December 9, 1998
His exploits caused the forum to be soaked with blood, and led to armed conflict in the streets as a part of daily life in ancient Rome. To a Republican government that was already outdated, Clodius helped deliver the final deathblow. His actions showed the flaws of the Roman Republic, and ultimately necessitated the rise of dictators such as Pompey and Caesar who could restore order.
Mob violence had always played an important role in the Republic. In the late Republic it was much more evident. Demagogues such as the Gracchi and Saturninus based their power on the support of the Roman Proletariat, which was politically emasculated but physically a force to deal with. However, the organized gangs that Clodius and his opponent Milo used were unprecedented. We can see the significance of these gangs by looking briefly at the history of Clodius himself, the nature of the coalition he assembled, and at the reign of violence he brought to the city of Rome, and its effects.
Born Publius Pulcher Claudius, Clodius changed his last name to make it less respectable. Clodius’s early political career is known only in fragments. Surprisingly he, like many of the young nobles who would later join him, was from an optimate family (Rome’s conservative party) (Huzar 25). Clodius’s father was one of Sulla’s patrician officers and was killed at the Colline Gate in 82 BCE (Weigal 93), leaving Clodius to be raised by his older brother Appius Pulcher Claudius (Gruen 59). In 70 BCE Clodius joined his brother-in-law Lucullus (Weigal 93) as an officer in Lucullus’s army against Mithridates. Here, Clodius started a mutiny from the headquarters of the army. Declaring himself the “soldier’s friend”, Clodius successfully encouraged the soldiers to rebel by contrasting Lucullus’s tightness with the spoils to Pompey’s generosity. Lucullus was unable to continue the war on account of his brother-in-law, and Clodius soon found himself unwelcome (Kahn 115). Clodius transferred to the army of his other brother in law, and had many adventures (such as joining the Syrian army against the Arabs, or being captured by pirates) before returning to Rome in 65 BCE (Weigal 93).
Clodius became the leader of what Cicero described as a “gang of young incorrigibles” (as qouted in Huzar 24). These youths from powerful families were involved in drinking and playing dice. They seemed almost to desire that their actions would shock respectable Rome. Among Clodius’s gang were Mark Antony and Curio, who would later become rising political stars on their own.
Although Clodius and his company loved to shock their fellow citizens, Clodius was unprepared for the backlash that followed his most outrageous stunt. Clodius disguised himself as a woman and attended the Bona Dea (good goddess) festival. For a man to attend this fextival was a sacrilege that the Romans were terrified would upset the Pax Deorum. When Clodius was found out, he was attacked by a mob of furious women and barely made his escape. Since Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus at the time, the festival had been held at his house. It was rumored that Clodius was having an affair with Caesar’s wife. Caesar divorced his wife because of this, but appears to have held no grudge against Clodius (Ward 205-209).
Clodius was brought to trial for his sacrilege, but insisted he was innocent since he had been in Interama on the day in question, fifty miles away from Rome. Cicero destroyed Clodius’s alibi by revealing that Clodius had visited him on that same day. Clodius was acquitted, but he never forgave Cicero (Weigal 95).
Desirous of increased political power, Clodius wanted to get elected into the Tribune of Plebs. However, since he was a patrician, he was ineligible. With the help of Julius Caesar, acting as Pontifex Maximus, Clodius arranged to have himself adopted into a Plebeian family (Kahn 203). Clodius was elected as a Tribune, just as he desired. Clodius made it clear he was out to get Cicero from his new position of power. During the Catiline conspiracy, Cicero as Consul had put to death Roman citizens without a trial. Clodius hoped to condemn him for this. Without waiting to see what Clodius would do to him, Cicero fled into voluntary exile (Furhmann 94-96).
As a Tribune, Clodius worked to increase his power base. He succeeded in passing two bills, one of which reconstituted the collegia, previously outlawed in 64 BCE, and allowed the formation of new collegia. The second bill provided free grain to all citizens, dramatically increasing Clodius’s support with the urban poor. Despite optimate criticism, Clodius opened up the temple of Castor to registration in the new collegia (Kahn214, 215).
“Despite his adventurism and the instability of the coalition he assembled, Clodius represented Caesar’s most effective ally,” (Kahn 214). However, regardless of how useful Clodius was, Caesar was soon to regret the support he had lent to him. “Whilst it is true that each of the triumvirate at various times hoped to use Clodius for his own ends, the fact remains that the tribune’s program was of his own construction to suit his own ambition for dominance,” (Shotter 71). Once Caesar left for Gaul, Clodius was unleashed.
Pompey and Caesar were both becoming unpopular, and Clodius saw this as a chance to switch his allegiance. Clodius picked apart some of Caesar’s legislation, but as the self-declared champion of the people, his primary target was Pompey. Pompey and Crassus were competing with each other. Clodius supported Crassus in this competition in return for interest-free loans from the richest man in Rome (Huzar 25). Clodius undermined Pompey’s treaties in the East, attacked him verbally, and even had his roughs assault Pompey in public. Soon, Pompey would not even leave his house because of Clodius (Gruen 99).
The worst insult of all concerned the son of Tigranes, who was a hostage Pompey had brought back from the East. He was kept captive in the house of Praetor Lucius Flavius. Clodius liberated the captive, and when Flavius tried to recapture him, a battle was fought outside the city gates. Clodius was ultimately successful, but not without heavy losses on both sides (Greenhalgh 11-13).
In retaliation, Pompey gave his support to Titus Annius Milo, an impoverished nobleman who would soon become Clodius’s worst enemy (Heaton 71). Milo formed his own gang to counteract that of Clodius, and thereafter, until the death of Clodius in 52 BCE, the streets of Rome were filled with blood as the two rival gangs battled each other for control.
Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to examine the nature of Clodius’s support, as well as that of Milo’s. Clodius’s supporters were mostly the urban poor, recruited through the collegia and organized either by profession (guilds) or district (Lintott 193). Clodius’s gang consisted largely of slaves, but included a large number of freemen and urban poor. Of the latter, many were down and out, but many were also skilled men with trades who felt exploited by those who strived to maintain the status quo (Lintott 196-197). Clodius had several other gang leaders to help him keep his men organized. Their names are given to us by Cicero, but little other information remains of them (Lintott 83).
The tactics of Clodius were unique to his time. Outside of the city lay proconsular armies that could crush Clodius and his gang. However, as long as the law was observed and these armies could not enter Rome, Clodius was more than a force to be reckoned with. His gang was equivalent to a miniature army. Futhermore, Clodius was not interested in votes outside of the city of Rome, as both the Gracchi and Saturninus had been. Clodius “pursued urban political power as an end to itself,” (Lintott 196).
