The Jewish War: First half of Book 2
Mar. 1st, 2026 08:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cahnLast week: Discussion on how Herod stacked up against various Roman emperors in terms of body count of his nearest and dearest; how Friedrich Wilhelm might hear the Josephus text; Herod throwing money around; Cleopatra!
This week: ...uhhhh there was a lot going on and I haven't actually finished the reading yet *ducks* -- I am doing that right now and I should most likely be able to comment tomorrow. (I don't anticipate this being a problem again for at least two more months, and most likely not then either; this was a confluence of various time sinks that doesn't usually happen all at the same time.) But I wanted to go ahead and get the post up because I know you guys have read it... (ETA: have finished the reading now :P :) )
Next week: finishing up Book 2!
This week: ...uhhhh there was a lot going on and I haven't actually finished the reading yet *ducks* -- I am doing that right now and I should most likely be able to comment tomorrow. (I don't anticipate this being a problem again for at least two more months, and most likely not then either; this was a confluence of various time sinks that doesn't usually happen all at the same time.) But I wanted to go ahead and get the post up because I know you guys have read it... (ETA: have finished the reading now :P :) )
Next week: finishing up Book 2!
Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-02 10:54 am (UTC)More importantly, though, were the circumstances behind the Claudius/Agrippina the Younger marriage and his adoptation of her son Lucius Domitius (who only post adoption was called Nero, it's a Claudian name, this) despite having a biological son of his own. Agrippina at the point of said marriage was incredibly popular in Rome, as even the hostile to her historians concede. (A few years earlier, the audience at the games had cheered her and booed Claudius' wife Messalina (mother of his son Britannicus) at the games, after which Agrippina, an excellent survivor, withdrew from Rome to the countryside knowing Messalina would gun for her until Messalina was dead.) She was basically Rome's tragic princess, the daughter of beloved Germanicus who died early (question mark as to whether natural nor not) and beloved Agrippina the older (banished, starved and beaten to death), with her two oldest brothers ecqually cruelly murdered by Sejanus and Tiberius. Yes, she was also no longer popular Caligula's sister, but he himself had banished her after a supposed conspiracy, so she wasn't tainted by this connection in the popular mind. She had been married at 13, had produced the first kid of her generation, and she and her son not yet Nero were the sole remaining living descendants of Augustus after the Claudian branch of the Julio-Claudian dynasty had done its best to wipe the Julians out, one could say.
(Think Mary Tudor before and including her accession. All the Bloody Mary unpopularity was yet to come. Until that point, Mary was the much beloved tragic princess, daughter of the much beloved Catherine, both of whom had been greatly wronged, and whose accession to the throne finally was justice. Yay! Until...)
Claudius marrying Agrippina the Younger, who was his niece (her father Germanicus having been his older brother), was incest and that was a problem for the public, but otoh it also was popular because so was she. (While Claudius himself at the start of his reign was not. Due to his physical handicaps, he'd been shut away from the public for most of his life, with only Caligula, as a joke, giving him public office for the first time during his reign.) And so was, at this point, her son, who was already an early teen, while little Britannicus, a few years younger, was a child. By not only marrying her but adopting Lucius-turning-Nero, Claudius was seen as reconciling the two branches of the family. And the idea of Nero (that much closer to adulthood than Britannicus) being groomed for the succession AT THIS POINT wasn't unpopular, either. A kid can't rule, no one wanted an uncertain succession or another civil war (see above), and there was precedent (see above). Plus Agrippina did her level best to showcase teenage Nero in the best possible light during her marriage with Claudius, let him practice with the Pretorians, making him attend Senate sessions, etc. Off course she lobbyed for her son as the heir (not least because her entire life story so far had presented her with plenty of examples for what happens if you have a blood connection to Augustus and are NOT in power). (So did one of the two freedmen who were Claudius' most influential ministers, Pallas, who had been the one to suggest Agrippina as Claudius' post Messalina wife to begin with.)
Now, by the time Claudius dies, things are starting to change in that Britannicus is now a few years older, no longer a kid but a teenager himself (and one of his friends of the same age is one Titus, son of Vespasian). It's entirely possible Claudius was about to reconsider. (Augustus reconsidered all the time, though in his case because all the early pre Tiberius candidates kept dying.) Some historians (with the benefit of hindsight) claim he was, and that this is why he dies courtesy of a poisoned dish of mushrooms presented by Agrippina. (Nero was 17 at this point, btw.) If Agrippina killed Claudius in order to ensure her son would really succeed, some heavy dark irony was waiting for her, not just because of how Nero would turn out later but because in the years with Claudius, she had far more political influence and could get things done than how things would go down with Nero after the first year or so. What none of this involves, obviously, is magic in our sense of the word. HOWEVER - basically poisoners like the one Agrippina is said to have employed, Locusta, were also referred to as witches. One of the several Latin terms for with can mean both.
Lastly: Agrippina the Younger wrote her memoirs; we know this because both Pliny and Tacitus refer to them at different points. Alas, they are lost, and if there is one lost work of antiquity, I would want to be recovered, it's not the second poetics of Aristotle (pace Name of the Rose), it's Agrippina's memoirs, not least because so few works by a woman from antiquity are preserved full stop, and I would love to read about her pov on the entire crazy Julio-Claudian saga.
Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-03 05:15 am (UTC)Oof, yeah, that makes sense.
She was basically Rome's tragic princess
Wow, I really appreciate this primer as well as the comparison to Mary Tudor before she was Bloody Mary, because I do have some osmosed concepts of Agrippina-Nero's-mom and it is NOT THIS.
Wooooow yeah I would love to read her memoirs too!
Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-03 10:09 am (UTC)Much as Cleopatra grudgingly is afforded some respect for her manner of dying in Roman histories (and poetry), said Roman historians do give Agrippina credit for courage in the black farce that was her death, and incidentally betray that several years of open enmity between mother and son, i.e. at a point where no one can gain anything for showing support for Agrippina because the Emperor has declared he hates Mom now, she still had support both in the army and the general population. As a reminder, Agrippina’s death goes like this.
Nero: I want to kill Mom now, for real! Seneca, Burrus, I know you two got your jobs with me because she promoted you, but that’s why you gotta help me out here now.
Seneca: I am a philosopher and a man of peace and several years away from my own death, so I am not suicidal. Therefore, my main comment will be “Burrus is the soldier, let Burrus do it if you must”.
Burrus, Pretorian Guard: No way my guys will kill the daughter of Germanicus. I’ve told you this the last time you wanted to kill your Mom. No can do. She’s too popular with the army.
Tigrinus: Never mind the two old farts, Nero, I have this really complicated plan that will appeal to the actor in you. So, how about you make a big deal of reconciling with your Mom here in a the bax of Baia, throw a party for her, then send her home to her villa on a ship across the bay. But! The ship is really build in a way that if you remove just a timber, it will fall apart and drown! Making it look like an accident! No one will blame you, and she’ll be gone!
Nero: You’re the best. That’s what we’ll do!
*a few weeks later, post party and sending off on boat*
Agrippina and servant, when the boat falls apart: *swim*
(Agrippina is an excellent swimmer since brother Gaius Caligula had banished her on an island years earlier.)
*ship crew on little boats: search for her*
Agrippina: Loyal servant, swim a bit in the other direction and call out that you’re the mother of the Emperor and that they need to save you!
Servant: Does so. Promptly gets beaten and drown.
Agrippina: *swims on to the shore*
Bay people: Hooray for Agrippina! Wow, her son must be so worried. Let’s send a messenger to the Emperor so he knows the Augusta is alright.
Nero: *has been composing a grieving son already* WTF WTF WTF!
Nero: Decides it’s time to stop with the overcomplicated plans, but not completely; lets fall a dagger, yells* OMG my mother has sent someone to kill me! HELP!
Tigrinus: Okay, never mind the Pretorians, my guys will do the job and kill your mother for this horrible attempt at infanticide!
Nero: They’d better, because this was YOUR IDEA.
Henchmen: *arrive at Agrippina’s villa*
Agrippina: If you’ve come to check my well being, tell my son I’m fine and will see him tomorrow, it’s late. If, on the other hand, you’ve come to kill me - well. *points to her stomach*. Stab me here. It’s where Nero came from!”
