Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa

[DecimusCaesar]

During a recent discussion on 'HBO's Rome' thread, 'Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa' (c.64 BC - AD 14) was brought up. Some forummers said they admired him and that his role in history has been downplayed by his friend Augustus Caesar, who wanted to claim the victory at Actium as his own.

 

Yet Agrippa had an impact on other areas as well. His defeat of Sextus Pompey was an important event that shaped the last few years of the Republic. His building projects helped Augustus make Rome into the city of Marble. Even his bloodline would have an impact on the Julio-Claudian dynasty.

 

How much of an impact did Agrippa have on the end of the Republic and the early Principate? Was he really one of the most important men of the era or is his importance overplayed?

[phil25]

Immense, IMHO.

 

Octavian was no soldier, and without Agrippa he would almost certainly have been defeated, or out-manoeuvred militarily by his opponents.

 

The contribution which Maecenas (politically) and Agrippa (militarily) made to Augustus' triumph, is, in my opinion, incalculable.

 

Maecenas later proved unreliable, but though Agrippa may have intervened politically to force a second political settlement, he was ultimately loyal and dependable.

 

MV Agrippa served his "master" in many roles, in Rome and in the provinces, was a great "project manager"; a good leader, and a loyal friend.

 

I have no doubt that had Agrippa lived longer, and Augustus died younder, the former would have been the second princeps (perhaps as "regent" for his son or sons.

 

Phil

[Pertinax]

I endorse Phil's remarks and add, that Agrippa was also penetratingly astute as regards the nature of propoganda, in particular the relationship between patronage and the use of symbolic art. So concerned was he as regrads the ability of powerful Patrons to influence public opinion that he suggested that private persons should not display such totemic works, rather that the state should have a them "nationalised" and displayed publicly . His work as regards built architecture mirrors this understanding of symbols and the humbling nature of great physical works.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Without the help, support and advice of Agrippa (and Maecenas), Augustus would never have achieved as much as he did.

 

Not only was Agrippa a fantastic general he was also an architect,he was responsible for the building of the first Roman Pantheon which was destroyed in 80BC and then later rebuilt by Hadrian using Agrippa's original plans, he was a writer, especially on geography, he helped to make a complete survey of the empire, and probably above all he was a very loyal friend, he stood in Augustus's shadow and let him take all the credit and glory and was happy to just stay Augustus's right hand man.

 

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa was undoubtedly the driving force behind Octavian's rise to power.

[Ursus]

Agrippa's contributions are critical, especially in the military sphere, but for anyone to suggest Augustus was little more than a front to Agrippa's genius is a bit strong, I feel.

 

"A prince who is not wise himself cannot be wisely counseled." - Machiaevelli

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Agrippa's contributions are critical, especially in the military sphere, but for anyone to suggest Augustus was little more than a front to Agrippa's genius is a bit strong, I feel.

 

"A prince who is not wise himself cannot be wisely counseled." - Machiaevelli

 

 

Yes ok maybe i went a bit OTT, i wasn't suggesting that Augustus was mearly Agrippa's puppet (although reading back it does look that way) because he wasn't, i was just saying that Agrippa played a major part in the creation of the principate, Augustus was a very intelligent man and a fine politician, Agrippa excelled in the military side of things, so together they made a perfect team, i guess i was just trying to say that where as Augustus was the brains and made the final decisions, Agrippa was the muscle and the support needed to see whatever was decided through

[phil25]

But there is a point to be made, Ursus, that HAD Agrippa been more influential than he is perceived today, how would we know? Augustus by living long (in particular) was able to ensure that the historical record conveyed his interpretation, and no one else's.

 

Not that I disagree that Agrippa was a supremely gifted lieutenant, rather than an eminence gris.

 

But I do think his influence, behind the scenes, was both crucial and far reaching, and that it probably suited Augustus' purposes to keep it that way. equally, Agrippa probably realised that the greatest good lay in him being self-effacing (maybe a natural quality) rather than challenging openly. But Agrippa's role could well have been vastly greater than we know.

 

On a different tack - does anyone know anything of the story I once recall reading (source unknown) to the effect that Agrippa was either rumoured to be, or claimed to be, the natural (i.e. bastard) son of Caesar? Was this a modern fabrication or an ancient gloss?

 

Phil

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

On a different tack - does anyone know anything of the story I once recall reading (source unknown) to the effect that Agrippa was either rumoured to be, or claimed to be, the natural (i.e. bastard) son of Caesar? Was this a modern fabrication or an ancient gloss?

 

Phil

 

Thats a new one on me Phil, but i'd be very interested to find out more about this rumour

[Primus Pilus]

To me Agrippa was the quintessential "right-hand man". Without him, I can't fathom Augustus achieving even a fraction of the success he did. However, without the political savvy (and name) of Octavian, Agrippa may never have been much more than an obscure character in history despite his pivotal role in both the military success and administrative roles of the early principate. It's truly a two-peas-in-the-pod scenario.

