04-03-2007, 02:11 PM
Salve!
Nice post, I like it.
There is one more thing I'd like to add tothe discussion:
The political situation in Rome!
Augustus was able to deal with the situation in Rome because he was a great actor and politician and because the generation of the civil wars wanted peace. The system of the principate was a compromise and imho not a very good one. It took a long time to develop and an emperor comparable with Augustus to manage this complex game. Especially the Julio-Claudians all had problems with it as the aristocracy was still dreaming of its old glory and the situation only became a bit better after more and more people from outside had entered the senate and the role of the emperor was a bit more established.
Tiberius failed completely in the game between aristocracy and princeps. Gaius and Nero had even more problems. Both were VERY able emperors imho and saw the problems of the principate. Both tried to strenghten the lower classes and raise the emperor a bit mroe over the senate, which constantly started intrigues and plots against them. In both cases the result was that Gaius and Nero were fed up with the senate and tried simply to ignore it, both fell victims to the aristocracy first losing their lifes then being put in a bad light by senatorial writers.
It seems to me this political chaos had a big influence on expansion politics during the 1st century. Several things indicate that the army was in quite a bad shape after Tiberius with their aristocratic commanders not always very trustworthy. There are problems in the German provinces under Gaius and it looks very much like his planned expedition to Britain failed not because he was insane (which I think he was not at all) but because the legions were mutinous, same thing as happened to Claudius few years later. Why else would Gaius order the decimation of 2 legions.
What I want to say is that the emperors following Augustus had serious problems with their position. Such a great operation like the one planned by Augustus against Germania would only have been possible if the emperor had led it himself, otherwise the danger of an usurpation would have been way too high. Germanicus was declared emperor but declined. Non of the Julio-Claudians had such a general whom he could trust that much and give such power without risking an uprising. If the emperor went himself for such a long time he would have encountered big problems with the senate in Rome which would have sought one way or another to harm the emperor.
just my opinion
Nice post, I like it.
There is one more thing I'd like to add tothe discussion:
The political situation in Rome!
Augustus was able to deal with the situation in Rome because he was a great actor and politician and because the generation of the civil wars wanted peace. The system of the principate was a compromise and imho not a very good one. It took a long time to develop and an emperor comparable with Augustus to manage this complex game. Especially the Julio-Claudians all had problems with it as the aristocracy was still dreaming of its old glory and the situation only became a bit better after more and more people from outside had entered the senate and the role of the emperor was a bit more established.
Tiberius failed completely in the game between aristocracy and princeps. Gaius and Nero had even more problems. Both were VERY able emperors imho and saw the problems of the principate. Both tried to strenghten the lower classes and raise the emperor a bit mroe over the senate, which constantly started intrigues and plots against them. In both cases the result was that Gaius and Nero were fed up with the senate and tried simply to ignore it, both fell victims to the aristocracy first losing their lifes then being put in a bad light by senatorial writers.
It seems to me this political chaos had a big influence on expansion politics during the 1st century. Several things indicate that the army was in quite a bad shape after Tiberius with their aristocratic commanders not always very trustworthy. There are problems in the German provinces under Gaius and it looks very much like his planned expedition to Britain failed not because he was insane (which I think he was not at all) but because the legions were mutinous, same thing as happened to Claudius few years later. Why else would Gaius order the decimation of 2 legions.
What I want to say is that the emperors following Augustus had serious problems with their position. Such a great operation like the one planned by Augustus against Germania would only have been possible if the emperor had led it himself, otherwise the danger of an usurpation would have been way too high. Germanicus was declared emperor but declined. Non of the Julio-Claudians had such a general whom he could trust that much and give such power without risking an uprising. If the emperor went himself for such a long time he would have encountered big problems with the senate in Rome which would have sought one way or another to harm the emperor.
just my opinion
RESTITVTOR LIBERTATIS ET ROMANAE RELIGIONIS
DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM
[Micha F.]
DEDITICIVS MINERVAE ET MVSARVM
[Micha F.]
