Hadrian

[Cassius Loginus]

Here is an excerpt from Simon Baker's book 'Ancient Rome' (the famous BBC Documentary)

 

"His (Hadrian) drive to excel and his inquisitive mind made him, for example, an accomplished, experimenting architect. The building of a temple to Venus would be the very first mark he would make on the city, the first imprint of his reign. He drew up the plans himself. When Apollodorus, the most famous architect of the day, criticized the proportions of the columns on the drafts that, in deference, the emperor had sent to him for approval, the quick-tempered, unforgiving Hadrian promptly had him killed." (Page 296)

 

I cannot understand why Hadrian like other emperors where so brutal in their decisions, killing important people, in this case Apollodorus. We call this 'civilised' Rome?

[Kosmo]

He had Apollodorus killed, but not for arhitectural debates as some suggest, but because he was connected to a circle that wanted Hadrian dead. He did killed some important people, but this was only because he felt threatened.

He also had some hot temper. He had struck his secretary on the face, but having a sharp "pen" in his hand the secratary lost an eye.

This were reasons for which the Senate was not happy to make him a god, some beleived that he should be called a tyrant.

[Primus Pilus]

Here is an excerpt from Simon Baker's book 'Ancient Rome' (the famous BBC Documentary)

 

"His (Hadrian) drive to excel and his inquisitive mind made him, for example, an accomplished, experimenting architect. The building of a temple to Venus would be the very first mark he would make on the city, the first imprint of his reign. He drew up the plans himself. When Apollodorus, the most famous architect of the day, criticized the proportions of the columns on the drafts that, in deference, the emperor had sent to him for approval, the quick-tempered, unforgiving Hadrian promptly had him killed." (Page 296)

 

I cannot understand why Hadrian like other emperors where so brutal in their decisions, killing important people, in this case Apollodorus. We call this 'civilised' Rome?

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely it would seem. The emperor's ego was not bound by the constraints of law that most everyone else was. It's civilization led by autonomous power. Such a combination will certainly have it's moments of incredulous behavior, but such behavior does not mean the absence of civilization.

 

Here's the full passage relating to the death of Apollodorus from Cassius Dio Book 69.4. Strangely, the Historia Augusta ignored this particular piece of juicy gossip.

[Cassius Loginus]

Here is an excerpt from Simon Baker's book 'Ancient Rome' (the famous BBC Documentary)

 

"His (Hadrian) drive to excel and his inquisitive mind made him, for example, an accomplished, experimenting architect. The building of a temple to Venus would be the very first mark he would make on the city, the first imprint of his reign. He drew up the plans himself. When Apollodorus, the most famous architect of the day, criticized the proportions of the columns on the drafts that, in deference, the emperor had sent to him for approval, the quick-tempered, unforgiving Hadrian promptly had him killed." (Page 296)

 

I cannot understand why Hadrian like other emperors where so brutal in their decisions, killing important people, in this case Apollodorus. We call this 'civilised' Rome?

 

Absolute power corrupts absolutely it would seem. The emperor's ego was not bound by the constraints of law that most everyone else was. It's civilization led by autonomous power. Such a combination will certainly have it's moments of incredulous behavior, but such behavior does not mean the absence of civilization.

 

Here's the full passage relating to the death of Apollodorus from Cassius Dio Book 69.4. Strangely, the Historia Augusta ignored this particular piece of juicy gossip.

 

I thought that Apollodorus was killed just for fancy sake. I believe Roman Civilization was the best thing that happened to the early history and we owe them our gratitude especially the West.

[caldrail]

I cannot understand why Hadrian like other emperors where so brutal in their decisions, killing important people, in this case Apollodorus. We call this 'civilised' Rome?

 

Emperors were important people, who often got to that spot by trampling on others. So its likely that they were the sort of personalities not averse to killing anyway. Also we must remember that the roman world was a time of violence, commonplace in other cultures as well as Rome. Cruelty was a common characteristic and the Persians were probably worse thatn the romans in some respects. So we have a man who has grown up in a very competitive society, who has risen to power by dubious means, and must hold on to that power. He must enforce absolute obedience, and discipline upon those around him to prevent any sign of weakness tempting others to replace him. With that in mind, if someone entrusted with an important project has failed him, this reflects on the emperors divinity and reputation, so with his need to show superior ruling ability and popularity with the masses, and given the dangerous world he inhabits, it may be seen as desirable to sentence that someone to an early grave. It's expedience from a ruthless powerful man.

