ŷ������

Hello Everyone,

For the week of June 19th - June 25th, we are reading chapter 10 of SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome by Mary Beard.

The tenth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK TEN - June 19th - June 25th -> 10. Fourteen Emperors (387-434)

We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.

This book was kicked off April 17th.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.

There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.

Vicki Cline will be moderating this selection.

Welcome,

~Vicki

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

by Mary Beard

REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.

Notes:

It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.

Citations:

If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.

Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.

/topic/show/...

Also, the citation thread:

/topic/show/...

Introduction Thread:

/topic/show/...

Table of Contents and Syllabus

/topic/show/...

Glossary

Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.

Here is the link:

/topic/show/...

Bibliography

There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author may have used in his research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc. with proper citations or other books either non-fiction or historical fiction that relate to the subject matter of the book itself. No self-promotion, please.

Here is the link:

/topic/show/...

Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - Spoiler Thread

/topic/show/...

Link:

by Mary Beard

Everyone, for the week of June 19th - June 25th, we are reading Chapter 10.

The tenth week's reading assignment is:

WEEK TEN - June 19th - June 25th -> 10. Fourteen Emperors (387-434)

Chapter Overview and Summary:

10. Fourteen Emperors


Trajan

This chapter covers the emperors from Tiberius through Commodus.

Commodus

Discussion Topics:

1. Why did the emperors want to have their sons succeed them, even if they had no sons and had to adopt one?

2. How much of what we “know�� about the emperors is due to Suetonius, Tacitus and Pliny?

3. Were the Praetorians in Rome or the legions in the provinces more important to holding onto power?

I'm part way though the chapter..

3. Were the Praetorians in Rome or the legions in the provinces more important to holding onto power?

Power between Praetorians and the legions seemed to flip. Augustus got to be the 1st due to the legions. Later on it was the Praetorians who got Claudius into power. Then it was the legions again with Vespasian. I don't think either one could be ignored.

Of course you had to be careful to pay both groups what you promised them. Galba should have learned that lesson.

While I was looking for pictures to include with the topics, I ran across a Roman emperors mouse pad. I tried to include the picture, but the HTML didn't work for me. Here's the site, if you're interested.

I guess Augustus' idea of designating his successor by adopting him came from Julius Caesar's adoption of him, although I don't think Caesar was planning to have Octavian rule after him (but maybe he was). Perhaps it was acceptable to the Senate and people because Augustus was a pretty good ruler, and one would hope that he instilled correct behavior as ruler into his chosen one.

I wonder if the acceptance of the Julio-Claudian rulers had anything to do with Julius Caesar's deification, as "proved" by the comet. Things went fairly smoothly through Augustus' and Tiberius' reigns, with Caligula perhaps seeming an aberration, and Claudius a return to normal. Maybe this was seen as the gods favoring this type of government. Things fell apart when Nero became progressively weird and volatile, with him committing suicide when several prominent men plotted to overthrow him. He left no heirs, and the Julio-Claudian line ended.

Why did the emperors want their sons to succeed them,even if they were adopted?

There were no rules...no elections. Palace intrigues, behind-the-scenery maneuvering created an emperor. Better not leave it to too many people outside of the immediate family. If you have to adopt, you still have a better chance of loyalty and a better chance of keeping an eye on governing.

However, a sense of meritocracy was in the air. Pliny (61-119 CE) writing about succession to the Roman throne (p419) said,

"When you are about to hand control of the senate and people of Rome, the armies, the provinces, the allies to one man alone, would you look to the belly of a wife to produce him or search for an heir to supreme power only within the walls of your own home? �� If he is to rule over all, he must be chosen from all....��

Don't think anyone followed his advice, however.

Testing. Lost a a comment. Want to see if this works

The week 11 thread is open. Chapter 11 covers what life was like for ordinary Romans .

/topic/show/...

1. Not until Marcus Aurelius did it become a more common trend as prior to, most succession occurred as a result of adoption. Even then, the only precedent for succession elsewhere in the world was through direct lineage. By adopting their successor, it helped to add legitimacy to their claim to the throne. Just think about how many rulers in Egypt or Sumeria that connected themselves to the Gods.

2. Ancient authors play a big part of what we know about ancient history because of the lack of preserved information through archaeology. The exceptions, of course being the monuments that describe the feats that occurred during the reign of the emperor in question often in chronological order such as Trajan's column. Plus, the transcriptionists and historians since then have played just as big a part in preservation of information such as the monks in Ireland or the libraries in the Middle East during the dark ages (the former transcribing the latin and the latter studying the greek and latin cultures).

3. TL;DR: depends entirely on circumstance. Which legions were more important to holding onto power depends entirely on circumstance of which emperor you're talking about. The praetorians were mostly unreliable as far as holding onto power due to their proximity to the emperor in Rome and their tendency to kill them off. The legions on the other hand generally claimed their emperor of choice and after the civil war that occurred following, they would return to the frontiers to fight barbarians (but still constituted a significant power base should any of the provincial governors decide they wanted to be emperor and compete against them). One example of such lack of trust was when Septimius Severus relocated home base the 2nd Parthica legion in Alba Longa just outside Rome so as to act as a deterrent to murdering him. Later, when Constantinius (the great) showed up and claimed the throne of the sole emperor of the west, the praetorians and singularian horse were disbanded and the 2nd Parthica was relocated to Mesopotamia.

The early emperors had some difficulties with succession. Augustus had no sons and the grandsons he adopted all died early. Tiberius' son died before him. Claudius' son Britannicus was killed by Nero (supposedly) and Nero had no children. Adopting an adult you could trust seemed to work out better, as with Trajan and Hadrian.

I was under the impression that the specific connotation of the question had to do with sons/children in particular. Bear in mind that the Romans were also fully aware of the implications of adoption and sometimes used it for legal advantage. One case I recall being where someone adopted an old man just to stick it to the powers that be. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with the quote above from Younger Pliny about selecting the leader of all from the entire pool.

Even then, just because you adopt someone of great stock still didn't guarantee success. Germanicus probably would've been a pretty awesome emperor, but his son, Caligula, was one of the most notoriously terrible ones. Then there's Nero who had... issues. There are others.

But the key here that I was saying on the topic was that passing one's possessions to one's children is a very firm trend that has happened from the beginning of Sumerian civilization all the way to today even when those possessions are empire itself and even when children are only children by adoption. The catch was that because it was choosing your successor, it was more to the benefit of the empire. Does that clarify my post?