The Jewish War: Second half of Book 4

[cahn]

Last week: Mass suicide (canonical), Constantinople (not present in canon), pro-surrender factions, the translation of "bandits/terrorists/troublemakers" (apparently "lestes" in Greek). Anyone familiar with the Talmud want to weigh in about the question of marrying a raped-by-a-Roman woman in Jewish society?

This week: Jerusalem continues to be torn apart by various factions. Simon son of Gioras makes his appearance. The Year of the Four Emperors happens, with Vespasian finally making his bid for emperor.

Next week: Half of book 5? To where? From selenak: until the tale of Kastor duping Titus has concluded: “…for they believed nothing but that their opponents had thrown themselves into the fire."

Comments

Re: On the Year of the Four Emperors

[selenak]

So what's the deal with Nero? Is it really elevating freedmen that got him here?

Nah, not really. I mean, this is another trope, already used against Claudius who had made two of his freedman his most prominent and powerful ministers (Narcissus and Pallas; Narcissus was the one who organized Mesallina's demise, while Pallas later championed Agrippina as the next wife), and not for nothing had Seneca written young Nero a speech for his first big address to the Senate where he promised that no longer would the Empire be ruled "from the household" (i.e. no more women like Mom and freedmen like Pallas and Narcissus). The Senatorial class, from whom all the Roman historians derive, certainly hated influential freedmen and found it outrageous when they got to have the kind of influential, money-making positions that were supposed to be reserved for the Roman aristocracy only. And despite Nero's Seneca penned "no women and freedmen influencing MY politics, I promise!" plea in his inaugural address, he would end up with some influential freedmen (and a freedwoman, his first love Acte) in his circle and government as well. Which isn't surprising, because a former slave whom you personally have freed owes his complete loyalty to you and only to you, he doesn't have an influential family or faction to promote, and he can never, ever, be a rival (at this point in time; there are some later Emperors, notably Diocletian, who were possibly the sons of freedmen). Making a Roman aristocrat your right hand man means possibly fostering a potential rival, or at the very least someone whose interests do not necessarily align with your own. Not so much a freedman.

So promoting freedmen to high positions didn't make either Claudius or Nero more popular, BUT I don't think it was ever a deciding factor in Nero's downfall despite Roman historians bitching about it (and Josephus who hears the tale from same echoing it). Why not? Because naturally the Flavians employed them as well! And a freedwoman, Caenis, wasn't just Vespasian's life partner but an enormously successful businesswomen who like Narcissus and Pallas became a millionairess not just through wise investments but because she could sell her influence and ability to get your son or cousin a good job. (With the rumor being that she acted as Vespasian's agent in this and shared the cash with him.) Of course Josephus wouldn't dare to write critical stuff about this since he depends on the Flavian patronage, but years after all three Flavian Emperors are dead, Roman historians don't use it to describe Vespasian as a bad Emperor, either.

(Mind you, it's arguable whether or not Josephus himself counts as a freedman. He was a war captive, and war captives were sold as slaves usually; Vespasian seems to have kept him as a personal servant until he freed him, and like a freedman, Josef ben Matthias then took his patron's name, hence Flavius Josephus.)

=> Promoting freedmen is only deemed a reason for an Emperor's downfall if there are other things going on as well. In the case of Nero, many things were. After a promising start (from the Senatorial pov) and a first few years where Seneca, Burrus and intially also Agrippina were seen as dictating policies the point where ancient historians see Nero's policies go bad (as opposed to his personal conduct, which they see as bad from the get go) happens when in short order, Nero kills his mother Agrippina, Burrus dies, Nero divorces Octavia and has her killed, and Seneca withdraws into retirement, Then you have the Great Fire of Rome and while Nero actually was good in organizing disaster relief when it happened, the fact he used some of the now free space to build his famous Golden House on contributed to the rumors contributed to the rumors he was responsible, which he tried to squash by blaming the Christians. (Not that there is any sympathy for the Christians in early Roman historians, who get described as yet another untrustworthy Eastern cult.) Nero actually appearing as an actor and singer in public for all the world to see (i.e. not just playing the lyre and singing on aristocratic banquets) is a major breach of social decorum from the Senatorial pov and while the general public probably didn't mind that (as opposed to wanting someone to blame for havng their houses burned), Senatorial historians certainly see it as a major sin of his. And then he behaves more and more like a Hellenistic monarch - you can see this in the way his image on coin changes from Augustus clone like all the Julio-Claudians (we have no idea whether any of the laters actually resembled Augustus, but their portrait busts and coin image of course was modelled on his) to looking like one of the later Ptolemies. He grows a beard! And goes to Greece and stays there for over a year because he's such a Philhellene! This is all deemed v.v. bad for later historians.