Under these circumstances, the only way Clodius could have been opposed was by a man like Milo. Milo’s gang consisted not of dedicated volunteers like that of Clodius, but mostly gladiators he had bought. His success against Clodius’s forces “showed that a small group of professionals could be as satisfactory as Clodius’s mass movement where violence alone was required” (Lintott 85). Also, whereas Clodius only relied on the City for support, Milo had men outside of Rome he could call in for support when he needed to.
Because the activities of these gangs were legally defensible if it could be proved that the other gang had struck first, they were largely immune to the courts, although gang leaders were occasionally brought to trial (Lintott 29).
With two rival gangs now in place, the violence increased dramatically. Sympathy turned against Clodius, and many began to wish taht Cicero was back in Rome to make trouble for him. When the question of Cicero’s recall was discussed in 57 BCE, Clodius and his forces attacked the assembly, killing many. Cicero’s brother, Quintus Cicero, escaped the slaughter only by hiding under a pile of corpses. The senate continued to deliberate the question of Cicero, and when Clodius tried to stop them, Milo retaliated in kind. By midsummer, Clodius’s forces were worn out, and the vote was Cicero’s recall (Heaton 72).
Cicero returned and attached himself to Milo for support against Clodius. Since Cicero returned a hero, he was able to convince the Senate to restore his house (which Clodius and his gang had destroyed) at public expense (Fuhrmann 96). Clodius and his company drove away the workers from Cicero’s house, and destroyed what was already there. Clodius also burned Quintus Cicero’s house, and then went to storm Milo’s property. After doing battle with Milo’s forces, Clodius succeeded in setting fire to his house, but not before losing many of his men (Gruen 294).
Often, Clodius attacked Cicero directly with his gang, doing battle with Cicero’s bodyguards. In one of these encounters, Clodius apparently got himself into a position were he was at the mercy of Cicero, but Cicero gave his bodyguard the signal to let Clodius go (Furhmann 119).
Clodius ran for Aedile in 56 BCE. Although Milo as a tribune tried to postpone the elections, he was unsuccessful. Clodius attempted to bring Milo to trial for using gladiators to defend himself, even though Clodius was guilty of this as well. Pompey tried to speak in Milo’s defense, but he was constantly interrupted by personal abuse from Clodius. Clodius acted like a cheerleader with the crowd, shouting out, “Who is starving the people to death? Who wanted to be sent to Alexandria? Who is the dissolute general? Who scratches his head with one finger?” After each question the crowd would shout out “Pompeius!” Clodius than asked, “Whom do you want to go to Alexandria?” and the crowd replied, “Crassus!” Pompey was forced to listen to these insults until Milo and his men rushed forward chasing Clodius off the rostra (Seager 119).
Clodius continued his hostility toward Pompey, even going to the extent of plotting against his life. Pompey was irritated by Clodius, and summoned more men from the country for his defense. The Senate did not like Clodius, but they like Pompey even less, and so Clodius was allowed to continue his antics (Heaton 76).
Clodius’s positions were always changing though, making it hard for both his friends and enemies to know where he stood. “Clodius’s explosive political strands were combined with dramatic transfers of allegiance” (Gruen 59). By 54 BCE, Clodius shifted his alliance back to the Triumvirs, and reconciled himself to Pompey. The reasons for this drastic change of position are not clear. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that Pompey’s son married Clodius’s niece (the daughter of Appius Claudius) (Rawson 139).
Despite his reconciliation to Pompey, Clodius and Milo remained bitter enemies. This had the effect of straining Pompey’s relationship with Milo. Milo asked Pompey for more support, but Pompey promised him nothing, and increasingly began to distance himself from Milo (Gruen 150). Pompey also claimed to have reconciled Cicero to Clodius, but the fact that relationships remained poor between the two cast doubts on the validity of this reconciliation (Rawson 136).
Also in 54 BCE, one of Caesar’s henchmen, Publius Vatinius was put on trial for violence through the collegia and corruption. Cicero had by this point submitted to the Triumvirs in return for their protection, and agreed to defend Vatinius. Clodius also came to Vatinius’s aid, ascending the tribunal and scattering the lots for jurors. Vatinius was acquitted (Heaton 80).
In 53 BCE, Clodius decided to become a candidate for praetorship. In the same year, Milo ran for consul, feeling that the current chaos Rome was in would allow him to win despite his unorthodox methods. Clodius was terrified of the idea of his enemy obtaining the most powerful political position in Rome, and supported Hypsaeus as an opponent candidate to Milo. Clodius used all the violence and murder for which he was famous to try and stop Milo. Pompey may have even helped Clodius gather rustics and slaves from the Apennines. Clodius openly declared that Milo was going to be killed.
Milo had already demonstrated he was able to play the same game, however. The two gangs continually fought it out in the streets of Rome, with elections being postponed repeatedly until it was necessary to appoint an interregna (Gruen 300).
In one of these battles in the Forum, Mark Antony, having long since left Clodius’s gang, attacked his former leader with a sword. Clodius escaped only by barricading himself in the stairs of a nearby bookstore. Why Mark Antony did this is a mystery. Since Antony was without question Caesar’s man at this point, it is hypothesized that Caesar, realizing that Clodius had once again gotten out of control, ordered his death. However it was unlike Caesar to order an execution in the Forum in broad daylight. Another possibility is that Antony was acting on his own impulse in what he thought was Caesar’s best interest. A third possibility is that Antony had a personal vendetta against Clodius. Clodius had accused Antony of having an affair with Clodius’s wife Fulvia (who would in fact later marry Mark Antony, after the death of both Clodius and her second husband Curio), and if this is true, then perhaps Antony wanted Clodius out of the way. In any case, Antony was soon to see what good luck it was to fail, for if he had been responsible for the death of Clodius, it would certainly have ended his political career (Huzar 37).
On January 18, 52 BCE, Clodius and Milo met on the Appian Way, and Clodius was killed as a result. Exactly how it happened was never quite clear. Cicero claimed that Clodius was waiting in ambush for Milo, and when Milo and his escort passed through, Clodius and his roughs attacked them. In the course of the fight, Clodius was wounded and carried by some of his men into a nearby inn. Cicero claims that Milo, once he realized what happened to Clodius, was unsure of what to do. However, when realizing that he would be blamed for the murder either way, he sent his men into the inn to drag Clodius out. When they went into the inn, Clodius was already dead from his wounds, and so Milo was saved from his guilt.
