|
CLICK HERE FOR PDF FILE OF ENTIRE BOOK
|
Military might, not
lineage, decided rulers in
69 A.D. |
Reviewer Richard Berg,
a writer based in Charleston and designer of
historical simulations
Certain years ring out, numbers signifying
plateau events, such as 1066 for England or
1776 for the United States. For the Roman
Empire, one of those numbers is 69 A.D., the
year that saw, in the person of four
different emperors, the end of the original
line of rulers that had traced its lineage,
family-style, back to Julius Caesar and
Octavian/Augustus.
Even more importantly, instead of family
ties and parentage deciding who would reign,
these four emperors - Galba, Otho, Vitellius
and Vespasian - were made militarily,
outside of the actual city of Rome. The
focus of power had taken a seismic shift,
never to return to the arbitrarily imposed
sense of Latinum-centered normalcy that the
Julio-Claudian emperors provided.
First-time author M. Gwyn Morgan tells this
tale of what happened after Nero committed
suicide (in 68 A.D.) in an entertaining, if
somewhat wordy, manner, with his focal point
being the whys and wherefores of what
happened, rather than just relating the
series of events. He places great emphasis
on the reliability of the sources of
information.
The narrative itself is filled with enough
characters, incidents, battles and
assassinations to fill an entire HBO series.
And while it does rattle along with verve
and vigor, this is not a book for the casual
reader.
However, in highlighting the
small-mindedness and short-sightedness of
almost everyone involved in this "Clean cup,
Move on" epic, it can serve as an insightful
object lesson for those casting an eye on
many of our present leaders.
Perhaps books like this should be required
reading for holding office. If you have any
interest in history, especially history that
attempts to show why people did things, this
should be required reading.
"The period between June
68 and December 69 saw four different men
claim the imperial throne, aided by murders,
suicides, conspiracies, mutinies, civil war
and no small amount of happenstance. Five
ancient historians recorded these events,
chief among them Tacitus, Suetonius and
Plutarch. Since their accounts do not always
agree, it falls to their present-day
counterparts to adjudicate fact from fiction
and history from invention. Morgan (Classics
and History/Univ. of Texas, Austin) does an
admirably thorough job of guiding his
readers through the minutiae of political
intrigue and the conflicting chronicles that
have come to define the year 69.
Few details escape his
purview: A precise account of the emperor
Galba`s incongruously pompous march into
Rome is representative of the narrative`s
tenor, as is the patient sifting through
different versions of the suicide of Galba`s
usurper, Otho. In addition to supplying a
near-forensic level of detail, the author
also considers how contemporary historians
have misunderstood their predecessors.
Literary conventions shaped the ancient
historical method, he argues. Failing to
acknowledge this, 20th-century studies of 69
A.D. in general and Tacitus in particular
have drawn erroneous conclusions about both
the facts of the period and Tacitus` opinion
of them. Famous for his curt and
epigrammatic style, the senator and orator
emerges here not so much as disdainful or
obscure but rather as a literary stylist of
the first order.
Unfortunately, Morgan`s
dedication to fleshing out the ambiguous
moments in the lives of Tacitus and others
slows the book`s pace considerably. Only
scholars and the most diehard Roman
aficionados will feel compelled to read it
cover to cover.
Informative, but heavy as
a sack of Roman coins."
|
Pass us another pike liver…
By Christopher Hart
For 99 years, from the Battle of
Actium in 31BC to the year AD68, the Julio-Claudian
dynasty ruled the Roman Empire. And then in June 68,
Nero put himself to death by stabbing himself in the
throat, with the immortally luvvie words, “Qualis
artifex pereo!” (What an artist I die!). And for the
next tumultuous 18 months, the Roman world was plunged
into unprecedented uncertainty, chaos, revolt and civil
war, as no fewer than three emperors came and went with
bewildering swiftness, before a fourth appeared on the
scene: a jovial, bluff, no-nonsense soldier-emperor
called Vespasian. It was quite a year.All of which makes
it more regrettable that Gwyn Morgan, Professor of
Classics and History at the University of Texas, renders
the year so dismally dull. As dry as the Numidian
desert, as heavy-going as Hannibal’s crossing of the
Alps. He mistrusts Suetonius for being far too
entertaining and gossipy, for his “delight in the
rumours”, but equally he cannot allude to the more sober
Tacitus without interminable digressions on the
historian’s rhetorical devices or unreliable
exaggerations. Plutarch, too, makes “wild claims”, while
previous modern histories of the period have been too
“overtly popular”. Professor Morgan himself need have no
worries on that score. His kind of historical writing,
as drained of life as if it has just spent the night
with Dracula, will never be overtly popular. We can’t be
sure of the truth of some of the more outrageous gossip.