(Famously, a century later Hadrian who is one of the Five Good Emperors of legend also grows a beard, is a total Philhellene, spends most of his reign travelling through the Empire, including and especially Greece, ignores his wife in favour of his boyfriend Antinous - and gets away with it. The Senate isn't crazy about Hadrian either, and in fact his successor Antonius Pius has to fight to get the Senate to deify Hadrian, but there was never a question of anyone deposing Hadrian when he was still alive. Why not? Because Hadrian had the army under control, he had put people in charge of administring the various provinces and Rome itself who remained loyal to him, and he didn't deplete the treasury despite building a lot as well. (Rome is cool with walls in faraway Britannia!) )

There were some aristocratic conspiracies against Nero through his reign, but he squashed them rather easily. The combination of the Year Long Absence in Greece together with the fact that Nero during the squashing of the latest conspiracy ordered a very popular general, Corbulo, to commit suicide really got things going. Not least because now all the other generals had to wonder whether Nero wouldn't distrust them as well and get rid of them. And then suddenly you had military uprisings, which were a very different thing from just some aristocrats conspiring in Rome itself. Nero started to panic, and when he lost the Praetorians (because of that never fulfilled pledge in Galba's name), he fled from Rome, was promptly declared by the Senate to be an enemy of the Roman people and committed (with some help) suicide.

(What does the Oracle of Delphi have to do with it, or is it just that they lend some legitimacy to Galba's enemies?)

It's just that Galba on his quest to get money and estates back from people whom Nero had given both to really did go after the Oracle of Delphi for the money Nero had donated to them during his big tour of Greece, and I thought that detail was funny and noteworthy. Especially since I can't imagine going after the most famous religious institution of the ancient world added to his popularity.

Sporus: OMG, this poor kid!

Indeed. It's easy to see the entire Imperial power struggle saga as a black comedy, and I do that often myself, but a lot of real lives were destroyed in the process, and Sporus' fate brings that home.

On Nero and his end

[cahn]

I mean, this is another trope, already used

Haha it did have the air of "Freedmen, they are the WORST amirite?"

Why not? Because naturally the Flavians employed them as well!

Ha! And I guess Joseph never clued into this?

And a freedwoman, Caenis, wasn't just Vespasian's life partner but an enormously successful businesswomen who like Narcissus and Pallas became a millionairess not just through wise investments but because she could sell her influence and ability to get your son or cousin a good job.

Okay... I guess the nepotism part of this maybe ought to worry me a bit but mostly I'm like you go girl, use the flaws in the system to your advantage! :D

(Mind you, it's arguable whether or not Josephus himself counts as a freedman. He was a war captive, and war captives were sold as slaves usually; Vespasian seems to have kept him as a personal servant until he freed him, and like a freedman, Josef ben Matthias then took his patron's name, hence Flavius Josephus.)

Oh HUH. I bet that did not grind Josephus' gears at all!

Nero actually appearing as an actor and singer in public for all the world to see

Definitely a sin against decorum!

but there was never a question of anyone deposing Hadrian when he was still alive. Why not? Because Hadrian had the army under control, he had put people in charge of administring the various provinces and Rome itself who remained loyal to him, and he didn't deplete the treasury despite building a lot as well.

Ah, this is a nice contrast, thank you!

Indeed. It's easy to see the entire Imperial power struggle saga as a black comedy, and I do that often myself, but a lot of real lives were destroyed in the process, and Sporus' fate brings that home.

Yeah, a lot of this is rather blackly comic at the remove of thousands of years (and it feels like Nero deserved his own sticky end) but Sporus :/

Re: On Nero and his end

[cenozoicsynapsid]

I don't think he "doesn't clue in". It's just a trope, right? Like in American politics, we talk about politicians having affairs as code for "they're terrible, untrustworthy people", but of course we know FDR and Kennedy had affairs but were actually pretty decent presidents.

Re: On Nero and his end

[cahn]

Oh, ha. Okay, that makes sense, thanks for the analogy :)