Let's Look Again At Roman History

[phil25]

This thread is not meant to be taken wholly seriously, nor do i personally agree all the points i raise.

 

However, in my absence from this site I have been pondering the question of how we perceive roman history, not least the period from the death of Caesar to the death of Commodus.

 

I find that to challenge mentally the conventional wisdom on an historical period can be helpful in creating new lines of thought and opening hidden vistas (as a friend of mine puts it) nto the past.

 

To give na example - cease to look at the history of Phaoahonic Egypt in terms of European political jargon and see it as an African tribal culture - see how that illuminates ancient Egyptian religeon, titles, and political roles and life.

 

So here goes for Rome.

 

The murder of Caesar created a vacuum, largely because of the ineptitude of the assassins who failed to see that since Sulla, the nature of the republic had changed.

 

But the repbulic (literally res publica - or public affairs) was not a republic in any modern sense, nor democratic - but was an oligarchy (rule by an elite) that manupilated a limited popular franchise.

 

Antonius was late in regaining his poise, but seized the initiative and sought (see his dealings with the conspirators0 to restore a version of the republic in which he would be a moderated Caesar - ie the first man (princeps) without the titles, but that political life would go on as before.

 

However, Octavian (or his advisers) saw an opportunity to build on Caesar's name using the power of his veterans, two things which Antonius had neglected.

 

Let's drop Victorian concepts and associations which cluster round the names Emperor (by which I mean meanings coloured by Napoleon and his like) and Caesar. Octavian was Gaius Julius Caesar - and the name redounded.

 

Consistently, the young Caesar (name not title) wrong-footed Antonius - he was more ruthless, more focused, less bound to the old ways. He challenged the staus quo and won - Consul before he was 20. He broke the rules, murdered, threatened and defied the Senate by force.

 

But none of this was other than Marius, Sulla, or Caesar had done.

 

No military genuis, nor hero, the young Caesar yet knew how to manage ideas and propaganda. He may have been a coward at Phillippi, but it was he, not Antonius who had forced the confrontation with the assasins - who had gained the vengeance that the Dictator Caesar's veterans had craved.

 

It was, as Cicero predicted, Caesar's name (still not a title) that did the work, plus the political skills of its current bearer and men like Maecenas.

 

The former "Octavian" realised the power of words - Caesar (a name) became a title; imperator (a title) became absorbed into his name. yet Antonius, Caesar, Pompeius, Sulla, Marius and a hundred other generals of the republic had all been hailed as "imperator" (victorious general) by their troops. None before had sought to make the title their's alone!!

 

Antonius gained a new view of the Roman world (perhaps one Dictator Caesar had begun to formulate) through Cleopatra.

 

Far from being an ambitious rival of Rome, Cleopatra sought to use Ptolemaic experience in the east to assist the triumvir who would rule that part of the provinces of Rome - I prefer to avoid the term "empire" which is anachronistic and reeks of association with the word imperator.

 

Antonius was far-sighted. 300 years before Constantine, he recognised that the Roman world needed to be governed from the east, not the west - since the major sources of wealth and food were there, no to mention a major threat from Parthia. he had a policy to rule in Hellenistic terms (monarchy and deified) and with a less heavy hand than Rome traditionally employed.

 

In the clash, Octavian Caesar prevailed (largely thanks to Agrippa) and Antonius was seen as a traitor - but his "policy" survived within his own family, transmitted by his daughter Antonia Minor.

 

In taking the title "Augustus", Octavian used symbolic words and took them as names once again - he rejected Romulus (a name but with regal associations) in favour of a tirle with religeous connotations, that he took as a name.

 

But Augustus rule was not as smooth as history tells us. there is clear evidence of an internal coup by Agrippa that has him associated with the succession and changes to the new consitution.

 

The banishments of both Augustus' daughter and grand-daughter (both named Julia) are also clearly as much or more political than they are moral. The elder Julia's crime saw Antonius' son Iullus executed. Coincidence - or proof that Antonius' philosophy of empire thrived?

