Overblown or Short-changed?

[sonic]

Until I went to University I tended to be a bit naive and accept the view of historians at face value - especially when it came to influential and powerful individuals. Since then I've become a little more cynical.

 

I've recently had to read Lord Mahon's 'Belisarius: The Last Great General of the Roman Empire', as well as Liddell Hart's 'Scipio Africanus: Greater than Napoleon'.

 

When reading these I found myself wondering just how much of their respective analyses are based on their reliance and acceptance of a major, single source (ie. Procopius and Polybius respectively). I've also come to the (obvious) conclusion that our modern perspectives on many historical figures are heavily biased, either for or against, by our uncritical reading of the sources. (For example, for the period after Rome, our images of Richard III and MacBeth - both images really being 'based' upon Shakespeare rather than actual historical texts.)

 

Therefore, my question is this:

 

"Which historical individual(s), with the emphasis being on Rome, do you think have been praised or maligned too much?"

 

I'll start off with Constantine I. I think the only reason he is given the title 'The Great' is due to his promotion of Christianity. It is always forgotten that he was actually a rebel who, although successful, merely began another round of civil wars that the Empire could have done without.

 

However, I am open to persuasion!!

[DecimusCaesar]

Constantine wasn't the only man to become emperor after overthrowing a rival. Diocletian did the same with Carinus at the Battle of the River Margus. You could even argue that Julius Caesar was a rebel, although some might oppose that idea. But simply put, being a rebel in the late antiquity wasn't much of a big deal, considering the amount of rebellions that took place during that period - Constantine III, Petronius Maximus's usurpation of Valentinian III's throne etc.

[The Augusta]

Well, I can't resist this. Livia has been much maligned. However, we do only find this malignancy in Dio (who lived 200 years after Livia), who no doubt drew upon those odd sentences in Tacitus that never said outright....but hinted... etc. etc. Strangely, Suetonius, our most scurrilous source, has nothing at all to say about Livia poisoning folk! Strange, that, for a biographer who named every rumour going! Perhaps this is why serious scholars through the years have never subscribed to the theory that Livia removed Augustus' heirs.

 

Sonic makes a good point here. Those of us who have studied history at a tertiary level are taught to evaluate our sources. Once these skills are learned they become such a part of us that we can no longer blindly accept anything we read. This is all to the good. Such evaluation helps to shape the historians of the next generation and so on. And he is right to cite historians who base their own interpretations and theories on a single primary source. For Gaius (Caligula) for instance, we have no Tacitus (alas). We only have Suetonius, whom Dio no doubt drew upon. And the list goes on.

 

But the opposite can apply. If all our primary sources are largely in favour of a person - say, Augustus or Constantine - why then do we get historians who are content to 'blackwash' these 'paragons'? Precisely because they are historians and they are taught to pull apart every line and phrase of the ancient texts. If they didn't do that they wouldn't be doing their job. A good historian will take into account all the evidence available to him, including non-written sources - inscriptions, coinage, portraiture, buildings etc. to paint a fuller picture of his subject. If we restrict ourselves to just one major text, we will not get the true picture.

 

However, having said this, I am not in favour of historians who seek to deconstruct every source to support their argument, just for the sake of being 'different'. (One can think of many modern examples) But nor am I in favour of those who accept every panegyric blindly as the truth. In the end it is down to the individual, and where reading history is concerned, we are largely in the hands of those who construct a plausible argument and back it with hard evidence from the primary sources.

 

Although people will offer the argument that each generation of historians interprets the past differently, interpretation should not be confused with subjective modern opinion. The facts as we know them - few that they are - will never change.

 

As for Constantine, Sonic - I am afraid I can offer nothing here, as he is not 'my period'. I merely answred this from your initial invitation. Hope you don't mind.

Edited August 5, 2008 by The Augusta

[Ursus]

While having issues with Constantine's religious policies, I have to conceed he was still a great man. Adept on the battlefield, shrewd enough to capitalize on Diocletion's reforms, visionary enough to found a new strategic city, he earned a place in the Roman panthon of emperors. Rebel or not, I think greatness is ultimately measured by success - better a successful rebel than a noble loser. Ask Cicero.

 

 

 

I honestly think the most maligned figure in Roman history - is Rome itself. It has acquired the reputation of an evil empire who triumphed because it was more violent than anyone else. Rome wrote so much about itself and its struggles - while many of its subject peoples were illiterate, and thus not able to damn themselves with their own recorded failings.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

"Which historical individual(s), with the emphasis being on Rome, do you think have been praised or maligned too much?"

Answer: virtually all Roman historical figures.

Generally speaking, people neither praised nor maligned weren't figures; they were just names in the annals or little more.