Agrippina: *dies of multiple stabbings*
Nero: *comes after being promised she’s really dead now’
Nero: My mother is beautiful even in death. At least that’s what some historians let me say. Others, like Suetionius, even let me point out particular parts of her dead body because I haven’t been creepy enough yet in a work that had Tiberius and Caligula before me.
Agrippina’s attendants: organize a cremation and burial.
Nero: For my next public stage performance, I’m choosing the part of Orestes.
Emma Southon: I am concluding my Agrippina biogrpahy by pointing out Nero’s gigantic golden statue got destroyed under the Flavians while Agrippina’s statue survived until the Fall of Western Rome. Just saying.
Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-03 01:09 pm (UTC)Agrippina's last words were a quote from a contemporary play. I remembered Oedipus, but am now wondering if it was an Orestiad.
Housemate and I have been debating ever since if this was quick thinking on her part, or legend slotting in a useful quote.
(Source: Nero: the Man Behind the Myth (https://www.britishmuseum.org/exhibitions/nero-man-behind-myth), an exhibit aware that it had a very difficult argument to make, and it needed backup. It definitely had some interesting historiography discussion!)
Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-03 05:18 pm (UTC)An example of Agrippina herself being a pro with the rethoric and the gesture is how she (according to Tacitus) reacted the first time when Nero had thought of kiling her. This was after the deaths of Britannicus and Octavia, i.e. she knew he was capable, and Domitia Silana, the aunt who'd spent some years raising Nero when Agrippina was on that island, was gunning for top spot of maternal influence and had her henchmen insinuate Agrippina had wanted to kill Nero and replace him with stepson Britannicus. Whereupon a drunken Nero first said "OMG, she needs to die" and that time, Burrus had managed to calm him down and allow Agrippina to answer to these charges before giving any killing orders. Whereupon, always according to Tacitus, this happened:
Having thus allayed the prince's fears, they went at daybreak to Agrippina, that she might know the charges against her, and either rebut them or suffer the penalty. Burrus fulfilled his instructions in Seneca's presence, and some of the freedmen were present to witness the interview. Then Burrus, when he had fully explained the charges with the authors' names, assumed an air of menace. Instantly Agrippina, calling up all her high spirit, exclaimed, "I wonder not that Silana, who has never borne offspring, knows nothing of a mother's feelings. Parents do not change their children as lightly as a shameless woman does her paramours. And if Iturius and Calvisius, after having wasted their whole fortunes, are now, as their last resource, repaying an old hag for their hire by undertaking to be informers, it does not follow that I am to incur the infamy of plotting a son's murder, or that a Caesar is to have the consciousness of like guilt. As for Domitia's enmity, I should be thankful for it, were she to vie with me in goodwill towards my Nero. Now through her paramour, Atimetus, and the actor, Paris, she is, so to say, concocting a drama for the stage. She at her Baiae was increasing the magnificence of her fishponds, when I was planning in my counsels his adoption with a proconsul's powers and a consul-elect's rank and every other step to empire. Only let the man come forward who can charge me with having tampered with the praetorian cohorts in the capital, with having sapped the loyalty of the provinces, or, in a word, with having bribed slaves and freedmen into any wickedness. Could I have lived with Britannicus in the possession of power? And if Plautus or any other were to become master of the State so as to sit in judgment on me, accusers forsooth would not be forthcoming, to charge me not merely with a few incautious expressions prompted by the eagerness of affection, but with guilt from which a son alone could absolve me." There was profound excitement among those present, and they even tried to soothe her agitation, but she insisted on an interview with her son. Then (...) she obtained vengeance on her accusers and rewards for her friends.
=> This was a woman who could come up with a stinging final quote once she knew she would die.
Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-04 01:04 am (UTC)Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-04 06:01 am (UTC)Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-04 12:11 pm (UTC)(Cahn, none of the famous speeches in ancient historical works are to be taken as literal transcripts, especially if and when the historian had no access to direct source material, for example Tacitus, in “Agricola”, giving a Scottish Chieftain the famous “they make a desolation and call it peace” speech about Romans. Basically the current assumption is that the ancient historians may have had source material on the gist of what was being said - in this case “Agrippina denied intending to trade in her son for Britannicus as Emperor and this time succeeded in verbally smiting her enemies” - and then they fleshed it out as best they could. Same with Josephus’ versions of Herod’s and his sons’ speeches, though since he had access to the memoirs othe sometimes mentioned Nikolas, he did have some source material at least.)
Mind you, I’m with Emma Southon on whether or not Agrippina in this particular case was conspiring against her son in favour of Britannicus. No way. Firstly, Nero was her only son, he was all the dynastic future she would ever have, and leaving maternal emotion or lack of same aside, there is such a thing as sunk cost fallacity. Secondly, Britannicus had absolutely no reason to favour her, given she did her level best (and succeeded) in making her son and not him Emperor before. And that’s without assuming Britannicus would blame her for his father’s death. In the hypothetical case of Nero being toppled and killed or sent into exile, with Britannicus succeeding to the throne, Agrippina would not have survived that change. In the best case scenario, it would have meant another island exile for her, and most likely death. So for sheer self preservation reasons: no, she didn’t.
(Also, this - not her later death, but the weeks before and after the death of Britannicus - was early enough in Nero’s reign for her to believe the break between them was fixable.)
Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-05 05:11 am (UTC)Firstly, Nero was her only son, he was all the dynastic future she would ever have
Yeah, I mean... even in the modern day you hear about people doing somewhat crazy things for their offspring who may or may not appreciate it, so this seems plausible.
(Also, this - not her later death, but the weeks before and after the death of Britannicus - was early enough in Nero’s reign for her to believe the break between them was fixable.)
Tell me about the death of Britannicus?
Death of Britannicus: Suetonius
Date: 2026-03-05 12:23 pm (UTC)Suetonius (who thinks Nero killed his stepbrother not for some Agrippina threat but out of singer and general jealousy): He attempted the life of Britannicus by poison, not less from jealousy of his voice (for it was more agreeable than his own) than from fear that he might sometime win a higher place than himself in the people's regard because of the memory of his father. He procured the potion from an archpoisoner, one Locusta, and when the effect was slower than he anticipated, merely physicing Britannicus, he called the woman to him and flogged her with his own hand, charging that she had administered a medicine instead of a poison; and when she said in excuse that she had given a smaller dose to shield him from the odium of the crime, he replied: "It's likely that I am afraid of the Julian law;" and he forced her to mix as swift and instant a potion as she knew how in his own room before his very eyes. Then he tried it on a kid, and as the animal lingered for five hours, had the mixture steeped again and again and threw some of it before a pig. The beast instantly fell dead, whereupon he ordered that the poison be taken to the dining-room and given to Britannicus. The boy dropped dead at the very first taste, but Nero lied to his guests and declared that he was seized with the falling sickness, to which he was subject, and the next day had him hastily and unceremoniously buried in a pouring rain. He rewarded Locusta for her eminent services with a full pardon101 and large estates in the country, and actually sent her pupils.
Suetonius also mentions the death of Britannicus in his Titus biography:
(Titus) was brought up at court in company with Britannicus and taught the same subjects by the same masters. At that time, so they say, a physiognomist was brought in by Narcissus, the freedman of Claudius, to examine Britannicus and declared most positively that he would never become emperor; but that Titus, who was standing near by at the time, would surely rule. The boys were so intimate too, that it is believed that when Britannicus drained the fatal draught,2 Titus, who was reclining at his side, also tasted of the potion and for a long time suffered from an obstinate disorder. Titus did not forget all this, but later set up a golden statue of his friend in the Palace, and dedicated another equestrian statue of ivory, which is to this day carried in the procession in the Circus, and he attended it on its first appearance.
Re: Death of Britannicus: Suetonius
Date: 2026-03-10 03:42 am (UTC)omg LOL!
Agrippina supposedly shouts right back that he’s an ungrateful little shit whom she made Emperor by killing her husband and some other people (allow me to doubt Agrippina shouted the later part in front of other people), and if he keeps this up, she will throw her weight behind Britannicus and make him Emperor instead!