[Ursus]

Hadrian was a patron of the arts and Hellenic aesthetics. He gets my vote for being a decent emperor. Perhaps a little too given to infatuation with young boys, however.

[caldrail]

hadrian comes across as something less than the roman ideal leader. His predecessor, Trajan, was of course the great warrior, a conqueror, a man who brought Rome military glory again. After all, he staged games lasting almost a thiord of the year to celebrate his victories. Hadrian however doesn't have a reputation for for staging these entertainments. He seems much more aloof, a more private man, and certainly not someone to lead an army into battle. Hadrian came to power under suspicious means - he wasn't guaranteed the throne, and entered Rome ahead of his rivals to claim it. Once in power, he proceeds to cnduct a policy of consolidation - to encourage romanisation of the territory they already controlled, and he was quick to abandon those territories conquered by Trajan that needed military action to retain under the pax romana. My feeling is that Hadrian was more concerned with his own pleasures than living life in the privations of army camps. Regarding his infatuation with young boys (it must be said he did have such leanings) he was also somewhat mysogonistic toward his wife - so you might conclude he only married her for appearances (and children?). Its hard for me to accept hadrian as a decent man because he took power for his own pleasure rather than to provide leadership to the roman people, and as for patronising arts, well, so did Nero and plenty of other emperors, but doing so does not actually improve life for the common people who generally speaking couldn't afford such luxuries and preferred active entertainments such as boxing, gladiatorial combat, chariot racing, etc, which Hadrian does not seem to encourage. Indeed, we know he made laws to restrict gladiators after their surge of popularity under Trajan. Was that entirely to make roman cities more peaceful, or did he also despise these successful slaves and seek to put them in their place? Therefore, by patronising the arts, he is making himself popular with educated men - those with enough wealth and sophistication to enjoy such things - and perhaps therefore making himself popular with those who might be in a position to replace him?

[Kosmo]

Hadrian was a great emperor. He traveled from one end to the other of the empire launching building projects not only for laisure and prestige but also had build ports, aqueducts, fortifications etc He listened local complaints and checked the behaviour of officials and military.

He tried to keep peace and to develop relations with neighbours.

His only mistakes were his handling of relations with hebrews in Israel and the use of a two emperor system in an effort to secure the purple.

He made good choices of succesors trying to avoid the situation that occured at Trajan's death and that had kept the empire safe until M. Aurelius changed the pattern.

He also gave greeks a more dignified role in the empire.

His love of boys did not affect too much his handling of imperial affairs.

 

The most shocking thing he has done was to deify his mother-in-law. Either he was very glad she was dead, or he was realy strange .

 

Maybe I'm biased towards him thanks to Marguerite Yourcenar and her excellent historical novel.

[longshotgene]

I would have to say Hadrian was a great emperor. He knew the limitations of the Roman Empire. Trajan expanded the borders, and Hadrian contracted them. The reason he never put on games in Rome was because he was hardly ever there. I think according to the biography written on Hadrian, he was only ever in Rome twice. I did find that he liked spending a lot of time in Greece and the near east, but does this make him a bad emperor? He was bi-sexual as were all but about 6 emperors, does this make him bad? He lashed out at certain people. Does this make him bad? I think we criticize a culture we are not part of too harshly. I would have to say that Hadrian was an excellent emperor. No other emperor spent more time going through out the empire strengthening its borders, and making it aesthetically more beautiful. And honestly, what Roman emperor ever cared about the peasants? I mean they cared about them not revolting, and paying their taxes. But what emperor actually gave a rat's rear about the vulgar? I have been to the Pantheon, Hadrian's Wall, the Limes of the Rhine as well as many other places Hadrian frequented. For that time period, the man would have covered a heck of a lot of land. I can't really remember an American president having done this except during election time.

[Kosmo]

I have been to the Pantheon, Hadrian's Wall, the Limes of the Rhine as well as many other places Hadrian frequented.

 

Not to mention Athens, Ephes, Attalia and many other places were the greatest roman monuments still standing are made by him.

[Nephele]

Hadrian also gets my vote for being an emperor who was better than most. I don't believe that we can judge Hadrian too harshly for his predilection for young boys, as modern-day morality on that score differs significantly from the morality of the past. Additionally, the suggested misogyny of Hadrian towards his wife (as Caldrail brought up) in that Hadrian may have only married her for appearances and possible children, is yet another modern-day judgement. Marriage in the past -- particularly marriage among the ruling classes -- was a political and economic, as well as social convention. The feelings of the woman had very little to do with it.

