Augustus was never made 'Emperor for' life...

[Caesar CXXXVII]

"Let us leave aside later examples, since "Spittle's" question related to Augustus. There is NO example in the principiate of blood-son succeeding father - Augustus was succeeded by his step-son; Tiberius by his great-nephew; Gaius by his uncle; Claudius by his step-son. Not until Commodus do we find a successor "born to the purple" (porphyrogenitus)."

 

?

 

Vespasian - Titus - Domitianus

 

 

 

Regardless , the suporters of the "adoptive theory" tends to look at adopted Emperors as a proof for their assertion that Emperors choose their heirs from a pannel of candidates and repeatedly ignore the simple fact that all , that is , all the biological living sons succeeded their fathers !!!

 

I preffer to base my arguments on scholars -

 

"according to the orthodox view , when Marcus Aurelius designated his son , Commodus , as his successor , he broke a century-old tradition that the best man available should be called to the purple . actually no such tradition existed . Nerva's choise of Trajan was dictated by circumstancens beyond the control of the aged Emperor . Hadrian and Marcus Aurelius were the nearest male kin of Trajan and Pius , and in each case the bond was strengthened by a dynastic marriage . Verus owed his elevation to his relation to Aelius Caesar . Finally when Hadrian in his first settelment passed over two ner kinsmen , he paid the highest tribute to the strength of the dynastic tradition by puting them out of the way . The succession was a definitely dynastic in the second cantury as in the first".

 

Russel Mortimer Geer (BROWN UNIVERSITY , "Second Thoughts on the Imperial Succession from Nerva to Commodus" in TPAPA vol. 67 , 1936) .

 

 

I really can't say it better .

 

P.s. This is the almost Standart position of scholars since 1936 .

 

Anyone who disagree with my views about the subject is in disagrement with the view of at list one scholar .

[Primus Pilus]

Vespasian - Titus - Domitianus

 

Titus was a grown man when his father took the throne. He was not born to be emperor. Phil is quite right in suggesting that Commodus was the first emperor born into succession (at least the first one to survive into that role).

 

Regardless , the suporters of the "adoptive theory" tends to look at adopted Emperors as a proof for their assertion that Emperors choose their heirs from a pannel of candidates and repeatedly ignore the simple fact that all , that is , all the biological living sons succeeded their fathers !!!

 

Generally speaking, biological sons seem to have been chosen in favor of adoptive, but Claudius chose Nero over Britannicus.

[phil25]

My thanks to PP for his response.

 

Caesar 23 - The question relates to Augustus, and my examples relate to him and his immediate successors - several times, I refer to the Julio-Claudians as my model in this discussion.

 

I entirely agree about the Flavians, but whether they are part of the "early principiate" is another question. The "secret" of empire, as Tacitus puts it was known by their day. I would argue the circumstances, and the "rules" had changed.

 

We cannot know what Augustus would have done if (like vespasian) he had a legitimate son or sons to succeed him. We cannot know how the situation would have resolved itself if Augustus had died very early and Agrippa and Marcellus had both survived him. Would there have been a civil war - loyal lieutenant v son-in-law/heir? Did Augustus know? Did Agrippa have to MAKE the princeps change his mind, as Syme infers?

 

What I am clear about is that in Augustus day there was no clarity, because of the early deaths of likely or designated successors (Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius) and partly because Augustus "vision" changed. He was a realist and at the end recognised that the "strong man" had to rule if there was to be stability, and Tiberius was that man. Yet he seems to have had no warmth for that choice. Thus Germanicus was inserted into the process - indubitably because Augustus wished the principiate to descend in his own bloodline.

 

So I agree, there was a definite hereditary principle in the intent; but i argue that the reality was somewhat different, and that was and is what matters.

 

Oh, and as for disagreeing with scholars, I am quite happy to do so. Isn't that what debate, discussion and the academic method is about? We evolve our OWN views from our reading and understanding of the evidence and then put that up for argument. Arguments put forward in 1936 deserve challenge. But that is NOT to say that I disrespect for the scholars concerned.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Augustus was in a difficult position. He was following in the footsteps of julius caesar and look what happened to him. I think augustus pulled off a delicate balancing act with some skill. He even offered to retire at least once, and was implored to continue. A publicity stunt? Possibly, but also the sign of a popular ruler who got it right.

[Horatius]

Generally speaking, biological sons seem to have been chosen in favor of adoptive, but Claudius chose Nero over Britannicus.

So two of the three natural grandsons of Augustus, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar were appointed his heirs but specificaly not Postumus? Whether this meant they would have just inherited his money and property or assume his functions as head of state I don't know but I would assume so. Why was Postumus excluded? Was there any suggestion he was not Julia's son and so not a blood decendant?

[Primus Pilus]

Generally speaking, biological sons seem to have been chosen in favor of adoptive, but Claudius chose Nero over Britannicus.

