Tiberius - personality

[Northern Neil]

This topic has not been started 'flippantly' - something The Augusta said in a discussion about the personality of Caesar made me start this topic. Here is the quote:

 

(quote - The Augusta)For years I have defended Tiberius because 'I understand him psychologically'.

 

I have often felt somehow sorry for Tiberius, although that is probably in the main due to his depiction in the BBC drama 'I Claudius'. I read somewhere (I have forgotten exactly where as usual) that Tiberius was actually quite a good and benevolent ruler, and that Seutonius' account of him cannot be trusted. How true is this?

[The Augusta]

This topic has not been started 'flippantly' - something The Augusta said in a discussion about the personality of Caesar made me start this topic. Here is the quote:

 

(quote - The Augusta)For years I have defended Tiberius because 'I understand him psychologically'.

 

I have often felt somehow sorry for Tiberius, although that is probably in the main due to his depiction in the BBC drama 'I Claudius'. I read somewhere (I have forgotten exactly where as usual) that Tiberius was actually quite a good and benevolent ruler, and that Seutonius' account of him cannot be trusted. How true is this?

 

Help! I hope MPC read my explanation in the Caesar - Personality thread before he saw this! He'll never let me live it down

 

Neil - if you visit the Hora Postilla index and look for the thread entitled 'Imperial Birthday' we started a bit of a discussion on Tiberius' personality there, although that one was not started in so serious a vein. But I'd certainly be happy to contribute to a more in depth discussion if you wish to take it further. Actually - how he has been treated by the ancient sources would make a pretty good topic.

[Ursus]

For me there is nothing worse than a leader who doesn't want to lead. Power is a gift, authority is a mandate, leadership is a calling. Use it or get out of the way and make room for those who will.

 

If the sources on Tiberius are accurate, then I would have to condemn him. An empire under Sejanus might have been the better alternative.

 

If the sources on Tiberius are less than accurate in their depiction, then that is a whole other discussion.

[Mosquito]

Anyway doesnt matter if the sources are biased or not, there are some things about Tiberius that we can say for sure because even his enemies couldnt deny that:

 

1. Tiberius was a very good military commander who spent his youth fighting for Rome, not in luxuries but in the forests and military camps, leding brillant campaigns against barbarians.

 

2. Tiberius recognised that Augustus was right and that enlarging the borders of empire will not bring any good. Thats why he didnt make agressive wars.

 

3. In provinces his reign was a time of prosperity and hapiness. Governors were not allowed to overcharge their subjects, the state and its treasure was in perfect condition. I was always saying that if every emperor was like Tiberius the Empire would never fell. Emperor didnt have to be a military genius or great philosoph or reformer. It was enough if he wasnt a fool or madman. Empire needed good and just administrators and Tiberius was such person.

 

4. When he died he left the state in perfect shape.

 

 

Do I need to say more?

[Ursus]

The best thing we can say about Tiberius is that he did not do anything to drastically change the Pax Romana left by Augustus.

 

But I wonder what makes him a good administrator, though? He seemed incapable of making really important decisions. He did not manage his provincial legates unless they proved themselves extremely incompetent. He seems to have wanted the Senate to make more decisions on its own, but complained if they took directions he didn't like - and then when they subsequently referred matters to him out of fear, he suggested they were sycophants.

 

Not a leader blessed with vision and charisma.

[Mosquito]

The best thing we can say about Tiberius is that he did not do anything to drastically change the Pax Romana left by Augustus.

 

But I wonder what makes him a good administrator, though? He seemed incapable of making really important decisions. He did not manage his provincial legates unless they proved themselves extremely incompetent. He seems to have wanted the Senate to make more decisions on its own, but complained if they took directions he didn't like - and then when they subsequently referred matters to him out of fear, he suggested they were sycophants.

 

Not a leader blessed with vision and charisma.

 

 

How much of this is truth and how much is enemy propaganda?

 

Actually Tiberius was giving a lot of power to senate. This excerpt comes from my article about roman senate:

 

 

"The successor of Augustus

[caldrail]

Tiberius seems to have a sociopathic side to his character. Whilst he did his duty earlier I wonder if he felt his efforts were not sufficiently rewarded? After all, he only became emperor because everyone in front of him died off. Also, having to follow Augustus on stage must have been a daunting prospect, and I think tiberius felt something like the son of the boss that he always had to fill the shoes of. In any event, he grew tired of the cut and thrust of roman life. He just didn't like people and this tendency increased with age.

[Primus Pilus]

For all of Tiberius' quirks, whether they be right, wrong, proven or unproven, like Ursus, I believe the biggest "fault" is that he seemingly rejected his Roman duty of leadership. I don't think there is any question that he has been wrongly vilified by ancient sources on several aspects (the murder of Germanicus, various debauchery, etc.), but the revision of his character is not my concern.

 

Tiberius proved himself a moderately effective general and administrator when he applied himself to his duty of leadership. It's his relative disinterest or delegation of supreme power to Sejanus that should be looked upon with disdain.

[The Augusta]

Tiberius proved himself a moderately effective general and administrator when he applied himself to his duty of leadership. It's his relative disinterest or delegation of supreme power to Sejanus that should be looked upon with disdain.

 

But there again, PP, was his wish to delegate yet another thing he had learned from Augustus? Augustus, after all, had made Agrippa his actual co-regent in 18BC with a maius imperium over the East. And throughout his reign he good pick good men. I have always believed that Tiberius looked for just such a helper in Sejanus. Unfortunately, Tiberius was not the best judge of character! And Tiberius himself had held the tribunician power under Augustus, therefore I cannot condemn him for the act of delegating, only to whom.

[Primus Pilus]

Tiberius proved himself a moderately effective general and administrator when he applied himself to his duty of leadership. It's his relative disinterest or delegation of supreme power to Sejanus that should be looked upon with disdain.

