"extrovert Emperors"

[caldrail]

Hmmm.... not convinced that personality plays no part. I accept your point about politics, although I would remind you that the queen of england is a 'rubber stamper' these days. She works as an ambassador, nor really as the head of state.

 

How can you possibly not see Nero as having an enormous ego? He was full of himself. His Domus Aurea was an expression of wealth, power, and ego.

 

I agree sources are biased. They always are in roman history. But you have to compare their regins with others of different periods, and the Julio-Claudians come across very differently from later emperors. Many later emperors are exactly what you describe - simple politicians and nothing else. However, there are always some whose character is far beyond that. What drives a politician? What makes him ambitious? What makes him plot the deaths of his rivals and the persecution of his enemies? That is very much personality driven and politicians are very rarely simple straightforward administrators. People like that don't usually rise to the top. In the viciously competitive roman world, that was even more true!

[phil25]

I think we'll have to differ, Caldrail. Cordially, of course.

 

Maybe our frames of reference, or our experience, are different. I've worked iin government for over 30 years, and base my judgements in part on what I see as unchanging principles of politics and power.

 

I suppose I also see Suetonius and to some extent Tacitus as giving us a tabloid or celebrity view of the roman political scene (in retrospect - remember, neither of them knew Augustus or Gaius). Would one base one's opinion of Brad Pitt or David Beckham on what one reads in the mass media, or is told about their private lives? Both are surely surrounded by flunkies and their slightest public move or what they wear, is likely to be dictated by contractual commitments to designers and PR companies; their lives ordered by secretaries and consultants. If Beckham wears a hat, it is unlikely to be because he felt like it - more because he has a prior legal undertaking to wear Adidas or nike or police etc products on so many days per year.

 

I would continue to argue strongly that Nero and Gaius were similarly influenced by a desire to follow certain paths to achieve certain goals - hence, especially with Gaius, the consistency through his reign. That he was sarcastic seems likely, that he saw the senate as opponents quite clear; that he have a style to his regime accepted. But I think rulers, by and large, act within a frame of policy - otherwise they would not last long. Gaius did not, because I think someone he offended took revenge, NOT because his regime was unpopular or unsuccessful.

 

Nero lasted longer and ruled well. one should be careful about the tablod hype - some of which i suspect relates less to nero than to Domitian and even later emperors.

 

If you think the Queen is a cypher today - look again at British government. She is and acts as a constitutional monarch, of course, and recent remarks by her prime ministers past and present (related to her 80th birthday) make clear her strict impartiality.

 

But Elizabeth II is immensely experienced and knowledable, and has the right (defined by Bagehot - a constitutional historian in the mid Victorian period) to be advised, to encourage and to warn. I am sure she does so, and has considerable influence - especially with Commonwealth governments.

 

But I am unsure what your point about her was.

 

Nero probably was quite extrovery, whether he had an ego-problem neither you nor I can tell, since it is invisible in the record. many of his claims, like Olympic victories, are capable of political explanation. in any case, in Nero's case, I am not sure he took much interest in government except in a wider sense - his pre-occupations were primarily artistic.

 

As for the Domus Aurea, I thought I had made my views plain - an experiment (probably copied in part by Domitian) - to re-position the role and perception of the princeps in society and state (a statement of his divine separateness with had Antonian/Ptolemaic origins and followed the precedent set by Gaius.

 

Note the consistency and direct transmission of the political legacy:

 

ANTONIUS - ANTONIA (daughter) GAIUS (grandson) - NERO (nephew) - DOMITIAN (saw Nero's style at first hand) - all within easy - if not living - memory of each other.

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

I am sure she does so, and has considerable influence - especially with Commonwealth governments.

 

Sorry, I know you hate to have one comment plucked out, but the queen has negligable influence in this commonwealth country (Australia). She is seen by most of the populace under 40 as an carry over from ye olden days, nothing more.

[phil25]

Sorry Germanicus, I wasn't thinking in terms of the populace, but of heads of government.

 

I don't question what you say, for a moment.

 

But my understanding is that her views are listened to and she is respected, when she meets politicians. (Not the subject of this thread though - want to continue the discussion elsewhere?)

 

Phil

[Germanicus]

I don't question what you say, for a moment.

 

But my understanding is that her views are listened to and she is respected, when she meets politicians. (Not the subject of this thread though - want to continue the discussion elsewhere?)

 

No, I don't think we need to continue - I agree that she's certainly shown respect by our politicians.

[caldrail]

I think we'll have to differ, Caldrail. Cordially, of course.

 

Maybe our frames of reference, or our experience, are different. I've worked iin government for over 30 years, and base my judgements in part on what I see as unchanging principles of politics and power.