Other stories were not quite as sympathetic to Milo. Some claimed that Milo initiated the battle. When Clodius was injured, Milo’s men went into the inn, killed the innkeeper, dragged Clodius out, stabbed him several times, and left his corpse on the road. Another version is that Clodius and Milo passed each other with their escort without incident. Then, one of Milo’s men managed to slip into Clodius’s gang, and after following Clodius for a while, stabbed him in the back (Kahn 280).
Clodius’s widow, Fulvia, sent runner throughout the city to alert the people of his death. That same night, a large crowd gathered outside of Clodius’s house, and Fulvia’s lamentation excited the crowd. After the multitudes were further riled up by two tribunes, Titus Munatius Plancus, and Quintus Pompeius Rufus, the city was soon to see how much the people valued their champion. A huge crowd carried Clodius’s body through the streets and into the Senate house, naked so as to show his wounds. Then, the whole Senate house was burned down as a funeral pyre for Clodius (Kahn 281).
Anarchy reigned in Rome following the death of Clodius. Many optimates were murdered, as well as any well dressed person foolish enough to be caught walking in the streets (Weigal 132-133). “The commoners ranged through the city beating and murdering all whom they suspected of sympathy with their hero’s murderer, and wreaked their fury on the rich, attacking especially those who wore fine clothes and gold rings” (Kahn 281). Milo was prudent enough to stay hidden for most of the ordeal, but when he was convinced to make a speech in his defense, a riot ensued. Milo escaped only by disguising himself as a slave. Lepidus’s house was besieged, and his family saved only by Milo’s gladiators. Clodius’s relative, Sextus Clodius, assumed leadership of the gang. He led them on an attack of Milo’s house, but they were driven off by arrows from Milo’s defenders.
The Senate, in desperation, decided to vote Pompey an unprecedented and illegal sole consulship, with power to raise troops and restore order. Because of the circumstances, even strict constitutionalists, such as Cato, approved the measure. Although other consuls were later appointed, Pompey was to retain this power in fact if not in name until the civil war with Caesar. In an effort to maintain order, Pompey implemented many laws that were thought by Caesar’s allies to be indirectly against Caesar, and this helped to hasten the civil war (Greenham 83).
Cicero undertook the defense of Milo. Despite Pompey’s soldiers, Cicero was so intimidated by the howling crowd that he probably would not have been able to deliver his speech even if the crowd had let him speak. There was often violence between the crowd and Pompey’s soldiers, and many of the crowd was killed. In the end, Milo was ultimately condemned and exiled (Heaton 81).
Clodius’s politics were far from orthodox, and the rules of his game were much different than the rules of Caesar and Pompey, but for a period of time it can be said that he was the most powerful man in Rome. That Clodius’s methods could be so successful demonstrates the frustration of the urban poor in Rome, and should be taken as a sign that the Republic was on its way out. Clodius hastened this departure. The anarchy he created in the city was only restored by giving Pompey sole power, which was one of the factors leading to civil war and Caesar’s eventual dictatorship. Also, the reign of violence he unleashed on the city of Rome caused both rich and poor to wish for law and order as opposed to freedom under the republic. Clodius is certainly one of history’s most colorful characters. He took mob violence to an extreme no one had done before him, and his effects on history remain visible.
Bibliography
Furhmann, Manfred. Cicero and the Roman Republic. Blackwell. Cambridge. 1990
Greenhalgh, Peter. Pompey: The Republican Prince. University of Missouri Press. Columbia. 1982
Gruen, Erich. The Last Generation of the Roman Republic. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1974
Heaton, J.W. Mob Violence in the Late Roman Republic: 133-49 B.C. University of Illinois. Urbana. 1939.
Huzar, Eleanor. Mark Antony. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis. 1978
Kahn, Arthur. The Education of Julius Caesar. Shocken Books. New York. 1986.
Lintott, A.W. Violence in Republican Rome. Clarendon Press. Oxford. 1968.
Rawson, Beryl. The Politics of Friendship: Pompey and Cicero. Sydney University Press. Forest Grove. 1978.
Seager, Robin. Pompey: A Political Biography. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1979.
Shotter, David. The Fall of the Roman Republic. Routledge. New York. 1994.
Ward, Allen. Marcus Crassus and the Late Republic. University of Missouri Press. Columbia. 1977.
Weigal, Arthur. The Life and Times of Mark Antony. Garden City Publishing Company. 1931
Professor's comments: Generally well done, if somewhat rough around the edges. The most serious flaw is the lack of adequate explanation at certain points (see comments throughout). [Editor's note: I have not duplicated margin comments throughout].
Grade: B
Video Version HERE
Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Romans. Show all posts
Saturday, September 02, 2006
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Religion in the Roman Republic
Introduction
“To adhere to the customs of the ancestors, the state religion was for the Romans a matter of simple patriotism,” (Boren 1965: 34). In this modern age where the separation of church and state is continually emphasized, it is easy to forget that things were not always so. In ancient Rome, religion and the state were not only combined, they defined each other. In ancient Rome, religion was inseparable from the state.
“When you command great numbers of men, you find the emotional forces bottled up in them very strong,” (Field Marshal Lord Montgomery in Grant 1960: 154). The Romans realized that they had to guide the emotions of their subjects into patriotic channels. In ancient Rome, “patriotism and state religion [were] indistinguishable,” (Grant 1960: 154).
Religion decided whether the Romans would declare war or have peace. Religion decided when generals fought, and when they retreated. Religion decided whether the decisions of the Senate would stand, or be declared void. Religion was behind the founding legends or Ancient Rome. Religion was a vital part of Rome’s history, as can be shown by looking at its origin, its prominence in the Roman political scene, and its decline.
Origins
The legends about the founding of Rome were developed to establish the state religion. By the time of Augustus, these legends were firmly established, aided by the works of Livius and Vergilius (Gruen 1992: 6). How much of these traditions were believed, if they were believed at all, during the early republic? This is somewhat a matter of speculation, but we do know a little. Livius himself admits that the origin of Rome is uncertain, but asserts that if any city deserved to have a miraculous origin, Rome did (Stobart 1961: 15).
If the Romans were to believe that the service of the gods was so intricately connected with the welfare of Rome, it was necessary to establish a history of the relationship of the gods with the city of Rome, as well as create an explanation for the dependence of Rome on the gods. The legend of Aeneas, who was directed by the gods to settle in Italy in anticipation of the future founding of Rome, was created to do just that. Likewise the story of the legendary twins Romulus and Remus, who were descended from the god Mars and founded the city of Rome, also explained Rome’s religious situation.