Ha. It's funny to imagine that she shouted all those things, anyway (even if it seems rather unlikely)
The boys were so intimate too, that it is believed that when Britannicus drained the fatal draught,2 Titus, who was reclining at his side, also tasted of the potion and for a long time suffered from an obstinate disorder. Titus did not forget all this, but later set up a golden statue of his friend in the Palace
Gosh, Titus :/ (I mean, it's obviously worse for Britannicus, but I can't imagine that wasn't super traumatic for Titus.)
Re: Death of Britannicus: Suetonius
Date: 2026-03-10 04:55 pm (UTC)My own take is that the whole story about Nero forcing Locusta to make an ever stronger poison is the result of the tale growing in the telling (remember, Suetonius and Tacitus are writing lots of Emperors later) and rethorical flourish, but that Nero most likely did kill Britannicus, just as Caligula had ordered Gemellus killed early in his reign, and for that matter, just like the much praised Augustus had ordered Caesarion killed the moment he could. "There can only be one" and all that. Especially with Nero himself being a late teen just emerging on the other side of a power struggle with his mother and realising he really CAN do anything he wants now. Either way, Titus evidently never forgot the experience. Having a statue for Britannicus errected many years later in the Flavian age wasn't of use to him propaganda wise; I doubt at this point many people still remembered Britannicus had existed. But to him, this was a friend who died incredibly young.
(BTW, I always thought Titus would make a great pov character for a YA short story or novella for the early Nero days. As Britannicus' bff, he's around, he's a teenager, he's not a slave but also not a member of the imperial family or even the high aristocracy. His father at htis point is an ok general from the countryside, that's it. So he's not completely powerless the way a slave would be, but he's still disposable if he speaks to the wrong people or shows what he knows. Titus trying to find out how Britannicus really died: the YA novel or story yet to be written!
Re: Death of Britannicus: Suetonius
Date: 2026-03-12 05:22 am (UTC)Titus trying to find out how Britannicus really died: the YA novel or story yet to be written!
Oh yeah! I'd read this!
Re: Death of Britannicus: Suetonius
Date: 2026-03-12 12:14 pm (UTC)Re: Death of Britannicus: Suetonius
Date: 2026-03-13 02:30 am (UTC)Death of Britannicus: Tacitus
Date: 2026-03-05 12:27 pm (UTC)XV. Nero was confounded at this, and as the day was near on which Britannicus would complete his fourteenth year, he reflected, now on the domineering temper of his mother, and now again on the character of the young prince, which a trifling circumstance had lately tested, sufficient however to gain for him wide popularity. During the feast of Saturn, amid other pastimes of his playmates, at a game of lot drawing for king, the lot fell to Nero, upon which he gave all his other companions different orders, and such as would not put them to the blush; but when he told Britannicus to step forward and begin a song, hoping for a laugh at the expense of a boy who knew nothing of sober much less of riotous society, the lad with perfect coolness commenced some verses which hinted at his expulsion from his father's house and from supreme power. This procured him pity, which was the more conspicuous, as night with its merriment had stript off all disguise. Nero saw the reproach and redoubled his hate. Pressed by Agrippina's menaces, having no charge against his brother and not daring openly to order his murder, he meditated a secret device and directed poison to be prepared through the agency of Julius Pollio, tribune of one of the prætorian cohorts, who had in his custody a woman under sentence for poisoning, Locusta by name, with a vast reputation for crime. That every one about the person of Britannicus should care nothing for right or honour, had long ago been provided for. He actually received his first dose of poison from his tutors and passed it off his bowels, as it was rather weak or so qualified as not at once to prove deadly. But Nero, impatient at such slow progress in crime, threatened the tribune and ordered the poisoner to execution for prolonging his anxiety while they were thinking of the popular talk and planning their own defence. Then they promised that death should be as sudden as if it were the hurried work of the dagger, and a rapid poison of previously tested ingredients was prepared close to the emperor's chamber.
XVI. It was customary for the imperial princes to sit during their meals with other nobles of the same age, in the sight of their kinsfolk, at a table of their own, furnished somewhat frugally. There Britannicus was dining, and as what he ate and drank was always tested by the taste of a select attendant, the following device was contrived, that the usage might not be dropped or the crime betrayed by the death of both prince and attendant. A cup as yet harmless, but extremely hot and already tasted, was handed to Britannicus; then, on his refusing it because of its warmth, poison was poured in with some cold water, and this so penetrated his entire frame that he lost alike voice and breath. There was a stir among the company; some, taken by surprise, ran hither and thither, while those whose discernment was keener, remained motionless, with their eyes fixed on Nero, who, as he still reclined in seeming unconsciousness, said that this was a common occurrence: from a periodical epilepsy, with which Britannicus had been afflicted from his earliest infancy, and that his sight and senses would gradually return. As for Agrippina, her terror and confusion, though her countenance struggled to hide it, so visibly appeared, that she was clearly just as ignorant as was Octavia, Britannicus's own sister. She saw, in fact, that she was robbed of her only remaining refuge, and that here was a precedent for parricide. Even Octavia, notwithstanding her youthful inexperience, had learnt to hide her grief, her affection, and indeed every emotion.
XVII. And so after a brief pause the company resumed its mirth. One and the same night witnessed Britannicus's death and funeral, preparations having been already made for his obsequies, which were on a humble scale. He was however buried in the Campus Martius, amid storms so violent, that in the popular belief they portended the wrath of heaven against a crime which many were even inclined to forgive when they remembered the immemorial feuds of brothers and the impossibility of a divided throne. It is related by several writers of the period that many days before the murder, Nero had offered the worst insult to the boyhood of Britannicus; so that his death could no longer seem a premature or dreadful event, though it happened at the sacred board, without even a moment for the embraces of his sisters, hurried on too, as it was, under the eyes of an enemy, on the sole surviving offspring of the Claudii, the victim first of dishonour, then of poison.
In case you’re missing the implication here, “the worst insult to the boyhood to Britannicus” means Nero had penetrative sex with him.
Re: Death of Britannicus: Tacitus
Date: 2026-03-10 03:47 am (UTC)Heh, this is one of those things where I'm like, this is awful, but also kind of clever, if you discount that it's for POISONING YOUR HALF BROTHER.
Even Octavia, notwithstanding her youthful inexperience, had learnt to hide her grief, her affection, and indeed every emotion.
:/ I looked up Octavia. This poor kid!!
Nero had offered the worst insult to the boyhood of Britannicus; so that his death could no longer seem a premature or dreadful event
I did not know what "worst insult" meant so I'm glad you elucidated, but I am not sure I know what it means that his death could no longer seem a premature or dreadful event. Is it because the insult was so bad that he might as well be dead now? Or that Nero was awful enough to him that it wasn't surprising that he killed him because he had already done something just about as bad?
ETA: Also: tell me about Messalina!
Re: Death of Britannicus: Tacitus / Messalina
Date: 2026-03-10 04:36 pm (UTC)Either would work with the portrait Tacitus paints and his kind of morality. Incidentally, it has to be pointed out that Suetonius, who is an absolute fiend for sex related anecdotes and because he was Hadrian's secretary had access to the imperial Archive, doesn't mention this at all, it's only in Tacitus. This said, given the Roman hang up re: top/bottom (i.e.you, Roman man, have always be the one doing the buggering, never the one being buggered, and also while it absolutely doesn't matter what you do to your slaves, male or female, in this regard, you do not bugger other Roman adult men of equal or superior rank), I don't think it's out of the question Nero did this for spite. Mind you, what Suetonius does write is that "With such relish did he allow his body to be used as though it was prostitute's", which definitely implies Nero lets himself be topped as well.
Poor Octavia had a terrible (and short) life indeed.
