats, or wished to live like the poor - so why aim to SHOCK?

 

Tony Blair may be guilty of many things, but I don't think deliberately, of that, in that way.

 

The first was ego.

 

The way to show a Roman was masculine was surely through military glory - Claudius followed that route. Gaius spent time with the army and almost embarked on an invasion - so why take another route?

 

"Of course, Caligula thought he was better than everyone else..." Did he? Where does that view originate? I'm also not sure that the explanation works in ROMAN terms. Would any of the roles he adopted have made him widely perceived as "better" than others?

 

"...it comes as no suprise that he decided to prance about in front of the public.." Perhaps not if you regard him as mad, bad and dangerous to know, but that isn't the only explanation - or the best - of his behaviour. Dramatic gestures - the business with the bridge in the bay of Naples - is one thing? Prancing about... I dunno.

 

. Poor old Caligula. He just wanted to be loved, but he just couldn't handle it when he was.

 

"Nero on the other hand was a born celebrity. He really was. Although his talent for music and theater wasn't exceptional, he wasn't going to let that get in the way of achieving applause from his adoring audience."

 

If he had performed in private (as with Gaius and his chariot-racing) probably no one would have minded. But Nero went further it seems - no athlete, appearing at Olympia. Surely some statement beyond the personal is being made here?

 

"Didius Julianus is a little different. He pretended to be a gladiator when he was consul - why? - to prop up his image and political support. I don't think he made a good impression though. Didius comes across as someone who just didn't shine." (Are you making the exception that proves your rule here, or undermining your own argument? If it didn't work for DJ, did it for the others? I'd say it didn't in lthe ong or short term. So why did THREE emperors - all young, and born to the purple, and ONLY THY, pursue that path, when, as you agree, it did not work for a fourth trier?)

 

"Commodus wanted to display manhood - his virility. He wanted to be admired for his prowess in the arena, to take a share of the adulation that successful gladiators attracted."

 

But he had apparently to fix fights, and he did not gain respect!! Roman emperors had advisers as modern politicians do. So was - Commodus is a possible exception in being a potentially "puppet" emperor - the last of the Antonines simply indulging his off-beat tastes to keep him busy whilst others governed? It seems to me that attendning the senate in Hercules' lionskin would be like the Queen opening Parliment in a cheer-leader's dress and waving pompons. Unless that is a statement was being made.

 

If Elizabeth II attended Parliament in military fatigues and carrying an Uzi, maybe she would be marking a change in the nature of her rule and government. Was Commodus making a similar statement about a change of direction to even more absolute absolutism? A new beginning to add to changes in calendar and the name of Rome itself?

 

I don't mean to throw out your suggestion, Caldrail, but I just think we are not 9and i include myself, digging deep enough or being subtle enough.

 

Thank for the interesting and stimulating reply,

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Well.. If you want detail, you have to consider more than just an emperor as a performing artist. I included DJ to show that it wasn't just the obvious three that performed in public. Others did too, although for one reason or another they aren't remembered for doing so. Was that lack of star-quality. I think so. DJ was a second-rate performer and no-one enthused about his performance. All the more reason for him to buy the empire - he stood no other chance of absolute power. The public of course didn't believe he deserved it as history shows.

 

The word psychopath is misunderstood. It doesn't mean caligula was an axe-wielding maniac although killing people obviuosly didn't bother him. It means he didn't fit in with other people to the point of violence. Caligula had a nasty sense of humour. He enjoyed making fools of people. Also I detect a certain petulance in his behaviour. So, I would say that he wanted attention. Although he was applauded as emperor after the dreary rule of tiberius he could see gladiators getting applause and felt envious. He wanted all the applause, he wanted people to believe he was the best, that he was... special. Because he had grown up without enough love and support.

 

Nero is in a class by himself. He had style, something to say. After the suffocating presence of his mother had been removed (finally) he wanted nothing more than to enjoy himself. Well he was emperor wasn't he? Why couldn't he do what he wanted?