 

I suppose I also see Suetonius and to some extent Tacitus as giving us a tabloid or celebrity view of the roman political scene (in retrospect - remember, neither of them knew Augustus or Gaius). Would one base one's opinion of Brad Pitt or David Beckham on what one reads in the mass media, or is told about their private lives? Both are surely surrounded by flunkies and their slightest public move or what they wear, is likely to be dictated by contractual commitments to designers and PR companies; their lives ordered by secretaries and consultants. If Beckham wears a hat, it is unlikely to be because he felt like it - more because he has a prior legal undertaking to wear Adidas or nike or police etc products on so many days per year.

 

I would continue to argue strongly that Nero and Gaius were similarly influenced by a desire to follow certain paths to achieve certain goals - hence, especially with Gaius, the consistency through his reign. That he was sarcastic seems likely, that he saw the senate as opponents quite clear; that he have a style to his regime accepted. But I think rulers, by and large, act within a frame of policy - otherwise they would not last long. Gaius did not, because I think someone he offended took revenge, NOT because his regime was unpopular or unsuccessful.

 

Nero lasted longer and ruled well. one should be careful about the tablod hype - some of which i suspect relates less to nero than to Domitian and even later emperors.

 

If you think the Queen is a cypher today - look again at British government. She is and acts as a constitutional monarch, of course, and recent remarks by her prime ministers past and present (related to her 80th birthday) make clear her strict impartiality.

 

But Elizabeth II is immensely experienced and knowledable, and has the right (defined by Bagehot - a constitutional historian in the mid Victorian period) to be advised, to encourage and to warn. I am sure she does so, and has considerable influence - especially with Commonwealth governments.

 

But I am unsure what your point about her was.

 

Nero probably was quite extrovery, whether he had an ego-problem neither you nor I can tell, since it is invisible in the record. many of his claims, like Olympic victories, are capable of political explanation. in any case, in Nero's case, I am not sure he took much interest in government except in a wider sense - his pre-occupations were primarily artistic.

 

As for the Domus Aurea, I thought I had made my views plain - an experiment (probably copied in part by Domitian) - to re-position the role and perception of the princeps in society and state (a statement of his divine separateness with had Antonian/Ptolemaic origins and followed the precedent set by Gaius.

 

Note the consistency and direct transmission of the political legacy:

 

ANTONIUS - ANTONIA (daughter) GAIUS (grandson) - NERO (nephew) - DOMITIAN (saw Nero's style at first hand) - all within easy - if not living - memory of each other.

 

Phil

 

Regarding the queen, it was you who mentioned her But I stand by my comments about her.

 

The tabloid style of history from Suetonius and Tacitus is a point well made (I've said the same thing), yet I cannot ignore what was written. Some events were probably misunderstood by witnesses or the witnesses simply lied - I've no way of checking other than politely asking the BBC if I can borrow the Tardis. However those are the sources. Whilst I don't take them at face value, I am aware that something like that happened.

 

Would I base my opinions on celebrities from the media? Well of course I do. So does everyone else. Its only when you get to know these people in their day to day lives that you really discover what they're actually like. I've never met Beckham or Pitt. Am I missing out? The tabloids say yes, I say perhaps. But because the tabloids say these individuals turned up to an event in certain attire I can draw a safe conclusion that they were doing their duty, that corporate advisors may have been present, and that a few people went away happy as larry that they'd met a star. See what I mean? The event occurred. The report may have been distorted but it happened.

 

You say that rulers don't last long if they don't fit in with policy. Well Caligula didn't. He arrived in tide of popularity in 37AD and was cut down by Chaerea and his mates four years later. Thanks for confirming my point

 

Nero ruled well? Up to a point, although I agree with you he wasn't too concerned with duty. Its rather like the US president deciding to tour with rock bands and drive formula one cars this season. Its certainly newsworthy! I actually think Nero had less of an ego problem than Caligula. There's a common thread through reports of that time that suggest Nero wasn't as self-confident as he might have been. In fact, one of the reasons for his outlandish behaviour is to shore up his own confidence by doing these things. Remember when he was a lad, roaming around the city at night with his gang beating up anyone they came across? That sort of violence was a common occurence amongst young males. Once discovered, Nero was a lot less confident about this activity and I suspect he began to shy away from it.

 

Sorry, but Nero himself said about the Domus Aurea - "Now I can live like a human being". This at a time when refugees from the fire of Rome were struggling to put their lives back together. Whoops. That was a bit careless Nero.