 

We do not need to consider Robert Graves' concept of a murderous Livia to explain the trials of Augustus in regard to his succession. Genetic weakness in the Julian (read Augustus) family or illness (like haemaphilia in the female descendents of Queen Victoria) may account for the deaths of Gaius and Lucius, Germanicus etc as well as others. Plague was a constant in Rome with some years worse than others - Julius caesar had been an epileptic, Augustus was often unwell.

 

But Augustus rule was always wholly within the republican tradition. He was princeps (first citizen and first to speak/most influential in the Senate) but he lived in a pretty ordinary house, went around like other Senators, had clients - though more than most - everyone!!

 

No one in his day could have expected him to live so long - but they and he recognised the need to have no new vacuum when he died . Hence the idea of the succession - not an Emperor but a chief executive, ruling through republican institutions and methods.

 

Tiberius, long Augustus partner in the tribunician powers, was the eventual fall back as heir. But Tiberius wanted a return to (or maybe in his terms, a continuance of) republican rule. He may have seen himself and his son as guardians for Germanicus and the heirs of Augustus, nothing more. A situation akin to the Kings and Stewards on Gondor in Tolkien.

 

But Tiberius was made cynical, and too old when he succeeded, was cynically manipulated by Sejanus.

 

Sejanus, working within the republican tradition, was a general who sought power (viz Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Caesar, Antonius, Lepidus....). He did resort to murder - Nero the son of Germanisuc and Drusus the son of Tiberius were killed by him. Agrippina Major and her other son Drusus died as a result of his plots and the suspicion he engendered. It is interesting that his co-conspirator (Livilla) was a direct descendent of Augustus and of Antonius and may have sought the formers place before tiberius would grant it, and to implement the latter's policy

 

On Tiberius death (not a seedy, decadent paedophile by the way but a consistently reclusive philosopher) his grand-nephew Gaius (Caligula) acceeded to power.

 

Now gaius had been thoroughly inculcated by his grandmother and aunt in the Antonian, Hellenistic approach. The first heir born since Augustus' seizure of power, he (unlike Tiberius and Augustus), he determinednot to follow their example, but to rule as a Ptolemaic style god-king on the grounds that such a style was inevitably the only approach to world government. Not insane, but blessed with sarcasm and iron-determination, Gaius would amaze the world.

 

In our next episode - the consistency of the Gaian approach; Claudius the return to republicanism; and Nero heir to Gaius. Consistency and continuity in the principiate.

 

As you'll see, I am seeking to challenge and subvert Suetonius and Tacitus. Anyone else want to join in?

 

Phil

[Primus Pilus]

Frankly Phil I don't see much of a stretch in your reasoning. In a discussion I once had regarding Tiberius and the supposed murder of Germanicus, it's quite clear that even Suetonius freely admits that he doesn't know exactly what happened. While he may be suggesting varius impropieties and was certainly painting a picture that the reader would be hard pressed to ignore, he concedes that some of his statements are pure conjecture. We don't even know if Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso was guilty of anything other than disliking Germanicus, let alone Tiberius.

 

Does this mean we should ignore Suetonius? Absolutely not. To do so would be to ignore one of the great sources of ancient documentation, but an understanding of possible political motivations should at least be taken into account.

 

I gravitate to your description of Gaius as the first true Hellenistic Roman monarch and his behavior might certainly correlate. However, I will always have trouble reconciling the notion of a sudden change in his behavior. Consider that all the sources make note of a severe illness that completely altered his behavior. Was this a simple piece of propaganda designed in posterity simply to justify to the masses the murder of an extremely popular leader? I suppose it was too difficult for the aristocracy (even at this late date in the early 2nd century) to allow the notion that Gaius was a Monarch. Despite the nature of the principate, did the aristocracy feel it was more desirable to explain away anti Republican behavior with various behaviorial oddities rather than allow the people to think that the emperors were simply behaving as "Kings"?