 

Commodus was widely known for his prowess with a left-handed style, something he was proud of. Yes, he did fix fights. By giving his opponents wooden practise swords the outcome was loaded in his favour considerably. But then, Commodus was there to demonstrate his virility, not to have it challenged. He was emperor. It wouldn't do to have the ruler of the roman world carried off on a stretcher and have his throat cut before dumping his body in the tiber. Sure, plenty of emperors came to sticky ends (commodus did too - his intended arena victim had him strangled). Commodus was a man who...well...cheated in order to win. That was his nature. He developed a public 'image' comparing him to the ancient hero Hercules. You know, I can't help wondering if Commodus had some sort of hang-up over sex. We know he had a groinal swelling. Was he compensating by these displays of aggression?

 

Regarding Tony Blair, I place him on par with DJ. But thats just my opinion. It wasn't that important.

 

Caligula might have wanted to shock his audience, in order to gain attention if nothing else. Nero didn't. He wanted fun and didn't see why the class system should prevent him from getting his kicks. Commodus wanted to impress, not shock.

[phil25]

I do see where you are coming from Caldrail, thanks for taking the time to respond so fully and in such a well-argued way.

 

It probably won't come as a surprise to you that i remain unconvinced.

 

It's not that I underestimate the importance of personality in ancient government and politics, but I think it can be over-estimated too.

 

Caligula was odd in the way that royalty can sometimes be, but I don't see the "psychopath" in him that you do. Most ancient rulers had people killed, on what we would think of as a "whim" - but it probably wasn't in the ancient mind.

 

And i feel that one has to take into account such ideas a advisers, party (even under the principiate it is clear that there were parties or factions to think about), public opinion (at least in the City itself) etc. I don't think we can just dismiss actions as an emperor wishing to express himself - even if the ancient authors sometimes do - without having first examined whether there was a strategy or deeper intent behind it.

 

I don't for a moment say you are wrong. I just feel that in a time when symbolismand display were differently understood than they are now, then there may be a common element to the intent of these young rulers.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

I take the view that people then are fundamentally no different than today. Their culture was different, their mindset varied from ours to some degree, but they were still human beings and as such we respond as social animals in certain ways. Strategy? Commodus may well have had that in mind, but Nero didn't.

 

The reason I see caligula as a psychopath is that his behaviour was different from the crowd. He made no attempt to dignify himself, and poured scorn on anyone who did. He had no respect for anyone. That after all was the reason for his demise - he made fun of Cassius Charea's soft voice despite his proven courage. No successful soldier of Rome is going to like being taunted as a poof. Caligula refused to conform and that marks him as a psychopath.

 

Ok, you remain unconvinced. You stress the role of advisors. To some extent we can include Nero in that, because he did listen to cronies. So did Commodus until he learned not to trust them. Caligula did not attract cronies in the same way. He was not going to take advice from a lesser mortal.

 

However - a leader of a conquest state does not remain in power by being nice, nor by being swayed by voices in his ear. Certainly there were people who sought power by whispering advice such as Sejanus or Cleander, but I can't recall any of them surviving long.

 

These men were in positions of power that allowed them to express themselves in terms of public image. A slave couldn't. Nor could many senators for fear of ridicule. All three became confident individuals for different reasons. Caligula did so because he wanted to test the limits of his power and couldn't find any obstacle. Nero because he discovered the 'celebrity' within himself. Commodus did so because his father Marcus Aurelius had brought him up to attain the throne. It was unfortunate that Commodus was 'not a moral man'

[phil25]

Good post Caldrail, thank you. We differ but I respect your view.

 

Two points:

 

I wonder what a "moral" man in 180AD would have meant? Marcus Aurelius was a stoic, of course.But appears to have been exceptional. I see Tiberius as being highly "moral" (in a way), in his own mind and for his time - but he was not seen as such in his own day. He maintained high standards for himself and others, followed duty and refused to be seduced by rank.

 

Marcus Aurelius was osentatiiously "moral" as his "meditiations" show. But was that known in his own day? And as an Emperor did he live what he believed - after all he blithely bequeathed Rome Commodus?

 

Ancient sources talk of Commodus being the son of a gladiator and thus his "real" self was coming out in his displays. I don't believe the allegation - it's just ancient historians explaining the otherwise inexplicable and working backwards.

 

 

Second point: bu advisers, I certainly don't mean "cronies". That implies buddies who occasionally suggest things. I am referring to the serious men of politics, the men who are the continuity of any political system, going on when rulers change. In Roman terms they are the various secretaries - freedmen mainly - we know of Narcissus and his ilk best perhaps from Claudius' day.

