Anniversary of Emperor Titus' death in 81 AD

[JGolomb]

Yesterday was the 1,928th anniversary of the death of Emperor Titus.

 

There appear to be several theories on how he died. Can anyone add to this confusion (or rather help to clear up the confusion?)

- Domitian poisoned him

- Natural causes: perhaps malaria or another fever and Domitian went out of his way to avoid helping his brother

- Here's an interesting story I've seen in a couple of places (full Titus bio here):

In the Babylonian Talmud, the Jews claimed Titus

[sylla]

Yesterday was the 1,928th anniversary of the death of Emperor Titus.

 

There appear to be several theories on how he died. Can anyone add to this confusion (or rather help to clear up the confusion?)

- Domitian poisoned him

- Natural causes: perhaps malaria or another fever and Domitian went out of his way to avoid helping his brother

- Here's an interesting story I've seen in a couple of places (full Titus bio here):

In the Babylonian Talmud, the Jews claimed Titus

Edited September 15, 2009 by sylla

[Primus Pilus]

Just as an for comparison of primary source material on a similar subject... when we compare the "evidence" presented by Tacitus (and Suetonius) against Tiberius in the death of Germanicus, the death of Titus lacks the much deeper perception of criminality in the previous case. Of course, public and/or source material perception is not necessarily indicative of guilt, innocence or direct circumstances in a case, but the overwhelming sentiment in case 1 seems to have been that Tiberius was involved in the death of Germanicus (despite the complete lack of actual evidence and only hear-say opinion by the sources). In case 2, there is far less of that same sentiment, despite the relatively low opinion of Domitian by the aristocratic sources (though he did have public and military support for the most part).

[JGolomb]

Just as an for comparison of primary source material on a similar subject... when we compare the "evidence" presented by Tacitus (and Suetonius) against Tiberius in the death of Germanicus, the death of Titus lacks the much deeper perception of criminality in the previous case. Of course, public and/or source material perception is not necessarily indicative of guilt, innocence or direct circumstances in a case, but the overwhelming sentiment in case 1 seems to have been that Tiberius was involved in the death of Germanicus (despite the complete lack of actual evidence and only hear-say opinion by the sources). In case 2, there is far less of that same sentiment, despite the relatively low opinion of Domitian by the aristocratic sources (though he did have public and military support for the most part).

 

Primus,

 

Good point. The key issue of original source veracity and reliability is an area that I struggle with. I'm an amateur in my growing passion for Roman history and I find it hard to apply the "veracity filter" on a book's sources. I'd love to have a "source primer" with a relatively easy checklist of a source's perspective. For example: "Did this source advocate a republican government?" (CHECK) "Did this source serve in the army and so has direct experience?" (CHECK)

 

Murdoch does a nice job of layout out source perspectives in "Rome's Greatest Defeat" (which you reviewed, I think). He writes in his introduction to the sources, "It is worth taking a few moments to look at them (the sources), to understand their perspectives and, above all, to grasp the different intentions between history in the classical world and now." He quotes a historian who warns readers of Tacitus: "a paraphrase of the text does not give a view of the war as a modern reader would understand it."

 

I found myself continually bouncing back to the backrounders on the sources so I could keep their specific perspectives in mind.

 

The ability to digest, evaluate and derive conclusions around a mix of sources for a given historical story is a skill I greatly admire. I think people are prone to want to understand history in black and white and it's hard to embrace the gray areas.

[Primus Pilus]

The ability to digest, evaluate and derive conclusions around a mix of sources for a given historical story is a skill I greatly admire. I think people are prone to want to understand history in black and white and it's hard to embrace the gray areas.

 

Agreed, what we miss a great deal of is simple context. One thousand years from now, people may have a very warped view of today's USA if the only surviving book is either decidedly pro or anti Obama. It's one of the things that adds to the struggle in interpreting eras with a far smaller literary scale... there is a less diverse point of view (in addition to the previously noted issues with methodology of the ancient historians).

 

Domitian was in fact quite popular in the public context, but history has long told has that his was a "reign of terror". Of course, this has been over-emphasized by the Catholic Church in relation to martyrdom issues, but the root of all of it was the adversarial relationship between Domitian and the Senate/Aristocracy (and Tacitus on a very personal note because of his father-in-law Agricola).

[sylla]

The ability to digest, evaluate and derive conclusions around a mix of sources for a given historical story is a skill I greatly admire. I think people are prone to want to understand history in black and white and it's hard to embrace the gray areas.

