![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnI'm trying to use my other account at least occasionally so I posted about my Yuletide gifts there, including the salon-relevant 12k fic that features Fritz, Heinrich, Voltaire, Fredersdorf, Saint Germain, Caroline Daum (Fredersdorf's wife), and Groundhog Day tropes! (Don't need to know canon.)
Re: Constantinian Aftermath
Date: 2023-01-04 06:47 pm (UTC)So: Constantine rules uncontested, changes the Roman world, also uncontested, - there are few Emperors who have made that big and irrevocably a change as having Christianity go from Great Persecution to State Religion, as his nephew will find out - , moves the Empire's capital to Byzantium, which gets renamed into Constantinope and gets a massive building program. The Nicean Council happens, and speaking of that: Sure, his dream of One Emperor, One Religion is already having to deal with the fact Christians, no longer persecuted, love nothing better than arguing with other Christians, and Arius vs Athanasius won't be the last schism threatening row, not to mention that one of his younger sons is an Arian and another follows Athanasius-like Orthodoxy, but hey. Nobody would dispute his greatness.
Then he inexplicably decides it's been too long since the last war with the Persian Empire, makes noises in that direction which are replied to, and dies, famously finally getting baptized on his deathbed (by a bishop named Eusebius, who is an Arian, which becomes a tad inconvenient later because the Arian heresy is seen as heresy etc.). Note what he HASN'T done: said which of his three remaining sons (after poor Crispus' demise, sniff) is supposed to be the next Augustus. Instead, he made them all three Caesars. And because three's a crowd and not big enough, he also made two of his nephews Caesars. Reminder: Helena had just the one kid from Constantius Chlorus, Constantine, but Theodora had many, boys and girls both.) We therefore have Fausta's sons Constantine (II), Constantius (II) and Constans plus two nephews all of equal rank (i.e. appointed Caesar) when Constantine (I and Great) dies.
Next, we have "The massacre of the princes", which is just what it sounds like. The son who is closest to Constantinople when Constantine dies, Constantius, races back (all the sons are either supposed to go ff fighting Persians or leading the troops in other corners of the Empire) and organizes the funeral. And then, depending on the historian, either Constantius organizes the death of every single male offspring of the Chlorus/Theodora marriage and the sons of said offsprings except for the two youngest (Gallus and Julian, who are very young children), or some soldiers do it completely on their own initiative because they hate the Theodora line of the family that much. (Three guesses as to which version becomes more widely believed.) The two survivors of said massacre, little Gallus and little Julian, aren't allowed to remain with their surviving female relations but are exiled to Cappadocia (for their own protection, of course, because Theodora's descendants are so hated).
Now there are three, and if anyone thinks the fact they are three full brothers and have all three been raised as Christians, think again. It's brother vs brother vs brother. Constans offs big brother Constantine. Constantius would have killed Constans but doesn't have to, because a new player, one Magnentius who thinks he wants to be Emperor, too, enters the scene, and fights and defeats Constants. This leaves Constantius with an opportunity (kill Magnentius in the name of brother avenging) and a problem (because the Empire is still too big to be ruled alone). Now, in theory, he could accept Magnentius as a fellow Emperor, of course. But in practice, Constantius' own sole claim to the throne rests on the fact he's the son of Constantine the Great. If he justifies it by bloodline, he can't accept any other Emperors who aren't related to Constantine the Great, and he's just made sure there aren't many relations left. So he decides to make the older of the two surviving cousins, Gallus, his Caesar, and even marries him to his (Constantius') sister. This works for a while; Magnentius is defeated, in one of the bloodiest battles of this latest Roman Civil War (supposedly 50 000 dead soldiers), Gallus rules a part of the Empire. Incidentally, all these dead well trained soldiers mean that the Roman armies start to suffer from serious losses, and there's a reason right there as to why it won't last undivided much longer and why invading barbarians are just around the corner.
Of course, Gallus ruling doesn't last long just because he's now not just a cousin but a brother-in-law, and soon it's Constantius vs Gallus. Gallus' wife heads off to Milan to mediate between husband and brother but dies en route, and then all bets are off. For some reason, Gallus is stupid enough to believe the story that Constantius plans to elevate him from Caesar to Augustus if he shows up in Milan as well. No such thing happens; Gallus gets executed.
This means young Julian, hitherto only noticeable as the most bookish member of the not large anymore family, is the sole other survivor, because Constantius doesn't have any sons. This means he now gets to be appointed Caesar, oh joy. To everyone's surprise, Julian - with zero military and political training because remember, he and Gallus grew up in genteel housearrest in Cappadokia - actually proves himself to be good at soldiering and ratches up impressive victories in Gaul. Impressive enough to get paranoid Constantius thinking dark thoughts, and yes, next it's Julian vs Constantius, but then Constantius actually dies of natural causes before their forces can meet on the battlefield, and young Julian becomes Emperor. And instantly reveals he has very INTERESTING religious ideas. Yes, he's Julian the Apostate, and he'll only rule two years before dying as the last member of the short lived Constantinian dynasty.
Re: Constantinian Aftermath
Date: 2023-01-08 10:08 pm (UTC)(by a bishop named Eusebius, who is an Arian, which becomes a tad inconvenient later because the Arian heresy is seen as heresy etc.)
Oh, haha, I knew about the deathbed baptism (though I had to be reminded) but I don't think I knew he was baptized by an Arian! AWKWARD.
And then, depending on the historian, either Constantius organizes the death of every single male offspring of the Chlorus/Theodora marriage and the sons of said offsprings except for the two youngest (Gallus and Julian, who are very young children), or some soldiers do it completely on their own initiative because they hate the Theodora line of the family that much.