 

They are the ones who keep City, state and empire running; who propose policy and provide the rationale for decisions. We know they would have had "image" very much in mind. I continue to believe that the "golden house" and the sun-god colossus with Nero's features were simply whim or casual self-expression. The investment in them of time and money; their scale and their impact all suggest the projection of something very strong and powerful in terms of message.

 

There must also in my mind be a direct link between Domitian's Palatine palace complex and the golden house (which Domitian must have known). At one level it is a political convenience - government business had moved from the Forum and Curia - but it is also a statement of princeps/emperor as separate and maybe Olympian/divine. Yet if Nero was saying this his public performance art seems to me to have been a wholly opposite and detracting action.

 

On a wider point, I suppose we have to accept that the allegations are true and not exaggerations or misunderstood re-tellings of conntemporary political invective? It appears now, and is increasingly accepted that Suetonius' tales of debauchery on Capri are unfounded, and that Tiberius was not the pervert once thought. In the late republic everyone seems to have hurled insults around - calling their rivals names and accusing them of being homosexual etc.

 

Could the allegation of PUBLIC performance be of that ilk? Gaius, Nero and Commodus may thus have enjoyed their pastimes, but in private. Others sought to demean them and undermine their authority by creating deliberate scandal, which then became recorded as fact?

 

I don't really believe this - it seems Nero performed at the Olympics, I have seen the house probably constructed for him there. But could there be an element of this involved?

 

Just a thought that had hit me.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Morality in Rome actually means more or less the same thing in our society. We tend to ignore such things when its convenient or rewarding, and they did too. We have superior investigation techniques that keep us in check - they had slaves to spill the beans. Its all a question of checks and balances. Morality is an ideal. Few of us come close.

 

As for palaces, these are displys of wealth, power, and ego that people sometimes build for themselves. Again, its little different today. We see millionaires buying large slices of land for outrageous houses they can't fill.

 

You raise an interesting question about accusation, which I actually agree with to some extent. However a public performance is just that, so there were witnesses. The authors may disapprove of such 'infamy' but generally the plebs were thrilled to bits to be entertained by their leaders.

[Favonius Cornelius]

Why do young people today wear the latest fashions, party hard, try to be cool to their peers and so on? Same reasons I am sure.

[phil25]

Except FC that in the cases I cite it was only the three (to use the term slightly loosely) "porphyrogenitic" pricipes/emperors who seem to have gone in for this.

 

Domitian - despite an evident strain of megalomania - did not, neither did Titus.

 

Maybe i am wrong and it was just a macho/fashion thing.

 

But I cannot help thinking that it was the symbolism they pushed (note the famous Herculean bust of Commodus, which I always love to look at when in Rome); and the colossus. I just wonder whether there were chords that struck in Rome that went deeper than we realise.

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

Interesting theory. The popularity of those emperors might be an indication that you are right. Septimius Sever at first presented himself as the "son" of moral Pertinax, but after defeating all his oponents he claimed to be the heir of Commodus and punished those guilty of his murder. And his sons behaved like those other "porphyrogenetic" emperors you mentioned. Elegabaal it's a diferent thing, but equally shocking for a roman. Even Hadrian, a great emperor in my opinion, had the beard of a greek philosopher, an official lover that he put on coins and deified and a passion for the mysteries of Eleusos. He was also the first one to rule Rome from a distance as he never stayed much in a place. All things very far from what an emperor like his uncle Trajan was.

Maybe they behaved like that because Rome had no sistem of checks and balances and this meant that they believed that was no penality for any behaviour. Even an absolute king in the 1700's had to face the church and his aristocracy as a very serious oposition to any unhonorable public deeds.

Or maybe the education was seriously wrong for this extremly high placed persons. I remember the critical opinions of Jerome Carcopino on roman education and what a slave could teach his master. Other people had to obey someone, but this "gods" were never subjected to a higher autorithy and never had to supress their whims.

An interesting thing that you point it's the fact that all had many, high quality advisers that sooner or later were killed during the change. Seneca it's well known and so it's the care that Marcus Aurelius and Septimius Sever took in the education of their heirs.

[caldrail]

There were indeed checks and balances. Public opinion plus a great many laws and taboos relating to moral behaviour. Having as much power as they did, I don't think extrovert emperors felt so restrained as common men.