We can’t be sure that, as Suetonius tells us, the moment
Galba heard about Nero’s death from Icelus, “one of his
old time bed-fellows… Galba openly showered him with
kisses and begged him to get ready and have intercourse
without delay”. Professor Morgan, however, denies us
this colourful titbit, although he can have no more idea
than you or I whether this really happened. You’ll have
to go back to Suetonius himself for such entertainment.
Galba, ageing, parsimonious and conservative, marched on
Rome from Spain at once, and a precedent was set.
Military muscle, not ancestry, would henceforth tend to
decide Imperial succession. One could argue that
military might had decided political power ever since
Caesar crossed the Rubicon, but nevertheless, this
moment of Galba’s march on Rome sent shockwaves through
the Empire. Galba was no more attractive in character
than many subsequent Emperors, and he was certainly
tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime. He once
sentenced a dishonest money-changer to have both his
hands cut off and nailed to the counter, and when he
ordered another man to be crucified and the felon
objected that he was a Roman citizen - citizens could
not be crucified - he mirthfully gave orders for his
cross to be whitewashed first.
Galba was killed by the henchmen of the next
Emperor-in-waiting, Otho. A soldier had to carry his
severed head to the boss “with his thumb stuck in
Galba’s mouth”, as you might carry an old-fashioned milk
bottle, since Galba was bald and couldn’t be carried by
his hair. Otho was even more of a nonentity as Emperors
go, bow-legged, splay-footed and carefully depilated all
over his body. His reign was even shorter than Galba’s,
a mere three months, ending in suicide.
Then came the worst of the three, Vitellius. Tacitus
evidently despises Vitellius especially, but other
sources make him sound pretty ghastly too. He had spent
his boyhood on Capri amid Tiberius’s appalling orgies
(not at all a healthy atmosphere for a young lad to grow
up in), throwing himself so enthusiastically into the
proceedings that he earned himself the nickname Spintria.
“Poofter” or “Faggot” is the only fair translation of
this word. Famed for both extravagance and cruelty,
Vitellius banqueted three or four times a day, vomiting
frequently to clear the way for the next course. He once
demanded a vastly expensive dish made of pike livers,
peacock brains, flamingo tongues and lamprey milt. He
was killed by the horrible “Torture of Little Cuts”
before being dragged down to the Tiber by a hook and
thrown in. Thank Jupiter for Vespasian, the
pragmatic, worldly soldier-emperor, generally much-loved
and respected, except for that unfortunate incident at
Hadrumetum in Africa, where an angry populace pelted him
with turnips. On another occasion, a young officer came
to him reeking of perfume. Vespasian was so outraged
that he stripped him of his command on the spot. “I
wouldn’t have minded if he’d stunk of garlic!” The words
might have been bellowed by Wellington.
Vespasian made one of the all-time great death-bed
jokes. Pace the recent-ish and ridiculous Roman custom
of deifying Emperors after their deaths, as he lay
expiring he murmured dryly, “I think I am turning into a
god!” It was a good 10 years that he held power and,
just as importantly, he managed what so few decent
emperors managed (Augustus gave way to the monstrous
Tiberius, remember): he passed on the succession to his
equally just and humane son, Titus, who carried the
baton for a further 12 years.
But what of the magnificent bust of Vespasian that
survives, currently in the Terme Museum in Rome?
Broad-faced, balding, a distinct smile hovering round
the mouth, one of the most appealing images of all the
Roman Emperors? Why isn’t it reproduced here? Because
there are no images at all in Professor Morgan’s dense
tome. No busts, no coins, no ruins, nada. Such
fripperies might make the text too “overtly popular”,
perhaps.
|