WELP
I am actually surprised that Gallus and Julian were allowed to live, though?
Incidentally, all these dead well trained soldiers mean that the Roman armies start to suffer from serious losses, and there's a reason right there as to why it won't last undivided much longer and why invading barbarians are just around the corner.
Oh wow. That's really something. It makes sense but I'd never connected all those dots before.
Yes, he's Julian the Apostate, and he'll only rule two years before dying as the last member of the short lived Constantinian dynasty.
!! The twist ending!
Imperial Succesions: I
Date: 2023-01-09 11:47 am (UTC)No, not really. Mind you, it depends on the era we're talking about. Because one reason why the "Third-Century Crisis" is called that is that things had degenerated to a point where the usual way to become Emperor was be a successful general and kill your predecessor (or arrange for others to do so). But if you go all the way back to the start: well, Caesar adopting his grandnephew Octavian as his heir was a post mortem adoption (i.e. in his will, and it was up to Octavian to accept or not), and the will didn't say anything about Octavian following him into political offices. It was very much the typical Roman aristocrat thing to do if you din't have a son: adopt someone from your larger family (or from another family if nephews and the likes weren't available.) Octavian/Augustus of course created the the Principate, but with the big pretense that it wasn't an inheritable monarchy and that it was up to the Senate to choose his successor, though in practice the general assumption was that the Senate would go with whoever would be Augustus' chosen (personal) heir. (And famously Augusts did go through all the alternate heirs he could before being forced to pick his stepson Tiberius because the rest had died like flies, with or without external help.) Still, his finally adopting Tiberius (when Tiberius was already a middle-aged man) was the signal that this was his chosen heir. Tiberius, for all his misanthropy and cynicism in his final years, did adopt not one but two of his young relations before he died (Caligula and Gemellus - if you haven't heard of Gemellus, that's because he didn't survive into what was theoretically his and Caligula's shared reign for long). Caligula had at some point considered making one of his brothers-in-law (the one who was married to Drusilla) into his heir, but that was before said brother-in-law conspired against him (and died). When Caligula was assassinated, I don't think he had an appointed heir as such (he had a biological daughter, who died with him as did her mother, but not a son). Next came Uncle Claudius of Derek Jacobi fame. Now Claudius was actually the first Emperor who did have a biological son - Britannicus - whom he could have made his heir, but didn't, choosing his stepson and nephew Nero instead (for which Nero had his mother to thank). Claudius may or may not have changed his mind about this - he originally adopted Nero, thus signalling Nero as chosen heir, when Britannicus was a child and Nero was a teenager, and clearly the age was a factor here - once Britannicus had grown up, but he died/was probably poisoned first. Nero, of course, died via suicide in the middle of a revolt against him, so didn't appoint an heir. Still, it's worth noting that the first Emperor who did have a biological son to choose didn't do so, that all the Emperors save Caligula and Nero, who died violently, did adopt someone and thus signalled their chosen heir within their life time, and all the Emperors of the Julian-Claudian dynasty became so via adoption, and each case through the ritual of the Senate asking them after their predecessor's death to accept their predecessor's offices.
Next came the year of the four Emperors, and the first three - Galba, Vitellius, Otho - didn't rule long enough to consider heir-appointing, though Otho for example tried to come to an arrangement with Galba (who was old) by suggesting Galba adopt him (no dice, Galba had no intention of doing so). Vespasian, the ultimate winner of the contest, not only had two biological sons but made it pretty clear which of his sons was his chosen heir from the get go. For example, when the Judean War triumph happened, Domitian wasn't positioned anywhere near Dad and Titus but with the rest of the Flavian family, the cousins. Domitian also didn't have any responsible position within the government throughout Vespasian's reign whereas Titus very much was basically junior co-ruler. Now, even with the Flavians, the going-through-the-motions via the Senate asking the next Flavian to accept the offices still happened. (And btw: Titus dying as early as he did, after only about two years of reigning, was of course completely unexpected. Famously he supposedly said on his death bed that there was one action in his life he regretted. Feuchtwanger has Joseph wonder whether Titus means the destruction of the temple, the sacking of Jerusalem or sending Berenice away, whereas the ancient historians who mention this anecdote put their bets on Titus meaning that he didn't kill his younger brother Domitian, because it was either killing Domitian or accepting Domitian would be his heir, but that interpretation very much smacks of hindsight and knowing how Domitian's reign would turn out. In any case, Titus could have adopted one of his cousins if he wanted to provide an alternative to Domitian, and he didn't. Whether this was because he not unreasonably thought he had plenty of time ahead of him or whether he thought Domitian would do as well as anyone, we'll never know. Domitian, as you know from the Josephus trilogy, via adopting the two young sons-of-cousins signalled one or both would have been his heirs but was killed, and thus again what he wanted became redundant. In conclusion: all three Flavian Emperors knew who would succeed them.
Next, we have the series of Emperors that were Gibbon's and many others faves and thereafter were dubbed the "good" Emperors. (The first to call them the "Five Good Emperors", btw, was none other than Niccolo Macchiavelli. Yes, really.) The first one was Nerva, who actually must have been one of the best political survivors ever, because he'd been a close buddy of Nero and managed to survive not only the year of the four Emperors but all three Flavians. He was a Senator, and the reason why he became Emperor at that point was not least because the Senate FINALLY wanted to actually appoint one of their own, their choice, instead of doing what the previous Emperor (whom in this case they hated the guts of) had wanted. However, while Domitian had made himself amply hated with the Senate and in Rome, he was still very popular indeed with the army, and the army wasn't happy. This is where Nerva showed his survival genius once more. He adopted the most popular army general, Trajan, thereaby pre-empting the army (or huge parts of same) turning against him. (Nerva being old, it was obvious Trajan would not have to wait for long.) Supposedly, it was Trajan's young cousin Hadrian, serving with Trajan, who brought him the happy news from Rome.