Messalina, or, was Lehndorff would put it, MESSALINA: had just as bad or even worse press than Agrippina, only with another cliché. If Agrippina is seen as an evil powerhungry bitch with a masculine mind by Roman historians, Messalina is presented as a dumb, malicious and greedy slut. Who doesn't even get credited with facing her death with courage, as opposed to Agrippina or Cleopatra. She was a high born Roman aristocrat with a blood connection to the Julians - her great grandmother both from her mother's and her father's side was Octavia the sister of Augustus (whom her daughter is named after). Her mother was the sister of Agrippina's first husband and Nero's dad, Domitius, so in fact Messalina was Nero's first cousin, despite seventeen years of age difference (err, she's 17 years older than Nero, that is). No one knows under which circumstances the thirty years older Claudius married her, just that it happened during the reign of Caligula, which means at the time she was definitely the better party in that marriage, since Claudius was still treated as the family joke due to his physical impediments. (Robert Graves has Caligula himself arrange the marriage as a joke, which for all we know might have been the case; we simply don't know.) She must have been pregnant with Britannicus when Caligula was killed, which made her Empress when Claudius become Emperor. The ancient historians agree that Claudius was genuinely in love with her (whereas his first two marriages had been brief and unhappy affairs). Whereas Messalina is presented as cheating on him very soon into the marriage. The famous anecdote about her betting with a prostitute about who can satisfy more men in an night and winning with 25 men is only in Pliny's natural history, and the tale of her disguising herself with a wig and working in a brothel is in a satire by Juvenal, both writing more than a century after her death, but while Suetonius and Tacitus don't have those stories and stop short of presenting her as a nymphomaniac, they do present her in if possible even worse terms for Romans, since they include various stories of her forcing herself on men. The most famous anecdote is of her tricking Claudius into ordering the actor Mnester, who didn't want to have sex with the Empress for self preservation reasons, that he was to obey her every command (of course Claudius thought this meant acting), and then there is the story of her inventing false claims to judically kill men who had refused her, like her stepfather or the husband of Julia Livilla, who was the youngest sister of Agrippina and Caligula. In fact, she's also blamed for Julia Livilla's death; as a reminder, both Agrippina and Julia Livilla had been banished by brother Gaius (Caligula) for allegedly conspiring against him. Claudius brought both of his nieces back, and then Messalina supposedly started to gun for them, claiming in Julia Livilla's case that she had an adulterous affair with Seneca, which got Seneca exiled on an island and Julia Livilla executed. Agrippina (who had been widowed while on her island of exile) arranged a second marriage for herself post haste which took her out of Rome for most of Messalina's remaining years as Empress. (She did return when husband No.2 died.) And then there was Poppea Sabina, mother of the Poppea who would end up as the second Mrs. Nero (and star in a sympathetic role at the start of Feuchtwanger's Josephus trilogy), with whom Messalina allegedly competed over the actor Mnester (see above), and whom she drove to suicide. And a guy who owned the gardens of Lucullus (yes, that Lucullus, dead for a century at this point) which Messalina wanted for herself and whom she had killed by drummed up claims as well. Before I get to her ending, I shall add the caveat that all the Messalina stories were written decades after her violent ending and the damnation of her memory, they're also there to make her husband look terrible (because a chief criticism ancient historians have of Claudius was that he listened to his Freedmen and his wives instead of Senators), plus of course there's the possibility at least some of this stuff comes from the memoirs of her successor as Empress who at the very least blamed her for the death of her sister, i.e. Agrippina.
(One of the many things we don't know about Agrippina's memoirs is just when she wrote them. There are two obvious possibilities: either during the time brother Caligula had her banished on an island, or in the last few years of her life when she'd lost her political influence with Nero for good. While ancient historians mentions the Memoirs' existence, frustratingly there are only two incidents for which they are directly quoted as a source - one is the fact that Nero was a breech birth (Pliny the Elder mentions this in his natural history with Agrippina's memoirs as the quoted source), and the other is a story about her mother Agrippina the Elder and Tiberius (I think Tacitus name checks that one). Both could have been written on the island already, in which case Messalina would not show up in her memoirs at all, since Messalina/Claudius happened during said exile. Otoh most of Agrippina's own life's deeds were still ahead of her during her exile, so instinctively I would say she wrote them during her last years of life instead, in which case some Messalina dissing could have come from her, but we'll never know unless someone somewhere rediscovers the damn Memoirs.)
But even if you discount some of these stories as either misogyny, slander by a rival or exaggaration, there remains the matter of Messalina's downfall, which at the very least makes even the most sympathetic onlooker wonder what the hell she can have been thinking. Because it happens thusly: Messalina falls with a young hot guy named Gaius Silius, who divorces his wife for her. And then she decides she'll divorce Claudius while he's out of town, inaugurating a new harbor in Ostia, and marry Silius. Given that Claudius is not the family joke anymore but the almighty Emperor, this immediately begs the question what the plan was here? Tacitus & Suetonius assume it was to somehow kill Claudius, with Silius then acting as regent for little Britannicus. But if so, you'd think they at the very least try to get the Pretorian Guard on their side - you need the Pretorian guard for a bloody coup, has no one paid attention to Caligula? Anyway, the Freedmen who are Claudius' most powerful ministers find out while Messalina is still celebrating her wedding with Silius in Rome. Then there is the question who should tell Claudius, because Claudius is besotted with his 30 years younger wife and so far has always believed her and not someone else when someone else was protesting. They decide to ask one of Claudius' former mistresses, Calpurnia. Calpurnia does deliver the bad news. Claudius (undoubtedly remembering how Caligula died) asks whether that means he's no longer Emperor, and are the Pretorians still on his side? They are.
Lots of arrests happen. Silius is killed. Messalina tries to reach Claudius with her two little kids, Octavia and Britannicus, in tow, to plead for her life, but Narcissus the Freedman prevents this and shouts a list of her lovers at her while he's at it. Messalina, under guard in the same Gardens of Lucullus she wanted to have with her mother Domitia looking after her, is given the hint that now is the time to do the Roman thing and commit suicide. She tries but doesn't have the courage to do it. So Narcissus orders one of the guards to do it for her. Exit Messalina. (Also exit Mnester the Actor, because while Claudius was sympathetic to his "Caesar, you ordered me explicitly to obey her every command!" defense, he was persuaded by Narcissus the Freedman he still couldn't let an actor walk who had cuckolded him publically.)
Now, trying to figure out what she could have been thinking, there was at least one modern historian who theorized that maybe she was afraid Claudius would get interested in Agrippina and adopt Nero and in order to strike preemptively and ensure Britannicus would inherit, she married Silius. But leaving aside that Claudius can't have been simultanously besotted with Messalina and simultanously already eying up his niece and that this smacks of hindsight, surely then there would have been a better plan than just "let's throw ourselves a grand wedding party first, and then do the actual coup part"?
Agrippina: Without committing myself to a statement as to whether or not I hastened my Uncle-Husband's demise, I will say that years later I had everything ready for a smooth transition to my son. Up to and including the Seneca-written speech, and yes, of course the Pretorians, at this point commanded by my ally Burrus. Messalina might have a blood connection to us Julians, but clearly I'm the only one of our generation who inherited a sense of strategy.
Re: Death of Britannicus: Tacitus / Messalina
Date: 2026-03-12 05:19 am (UTC)mother of the Poppea who would end up as the second Mrs. Nero
And the subject of an opera by Monteverdi! (Which I haven't seen, though I've listened to some of the music.)
And a guy who owned the gardens of Lucullus (yes, that Lucullus, dead for a century at this point)
Wait, no, am I supposed to know this? sorry!
(because a chief criticism ancient historians have of Claudius was that he listened to his Freedmen and his wives instead of Senators)
Ha, lol!
plus of course there's the possibility at least some of this stuff comes from the memoirs of her successor as Empress who at the very least blamed her for the death of her sister, i.e. Agrippina.
Ohhhhh!
And then she decides she'll divorce Claudius while he's out of town, inaugurating a new harbor in Ostia, and marry Silius. Given that Claudius is not the family joke anymore but the almighty Emperor, this immediately begs the question what the plan was here?
...this does seem like a very not-well-thought-out plan!
Claudius (undoubtedly remembering how Caligula died) asks whether that means he's no longer Emperor, and are the Pretorians still on his side? They are.
Okay, I had to look up how Caligula died -- it looks like he was assassinated by Pretorian tribunes? So basically the important question is whose side the Pretorians are on, right?
Exit Messalina. (Also exit Mnester the Actor
And Silius, presumably?
Messalina might have a blood connection to us Julians, but clearly I'm the only one of our generation who inherited a sense of strategy.
Hee, I must agree, really.