[Furius Venator]

I agree that much of the bad reputation of the Julio-Claudians is merely standard Roman political invective and that Tacitus and Suetonius likely had incentive to play up their less attractive traits.

 

I don't agree that Antony was particularly far sighted, I think he went where the money was (the east), falling into exactly the same trap as Pompey and 'the Liberators' had done before him.

 

Augusyus' settlement was rather good, especially when you consider that such anti-Caesareans as the Ahenobarbi 'came onside'.

 

Consul before 20 would have been rather more than Marius, Sulla or Caesar. More than even Pompey (who I would say Augustus aped as much as he did Caesar).

[phil25]

Primus - I am really just seeking to provoke some discussion - but I am only part way through my "thesis".

 

I do see far too much unquestioning acceptance of the conventional story of rome though - not by experienced and well-read students like you, but on the part of the general public. I don't think a thread "shaking the bottle" a bit can be too bad a thing, can it?

 

As for the argument that we shouldn't throw Suetonius out because we need him - well, will that stand much scrutiny? I see suetonius as charmingly and subtley persuasive because we all adore scandal and gossip. But as for reading the characters of early emperors from his works - he followed an ancient view of biography that " as a tree fell" so it had always been. Thus if Tiberius was a pervert in his last years he had always been one. We know in that case that the claims are almost certainly untrue. We know he was almost certainly biased to the "ant-Hadrian/pro-senatorial view. "Why should we accept his other judgements at face value? Why not reassess and re-value?

 

Personally, I do not believe that men are fools without good evidence. Nor do I think leaders of mn act without some logic or good reason (as they at least perceive it). Such a view even applies to Hitler. FV, you give no evidence for adhering to the conventional view of Antonius - so why should i regard what you say as a refutation of what I said?

 

I have sought to show, from later events, the likelihood that there was a clear Antonian view of imperial policy which ran counter to the Augustan and survived for many generations. You cite no sources from even within Antonius lifetime to support your contention. I rest my case.

 

I look forward to more hard debate.

 

Phil

[Furius Venator]

Where is your evidence for Antony's desire to rule from the East? Surely it comes from the same sort of hostile sources that you discount regarding the Julio-Claudians...

 

Frankly a vague comparison to Constantine hardly constitutes a well constructed argument.

 

You appear to seriously suggest that Antony's political insight was hundreds of years ahead of his time? Good grief why? He made a huge miscalculation when he 'went east' with two recent examples of the folly of that policy before him. Perhaps he was infatuated with Cleopatra, perhaps he simply saw no other way of countering Octavian's growing dominance in Italy. Either way it was disastrous.

 

It is conventional for those wishing to overturn accepted thought to state their arguments clearly. You have failed to do so, merely stating

 

Antonius gained a new view of the Roman world (perhaps one Dictator Caesar had begun to formulate) through Cleopatra.

 

Far from being an ambitious rival of Rome, Cleopatra sought to use Ptolemaic experience in the east to assist the triumvir who would rule that part of the provinces of Rome - I prefer to avoid the term "empire" which is anachronistic and reeks of association with the word imperator.

 

Antonius was far-sighted. 300 years before Constantine, he recognised that the Roman world needed to be governed from the east, not the west - since the major sources of wealth and food were there, no to mention a major threat from Parthia. he had a policy to rule in Hellenistic terms (monarchy and deified) and with a less heavy hand than Rome traditionally employed.

 

Where is your evidence?

[Primus Pilus]

Primus - I am really just seeking to provoke some discussion - but I am only part way through my "thesis".

 

I do see far too much unquestioning acceptance of the conventional story of rome though - not by experienced and well-read students like you, but on the part of the general public. I don't think a thread "shaking the bottle" a bit can be too bad a thing, can it?

 

I think you misunderstood the context of my post... I am relative agreement with you at least regarding the Julio Claudian depictions by Suetonius. I've always felt that Tiberius, Gaius and Claudius all received a relatively bad rap based on loose associations with debauchery, etc., though I tend to treat Nero's bio with far more credibility considering his relative unpopularity with the 3 elements of Roman politics... the aristocracy, the mob and the military.