The connection of the founding of Rome with the Trojan War, about which Vergilius wrote his Aenied, had been established by the third Century B.C., and so was not questioned in any history written after this period. Although there were several different versions of this story, such as Odysseus founding the city of Rome instead of Aeneas, or the two enemies reconciling at the founding of the city. These many different versions were due to the mind set of the Roman writer. A Roman writer would not find any virtue in simply rewriting what someone else has already written, but any Roman writing about the foundation of the city would make his additions to the legend (Gruen 1992: 31).
It is likely that the story of Romulus and Remus started out as a separate legend, and was later synchronized with the story of Aeneas (Amory and Hammond 1967: 9). We know that the story existed at least as early as 286 B.C., since a coin that was dated to that year was found with a wolf suckling two infants (Stobart 1961: 15). The famous bronze statue of the Capitoline Wolfe, which is much older, may or may not be evidence of the legend existing in the early Roman Republic. The two children nursing from the wolf were added later (Stobart 1961: 16).
From these legends we know that the Romans considered Rome to be a sacred city, and that it had the blessings of the gods. It also shows that the Romans believed serving the gods and serving Rome to be one and the same.
According to tradition Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, established the practice of formal religion as it continued throughout the Republic. How much truth there is to this we can’t say with any certainty, but scholars now recognize that it is unlikely the seven kings of Rome are purely fictional (Stobart 1961: 16). The Latin language indicates the Romans were at one time very familiar with kings (Stobart 1961: 17).
The last kings of Rome, the Tarquins, although portrayed as typical Greek tyrants by Roman historians, have a name that is Etruscan. This implies that there was Etruscan domination at the end of the regal period. There is other evidence for this. The buildings built during this period in Rome were on a scale not equaled for centuries afterwards. There are reluctant admissions to Etruscan domination in Roman literature, and some Roman rituals and ornaments indicate that the Etruscans once held supreme authority (Stobart 1961: 17).
Since it is known that the Etruscans were heading South towards Campania at the end of the Seventh century, it is likely that they would have made an effort to secure the passage of the Tiber at Rome, which lay directly in their route. From all this evidence, it can safely be concluded that Rome was ruled by Etruscan princes around the end of the fifth century, but that Etruscans were never present in Rome in large numbers (Stobart 1961: 17).
So if the Etruscans influenced Roman culture and religion, what were the Etruscans like? Their origin is unknown, but they appear to have little culture of their own. At first they imitated the Phoenicians, but then, after the Greeks achieved domination, the Etruscans took on Greek culture. They even went so far as to hire Greek craftsman to ensure that their cities would resemble those of the Greeks (Stobart 1961: 20).
The most important thing the Etruscans did for Rome was to erect a temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capital hill. This gave the fledgling city of Rome a feeling of unity. It also established the three gods in Roman Religion. The Etruscans were also probably responsible for introducing the concept of anthropomorphic deities to the Romans, as well as the practice of augury. Etruscans artists painted Terrocotta ornaments for the new Capitoline Temple, and the Etruscans also made the famous Capitoline statue of Jupiter (Stobart 1961: 20).
Ius Divinum
Since the Romans believed the foundation of their empire was preordained by the gods, it is only natural that religion would play an important part in their government. All parts of the Roman law covering religion were referred to generally as the ius divinum, or sacred law. As mentioned above, tradition credits Numa Pompilius with establishing most of it. Before we delve into the history of the Republic, it is worth commenting on the accuracy of the ancient sources. No contemporary writer of the early or middle Republic has survived. Most of the knowledge we have about this period comes from Livius, and other writers of the first century or later. The lateness is enough in itself to doubt the accuracy of these histories. It has also been suggested that the great Roman families of the late republic exaggerated, or possibly made up, the deeds of their ancestors. Also, many ancient historians looked for precedents to their own times in the past, and if the precedents were not there, they added them (Stobart 1961: 21).
There is a good reason to believe much of these ancient sources, however. Livius and the others based their history on the Annales Maximi (discussed below) which were published in 125 B.C. by the Pontifex Maximus Mucius Scaevola (Stobart 1961: 21).
A good example of religion acting side by side with the state is the twelve tables. The twelve tables were essentially putting into law the existing Roman customs, and was done at the request of the Plebeians to take power away from the Patricians. According to tradition, the tables were formed in 545 B.C.. Although they were destroyed by the Gauls in 390 B.C., much of it has survived in the form of quotations by other ancient writers (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 102).
Each of the twelve tables deals with a different part of the law. Table X deals with the Sacred law. Most of the laws in Table X deal with funerals, and many of them are designed to prevent excess, such as the law that a many may not have more than one funeral, or the law that there is no costly sprinkling at funerals. There is also a law that no man should be buried within the boundaries of Rome (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 108-109).
The majority of the ius divinum, however, dealt with the various religious officials under it. Although the ancient Romans had several offices that were purely religious, in theory even the most secular office was supposed to be a religious one. The Lex Sacratae made all officials of the Republic sacred. Because of the obvious abuses such a law lends itself to, it was later modified to mean that officials were sacred in the sense they were under the protection of the gods, and any attempt to do physical harm to them would be met with retribution by the Roman government on behalf of the gods (Peck 1966: 1299).
The Censors are a good example of an office that had both secular and religious duties. They were arguable the most powerful office in the whole Republic because of the religious power behind them (Stobart 1961: 29). The office of Censors was formed in 443 B.C.. Among other things, it was their duty to maintain an official list of the citizens, to maintain public morals, and to supervise the leasing of public areas and buildings. At first, the Censors could only be Patricians. In 351 B.C., the office was open to Plebeians. The Leges Publilae, passed in 339 B.C., dictated that at least one Censor must be a Plebeian. The Censors achieved their greatest power in 312 B.C., when they were given the power to keep Senatorial rolls, and expell any Senators who acted against public morality, a duty formally held by the Consuls (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 178).
The Censors had the power to change the status of any man, no matter what class of citizenship the man belonged to. Men were demoted in status for offenses, such as disregarding religious or traditional values. Aulus Gellius notes some interesting cases of punishment dealt out by the Censors. If land had gone unattended, the owner was to be reduced to the lowest class of citizenship. If a knight did not take good care of his horse, the same would happen. Aulus Gellius even cites a case where the Censors were trying a man for yawning in court, because it indicated his mind had been wandering. The man was only able to escape punishment by swearing that the yawn had come over him despite his resistance (Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 113-114).
The most important duty of the Censors was the religious purification of both the people and the priests, known as the lustum. This occurred at first every four years, but was changed in 209 B.C. to every five years.