Re: Death of Britannicus: Tacitus / Messalina
Date: 2026-03-12 12:53 pm (UTC)Lehndorff comparing both future FW2's first wife and Caroline the young Queen of Denmark to MESSALINA, btw, aims at the cheating in the former case and at the Silius marriage/possible coup plot in the second, because poor Caroline was slandered by stepmother-in-law Julia (herself a sister of EC and Luise, so that's how Lehndorff would have heard about the affair) to have planned keeping husband Christian drugged or possibly killed while she ruled with her lover Struensee the reformminded Doctor, while the frst Mrs. FW2, another Elisabeth Christine, reportedly had affairs with lots of young officers. (Never mind future FW2 had lots of affairs as well.)
Anyway, Silius like Messaline doesn't appear to have been the brightest (whereas Struensee was, so that's another part of the slander), and I did mention in my explanation he got killed!
So basically the important question is whose side the Pretorians are on, right?
Yes, for about a century. To understand why the Praetorians play such an outsize role in deciding who gets to rule, you have to remember that Rome itself is not supposed to have any type of army within its walls in Republican times. When soldiers go there after a completed campaign, they re-enter lives as private citizens. The only reason why they would wear their uniforms within the city walls would be during a triumph. One thing generals are never, ever, supposed to do is lead their armies to Rome itself. Now, in the late Republic (i.e. basically the last century before Christ) when things get pear shaped at an increasing pace, this last taboo gets broken. Sulla does it during his struggle with Marius. Pompey keeps his soldiers close enough that they're lingering when Cicero is supposed to defend Milo, with the net result that Milo gets convicted because Cicero is very nervous and doesn't give the speec he later will publish. And then of course Caesar leads his armies towards Rome and makes himself dictator. By the time we get to the second Triumvirate of Octavian/Antony/Lepidus, it's not even a question that the armies are within city walls.
Once Octavian has won and cleared the field of all competition, starting his transformation to Augustus, he reinstalls the taboo that there should be no army, under no circumstances except during a triumph, within Rome's walls. At the same time, he's aware that there are a lot of people who might not buy into the propaganda of Augustus the peace loving first citizen yet and whose nearest and dearest he had killed when he was still Octavian. So he does need some armed men at hand and under his personal control. Enter the DEFINITELY NOT AN ARMY Praetorians, the only military guys allowed to carry weapons within Rome. The Praetorians really are nothing but a tool in the decades of Augustus' rule, but this changes under Tiberius, because Tiberius can't stand Rome and eventually withdraws to Capri, ruling the Empire from there, living Rome the city under the control of his bff and leader of the Praetorians, Aelius Sejanus. (Patrick Stewart in "I, Claudius".) Sejanus, who isn't of senatorial rank originally but an ambitious go getter, uses this chance for all that it's worth and makes the Praetorians the fearful para military gang of legend. After Sejanus' fall, he's replaced with Macro, and the fact young Gaius (Caligula) cultivates Macro before Tiberius dies is already a signal that by now, it's clear that future Emperors want and need to have the Praetorians on their side. It's the Praetorians who after Caligula's assassination pick Claudius as his successor. The Senate has other ideas, but after a few bloody days it's clear the other ideas won't wash. Claudius has difficulties with the Senate in the first few years of his reign, but eventually things work out, not so coincidentally when he marries Agrippina, who apparantly can work the mixture of flattery and intimidation on the Senate like no one since Augustus. (And also makes sure that one of her clients, Burrus, is appointed head othe Praetorians.) After Nero's death, in the year of the Four Emperors, the Praetorians are instrumental in the picking of the first two Nero replacements but the thing is, by then generals have gotten the idea of marching on Rome again, and the eventual winner, Vespasian, does not win because of the Praetorians. (He's still careful enough to make his son Titus Prefect of the Praetorians after his accession to the throne and the end of the Jewish War (i.e. when Titus is back from Judea). Titus is good at playing grim enforcer to his father's benevolent monarch (so much so that everyone is surprised according to Suetonius when he himself gets to the throne and sheds the bad cop role). Domitian does keep the Praetorians on his side at first but that doesn't save his life. Then we get the series of the "Five Good Emperors" who succeed each other via adoption and all except for the first one, Nerva, are successful generals. The Praetorians don't play an important role in that era. (Trajan is busy campaigning and extending the Roman Empire to its maximum size, and Hadrian is busy travelling all over the Empire. Marcus Aurelius is busy campaigning again. Note this sets decades of precedence of the Emperor not being in Rome itself fo ryears and governing from everywhere else. Then Marcus Aurelius picks his son Commodus the sucky Gladiator guy as a successor, and the Fall and Decline of the Roman Empire (tm Gibbons) officially starts. The Praetorians have their hour of most power after the assassination of Commodus when they literally auction off the office of Emperor to the highest bidder in the Year of the Five Emperors, but this is also the beginning of the end for them, because the eventual winner of that year, Septimius Severus, has had it with the Praetorians and dismisses every single one of them, replacing them with his own men. (He's a general, of course.) The Praetorians are no match for actual army soldiers anymore because they never were in the field, they were just busy terrorizing Rome. In the subsequent decades and especially once the Third Century Crisis starts and Emperors start to drop like flies as general after general tries his luck, the city of Rome loses is importance other than the symbolic one entirely, it's no longer the seat of government, and so what some guys playing soldiers within it think doesn't matter anymore.
Praetorians
Date: 2026-03-13 03:38 am (UTC)Ahhhh wow! okay!
It's the Praetorians who after Caligula's assassination pick Claudius as his successor.
Ohhhh. Why?
In the subsequent decades and especially once the Third Century Crisis starts and Emperors start to drop like flies as general after general tries his luck, the city of Rome loses is importance other than the symbolic one entirely, it's no longer the seat of government, and so what some guys playing soldiers within it think doesn't matter anymore.
Oh wow, okay!
I really appreciate all these writeups. I feel like with each one of them I'm getting a sliiiiightly better sense of what's going on with Rome (when you wrote your fic for Mildred I really had no idea :) )
Re: Praetorians
Date: 2026-03-14 10:40 am (UTC)(This said: Emma Southon is sideeying the "poor old Claudius didn't want to be Emperor and got dragged from behind a curtain" story and speculates that he might have been in communication with the Praetorians before nephew Caligula got assassinated. If so, there was no proof, so it's pure speculation.)
In I, Claudius he does get dragged from behind the curtain, and it's bleakly ironic that he would have been on board with the return of the Republic thing if only the Senators had told him ahead of time, but as it is he doesn't want to get killed by the Praetorians and so becomes Emperor. The scene where he goes from being seen as Claudius the idiot to taking control of the Senate, revealing he's faked his "harmless fool" persona (in addition to the very real physical handicaps) in order to remain alive in his murderous family, is a wonderful acting showcase for Derek Jacobi, of course. Long before the tv show was made, there was an attempt by Alexander Korda to film I, Claudius as an epic movie, but alas it fell apart due to a combination of finances and sick leading lady (Merle Oberon as Messalina). But he did get to film the scene where Claudius, played by Charles Laughton, sheds his Poor Uncle Claudius persona and takes control of the senate as well, and Laughton is fantastic in it, and makes one deeply regret the movie never was finished. You can watch the scene here.
Re: Praetorians
Date: 2026-03-17 04:39 am (UTC)Ohhhhh. That makes a lot of sense.
The scene where they drag Claudius from literally behind a curtain where he was hiding when all hell broke loose
Ahhhh -- this is maybe the only thing I remember from Graves! I really need to read it again.
and it's bleakly ironic that he would have been on board with the return of the Republic thing if only the Senators had told him ahead of time, but as it is he doesn't want to get killed by the Praetorians and so becomes Emperor.
This I didn't remember :) (And, idk, maybe didn't even pick up on at the time -- I was pretty young when I read it.)
But he did get to film the scene where Claudius, played by Charles Laughton, sheds his Poor Uncle Claudius persona and takes control of the senate as well, and Laughton is fantastic in it, and makes one deeply regret the movie never was finished.
Thank you for the link! That was indeed quite impressive.
Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-04 06:01 am (UTC)Re: Tangent: Claudius, Agrippina, Nero, Britannicus
Date: 2026-03-04 05:56 am (UTC)Oh wow, that's very cool!