[phil25]

Caldrail, you wrote:

 

Would I base my opinions on celebrities from the media? Well of course I do. So does everyone else. Its only when you get to know these people in their day to day lives that you really discover what they're actually like. I've never met Beckham or Pitt. Am I missing out? The tabloids say yes, I say perhaps. But because the tabloids say these individuals turned up to an event in certain attire I can draw a safe conclusion that they were doing their duty, that corporate advisors may have been present, and that a few people went away happy as larry that they'd met a star. See what I mean? The event occurred. The report may have been distorted but it happened.

 

I think that pretty much typifies the gap between us.

 

As for premature point-scoring, my argument was that Gaius was not removed by a conspiracy, but by a group of disgruntled guardsmen. NOT, your point, I think.

 

I think that by the time the Domus was ready for habitation, most Romans would have got things sorted after the fire. besides, nero also introduced new "health and safety" measures within the rebuilding, that showed he was not careless of what was going on.

 

His remark can be read many ways, and of itself proves nothing.

 

But as I said earlier, I think we must agree to differ, as neither of us is remotely convincing the other it seems. i don't see much point in continuing this dialogue, which has in any case diverted from the question in which I was interested in this thread.

 

Phil

[caldrail]

Remember that Nero had only to click his fingers and get hordes of workmen to build his palace. That would have left fewer to work on new tenements, and since many people were now financially ruined, there weren't as many who could afford massed ranks of dwellings. It is true that landlords would have claimed insurance payouts - was there enough money in the pot to pay for it all? No, of course not. Quite a few scurillous landlords deliberately burned their tenements for an insurance scam and... erm... got their fingers burned! I think it would have taken some time to get life back to normal in the burnt out parts of Rome. Rents on unharmed buildings must have soared! If you look at natural disasters today, it takes quite a while for life to return to normal. People do manage somehow, but the ruin is there for some time and things are rougher until its finally cleared away.

Edited May 19, 2006 by caldrail

[phil25]

Rome was constantly plagued by "great fires". In fact, I was going to start a thread trying enumerate them, because, by my reckoning the City must have been continually recovering and rebuilding. There was another serious fire in 68/69 was there not? Some of the rebuiling from 64 can hardly have been complete.

 

But there we are, we differ.

 

Thanks for responding

 

Phil

[phil25]

Thinking further about the intent behind the "Golden House", it occurs to me that we have not given any thought to Roman perceptions of space or intimacy.

 

The domus was preceeded by the Domus Transitoria, which linked Palatine, Velia and the area around what is now the Colosseum. rather impractical for a "dwelling" if you think about it. Even today the distances would take some minutes to walk.

 

Thus different parts of the structure, as with the Domus Aurea, may well have had different uses.

 

If you look at the context, Nero's "palatial" (I would question the term but it serves for the moment) developments are immediately adjacent to the area nowadays referred to as the "imperial fora". What are these? Open structures, linked, with halls and public areas and many colonnades. How could one describe the Golden House? Maybe as an open structures, linked, with halls and public areas and many colonnades?

 

The Forum Romanum, led into the Fora of Caesar and Augustus by the time of nero, and would later link additional to the Fora of Peace, Trajan and Nerva/Domitian (Forum Transitorium).

 

So could we be looking at a neronian conception of an area of public/private space - as in a private domus - where the atrium was pretty public and the inner parts of the house private. there have been several works exploring this concept of gradually increasing intimacy/linked to deeper access into a house, relating to Pompeiian houses. Think about it in terms of Nero's Domus Aurea.

 

The Palatine was already established as a centre of Government, accessible from the Forum, while entertainment was around the lake, with perhaps an associated residence. The colonnades would make access to the Curia in the Forum Romanum easy, especially in wet weather, and the areas between could well have been public.

 

If you look at Domitian's later constructions on the Palatine, we see relatively public areas first - the Basilica and Aula Regia where business would have been transacted. The older palace complex now under the Farnese Gardens dating from the earlier principiate, may have been a bureaucratic centre. There is an elaborate peristyle in front of the cenaculum, but then we find the access more restricted and the rooms smaller. The upper areas of Domitian's palace were also public, I would argue, but perhaps only certain people were admitted. The actual personal quarters for the emperor and his closest associates are on the lower level, around another peristyle.

 

I think that if we knew more about the Domus Aurea we would find similar principles at work and that we would be less concerned about ego and ostentation in the context of personal luxury, and a more sophisticated and (perhaps) novel idea - and sophistication to me goes with Nero's known character - in which an autocratic monarch sought to delineate new patterns of interaction between ruler and subjects. Ideas later taken up by Domitian's architects.

 

I would also ask whether the model of the Domus, in part at least, might not have been the Ptolemaic palace complex at Alexandria, which also seems to have involved similar features and constituted its own "quarter" of the city.

 

Just some thoughts,

 

Phil