The Romans had many varieties of priests, and it was the responsibility of the Censors to put the priests into different colleges. Of these, the Romans had four important colleges, the Decimviris, the College of Augurs, the College of Fetials, and the College of Pontiffs.
The college of Decimviris was one of the most influential colleges. Decimviris is Latin for board of ten, although the name changed when they were increased to fifteen in Sulla’s time. It was this group that was responsible for Sibylline books.
In the fifth century B.C., the practice was developed of consulting the oracle of Sibyl at Cumae, which was a Greek city in Campania. The words of the Sibyl were written down and collected, in Greek, into the Sibylline books, and entrusted to the decimviris. In times of crisis, they would consult the Sibylline books, usually with the result of ordering the introduction of a new Greek god or a Greek religious site. In doing so, they were responsible for the Hellinization of the Roman State Religion. The last innovation they made was in 205 B.C., the introduction of the goddess Magna Mater from Pessinus in Aisa Minor (Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 140).
The temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was destroyed by fire in 83 B.C., and the Sibylline books were lost with it. A search was conducted over the whole Roman Empire for any prophecies that had survived. These prophecies were copied and sent back to Rome. In this way the Sibylline books were reconstructed, although the Romans themselves wondered if all of the prophecies had been recovered, or if some fake prophecies had made there way into the new books (Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 141).
The college of Augurs also had great political power, for they were responsible for the auspices. The auspices were taken before every important act of state, and if they were found to be unfavorable, business for that day was stopped. The Senate would not meet, nor would the army commander lead his troops into battle. It is for this reason that Cicero claimed the College of Augurs were the most powerful group in the Roman Empire.
The augurs, however, did not actually take the auspices. That privilege was reserved for a Roman official possessing imperium. The augurs were responsible for the preperation, and interpretation of the auspices, however, a task much more important (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 132-134).
At first, Auspices concerned only the flights of birds, but it was expanded to include other methods. Festus writes, "The augurs observe five types of signs: from lightening, from birds, from the feeding of sacred chickens, from four footed animals, and from portents (Festus in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 132). Augurs used a secret mehtod to interpret the auspices, one that was taught to the other Augurs, but never written down.
In a speech after his exile, Cicero gives numerous examples of the importances of following the auspices. When Flaminus was preparing to fight Hannibal, an augur reminded him to take the auspices. Flaminus fed the sacred chickens, but they would not eat. The augur warned him not to go into battle. Flaminus replied, "Find auspices indeed if we may only fight when the chickens are hungry, but must do nothing if they are full" (Flaminus as quoted by Cicero in Boren 1965: 134). Flaminus suffered a terrible defeat and was killed. In another example, Publius Claudius, commander of a fleet in the first Punic War, ordered the sacred chickens thrown overboard when they refused to eat, saying "let them drink, since they will not eat," (Claudius as quoted in Lucilius as qouted by Cicero in Boren 1965: 135). As a result, his colleague Junius lost his entire fleet in a storm, and Claudius was condemned by the Roman people.
The fetials were the third college, in charge of war and peace. The ancient college of twenty members was responsible for international relations, and "functioned especially in rituals attending the declaration of war, conclusion of treaties, protection of foreign ambassadors at Rome, and extradition (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 136).
It was the duty of the Fetials to make sure that Rome did not enter into an unjust war against a country in alliance with them. If another country violated the treaty first, then the fetials functioned as ambassadors. One fetial, who was chosen by his colleagues, put on a sacred robe and insignia, and went into the city when had done Rome wrong. Stopping at the boarder, he took an oath to the gods asking that if what the city was accused of was true. If it was not true, the fetial asked the gods to punish Rome for making a false accusation. Entering the city, the fetial would repeat the oath in the presence of the first person he came across. After going through several other rituals, the fetial made his demands to the city. The city was given ten days to consider it, after which the fetial made his demands another time. After thirty days, the fetial returned home and informed the Senators that if they wished to vote for war, the gods had no problem with it. If the Senate decided to declare war, the fetials went through another ceremony, in which the gods were again called to witness Rome's actions. War was officially declared when a fetial throw a spear across the boarder. The fetials were also responsible for the ceremony of a peace treaty, and again the gods were called as witnesses. If peace was made by generals, without consulting the fetials, it was invalid and the fetials would investigate it. Once peace was made it was the duty of the fetials to make sure Rome kept her end of the bargain (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 360).
A group subordinate to the Fetials were the Sodales. These priests were allowed to act only as one unified body, not allowing for individual opinions. They were concerned with annual rites. Particularly active among the Sodales were a group called the Saliens, the priests of Mars. They were active in March and October, the opening and closing of campaining season.
The head of all the other colleges and all other religious functions was the college of Pontiffs. The word Pontifex means bridge builder, and it was presumed by the later Romans that this originated from the duty of the pontiffs to build bridges. The pontiffs were responsible for the presentation and the interpretation of the ius divinum, as well as being Rome's earliest jurist, powerful in civil as well as criminal law. The college started out with three pontiffs, then was consequently increased to six, nine, fifteen, and at last to sixteen by Julius Caesar. The Lex Ogulnia passed in 300 B.C. dictated that at least half the number of pontiffs must be plebeians (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 860).
The Pontiffs were the judges of all religious cases, whether private citizens, magistrates, or priests were involved. They made laws for the observance of any religious rite, they investigated the conduct of any magistrate who performed any religious duty, and they took care that all they employed in religious functions committed no errors. They were not liable to persecution or punishment, nor were they accountable to the Senate or the people in religious matters (Dionysius of Halicarnus in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 131-132).
The head of the Pontiff college, and the Roman religion, was the Pontifex Maximus. Until 212 B.C., the Pontifex Maximus was chosen by the other pontiffs. After 212 B.C., the people voted for the Pontifex Maximus, although interestingly not by a majority. Of Rome's thirty five tribes, seventeen were chosen by a lot to vote for the Pontifex Maximus (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 860).
In addition to a general supervision of the state religion, the Pontifex Maximus was also responsible for keeping the records of the state, the Annales Maximi. The Pontifex Maximus was also in charge of the calender, and decided on which days state business could be performed (dies factis). The Pontifex Maximus was responsible for making sure the lunar calender corresponded with the solar year. To do this, an intercalary month was added every two years. When Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus, he got ride of the intercalary month by increasing the year to three hundred sixty five days, and establishing the leap year (Boren 1965: 20).