So two of the three natural grandsons of Augustus, Gaius Caesar, Lucius Caesar were appointed his heirs but specificaly not Postumus? Whether this meant they would have just inherited his money and property or assume his functions as head of state I don't know but I would assume so. Why was Postumus excluded? Was there any suggestion he was not Julia's son and so not a blood decendant?

 

Postumus was specifically not adopted so as to carry on the name of Agrippa. His exclusion was honorary in that regard and not intended as a slight. However, his continued exclusion after the deaths of Gaius and Lucius and his own exile to Planasia is only speculative. The immediate assumption of political partisanship by Livia on behalf of Tiberius is suggested by Tacitus and largely perpetuated by Robert Graves, but the reality is completely unknown.

[phil25]

Posthumus must have been exiled for some reason - and some version of the "he was too uncontrollable to be left free" seems plausible.

 

Perhaps he did resent being excluded from the succession - and all the early offices and titles (Princes of Youth etc) that his brothers were given. That could have driven him into the arms of the "opiosition" - after all his mother, Jjulia the elder, and sister Juilia the younger were both exiled. While the causes of their banishment and imprisonment have been alleged to be adultery, it has also been argued that, especially the mother, was involved in some sort of coup/plot to force Augustus to step down. the participation of Marcus Antonius' son, Iullus, is circumstantial evidence of something of the kind, IMHO.

 

Who disposed of Posthumus at the time of Augustus' death is anyone's guess really - I tend to discount Livia, but Tiberius or Augustus himself are both possibilities.

 

In the context of this thread, if Augustus was responsible for giving the order, then it undermines the importance of heredity in the succession, at least if the heir concerned was either unstable, or less capable than an adopted heir.

 

Secondly. Augustus had a surviving male descendent who - if not suitable might have been married off and had children - this was never done with Posthumus apparently. So while heredity was clearly of importance to Augustus, it seems (to me at least) that it was not of over-riding importance.

 

At the end of the day Tiberius (an unsympathetic, adopted son) was preferable to Agrippa (a blood relation but without talent).

 

Phil

[spittle]

"At the end of the day Tiberius was preferable to Agrippa" on condition that he adopt Germanicus. Again we come to the bloodline.

 

maybe Augustus believed this was his best bet at a dynasty, a slight detour for Tiberius followed by his true heir Germanicus, rather than trusting the future to an incompetant Agrippa?

 

as for 'disagreeing with scholars" it is my opinion that several of the forum members ARE scholars.

[The Augusta]

Secondly. Augustus had a surviving male descendent who - if not suitable might have been married off and had children - this was never done with Posthumus apparently. So while heredity was clearly of importance to Augustus, it seems (to me at least) that it was not of over-riding importance.

 

At the end of the day Tiberius (an unsympathetic, adopted son) was preferable to Agrippa (a blood relation but without talent).

 

Phil

 

Just a couple of things, Phil. Postumus was only 16 when he was banished, at which time he was betrothed to Domitia Lepida. So there was clearly the intent to marry him off and breed yet more little Julians.

 

As for Augustus 'preferring' Tiberius - in 4AD they were adopted together (he and Postumus). Augustus. while perhaps planning for a regent's role for Tiberius until Postumus came of age, could not have foreseen at that stage the downfall of Postumus 3 years later. At which time, of course, he had no other boys of the Julio-Agrippan line to adopt, and had already planned a Julian succession through Germanicus (a point Agrippina made much capital of!).

[phil25]

You are quite right, Augusta, and your knowledge of the genealogical detail is both VERY impressive and far better than mine. I stand corrected.

 

But it still begs the question - indeed, IMHO makes it more germane - whatever Posthumus had done must have been very worrying, to cause augustus not at least to seek an heir of Posthumus. This could have been done in exile.

 

Was Posthumus thus too physically dangerous to let a woman near him? Or needed to be kept totally incommunicado to avoid him betraying a secret, subborning others into his plans?

 

The whole thing is a puzzle.

 

But Octavian's old ruthlessness sure came out in Augustus' treatment of both Julia's and Agrippa Posthumus. It overbore any dreams of increasing the likelihood of heirs of his blood.

 

Phil

[The Augusta]

But it still begs the question - indeed, IMHO makes it more germane - whatever Posthumus had done must have been very worrying, to cause augustus not at least to seek an heir of Posthumus. This could have been done in exile.

 

Was Posthumus thus too physically dangerous to let a woman near him? Or needed to be kept totally incommunicado to avoid him betraying a secret, subborning others into his plans?

 

The whole thing is a puzzle.

 

But Octavian's old ruthlessness sure came out in Augustus' treatment of both Julia's and Agrippa Posthumus. It overbore any dreams of increasing the likelihood of heirs of his blood.

