Year of the Four Emperors

From Wikireedia
(Redirected from Vespasian)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Introduction

The Year of the Four Emperors refers to AD69 when Rome, racked by civil war, was ruled in turn by four emperors; Galba, Otho, Vitellius and finally Vespasian. Vespasian went on to rule for a further 10 years and bring a degree of stability to the Roman Empire. As Plutach poetically puts it Caesars' house in Rome, the Palatium, received in a shorter space of time no less than four emperors, passing, as it were, across the stage, and one making room for another to enter [1]

Galba

Galba
Roman Emperor
File:Galba.jpg
Bust of Galba
Reign 8 June 68 – 15 January 69
Full name Servius Sulpicius Galba
Born 24 December 03BC
Birthplace Antium,
Died 15 January 69
Place of death Rome
Predecessor Nero,
Successor Otho
Consort Aemilia Lepida

Servius Sulpicius Galba - born 3BC and died AD69 was the first of the Four Emperor's to rule in AD69. However, his stint started 6 months earlier in AD68 when the position of Emperor came his way by luck rather than design. He had supported Julius Vindex's revolt against Nero but cautiously reversing his support after his defeat and suicide. It was only after Nero's suicide and support from a few influential senators including Otho did he decide to march on Rome and take the laurel. He became unpopular early in his rule, levying taxes, failing to reward the army that got him to Rome, reducing the power of the senators and falling out with Otho, the latter believing that he rather the Piso should be considered the rightful heir.

On the refusal of Galba to honor the reward to the army, it could be said that he did not offer it in the first place. Plutach tells us it was Nymphidius Sabinus and Tigellinus who offered the inducement to hasten the fall of Nero. However the reward was set to high. As much as 7,500 drachmas to the praetorian guard and court; a sum that was impossible to raise. Not that Galba tried. He was said to be the richest of all Romans yet parsimonious in the extreme. He would expend money on others let alone himself. He was thought a good choice it seems because age had moderated his temper and he would be a cautious ruler. His pro consulship of Libya was a success as well as his governing of Spain. He reluctantly joined Julius Vindex's revolt but the reason given was idiosyncratic. Upon being requested to join the revolt he had to either comply or take up arms against Vindex. A do nothing strategy was not an option. Nero retaliated by selling Galba's assets in Rome and Galba did the same with Nero's assets in Spain.

Tacitus puts his strictness into some understandable context. Galba wanted to rule and be respected on merit and not subterfuge, conspiracy or bribery. His failure to pay the donative to the army was explained this way. "I choose my soldiers, I do not buy them," [2]. High minded he may have been but it was somewhat at odds with his own avarice.

As often the case, it is the close retinue who generate the most mischief and Nymphidius was increasingly seeing Galba as a stopgap to perhaps his own advancement to dictator. It is quite obvious that they privately treated Galba with disdain. Unfortunately for Nymphidius his arrogance got the better of him. She conspired against Galba when he thought he had the backing of the soldiers, but they did not. He was lured inside camp and was set upon and killed. Galba executed the co-conspirators who had not already committed suicide when they learned or the aborted coup.

Galba had another run in this time with seamen loyal to Nero who wanted the same rights as soldiers. Galba put them off but they were they persisted. Galba ordered his troops to run over the seamen with their horses. Many died and it was a seen as a bad omen to enter the city with so much slaughter. Nevertheless, whereas many had before this despised him and looked upon him as a weak old man, now all regarded him with shuddering fear. [3]


Galba's choice of Piso as his successor seems to have been measured and well thought out without pressure or for personal gain. Tacitus gives a long first hand account of his speech to Piso, selecting him as his successor. He believed that Piso would be a staunch defender of Rome and would not allow the empire to fall back under the debauchery that pervaded during Nero's time.

Otho then undertook a conspiracy to assassinate Galba. The thought of yet another long period of exile for too painful. Worse still he believed that if and when things settled down and Otho and Piso consolidated their power, he would be vulnerable to assassination. Therefore he decided to strike before he could be struck.

