The Caesar Bloodline

[spittle]

I know that the first Emperor, Augustus, was the great nethew of G J Caesar.

Tiberius was the son of Augustus' wife, Livia.

Caligula was the son of Agrippina, the grand-daughter of Augustus.

 

Claudius was the uncle of Caligula.

 

Can someone please spare a little time to list and explain the blood relationships of the descendants of Julius/Augustus.

 

Last weeks BBC show stated that NERO was the last of the dynasty. Did they move on to another hereditary system or change more profoundly?

[Primus Pilus]

I know that the first Emperor, Augustus, was the great nethew of G J Caesar.

Tiberius was the son of Augustus' wife, Livia.

Caligula was the son of Agrippina, the grand-daughter of Augustus.

 

Claudius was the uncle of Caligula.

 

Can someone please spare a little time to list and explain the blood relationships of the descendants of Julius/Augustus.

 

Last weeks BBC show stated that NERO was the last of the dynasty. Did they move on to another hereditary system or change more profoundly?

 

Nero was the last of the dynasty because he was the last to have any familial relationship to Caesar and Augustus. He was the great great grandson of Augustus through the maternal side of the family...

Augustus/Julia Major/Agrippina Major/Agrippina Minor/Nero.

 

A nice easy to follow stemmata

 

After the death of Nero, the civil war of 69 AD was between generals who had no familial relationship to the Julio-Claudians. Vespasian, the ultimate winner of the war, established his own Flavian Dynasty that lasted through his sons Titus and Domitian.

[Neos Dionysos]

Here's an image of a nicer tree IMO, Family Tree.

[spittle]

They are both extremely helpful and I thank you both.

 

However I think that PP's colour coded 'tree' was the more informative of the two.

[spittle]

What happened to the children of Augustus?

He seems to have outlived them and left only grandchildren after his death.

[Primus Pilus]

What happened to the children of Augustus?

He seems to have outlived them and left only grandchildren after his death.

 

Augustus' daughter Julia (often called the Elder) barely outlived Augustus. Her story is actually quite tragic and interesting.

 

Julia the Elder

[phil25]

Augustus' whole career was, in some ways, shadowed by his quest to leave an heir.

 

He and Livia had no children - I don't even recall mention of an mis-carriages or babies born only to die young. This is odd given that we know both Augustus and Livia were demonstrably capable of having children, and given the length of their married life.

 

Thus, all Augustus' options in regard to blood succession were centred on Julia.

 

Her first marriage, to Marcellus (son of her aunt Octavia) clearly put Marcellus in line to succeed as any children of that marriage would have been of Augustus' blood. He died young.

 

The second marriage, to Agrippa is interesting in that Julia's link with Marcellus created rivalry between the latter and Agrippa, because it effectively cut the second man in the empire (Agrippa) out of the succession. Now, Agrippa would be in a position to be - at worst - father to Augustus' successor, and in the event of Augustus' death, regent or de facto princeps.

 

Julia bore Agrippa three sons Gaius and Lucius (both immediately adopted as his sons by the princeps) and Agrippa (surnamed Posthumus because he was borh after his father's death). Gaius and Lucius were groomed for the succession, but both died in early adulthood.

 

It is interesting that Posthumus Agrippa was categorised as unsuitable even to be considered as an emperor. It might even be considered odd - given the alleged propensities of Gaius (Caligula) and Nero who both eventually inherited the purple.

 

Posthumus was said to be vicious and like gladiatorial games and savagery too much. But whether that judgement reflected a son born of an ageing father who might have suffered from some mental ailment; or was politically inspired by rival claimants, is unclear to me. The lad was exiled and then murdered either immediately before or after Augustus' death - but whether on his orders or those of Tiberius is again unclear from the sources.

 

There were two other children of Julia by Agrippa, Julia the younger and Agrippina. Both suffered for their descent and both died in exile. But Agrippina was the one through whom Augustus blood would pass to the future generations - she married Germanicus, grandson of Livia and brother of Claudius. her children would include "Caligula" and Nero was her grandson.

 

Agrippina may be said to have brought her own troubles on her by her persistent opposition to Tiberius, her imperiousness of manner, and her resentment (at least) at the early death of Germanicus and her loss of position as a result. Tiberius would (could?) never let her remarry because given her bloodline, Agrippina's children would have a greater claim to the throne than his own if the Julian line was seen as predominant.

 

Fascinatingly, after Agrippa's death, Augustus' daughter Julia was made to marry Tiberius, who was thus Agrippina's uncle and step-father. This marriage proved childless and the couple disliked each other. Tiberius went into self-imposed exile at Rhodes, while Julia was eventually exiled, allegedly for sexual misconduct, but more probably (even if sexual liaisons were involved) because of seditious schemes connected with the succession. One of her alleged lovers was a son of the triumvir Marcus Antonius. It hardly needs to be emphasised what a powerful claim to rule a descendant of both Augustus and Antonius would have had... so, I assume, Augusts acted swiftly and decisively to ensure that there would be no issue from that connection.