 

Agreed, what we miss a great deal of is simple context. One thousand years from now, people may have a very warped view of today's USA if the only surviving book is either decidedly pro or anti Obama. It's one of the things that adds to the struggle in interpreting eras with a far smaller literary scale... there is a less diverse point of view (in addition to the previously noted issues with methodology of the ancient historians).

 

Domitian was in fact quite popular in the public context, but history has long told has that his was a "reign of terror". Of course, this has been over-emphasized by the Catholic Church in relation to martyrdom issues, but the root of all of it was the adversarial relationship between Domitian and the Senate/Aristocracy (and Tacitus on a very personal note because of his father-in-law Agricola).

Even more, I don't think we have any objective evidence on the purported antagonism between Domitian and Agricola; in all likelihood our dear Tacitus, as opportunist as most known Roman historians, was simply adapting his work to the new rulers and drawing his line from the defeated Flavian regime that had been so friendly for him and his family.

[JGolomb]

The ability to digest, evaluate and derive conclusions around a mix of sources for a given historical story is a skill I greatly admire. I think people are prone to want to understand history in black and white and it's hard to embrace the gray areas.

 

Agreed, what we miss a great deal of is simple context. One thousand years from now, people may have a very warped view of today's USA if the only surviving book is either decidedly pro or anti Obama. It's one of the things that adds to the struggle in interpreting eras with a far smaller literary scale... there is a less diverse point of view (in addition to the previously noted issues with methodology of the ancient historians).

 

Domitian was in fact quite popular in the public context, but history has long told has that his was a "reign of terror". Of course, this has been over-emphasized by the Catholic Church in relation to martyrdom issues, but the root of all of it was the adversarial relationship between Domitian and the Senate/Aristocracy (and Tacitus on a very personal note because of his father-in-law Agricola).

 

Priumus and Sylla,

 

I think you'll both appreciate this article that popped into an RSS feed of mine today. Couldn't have been timed any better:

The Positivist Fallacy

Positivist Fallacy: the assumption, often implicit, that historical sources document significant events of the past.

Like the Everest Fallacy, the Positivist Fallacy can best be introduced with an example. There are four sources for the battle in the Teutoburg Forest (Velleius Paterculus, Tacitus, Florus, and Cassius Dio). Generations of scholars have written about the clash and have, considering the battle to have been decisive, argued that (a) the Romans were forced to accept the Rhine as their frontier, ( the limes was created, © Germany remained unoccupied, and (d) this caused an antagonism between Romans/Franks/French and Germans that would continue to influence European history for centuries to come.

 

We now know that this was exaggerated. Not only did the Romans conduct several campaigns on the east bank, where they continued to find allies, but they also continued to have access to the resources of Germany (e.g., lead and gold). The Rhine limes was not created until the reign of Claudius; it was only then that the Romans accepted rivers as permanent frontiers and started to develop a defensive strategy. This change in perspective is the consequence of more accurate dendrochronological dates and improved pottery seriations. Only with these results, archaeologists came to realize that some forty years passed between the defeat of Varus and the creation of the limes. We now know that the Claudian army reforms were what really mattered.

 

But even without archaeological advances, the error could have been avoided. Ancient historians have allowed themselves to be misled by the fact that they had four sources on the battle. But they ought not to have been fooled. When we have a great number of sources, that does not mean that an event was significant. Nor does a small number of sources mean that nothing happened. We have no written sources about the Claudian army reforms, but they were important.

[sylla]

I'm in fact a big fan of Prof. Lendering's work.

Priumus and Sylla,

I think you'll both appreciate this article that popped into an RSS feed of mine today. Couldn't have been timed any better:

The Positivist Fallacy

Positivist Fallacy: the assumption, often implicit, that historical sources document significant events of the past.

Like the Everest Fallacy, the Positivist Fallacy can best be introduced with an example...

Being this fundamentally a methodological issue, we should probably deal with it in another thread.

For now, let just say that when Prof, Lendering gets to the core of his article (SIC):

"What scholars did wrong, is that they forgot that there are many historical facts for which we have no evidence.

Instead they focused on the facts for which positive evidence exists (hence the name "Positive Fallacy")."

 

From his own examples it's clear that by "no evidence" he strictly means "no direct explicit (ie, positive) textual evidence"; that's why his main "no evidence" example are the so-called Claudian Reforms (SIC):

"We have no written sources about the Claudian army reforms, but they were important."

(BTW, another outstanding contribution from livius.org; just indirect quotations from Classical sources and archaeological evidence were used).

 

The example quoted in the previous post is probably better fitted for the ongoing thread on the 2000 years of the battle of Teutoburg.

Edited September 18, 2009 by sylla