Agrippina: Loyal servant, swim a bit in the other direction and call out that you’re the mother of the Emperor and that they need to save you!
Me: This seems like it could end badly for the --
selenak: Servant: Does so. Promptly gets beaten and drown.
WELL THEN.
Agrippina: If you’ve come to check my well being, tell my son I’m fine and will see him tomorrow, it’s late. If, on the other hand, you’ve come to kill me - well. *points to her stomach*. Stab me here. It’s where Nero came from!”
Wow! She's tough!
no subject
Date: 2026-03-03 04:25 am (UTC)I had to take notes again (though not as many). The problem with Herod the Great having so many wives and sons, even after he helpfully killed some of them, is that I can't keep track of them all! Even though in principle I know about some of them from the NT. All right, correct me if I've gotten any of this wrong:
Herod the Great's sons who are still standing and relevant in this part: Archelaus (named the successor to Herod-the-Great) and (Herod) Antipas (eventually became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea), sons of Malthace. Philip (eventually became tetrarch), son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem. Also Herod the Great's grandson Agrippa son of Aristobulus (one of the sons of Mariamme that Herod put to death).
Antipas thought he ought to be king because at some point Herod, flailing around deciding random sons should be king and random sons should be drowned or whatever, had flailed in that particular direction.
So everyone hangs out with Caesar and argues for their side. Antipater's side: Archelaus is THE WORST. Herod was senile when he named him! Archelaus' side: Archelaus was not so bad! Herod was not so senile!
Judea: Time to revolt!
Sabinus: Ugh, let me try to quell this.
Me: ...who the heck are you?
Josephus: I totally mentioned him at the beginning of this chapter. Pay attention! He's the procurator of Syria, which if you had been paying attention to the footnotes you would know is some sort of financial official who had a lot of power (though wasn't the ruler) under Varus, the Roman governor of Syria.
Random guys: Whee! Time to be brigands and such!
Sabinus: Varus, boss, this isn't going too well, can you come help??
Varus: Do I have to do everything around here? Oh fine. *quells*
Some other Jews who had gone to Rome before the revolt: Actually what we want is an autonomous nation-state! Herod really sucked and so does Archelaus! So actually what we want is to be with Syria under the administration of Roman governors, like this dude Varus.
Footnote: "It is unclear how much their petition may have been encouraged by Varus."
Nicolaus: It's not Herod and/or Archelaus who suck, it's the Jewish people!
Caesar: Half the kingdom goes to Archelaus with the title of ethnarch. If you behave maybe you will get to be king. Philip and Antipas can get a quarter each. Salome gets money (revenue) from some places, but in Archelaus' jurisdiction.
Archelaus turned out not to do a great job and was banished to Gaul, at which point Josephus decided that we all needed to learn all about the Essenes. Which was quite interesting! But very random!
OK. Augustus dies and Tiberius becomes emperor. Now that Archelaus is gone, I guess, Tiberius sends Pilate to Judaea. (Ohhhhh!) In a covert operation at night he smuggled into Jerusalem under wraps those portrait plaques of the emperor which are called standards. Okay, I totally get that this is a big deal because of the stricture against graven images, etc., but I still laughed anyway because it's just funny to me that they had a whole covert operation involving portraits of the emperor.
Agrippa: I hope Tiberius dies and you, Gaius, will be "master of the world."
Tiberius: *takes offense and locks Agrippa up*
Tiberius: *dies*
Gaius: *becomes master of the world, releases Agrippa*
Gaius: Huh, Philip's dead and his tetrarchy is now free. You can have it, Agrippa.
Herod Antipas: Wait, I want to be a king too!
Gaius: Nah, you're being presumptuous. Exiling you to Spain. Agrippa, you can have his territory too.
Agrippa: Sweet.
Okay, so Gaius dispatches this guy Petronius "with an army to Jerusalem to install statues of himself in the temple sanctuary." Wow, these guys are really committed to their portraits and statues. Anyhow, Petronius and the Jews have a bunch of talks and he's like, I don't want to kill all of you guys, and Gaius is mad about that, but fortunately dies before he can really do anything about it. (The footnote says that it is not true that he got word of Gaius' death a month before the letter from Gaius threatening him with death.)
So now Claudius is emperor -- is this the I, Claudius guy? -- reminding me, at least, that it has been so long that I actually do not remember anything about I, Claudius, and I will put that on my list, although who knows when I will actually get around to that because my progress is soooo slow. Agrippa is his spokesperson and helps Claudius maintain power. (One of you -- both of you? -- mentioned that Josephus was trying to show the entanglement of the Jews and the Romans, and this really does!) Claudius then gives Agrippa "the whole of his grandfather's kingdom," which since he already had Philip and Herod Antipas' half I guess means that he gave him Judaea too. (What happened to Pilate, then?)
But Agrippa only lasts three years after that, I guess. His kids were Agrippa II, Berenice, Mariamme, and Drusilla, and these must be the Agrippa/Berenice that are contemporary with Josephus himself! And then Agrippa I's kingdom becomes a Roman province again.
There are various incidents -- Hilariously, one of them is where a guard on duty for Passover (to prevent rioting) "pulled up his clothing, bent over obscenely to present his backside to the Jews, and let rip with the noise associated with that posture." Well okay then Josephus! (Also a well translated passage.) Anyway there is in fact a big riot.
And eventually, Claudius dies with Nero as his successor. (No mention of magic in my translation! I am disappointed.)
no subject
Date: 2026-03-03 09:35 am (UTC)(More cross connections for you: some years post Teutoburg Forest battle, Germanicus the brother of Claudius, husband of Agrippina the Elder and Dad of both Gaius and Agrippina the Younger got the job of dealing with the Germans. He did bury the mouldering bodies of the legions and sort of, kinda scored some military victories though never managed to get a hold of Arminius himself. His time in Germany was both when Agrippina was born - in a camp she later when Empress promoted to full settlement and city status, and which is still around, all hail the founding mother of Cologne - and where Gaius gained the nickname “Caligula”, i.e. “Little Boots”, “Bootsie”, so named because the legionaries made a mini legionary equipment complete with boots for the little boy.)
This part also sets the pattern of some Roman, either in high or low positions (thinking of the soldier who farts and bares his bottom here) fucking with the Temple, resulting in a Jewish uprising, Roman commanders in various degrees of competency trying to deal with it and lots of panicked missions to Rome. Note that once Augustus is dead, Josephus feels free to be more critical about the subsequent Emperors (who aren’t held in nearly the same esteem by the Romans.)
Pilate being accused of using some temple treasury for building his acquaeduct made me laugh because it reminded me of the famous “What did the Romans ever do for us?” Scene from “Life of Brian”. (If you haven’t seen it, acqueducts and thus a far better regular water supply were on the list and is indeed the project Pilate outside of the NT is most known for. As to what became of him by the time Claudius gives Herod Agrippa “the whole of his grandfather’s kingdom” - would have to google, I don’t know by heart, but presumably he was long gone as governor, since he was appointed in Tiberius’ time. Roman governships didn’t last more than a few years even in less unruly regions, I think.
Another thing in this section that caught my eye and which I hadn’t known before is that a fake Alexander (as in, one of the sons of Mariamme Herod the Great killed) shows up. The phenomenon of impostors pretending either dead rulers or dead aspiring rulers/princes showing up really is millennia old, isn’t it? And of course it will plague Rome itself with several fake Neros just a short time later.
No dark magic in your translation? Sheesh. I’m on the train now, will see if I can give you the exact sentence in German later.
no subject
Date: 2026-03-04 06:11 am (UTC)Nope! Nope, didn't realize at all, glad you are around :D
but mentions this relationship only in “Claudius the God”, i.e. the second novel.
I... think I might not actually have read the second novel? (My best friend K gave me the first one, and I think I didn't have a bookstore around at the time that had the second one.)
because Varus is none other than Quinctilius Varus of “Give me back my legions!” Fame, he who lost the battle against Arminius the Cheruscan in the Teutoburg Forest and perished together with three Roman legions
Ohhhh I vaguely remember this I think!
and where Gaius gained the nickname “Caligula”, i.e. “Little Boots”, “Bootsie”, so named because the legionaries made a mini legionary equipment complete with boots for the little boy.)