 

My point in this discursion, is simply this - that simply being the sole carrier of the julian bloodline made Julia the elder a key political player, or piece on the Roman chessboard. She was a pawn in power politics and paid the price.

 

Autocracy is a cruel father.

 

Phil

[spittle]

After reading the Wikepedia link that PP was good enough to post I am left with a few questions as yet unanswered in Phil's contribution.

 

"Julia may have starved herself on learning of the death of her last remaining son"

 

So Augustus left only granddaughters. What happened to the male offspring?

I know that one was murdered either just before of just after Augustus died, as Phil already explained, but what of the others? How did they meet their ends in early manhood? Natural causes or as the result of some conspiracy?

 

On another point, its amazing how many Kings, Queens or Emperors have had their rules completely overshadowed by the question of the succession. Henry8 springs to mind as another ruler who's quest for a continued dynasty lead to a very different future for his country and, by extension, the world.

[phil25]

Robert Graves (I Claudius) would have us believe that Livia killed off Gaius and Lucius caesar (Agrippa's sons by Julia adopted by Augustus) to clear the way for her own son, Tiberius.

 

Both died when away from Rome. Given the high rates of mortality in the ancient world and the low life expectancy, it is at least as likely, and in my view more probable that one or both died of natural causes. However, given the death of both at similar young ages, the coincidence might suggest foul play. But equally, there might have been a genetic weakness that led to their deaths at such similar ages.

 

Turning to the question of succession, in early states (ie before the emergence of the nation state in the C16th-C17th) - where the person of the ruler (however titled) essentially held the unit together, adult male succession was normally essential to prevent civil war.

 

To use the example of Henry VIII which you cite as an example:

 

Richard II (childless and a king who acceeded to the throne as a minor) was deposed by Henry IV.

 

Henry (of the House of Lancaster) had four sons - Henry (later Henry V) had one son, who succeeded him aged 9 months; John of Bedford; Humphrey of gloucester; and Thomas of Clarence had no legitimate children of either sex between them. Thus, the succession of the House of lancaster depended on a sinle heir.

 

Yet Harry VI was mentally unstable. he had no son until 1453. When he went into a nervous collapse, there was no one to act as "regent" of his own blood. His rival for the throne, Richard of York took the position. The rivalry evetually led to the episodes of civil strife collectively and popularly known as the Wars of the Roses.

 

Eventually, Richard II was killed in battle by Henry VII - a remote scion of Lancaster, who's descent and claim came through a woman, Margaret Beaufort, whose only son he was.

 

Henry VII had two sons, but Arthur (the elder) died young and Henry VIII succeeded him.

 

Henry VIII had only one daughter by his first wife, Katherine of Aragon (despite several male children who died young or were stillborn). He married Anne Boleyn to seek to overcome his suspicion that his marriage was damned (Katherine has been his brother's wife previously), but Anne gave him only a second daughter. No woman had ruled in England as Queen regnant at that point and the nearest precedent, Matilda in the 1100s had been a disaster. So a son was vitally necessary to political and dynastic stability.

 

Jane Seymour eventually gave Henry a son (the future Edward VI) but he remained the single life-link for the Tudor dynasty until Henry died in 1547. Edward died in his teens in 1553.

 

Perceived in its context, Henry's concern is clear and understandable. Without a son, the civil wars which had only ended around 1487 (battle of Stoke) would be likely to return. It was not just libido, but political necessity that lay behind henry's complex marriage arrangements.

 

Without them, and had Henry died earlier, or without a male heir, England might/would have changed, through war and rebellion.

 

The modern equivalent, I suppose would be the danger that a political party does not have a credible or universally (by the party) accepted leader, which would make that party probably unelectable. this hands power to their opponents.

 

Augustus had the same problem.

 

In monarchies and aristocratic houses the usual aim is for a wife to bear at least two sons often popularly described as "an hair and a spare" to ensure blood descent.

 

Hope all that makes sense,

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

Robert Graves (I Claudius) would have us believe that Livia killed off Gaius and Lucius caesar (Agrippa's sons by Julia adopted by Augustus) to clear the way for her own son, Tiberius.

 

Both died when away from Rome. Given the high rates of mortality in the ancient world and the low life expectancy, it is at least as likely, and in my view more probable that one or both died of natural causes. However, given the death of both at similar young ages, the coincidence might suggest foul play. But equally, there might have been a genetic weakness that led to their deaths at such similar ages.

 

Gaius Caesar was at least wounded while on campaign in Armenia, and it's quite possible that this would've played a part in his death considering the nature of infection and ancient medicine. I too am personally of the belief that the death of Augustus' heirs was an unfortunate coincidence.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

It is interesting that Posthumus Agrippa was categorised as unsuitable even to be considered as an emperor. It might even be considered odd - given the alleged propensities of Gaius (Caligula) and Nero who both eventually inherited the purple.