Besides these four main colleges, there were several other colleges as well. The Collegia Compitluia was concerned with the worship of the Lares at the Compita. The Collegium Capitolinorum was responsible for the ludi Capitolini (the Capitoline games). The Collegium Mercatorm presided over the temple of Mercury. There were many other minor colleges as well (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 264).
King Numa is credited with establishing all of the colleges. At first, the priests in the college were appointed by a king. Then, once the Republic began, when ever there was a vacancy in one of the colleges, the existing members would decide who would fill it. After the Lex Domitia was passed, the people themselves would vote on who is included in the colleges (Peck 1996: 1299).
The Vestal Virgins, who were under the direct authority of the Pontifex Maximus, were originally four in number, but increased to six because of the great amount of tasks they had to perform. They lived in the temple of the goddess Vesta, which all could enter in the daytime, but no man could enter during the night. It is very important that all the Vestals remained virgins for the thirty years they were in the service of the state, although they could marry after this time. The duties of the Vestal Virgins included offering sacrifices, keeping the wills of Roman citizens, and most importantly, tending the sacred flame of Vesta. During the first ten years, The Vestals learned their function. During the second ten years, they performed them, and during the final ten years, they taught others.
The Romans dreaded the extinction of the sacred fire, for it meant that the destruction of Rome was imminent. If the fire went out, it was immediately re-introduced with many added rituals. The extinction of the fire was also an indication that one of the Vestals was no longer a virgin. The violated Vestal was ceremoniously carried to the Coline Gate, and buried alive. Her male partner was flogged to death (Dionysius of Halicarnus in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 135).
A girl chosen to be a Vestal Virgin must be between six and ten. Both her father and mother must be living. She must be neither hearing impaired, nor with any mark or defect. Neither of her parents could be slaves, or have demeaning occupations. When the girl was brought to the house of Vesta, she passes from her father's control to the control of the Pontifex Maximus, and acquires the right to make a will (Aulus Gellius in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 136).
The specialized priests of individual gods were known as flamens, whose main function was to make sacrifices to their individual god. There are fifteen flamens in all, three flamines maiores, and twelve flamines minores. Of the twelves flamines minores, we know the names of six: Volturnalis, Palatualis, Furinalis, Floralis, Falacer, and Pomonalis. Of the three flamines maiores, the flamens of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus, the flamen of Jupiter, or the Flamen Dialis, was the most important. There were numerous restrictions on the Flamen Dialis, among them he was not allowed to see the Roman citizens assembled in an army. Since he could not have a military career, or battle experience, the Flamen Dialis rarely was able to achieve the rank of Consul. The Flamen Dialis was also forbidden to take an oath, wear a ring, take fire from his home, have a slave cut his hair, go outside without a cap, or touch a she-goat, raw flesh, ivy or beans. The Flamen Dialis must be clothed at all times. If he changes his clothes he must do it under covers, so that he is never naked before Jupiter (Aulus Gellius as quoted in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 134).
At state dinners, the Flamen Dialis had the second highest place at the table. The only one above him was the Rex Sacrificulus. When Rome was ruled by kings, the kings performed most of the religious taks. After the kings were expelled, the Rex Sacrificulus was created. The Rex Sacrificulus took on the sacral functions of the king. It is speculated by some that the Rex Sacrificulus was once the supreme authority in religious matters, and that the Pontifex Maximus was created to take power away from the Rex Sacrificulus by anti-monarchal Romans (McCullough 1996: 679). Called Rex for short, although he was subordinate to the Pontifex Maximus, he was still above all the Flamens. His wife, called Regina, also had certain ceremonial duties. The Rex must be a Patrician, he was chosen for life, and he could hold no other posts.
Decline
Saying that in the Roman Republic, religion and the state were inseperable is a novel idea to the modern American, but it was not unique to the time. What was unique about the Roman Republic was that the responsibility of the Roman citizen was non-existent. All the religious duties were taken care of by state officials (Boren 1965: 36). This ultimately resulted in many Romans searching elsewhere for spiritual fulfillment. Caesar was elected as Pontifex Maximus over serveral other respectable men in spiute of the fact that his private lifestyle was well-known to be lacking morals. Caesar had little interest in religious activities, but desired both the respect and the position carried with it, and needed the security (his enemies wouldn't dare kill the Pontifex Maximus) (Cowell 1964: 237).
"Religion at Rome was less a set of beliefs than a set of practices," (Boren 1965: 132). Even when many Romans no longer bought into it, or were apathetic about the state religion, it was fiercely protected. "The Romans were never a really religious people, they lacked the imagination to be devout," but they were "ritualists and formalists to the heart's core," (Stobart 1961: 33).
The influence of religion declined towards the end of the Republic. The introduction of cynicism in the second century B.C., as well as Greek learning, produced a great amount of skepticism in Rome towards the old ways. The changing population in the Roman empire introduced many new religions and offered an alternative to disenchanted Romans (Gruen 1992: 132). Yet even with all this enlightened thought, Cicero, who was a "cultivated, philosophic and common sense man of the world," spend days in January of 56 B.C. studying the Sibylline books with other Senators to see if there was a quoatation that would prevent a Roman army from entering Egypt (Cowell 1964: 186).
At the end of the Republic, religion also became a political tool between the two parties: the optimates and the populares. One example among many is in 59 B.C., when Bibulus, an optimate, tried to stop the land reforms of Julius Caesar by finding a prophecy in the Sibylline books which indicated an omen of great importance would appear. Bibulus demanded that all business be stopped so he could watch the sky in search of the sign. Caesar foiled him by calling for a vote in the Senate, and the vote was against Bibulus (Cowel 1964: 348).
Perhaps the feeling of the time is best summed up by Cowell's statement. "Although Cicero and the men of his age had no real faith in the traditional religious beliefs of the Roman people, they had by no means proceeded to complete atheism or a clear affirmation that there were no gods (Cowell 1964: 384).
Conclusion
The Romans believed that the city of Rome was predestined by the gods, and that by serving Rome, they were serving the gods. This belief was advantageous to the government of Rome, and allowed them to keep the citizens submissive and obediant. Religion played a large part in the Roman government, as well as the history of Rome. The large amount of religious officials shows the importance the Romans placed on religion.
Bibiliography
Boren, Henry
1965 The Roman Republic. Princeton; Van Notrand Company
Cowell, F.R.
