caldrail Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 In may 215ad Caracalla visits alexandria. Its the second largest city in the roman empire. He visits the tomb of alexander the great and lays his purple cloak over it, a symbol of honour from a man whose military leanings were evident. Shortly after this, his guards rampage around the city slaying ordinary citizens by the streetful. Thousands are supposed to have been killed. Now Caracalla was a psychopath himself, and roman troops were not averse to this behaviour if they were let loose in war, but this was a blatant and unwarranted attack in peacetime. Does anyone have any clue why this event occurred? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
votadini Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 Hadn't certain citizens ridiculed his claims that he'd killed Geta in self-defence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar CXXXVII Posted January 25, 2007 Report Share Posted January 25, 2007 At the Severan Conference International Centre for Severan Studies in 31 May 1996 said Caroline Bryant "According to Dio and Herodian, the Alexandrians' humor about the fratricide was fatal to them. Caracalla became infuriated by their jokes and went to Alexandria during his tour of the empire, ostensibly to honor the city, but in fact to preside over a massacre of the inhabitants. Dio says that the emperor sent a report to the senate from his headquarters in the Serapeion during the massacre, describing sacrifices he was performing; the barely concealed message was that he was sacrificing the people of Alexandria to their god. In a separate excerpt Dio says that Caracalla dedicated on the altar of the Serapeion the sword with which he had killed Geta . "This last detail has the ring of rumor. Dio was in the senate to hear the letter sent by Caracalla, so we can trust what he reports as its content. The reference to the dedication of the sword, however, is not excerpted in the same passage as the account of the letter, and it certainly seems improbable that Caracalla would have included it in a formal report to the senate. More telling is Dio's mention of one of the alleged portents of Caracalla's death, a fire that filled the Serapeion at Alexandria but damaged nothing except this sword, which disappeared completely. "A little before" the assassination is when this prodigy is said to have occurred, and as Caracalla died less than a year after the massacre, only a short and chaotic period is left during which visitors to the Serapeion should have been able to see the sword. The rumor may only have started after Caracalla's death. "Why this particular rumor? What does it reveal about attitudes toward Caracalla? It imputes to him a logic that sees the murders of the Alexandrians and of Geta as mutually justifying. It imputes a motive to him for the massacre, namely, the vindication of his own interpretation of the death of Geta as the just punishment of a dangerous traitor, a political rather than a family matter. Most immediately, it gives narrative form to the fear that the emperor would treat his subjects the way he treated his biological family. Those who circulated the rumor of the sword in the temple identified with Geta and saw Caracalla in the role of frater patriae." Caracalla.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.