Trajan then was the Emperor who really did get counted as one of the hallowed Five on his own merit, not just due to surviving. He also was the first Emperor who didn't come from Rome or even Italy but from Spain, which in retrospect is also a huge turning point. He was the Emperor who expanded the Roman borders the most, so if you've seen a map of the Roman Emperor at its maximum size, it would be during the reign of Trajan. Trajan, as most Roman Emperors before him, did not have a biological son. He adopted Hadrian - or did he? Here's the interesting thing: ancient historians were divided on this, with Cassius Dio, writing centuries later, claiming that Trajan's wife Plotina, who was an hugely influential Empress, basically forged the adoption of Hadrian in Trajan's will. Hadrian's parents had died whe he was eleven, and Trajan - the most influential older blood relation - had become Hadrian's and Hadrian's sister's guardian then, and as mentioned Hadrian had served with him, but a formal adoption did not happen until the will. Which had ample precedent, see above, but it's certainly true Plotina was a big supporter of Hadrian's - she'd also arranged Hadrian's marriage to Vibia Sabina, which might not have made the couple in question happy but because Vibiva Sabina was a favoured niece of Trajan's also strengthened Hadrian's bond to the imperial couple - and like him a big Philhellene. That Trajan didn't adopt Hadrian (nor anyone else) before being on his deathbed could mean caution on Trajan's part (as Elizabeth Tudor would say many a century later, everyone prefers the rising to the setting sun, and naming your successor can mean putting on your death shroud), but he certainly did nothing to discourage Hadrian's rise through the ranks. Here's how the wiki entry for Plotina puts the question of the succession:
When a letter Trajan was said to have composed on his deathbed appeared in Rome with Plotina's signature on it, in which he adopted Hadrian and named him successor to the Empire, suspicions were raised. It was rumoured that Attianus and the Empress Plotina had been lovers, both were very fond of Hadrian their ward, both were present at Trajan's deathbed at Selinus in Cilicia in August 117, and that the two had helped secure Hadrian's succession by forging Trajan's will.
Annelise Freisenbruch dismisses this accusation: "Plotina, the silent spouse of the second century, thus joined Livia, Agrippina Minor, and Domitia -
Along with Attianus and Matidia, the grieving widow Plotina accompanied Trajan's body to Seleucia and his ashes to Rome.
It was while a widow that Plotina's best documented action took place. During the year 121, while the emperor Hadrian was inspecting the provinces, Plotina and he engaged in a series of letters discussing who should be the new head of the Epicurean school of philosophy in Athens. She petitioned for a change in the law, which would allow Popillius Theotimus, the acting head of the school, to become the actual head; in response, Hadrian agreed with her argument, and the relevant letters were preserved in a series of inscriptions. Freisenbruch notes, "In stark contrast to her passive anonymity in the literary record, this inscription from Athens recasts Plotina as a highly educated woman, active on behalf of causes close to her heart and with the kind of access to the emperor once enjoyed by Livia."
When Plotina died of illness, she was deified. Her ashes joined Trajan's in the base of Trajan's Column. In 123, Hadrian built a basilica in her honor at Nîmes, in Provence.
As for Hadrian himself: again, no biological son, but of all the Emperors, he went above and beyond securing the succession, arranging not just for the next Emperor to succeed him but the one after that. This was because he had his eyes on young Marcus Aurelius - at this point still called Marcus Annius Verus - who was athe grandson of one of Hadrian's closest friends. However promising, young Marcus was way too young, a literal child when Hadrian made his first choice of successor, so couldn't succeed Hadrian directly unless Hadrian wanted to risk a regent/civil war situation. So his first adopted candidate was supposed to adopt Marcus in turn and also marry his daughter to him, and when that guy died, Hadrian adopted Antoninus Pius (who gave the whole series of Emperors his name - they're often refered to as the Antonines) with the obligation that Antoninus adopt Marcus and marry his daughter to young Marcus instead. (Which Antoninus did.) Now, Hadrian's brother-in-law Servianus was not happy about this, nor was Servianus' grandson Fuscus, one or both might have assumed they'd be the next Emperors instead. There was a conspiracy, and Hadrian had them both executed. Antoninus suceeded without resistance.
Re: Imperial Succesions: I
Date: 2023-01-13 06:56 am (UTC)I am sad that no one seems to know what happened to Domitian's heirs. I hope they were okay (but I suppose the odds are against it -- still, Feuchtwanger at least could have come down one way or the other!)
This is where Nerva showed his survival genius once more. He adopted the most popular army general, Trajan, thereaby pre-empting the army (or huge parts of same) turning against him. (Nerva being old, it was obvious Trajan would not have to wait for long.)
This is awesome!
When a letter Trajan was said to have composed on his deathbed appeared in Rome with Plotina's signature on it, in which he adopted Hadrian and named him successor to the Empire, suspicions were raised.
It seems rather to me that if you were going to try to pass this off as a forgery, you... would maybe not sign it with your own name?
Freisenbruch also notes these kinds of accusations have dogged the spouses of rulers through the centuries.
but I'm totally happy with Lucia being accused in the book, because she is awesomewith the obligation that Antoninus adopt Marcus and marry his daughter to young Marcus instead. (Which Antoninus did.)