1964 Cicero and the Roman Republic. Baltimore: Penguin Company
Grant Michael
1960 The World of Rome. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson
Gruen, Erich
1992 Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithica: Cornell University Press
Hammond, Mason and Anne Amory
1967 Aeneas to Augustus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Hammond & Scullard
1970 The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon
McCartney, Paul
1969 Teenage Wonder. Liverpool: Beatles Press
McCullough, Colleen
1996 Caesar's Women. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Peck, Thurston
1996 Harpers Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. New York: American Book Company
Reinhold, Meyer and Naphtali Lewis
1951 Roman Civilizations. New York: Columbia University
Scullard, H.H.
1951 Roman Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Stobart, J.C.
1961 The Grandeur that was Rome. London: Sidgwick and Jackson
Professors's Comments
This paper is certainly a thorough treatment of Roman religion and its inherent role in the politics of the Republic. I will certainly be consulting it when I teach the Roman Republic in Hist. 301 this spring, because good systematic treatments of Roman religion are rare.
One minor flaw: McCartney was definitely wrong when he attributes Caesar's sponsorship of the pop concert of 48 B.C. to his office as pontifex. Such entertainments were always the responsibility of Rome's aediles, an office Caesar also held.
Video Version HERE
“To adhere to the customs of the ancestors, the state religion was for the Romans a matter of simple patriotism,” (Boren 1965: 34). In this modern age where the separation of church and state is continually emphasized, it is easy to forget that things were not always so. In ancient Rome, religion and the state were not only combined, they defined each other. In ancient Rome, religion was inseparable from the state.
“When you command great numbers of men, you find the emotional forces bottled up in them very strong,” (Field Marshal Lord Montgomery in Grant 1960: 154). The Romans realized that they had to guide the emotions of their subjects into patriotic channels. In ancient Rome, “patriotism and state religion [were] indistinguishable,” (Grant 1960: 154).
Religion decided whether the Romans would declare war or have peace. Religion decided when generals fought, and when they retreated. Religion decided whether the decisions of the Senate would stand, or be declared void. Religion was behind the founding legends or Ancient Rome. Religion was a vital part of Rome’s history, as can be shown by looking at its origin, its prominence in the Roman political scene, and its decline.
Origins
The legends about the founding of Rome were developed to establish the state religion. By the time of Augustus, these legends were firmly established, aided by the works of Livius and Vergilius (Gruen 1992: 6). How much of these traditions were believed, if they were believed at all, during the early republic? This is somewhat a matter of speculation, but we do know a little. Livius himself admits that the origin of Rome is uncertain, but asserts that if any city deserved to have a miraculous origin, Rome did (Stobart 1961: 15).
If the Romans were to believe that the service of the gods was so intricately connected with the welfare of Rome, it was necessary to establish a history of the relationship of the gods with the city of Rome, as well as create an explanation for the dependence of Rome on the gods. The legend of Aeneas, who was directed by the gods to settle in Italy in anticipation of the future founding of Rome, was created to do just that. Likewise the story of the legendary twins Romulus and Remus, who were descended from the god Mars and founded the city of Rome, also explained Rome’s religious situation.
The connection of the founding of Rome with the Trojan War, about which Vergilius wrote his Aenied, had been established by the third Century B.C., and so was not questioned in any history written after this period. Although there were several different versions of this story, such as Odysseus founding the city of Rome instead of Aeneas, or the two enemies reconciling at the founding of the city. These many different versions were due to the mind set of the Roman writer. A Roman writer would not find any virtue in simply rewriting what someone else has already written, but any Roman writing about the foundation of the city would make his additions to the legend (Gruen 1992: 31).
It is likely that the story of Romulus and Remus started out as a separate legend, and was later synchronized with the story of Aeneas (Amory and Hammond 1967: 9). We know that the story existed at least as early as 286 B.C., since a coin that was dated to that year was found with a wolf suckling two infants (Stobart 1961: 15). The famous bronze statue of the Capitoline Wolfe, which is much older, may or may not be evidence of the legend existing in the early Roman Republic. The two children nursing from the wolf were added later (Stobart 1961: 16).
From these legends we know that the Romans considered Rome to be a sacred city, and that it had the blessings of the gods. It also shows that the Romans believed serving the gods and serving Rome to be one and the same.
According to tradition Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, established the practice of formal religion as it continued throughout the Republic. How much truth there is to this we can’t say with any certainty, but scholars now recognize that it is unlikely the seven kings of Rome are purely fictional (Stobart 1961: 16). The Latin language indicates the Romans were at one time very familiar with kings (Stobart 1961: 17).
The last kings of Rome, the Tarquins, although portrayed as typical Greek tyrants by Roman historians, have a name that is Etruscan. This implies that there was Etruscan domination at the end of the regal period. There is other evidence for this. The buildings built during this period in Rome were on a scale not equaled for centuries afterwards. There are reluctant admissions to Etruscan domination in Roman literature, and some Roman rituals and ornaments indicate that the Etruscans once held supreme authority (Stobart 1961: 17).
Since it is known that the Etruscans were heading South towards Campania at the end of the Seventh century, it is likely that they would have made an effort to secure the passage of the Tiber at Rome, which lay directly in their route. From all this evidence, it can safely be concluded that Rome was ruled by Etruscan princes around the end of the fifth century, but that Etruscans were never present in Rome in large numbers (Stobart 1961: 17).
So if the Etruscans influenced Roman culture and religion, what were the Etruscans like? Their origin is unknown, but they appear to have little culture of their own. At first they imitated the Phoenicians, but then, after the Greeks achieved domination, the Etruscans took on Greek culture. They even went so far as to hire Greek craftsman to ensure that their cities would resemble those of the Greeks (Stobart 1961: 20).
The most important thing the Etruscans did for Rome was to erect a temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva on the Capital hill. This gave the fledgling city of Rome a feeling of unity. It also established the three gods in Roman Religion. The Etruscans were also probably responsible for introducing the concept of anthropomorphic deities to the Romans, as well as the practice of augury. Etruscans artists painted Terrocotta ornaments for the new Capitoline Temple, and the Etruscans also made the famous Capitoline statue of Jupiter (Stobart 1961: 20).
Ius Divinum
Since the Romans believed the foundation of their empire was preordained by the gods, it is only natural that religion would play an important part in their government. All parts of the Roman law covering religion were referred to generally as the ius divinum, or sacred law. As mentioned above, tradition credits Numa Pompilius with establishing most of it. Before we delve into the history of the Republic, it is worth commenting on the accuracy of the ancient sources. No contemporary writer of the early or middle Republic has survived. Most of the knowledge we have about this period comes from Livius, and other writers of the first century or later. The lateness is enough in itself to doubt the accuracy of these histories. It has also been suggested that the great Roman families of the late republic exaggerated, or possibly made up, the deeds of their ancestors. Also, many ancient historians looked for precedents to their own times in the past, and if the precedents were not there, they added them (Stobart 1961: 21).
