Why did Augustus Select Such a Bad Heir

[omoplata]

What do you think is the reason Augustus picked such a bad successor in Tiberius?

[Centurion-Macro]

To be honest I think Augustus was always a bit of a nut. I never liked him, and I think he went a little soft in the head after Teotoberg forest.

[Kosmo]

Augustus picked many successors, but they all died before him. He did not have many options besides Tiberius. Also Tiberius proved himself worthy during Augustus reign especially as a military commander.

[Ingsoc]

Tiberius actually was a decent emperor, I would even goes to say he was pretty good emperor.

[caldrail]

Apart from one major failing in Roman eyes - he was unpopular with the public. Also, given that he spent something like two-thirds of his reign at his holiday villa in Capri, one might be forgiven for thinking that he loathed the role and had 'better' ways to spend his time. He certainly had no love for the Roman public. Of course this was also his duty and privilege.

[Primus Pilus]

Agree with previous posts... not only was he basically the best remaining choice at the time of succession, but he actually was quite accomplished politically and militarily while proving to be capable when applying himself as the princeps. If not for his noted and oft-repeated desire to distance himself from direct governing (ie the self imposed exile to Rhodes, or retirement to Capri), the Roman world would not have been subjected to Sejanus. That is the true failing of Tiberius, not most of the other venom one gets from Suetonius, et al.

[omoplata]

To be honest I think Augustus was always a bit of a nut. I never liked him, and I think he went a little soft in the head after Teotoberg forest.

 

Can you explain a bit more, both issues?

What did he do that was nutty? I am only aware of his some of his moral laws, which i consider a little crazy.

And what was the Teotoberg forest? Any link where we can read up more on it?

[Viggen]

To be honest I think Augustus was always a bit of a nut. I never liked him, and I think he went a little soft in the head after Teotoberg forest.

 

And what was the Teotoberg forest? Any link where we can read up more on it?

 

Here some infos on Arminius and the Battle of Teutoburg Forest

 

cheers

viggen

[omoplata]

Nice link, thank you so much

I was amazed to read that those 3 legions were never replaced...

 

To be honest I think Augustus was always a bit of a nut. I never liked him, and I think he went a little soft in the head after Teotoberg forest.

 

And what was the Teotoberg forest? Any link where we can read up more on it?

 

Here some infos on Arminius and the Battle of Teutoburg Forest

 

cheers

viggen

[Centurion-Macro]

Can you explain a bit more, both issues?

What did he do that was nutty? I am only aware of his some of his moral laws, which i consider a little crazy.

And what was the Teotoberg forest? Any link where we can read up more on it?

After the Teotoberg forest incident, he was never the same...

 

~ He would bang on the door shouting "Varus, give me back my legions".

 

~ He did not cut his hair and beard for months afterwards.

 

~ He was so paranoid that he ordered his guards to patrol Rome at night to protect him from barbarians.

 

~ He then also spent hoards of money on public games to keep everyone happy, instead of spending more money on bringing more legions into service.

 

To sum up, I do believe he went a bit insane in the end. I know he was old and all that, but when three legions are wiped out, the obvious thing to do would be to reimburse them to keep the strain off the army, but the legions stayed at 25 for a good period after Teutoberg forest. No rational leader would let that happen.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Centurion-Macro

[caldrail]

Augustus had financial limits. He'd already disbanded more than half the available legionary strength after the end of the civil wars and resettled the ex-soldiers in colonies for that very reason. The economic success of his reign was down to decisions of that nature, and since the strategic requirements of his day did not suggest the need for further legions, there wasn't any point lumbering himself with the cost and potential danger of rebellious legions. Remember that Tacitus wasn't suprised by the mutinies in Pannonia and Germania that occured when Augustus died. Smaller scale labour-relations problems with the troops were apparently a feature of military life in that period.

 

The problems in Germania were not that he faced an enemy army hell bent on Roman destruction (which was his initial fear), but the failure of his chosen man, varus, to successfully colonise the region, keep the peace, and tax the backsides off them. It was after all to the dead Varus that Augustus made his demand to learn the location of the eagles, which eventually Germanicus would recover. It reflected on him as a ruler whether his frontier provinces were peaceful and such rebellions were not good for business when you're walking a political tightrope. I imagine the chap was seriously worried about what was going to happen.

 

Also, the intense and emotional nature of Roman life sometimes gives rise to stories of people showing grief. These days in the modern west we're taught such things are not really acceptable, but back then, it was expected that a man displayed emotion. Notice that when Julius Caesar bursts into tears of frustration in Spain when seeing a statue of Alexander he Great, no-one appears to mock him. Far from it, his associates are immediately concerned as to why their general was behaving in that way.

 

The other aspect is superstition. Augustus was as intensely superstitious as other Romans. The problem with legion persistance in this period is that it was underpinned by the will of the gods, and the spirits imbued in legionary standards. Roman 'eagles' weren't just standards as we know them, but symbols with religious significance. For them to be captured by the enemy really was a disaster in his eyes, and to replace a legion under standards so cursed or defiled? That was pushing your luck wasn't it?

 

As for Augustus's behaviour, bear in mind that Suetonius is repeating gossip. There's no guarantee Augustus did those things, or maybe did that more than once, but I also think you underestimate the strain he was under as ruler of the unified Roman world. He was treading a dangerous path. His uncle, Julius Caesar, had already been assassinated after becoming the sole ruler, and Augustus wouldn't have wanted to make that mistake. That was why he called himself 'First Citizen' instead of a more grandiose title. Further, his early reign wasn't as easy as some believe. I read mentions of him being shouted down in the senate and taunted as he stomped out. Any ruler in a state so ruthlessly competitive must have been living by looking over his shoulder.

 

Spending money to keep the public happy with games and civic development ("I found Rome in brick, and left it in marble") was part of his survival policy. If the Romans were entertained and visibly impressed with his largesse, there was less chance of a plot developing against him. Besides, he wanted to remembered as a great ruler and such people always build memorials to themselves in one way or another.

[omoplata]

caldrail,

I do not have sufficient knowledge to evaluate your post on the basis of historic accuracy, but must thank you for the excellent writing and very deep analysis with great insights...

[9544bhana]

I agree with caldrail I also like to add the following points.

 

Let also don

[guy]

Agree with previous posts... not only was he basically the best remaining choice at the time of succession, but he actually was quite accomplished politically and militarily while proving to be capable when applying himself as the princeps. If not for his noted and oft-repeated desire to distance himself from direct governing (ie the self imposed exile to Rhodes, or retirement to Capri), the Roman world would not have been subjected to Sejanus. That is the true failing of Tiberius, not most of the other venom one gets from Suetonius, et al.

 

I agree. Suetonius was a Flavian propagandist who showed some self-restraint with the still revered Augustus. Tiberus, however, bore the full brunt of Suetonian character assassination and was, therefore, portrayed as some deviant freak. We frequently forget the motivations that any author has for his depictions.

 

guy also known as gaius

 

 

Addendum: Let me explain what I meant by referring to Suetonius as a "Flavian propagandist." The Julio-Claudian dynasty included the first five Emperors (Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius, and Nero). The Flavian dynasty included Vespasian and his two sons Titus and Domitian. Although he worked during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian (part of the Nerva-Antonine dynasty), he may felt the pressure to diminish the stature of the celebrated Julio-Claudians and elevate the stature of the Flavian Vespasian, a non-Julio-Claudian, in order to curry favor with Nerva-Antonine dynasts (who formed part of another non-Julio-Claudian dynastic line and who may have felt insecure about their status in society).

Edited July 5, 2010 by guy