 

Phil

 

At the risk of going off topic - and having PP split the thread - I have no doubts in my own mind that Posthumus was guilty of some serious crime. Suetonius relates how Augustus referred to Posthumus and the two Julias as 'his three boils', and in fact he left instructions in his will that none of the three should have their ashes interred in his mausoleum. Whatever they had done, it must have hurt him deeply to leave such an instruction; he clearly could not forgive them, even at the end of his life. I know from various posts of yours that you concur with my own view that Julia the Elder's charge of adultery covered the more serious charge of a political plot. Ovid's banishment, you may recall, occurred when he was caught up in the frolics of the younger Julia too. There has always been speculation among scholars that the younger Julia was also at the centre of a political plot. If we add Posthumus into the mix, it might well explain why there were 'three' boils!

 

If Posthumus was a political suspect, it would explain why Augustus did not look to him for future heirs - even when in banishment, as you say. It is also worth mentioning that Posthumus' banishment was a twofold process. At first he was simply relegated (relegatio) to Campania (5AD); only later in 7AD was this relegation converted into permanent banishment. Had he been relegated for brutish behaviour, which even the senators complained of to Augustus, and then banished when he grew more politically dangerous? We can only speculate. In any case, from 7AD, all Augustus' hopes of his own bloodline rested with Germanicus.

[phil25]

Again, Augusta, you have more of the detail than I, in regard to Posthumus banishment. I had not focused on, even if I was previously aware at all, of the two stages of Posthumus' removal from Rome.

 

Human nature would, of course, indicate that a lad banished for misdemeanours could become resentful, and given his political position, prey to those who needed a figurehead or a name to give presteige to a plot. Thus an indiscretion could have become an act of treason as day follws night.

 

All this - I mean the possible political intrigues of the two Julias and young Agrippa - probably arose (if they did) from Augustus' longevity. While he lived they were denied power - even influence - by the princeps' very existence, and the personality of Livia who would brook no female rivals. I do not mean, in saying that, to imply I think she murdered or plotted - but as her efforts under Tiberius revealed, she relished her influence and personal position.

 

If either Julia were also involved in adultery - and maybe there was no smoke without at least a moderate fire - boredom may have been the cause. the lovers then use their closeness to the princeps' daughter to exert influence, even pressure.

 

As Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa's children, the two Julia's may also have seen an intra-familial coup as a real and practical possibility if, assuming Syme is right, their natural father had achieved a level of recognition within the regime by just such a mild application of force...

 

I leave it there - and hope this digression from the original question is OK with Paul.

 

Phil

[spittle]

So we have two of Augustus' grandsons dead (by the way, what were the causes of their deaths?).

The third grandson, Agrippa Posthumous, exiled from Rome and, effectively, the succession (the reasons for this and the people behind his eventual death seem to be a grey area).

His daughter, Julia the Elder, re-married off to Tiberius (whom Augustus adopted)

His granddaughter Julia the Younger, married to his great nephew, Germanicus (whom Tiberius was made to adopt when he himself was adopted by Augustus).

The children of Julia the Younger and Germanicus, Nero and Gaius 'Caligula'.

 

Plus, on Livia/Tiberius side of the DNA the son of Tiberius and grandson of Livia, Drusus and his son, Germellus.

 

Then the 'independent' in the bunch, Sejanus.

It seems likely that Sejanus had Drusus killed (after Drusus became heir to Tiberius).

Is it probable that Sejanus killed Nero and attemtped to clear the way for Germellus?

[The Augusta]

So we have two of Augustus' grandsons dead (by the way, what were the causes of their deaths?).

 

Gaius died of a 'consumption' (brought on after his treacherous wounding at Artagira) in 4AD, although since the wounding in 2AD he had lived the semi-retired life of an invalid. Lucius died of marsh fever on his way to the legions in Spain (2AD)

 

 

His granddaughter Julia the Younger, married to his great nephew, Germanicus (whom Tiberius was made to adopt when he himself was adopted by Augustus).

 

It was Agrippina who married Germanicus, Paul. Julia the Younger was married to one of the Aemilians. It does get confusing, doesn't it? Not to mention all the 'Elders' and 'Youngers'..

Edited November 10, 2006 by The Augusta

[phil25]

Can "consumption" come on so quickly as a result of a wound?

 

Such was the loss of men through early death in Augustus' bloodline, one wonders whether there was a genetic weakness of some sort.

 

If so, then it, not Livia, did the work in preparing the way for her son - who had none of that genetic strain in him.

 

But of blood-relatives of Octavian/Augustus:

 

Marcellus (son of Augustus' sister Octavia so perhaps similarly tainted), Gaius, Lucius, Germanicus all died young - or at least prematurely and often relatively suddenly. We know the possible impact of porphoria in the descendents of Mary, Queen of Scots (including James I&VI and George III) is only now being recognised and assessed; so too the strain of haemophilia running through the female descendents of Queen Victoria, and affecting, among others, the last Tsarevitch with potential consequences of shattering importance.

 

If such a genetic influence was present in the early principiate, it might explain a lot. (Pace Mr Graves!!)

 

Phil