 

Agrippa did have considerable ambition and Augustus knew how to use this ambition to his own benefit. Despite the issues between Agrippa and Marcellus there is little to suggest that Agrippa was not the consummate loyalist, but rather that his (and Marcellus') ambitions needed to be continually stroked in order to maintain the status quo. Having a capable man of great skill who could be trusted in all facets of Augustus' plans... as legionary commander, co-princeps in the east, provincial governor and reformer, great patron of the arts and public works, heir and/or regent for Gaius and Lucius Caesar, emergency proxy ruler, etc... was vital to the success of Augustus and establishment of the principate.

[phil25]

An excellently balanced summary PP.

 

Phil

[DecimusCaesar]

I have had a growing intrest in Agrippa and I personally believe he should be more well known. One of the most interesting aspects of his life is his realtionships with other figures of the era. His daughter was the wife of Quinctillius Varus, whose Legions were massacred at Teutoburg. His marriage to Augustus's daughter Julia provided heirs to the Empire that died before they got to power. Even so, his blood flowed through the veins of the members of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, showing that his actions would affect Rome long after his death.

 

Let's hope he gets the attention he deserves in Rome's next season, instead of the grumpy old man he was portrayed as in I, Claudius.

[phil25]

And don't forget, DC that another daughter, Vipsania, was Tiberius' first wife, whom Augustus made him divorce to marry Julia.

 

So he divorced Julia's step-daughter to marry that step-daughter's step-mother!!! Complicated??

[DecimusCaesar]

His other daughter Agrippinia the Elder was married to Germanicus the hero of the Legions on the Rhine. She became a thorn in the side of Tiberius during his reign before she was exiled.

She also spawned little Gaius 'Caligula' and we all know what he got up to...

[phil25]

Gaius "Caligula"'s (I hate the soubriquet but with the other Gaius so close in time in this context it is a useful differentiator) nervous disposition might well be inherited from his parents.

 

Both Germanicus and Agrippina showed signs of hysteria under pressure. It is quite possible that germanicus had a near nervous breakdown during the Rhine mutinies, maybe also in Syria later. Agrippina gave signs of being unstable after his death.

 

But see my earlier post on some of this.

 

Phil

[The Augusta]

To the best of my knowledge there has only ever been one English language biography written and that is Meyer Reinhold's (1937), a photocopied version of which I still have in an old blue A4 envelope folder. Even as long ago as 1985 this work was out of print and I had to obtain a lone copy from The British Library. It is high time some scholar out there put together a new appraisal of the man and his achievements. But the paucity of biographical work is a telling comment in itself. Even in his lifetime Agrippa was hated by the nobiles, and Augustus himself was keen to play down his key role in public, although the granting of the tribunicia potestas was perhaps enough to silence any detractors. In modern times he has found admirers among military historians - naturally, for his military achievements speak for themselves. Politically, however, there has still been the tendency to dismiss him as a parvenu and gloss over any political achievements he may or may not have been credited with. That he exercised certain influence over Augustus - or at least was perceived to do so by the nobiles - is borne out by the citation of Maecenas's words in Dio, 54, where Maecenas advises Augustus to marry Agrippa to Julia, as he has now become so powerful that he must be made a member of the Imperial Family or be put to death. Whether this is a fabrication by Dio or not, it was clearly the official view. Agrippa was popular with the People and hated by the aristocracy, who showed their contempt by not attending his funeral games in 12BC. Had he not been so influential a figure within the regime, I doubt he would have incurred the hatred of the nobiles. So although Phil and Ursus have mentioned that we may not know how influential Agrippa was in his own time, I do think the evidence is there in the sources, even if this is implicit rather than explicit. I also believe his role in the settlement of 18BC was crucial, and we have Augustus' own action in 23BC when handing over his signet ring, to prove to us just how highly he was regarded by the Princeps.

 

Rather like Christopher Wren, the physical monument to his greatness was to be seen throughout Rome, and I always cringe when reading the Res Gestae to see that Augustus claims all this glory for himself. But not only did the man beautify, with buildings such as the Pantheon, but he built things to benefit the entire populace - Baths, acqueducts, parks. I think someone has already mentioned his directive regarding the placing of works of art in the public domain for everyone to enjoy. There was also that great feat of engineering - the naval base at Neapolis, and his overhaul of the sewage system. If we remember that he had already held the Consulship in 37BC, and then asked for the aedileship in 33BC in order to inaugurate his great building programme, we can see where his true heart lay: in the practical improvement of facilities. This would have not only made him popular but increased the popularity of his 'master' as well. I am honestly of the opinion that without Agrippa Octavian would not have held onto the support of the People, and perhaps, even, the army. But what all this tells us of Agrippa's own ambitions and personality, would form the basis for a totally separate discussion. It might be fun to speculate on how long his Autobiography survived after his death, and why it has not come down to us in any way. Although posterity admires him, I think this was a man with many enemies.