The conspirators falsely claimed that Otho had been put to death for conspiring against Galba. Galba was confused asking under whose authority Otho had been killed. He realized that this would put him under considerable pressure had the story been true. Some say that Galba was taken a back when the soldiers approached him with their swords drawn. "What do you mean, fellow-soldiers? I am yours, and you are mine [4]. Suetonius says that other writers relate that he was prepared for it. "Do your work, and strike, since you are resolved upon it.". Cassius Dio has Galba as equally perplexed by the attempt on his life. He was killed by a javelin while on his way back to the capitol. Mortally he wounded it said that his last words were "Why, what harm have I done?" [5]

Tacitus account is the more bloodthirsty of the three authors. Camurius, a soldier of the 15th legion, completely severed his throat by treading his sword down upon it. The rest of the soldiers foully mutilated his arms and legs, for his breast was protected, and in their savage ferocity inflicted many wounds even on the headless trunk. [6]


For proof of the deed the one of the soldiers severed his head but finding he had no hair to carry him by, stuck the head up his vest and later carried him rather like a bowling ball with his fingers jammed in his mouth. According to Suetonius, once Otho had done a positive id he gave the head to the slaves who stuck it on a spear and ran around the camp grounds with it. Tacitus adds There was, we are told, no death of which Otho heard with greater joy, no head which he surveyed with so insatiable a gaze...The body of Galba lay for a long time neglected, and subjected, through the license which the darkness permitted, to a thousand indignities, till Argius his steward, who had been one of his slaves, gave it a humble burial in his master's private gardens. His head, which the sutlers and camp-followers had fixed on a pole and mangled, was found only the next day in front of the tomb of Patrobius, a freedman of Nero's, whom Galba had executed. It was put with the body, which had by that time been reduced to ashes [7]

Galba inclined to the male sex with a preference for men of his own age. It is said that upon learning that he had succeeded in being hailed Emperor he had sex with his man servant. A homosexual invert, he showed a decided preference for mature, sturdy men. It is said that when Icelus, one of his trusty bed-fellows, brought the news of Nero's death, Galba showered him with kisses and begged him to undress without delay; whereupon intimacy took place. [8]. His monetary meanness towards his legions was matched only by his own persnal greed. He acquired massive wealth and it is said Icelus embezzled more in eight months than Nero's freedmen did in thirteen years

Otho

Otho
Roman Emperor
File:Galba.jpg
Bust of Otho
Reign 8 June 68 – 15 January 69
Full name Servius Sulpicius Galba
Born 28 April 32
Birthplace Antium,
Died 16 April 69
Place of death Rome
Predecessor Galba,
Successor Vitellius
Consort Poppaea Sabina

Otho was from a well connected [[Etruscans|Etruscan] family who came to prominence during Claudius' reign when he discovered a plot to assassinate the emperor. Before that he had been riotous youth according to Suetonius and would catch drunkards and tie them in a blanket. But it was not until his fates intertwined with Nero did he fame reach infamy. It was Otho who married the impossibly beautiful yet cunning Poppaea Sabina who was also desired by Nero. We know that Suetonius played around with the chronology of events to insinute that it was Poppaea who was the main protagonist for disposing of Nero's mother Agrippina. Inreality there was no way a three way affair between Otho, Nero and Poppaea could have lasted without someone being poisoned sooner rather than later. Therefore it is more likely that Nero took up with Poppaea slightly later than Nero. In any case Nero had Otho sent to Lusitania as governor so mthat he could pursue Poppaea without the nuisance of a husband popping up from time to time. In any case he seemed to take his posting to Lusitania with equanimity and ruled for ten years with a degree of good stewardship and justice. Nonetheless he fell behind Galba during his coup. Nero was out and given Galba's advanced age, believed he would be named successor in time. Disappointing, Galba named Piso and he set about a plot to have Piso and Galba murdered. The plan came to fruition and he was proclaimed emperor with a less than rousing acceptance. I shall be content with whatever ye think fit to leave me [9]. Likewise he pretended to the senate that he had no thought of being proclaimed emperor by them but those upset by Nero's demise rallied to his side and he took over the role although with some genuine sorrow and maybe fear for the way he had taken power. Likewise he acted in a very conciliatory way, although it was not in his nature to be so, in order to try and not alienate Vitellius

However, Rome was still in a midst of a civil war and the proclamation of Emperor by Otho held little sway with the armies in Germany who advanced their man, Vitellius as the rightful emperor. Otho decided to grab the momentum and put a force together to meet the advancing troops. It is said that upon meeting Vitellius's troops he could have starved them into surrender over a protracted time but he decided to engage instead before Vitellius could join them. Tacitus suggests that it was Rome's most skillful general Suetonius Paullinus who gave this advice. Although Otho's forces had a upper hand in the initial battles, the anti-Otho factions and deliberately put out a weakened army and drew them into a final battle at Bedriacum. Otho had further taken the advice of Suetonius Paullinus that he should redraw from the field so that he could prepare for the running of the empire, Tacitus says That day first gave the death-blow to the party of Otho. Not only did a strong detachment of the Praetorian cohorts, of the bodyguard, and of the cavalry, depart with him, but the spirit of those who remained was broken, for the men suspected their generals, and Otho, who alone had the confidence of the soldiers, while he himself trusted in none but them, had left the generals' authority on a doubtful footing.