Antoninus suceeded without resistance.
I'm relieved to hear these plans went as planned, after all the succession shenanigans with Diocletan and Constantine! (And, for that matter, Domitian.)
Re: Imperial Succesions: I
Date: 2023-01-13 04:41 pm (UTC)They and Basil II (he's one of the medieval Byzantine Emperors, since I'm continuing with the Byzantium podcast), which just about completes a triad of Emperors who were competent at governing and absolutely lousy at succession arranging. In Basil's case, he refused to marry, didn't adopt anyone, had a brother but said brother had only two surviving daughters and Basil after one early attempt with one of them which failed nixed all other potential marriages, and so when Basil died, he did so in the knowledge he'd killed his dynasty - his brother who was over 60 at that point wasn't likely to remarry and father anyone else, and both his nieces were older than 40, i.e. while they still could marry, they weren't likely to reproduce, either. Plus his brother had been deliberately kept away from any office, either military or political. This all but spelled out civil war and a series of 14 (!) Emperors, and Basil - who reigned longer than any other Emperor, either Roman or Byzantine - had to know this would happen. Now, in Basil's case, the explanation might have been justified paranoia (he grew up in the shadow of two coups). Diocletian evidently thought he'd arranged it just fine and Galerius would be the new him (i.e. the one among the four who was the ultimate big cheese keeping everyyone going), and as to why he misread everyone so completely, including Galerius, maybe we're unable to judge this due to having the benefit of hindsight.
...now why Constantine of all the people did not realize that three sons plus two Caesar-appointed nephews spelled a new round ouf internal wars, having spend years of his own life fighting same, I have no idea, but you have to ask as in the case of Marcus Aurelius: what would have been the alternative? Speaking from an amoral cold pov, you could have done what Constantius II did and organized a massacre, thereby reducing the claimants. But that's risky because if you want your new dynasty to continue beyond, well, you, in a violent age with a high mortality rate, you can't just have one heir, who could die at any moment, you do need some spares. Making it clear which of the bunch should be the next Auguustus doesn't mean the rest won't try, but it would at least give one of them a head start. Otoh, the Empire is still too big to be ruled alone, and while Constantine had done just that once he'd killed off the competition, he now was in a personal position to know Diocletian had been onto something with this multiple Emperors solution, and couldn't think of anything better, hence his making all three surviving sons and two of his nephews into Caesars. And lastly, don't underestimate the psychological effect. I mean, however he'd justified it to himself, he had killed the mother of his surviving sons. I wouldn't be surprised if that was yet another reason why he couldn't bring himself to choose one of them and thus by default endanger the others.
I am sad that no one seems to know what happened to Domitian's heirs
One of the unsolved mysteries. I suppose it might simply mean they never held office (which makes sense) nor committed any great crimes and thus weren't deemed noteworthy by future historians, plus if Nerva and/or his partisans had had them killed, surely it would have made some sensational entries in the chronicles. (We certainly know about all the murders of previous claimants that other emperors did, starting with Augustus ordering the death of Caesarion.)
It seems rather to me that if you were going to try to pass this off as a forgery, you... would maybe not sign it with your own name?
True enough, and Plotina after a life time with Trajan could have faked his handwriting or some approximation instead of signing herself. BTW, googling the Hadrian opera has told me Plotina is one of the main characters - as a ghost - and the reviewers are inevitably reminded of Livia (inevitably because due to I, Claudius, Livia is probably the best known Emress in the English speaking world.
Re: Imperial Succesions: I
Date: 2023-01-14 06:48 am (UTC)oh, oof!
Now, in Basil's case, the explanation might have been justified paranoia (he grew up in the shadow of two coups).
Interesting -- and did any of these involve wives? (I'm wondering why he refused to marry.)
I mean, however he'd justified it to himself, he had killed the mother of his surviving sons. I wouldn't be surprised if that was yet another reason why he couldn't bring himself to choose one of them and thus by default endanger the others.
Oh! Yeah... I could see this being a thing. ...I should read the Constantine reading you recced earlier :)
I suppose it might simply mean they never held office (which makes sense) nor committed any great crimes and thus weren't deemed noteworthy by future historians, plus if Nerva and/or his partisans had had them killed, surely it would have made some sensational entries in the chronicles. (We certainly know about all the murders of previous claimants that other emperors did, starting with Augustus ordering the death of Caesarion.)
Oh! This makes me feel a lot better. If they just kind of went under the radar and lived happy and uneventful lives, that would be great! :) Or at least just didn't die early and messily :P
Ha, I have got to get my hands on that opera :) And I did read I, Claudius a very long time ago, enough ago that I've forgotten it all and should read it again. (I never did read Claudius the God, however.)
Re: Imperial Succesions: I
Date: 2023-01-14 04:17 pm (UTC)Scene: Romans are shouting angrily over the death of Germanicus. Livia and Tiberius are inside.
Tiberius: Mother, did it ever occur to you that it might be you they hate, more than me?
Livia: Nothing ever occurs to you that didn't occur to me first. That is the affliction under which I live.
And also the creme de la creme of 1970s actors, in major and minor roles. It made Derek Jacobi's name in the title role, of course, which he plays from when Claudius is ca. 15 years old to his death (and btw his old age make up is abnormally good for the time, so much so that I've seen people surprised Derek Jakobi wasn't old in the 1970s already, despite the fact we see the younger Claudius a lot). Sian Philipps created one of the most memorable female villains ever as Livia. (And like Jacobi, we see Livia go from young woman shortly after the Battle of Actium to old woman in her 90s in the course of the show.) And young John Hurt was the definite Caligula; I've linked you to two scenes when we were discussing Cartagia, who is very much modelled on this performance. Then you have the likes of young Patrick Stewart as Sejanus, leading
Interesting -- and did any of these involve wives? (I'm wondering why he refused to marry.)