 

However, I am merely pointing out that while there is evidence to question within Suetonius... there is also a lack of counter evidence that must make questions of it's own. While it may not be entirely proper to take Suetonius at full face value, it is also not quite fair to dismiss him entirely considering a lack of contradictory evidence.

 

Though I fear you provided too many options to discuss and this thread may spin wildly in many directions. No worries I think we can handle it.

[phil25]

You appear to seriously suggest that

 

FV - can I point you to the opening words o my first post in this thread...

 

PP - thanks for what you said in your most recent post. I hope to pull some themes togather as I go on. But the whole aim is to get stimulating debate going, if I can. WHERE it goes is up to others...

 

Thanks toy ou both,

 

Phil

[Furius Venator]

All I really meant was: give me something more substantial to 'attack'. I was probably a little over the top in my response but I sensed that you were trying to 'goad' me into a fuller reply (nice tactics...) so I replied in kind...

 

I do think 'Antony as farsighted statesman' is by far your weakest argument though. I admire contentiousness butthere's contentious and just plain implausible...

[Primus Pilus]

All I really meant was: give me something more substantial to 'attack'. I was probably a little over the top in my response but I sensed that you were trying to 'goad' me into a fuller reply (nice tactics...) so I replied in kind...

 

I do think 'Antony as farsighted statesman' is by far your weakest argument though. I admire contentiousness butthere's contentious and just plain implausible...

 

I tend to agree on the Antonius front (with FV that is) simply because of his track record showing a lack of political skill. It's his army that kept him in a position to rival for superiority in the first place. I tend to think of his decision to rule the east more from a standpoint of available wealth and glory (ie the Parthian campaign) though I suppose this motivation is no more provable than any other.

[phil25]

Octavian was not a good general, but he had good advisers - Maecenas and Agrippa, to name but two.

 

Antonius was no Caesar, but neither do I think that that we should write him off as wholly incompetent. We also need to take into account the facts that Octavian, as victor, wrote the record. Antonius and cleopatra can hardly be said to be given a good write-up in what survives. We need, IMHO, therefore to try to piece together the story from their angle.

 

Cleopatra was no fool and she had the experienced Ptolemaic bureaucracy to back her up. Nor do I think that Antonius' actions can simply be written off as resulting from infatuation. He left Cleopatra several times.

 

Something political - and I think it was a strategy or clear long-term policy - underlay the so-called Donations of Alexandria and the settlement of the east. equally, seeking to deal with parthia was following a policy only recently established by Caesar himself - hardly a fool. So perhaps at the time it seemed important.

 

Whatever view one takes of that, the possibility that there was a strategy that was inherited by his descendents is established by their actions - Gaius Caligula with his clearly Hellenistic ideas of monarchy was a direct descendent of Antonius and grew up partly in the house of Antonius' daughter. nero was the son of Gaius' sister and an Ahenobarbus (a descendent of the man called "Enobarbus" by Shakespeare who was for long one of Antonius' chief adviser. Nero again was clearly fascinated by Hellenistic ideas, and the Greek world. There is a clear mechanism for direct transmission of ideas here, and it is interesting that the two princeps who show Hellenistic tendencies and eastern policies so closely identified themselves with Antonius.

 

I am also fascinated by the possibility that the exile of the elder Julia, and the parallel execution of Iullus Antonius may have had something to do with the Antonian policy. Something was going on - and not just debauchery. I may not have identified the right link - but I believe there are sufficient hints to consider whether a consistent line of policy may have been involved.

 

There was, at one point in history, the possibility of a world in which Antonius not Octavian was supreme. As with all "What Ifs" of history, considering them throws light on what actually happened and why. In this case (for me), that process involves thinking positively about Antonius' motives and aims. That is all I have done.

 

For me, it suggests that there was a rival imperial policy to Octavians, and it may have been passed down and to an extent implemented, by Antonius' heirs.