...I did not know this either!
the famous “What did the Romans ever do for us?” Scene from “Life of Brian”. (If you haven’t seen it, acqueducts and thus a far better regular water supply were on the list and is indeed the project Pilate outside of the NT is most known for.
Heh, I have seen Life of Brian but... decades ago, but I do remember now that you've mentioned it and the aqueducts. I did not realize Pilate was known for that!
Another thing in this section that caught my eye and which I hadn’t known before is that a fake Alexander (as in, one of the sons of Mariamme Herod the Great killed) shows up. The phenomenon of impostors pretending either dead rulers or dead aspiring rulers/princes showing up really is millennia old, isn’t it? And of course it will plague Rome itself with several fake Neros just a short time later.
I did know of course that this was a thing, but I didn't know about fake Neros. I'll look forward to that :)
No dark magic in your translation?
Yeah, it just says "Agrippina had tricked [Claudius] into adopting Nero as heir to the principate."
German tangent
Date: 2026-03-04 08:39 am (UTC)Quinctilius Varus: Sure, after Syria and Judea my German assignment will be a piece of cake!
Arminius: Martin Luther named me Herrmann because he wanted me to have a German name, and subsequent centuries followed suit, but current German historians have gone back to "Arminius", because my original name simply isn't known. I and my brother Flavus (see above for original name, Flavus means "Blond") were given as hostages/future rulers to be raised in Rome much like Herod's sons, Dad being the leader of the Cheruskii. We then fought in various wars; I distinguised myself in Pannonia and was made not just a Roman citizen but a Roman knight. Ditto Flavus. But guess what! Flavus may have been Romanized through and through, but I decided Romans are human and defeatable. Hey, Varus. I, your loyal leader of the Cheruskii, want you to do me a favour and march into the territory of this tribe I'm at war with, just as a show of strength, to show who's boss on both sides of the Rhine. I mean, we Cheruskii are Roman allies, right?
Segestes: Varus, don't do this. This young pub is my son-in-law, and we can't stand each other, so I know whereof I speak - this is a trap.
Arminius: He's just still furious me and his daughter Thusnelda are an item.
Varus: True love is great. Arminius, you have fought and bled for Rome and Segestes has not, of course I believe you! Legions, muster up! We're leaving headquarters for a show of strength for our valued ally.
Somewhere in the Teutoburg Forest, where the three Roman legions, so impressive in open territory, have been thinned out marching between trees:
Germans of both the Cheruskii and the tribe the Cheruskii supposedly were enemies of: Surprise, suckers!
*Two and a half day battle* Ensues.
Varus: Commits suicide early in day 2.
Three Roman legions: Are wiped out.
Augustus: QUINCTILIUS VARUS, WHERE ARE MY LEGIONS!
Tacitus: I'm writing up this battle big time to make a point about the decadence of our times in comparison to our ancestors. I mean, if you can get beaten by a bunch of barbarians, that's, like, totally humiliating.
Martin Luther: I'm using this battle to make a point about brave Germans beating back the oppression of perfidious Rome, by which I mean me and my followers versus the Pope and his bunch of Italians who need the Renaissance financed with indulgences. Me doing so reminds everyone this happened, and it returns to the popular consciousness.
Heinrich von Kleist: I'm living at the time of the Napoleonic wars, to be precise, in the phase where my home state of Prussia is getting its backside kicked by the French. Therefore, the Romans in my drama about this event are of course the perfidious French and the Cheruskii are the oppressed Germans fighting for their freedom.
Heinrich Heine: I, on the other hand, make fun of the Battle at the Teutoburg Forest cult in my epic "Deutschland. Ein Wintermärchen."
Lots and lots of 19th century nationalists: We double down on Hermann veneration and put money together to errect a giant statue of Hermann the German.
Later 20th century Archaelogists: More fool you, because a) you put in the wrong place, because we actually discovered where the battle has taken place by virtue of disovering Augustus age coins and lots of skeletons from young fighting age men. And our place is nowhere near your statue. Also, his name is Arminius.
Nazis: We, of course, were the worst fanboys, as is our want, and cast "Hermann" as guess who.
Later 20th century historians: We're still facepalming about this. And are calling it the "VArusschlacht" now, because at least with Varus we're sure what his name was.
Re: German tangent
Date: 2026-03-05 05:26 am (UTC)I laughed!
Martin Luther: I'm using this battle to make a point about brave Germans beating back the oppression of perfidious Rome, by which I mean me and my followers versus the Pope and his bunch of Italians who need the Renaissance financed with indulgences. Me doing so reminds everyone this happened, and it returns to the popular consciousness.
Nazis: We, of course, were the worst fanboys, as is our want, and cast "Hermann" as guess who.
So, when Arminius showed up I was like waaaaaait I am pretty sure I have heard of this guy! He's in The Oppermanns! Where, when I went back to find it, one of Berthold's arguments is that in the grand historical scheme of things Arminius didn't really make a lot of difference overall, because the Romans just came back, right? (Which makes Luther's argument kind of hilarious to me.)
Re: German tangent
Date: 2026-03-05 10:08 am (UTC)And hey, Luther would argue that the Romans never ruled over all the Germans, just some of the tribes, just like the Germans of his day ended up divided between those he helped see the light and those who insisted on being slaves to Rome. :)
Speaking of the Oppermanns, you may recall Berthold’s cousin Ruth the Zionist argues that despite not beating Rome for good Arminius’ temporary victory makes for an inspiring national resistance narrative, and she connects that directly with Zionism. Of course, Feuchtwanger wrote The Oppermanns in between Josephus Trilogy Volume I and II, so the “is it worth fighting a superior military power occupying your country if you know you don’t have the chance for long term military victory?” Question was very much on his mind.
In the correspondence between Feuchtwanger and Brecht, Brecht teases him when LF is working on Josephus that he should take care not to be swept away by emotion “or else I will write a drama about Hermann the Cheruscan”.
=> Varus isn’t the only connection between Jewish rebels and German rebels on a meta level
Re: German tangent
Date: 2026-03-10 03:50 am (UTC)In the correspondence between Feuchtwanger and Brecht, Brecht teases him when LF is working on Josephus that he should take care not to be swept away by emotion “or else I will write a drama about Hermann the Cheruscan”.
hee!
no subject
Date: 2026-03-04 01:42 pm (UTC)What the existence of fake Neros does demonstrate, though, is that he was still popular in some of the provinces, otherwise the fake Neros wouldn’t have been able to con so many people out of support and money so successfully. I mean, a fake Alexander, son of Herod, can play the sympathy card (“I had to hide because Dad tried to kill me!”) and the man he’s supposed to be never was in power and thus couldn’t make enemies beyond his family. But Nero had been in power for 13 years when he died.
(BTW, I think there is also a novel where a fake Nero is actually real Nero who faked his death, but I forgot by whom.)
“Tricked” versus “bewitched”: in either case, it’s a ridiculous charge. I mean, obviously she lobbied as hard as she could, but methinks Josephus just wants to let the man (i.e. Claudius) off the hook here for making the decision, because he can’t imagine another reason as to why a ruler would prefer his adopted to his biological son. (Especially since Josephus knows how the adopted son will turn out.) Which is ignoring both the possible reasons already named by me (Nero was older, he was via his mother a direct blood descendant of Augustus which neither Claudius nor Britannicus were, and adoption was a tried and true Roman custom) and another potential one, because Britannicus’ mother Messalina had not been the most faithful of wives, after all.
(Robert Graves gives Claudius a different reason for both the marriage with Agrippina and the adoption of Nero, because his Claudius secretly wanted to bring back the republic all his life, missed out on doing so when becoming Emperor, realised too late that when being a good Emperor he was making people fond of the monarchy and then decided to marry the worst woman ever, i.e. Agrippina, and make Nero his successor because he knew Nero would inevitably be the worst of the Julio-Claudians and expected that this would finally make Romans into Republicans again and finish the Principate for good. This premise works within the novel and tv show, but had a fatal heritage because ever since Robert Graves, every sympathetic Roman character in the Imperial Era wants to bring back the Republic, which, no, no, and no.)