Wellllll, how to put this. Basil's mother was Theophanu, not the most famous bearer of that name - that would be the HRE Empress, who was probably named after this earlier Theophanu - who started out being married to Romanos II. Whom she supposedly encouraged to off his father and precedessor Constantine VII., though bear in mind blaming the woman is always the done thing for historians. Romanos himself dies young when Theophanu is just 22, leaving her with two tiny children. She's supposed to be Regent, but the government de facto is done by a palace Eunuch, with whom she argues. Theophanu then starts an affair with the successful general Nikephoros Phokas, a massively popular general who's just managed to end a century of Byzantine defeats by scoring an amazing series of victories against the Saracenes. He gets rid of the Eunuch and marries Theophanu. Now, he doesn't harm the kids, little Basil and little Constantine, but nor does he content himself with the role of Regent. Instead, he becomes little Basil's Co-Emperor. This works out just fine for a few years, and Nikephoros continues with his victory streak, which means the Byzantine Empire actually starts expanding again, after, like I said, a century of defeats and shrinking. But it also means Nikephoros is rarely in Constantinople, since he didn't stop leading from the front lines when he became Emperor, and after a while, there's trouble in Paradise. And lo, Theophanu starts an affair with young, hot John Tsimiskes, nephew of Nikephoros. She leaves the bedchamber unlocked, and John Tismiskes slips in and kills Nikephoros on the night of December 11th, 996. Or at least that's the story acccording the new Emperor John I. Tismiskes. As mentioned earlier for another Emperor, since everyone is Christian now murdering your predecessor without an excuse kinda looks bad, especially since the Patriarch of Constantinople is supposed to crown you. So John T. pulls the old "it was her idea, she seduced me!", does a nominal penance and gets crowned while Theophanu is banished. To legitimize himself further, he marries Theodora, a daughter of Romanos II. from his first, pre-Theophanu marriage. Bear in mind young Basil is also still Emperor; he and John nominally reign together. John then is a very successful Emperor, winning more battles and being good at administration, until he suddenly dies a sudden death that makes people speculate about poison again, this time by the Eunuch Basil Lekaphanos, who has been in the palace administration since Romanos II.'s time and who happens to be the uncle of now not so little anymore Basil II. Basil II has a few more years where Uncle Basil the Eunuch reigns, then he gets rid of him via banishment and then he rules himself for decades, being the third fabulous battles winning general on the throne in a row and having such a tight grip on his subjects that he could stay away from the capital for years on his campaigns without anyone daring to revolt against him, or scheme. But he never, ever marries, keeps brother Constantine in luxurious idleness and does now allow nieces Zoe and Theodora (all the Theodoras, btw, are obviously named after the most famous Theodora, the wife of Justinian) to marry.
Sidenote for German history: When Otto I. had wanted a Byzantine bride born to the purple for his son, future Otto II, Nikephoros' reaction was "no way, German upstart! You're not the Roman Emperor, I am!" When Otto asked again once Emperor later, John, who needed his ursurpation acknowledged by as many people as possible as quickly as possible, said yes, sure and sent his niece, the younger Theophanu, who will in time become Empress of the not yet holy Roman Empire, and will together with her mother in law Adelheid be an awesome regent.
Re: Imperial Succesions: I
Date: 2023-01-15 10:19 pm (UTC)Tiberius: Mother, did it ever occur to you that it might be you they hate, more than me?
Livia: Nothing ever occurs to you that didn't occur to me first. That is the affliction under which I live.
LOL, okay, this is awesome!
Then you have the likes of young Patrick Stewart as Sejanus, leading [personal profile] andraste to observe: "In I, Claudius a character kills her husband to have more sex with Patrick Stewart. I understand her motivation."
HA. ...yeah, fair!
Wellllll, how to put this.
RIGHT. With a personal history like that, I guess it would be more surprising if he did marry, huh.
As mentioned earlier for another Emperor, since everyone is Christian now murdering your predecessor without an excuse kinda looks bad
Your phrasing of this continues to be hilarious to me :D
Sidenote for German history: When Otto I. had wanted a Byzantine bride born to the purple for his son, future Otto II, Nikephoros' reaction was "no way, German upstart! You're not the Roman Emperor, I am!" When Otto asked again once Emperor later, John, who needed his ursurpation acknowledged by as many people as possible as quickly as possible, said yes, sure and sent his niece, the younger Theophanu, who will in time become Empress of the not yet holy Roman Empire, and will together with her mother in law Adelheid be an awesome regent.
Ah, cool! Thanks for always making these connections for me!
Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-09 11:48 am (UTC)However, it's worth pointing out that a) none of his predecessors among the hallowed Five had a biological son to choose, and b), as Mike Duncan argues, what would have been the alternative? Because if, say, Marcus Aurelius had adopted someone else and made that guy Caesar instead, then once he died certainly any malcontent or enemy of the other chosen guy would have rallied behind Commodus, and there would have been civil war, the one thing any Roman Emperor should avoid setting up. Unless Marcus Aurelius would have had his son killed, and while of course in retrospect that would have been better for the Empire, he wasn't Constantine. He could not kill his own son.