 

For example, C. Cassius Dio and PC Tacitus' abuse on Livia was almost surely unjustified; but without it, Diva Julia Augusta would have hardly made her way up to nowadays' TV screens.

 

Romans considered History much more the product of extraordinary individualities than many of us would do today; collective contributions were generally underestimated and frequently just overlooked.

 

Therefore Roman histories tended to be quite Manichean sagas, composed by both Great Heroes and Great Villains.

For fulfilling their respective agendas, primary sources were overtly biased more often than not.

 

However, what makes Roman case different from that of other ancient countries is mostly the plurality of available sources; we're often able to learn more than one side of the story. Actually, our classical sources themselves are frequently aware of that fact.

 

After all, we know that both PC Scipio Africanus Maior and Flavius Belisarius were processed and to some extent convicted on corruption charges; we're also aware of Constatinus' turbulent (even criminal) family life.

 

And I agree with Ursus; Constatinus' outstanding and long lasting reforms were far beyond mere religious promotion, even if the "Great" epithet was certainly given by Christian historiography (not to talk about his canonization).

Edited August 6, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Faustus]

"Which historical individual(s), with the emphasis being on Rome, do you think have been praised or maligned too much?"

 

I'll start off with Constantine I. I think the only reason he is given the title 'The Great' is due to his promotion of Christianity. It is always forgotten that he was actually a rebel who, although successful, merely began another round of civil wars that the Empire could have done without.

 

However, I am open to persuasion!!

 

My pick is

Of the Five Worst Roman Emperors He makes the top 5 list: 1. Caligula, 2. Elegabalus, 3. Commodus, 4. Nero, 5. Domitian

 

On his Administration

Another devastating fire in A.D. 80 had left Rome badly in need of repair. Domitian responded by erecting, restoring, or completing some 50 structures, including the restored Temple of Jupiter on the Capitol and a magnificent palace on the Palatine. The building program, ambitious and spectacular, was matched by hardly any other emperor. He was also able to maintain the debased currency standard of A.D. 85, which was still higher than the Vespasianic one, until the end of his reign. The economy, therefore, offered a ready outlet for Domitian's autocratic tendencies. There were failures, but he also left the treasury with a surplus, perhaps the best proof of a financially sound administration.

 

[Northern Neil]

I often feel sorry for Tiberius, and believe that he has been unfairly treated, mainly stemming from Seutonius' portrayal of him. He was a competent general, and paid attention to developing the infrastructure of the Empire and strengthening the frontiers. At worst he could be described as indifferent, at best as 'fairly good'.

 

Seutonius was writing at a time when the position of Emperor had been hereditary and lifelong for quite some time. In Tiberius' day it was still a political office, and he did not really want the job in the first place. I believe that if someone in the Senate had suggested he retire with a pension and hand the job to someone else, he might well have agreed.

[caldrail]

Suetonius porttrayed him as others described him. Tiberius wasn't a popular figure at all, but although it was standard practive to ridicule your rivals reputation and standing in the community, you can't help but feel there is an element of decadence in Tiberius. He was after all a misanthrope - he didn't like people - and in Capri had surrounded himself in his own private world. Quite how far gone he was is anybodies guess, but I'd have to describe him as a disturbed and odd personality to some degree.

 

Incidentially, the emperors were not hereditary rulers. naturally they would have preferred their offspring to continue the families tradition of power, but augustus was thwarted there and not until Commodus was 'an emperor born to the purple'

Edited August 6, 2008 by caldrail

[sonic]

I've got to admit that I've a great deal of sympathy for Claudius. I think his reign also had been the subject of bias in the ancient sources, who tend to portray him as a weak individual dominated by women.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

"Which historical individual(s), with the emphasis being on Rome, do you think have been praised or maligned too much?"

 

Therefore Roman histories tended to be quite Manichean sagas, composed by both Great Heroes and Great Villains.

For fulfilling their respective agendas, primary sources were overtly biased more often than not.

A particularly notorious case was the severian Senator Claudius Cassius Dio on the Damnatio Memoriae Domitian (Liber LVII) versus the almost consecutive Optimus Princeps Trajan (Liber LXVIII), because regarding government and administrative measures, he is basically maligning in the first one the same he is praising in the latter.

 

If you check on C Plinius Minor correspondance with Trajan, you will find most if not all of Domiatian's decrees were simply ratified.

Edited August 6, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[sonic]

One emperor I think has had too much of a good press is Marcus Aurelius. I believe that his reputation is based on the fact that his 'Meditations' has survived. Without this book, he looks simply like another Emperor fighting the barbarians. Other Emperors, such as Claudius, also wrote books and, had they too survived, the reputation of those emperors would have been greatly changed.