 

But there again, PP, was his wish to delegate yet another thing he had learned from Augustus? Augustus, after all, had made Agrippa his actual co-regent in 18BC with a maius imperium over the East. And throughout his reign he good pick good men. I have always believed that Tiberius looked for just such a helper in Sejanus. Unfortunately, Tiberius was not the best judge of character! And Tiberius himself had held the tribunician power under Augustus, therefore I cannot condemn him for the act of delegating, only to whom.

 

Had circumstances been equal you have a completely valid point. However, Augustus' delegation of power, while maintaining ultimate authority and participation in government, appears decidedly different than Tiberius' delegation and personal withdrawal. I suppose that had Sejanus proven to be more even handed towards the aristocracy, you might be right and history would have judged Tiberius in a completely different light.

[The Augusta]

Had circumstances been equal you have a completely valid point. However, Augustus' delegation of power, while maintaining ultimate authority and participation in government, appears decidedly different than Tiberius' delegation and personal withdrawal. I suppose that had Sejanus proven to be more even handed towards the aristocracy, you might be right and history would have judged Tiberius in a completely different light.

 

Although the actual withdrawal came after delegation, but I take the point. And your summing up begs another question: Has Tiberius been judged largely in the context of Sejanus' manipulation and influence? Please feel free to direct me to a new thread, as this is not strictly relevant to the 'Personality' theme. (Bit I think it might make a decent enough debate)

[caldrail]

Personally I see Sejanus as a symptom of something more general in Tiberius's nature. He was only too keen to put aside the day to day stuff and clearly hadn't realised Sejanus had ambitions of his own. By that stage, Tiberius's disaffection with public life had reached the point where he was only too glad to have a trusted advisor take on the strain. Notice that Tiberius did not resume public life after Sejanus was revealed as a usurper, with all the lessons learned therefrom, but continued to live in semi-retirement.

[The Augusta]

Personally I see Sejanus as a symptom of something more general in Tiberius's nature. He was only too keen to put aside the day to day stuff and clearly hadn't realised Sejanus had ambitions of his own. By that stage, Tiberius's disaffection with public life had reached the point where he was only too glad to have a trusted advisor take on the strain. Notice that Tiberius did not resume public life after Sejanus was revealed as a usurper, with all the lessons learned therefrom, but continued to live in semi-retirement.

 

 

This is a good point - but I think by that time, he had quite simply 'had enough'. I also think we do need to bear in mind that Tiberius was not exactly Augustus' first choice as successor - he was at least the 5th - even if we don't count Marcellus as a serious candidate in Augustus' mind at the time. And for him to listen in the Senate to the opening words of Augustus' will, where he bemoaned fate for robbing him of Gaius and Lucius, and offered Tiberius as the only option left - well, this would hardly fill the man with confidence in himself.

 

You see, I am not so sure that Tiberius was actually born with his dreary personality; Augustus is not blameless in all this. But I also realise that I always judge Tiberius with a modern eye - which is most unscholarly and unhistorical (if there is such a word). I am quick to censure others for doing this with other historical persons It is just that, to me, Tiberius' personality seems to thrum with a very modern resonance. I know that Ursus, for one, has no patience with him, as he cannot understand why a member of the ruling class was reluctant to take on the mantle of government - and Ursus indeed has a good point, and is seeing Tiberius within the context of his own times. But I always think this a harsh judgment on a man who was introspective by nature - sympathy that would NOT have been extended to him in Roman times, to be sure. He is a real enigma and a very complex man, but all the more fascinating because of it.

[caldrail]

Personally I see Sejanus as a symptom of something more general in Tiberius's nature. He was only too keen to put aside the day to day stuff and clearly hadn't realised Sejanus had ambitions of his own. By that stage, Tiberius's disaffection with public life had reached the point where he was only too glad to have a trusted advisor take on the strain. Notice that Tiberius did not resume public life after Sejanus was revealed as a usurper, with all the lessons learned therefrom, but continued to live in semi-retirement.

 

 

This is a good point - but I think by that time, he had quite simply 'had enough'. I also think we do need to bear in mind that Tiberius was not exactly Augustus' first choice as successor - he was at least the 5th - even if we don't count Marcellus as a serious candidate in Augustus' mind at the time. And for him to listen in the Senate to the opening words of Augustus' will, where he bemoaned fate for robbing him of Gaius and Lucius, and offered Tiberius as the only option left - well, this would hardly fill the man with confidence in himself.

 

You see, I am not so sure that Tiberius was actually born with his dreary personality; Augustus is not blameless in all this. But I also realise that I always judge Tiberius with a modern eye - which is most unscholarly and unhistorical (if there is such a word). I am quick to censure others for doing this with other historical persons It is just that, to me, Tiberius' personality seems to thrum with a very modern resonance. I know that Ursus, for one, has no patience with him, as he cannot understand why a member of the ruling class was reluctant to take on the mantle of government - and Ursus indeed has a good point, and is seeing Tiberius within the context of his own times. But I always think this a harsh judgment on a man who was introspective by nature - sympathy that would NOT have been extended to him in Roman times, to be sure. He is a real enigma and a very complex man, but all the more fascinating because of it.

We're actually very close on this, because I do think, as I've mentioned before, that Tiberius resented being the 'last' to be considered for emperor and then only due to circumstance. I also think that Tiberius felt he had done his duty for Rome earlier in life and perhaps felt used and unrewarded for his efforts compared to more popular figures. Augustus never felt very well disposed toward Tiberius did he? If not, then thats something Tiberius was aware of. At the end of the day, Tiberius shows a distinct disenchantment with running with the crowd as he had in his early days, which would have resulted from a lack of personal popularity.