Plutach also takes a dispassionate rendition of Otho's life. They placed the remains of Otho in the earth and raised over them a monument which neither by its size nor the pomp of its inscription might excite hostility. I myself have seen it, at Brixillum; a plain structure, and the epitaph only this: To the memory of Marcus Otho [10] Diis Manibus Marci Othonis The tomb or any evidence of its existence has long since passed away.


Tacitus tries to make sense of the ever continuing spiral of civil war, emperors, murders and more civil war. While Galba was the accidental emperor both Otho and Vitellius ardently sought it out for themselves. Vitellius did not so much over throw Otho because he had killed Galba, he would have done it himself had the opportunity arisen. The motives according to Tacitus are many and contradictory. As generals they had become prosperous, profligate and insolent. There were at the same time patriotic and plunderers. Conquerors and the conquered seldom make good bedfellows so what united the generals was their eagerness to wage war against each other. It mattered little what side you chose to fight on, only that you chose the side that would win.

Tacitus tells us that the roads were piled high with corpses. In fact higher than normal as there were no spoils in this war and no soldiers to ransom. And one point both sides considered a truce to allow the senate to choose an emperor. Suetonius was in favor of such a propostion as he felt that given his success in Britain, they might turn to him as the compromise candidate. The opportunity came and went and the fighting continued.


Otho seemed genuinely distressed by the civil war and committed suicide rather than put his considerable reserve army at Brixellum through another battle. "Would that this news were false, Caesar; for most gladly would I have died hadst thou been victor. As it is, I shall perish in any case, that no one may think that I fled hither to secure my own safety; but as for thee, consider what must be done, since the enemy will be here before long." With these words, he slew himself [11]. He made no demands for his life beyond not wanting the indignity of having his head severed as a pole finial as he had done to Galba. It may be ironic that he did not want the indignities that he meted out to others but it at least should be said that his sacrifice was a genuine attempt to steer Rome away from protracted civil war.


Otho lasted as emperor just three months. He was 38 years old.

Vitellius

Vitellius came from an obscure background accoring to Suetonius. Some say he came fropm a noble family other that he was a decendant of a freedman, a strumpet or cobbler. Nonetheless he was on friendly terms with Caligula, Claudius and Nero and these connections enables him to become proconsul or Africa. He was married to Petronia by which they had a son. The son died in suspicious circumstances. Suetonius believes Viteelius had him posioned after his wife made him heir to her fortune. After that he married Galeria Fundano and had further boys and girls.

Under Galba he was sent to Germany. He was somewhat disappointed to be away from the center of Roman life but upon his arrival he was lauded by the disaffected Galba armies. He wormed his way into their favor some more be forgiving their past ill discipline and and slovenly practices. After Galba's death he sent divided his armies into two. One was send to confront Otho's forces the other stayed with him. He heard of Otho's death while still in Gaul and then made his way to Rome to become Emperor.

His excesses so soon after taking power caused many to blanche. Drink and eating were his main vices and his 'Shield of Minerva was particularly ostenacious "The Shield of Minerva." In this dish there were tossed up together the livers of char-fish, the brains of pheasants and peacocks, with the tongues of flamingos, and the entrails of lampreys, which had been brought in ships of war as far as from the Carpathian Sea, and the Spanish Straits [12]

Cassius Dio has us believe that during his reign he spent 900,000,000 sesterces on food and caused shortages of food for the general population. Glutony and licentiousness was one way of disparaging an emperor. Another way is to compare him with Nero and suggest that he spent too much time at the theatres or in the presence of charioteers all of which Cassius Dio implies.