 

Posthumus was said to be vicious and like gladiatorial games and savagery too much. But whether that judgement reflected a son born of an ageing father who might have suffered from some mental ailment; or was politically inspired by rival claimants, is unclear to me. The lad was exiled and then murdered either immediately before or after Augustus' death - but whether on his orders or those of Tiberius is again unclear from the sources.

 

 

 

 

Phil

 

Postumus's banishment did ensure Tiberius's priority as Augustus's heir. Tacitus (1.3; 1.5) and Dio (56.30) give an account of how Augustus paid a highly covert visit to the island in 13 to apologize to his grandson and give him notice of plans to return him to Rome. Augustus was accompanied by a trusted friend, Fabius Maximus, and swore him to secrecy about the matter; Maximus then told his wife, Marcia, who inadvertently mentioned it to Livia. Maximus was soon found dead, and Marcia subsequently claimed she was responsible for his death. It is dubious whether this tale has any veracity.

 

Regardless of Augustus' supposed visit, the emperor died the following year without having removed Postumus from Planasia, and very shortly after his death Postumus was executed by his guards. Inconsistent accounts of who ordered the death existed almost from the start, when Tiberius immediately and publicly disavowed the act upon being notified of it. While some suggested that Augustus himself may have ordered it via secret instructions in his will not to let Postumus survive him, it is more likely that either Tiberius or Livia (with or possibly without Tiberius's knowledge) gave the order, taking advantage of the confusing initial political situation upon Augustus' death.

[phil25]

A good summary of the evidence, GPM.

 

It always seems to me to boil down to two options: either,

 

a) Posthumus was a perfectly acceptable candidate for the succession but was unjustly treated by powerful rivals; or

 

he was really mentally unstable and unsuitable, even dangerous, and was put away for good reason.

 

If (a) his story is one of the most tragic in history (and nicely done in the BBC I Claudius). If ( then maybe Rome was spared a different tyrant.

 

Option ( might also explain the outcroppings of apparent madness/ extreme eccentricity in other members of the family, notably Gaius (Caligula) and Nero, but also Agrippina Junior (not averse to murder) and perhaps even her mother the elder Agrippina, who's personality never seems to me to have been entirely stable.

 

It also seems to me that Augustus would have been unlikely to murder a grandson so late in life (he did not murder his daughter or grand-daughter). IMHO, Augustus' ruthlessness would have had him kill Posthumus at the moment he was found unreliable for whatever reason - in hot, not cold blood.

 

As either a defective hang-over, or a rival, the most likely perpetrator of his murder is - again MHO - Livia. I think Tiberius , at least at that stage, too noble and sincere to have been responsible.

 

But one note of caution - I find repeated themes in these late Augustan and early principiate exiles - both Julias, Agrippina the elder and Posthumus - later Nero's wife, Octavia. Is it possible that later historians got confused, or filled in the unknowable with extrapolation from those about which there was rumour?

 

Phil

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

After a bit of research on Livia Drusilla it appears to me that there was a considerable change in her character from the time she married Augustus. Together, they formed the role model for Rome. Despite his wealth and power, Augustus and his family continued to live modestly in their house on the Palatine Hill. Livia would set the pattern for the noble Roman matrona . She wore neither excessive jewellery nor pretentious costumes, she took care of the household and her husband (often making his clothes herself), she paid no attention to his notorious womanising, always faithful and dedicated.

 

It seems to me though that her one true goal in life was to see her son Tiberius as the only heir to the empire and maybe she had a hand in the deaths of those who stood in his way. Rumor had it that when Marcellus, nephew of Augustus, died in 23, it was no natural death, and that Livia was behind it (Dio Cassius 55.33.4). One by one, all the sons of Julia the Elder by Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa died: first Lucius and then Gaius, whom Augustus had adopted as his sons, intending them to be his successors and then finally Postumus was imprisoned and mysteriously done away with leaving only Tiberius as the only possible successor to Augustus. There was even mention that she had something to do with his death aswell, Dio Cassius mentions a plot involving poisoned figs????

 

Maybe Livia started out as the perfect Roman matron but the status, wealth, power and over whelming devotian in bringing Tiberius to power and maintaining him once he got there took over.

 

Who knows, at the end of the day it all comes down to a little bit of imagination and a little bit of guess work, but either way it all good fun!

[spittle]

If you guys have not yet got THE CAESARS (Granada TV 1968) then you should order it NOW!

 

It is concerned with all of the postvAugustus intrigue. I have not seen I,CLAUDIUS but will buy it soon.

 

Richard2 was starved to death in the castle of my local town, Phil. Pontefract.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

If you guys have not yet got THE CAESARS (Granada TV 1968) then you should order it NOW!

 

It is concerned with all of the postvAugustus intrigue. I have not seen I,CLAUDIUS but will buy it soon.

 

Richard2 was starved to death in the castle of my local town, Phil. Pontefract.

 

 

I CLAUDIUS is being repeated at the moment on BBC 4 on thursdays at 11:00pm, it's only two or three episodes into the series, it's my first time of watching it and i must say that i'm really enjoying it!