07-15-2001, 06:06 PM
Now to see if any of that revision I did for my finals got further than my short term memory...<br>
<br>
THe main problem with Hadrian is he suffers from what really should have been Trajan's legacy. THe Eastern provinces simply were not viable conquests. Trajan died at a fortuitous time for his reputartion, at the peak of his conquests, but leaving legions in the east that had to be extracted from un unviable tactical position and provinces that it was uneconomic to maintain. Hadrian had to do the dirty work that Trajan escaped by death.<br>
<br>
As to his actions as Emperor i think that Hadrian was in fact the most progressive of all the Emperor's of the Early Empire, with the obvious exception of Augustus. His recognition was that it was simply insufficient for the population of the empire in general to have as their only Imperial contact the face on the coin. THe massive tours that he embarked on were linked to a desire to make the Emperor accessible. Imperial presence became massively importance throughout the later empire, hence the tetrarchies and seeing how we've mentioned him already Julian, raised to caesar in Gaul by Constantius precisely because of the need to have a stropng Imperial presence. however the later Empire is Sander's turf, I'll let him talk about that .<br>
<br>
Also we should consider whether or not we should really think of hadrian as stopping Roman expansion. Until Trajan the only major expansion since Augustus was the acquisiton of Britain. WE know the stories about Caligula having his soldiers collect sea shells and so forth. IMO the presentation of an image of Imperialmilitary success was more important than the actuality of it. What Hadrian did was to express Roman power. Hadrian's wall represents Imperial rule far more than it does a border. The wall did not really mark the border to the Empire, trade flowed freely through it, there were Roman out-posts in Scotland and further expansion in the Antonine period. Thinking of borders is applying modern considerations to ancient situations. Rome did not have straegic aims in the way modern powers might. They idea of her first expanding and then seeking natural boundaries is anachronism. (This if I remember correctly is a problem with Luttwack, he thinks in modern strategic terms, and forgets the Romans didn't have accurate maps.)<br>
<br>
I think i've left out most of what I wanted to say when I started to write, and now I've forgotten this. As to it being OT, well yes, but a little speculation doesn't hurt for fun, and can provoke some sensible discussion, so I'll leave things alone for the moment<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
THe main problem with Hadrian is he suffers from what really should have been Trajan's legacy. THe Eastern provinces simply were not viable conquests. Trajan died at a fortuitous time for his reputartion, at the peak of his conquests, but leaving legions in the east that had to be extracted from un unviable tactical position and provinces that it was uneconomic to maintain. Hadrian had to do the dirty work that Trajan escaped by death.<br>
<br>
As to his actions as Emperor i think that Hadrian was in fact the most progressive of all the Emperor's of the Early Empire, with the obvious exception of Augustus. His recognition was that it was simply insufficient for the population of the empire in general to have as their only Imperial contact the face on the coin. THe massive tours that he embarked on were linked to a desire to make the Emperor accessible. Imperial presence became massively importance throughout the later empire, hence the tetrarchies and seeing how we've mentioned him already Julian, raised to caesar in Gaul by Constantius precisely because of the need to have a stropng Imperial presence. however the later Empire is Sander's turf, I'll let him talk about that .<br>
<br>
Also we should consider whether or not we should really think of hadrian as stopping Roman expansion. Until Trajan the only major expansion since Augustus was the acquisiton of Britain. WE know the stories about Caligula having his soldiers collect sea shells and so forth. IMO the presentation of an image of Imperialmilitary success was more important than the actuality of it. What Hadrian did was to express Roman power. Hadrian's wall represents Imperial rule far more than it does a border. The wall did not really mark the border to the Empire, trade flowed freely through it, there were Roman out-posts in Scotland and further expansion in the Antonine period. Thinking of borders is applying modern considerations to ancient situations. Rome did not have straegic aims in the way modern powers might. They idea of her first expanding and then seeking natural boundaries is anachronism. (This if I remember correctly is a problem with Luttwack, he thinks in modern strategic terms, and forgets the Romans didn't have accurate maps.)<br>
<br>
I think i've left out most of what I wanted to say when I started to write, and now I've forgotten this. As to it being OT, well yes, but a little speculation doesn't hurt for fun, and can provoke some sensible discussion, so I'll leave things alone for the moment<br>
<p></p><i></i>
In the name of heaven Catiline, how long do you propose to exploit our patience..