He was vicious also, He posioned and murdered former class mates. He made sure many of his creditors were put to death. One one occasion he was putting to death one man when he declared that he had made Vitellius heir to his fortune along with his freedman. He had the freedman rounded up and had since throat cut too. Two sons pleaded on behalf of their father's life. He ignored them; killed the father and then the sons. One roman he had hauled away for execution. He then hestitated and asked that they roman be returned. Many peopled applauded his act of clemency. However, he called him back so he could watch the execution first hand. "I have a mind to feed my eyes." [13].

If he was so cruel then the tendency is to ask how men such as Vitellius could assume and retain power. Cassius Dio tells us very matter of factly that it was human nature to rally around a new leader. Many romans wanted peace at any price even if emperor was less tahn perfect. Others hoped for preferment and would nail their colours to the mast of any man who might who might increase their personal and national prosperity. Vitellius we are told had been a very good Governor of Syriah and unlike Tiberius and Nero who became emperor purely because of their connections, Vitellius, Otho and Galba all demonstrated a degree of military competency and polical nous to get the top job, albeit briefly

Vitellius lasted eight months. Troops both in Moesia and Pannonia revolted from him; as did likewise, of the armies in Judaea and Syria, which were strongholds of Vespasian and who swore alligence to him. Vitellius tried to shore up his support by lavishing powers both publically and privately on the citiziens of Rome. This was fruitless as in the senate he was losing pwower to the Flavian party, Frusrtared, hw gave his dagger to various officuials telling that peace was his only concern for Rome and if they which to despatch him they should go ahead. No one took him up on his offer and he retired to Campania. He decided to try and resign the emperorship in consideration for his life. He was drawn back to Rome under a false pretence that the Flavians would negotiate a compromise. This was not the case and he hid out in his father's house. Although in somewhat of a disguise he was eventually recognized and dragged out in front of the crowd to be mocked while having a sword to this throat. He was then dragged away and given a slow, lingering, tortuous death and dragged to the Tiber. He was 57 years old.

Cassius Dio gives us much the same story expect he articulates the incrasingly farcical nature of the civil war as well as the futility in the face of massive loss of life. Cassius Dio mentioned two infractions that led to deaths of more than fifty thousand Romans. The factions had fought themselves to a standstill and they often questioned what they were fighting for not only amongst themselves but with their foe. During the battles they would often break for dinner and share food between the fighting groups and debate what they were fighting and implore their adversaries to join them. This was no ideological battle. This was for power for power's sake. Nevertheless these tales were being recounted during the Flavian ascendency so the narrative gives the subsequent rulers more legitimacy given that they delivered Rome from chaos.

Vespasian

What do we make of the treatment of Galba, Otho and Vitellius at the literary hands of Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio? Once can argue that Cassius Dio's histories span such a great length of Roman life that he would have relied heavily on Suetonius and Tacitus for his information in this period. Suetonius and Tacitus owned their allegience to the Flavians and were writing with a high degree of hindsight that sought to show that subsequent emperors bought stability after the incompetence and character flaws of their predecessors. We know that through his Histories and Annals that Tacitus was writing in effect an intruction book in good governance so it played in to his narrative to contrast and compare the gluttonous and sexual deviency of the later Caesars.

There is no doubt where Suetonius stands on the reputation of Vespasian. He sets the context of his history in the very first line. The empire, which had been long thrown into a disturbed and unsetted state, by the rebellion and violent death of its three last rulers, was at length restored to peace and security by the Flavian family [14]. His family was unremarkable which may have led to its acceptance, for it meant there was no emnity or tainted history that would check their rise to prominence. Vespasian pursued and military rather than political careers and married Flavia Domitilla by which he had three children; Titus, Domitian and Domatilla. Both wife and daughter died before he became emperor.

During the reign of Claudius he was sent to Britain, Germany and Africa but kept a low profile when in Rome not wishing to make a enemy of Agrippina. Suetonius also makes another subtle dig at Nero by telling us that Vespasian would slip away from the theater during one of his recitals. We are expected to think after all that we have read before that Vespasian was a man after our own heart.

He makes his mark as governor of Judea where he put down a Jewish revolt. Although not actively seeking to be emperor he let it be known that he had not set his face against it. He largely sat out the civil war in Judea but latterly sent troops in to Italy. When Otho fell and was replaced by Vitellius, almost immediately some legions were swearing allegience to Vespasian. Not long after he got political support when the Governor of Egypt and once Vitellius had been murdered he rode in to Rome and took over the consulships without opposition.