 

But Hadrian's morality appears to have recognized the plight of slaves -- at least to a degree that might be compared today to the concerns of animal welfare advocates. And he seems to have been in step with his own times, as well, in this. During his rule, Hadrian issued a decree limiting the use of torture of slave witnesses as a last resort in legal proceedings. Also, in cases where a slave might have murdered his master and, in the past, every slave of the household would be put to torture, Hadrian ordained that only those slaves who were actually at the scene of the crime could be thus punished -- not the entire household of slaves. Hadrian also (as related by Ulpian) banished a Roman matron by the name of Umbricia for grossly abusing her slave girls.

 

Hadrian obviously didn't free the slaves -- slavery was an established institution deemed necessary by the ancients and not viewed with the same repugnance as in modern times. But Hadrian did recognize abuses in the unnecessary mistreatment of slaves, and used his power to rectify some of the worst of these abuses.

 

-- Nephele

[DecimusCaesar]

Hadrian was a patron of the arts and Hellenic aesthetics. He gets my vote for being a decent emperor. Perhaps a little too given to infatuation with young boys, however.

 

He was also known for his frequent affairs with other men's wives as well. That must not have made him popular with some senators.

 

What's interesting is that many people today see Hadrian as one of the good emperors, yet in his one time he was considered a bit of a tyrant by the common man. After his death many Romans didn't mourn his passing. Cassius Dio mentions this in his works, I think. A lot of this hate seemed to stem from the unnecessary executions he had committed in his early reign, so I suppose some saw him as a 'mild Nero'.

[caldrail]

Yes, Hadrian died hated by the roman people, and was known for murders committed early in his reign. Although it cannot be denied that Hadrian was a great administrator, he wasn't a great man, unpopular and possibly untrusted by those around him. Also, before you consider him a great emperor, you should bear in mind that Hadrians policy of consolidation had one major flaw - expense. He did nothing to increase the affluence of the roman public nor improve the economy, and money was constantly being spent either on his frontier controls or his personal enjoyment.

 

The analogy with Nero is a difficult one because although they had some similar leanings, Nero was by far a more extrovert and unrestrained character. Nonetheless, Hadrian isn't whiter than white by any means, and like Augustus the length of his peaceful reign is assumed to indicate a great ruler. This isn't necessarily true, and for all his work in consolidating Rome, he still had to put down a rebellion - a task I note he handed to someone else without any personal oversight. Truth is, Hadrian wanted to make sure the empire was secure so he could put his feet up and lead an easy life... Which is exactly what he did.

[Kosmo]

I don't know about which expansive pleasures and easy life are you talking. He did not build palaces or luxurious ships and did not indulge in rouinous games at public expense for plebeian popularity. He was more of a stoic than an epicurean.

I doubt that commoners cared too much when some of the elite were put to death. The senatorial elite were the unhappy, less for the early cleaning, but more about an emperor that ruled from far away.

The fact that he builded so much shows that he had the resources and I guess that his constant inspections had lots to do with that prosperity. A hands-on leader that worked a lot rather then a party-man.

And he showed much more concern about his succesion than any other emperor.

He was the first emperor to recognise the need for a roman heavy cavalry and he led to a large extent the puting down of the jewish rebellion.

His rule was the zenith of the roman empire.

[Primus Pilus]

I don't know about which expansive pleasures and easy life are you talking. He did not build palaces or luxurious ships and did not indulge in rouinous games at public expense for plebeian popularity. He was more of a stoic than an epicurean.

I doubt that commoners cared too much when some of the elite were put to death. The senatorial elite were the unhappy, less for the early cleaning, but more about an emperor that ruled from far away.

 

Indeed, his populist movements were very minimal, really. When he first arrived in Rome (nearly a year after his accession) he ordered a large cancellation of public debts, enacted numerous honors on his popular predecessor Trajan, and commissioned the previously mentioned building programs. However, one of these such programs, the removal of Trajan's theatre on the Campius Martius, was very unpopular. He did it because he felt it was necessary. Largely, he seems to be one of the most practical rulers Rome ever had and he did not seem do things simply because it made him popular. His problem was the poor relationship with a portion of the aristocracy, and a rather noted arrogance. The accounts of Cassius Dio and the Historia Augusta are, for the most part, quite positive.

 

 

His rule was the zenith of the roman empire.

 

I'd actually argue that the reign of his successor, Antoninus Pius, would probably fill this description better; but I suppose that's a discussion for another thread.