[phil25]

Caldrail, let me get this right.

 

You explain all this as wholly about self-expression, with no "policy" element at all? That is the actions, appearance adopted was not intended to make a point, but was solely to satisfy personal whim?

 

Phil

[caldrail]

I find it difficult to see it in terms of polciy. DJ probably did - he wasn't extrovert as the other three and he was deliberately attempting to wow the crowd. I would suspect Commodus if he hadn't gotten carried away with his own importance. Nero? His policy was to enjoy himself. Caligula? He wanted a laugh at someone elses expense.

 

These were people with enormous ego's. Such people don't usually worry about whether its going to have the right effect, they just do it. I am curious about your viewpoint because you seem to see it as a political thing, without any personality issues involved.

[phil25]

Should it be surprising that politicians express themselves as and through politics?

 

And Roman principes or emperors WERE politicians - they had to be. Even in autocracies there is opposition (strong or mild, direct or oblique) and the ruler requires some sort of support, some amount of persuasion and negotiation to implement his will.

 

I am not sure that I accept, either, the supposition that these men had "enormous egos" - how do we know? In the case of Gaius or Nero, for instance the sources are so biased against them that it would be difficult to see a different interpretation even if it underlay the statements of ancient authors.

 

The "enormity" of an ego surely depends on the comparison with those around them - and how is it measured, what demonstrates ego externally?

 

Is the Queen an egomaniac because her head appears on postage stamps? Or is that an emanation of state policy - a proclamation of "government" in a human guise?

 

So, if Gaius really did suggest that his statue be placed in the temple in Jerusalem, how can we tell whether that was an expression of ego - or of Government policy (that all primary loyalty was to the state and its first citizen? Or maybe it was a direct borrowing/copying of the political language of the Selucids in the days of the Maccabees.

 

I Gaius action in regard to the Jewish temple was ego-driven, was Pilate's design to put plaques of Tiberius' in the same place equally an expression of imperial ego? Did Tiberius know, in real time of what was proposed? And as the latter case preceeded Gaius' alleged action, I would suggest that the two might be linked (they were close in time) and are better described as examples of a single coherent policy, than as examples of ego.

 

That is just one example but I have argued it in full detail to try to make my point.

 

Neither do I think that in ancient times, anyone 9even principes) acted alone - they need (as rulers have done in all ages of history) ministers and councillors, governors and executives, secretaries and aides, to present them with options and carry out their decisions.

 

I find it incredible that anyone can suggest than one man (however ego-driven) could rule the Roman empire as it was in C1AD alone or by his own "will". it is only historical novelists and popular histories - a schoolboy approach to history if you will, that believes that anything like that could have happened.

 

Octavian needed his Agrippa and his Maecenas - there are definite indications in the sources that they influenced decisions and even carried out palace coups to change policy. (Read your Syme, who understood politics and government.) Tiberius needed Sejanus, as Augustus had needed Tiberius.

 

We may not know of them, but Gaius almost certainly had his equivalents, and secretaries and ministers that presaged Pallas and Narcissus etc.

 

Nero certainly did in Tigellinus and others (even allowing that Burrus and Seneca etc were creatures of his mother and supposed to be his puppeteers). Commodus had ministers such as Cleander, but as I have suggested elsewhere, I think Commodus remained a puppet.

 

No, I reject the ego interpretation, wholly, because it is unsupportable and defies common sense. It assumes that politics ends, that no one else has ambition, no one else manoeuvres and plots, no one seeks influence or to serve with a desire to gain; or to oppose and seek to change. It assumes that a lad (as Gaius was at his accession, knows all the levers and sources of power, has graduated in politics to the point that he understands what to do. I do not believe that that was the case for a moment.)

 

When I read the sources on Gaius and Nero, and try to imagine the reality, I find that the politcs is all there. One just has to draw aside the superficial curtain of personality and the attempt to pretend one man was doing everything, and see the context - the political world of (say) 38AD is there (Senate, people, guard, establishment, rivals, bureaucracy etc) functioning and practical. It has not gone away and did not - the princeps had to act within it - and his options, choices, decisions, would be shaped by what had gone before and the realities of the day - not (except in extreme circumstances and certainly not moment to moment) by enormous ego.

 

I'm sure you'll want to come back at me - please do. I'm enjoying this.

 

Phil