Galba and Nerva - similarity

[Caesar CXXXVII]

I wonder why Galba's rule ended with a disaster and Nerva's rule with a dynasty (not in biological sense) that lasted for some 100 years and was the paek of Roman success .

Galba was 72 when he became emperor, Nerva was 66 .

Galba became emperor after the last descendant of the former dynasy and Nerva likewise .

Galba ruled after 14 years of Nero's rule .

Nerva ruled after 15 years of Domotian' rule .

Both were elevated to the "throne" when the former emperor was murdered (Nero commit suicide not because he wanted to) .

Nero and Domitian are considered as "bad" emperors from the aristocracy point of view, they both killed many senators etc' .

Galba and Nerva both had the support of the senate (they both came from the nobility, the first was a Roman and a Patrician and the second from well known Italian nobility) .

Galba and Nerva were childless .

There is more .

Now, Galba had Legions and the support of the west and Nerva did not had any support in the empire (Traianus and the army came later) . So , could we say that the one and only cause for the failure of Galba was his mistake about not paying the praetorians ? Of course not .

 

Whad do you think ?

[Primus Pilus]

I wonder why Galba's rule ended with a disaster and Nerva's rule with a dynasty (not in biological sense) that lasted for some 100 years and was the paek of Roman success .

Galba was 72 when he became emperor, Nerva was 66 .

Galba became emperor after the last descendant of the former dynasy and Nerva likewise .

Galba ruled after 14 years of Nero's rule .

Nerva ruled after 15 years of Domotian' rule .

Both were elevated to the "throne" when the former emperor was murdered (Nero commit suicide not because he wanted to) .

Nero and Domitian are considered as "bad" emperors from the aristocracy point of view, they both killed many senators etc' .

Galba and Nerva both had the support of the senate (they both came from the nobility, the first was a Roman and a Patrician and the second from well known Italian nobility) .

Galba and Nerva were childless .

There is more .

Now, Galba had Legions and the support of the west and Nerva did not had any support in the empire (Traianus and the army came later) . So , could we say that the one and only cause for the failure of Galba was his mistake about not paying the praetorians ? Of course not .

 

Whad do you think ?

 

Galba, in part due to his refusal to pay the legionary and praetorian donatives didn't have the full support of the legions. His lack of political acumen seems to have been a large factor. On the other hand, Nerva seems to have been almost universally praised and clearly had the support of almost all of the legions via the adoption of Trajan. Without Trajan though, I believe someone would've marched.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Galba, in part due to his refusal to pay the legionary and praetorian donatives didn't have the full support of the legions. His lack of political acumen seems to have been a large factor. On the other hand, Nerva seems to have been almost universally praised and clearly had the support of almost all of the legions via the adoption of Trajan. Without Trajan though, I believe someone would've marched.

 

 

Yes . There is no doubt that Traianus was behind the whole scene, the question is since when ? Nerva was more politician than Galba, but Galba was no naive, he surely knew how things works or maybe he didn't ? Maybe his stodginess was his problem ? Maybe the role of Icelus, Titus Vinius and Cornelius Laco had a part in his downfall ?

[tk421]

When Nero fell this was the first time that there was no clear succession policy for the position of Emperor. Yes Galba did not have the full support of the legions, but from what I read he also faced competitors almost right away as happened in 193AD when Pertinax died. Galba fought and failed to secure his new position. This continued until Vespasian won control of the Empire. The year 68AD was the year of the four emperors (Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius) and the year 193AD is often referred to as the year of the five emperors (Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Septimius Severus and his two rivals Niger and Albinus).

 

Nerva fared better, he was appointed by the Senate and supported by at least Trajan so this worked fine. By adopting Trajan as his successor Nerva stablized the Roman political climate and even though his rule lasted only a short time he is referred to as the first of the five good emperors in Roman history.

 

My sources? Too many to mention but to summarize if you start with wikipedia the info is largely genuine and if you substantiate it with other printed sources than it makes for a simplified and brief history of the Roman Empire.

[Primus Pilus]

My sources? Too many to mention but to summarize if you start with wikipedia the info is largely genuine and if you substantiate it with other printed sources than it makes for a simplified and brief history of the Roman Empire.

 

By no means to I mean to discredit, disparage or discourage you... but it's very important to note that wikipedia is a dangerous source to use, because:

1) it is generic in nature and should be considered introductory

2) it is often guilty of blatant plagiarism

3) the information is not necessarily genuine and can indeed be manipulated by any number of people, informed or not

 

That aside, again, I don't mean to discourage your passion. Feel free to list those sources that you are using in addition to wikipedia. It's a quick way to assimilate yourself here. In any case, welcome to the forum

[Kosmo]

Galba had chosen an unknown noble as heir, Piso, while Nerva appointed a powerful military commander. Maybe if Galba had made a better pick, like Vespasian that was leading an army in Judeea, he would have survived.

[Klingan]

The year 68AD was the year of the four emperors (Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius) and the year 193AD is often referred to as the year of the five emperors (Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Septimius Severus and his two rivals Niger and Albinus).

 

Minor note: I reckon that the four emperors were Otho Galba, Vitellius and Vespasianus, not Nero?

[tk421]

That is where things get a little weird. (that being said they get much more weird in 193 with the year of the five emperors, only 3 of which make it into the common lists of the Roman Emperors, the other two simply being rivals for the throne)

 

Nero died in 68AD and Vespasian is often quoted as becoming Emperor in 69AD. When he died in 79AD his reign was 10 years long, making ascension in 68AD unlikely. Therefore I find it unlikely that Vespasian would be one of the four emperors of 68AD.

[Primus Pilus]

That is where things get a little weird. (that being said they get much more weird in 193 with the year of the five emperors, only 3 of which make it into the common lists of the Roman Emperors, the other two simply being rivals for the throne)

 

Nero died in 68AD and Vespasian is often quoted as becoming Emperor in 69AD. When he died in 79AD his reign was 10 years long, making ascension in 68AD unlikely. Therefore I find it unlikely that Vespasian would be one of the four emperors of 68AD.

 

The key is that AD 69 is the actual year in question and not 68. There were only 2 in 68, Nero and Galba.

 

193 is different because as you suggest and despite the depleted role of the Senate in the legislative process, the Senate only legitimized the reigns of Pertinax, Julianus and Severus.