03-27-2006, 10:08 AM
Hi Flavius,
What you suggest is more along the lines of my thinking, which is that Marcus Aurelius acted to provide positive reinforcement (i.e. boosting morale, acting as Supreme Pontiff, and bypassing bureaucracy thus improving supply lines, etc..)
I try to imagine the contrast of fighting under the eye of an imperial lackey or under the Emperor himself. The latter's mere presence (I would think) would goad me into a state of zeal as opposed to cowing me into submission (i.e. negative reinforcement). Marcus' regime seemed stable enough on the whole when we see his relationship with the Senate, People, and army. The army may not have felt a huge amount of loyalty to him, but they knew he was the legitimate successor to Antoninus, Hadrian, Trajan, and Nerva. So, there was little or no need to fear the army in his particular case, IMO. Besides, the army always preferred dynastic successors.
True, but family members aren't always equivalent to the Emperor. Lucius Verus was co-emperor which was unprecedented.
IMO, none of these examples are applicable to the discussion because those were all special cases. Nero destabilized his regime by damaging relations with the Senate and later the People. Besides, Vindex was a non-entity (i.e. he had no troops). Galba had only two legions. In spite of these revolts under Nero, the vast majority of the army was loyal to him. He was a fool to have committed suicide.
As for Vitellius and Vespasian, well at that point there was no political stability since every successor was a usurper who could only count on a portion of the legions to support him. Vespasian was just the last man standing, so he won. Saturninus' revolt was a very minor and isolated incident. Domitian was worshiped by the army. Avidius Cassius only made a bid for the purple after hearing a false report of Marcus Aurelius' death, so this was not technically a "revolt".
I purposely omitted Trajan because he was one of the few emperors who was qualified to personally take command of an army and did so. First of all, he was already in command of several legions before he officially took office. But more than that, I think the power vacuum left in the wake of Domitian's assassination wasn't completely filled by the ascension of Nerva who was only elected by the Senate. Trajan basically had the loyalty of the Western half of the Empire, but probably wanted to maximize his popularity with the army in the East. So, he went to the East to fight the Dacians and Parthians winning stunning victories. Thus, he was the one who solitified the fragile dynasty started by Nerva.
Trajan's only predecessors who could have done this were Tiberius and Vespasian, but they had largely peaceful reigns and both could count on family members to carry out anything on a large scale (e.g. Titus and Germanicus).
As you said, Flavius, Hadrian was qualified and was in command during the second Jewish Revolt, but he was the one who incited it in the first place while he was touring the region with his entourage. So, it was a coincidence of him being there when the revolt erupted.
Good discussion, guys
What you suggest is more along the lines of my thinking, which is that Marcus Aurelius acted to provide positive reinforcement (i.e. boosting morale, acting as Supreme Pontiff, and bypassing bureaucracy thus improving supply lines, etc..)
I try to imagine the contrast of fighting under the eye of an imperial lackey or under the Emperor himself. The latter's mere presence (I would think) would goad me into a state of zeal as opposed to cowing me into submission (i.e. negative reinforcement). Marcus' regime seemed stable enough on the whole when we see his relationship with the Senate, People, and army. The army may not have felt a huge amount of loyalty to him, but they knew he was the legitimate successor to Antoninus, Hadrian, Trajan, and Nerva. So, there was little or no need to fear the army in his particular case, IMO. Besides, the army always preferred dynastic successors.
Quote:One must not forget that it was Augustus who started the policy of keeping high-command in the family.
True, but family members aren't always equivalent to the Emperor. Lucius Verus was co-emperor which was unprecedented.
Quote:between Augustus and Marcus Aurelius, there was a dangerous number of revolts: Vindex, Galba, Vitellius, Vespasian (all 69 AD and Vindex never made it), Saturninus (under Domitian) and Avidius Cassius under Marcus Aurelius himself.
IMO, none of these examples are applicable to the discussion because those were all special cases. Nero destabilized his regime by damaging relations with the Senate and later the People. Besides, Vindex was a non-entity (i.e. he had no troops). Galba had only two legions. In spite of these revolts under Nero, the vast majority of the army was loyal to him. He was a fool to have committed suicide.
As for Vitellius and Vespasian, well at that point there was no political stability since every successor was a usurper who could only count on a portion of the legions to support him. Vespasian was just the last man standing, so he won. Saturninus' revolt was a very minor and isolated incident. Domitian was worshiped by the army. Avidius Cassius only made a bid for the purple after hearing a false report of Marcus Aurelius' death, so this was not technically a "revolt".
Quote:-furthermore, there is one important example of emperors in the field still missing from Theodosius's list: M. Ulpius Traianus
I purposely omitted Trajan because he was one of the few emperors who was qualified to personally take command of an army and did so. First of all, he was already in command of several legions before he officially took office. But more than that, I think the power vacuum left in the wake of Domitian's assassination wasn't completely filled by the ascension of Nerva who was only elected by the Senate. Trajan basically had the loyalty of the Western half of the Empire, but probably wanted to maximize his popularity with the army in the East. So, he went to the East to fight the Dacians and Parthians winning stunning victories. Thus, he was the one who solitified the fragile dynasty started by Nerva.
Trajan's only predecessors who could have done this were Tiberius and Vespasian, but they had largely peaceful reigns and both could count on family members to carry out anything on a large scale (e.g. Titus and Germanicus).
As you said, Flavius, Hadrian was qualified and was in command during the second Jewish Revolt, but he was the one who incited it in the first place while he was touring the region with his entourage. So, it was a coincidence of him being there when the revolt erupted.
Good discussion, guys
Jaime