So Commodus succeeds as planned, and promptly becomes one of the Worst Five Emperors Ever. Seriously. Even Nero and Caligula have their defenders who argue that their names got blackened by their successors, but Commodus was awful in every aspect, and that's why not just Gibbon sees the Decline and Fall of the (Western) Empire start with his reign. In stark contrast to, say, Domitian, who might have been an awful paranoid person but was a competent dictator working hard, Commodus leaves the actual governing to a series of favourites whom he kills off when he's sick of them and goes for non-stop games instead. Soon, corruption runs so rampant that in the year of Commodus' death, the office of consul - in the days of the Republic the highest office a man could hold, the climax of the cursus honorum, whom the years were counted after - is held by no less than 25 men, sold to everyone of them, there are also non-stop treason trials, and when Commodus (who of course doesn't bother arranging the succession, he's busy renaming Rome into Commodum instead) is finally put out of his and everyone else's misery, the most infamous scenes of all concerning the succesion in the Roman Empire happen. Yes, it's the year of the Five Emperors now (inflation is a thing).
Prelude, directly after Commodus is killed: Pertinax (son of a freedman, Urban Prefect of Rome at the time) becomes Emperor. Pertinax actually wants to reform the rampant corruption and wants to start with the Praetorian Guard. The Praetorian Guard says "are you kidding?" and kills Pertinax. Then the Praetorian Guard literally auctions off the office of Emperor. (Pertinax having reigned a little more than 80 days at this point.) The last two bidders are Sulpicianus and Julianus. After hours of bidding, Sulpicianus promised 20,000 sesterces to every soldier; Marcus Didius Julianus, fearing that Sulpicianus would gain the throne, then offered 25,000 and for that sum buys the Roman Empire. For a mere 66 days, it turns out, because by then news have spread to the provinces, several generals, among them the eventual winner, Septimius Severus (first African Emperor of Rome), say ARE YOU KIDDING ME? and set their troops marching. Didius dies, murdered, with the line "“But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?" He has a point. Anyway, from this point onwards, succession to the imperial throne is pretty much a matter of who has the strongest troops and/or murders his rivals first.
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-09 01:18 pm (UTC)And that is precisely why I know so little about the period between Augustus and the Five Good Emperors, because Mommsen goes up to Augustus and Gibbon starts with Commodus! And when I followed up those two works with modern scholarship, I did "more of same" and not "fill in gap."
Then the Praetorian Guard literally auctions off the office of Emperor.
Speaking of which, I forget what the evidence is, but this is one of the things I had to unlearn after following up Gibbon with modern scholarship. From what I remember, we have ancient sources saying this, Gibbon says this, and so a lot of modern works will repeat this claim, but apparently modern critical scholarship either says it didn't happen or the evidence is so weak we can't say it did happen, I forget. I also seem to recall that Gibbon's theory that the Praetorian Guard played such a decisive role in the history of the Roman Empire turned out to be a Gibbon thing and not an everybody thing.
I would love to go look into this matter more, but I can only have one research focus at a time, and the 18th century is still calling me. Peter wants not to be forgotten, and Fredersdorf wants his name cleared.
Hold this thought! We will do Classics salon one day, just not today!
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-13 04:46 pm (UTC)BTW, Mike Duncan did say the auction didn't literally take place in the Senate but that some Praetorians essentially ran between candidates (who sensibly had barricaded themselves in their houses), telling them about the latest offer from the competition.
BTW, I don't remember, did we ever post my write-up of Fritz' editon of Montesquieu's Roman history at Rheinsberg?
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-13 10:01 pm (UTC)Montesquieu: I don't think we did. We also didn't do your more recent Manteuffel Fidamire write-up, or my findings on Trenck, Leopold, and Fredersdorf and the Trachenbergs.
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-14 06:09 am (UTC)Okay, this is EVEN BETTER. OMG. (And that is very sensible!)
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-14 06:08 am (UTC)Okay, but I feel like you have yourself to blame here, having tempted Selena into writing hilarious AU and therefore me into asking questions about it!
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-14 07:03 pm (UTC)Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-14 06:07 am (UTC)(and he did make it clear in Commodus' teenage years that his son was to succeed him, by naming him Caesar and jointly ruling with him during his last years of life)
I'd ask if it was at all obvious to Marcus Aurelius what his son was like at this point, although I'm sure the answer is "we don't really have the evidence." ALthough I guess if Commodus is a teenager then... well... I know quite a few teenagers who would have made terrible Emperors but eventually came out as reasonable adults :)
Unless Marcus Aurelius would have had his son killed, and while of course in retrospect that would have been better for the Empire, he wasn't Constantine. He could not kill his own son.
WELL that seems like it should be better! But, hmm.
who of course doesn't bother arranging the succession, he's busy renaming Rome into Commodum instead
WHAT
So after he died was everyone like "...let's just forget that happened"?
(inflation is a thing)
lol!
Didius dies, murdered, with the line "“But what evil have I done? Whom have I killed?" He has a point.
Aw!
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-14 04:43 pm (UTC)LOL, yes. Mind you, even ancient historians wrecked their heads about this one. Commodus was actually the very first Emperor "born to the purple", i.e. during his father's reign. (When Titus and Domitian were born, Vespasian was anything but Emperor, remember, and everyone else got to the throne via adoption until this point.) But there are no "evil kid" anecdotes about his childhood; Marcus Aurelius gave him a plethora of teachers so the lad would have a first class education, and also wasn't an absent dad, taking the boy on campaigns and culture trips like the one to Athens were they were both initiated to the mysteries of Eleusis. Now the movies, both the old Fall of the Roman Empire (Marcus Aurelius: Alec Guinness; Commodus: Christopher Plummer) and the more recent Gladiator (Marcus Aurelius: Richard Harris; Commodus: Joacquin Phoenix), who kill off Marcus Aurelius early on and place a fictional general in the focus of their story with whom Marcus Aurelius' daughter Lucilla falls in love, have Marcus Aurelius see through Commodus and intending to adopt the fictional general instead, though dying before he can do that. (Gladiator even has Commodus off his Dad.) But that never happened. Late ancient historians (i.e. writing about a century and a half later), and this is something Fall of the Roman Empire also does, even provide a story where Commodus isn't really Marcus Aurelius' son but that of a gladiator his mother supposedl had an affair with. All so to explain how on earth the son of everyone's favourite philosopher on the throne (sorry, Fritz, but the author of Meditations wins over the author of The Anti Machiavel) became such a rotten cad, and why his father didn't see it and/or prevent it.
(The movies in terms of explanation offer Commodus having Daddy issues due to Dad preferring Fictional Good General and being disappointed Commodus isn't like him. But as I said, there was no such person in reality, and Marcus Aurelius gave no sign of wanting to adopt any of the various generals who rose through the ranks during his reign and whom he liked in varying degrees - who btw included Septimius Severus.)
I do find Duncan's argument that the alternative to signalling Commodus as the Chosen One would have been killing Commodus or risk civil war - pretty convincing, I must admit. Marcus did his best to shape his son into a good future Emperor during his life time, and if there were signs, he probably hoped it was just phase that would pass.
To show just how nuts Commodus did become, though, let me quote Wiki: In opposition to the Senate, in his pronouncements and iconography, Commodus had always stressed his unique status as a source of god-like power, liberality, and physical prowess. Innumerable statues around the empire were set up portraying him in the guise of Hercules, reinforcing the image of him as a demigod, a physical giant, a protector, and a warrior who fought against men and beasts. Moreover, as Hercules, he could claim to be the son of Jupiter, the supreme god of the Roman pantheon. These tendencies now increased to megalomaniacal proportions. Far from celebrating his descent from Marcus Aurelius, the actual source of his power, he stressed his own personal uniqueness as the bringer of a new order, seeking to re-cast the empire in his own image.
During 191, the city of Rome was extensively damaged by a fire that raged for several days, during which many public buildings including the Temple of Pax, the Temple of Vesta, and parts of the imperial palace were destroyed.
Perhaps seeing this as an opportunity, early in 192 Commodus, declaring himself the new Romulus, ritually re-founded Rome, renaming the city Colonia Lucia Annia Commodiana. All the months of the year were renamed to correspond exactly with his (now twelve) names: Lucius, Aelius, Aurelius, Commodus, Augustus, Herculeus, Romanus, Exsuperatorius, Amazonius, Invictus, Felix, and Pius. The legions were renamed Commodianae, the fleet which imported grain from Africa was termed Alexandria Commodiana Togata, the Senate was entitled the Commodian Fortunate Senate, his palace and the Roman people themselves were all given the name Commodianus, and the day on which these reforms were decreed was to be called Dies Commodianus.
Thus, he presented himself as the fountainhead of the Empire, Roman life, and religion. He also had the head of the Colossus of Nero adjacent to the Colosseum replaced with his own portrait, gave it a club, placed a bronze lion at its feet to make it look like Hercules Romanus, and added an inscription boasting of being "the only left-handed fighter to conquer twelve times one thousand men".
And yes, after he killed the Senate declared him a Public Enemy and passed the damnatio memoriae over him. (While there were five successive Emperors duking it out until Septimius Severus had won for good.)
How he died: Supposedly his favourite mistress, Marcia, discovered she was about to become his dead ex mistress along with some other about to be discarded favourites (he'd done that kind of thing before), and conspired with them against him. She poisoned him; he vomited it up. She then called his favourite wrestling partner, Narcissus, who strangled Commodus in his bath.
Re: Imperial Succesions :II
Date: 2023-01-16 05:53 am (UTC)AHAHAHAHA
...yeah.
(I haven't read it, see also even more terribly underread in this area than in others, but I'd heard of one of these before salon and not the other.)
I do find Duncan's argument that the alternative to signalling Commodus as the Chosen One would have been killing Commodus or risk civil war - pretty convincing, I must admit. Marcus did his best to shape his son into a good future Emperor during his life time, and if there were signs, he probably hoped it was just phase that would pass.
That makes sense, along with absolute power at a young age maybe being a bad idea for lots of people...
How he died: Supposedly his favourite mistress, Marcia, discovered she was about to become his dead ex mistress along with some other about to be discarded favourites (he'd done that kind of thing before), and conspired with them against him. She poisoned him; he vomited it up. She then called his favourite wrestling partner, Narcissus, who strangled Commodus in his bath.
This is reminding me of the relevant subplot in the Josephus third book. Though I suppose maybe all it says is that once you discard enough people by killing them, you can't be surprised when a few of them decide that maybe they ought to band together and act first.
Re: Constantinian Aftermath
Date: 2023-01-09 12:26 pm (UTC)Incidentally, regarding the question as to why Constantine waited till his deathbed (when he'd made Christiany the state religion decades earlier and had his children raised as Christians): Mike Duncan thinks it wasn't that Constantine wasn't a sincere believer but that he was, and that he was pretty convinced he'd go to hell unless he got baptized shortly before his death, since baptism clears you from all your sins even more thoroughly than confessing them does. (Especially at a point where confession/penance/absolution as later practiced in institional Christiany might not yet have been practiced this way. But the idea that baptism would cleanse you completely certainly was.) And given his track record, you can see why Constantine thought hell as a strong possibility.
I am actually surprised that Gallus and Julian were allowed to live, though?
Well, they were literally children. (Julian was born in 331, youngest of the sons of Julius Constantius the son of Theodora and Chlorus, and the "Massacre of the Princes" took place in 337.) Meanwhile, Constantine's half brothers, who'd been much younger than him - Constantine the Great had been 18 or so when the first Chlorus/Theodora offspring was born) were in the prime of their lives, between 30 and 40, when Constantine died, whereas the Constantine/Fausta sons, Constantine (II), Constantius (II) and Constans, were 21 or so, 20 or 19 and a teenager, respectively. You can see why Constantius, that precocious Mafia boss of an Imperial Offspring, concluded his uncles would be taken as far better candidates for the throne to the army (who wanted experienced men) than he and his untried brothers who were just about to earn their laurels (or not) in the upcoming war against the Persians, and so he used the opportunity of the entire Theodora line being in Constantinople for Constantine's funeral to wipe them out. Both the uncles and their older sons who were his own age and could potentially avenge them.
As to why he didn't kill Gallus and Julianus as well: could be for a mixture of reasons. First of all, he didn't carry out these killings himself. (Otherwise the story that it was just disgruntled soldiers with a Theodora line hate-on would not have worked even for the most credulous, and remember, as opposed to his pagan predecessors, Constantius was a Christian monarch, meaning killing your family is now officially frowned upon and has to be explained.) And while Soldiers would have been cool with killing a bunch of adult princes, they might have balked at killing little boys on behalf of a guy who was himself hardly grown up. Secondly, maybe he was playing the long game. He was the middle son, remember, and could not have been sure he could win against his other two brothers. It might be good to have some more options to threaten the others with in a few years. But that's just speculation.
!! The twist ending!
If I were Julian, growing up in the knowledge that my Christan uncle had murdered most of my family and the Christian bishops, including the Pope, let him get away with it without denouncing him because they did not want to loose their new state support, I would not have been too impressed with the new religion, either.
Re: Constantinian Aftermath
Date: 2023-01-14 06:14 am (UTC)OHHHHH that makes perfect sense!
(In principle my religion teaches that repentance clears you as thoroughly as baptism, but in practice people don't always act as if they believe that.)
and remember, as opposed to his pagan predecessors, Constantius was a Christian monarch, meaning killing your family is now officially frowned upon and has to be explained.
I just want to say that I love how you phrase things, it makes me laugh.
If I were Julian, growing up in the knowledge that my Christan uncle had murdered most of my family and the Christian bishops, including the Pope, let him get away with it without denouncing him because they did not want to loose their new state support, I would not have been too impressed with the new religion, either.
I've heard of Julian the Apostate but never with any context, so I guess I just always figured he was some guy who liked the old ways. But this makes so much sense.
Julian the Apostate
Date: 2023-01-14 09:28 am (UTC)Now, Julian was far from stupid, and various of the measures he introduced might have worked, if he'd lived longer and they'd been given time. He knew that straightforward persecution of Christians a la Diocletian and Galerius would just produce martyrs. He also knew one big appeal Christianity had was that it took care of the poor, and in a very organized way, and in addition to funding what temples and old faith followers he could find, he also obligated them to use some of that money for charity. Also, by giving permission to all religions to be practiced again, he did something Mike Duncan cracked me up by describing as: "Confronting Christians with the one enemy they hated, despised and feared the most: other Christians." I.e. if every religion is legal again, that means Arians and every other subsection of Christianity are just as valid as the orthodoxy his late uncle had thrown the weight of the state behind, and you can forget about the Council of Nicea having formulated the one true Credo.
Otoh, shortly before he took off to Persia to find his death, Julian issued a decree which was definitely discriminatory (and could possibly have worked) against Christians: he forbade any Christian to teach Homer and the other classics (who were already classics by then). You could either be a Christian or you could teach Homer, but not both. Why is this relevant? Because even in the post Constantine Christian world, you could not possibly have a good education without being taught Homer. No matter whether you were a Roman aristocrat or an ambitious state servant with an eye to a career in the administration, you would not get work as anything better than a market scribe without knowing your classics. So Christian parents had the choice of either letting their children be taught by non-Christians (thus exposing them to, Julian clearly hoped, a non-Christian mindset), or not giving them a good education.
Re: Julian the Apostate
Date: 2023-01-15 09:23 pm (UTC)he tried to organize them, since of course the very efficient way the Christians were organized had been one big reason Constantine was able to integrate them into the state so quickly.
Heh, I didn't realize that and I love it. Logistics for the win!
When he visited his first temple of Apollo post becoming Emperor, he was massively disappointed - everything was neglected, the priest wasn't very interested and went through lacklustre motions sacrificing a chicken (a chicken! how banal was that!).
lolololol! Poor Julian :D
He knew that straightforward persecution of Christians a la Diocletian and Galerius would just produce martyrs.
That's... putting him above quite a lot of other people :P Although I suppose he had direct and recent evidenec for this!
he did something Mike Duncan cracked me up by describing as: "Confronting Christians with the one enemy they hated, despised and feared the most: other Christians." I.e. if every religion is legal again, that means Arians and every other subsection of Christianity are just as valid as the orthodoxy his late uncle had thrown the weight of the state behind, and you can forget about the Council of Nicea having formulated the one true Credo.
AHAHAHAHA omg. It's funny because it's true!
(argh, I have to start listening to these podcasts! My master plan has suffered a setback due to the car with the good audio system being less available for a month or so, but one day maybe I'll get to it...)
So Christian parents had the choice of either letting their children be taught by non-Christians (thus exposing them to, Julian clearly hoped, a non-Christian mindset), or not giving them a good education.
Ooh, that's really interesting.