 

Nothing but my speculations, of course,

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

But none of these speculations are serious...right ?

 

What do you make of Antonys behaviour at Rome as Master of Horse while Caesar was in Alexandria ?

[Furius Venator]

Antony clearly was not incompetent. He probably made the best of a bad job but Octavian ran rings round him politically.

 

IF Caligula was an Antonine in policy then is it not significant that he maintained the capitol at Rome? And Nero. But really, the Ahenobarbi weren't Antonians, they were a prestigous family in their own right with a tradition of inimictas against the Julii. What more natural than for them to side with Antonius against Octavian? Or that Octavian should 'heal the breach' by incorporating them into his family.

 

I am also fascinated by the possibility that the exile of the elder Julia, and the parallel execution of Iullus Antonius may have had something to do with the Antonian policy

 

Why not simply assume a plot. Why should the Antonians have some kind of long term policy that other families patently did not. Why should any policy survive more than a generation. After all, Augustus' policy was not that of Caesar. Neither was Tiberus' precisely that of Augustus. Each generation modified its 'policy' to reflect political reality.

 

 

You state that Antonius wanted to rule as deity and monarch. Why on earth would he be so deluded as to assume that the Romans would stand for that? As far as securing Egypt and the east goes, such a policy was wise but it allowed him to be portrayed as a monster in Rome. He'd surely have been bleeding under Pompey's statue within weeks...

[Primus Pilus]

It would seem to me that the Hellenistic tendencies of Gaius and Nero were more about the era and environment they were raised in (born into an organized dynasty) than a direct connection to Antonius, though I admit anything is possible. Youth is perhaps as big a culprit explaining their behavior as any other. Agrippina has no connection to Antonius and was clearly among the most influential people in the young Nero's life.

 

At any rate, the actions of Gaius and Nero seem to be a matter of personal conduct rather than an eastern imperial policy. Perhaps they are more Antonian than Octavian in behavior, but I'm not sure how this connects to a policy of usurping Augustan principals in favor of Antonian.

[phil25]

You have to answer your own questions.

 

If you think Antonius was not a good Master of Horse to Caesar; or that his policy in the east was something foolish and easy to deteact as such, then you must explain his actions or why Caesar appointed him.

 

in politics now as then I always assume that no man deliberate acts in foolish way. He will usually follow the highest (to him) line of good. He will have logical reasons for his actions (her too I suppose to be PC). One may not agree with them but they will be there.

 

I have already said that i don't see Antonius as a Caesar, but I think him more than competent compared to (say) Lepidus.

 

As for my views being serious - I am not putting my posts forward as a replacement for the conventional wisdom, but to test it. I see nothing wrong with the speculations I advance, or the logic I employ. And you may take it that I am scornful of those unwilling to challenge the conventional account of a period for which we have such sparse sources.

 

I certainly DO NOT believe that the history we have, and seemingly accept so unquestioningly (like the reputation of individuals) is how things were. I think we need to get beneath the surface, and my post was a first step in that.

 

Phil

[Furius Venator]

There was nothing wrong with Antony's eastern policy as it pertained to the east. But it left him wide open to Octavian's propoganda in Rome. Hence a mistake.

 

You have to answer your own questions.

 

My impression of argument up to now has always been that questions are answered not by the poser but by his adversaries...

 

What is simpler (Occum's razor and all that) than this:

 

Antony knows his days are numbered unless he can gain prestige enough to challenge Caesar's heir, and funds and army also.

 

Prestige will only come through beating the Parthians (as no other foes are readily available).

 

Money is readily available in the east.

 

His army will be hardened by the Parthian campaign and paid through the riches of the east.

 

Hence he must go east.

 

The path to prestige in the east is through portrayal as a hellenistic monarch.

 

To meet his short term needs (prestige, money etc) he adopts a policy of apparent hellenisation.

 

Sadly for him this is portrayed in the worst possible light in Rome.

 

Now there is no need in any of the above to assume that he wished to become king/god of Rome. So why introduce something unecessary to the argument?