In any event, again, Claudius was the first Emperor who even had a living son to not choose, and the next one would be Vespasian. Then once the three Flavians are gone, we famously get the Five Good Emperors, all of whom adopt the next one, and Marcus Aurelius finishing this grand tradition by not adopting someone and instead making his son Commodus his heir is infamously the one big thing held against Marcus Aurelius, though as Mildred says, none of his precedessors among the Five HAD a biological son. So basically in 130 years of Emperors, adoption is the norm and biological inheritance is the exception, because only Vespasian => Titus and then Marcus Aurelius => Commodus are cases where an Emperor makes his biological son his successor, and even if you add fraternal inheritance (i.e. Titus => Domitian), it’s still the exception compared to all the adoptions otherwise.
(To be fair: for the Julio-Claudians, adoptions within a larger family context. I.e. Augustus adopts Tiberius who is his wife’s son from her previous marriage. Tiberius adopts his nephew Germanicus and after Germanicus’ death makes Germanicus’ son Caligula his (co-)heir. (The other co-heir being his biological grandson Gemellus who doesn’t live long into Caligula’s reign.) Caligula doesn’t pick anyone because he gets murdered, but he is succeeded by his uncle Claudius. Claudius adopts Nero who is also his biological great-nephew (since Agrippina is his niece.) Nero is the last.)
It does occur to me that because the Herod family drama and inheritance battle happens all between biological sons (though said sons have factions and champions among the rest of the family, i.e. aunts, uncles etc.). The idea of adopting a nephew or great nephew instead presumably felt very alien to Josephus….
Graves' Claudius and the Republic
Date: 2026-03-05 05:43 am (UTC)Ah right, I remember you mentioned that he was popular in some places.
his Claudius secretly wanted to bring back the republic all his life, missed out on doing so when becoming Emperor, realised too late that when being a good Emperor he was making people fond of the monarchy and then decided to marry the worst woman ever, i.e. Agrippina, and make Nero his successor because he knew Nero would inevitably be the worst of the Julio-Claudians and expected that this would finally make Romans into Republicans again and finish the Principate for good.
Oh wow. This sounds like the kind of justification that can work in a novel and that I would enjoy in a novel buuuuut also seems to rely on so many things as to be rather implausible.
but had a fatal heritage because ever since Robert Graves, every sympathetic Roman character in the Imperial Era wants to bring back the Republic, which, no, no, and no.
Because they wouldn't actually have thought that way?
Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic
Date: 2026-03-05 10:00 am (UTC)The other problem within the Graves version is that Claudius isn’t just willing to make Nero his heir over Britannicus so the monarchy will crash and burn, but marries his daughter Octavia to him (which neither Octavia nor Nero are keen on, in this or any other version), and this makes Claudius look far more ruthless towards people he claims to love (i.e. his kids) than the Graves version is supposed to be.
In terms of all the other fictional secret Republicans in movies and tv: most annoying when they’re living centuries later, the Emperor Marcus Aurelius being a case in point. There is absolutely zero indication Marcus Aurelius thought about the Republic at any point of his life, and given we have his “Meditations”, we actually know more about what Marcus Aurelius was thinking than we do of most other Emperors. Graves sells it with Claudius because Claudius never experienced the Republic himself, so can idealize it, and he comes off age when it’s not yet a given that the Principate of Augustus will remain something permanent; that only finalizes when the Senate first confirms Tiberius and then Caligula, whose reigns are anything but a reccomendation for the monarchy. But by the time Marcus Aurelius lives, there has been no other state system but the monarchy anywhere for centuries, and the big question is only “adopt or make my bio son the heir?” Not “Republic?”
Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic
Date: 2026-03-10 03:55 am (UTC)Heh.
But by the time Marcus Aurelius lives, there has been no other state system but the monarchy anywhere for centuries, and the big question is only “adopt or make my bio son the heir?” Not “Republic?”
Ah, I see, that makes sense!
Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic
Date: 2026-03-05 03:55 pm (UTC)The other started off as a good thing which became a bad. Following the Great Fire of Rome in 64 AD it became clear that Rome had been so overcrowded, with so little space between buildings, that once the fire had started there was no hope of stopping it, and a fire had been inevitable. Nero therefore instituted a programme of compulsory purchase (similar to what was done in Lisbon post their earthquake and fire) so that streets could be widened. This meant that the owners of the land lost some of it, and didn't feel they'd been adequately recompensed. Unfortunately, Nero (who had lost his palace in the fire) decided that he too deserved a little treat, and kept a chunk of the land to build his Domus Aurea on, which gave rise to speculation that he'd set the whole thing going so he could build a new palace. (I've seen a reconstruction, the Domus Aurea was very nice...)
The reconstruction of the city also required heavy taxation, and Nero ended up devaluing the currency, which is rarely a good idea. Still, he was immediately popular among the people, partly because, in the immediate aftermath of the fire, gardens and public buildings were opened to refugees, and food was distributed. I think he was also popular amongst the army, who he thought were 'real' Romans, as opposed to those wealthy Senators sitting on their arses saying he couldn't do things and failing to appreciate his mastery of the water organ.
Re: Graves' Claudius and the Republic
Date: 2026-03-10 03:58 am (UTC)Ohhhh this makes a lot of sense, both that he might do that and also that this would give rise to speculation!
as opposed to those wealthy Senators sitting on their arses saying he couldn't do things and failing to appreciate his mastery of the water organ.
...water organ??
Finishing up with Herod's finances
Date: 2026-03-04 01:12 am (UTC)I wonder to what extent the colonies Herod founded had general tax relief policies as an incentive for people to move there. He seems to have an elite regiment from Sebaste (modern Nablus) and possibly some of his other Hellenized cities contribute troops in place of taxes, giving him a loyal base of Gentile troops in case he has to fight the Jews. He seems also to have Roman officers for some of these formations--- does anyone know if they would have used Roman-style drill and equipment as well?
Re: Finishing up with Herod's finances
Date: 2026-03-04 06:12 am (UTC)Re: Finishing up with Herod's finances
Date: 2026-03-04 12:43 pm (UTC)Re: Finishing up with Herod's finances
Date: 2026-03-04 11:28 pm (UTC)Re: Finishing up with Herod's finances
Date: 2026-03-05 05:44 am (UTC)There are three kinds of Jew...
Date: 2026-03-04 01:26 am (UTC)Normally he focuses on the ways Jews are normal and the abnormal parts of their doctrine are (1) ancient and (2) praiseworthily abstemious--- the Jews don't raid the temple treasury, they have prohibitions that they take very seriously because they're old, and so forth. (The Romans think old things are really important, so this is the kind of behavior they respect even when the customs seem weird to them.) The Essenes are abstemious for sure, but they're not the oldest sect, nor does Josephus tell us that their strictures are traditional or justified by Jewish law. About the best he can do is tell us about their beliefs in the afterlife, which are similar to Greek religion in that they're typical of pretty much everywhere in the Mediterranean.
As to his actual description of the Essenes, there's a lot of "New Religious Movement" energy. Degrees of initiation, asceticism--- especially limited food and speech, strict hierarchies, communal property: there are a lot of mechanisms for mass control and indoctrination of new recruits. Perhaps he features them so prominently because he wants to blame the upcoming war on "crazy cultists"? We'll find out, I guess, I haven't read ahead.
Re: There are three kinds of Jew...
Date: 2026-03-04 06:16 am (UTC)(The Romans think old things are really important, so this is the kind of behavior they respect even when the customs seem weird to them.)
Oh, I didn't pick up on that, thanks! I did kind of feel like with e.g. the covert portraits being moved into Jerusalem that the Jews were coming across as more reasonable to a modern eye, at least.
there are a lot of mechanisms for mass control and indoctrination of new recruits.
This is a good point.
Re: There are three kinds of Jew...
Date: 2026-03-04 01:01 pm (UTC)Though your guess that he might be building them up to explain at least parts of the coming war would make sense. What it does highlight is that at this point in Judaism history, evidently the time was ripe for new branches/movements. I can also see why medieval monks found all of this absolutely fascinating and worth transcribing, never mind the few inserted sentences later.
Whether Josephus himself was a Phariseen or Sadducean, I don’t recall, would have to look it up.