Once in power he sets about rebuilding momuments and buildings that had fallen in to disrepair and also and an amphitheatre 752 in the middle of the city, upon finding that Augustus had projected such a work. [15]. The amphitheatre is in fact the Colluseum. which was started by Vespasian and finished by his son Titus. He is jocular, jokey and treats people civilly and there is no return to the barbaric torture of Caligula and Nero. His only sin according to Suetonius was his love of money. He made himself very rich sometimes at others expense and raised yet more taxes. He was famously parsimonious. Suetonius argues he was forced into this given the parlous state of the finances and to his credit used the money benefical projects he applied to the best purposes what he procured by bad means. [16]. One of his stranger taxes was on urine. Not as odd as it seems as it was a levy on the distribuition of the urine to business in the tanning business and as ammonia to brighten woolen togas. When Titus complained about the impostion of the tax, Vespasian picked up some money and asked Titus if it smelled. He replied it did not yet Vespasian countered it derives from urine. Even today urinals in France and Italy are named after Vespasian.

His jokey manner could often hide a sting in the tail. While away in Egypt both Domitian and the slightly obsequious Mucianus were betowing honors upon all and sundry in Rome. Vespasian , hearing of this he wrote back. "I thank you, my son, for permitting me to hold office and that you have not yet dethroned me."

There was one semi-serious attempt conspiracy against Vespasian. Although close friends of the emperor Alienus Marcellus they conconted a plot and were detected in this intrigue before they could carry it out. Alienus was slain immediately and Marcellus was brough to trial and condemned. He cut his own throat.


Vespasian was nearly sixty when he became emperor and it was inevitable that his reign would be short. At age sixty nine he was starting to suffer from ill-health and quipped "I suppose," said he, "I shall soon be a god." [17]. Cassius Dio makes an aside that Hadrian believed that Titus posioned him. When he did near his death he wanted to go in a dignified manner. When faced with another distemper he got up from his bed and said "An emperor ought to die standing upright." [18]. He left instructions that either his sons would succeed him or the office abolished. In the event, it was decided that Titus should become the next emperor.

Conclusion

What do we make of these contemporary or near contemporary historians view of these four emperors? Firstly, all three were covering a lot of ground and their histories of each were brief and many of the nuanced aspects of their reign were lost when focussing on the more interesting anecdotes. We know that Tacitus had an agenda promoting good governance and sought to show by example the foibles of previous emperors. Both Tacitus and Suetonius owed their position in part to the Flavian dynasty so they were wary criticizing their patrons although it did not stop Suetonius in particular criticizing the cruelty of Domitian later.

Was it really possible that these great Governors of Spain and Germany were so hopeless as emperors of Rome? How could Galba misjudge his troops loyalty by such a wide mark? How come Otho had no strategy or stomach for ther battle and how does Vitellius turn from a competant general to a gluttonous, lazy dictator? Is this history from these historians or just gossip. We learn from Tacitus that gossip is important. Not because it was true but it was thought to be true and the more gossipy the stories the more it showed that the powerful cliques had a poor view of the governing qualities of the emperor. In reality these emperors were no worse than their predecessors, they just could not unite the warring factions.

Vespasian gets off lightly in the histories despite his perchant for avarice, greed and shady deals. Suetonius becomes an apologist for Vespasian, almost saying he had no choice given the penury that the empire was in. The historians and the Romans would almost forgive him anything as he had brought the civil war to an end and once again through his monument building allowed Romans to start to feel good about themselves which would reach its apogee with the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian

The real pros and cons of these emperors can be read elsewhere but it is the vividness, conciseness and enthusiam of these histories that will live on while the more circumspect, analytical diatribes that will be quickly forgotten.

Preceded by
Nero
Galba
Otho
Vitellius
Emperor of Rome
AD69
Succeeded by
Galba
Otho
Vitellius
Vespasian
  1. Plutach
  2. Tacitus:The Histories
  3. Plutach
  4. Suetonius
  5. Cassius Dio
  6. Tacitus:The Histories
  7. Tacitus:The Histories
  8. Suetonius (translation by Robert Graves)
  9. The Lives of the Twelve Caesars
  10. http://classics.mit.edu/Plutarch/otho.html
  11. Cassius Dio
  12. Suetonius
  13. Suetonius
  14. Suetonius
  15. Suetonius
  16. Suetonius
  17. Suetonius
  18. Suetonius
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox