Kejser Vespasianers liv #9 - Borgernes kejser, romersk historie dokumentarserie

Kejser Vespasianers liv #9 - Borgernes kejser, romersk historie dokumentarserie

Kejser Vespasian var en selvfremstillet mand, der var elsket af det romerske folk og hans efterfølgere. Han var i stand til at redde imperiet efter styrtet i Julio-Claudian-dynastiet! Han er blevet kaldt borgernes kejser, en mand af folket. I denne video graver vi ind i hans liv og bedrifter.

Kilder og anbefalet læsning:

Annaler og historier - (Tacitus)
https://amzn.to/2LfzPFB

De tolv kejsere - (Suetonius)
https://amzn.to/2HRSNBq

Dios romerske historie - (Cassius Dio)
https://amzn.to/2Li9arQ

69 e.Kr.: The Year of Four Emperors - (Gwyn Morgan)
https://amzn.to/33lsEBu

Fra Gracchi til Nero: En historie om Rom fra 133 f.Kr. til 68 e.Kr. - (H. H. Scullard)
https://amzn.to/2DYhNCQ

The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome - (Chris Scarre):
https://amzn.to/2YTPAW8

Musik og lyd fra Epidemic Sound: https://www.epidemicsound.com/

#Emperorsofrome #Romanemperors #SPQR #Romanhistory


Augustus (63 f.Kr. - 14 e.Kr.)

Et bronzehoved af Augustus © Augustus var den første kejser i Rom. Han erstattede den romerske republik med et effektivt monarki og bragte i sin lange regeringstid fred og stabilitet.

Augustus blev født Gaius Octavius ​​den 23. september 63 f.Kr. i Rom. I 43 f.Kr. blev hans morbror, Julius Caesar, myrdet og i hans testamente blev Octavius, kendt som Octavian, navngivet som hans arving. Han kæmpede for at hævne Cæsar og besejrede i 31 f.Kr. Antony og Cleopatra i slaget ved Actium. Han var nu ubestridt hersker over Rom.

I stedet for at følge Cæsars eksempel og gøre sig selv til diktator, grundlagde Octavianus i 27 f.Kr. princippet, et monarkisystem ledet af en kejser, der havde magten for livet. Hans kræfter var skjult bag forfatningsmæssige former, og han tog navnet Augustus, der betyder 'højt' eller 'fredfyldt'. Ikke desto mindre bevarede han den ultimative kontrol over alle aspekter af den romerske stat, med hæren under hans direkte kommando.

Herhjemme gik han i gang med et stort genopbygningsprogram og sociale reformer. Rom blev forvandlet med imponerende nye bygninger, og Augustus var protektor for Virgil, Horace og Propertius, datidens førende digtere. Augustus sikrede også, at hans image blev fremmet i hele hans imperium ved hjælp af statuer og mønter.

I udlandet oprettede han for første gang en stående hær og gik i gang med en kraftig ekspansionskampagne, der skulle sikre Rom fra 'barbarerne' ud over grænserne og for at sikre fred i Augusta. Hans stedsønner Tiberius og Drusus påtog sig opgaven (Augustus havde giftet sig med deres mor Livia i 38 f.Kr.). Mellem 16 f.Kr. og 6 e.Kr. blev grænsen flyttet fra Rhinen til Elben i Tyskland og op til Donau i hele sin længde. Men Drusus døde i processen, og i 9 e.Kr. udslettede udslettelsen af ​​tre romerske legioner i Tyskland (ud af 28 i alt) i Varian -katastrofen, at Tyskland blev opgivet øst for Rhinen.

Augustus var fast besluttet på at blive efterfulgt af en person af sit eget blod, men han havde ingen sønner, kun en datter, Julia, hans første kones barn. Hans nevø Marcellus og hans elskede barnebørn Gaius og Lucius foruddøde ham, så han modvilligt gjorde Tiberius til sin arving.

Militærkatastrofe, tabet af hans barnebørn og en urolig økonomi uklare hans sidste år. Han blev mere diktatorisk og forviste digteren Ovid (8 e.Kr.), der havde hånet hans moralske reformer. Han døde den 19. august 14. e.Kr.


Kejser Vespasiansk liv #9 - Borgernes kejser, romersk historie dokumentarserie - historie

Selvom han ikke regerede længe, ​​gav han Rom nyt håb og et helt kejserdynasti.

Farlige tider

Født i en aristokratisk familie omkring 100 f.Kr., voksede Julius Cæsar op i farlige tider. Rom kunne endnu ikke håndtere sin egen størrelse og magt. Adelen blev vidt diskrediteret, og orden havde givet plads til kaos. Det eneste klare alternativ var militærdiktatur.

Cæsar allierede sig mod adelen. Da hans karriere tog fart, vandt han en række politiske embeder, ikke altid med velrenommerede midler. I 63 f.Kr. var han blevet en velkendt, men kontroversiel figur.

Viva Espana

På trods af hans berygtelse blev han udnævnt til guvernør i det videre Spanien. Dette var en lukrativ holdning, fordi det gav ham chancen for at plyndre de lokale indbyggere efter behag. Han vendte tilbage til Rom i 60 f.Kr. og blev året efter valgt til konsul, det højeste embede i republikken.

Cæsar, der nu havde den reelle magt, allierede sig med to nøglepersoner, Pompejus og Crassus. Pompejus var en krigshelt, der var blevet dårligt behandlet af senatet, mens Crassus var en mangemillionær. De to mænd var rivaler, men Cæsar var i stand til at bygge bro mellem dem, og de tre mænd dannede det magtfulde 'første triumvirat'.

Jeg forudsiger optøjer

Som konsul ville Cæsar betale Pompejus soldater af ved at tildele dem offentlige arealer. Dette var upopulært, så for at komme foranstaltningen igennem konstruerede han et optøjer og brugte kaoset til at få sin egen vej. Han brugte derefter sin magt til at sikre guvernørskapet i Gallien (nutidens Frankrig og Belgien).

Gallien gav Cæsar en magtbase til at rekruttere soldater og gennemføre de militære kampagner, der ville gøre hans navn og sikre hans formue.

Erobre Gallien

Mellem 58 og 50 f.Kr. brugte Cæsar sin ekspertise i militær strategi sammen med den romerske hærs træning og disciplin til at erobre og dæmpe resten af ​​Gallien op til floden Rhinen.

Da han kæmpede med fremmede fjender, var Cæsar hensynsløs. Da han belejrede oprørere i det, der nu er Dordogne -delen af ​​Frankrig, ventede han, indtil deres vandforsyning løb tør og derefter afskåret hænderne på alle de overlevende.

Truslet hjem

Han vendte nu opmærksomheden hjem. Hans triumvirat var hårdt anstrengt. Pompeius var i stigende grad misundelig på Cæsars succes, og Crassus hadede stadig Pompejus. Efter at Crassus blev dræbt i kamp, ​​drev Pompeius og Cæsar fra hinanden og befandt sig i sidste ende på modsatte sider.

På nuværende tidspunkt var Cæsar meget vellykket, men han havde mange fjender og fandt sin position og sit liv truet. Han troede, at den eneste måde, han kunne beskytte sig selv på, var ved at tage magten. I januar, 49 f.Kr., førte han sine tropper over Rubicon -floden til Italien og startede borgerkrig.

Cæsar opnåede nogle tidlige sejre og var i 46 f.Kr. diktator for Rom. Efter et år med at eliminere sine resterende fjender vendte han hjem. Generøs i sejren var han venlig over for sine besejrede rivaler, gav dem alle amnestier og inviterede endda nogle til at slutte sig til ham i regeringen.

Alligevel forblev hans position usikker. Uden en egen søn havde han brug for en arving. Cæsar adopterede hurtigt sin store nevø, Augustus. Han bevægede sig også hurtigt for at styrke imperiets nordlige grænser og tackle dets fjender i øst.

Herhjemme reformerede han den romerske kalender, tacklede den lokale regering, genbosatte veteraner til nye byer, gjorde senatet mere repræsentativt og gav statsborgerskab til mange flere udlændinge.

Pas på Ides of March

Men hans styre ville blive afkortet. Gamle fjender gik sammen med nogle af hans tilhængere, der var trætte af hans diktatoriske stil. Den 15. marts, 44 f.Kr., Ides of March, blev Cæsar myrdet i Senatet.

Selvom hans eget styre ikke var bemærkelsesværdigt, erstattede hans sejr i borgerkrigen en republik, der blev styret af konsulerne og Senatet, med et imperium, der regerede over kejsere og deres arvelige efterfølgere. Det var starten på en helt ny tidsalder for Rom.


Hvor hen til næste:
Religion i det gamle Rom Augustus
Kejsere - Augustus
Livet i romertiden Soldater
Fjender og oprørere - Cleopatra og Egypten


Anmeldelser

Hvordan beregnes ratings?

Top anmeldelser fra USA

Så snart jeg så Mary Beard, blev jeg fascineret. Hvis du nogensinde har læst noget om romerne eller oldtiden, er professor Beard kendt som den øverste ekspert og en ægte oldtidshistorisk nørd. Og hvilken glæde denne serie er. Hun dissekerer virkelig det romerske liv og bekræfter mange af mine mistanker om de virkelige romere, ikke de falske, Hollywood -versioner. Ja, gladiatorerne havde investeret mange penge i dem, så det ville have været uoverkommeligt at aflive dem. Romerne var ikke bare fra Rom og de tilstødende regioner, men fra hele verden. Romerne var eksperthandlere, ikke kun militærfolk. Kort sagt, hendes indsigt er virkelig fantastisk.

Hendes evne til at læse og både oversætte det romerske og det antikke græske sprog efterlod mig i ærefrygt. Her er en professor, der virkelig kender sit emne, og som er totalt nedsænket i gammel historie. For dem, der er interesserede i oldtiden, kan jeg ikke anbefale en bedre serie at se.

Jeg vidste - jeg vidste bare, at en stjerne var, fordi hun var en ældre kvinde og intet andet. Jeg så hele serien og kontrollerede derefter, hvad der var skrevet - og voila - der er han. Manden, der kan regnes med i næsten alle tilfælde af hvert show, der har en kvindelig ledelse, der baserer hans anmeldelse på hans "følelser " om kvinde og ikke på nogen fortjeneste ved showet .. syg.

Den sidste korrekturlæser gjorde et meget bedre stykke arbejde, end jeg kan sige, at dette er et virkelig underholdende, oplysende show om, hvordan egentlig romerne og det romerske liv var. Min mor lærte latin, min datter tager det nu - så romerne venter altid på at blive diskuteret i min husstand, og jeg har været nødt til at se et rimeligt antal shows på dem, og denne er virkelig en af ​​de bedste, jeg har set.

Hvis du vil se dem som rigtige mennesker og ikke kun som filmtropper af romere - er dette en fantastisk serie at tjekke ud.

Jeg har virkelig brug for at tage til Rom nu - ikke sikker på at jeg har mod på at cykle rundt om det!


Vespasian fik sin start på invasionen af ​​Storbritannien

Portrætbuste af Vespasian , 70-80 e.Kr., via British Museum, London

Vespasian er unik for at være den første romerske kejser uden aristokratisk herkomst eller tilknytning til det tidligere Julio-Claudian-dynasti. Han blev født i 9 e.Kr. og tjente som en legionær kommandant i invasionen af ​​Storbritannien i 43-44 e.Kr. Storbritannien blev først invaderet af Julius Cæsar, men erobringen af ​​Storbritannien blev opnået af kejser Claudius i 44 e.Kr.

Claudius invasion af Storbritannien var en invasion af prestige. Invasionen var ikke nødvendig for at øge det romerske imperiums rigdom, det var ikke nødvendigt at beskytte imperiets grænser, og det var ikke som reaktion på noget udført af indbyggerne i Storbritannien. Kejser Claudius var ikke et kendt medlem af den kejserlige familie, da han kom til magten. Han havde brug for en måde at etablere sig på og sikre sit styre som kejser.

Romerne værdsatte militær præstation frem for alt andet. Store romerske ledere forventedes først at bevise sig selv som hærførere, og derfor invaderede Claudius Storbritannien.

Vespasian startede på denne invasion og fortsatte med at bevise sin militære dygtighed gennem hele sin karriere. Han fungerede som konsul og guvernør i Afrika og fik romerske styrker til at nedlægge det jødiske oprør i øst i 66 e.Kr.


De 8 blodigste romerske kejsere i historien

Vi kender alle til de romerske kejsere, ikke sandt? Gale, dårlige og decideret farlige at vide. Hvem kan glemme Peter Ustinovs Nero i 1951 -eposet Quo Vadis?, eller John Hurts torturerede og morderiske Caligula i BBC's Jeg, Claudius?

Faktisk, som historikere påpeger (for alle, der vil lytte), var mange af kejserne på listen nedenfor kompetente - endda begavede - administratorer, og kilderne til nogle af de mere lurede historier om dem er ikke altid over mistanke om overdrivelse eller opfindelse. Og nogle af de forbrydelser, der mest chokerede deres samtidige, som en forkærlighed for at optræde offentligt, ville ikke nødvendigvis fornærme os så meget i dag.

Nogle kejsere, som Nero eller Domitian, er gået over i historien som modeller for uberegnelige, paranoide tyranner, andre, som Diocletianus, var dygtige administratorer og leverede et godt styre (medmindre du tilfældigvis var kristen, i så fald var du i stor fare). Selv under de værste kejsere fortsatte Rom med at fungere, men involvering i det offentlige liv kunne blive en decideret farlig forretning.

Tiberius (regerede 14–37 e.Kr.)

Tiberius var efterfølgeren til Augustus, selvom Augustus ikke specielt ønskede, at Tiberius skulle efterfølge ham, og det var kun kejserens sønnesøn Gaius og Lucius 'død i utide, og Augustus beslutning om at eksilere deres yngre bror, Agrippa Postumus, satte Tiberius i kø. for den kejserlige trone.

Tiberius var en begavet militærkommanderende og respekterede senatets autoritet. Imidlertid havde han et dystert og stadig mere mistænkeligt syn, der vandt ham få venner og førte ham ind i en bitter strid med Agrippina, enken efter hans krigshelt nevø Germanicus. Skæbnesvanger, Tiberius stolede stærkt på den ambitiøse og hensynsløse Aelius Sejanus, der indførte en terrorperiode, indtil Tiberius lærte, at Sejanus selv planlagde at tage magten, fik ham arresteret og henrettet.

Tiberius sank i sygelig mistanke om alle omkring ham: han trak sig tilbage til øen Capri og genoplivede den gamle beskyldning om maiestas (forræderi) og brugte den til at dømme alle, han havde mistanke om, til døden. De romerske historikere Suetonius og Tacitus giver os et billede af Tiberius, der bor på Capri som en fordærvet seksuel rovdyr, som måske skylder mere farverig fantasi end fakta, selvom han bestemt brugte en ren dråbe i havet for at bortskaffe enhver, han tog spørgsmål om med. Tiberius var ikke et monster i formen af ​​nogle af hans efterfølgere, men han satte bestemt tonen for det, der skulle komme.

Gaius (Caligula) (regerede 37-41 e.Kr.)

Gaius ('Caligula eller' lille støvler ' - et barndommens øgenavn givet af sin fars tropper) er bedst kendt for en række excentriske handlinger, såsom at erklære krig mod havet og udråbe sig selv til en gud.

Hans regeringstid begyndte faktisk ganske lovende, men efter en alvorlig sygdomskamp udviklede han paranoia, der førte ham til alarmerende uregelmæssig adfærd, muligvis inklusive incest med sin søster, Julia Drusilla, som han kaldte som sin arving.

Gaius var særlig glad for at ydmyge senatet og hævdede, at han kunne få enhver til at konsulere, selv sin hest (selvom han i modsætning til den populære historie faktisk ikke gik igennem med dette). Som søn af Germanicus [en fremtrædende general] var Gaius ivrig efter at etablere sine militære legitimationsoplysninger, selvom hans kampagne i Tyskland opnåede lidt, og hans abortive invasion af Storbritannien måtte vendes til en kamp med havguden Neptun: det siges at har bedt sine tropper om at angribe bølgerne med deres sværd og samle muslingeskaller som bytte.

Gaius erklærede sig selv som en gud og brugte sin guddommelige status til at fastslå, hvad der faktisk var et absolutistisk monarki i Rom. Han fulgte Tiberius ’eksempel om at bruge landsforræderi til at eliminere fjender, virkelige eller forestillede. Til sidst var det hans temmelig barnlige hån mod Cassius Chaerea, medlem af den praetoriske vagt, der bragte Gaius ned. Chaerea sørgede for hans attentat ved Palatine Games. Han formodes at have protesteret over, at han ikke kunne blive dræbt, fordi han var en udødelig gud, men han viste sig at være temmelig mindre udødelig, end han troede.

Nero (regerede 54-68 e.Kr.)

Nero er den romerske kejser, vi alle elsker at hade, og ikke uden grund. Han var faktisk en kompetent administrator, og han blev hjulpet af nogle meget dygtige mænd, herunder hans vejleder - forfatteren Seneca. Imidlertid var han også utvivlsomt en morder, begyndende med sin stedbror Britannicus, som han havde formodet at dele magten med, og fortsatte gennem sin kone Octavia, som han forlod for sin elsker, Poppeaea, og derefter havde henrettet på en trumped -ansvarlig for utroskab.

Sandsynligvis på opfordring fra Poppaea havde han sin egen mor myrdet, selvom det første forsøg med en sammenklappelig båd gik galt, og hun måtte i stedet blive slået ihjel. Derefter sparkede han Poppaea ihjel i et anfald af vrede, mens hun var gravid med sit barn.

I modsætning til myten startede Nero ikke den store brand i Rom, og han ’fede’ ikke (og endda ikke spille liren), mens byen brændte - faktisk organiserede han hjælpearbejde for dens ofre og planlagde genopbygningen. Men Neros forkærlighed for sin egen musik og poesi, som fik ham til at tvinge senatorer til at sidde gennem sine egne uendelige og talentløse betragtninger, betød, at folk let kunne tro det på ham.

Nero var meget hadet for at bygge sit enorme, smagløse 'gyldne hus' -kompleks [alias Domus Aurea, en stor anlagt portikovilla] i ruinerne af det, der havde været det offentlige område i det centrale Rom. Han forfulgte utvivlsomt kristne i stort antal, og hans barnlige insisteren på at vinde laurbærrene ved de olympiske lege i Grækenland - uanset om han rent faktisk vandt eller rent faktisk sluttede løbet - bragte hele romerriget i skam.

Nero blev væltet af et hæroprør, der sank ind i en destruktiv trevejs borgerkrig.

Domitian (regerede 81-96 e.Kr.)

Domitian var den yngste søn af Vespasian, generalen, der var kommet ud af kaoset efter Neros fald og genoprettede et vist element af stabilitet og normalitet i det romerske offentlige liv.

Domitian arvede ingen af ​​sin fars charme, og ligesom andre på denne liste led han af dyb mistanke om dem omkring ham, hvilket svarede til paranoia, muligvis et resultat af hans snævre flugt fra at blive dræbt under borgerkrigen. Han var særlig mistroisk over for senatet og fik henrettet en række førende borgere for sammensværgelse mod ham, herunder 12 eks-konsuler og to af hans egne fætre.

Domitians styre blev støt mere autokratisk, og han forlangte at blive behandlet som en gud. Han vendte sig imod filosoffer og sendte mange af dem i eksil, og han arrangerede retsmordet på den overjordiske jomfru, og fik hende begravet levende i en specielt konstrueret grav.

Domitian blev til sidst bragt ned af en sammensværgelse arrangeret af hans kone, Domitia, og blev noget uhensigtsmæssigt stukket af en palæstjener. Nogle historikere mener, at Domitians tyranni er blevet overvurderet andre har sammenlignet ham med Saddam Hussein på hans mest hævnværdige.

Commodus (styret 180–192 e.Kr.)

Commodus var kejseren udødeliggjort af Joaquin Phoenix i Ridley Scotts Gladiator (2000). Commodus var virkelig en lidenskabelig tilhænger af gladiatorkamp, ​​og kæmpede selv i arenaen, undertiden klædt som Hercules, som han tildelte sig selv guddommelig hæder og erklærede, at han var en romersk Hercules.

Commodus var søn af filosofkejseren Marcus Aurelius, og selvom filmens scene, hvor Commodus dræber sin egen far, er opfindelse, er det rigtigt, at Commodus var det modsatte af alt, hvad hans far havde stået for. Forfængelig og nydelsessøgende, konkurrerede Commodus praktisk talt den romerske statskasse, og han søgte at fylde den op igen ved at få velhavende borgere henrettet for forræderi, så han kunne konfiskere deres ejendom.

Snart begyndte folk at planlægge mod ham for alvor, herunder hans egen søster. Plottene blev dog forpurret, og Commodus gik i gang med at henrette endnu flere mennesker, enten fordi de sammensværgede ham, eller fordi han troede, at de kunne gøre det i fremtiden. Til sidst hyrede prætoriansk præfekt og kejserens egen hofkammerherre en professionel atlet til at kvæle Commodus i badet.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus I (Caracalla) (regerede AD 211–217)

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus var søn af den yderst dygtige og effektive kejser Septimius Severus. 'Caracalla' var et øgenavn, der stammer fra en frakke med hætte fra Gallien, som han introducerede i Rom.

Severus navngav sin yngre søn, Geta, som medarving med Caracalla, men de to faldt hurtigt ud, og borgerkrig virkede overhængende, indtil Caracalla afværgede dette scenario ved at få Geta myrdet.

Caracalla behandlede brutalt modstandere: han gik i gang med at udrydde Getas tilhængere og udslettede på samme måde dem, der blev fanget i en af ​​byen Alexandrias regelmæssige lokale opstigninger mod romersk styre.

Caracalla huskes for det storslåede badekompleks, der er opkaldt efter ham i Rom, og for at udvide romersk statsborgerskab til alle frie mænd inden for imperiet ¬– selvom han sandsynligvis simpelthen forsøgte at skaffe de penge, han havde brug for til sine egne overdådige udgifter. Han gjorde bestemt det overskud, han arvede fra sin far, til et stort underskud.
Caracalla var en vellykket, om end hensynsløs, militær kommandør, men han blev myrdet af en gruppe ambitiøse hærofficerer, herunder den prætorianske prefekt Opellius Macrinus, der straks udråbte sig selv til kejser.

Marcus Aurelius Antoninus II (Elagabalus) (styret 218-222 e.Kr.)

Elagabalus var en slægtning til Septimius Severus 'kone, der blev fremsat for at udfordre Macrinus om tronen efter mordet på Caracalla. Elagabalus væltede Macrinus og gik straks i gang med en stadig mere excentrisk regeringstid. Hans kaldenavn kom fra hans rolle som præst for kulten af ​​den syriske gud Elah-Gabal, som han forsøgte at indføre i Rom for universel forfærdelse, endda have sig selv omskåret for at vise sin hengivenhed til kulten.

Elagabalus krænkede bevidst romerske moralske og religiøse principper og oprettede en konisk sort stenfetish - et symbol på solguden Sol Invictus Elagabalus - på Palatinerhøjen og giftede sig med den overordnede vestal, for hvilken hun under normale omstændigheder skulle have været sat til død.

Romerne blev især stødt over Elagabalus seksuelle adfærd - samt en række ægteskaber tog han også åbent mandlige kærester, og han ser ud til at have været det, der i dag ville blive anerkendt som transseksuel.

Få historikere har meget godt at sige om Elagablus, og til sidst gav romernes tålmodighed op: Elagabalus blev myrdet i en sammensværgelse organiseret af hans egen bedstemor.

Diocletian (284–305 e.Kr.)

Det kan virke uretfærdigt at inkludere Diocletian i denne gruppe, da han er bedst kendt for den risikable, men fornuftige beslutning om at dele regeringen for det romerske imperium i to, idet Marcus Aurelius Maximianus er hans medkejser, hver med en underordnet kendt som en Cæsar, i en fire-vejs magtdeling kaldet tetrarkiet.

Diocletian var en god administrator og formåede at holde sin splittede kommandostruktur sammen på et tidspunkt, hvor det romerske imperium kom under stigende pres fra sine fjender uden for dets grænser. Det der dog får Diocletianus med her, er hans fuldstændig hensynsløse forfølgelse af kristne.

Kristne havde længe været betragtet af de fleste romere med en blanding af afsmag og en temmelig underholdt tolerance, men Diocletian gik i gang med at udrydde religionen totalt. Kirker skulle ødelægges, skrifterne offentligt brændes og kristne præster fængsles og tvunges til at ofre til kejseren på grund af dødens smerte. Kristne, der nægtede at opgive deres tro, blev tortureret og henrettet.

Det var en usædvanlig ond forfølgelse, da romerne normalt accepterede andre religioner, og det afspejler Diocletians frygt for, at kristendommen på et tidspunkt, hvor enhedens formål var afgørende for imperiets overlevelse, repræsenterede en afvisning af romerske religiøse værdier, som han kunne ikke råd til at tillade.

Sean Lang er universitetslektor i historie ved Anglia Ruskin University, og forfatter til publikationer, herunder Britisk historie for dummies (2004), Europæisk historie for dummies (2011) og Første verdenskrig for dummies (2014). Du kan følge Sean på Twitter @sf_lang.

Denne artikel blev første gang udgivet af History Extra i 2015


Moderne indgang til det arkæologiske område i Esquilino (Colle Oppio) umiddelbart efter indgangen er der en mur tilhørende Terme di Tito

Titus fortsatte opførelsen af ​​Colosseo, der blev indviet i 80. Ceremonierne var særligt højtidelige, og den første sæson af amfiteatret løb i hundrede på hinanden følgende dage, som romerne så munera (kampe mellem gladiatorer), venationes (fangst og aflivning af dyr) og naumachiae, en slags søslag (læs Mark Twains Coliseum playbill).
Han byggede også offentlige bade, der gjorde brug af en del af dem Domus Aurea af disse bade er meget lidt tilbage: kun et par lave vægge overfor den nordlige side af Colosseo og i den tilstødende arkæologiske park kendt som Colle Oppio (den sydlige top af Esquilino). Et par år senere byggede kejser Trajan større bade ved siden af ​​Titus. Triumfbuen dedikeret til ham blev rejst af hans bror Domitian efter hans død.

Domitian og konsolideringen af ​​imperiet

Domitian var den sidste kejser i det flaviske dynasti: han blev dræbt som følge af en sammensværgelse, som senatet, hvoraf nogle medlemmer havde været involveret i sammensværgelsen, afgjorde damnatio memoriae af kejseren senere beskyldte kristne historikere ham for en af ​​de grusomste forfølgelser, så Domitian blev i århundreder set som en yngre Nero. I dag har vi et mere afbalanceret syn, hvis ikke på ham som person, i det mindste på hans handlinger som hersker.
Han fulgte sin fars trin med at være opmærksom på økonomien: han formåede at finansiere et stort program for offentlige arbejder, ikke kun i Rom, men også i mange andre dele af imperiet (f.eks. I Gerasa (Jerash) og Hierapolis), gennem en omhyggelig finanspolitik og ved at undersøge økonomiske fejlforvaltninger i provinserne.
Fra et militært synspunkt kom hans største bekymringer fra imperiets nordlige provinser, selvom Domitian forsøgte at få ære ved personligt at lede flere kampagner i Tyskland og Ungarn, generelt var han ikke interesseret i at udvide imperiet, men snarere i at konsolidere dets grænser (en dedikator indskrift til ham på en kampesten nær Det Kaspiske Hav vidner sandsynligvis om en diplomatisk, snarere end militær romersk tilstedeværelse) i Storbritannien, han forfulgte ikke erobringen af ​​hele øen og startede opførelsen af ​​et defensivt system i Tyskland, denne tilgang førte til til udviklingen af limefrugter (grænse) mellem Rhinen og Donau, lavet af militære veje, befæstede lejre, skyttegrave og tårne. Domitian var også involveret i at indeholde raiderne fra dacianerne, der truede den romerske provins Mesia (dagens Bulgarien). Denne ændring af formålet med brugen af ​​de militære styrker blev ledsaget af en ændring i deres sammensætning: et stigende antal tropper blev rekrutteret i provinserne og mindre og mindre romerske borgere blev tiltrukket af en militær karriere, som ikke længere belønnede sine veteraner ved at distribuere jord og bytte.


Indhold

Titus blev født i Rom, sandsynligvis den 30. december 39 e.Kr., som den ældste søn af Titus Flavius ​​Vespasianus, almindeligvis kendt som Vespasian, og Domitilla den Ældre. [2] Han havde en yngre søster, Domitilla den yngre (født 45), og en yngre bror, Titus Flavius ​​Domitianus (født 51), almindeligvis omtalt som Domitian.

Familiebaggrund Rediger

Årtier med borgerkrig i løbet af 1. århundrede f.Kr. havde i høj grad bidraget til undergangen af ​​det gamle aristokrati i Rom, som gradvist blev udskiftet med en ny provinsiel italiensk adel i begyndelsen af ​​1. århundrede. [3] En sådan familie var gens Flavia, der steg fra relativ uklarhed til fremtrædende i kun fire generationer, der erhvervede rigdom og status under kejserne i Julio-Claudian-dynastiet. Titus oldefar, Titus Flavius ​​Petro, havde tjent som centurion under Pompejus under Cæsars borgerkrig. Hans militære karriere endte i skændsel, da han flygtede fra slagmarken i slaget ved Pharsalus i 48 f.Kr. [4]

Ikke desto mindre formåede Petro at forbedre sin status ved at gifte sig med den ekstremt velhavende Tertulla, hvis formue garanterede opadgående mobilitet for Petros søn Titus Flavius ​​Sabinus I, Titus bedstefar. [5] Sabinus selv samlede yderligere rigdom og mulig rytterstatus gennem sine tjenester som skatteopkræver i Asien og bankmand i Helvetia. Ved at gifte sig med Vespasia Polla allierede han sig med den mere prestigefyldte patricier gens Vespasia, hvilket sikrer hævningen af ​​hans sønner Titus Flavius ​​Sabinus II og Vespasian til senatorisk rang. [5]

Vespasians politiske karriere omfattede kontorer som quaestor, aedile og praetor og kulminerede med et konsulat i 51, året Domitian blev født. Som militær kommandant fik han tidlig ry ved at deltage i den romerske invasion af Storbritannien i 43. [6] Det lidt, der vides om Titus 'tidlige liv, er blevet givet videre af Suetonius, der registrerede, at han blev opdraget ved det kejserlige hof i selskabet af Britannicus, [7] søn af kejser Claudius, som ville blive myrdet af Nero i 55.

Historien blev endda fortalt, at Titus lå ved siden af ​​Britannicus den nat, han blev myrdet og nippet til den gift, der blev givet ham. [7] Yderligere detaljer om hans uddannelse er knappe, men det ser ud til, at han viste tidlige løfter inden for militærkunsten og var en dygtig digter og taler både på græsk og latin. [8]

Fra omkring 57 til 59 var han en militær tribune i Germania. Han tjente også i Britannia og ankom måske omkring 60 med forstærkninger nødvendige efter oprøret i Boudica. Omkring 63 vendte han tilbage til Rom og giftede sig med Arrecina Tertulla, datter af Marcus Arrecinus Clemens, en tidligere præfekt for Praetorian Guard. Hun døde omkring 65. [9]

Titus tog derefter en ny kone til en meget mere fornem familie, Marcia Furnilla. Marcias familie var imidlertid tæt forbundet med modstanden mod Nero. Hendes onkel Barea Soranus og hans datter Servilia var blandt dem, der omkom efter den mislykkede Pisonian -sammensværgelse af 65. [10] Nogle moderne historikere teoretiserer, at Titus blev skilt fra sin kone på grund af hendes families forbindelse til sammensværgelsen. [11] [12]

Titus giftede sig aldrig igen og ser ud til at have haft flere døtre, [13] mindst en af ​​dem af Marcia Furnilla. [14] Den eneste, man vidste havde overlevet til voksenalderen, var Julia Flavia, måske Titus 'barn af Arrecina, hvis mor også hed Julia. [15] I denne periode praktiserede Titus også jura og opnåede rang som kvæstor. [14]

Jødiske kampagner Rediger

I 66 gjorde jøderne i Judaea -provinsen oprør mod Romerriget. Cestius Gallus, arven fra Syrien, blev besejret i slaget ved Beth-Horon og tvunget til at trække sig tilbage fra Jerusalem. [16] Den pro-romerske kong Agrippa II og hans søster Berenice flygtede fra byen til Galilæa, hvor de senere overgav sig til romerne. [17]

Nero udpegede Vespasian til at nedlægge oprøret, der blev sendt til regionen med det samme med den femte legion og tiende legion. [17] Han fik senere følgeskab ved Ptolemais af Titus med den femtende legion. [18] Med en styrke på 60.000 professionelle soldater forberedte romerne sig til at feje tværs over Galilæa og marchere mod Jerusalem. [18]

Krigens historie blev detaljeret dækket af den romersk-jødiske historiker Josephus i hans arbejde Jødernes krig. Josephus tjente som kommandant i byen Yodfat, da den romerske hær invaderede Galilæa i 67. Efter en udmattende belejring, der varede 47 dage, faldt byen med anslået 40.000 dræbte. Titus var imidlertid ikke bare indstillet på at afslutte krigen. [19]

Da Josephus overlevede en af ​​flere gruppemord, overgav han sig til Vespasian og blev fange. Senere skrev han, at han havde givet romerne intelligens om det igangværende oprør. [20] I 68 blev hele kysten og den nordlige del af Judaea underlagt den romerske hær med afgørende sejre vundet ved Taricheae og Gamala, hvor Titus udmærkede sig som en dygtig general. [14] [21]

År for de fire kejsere Rediger

Den sidste og mest betydningsfulde befæstede by, som den jødiske modstand havde, var Jerusalem. Kampagnen gik pludselig i stå, da der kom nyheder om Neros død. [22] Næsten samtidigt havde det romerske senat erklæret Galba, guvernøren i Hispania, som kejser. Vespasian decided to await further orders and sent Titus to greet the new princeps. [23]

Before reaching Italy, Titus learnt that Galba had been murdered and replaced by Otho, the governor of Lusitania, and that Vitellius and his armies in Germania were preparing to march on the capital, intent on overthrowing Otho. Not wanting to risk being taken hostage by one side or the other, he abandoned the journey to Rome and rejoined his father in Judaea. [24] Meanwhile, Otho was defeated in the First Battle of Bedriacum and committed suicide. [25]

When the news reached the armies in Judaea and Ægyptus, they took matters into their own hands and declared Vespasian emperor on 1 July 69. [26] Vespasian accepted and, after negotiations by Titus, joined forces with Gaius Licinius Mucianus, governor of Syria. [27] A strong force drawn from the Judaean and Syrian legions marched on Rome under the command of Mucianus, and Vespasian travelled to Alexandria, leaving Titus in charge to end the Jewish rebellion. [28] [29] By the end of 69, the forces of Vitellius had been beaten, and Vespasian was officially declared emperor by the Senate on 21 December, thus ending the Year of the Four Emperors. [30]

Siege of Jerusalem Edit

Meanwhile, the Jews had become embroiled in a civil war of their own by splitting the resistance in Jerusalem among several factions. The Sicarii, led by Menahem ben Judah, could hold on for long the Zealots, led by Eleazar ben Simon, eventually fell under the command of the Galilean leader John of Gush Halav and the other northern rebel commander, Simon Bar Giora, managed to gain leadership over the Idumeans. [31] Titus besieged Jerusalem. The Roman Army was joined by the Twelfth Legion, which had been previously defeated under Cestius Gallus, and from Alexandria, Vespasian sent Tiberius Julius Alexander, governor of Egypt, to act as Titus' second in command. [32]

Titus surrounded the city with three legions (Vth, XIIth and XVth) on the western side and one (Xth) on the Mount of Olives to the east. He put pressure on the food and water supplies of the inhabitants by allowing pilgrims to enter the city to celebrate Passover and then refusing them egress. Jewish raids continuously harassed the Roman Army, one of which nearly resulted in Titus being captured. [33]

After attempts by Josephus to negotiate a surrender had failed, the Romans resumed hostilities and quickly breached the first and second walls of the city. [34] To intimidate the resistance, Titus ordered deserters from the Jewish side to be crucified around the city wall. [35] By that time the Jews had been exhausted by famine, and when the weak third wall was breached, bitter street fighting ensued. [36]

The Romans finally captured the Antonia Fortress and began a frontal assault on the gates of the Second Temple. [37] As they breached the gate, the Romans set the upper and lower city aflame, culminating with the destruction of the Temple. When the fires subsided, Titus gave the order to destroy the remainder of the city, allegedly intending that no one would remember the name Jerusalem. [38] The Temple was demolished, Titus's soldiers proclaimed him imperator in honour of the victory. [39]

Jerusalem was sacked and much of the population killed or dispersed. Josephus claims that 1,100,000 people were killed during the siege, most of whom were Jewish. [40] Josephus's death toll assumptions are rejected as impossible by modern scholarship since about a million people then lived in the Land of Israel, half of them Jewish, and sizable Jewish populations remained in the area after the war was over, even in the hard-hit region of Judea. [41] However, 97,000 were captured and enslaved, including Simon Bar-Giora and John of Gischala. [40] Many fled to areas around the Mediterranean Sea. Titus reportedly refused to accept a wreath of victory, as he claimed that he had not won the victory on his own but had been the vehicle through which their God had manifested his wrath against his people. [42]

The Jewish diaspora during the Temple’s destruction, according to Josephus, was in Parthia (Persia), Babylonia (Iraq), and Arabia, and some were beyond the Euphrates and in Adiabene (Kurdistan). [43]

Heir to Vespasian Edit

Unable to sail to Italy during the winter, Titus celebrated elaborate games at Caesarea Maritima and Berytus and then travelled to Zeugma on the Euphrates, where he was presented with a crown by Vologases I of Parthia. While he was visiting Antioch, he confirmed the traditional rights of the Jews in that city. [44]

On his way to Alexandria, he stopped in Memphis to consecrate the sacred bull Apis. According to Suetonius, that caused consternation since the ceremony required Titus to wear a diadem, which the Romans associated with monarchy, and the partisanship of Titus's legions had already led to fears that he might rebel against his father. Titus returned quickly to Rome in the hope, according to Suetonius, of allaying any suspicions about his conduct. [45]

Upon his arrival in Rome in 71, Titus was awarded a triumph. [46] Accompanied by Vespasian and Domitian, Titus rode into the city, enthusiastically saluted by the Roman populace and preceded by a lavish parade containing treasures and captives from the war. Josephus describes a procession with large amounts of gold and silver carried along the route, followed by elaborate re-enactments of the war, Jewish prisoners and finally the treasures taken from the Temple of Jerusalem, including the Menorah and the Pentateuch. [47] Simon Bar Giora was executed in the Forum, and the procession closed with religious sacrifices at the Temple of Jupiter. [48] The triumphal Arch of Titus, which stands at one entrance to the Forum, memorialises the victory of Titus.

With Vespasian declared emperor, Titus and his brother Domitian received the title of Cæsar from the Senate. [49] In addition to sharing tribunician power with his father, Titus held seven consulships during Vespasian's reign [50] and acted as his secretary, appearing in the Senate on his behalf. [50] More crucially, he was appointed Praetorian prefect (commander of the Praetorian Guard), ensuring its loyalty to the emperor and further solidifying Vespasian's position as a legitimate ruler. [50]

In that capacity, Titus achieved considerable notoriety in Rome for his violent actions, frequently ordering the execution of suspected traitors on the spot. [50] When in 79, a plot by Aulus Caecina Alienus and Eprius Marcellus to overthrow Vespasian was uncovered, Titus invited Alienus to dinner and ordered him to be stabbed before he had even left the room. [50] [51]

During the Jewish Wars, Titus had begun a love affair with Berenice, the sister of Agrippa II. [24] The Herodians had collaborated with the Romans during the rebellion, and Berenice herself had supported Vespasian in his campaign to become emperor. [52] In 75, she returned to Titus and openly lived with him in the palace as his promised wife. The Romans were wary of the eastern queen and disapproved of their relationship. [ citat nødvendig ] When the pair was publicly denounced by Cynics in the theatre, Titus caved in to the pressure and sent her away, [53] but his reputation suffered further regardless.

Succession Edit

Vespasian died of an infection on 23 [54] or 24 [55] June 79 AD, and was immediately succeeded by his son Titus. [56] As Pharaoh of Egypt, Titus adopted the titulary Autokrator Titos Kaisaros Hununefer Benermerut (“Emperor Titus Caesar, the perfect and popular youth”). [57] Because of his many (alleged) vices, many Romans feared that he would be another Nero. [58] Against those expectations, however, Titus proved to be an effective emperor and was well loved by the population, who praised him highly when they found that he possessed the greatest virtues, instead of vices. [58]

One of his first acts as emperor was to order a halt to trials based on treason charges, [59] which had long plagued the principate. The law of treason, or law of majestas, was originally intended to prosecute those who had corruptly "impaired the people and majesty of Rome" by any revolutionary action. [60] Under Augustus, however, that custom had been revived and applied to cover slander and libel as well. [60] This led to numerous trials and executions under Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero, and the formation of networks of informers (delators), which terrorised Rome's political system for decades. [59]

Titus put an end to that practice against himself or anyone else and declared:

It is impossible for me to be insulted or abused in any way. For I do naught that deserves censure, and I care not for what is reported falsely. As for the emperors who are dead and gone, they will avenge themselves in case anyone does them a wrong, if in very truth they are demigods and possess any power. [61]

Consequently, no senators were put to death during his reign [61] he thus kept to his promise that he would assume the office of Pontifex Maximus "for the purpose of keeping his hands unstained". [62] Informants were publicly punished and banished from the city. Titus further prevented abuses by making it unlawful for a person to be tried under different laws for the same offense. [59] Finally, when Berenice returned to Rome, he sent her away. [58]

As emperor, he became known for his generosity, and Suetonius states that upon realising he had brought no benefit to anyone during a whole day he remarked, "Friends, I have lost a day". [59]

Udfordringer Rediger

Although Titus's brief reign was marked by a relative absence of major military or political conflicts, he faced a number of major disasters. A few months after his accession, Mount Vesuvius erupted. [63] The eruption almost completely destroyed the cities and resort communities around the Bay of Naples. The cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum were buried under metres of stone and lava, [64] killing thousands. [65] Titus appointed two ex-consuls to organise and coordinate the relief effort and personally donated large amounts of money from the imperial treasury to aid the victims of the volcano. [59] Additionally, he visited Pompeii once after the eruption and again the following year. [66]

During the second visit, in spring of 80, a fire broke out in Rome and burned large parts of the city for three days and three nights. [59] [66] Although the extent of the damage was not as disastrous as during the Great Fire of 64 and crucially spared the many districts of insulae, Cassius Dio records a long list of important public buildings that were destroyed, including Agrippa's Pantheon, the Temple of Jupiter, the Diribitorium, parts of the Theatre of Pompey, and the Saepta Julia among others. [66] Once again, Titus personally compensated for the damaged regions. [66] According to Suetonius, a plague also broke out during the fire. [59] The nature of the disease, however, and the death toll are unknown.

Meanwhile, war had resumed in Britannia, where Gnaeus Julius Agricola pushed further into Caledonia and managed to establish several forts there. [67] As a result of his actions, Titus received the title of imperator for the fifteenth time, between September 9 and December 31, 79 AD. [68]

His reign also saw the rebellion led by Terentius Maximus, one of several false Neros who appeared throughout the 70s. [69] Although Nero was primarily known as a universally-hated tyrant, there is evidence that for much of his reign, he remained highly popular in the eastern provinces. Reports that Nero had survived his overthrow were fuelled by the confusing circumstances of his death and several prophecies foretelling his return. [70]

According to Cassius Dio, Terentius Maximus resembled Nero in voice and appearance and, like him, sang to the lyre. [61] Terentius established a following in Asia Minor but was soon forced to flee beyond the Euphrates and took refuge with the Parthians. [61] [69] In addition, sources state that Titus discovered that his brother Domitian was plotting against him but refused to have him killed or banished. [62] [71]

Public works Edit

Construction of the Flavian Amphitheatre, now better known as the Colosseum, was begun in 70 under Vespasian and was finally completed in 80 under Titus. [72] In addition to providing spectacular entertainments to the Roman populace, the building was also conceived as a gigantic triumphal monument to commemorate the military achievements of the Flavians during the Jewish Wars. [73]

The inaugural games lasted for a hundred days and were said to be extremely elaborate, including gladiatorial combat, fights between wild animals (elephants and cranes), mock naval battles for which the theatre was flooded, horse races and chariot races. [74] During the games, wooden balls were dropped into the audience, inscribed with various prizes (clothing, gold or even slaves), which could then be traded for the designated item. [74]

Adjacent to the amphitheatre, within the precinct of Nero's Golden House, Titus had also ordered the construction of a new public bath house, the Baths of Titus. [74] Construction of the building was hastily finished to coincide with the completion of the Flavian Amphitheatre. [58]

Practice of the imperial cult was revived by Titus, but apparently, it met with some difficulty since Vespasian was not deified until six months after his death. [75] To honour and glorify the Flavian dynasty further, foundations were laid for what would later become the Temple of Vespasian and Titus, which was finished by Domitian. [76] [77]

Død Rediger

At the closing of the games, Titus officially dedicated the amphitheatre and the baths in what was his final recorded act as Emperor. [71] He set out for the Sabine territories but fell ill at the first posting station [78] where he died of a fever, reportedly in the same farmhouse as his father. [79] Allegedly, the last words he uttered before passing away were "I have made but one mistake". [71] [78]

Titus had ruled the Roman Empire for just over two years: from the death of his father in 79 to his own on 13 September 81. [71] He was succeeded by Domitian, whose first act as emperor was to deify his brother. [80]

Historians have speculated on the exact nature of his death and to which mistake Titus alluded in his final words. Philostratus wrote that he was poisoned by Domitian with a sea hare (Aplysia depilans) and that his death had been foretold to him by Apollonius of Tyana. [81] Suetonius and Cassius Dio maintain that he died of natural causes, but both accuse Domitian of having left the ailing Titus for dead. [71] [80] Consequently, Dio believed the mistake to refer to not having Titus's brother executed when he was found to be openly plotting against him. [71]

The Babylonian Talmud (Gittin 56b) attributes Titus's death to an insect that flew into his nose and picked at his brain for seven years in a repetition of another legend referring to the biblical King Nimrod. [82] [83] [84] Jewish tradition says that Titus was plagued by God for destroying the second Temple Mount and died as a result of a gnat going up his nose, causing a large growth inside of his brain that killed him. [85] [86]


Neokoroi: Greek cities and Roman Emperors. Cincinnati Classical Studies, New Series Volume IX

One of the most distinctive aspects of the practices which modern scholars identify as “imperial cult” is the institution of “neokoria”. In the first century C.E., the term “Neokoros” (“temple warden”, originally an official charged with maintaining a temple building) came to be applied to cities in certain (mostly Anatolian) provinces of the eastern Roman empire, first as a metaphor, but later as a formally regulated title, in celebration of their possession of a temple of the Roman emperor administered by the provincial league of cities (koinon). This was both highly prized and fiercely competed for a successful neokoros city usually flaunted the title in its coinage and inscriptions. The process by which a provincial imperial temple was granted involved internal dialogue within the koina of Greek cities and between their representatives and the Roman emperors and senate. This formalization made it a much more coherent phenomenon than most aspects of imperial cult, both capable and worthy of detailed study, thereby illuminating many aspects of ancient history. Burrell’s 1 splendid monograph brings together all of the evidence for these neokoroi, but it is more than a simple catalogue. She also analyses the institution with clarity, insight and incisiveness. This is the most comprehensive work on the topic to have been produced to date, and is therefore likely to remain definitive for quite some time. 2

Just as human neokoroi were the caretakers, rather than owners, of their temples, so neokoros cities were simply the hosts for a provincial temple that was formally administered by the koinon yet it was a highly prestigious honour. Being both unambiguous and flexible, the title “neokoros” fit well with the game of one-upmanship among rivalrous Greek cities. It could be applied both to a city and its citizens, and — crucially — it could be multiplied without conceptual difficulty (compare “metropolis”) when a neokoros city received more than one koinon temple (pp. 3-6). Formalization of neokoria as an institution became necessary because it was useful to all of the interested parties, Roman authorities as much as Greek cities: it “reified a reciprocal bond between city and emperor [and] gave the city higher standing among its peers” (p. 283). Only in exceptional circumstances was it granted for a temple to a traditional divinity rather than a new provincial temple to the emperor, and even then it was still strictly centrally regulated (otherwise, any city could have freely used the title for any of its temples, which did not happen: p. 118 cf. pp. 69-70).

The book is organized in two parts, the first a compendium of the evidence for each neokoros city, the second a series of synthetic analyses. There are thirty-seven black-and-white plates at the end, containing 22 architectural ground-plans and 175 photographs. Each part essentially treats the same material in different ways, “to allow the reader to see the same evidence in several different contexts” (“How to Use This Book”, pp. 12-13). It is a book to be consulted, rather than read through from cover to cover. It is easily navigable: all the material pertaining to any individual city or province can be immediately located within the relevant chapter(s), while clear chapter titles and sub-headings immediately identify the contents of the synthetic chapters.

Part One (pp. 17-269) contains some 37 chapters, one for each city attested in any medium as Neokoros. The cities are grouped according to the koinon to which they belonged. Both the koina and the cities within each koinon are arranged according to the chronological order of their first neokoria. Within each chapter, the evidence is discussed according to chronological relevance, and each neokoria which the city is known to have held is considered separately a list of all the coins and inscriptions which name a city as neokoros is appended to the end of each city-chapter. Although fifteen different provinces are represented, Asia dominates, and certain cities are more prominent than others: the twenty-one pages on Pergamon (pp. 17-37) or twenty-seven (pp. 59-85) on Ephesos contrast with a mere three for Tralles — or the single page devoted to Tripolis in Phoenicia (p. 252), the only city of its Koinon believed to have been neokoros.

Every case is carefully argued and analysed, generally persuasively. B’s analysis is always informed and up-to-date she is also well aware of current archaeological work in Turkey (including that conducted by Turkish archaeologists). A few suggestions seem a little contrived, though not absurd — that Perinthos became twice neokoros under Septimius Severus, but did not say so until a rival Thracian city became neokoros under Elagabalus (p. 241), or that the title neokoros was granted for the Temple of the Augusti at Ephesos under Nero (when coins were minted showing the temples and title), but that the temple itself was not completed for twenty years (p. 62). Nevertheless, when appropriate, B displays commendable willingness to recognize the limitations of the evidence, or to admit that her preferred interpretation is provisional.

At her best, as in her brilliant untangling of the confusing mess of the third neokoria of Ephesos (pp. 70-75), B expertly combines the skills of an historian, a numismatist, an epigraphist and an archaeologist. Coins bear the greatest weight of most of the arguments in the book, and sharp and clear photographs of 152 of the most important are shown with their obverse and reverse sides, all at a scale of 1:1. Inscriptions, however, do not fare so well. B cites only those lines that attest to the title neokoros, thereby sometimes omitting those parts (such as imperial titulature) that are relevant to either the date or the significance of the inscription (e.g. her Inscription 2 of Laodikeia, p. 120 = IGUR 37 cf. the inscriptions of Tralles, p. 131). Another problem is that neither line divisions nor line numbers are indicated in her texts, which makes it very hard to visualize the original stones or to assess the validity of restorations, since it is impossible to tell the probable number of missing letters — all compounded by the fact that no inscription is illustrated. Since full epigraphic references are provided, original publications can be found easily, but this almost defeats the purpose of quoting inscriptions at all, especially when she proposes new readings (e.g. Side Inscription 4, pp. 186-7 = SEG VI 731) without printing texts of them.

Many of the conclusions of the synthetic analyses in Part Two (pp. 273-374) will not startle readers familiar with recent trends in research on imperial cults. B broadly accepts the current consensus model for the imperial cult which follows the landmark study of Simon Price, 3 fully acknowledging her debt to his general and particular observations on Asian ruler cult (p. 1, fn. 1). But it is still useful to have so much sensible discussion and synthesis in one place, and there is much value in B’s being able to bring documentary bulk and force of argument to these topics.

Chapter 38 is a general historical analysis of the development of neokoria (pp. 275-304). This is a significant contribution notably, one of the few general criticisms of Price’s work was his treatment of cult as a synchronic rather than diachronic phenomenon, 4 thereby leaving the impression of something that was more uniform across time and space than is warranted. While the status of neokoria seems to have continued to be vital well into the later third century (and beyond), B’s subtle and rigorous analysis is able to show how both Greek and Roman attitudes and practices changed from the early days under Augustus. She demonstrates the value for the historian of tracking such things as the disappearance and re-emergence of the title neokoros from a city’s quota, shedding welcome light on third century history, as successive emperors were condemned or rehabilitated. Neokoriai granted by Caracalla were often overturned by a successor and later restored neokoriai granted by Elagabalus were mostly cancelled by Severus Alexander but regained under Valerian.

Chapter 39 (pp. 305-330) assesses the nature of the koinon temples and of the statues within them. B’s survey of the archaeological remains shows that koinon temples tended to be large, conservative and Hellenistic in style, not following a “cookie-cutter pattern,” but “adapted to conditions in the cities where they were built” (p. 317 cf. p. 111, pp. 306-309). 5 This can be instantly backed up by a glance at the plates, where the ground-plan of every archaeologically-known koinon temple is beautifully drawn on a uniform scale. Also invaluable is B’s discussion of the iconography of the recognized cult statues from imperial koinon temples (pp. 317-323). Every substantial identified fragment of the Antonine sculpture group from the Temple of Artemis at Sardis, the head of Titus from Ephesos and the pieces of the statues of Trajan and Hadrian from Pergamon is illustrated (figs. 23-45), surely the first time that they have all appeared in print in the same place.

Chapter 40 (pp. 331-342), on the Greek cities, covers some familiar ground on the Graeco-Roman elites, euergetism, and festivals. Notably, since the granting of neokoria did not entail an associated festival without a separate petition, there was no link between the number of prize crowns displayed on coins and the number of times the city was neokoros (pp. 173, 217, 335 ff.). The presence of an imperial title in a festival cannot automatically be taken to indicate koinon games associated with neokoria, and they should not be used to draw inferences about the nature of provincial cults. 6

Chapter 41 (pp. 343-358), on the provincial koina, is the most fascinating of the synthetic chapters, illuminating the ways that pursuit of neokoriai was implicated in the dynamics of inter-city rivalry. The increase in the number of neokoros cities by the third century led to a sort of title inflation, parallel to the monetary inflation of the time. A ‘title race’ was generated as the title spread to ‘second tier’ cities the major cities of a province sought multiple titles to keep ahead of their neighbours, some boasting of being up to “six times neokoros”. Until the very end, however, the quantity of times that a city could be neokoros relative to its provincial rivals was strictly proportional to its size and importance the term thus functioned also as a kind of “barometer of status” (p. 203).

Chapter 42 (pp. 359-371) examines the role of Roman officials, from the living and deceased emperors to the Senate and proconsuls. This is solid and useful, but it would have been further strengthened had B been able to take account of I. Gradel, Emperor Worship and Roman Religion, Oxford 2002. 7

By exploring the entire phenomenon of neokoria, B is able to make important observations throughout on many aspects of civic life in the Roman East. B suggests that the idea of exclusively male priests for male emperors and women for females may be faulty, pp. 40-41, noting that a female chief priestess of the Augusti is depicted wearing an agonothetic crown with both male and female busts. There is no reason to postulate an (otherwise unattested) imperial visit as the occasion for an emperor’s granting of neokoria to a city (pp. 194-195, 218) — although naturally an emperor’s presence in the general vicinity could make a difference, since he was more accessible to petitions and embassies (pp. 227-228). B is properly sceptical of the naïve association with imperial cult of the common formula in the East in which structures are dedicated to patron god, emperor(s) and city (pp 31-2, 69). 8 B also shows that Price’s notion of a general Hellenic anxiety about the emperor’s equivocal status manifested in imperial cults at least does not apply to neokoriai. Where a koinon temple was built specifically for an emperor, he was always the primary object of cult, and the temple was seen to belong to him (pp. 324-326). 9 Even when the temple was shared with Roma or another cult partner, this other god was often merely “a placeholder, whose name could drop from common reference” (pp. 2-3). Significantly, this was never true in reverse, even when the other deity was one of the traditional pantheon. Thus a coin depicting Pergamon’s first and second koinon temples could show not just Augustus standing alone in his temple but also Trajan alone within his (even though it was shared with Zeus Philios), “indicating … what the Pergamenes thought to be essential: the emperors” (p. 25).

B’s command of her material is complete. Errors of fact are almost non-existent in the text most are very minor, and never of direct relevance to B’s main theme. It would not have been Eusebius, but his Latin translator Jerome who “translated [Zeus Xenios] to ‘Jupiter Peregrinus'” (p. 264). The idea of a ‘colossal eikon’ of Hadrian as object of worship in the Panhellenion at Athens (p. 318, citing A.D. Nock 10 ) no longer has any evidentiary basis 11 the inscription cited by Nock as IG III 9 was re-edited as IG II 2 1081/5 with the (restored) reference to Hadrian removed. Her repetition of Cassius Dio’s term “hero” to describe Julius Caesar as an object of cult (pp. 147, 163-164 etc.) is misleading if it is taken to imply that “hero-cult” in the Greek sense is meant. Dio clearly uses the term as a translation of divus (it applies to the practice of emperor-worship in general: “and indeed they are made heroes”, i.e. are proclaimed as divi, 51.20.8 cf. Dio 54.35.4, 56.46.3).

The bibliography is both current and long. Inevitably, however, it might be supplemented in places: among the many recent works on Lykia, J. Ganzert, Das Kenotaph für Gaius Caesar in Limyra, Tübingen 1984 and now C. Kokkinia, Die Opramoas-Inschrift von Rhodiapolis, Bonn 2000, are relevant to B’s discussion on pp. 254-5 add B. Le Guen, Les associations de technites dionysiaques à l’époque hellénistique, Paris 2001, and S. Aneziri, Die Vereine der Dionysischen Techniten, Historia Einzelschriften 163, Wiesbaden, 2003 to p. 258, n. 12.

In general, the book is attractively produced, with very few misprints (“obcure”, p. 354 “had a rival in for the title”, p. 184 correct the reference �-2”, under “Senate, Roman” on p. 421 of the Index, to �-370”). British spellings occasionally intrude (“practised” p. 94 “judgement” p. 371) but for the most part such mid-Atlantic confusion has been avoided. Turkish toponyms are not always spelled consistently: “Ayvagedigi Hoard” and “Ayvadegi Hoard” within the same sentence on p. 217 is presumably a misprint, but “Degirmen-tepe” (p. 46) mysteriously reappears as “Deirman-tepe” on p. 307. The typesetting of the footnotes in Chapter 8 goes awry at the bottom of p. 121: for the remainder of the chapter most of the footnotes appear on the page after the one containing the text to which they refer. The plates are not numbered, even though illustrations are always referred to in the text by plate number.

The only serious criticism of the book is that the marriage of text and illustration is not always as harmonious as it could be. While rightly emphasizing the importance of temple-placement within the urban environment throughout the text, B misses the opportunity to demonstrate it visually. For instance, a general view of the Akropolis of Pergamon, dominated by the temple of Zeus Philios and Trajan and its massive vaulted substructures, would instantly show the extent to which that temple is “magnificently sited” (p. 306). More seriously, a handful of photographs (figures 35-36 and 42-43) are disappointingly sub-standard. Figure 36 at least illustrates an otherwise invisible part of a head of Faustina from Sardis, but the blurred and unevenly lit figs. 35, 42 and 43 add very little. B’s self-imposed restrictions mean that comparative material is not illustrated, even when it would strengthen her arguments. Since she wishes to re-identify one of the colossal Sardis heads as a portrait of Lucilla (wife of Lucius Verus, whom she suggestively proposes, pp. 105-106, as the subject of another member of the Sardis group, discovered in 1996 and previously identified as Commodus), it would have been more helpful to illustrate a comparandum such as the portrait head in the Izmir Museum, to which she refers on p. 106. Statues that are described at some length could profitably have been included as photographs (e.g. the Ciliciarch from Pompeiopolis, p. 215). More generally, it is a pity that not there is not a single photograph of an inscription nor of any kind of architecture, from decorative ornament to still-standing koinon temple. Also conspicuously absent are city-plans, which makes it hard to follow some of B’s detailed topographic arguments. The situation of Degirmen-tepe (a height in Izmir) relative to the rest of the city is very important for the possible location of Smyrna’s temple of Hadrian (pp. 45-46), yet few readers are likely to know where it is similarly with the controversy over the site of Temple of Hadrian at Ephesos (pp. 67-69). Furthermore, the neokoroi of B’s study are now spread across five different countries, and not all sites are equally familiar even to archaeologists. This omission is particularly odd in that B emphasizes in the text the importance of analysing temples in their greater urban setting her illustrations appear to be working against her own sound instincts.

The temple-plans do not adequately distinguish between hypothetical restoration and remains on the ground, most egregiously in the case of the pseudodipteral temple at Sardis, of which only the south-east corner was ever excavated but which is confidently drawn (figure 10) as a complete temple. 12 The excavators themselves were more cautious, 13 as is B herself in the text of the book (compare p. 101). Indeed, one wonders to what extent B actually oversaw production of these drawings she comments mysteriously on p. 117 that the seven-step krepis of the Temple of Zeus at Aizanoi was “unfortunately omitted” in figure 13. Finally, the plans themselves can be confusing, particularly Figs. 11-12, which are almost impossible to make sense of none has a key.

The book, though generally jargon-free, is not always friendly to neophytes. Architectural terminology is never glossed. B regularly cites a city with a very common name (Neapolis, Antioch, Herakleia, Nikopolis etc.) without specifying which one she means. This may cause problems for advanced undergraduates or even many graduate students, for whom otherwise Part Two would be ideal as a preliminary overview of the field. Moreover, in both parts of the book, the reader is often sent elsewhere in order to make an assessment of many of B’s judgements, or even to recover contextual information about the cities, coins or inscriptions that she includes. Since the book is already amply long (and expensive), perhaps this was a necessary trade-off for B’s great service in having gathered together so much useful material, synthesis and analysis. Perhaps also the high price of the book will mean that it will mostly be purchased by libraries, so B’s presupposition was fair that further reference material would be accessible to her readers.

B’s comprehensive, thorough and judicious treatment of all of the evidence for neokoroi should go a long way towards dispelling some of the confusion, misunderstandings and uncertainties that still persist. She amply documents why the desire to obtain neokoriai was such an important aspect of Hellenic civic life, how it was at the centre of the cities’ self-representation to themselves and their rivals, and why it mattered also to the Romans. The result is a book that clarifies and deepens both our general and our particular understanding of a phenomenon that was one of the most significant aspects of civic life in the eastern Roman empire, and historians and archaeologists alike will consult it with profit. No one engaged in research in Roman Asia Minor should ignore this book, and we will doubtless be returning to it for many years to come.

1. The author is henceforth referred to as “B”.

2. Supplanting K. Hanell, “Neokoroi” in RE 16.2, pp. 2422-2428 (1935).

3. S.R.F. Price, Rituals and Power, Cambridge 1984.

4. Cf. S. J. Friesen, Twice Neokoros: Ephesus, Asia and the Cult of the Flavian Imperial Family, Leiden 1993, pp. 142 ff.

5. Price’s work (Note 2) already suggested this, conforming to the pattern set by temples of Augustus across the empire: cf. H. Hänlein-Schäfer, Veneratio Augusti, Rome 1985.

6. Cp. Friesen (Note 4), Chapter 5, on the Olympia at Ephesos.

7. Gradel’s analysis of Cassius Dio 51.20.6-9 would also have been helpful B’s interpretation is perhaps overly strict.

8. Cf. P. Veyne, “Les honneurs posthumes de Flavia Domitilla”, Latomus 21, 1962, esp. pp. 81-84 (not cited by B).

9. Following A.D. Nock (“Synnaos Theos”, HSCPh 41, 1930, pp. 1-62), Price (Note 2, pp. 146-156 “Between Man and God”, JHS 100, 1980) argued that in instances of temple-sharing between an emperor and a traditional deity, the emperor was often in a subordinated position, reflecting a status somehow less divine than his cult partner. But the cases they analysed concerned the addition of an emperor to a pre-existing temple, so the ‘problem’ turns out to be less existential and theological than a reflection of the relative venerability of the cults at any particular shrine.

11. Unless with D. Willers, Hadrians panhellenische Programm, Basel 1990, one identifies the precinct of the Temple of Olympian Zeus at Athens (in which Pausanias saw a colossal statue of Hadrian, 1.18) with the Panhellenion, though no ancient writer mentions such a thing, and the location and even nature of the Panhellenion itself remains controversial.

12. The existence of an opisthodomos is purely conjectural, and the long sides could certainly have had thirteen instead of the restored fifteen columns, like the Temple of the Sebastoi at Ephesos: cf. D. Pohl, Kaiserzeitliche Tempel in Kleinasien, Asia Minor Studien, Bd. 43, Bonn 2002, pp. 65-72.

13. Compare Illustration 7, Fig. j, in C. Ratté, T. N. Howe and C. Foss, “An Early Imperial Pseudodipteral Temple at Sardis”, AJA 90, 1986, p. 61.


The Fall of Rome Lesson Plan and Worksheet

The year, 476 AD, was the year the empire of Rome fell. While the Byzantine Empire, once the eastern portion of the Roman Empire, continued on successfully, 476 AD marks the last of the Western emperors and the end the powerful Roman Empire begun with Augustus in 27 BC.

The Fall of Rome Lesson Plan and Worksheet

Lesson Focus: Examining and understanding the reasons and forces behind the end of the Roman Empire.

Grade Level: 7 - 12

Lesson Outline: Basically a lecture format with an accompanying worksheet for students.

Examining the reasons for the decline of the Rome begins with understanding the civilization prior to the fall, before power struggles, inept leaders, domestic factors and invaders collided in history to devastate the once omnipotent empire.

  • Begin by going discussing the Five Good Emperors and what is known as the Pax Romana or “Roman Peace" (31 BC – 180 AD). A blank worksheet for students to complete is provided along with an answer sheet for teachers.
  • Move on to theories about what caused the end of the Roman Empire.

The prominent argument as to Rome’s demise is often that inflation coupled with a struggling economy were to blame. Recent archeological discoveries have dampened the strength of this argument however. While rising inflation was surely a contributing cause, agricultural output was shown to be up in the century preceding the overthrow of Romulus Augustulus (476 AD) and the end of imperial Rome so, Rome’s economy was not primarily to blame. Dependence on slave labor and an over extension of imperial resources were also problems during Rome’s decline. The growth of the latifundia in the countryside also shifted some of the wealth from urban areas to rural ones. While this may not seem troublesome on the surface, this fact would prove to be significant to imperial Rome’s downfall.

During the turbulent time frame 192 AD to 284 AD, there were twenty-eight emperors put into power by the Roman legions. At the same time, Roman provinces became increasingly more populated and controlled by non-Romans such as the Goths, Saxons, and other groups. In the fourth and fifth centuries, the growing strength and cohesiveness of Germanic tribes revealed itself further in the unison and ambition of the Franks and the Goths. These new arrivals to the Roman world-Anglo,-Saxons in Britain, Goths in Gaul and Spain, and Vandals in North Africa-gained wealth and power. These were the new immigrant “Romans”, and pragmatic Italian Romans in their regions began to transfer allegiance from Rome to the local elite. Power was no longer limited to the city of Rome or wealthy Roman patricians. In an empire as vast as Rome, this in itself was a threat to its stability.

Meanwhile, the Huns united under Attila and threatened from the east. Resisting foreign aggression, be it from the Huns or the Germanic tribes, was hampered by the cost of the army and the sheer size of the empire. Rome had spent much of its resources on defeating the Persians in the third century, depleting the treasury and its stock of precious metals. As time went on, coins were minted and the soldiers’ were paid, but with a currency no longer sufficiently backed by silver and gold. Inflation set it and quality of life, especially in the cities, began to suffer.

The empire is made into four districts by Emperor Diocletian in 284 AD and governed by co-emperors. His retirement in 305 AD is followed by a series of civil wars (305 – 312 AD). In 312 AD, Constantine becomes the emperor in the eastern half of the empire and moves the eastern capital to Byzantium in 330 AD. He renames the city Constantinople. Following Constantine’s death in 337 AD, his successor Theodosius edicts that, upon his own death, the Empire be officially separated into East and West. This split becomes complete in 395 AD Theodosius dies and his sons are named as emperors. The western half is referred to as the Roman Empire and the eastern half becomes the Byzantine Empire.

Invasions and turmoil continue to plague imperial Rome and the Visigoth chief Alaric captures Rome for a while in 410 AD. While Alaric moves on, the sacking or Rome is shocking and demoralizing. The scourge of Attila the Hun is ended only by his death in 453 AD. Rome continues to be assaulted and the empire is finally brought to an end in 476 AD.


Se videoen: Romerriget - Fra republik til kejserdømme 1