There is a good reason to believe much of these ancient sources, however. Livius and the others based their history on the Annales Maximi (discussed below) which were published in 125 B.C. by the Pontifex Maximus Mucius Scaevola (Stobart 1961: 21).
A good example of religion acting side by side with the state is the twelve tables. The twelve tables were essentially putting into law the existing Roman customs, and was done at the request of the Plebeians to take power away from the Patricians. According to tradition, the tables were formed in 545 B.C.. Although they were destroyed by the Gauls in 390 B.C., much of it has survived in the form of quotations by other ancient writers (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 102).
Each of the twelve tables deals with a different part of the law. Table X deals with the Sacred law. Most of the laws in Table X deal with funerals, and many of them are designed to prevent excess, such as the law that a many may not have more than one funeral, or the law that there is no costly sprinkling at funerals. There is also a law that no man should be buried within the boundaries of Rome (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 108-109).
The majority of the ius divinum, however, dealt with the various religious officials under it. Although the ancient Romans had several offices that were purely religious, in theory even the most secular office was supposed to be a religious one. The Lex Sacratae made all officials of the Republic sacred. Because of the obvious abuses such a law lends itself to, it was later modified to mean that officials were sacred in the sense they were under the protection of the gods, and any attempt to do physical harm to them would be met with retribution by the Roman government on behalf of the gods (Peck 1966: 1299).
The Censors are a good example of an office that had both secular and religious duties. They were arguable the most powerful office in the whole Republic because of the religious power behind them (Stobart 1961: 29). The office of Censors was formed in 443 B.C.. Among other things, it was their duty to maintain an official list of the citizens, to maintain public morals, and to supervise the leasing of public areas and buildings. At first, the Censors could only be Patricians. In 351 B.C., the office was open to Plebeians. The Leges Publilae, passed in 339 B.C., dictated that at least one Censor must be a Plebeian. The Censors achieved their greatest power in 312 B.C., when they were given the power to keep Senatorial rolls, and expell any Senators who acted against public morality, a duty formally held by the Consuls (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 178).
The Censors had the power to change the status of any man, no matter what class of citizenship the man belonged to. Men were demoted in status for offenses, such as disregarding religious or traditional values. Aulus Gellius notes some interesting cases of punishment dealt out by the Censors. If land had gone unattended, the owner was to be reduced to the lowest class of citizenship. If a knight did not take good care of his horse, the same would happen. Aulus Gellius even cites a case where the Censors were trying a man for yawning in court, because it indicated his mind had been wandering. The man was only able to escape punishment by swearing that the yawn had come over him despite his resistance (Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 113-114).
The most important duty of the Censors was the religious purification of both the people and the priests, known as the lustum. This occurred at first every four years, but was changed in 209 B.C. to every five years.
The Romans had many varieties of priests, and it was the responsibility of the Censors to put the priests into different colleges. Of these, the Romans had four important colleges, the Decimviris, the College of Augurs, the College of Fetials, and the College of Pontiffs.
The college of Decimviris was one of the most influential colleges. Decimviris is Latin for board of ten, although the name changed when they were increased to fifteen in Sulla’s time. It was this group that was responsible for Sibylline books.
In the fifth century B.C., the practice was developed of consulting the oracle of Sibyl at Cumae, which was a Greek city in Campania. The words of the Sibyl were written down and collected, in Greek, into the Sibylline books, and entrusted to the decimviris. In times of crisis, they would consult the Sibylline books, usually with the result of ordering the introduction of a new Greek god or a Greek religious site. In doing so, they were responsible for the Hellinization of the Roman State Religion. The last innovation they made was in 205 B.C., the introduction of the goddess Magna Mater from Pessinus in Aisa Minor (Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 140).
The temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus was destroyed by fire in 83 B.C., and the Sibylline books were lost with it. A search was conducted over the whole Roman Empire for any prophecies that had survived. These prophecies were copied and sent back to Rome. In this way the Sibylline books were reconstructed, although the Romans themselves wondered if all of the prophecies had been recovered, or if some fake prophecies had made there way into the new books (Dionysius of Halicarnassus in Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 141).
The college of Augurs also had great political power, for they were responsible for the auspices. The auspices were taken before every important act of state, and if they were found to be unfavorable, business for that day was stopped. The Senate would not meet, nor would the army commander lead his troops into battle. It is for this reason that Cicero claimed the College of Augurs were the most powerful group in the Roman Empire.
The augurs, however, did not actually take the auspices. That privilege was reserved for a Roman official possessing imperium. The augurs were responsible for the preperation, and interpretation of the auspices, however, a task much more important (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 132-134).
At first, Auspices concerned only the flights of birds, but it was expanded to include other methods. Festus writes, "The augurs observe five types of signs: from lightening, from birds, from the feeding of sacred chickens, from four footed animals, and from portents (Festus in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 132). Augurs used a secret mehtod to interpret the auspices, one that was taught to the other Augurs, but never written down.
In a speech after his exile, Cicero gives numerous examples of the importances of following the auspices. When Flaminus was preparing to fight Hannibal, an augur reminded him to take the auspices. Flaminus fed the sacred chickens, but they would not eat. The augur warned him not to go into battle. Flaminus replied, "Find auspices indeed if we may only fight when the chickens are hungry, but must do nothing if they are full" (Flaminus as quoted by Cicero in Boren 1965: 134). Flaminus suffered a terrible defeat and was killed. In another example, Publius Claudius, commander of a fleet in the first Punic War, ordered the sacred chickens thrown overboard when they refused to eat, saying "let them drink, since they will not eat," (Claudius as quoted in Lucilius as qouted by Cicero in Boren 1965: 135). As a result, his colleague Junius lost his entire fleet in a storm, and Claudius was condemned by the Roman people.
The fetials were the third college, in charge of war and peace. The ancient college of twenty members was responsible for international relations, and "functioned especially in rituals attending the declaration of war, conclusion of treaties, protection of foreign ambassadors at Rome, and extradition (Lewis and Reinhold 1951: 136).
It was the duty of the Fetials to make sure that Rome did not enter into an unjust war against a country in alliance with them. If another country violated the treaty first, then the fetials functioned as ambassadors. One fetial, who was chosen by his colleagues, put on a sacred robe and insignia, and went into the city when had done Rome wrong. Stopping at the boarder, he took an oath to the gods asking that if what the city was accused of was true. If it was not true, the fetial asked the gods to punish Rome for making a false accusation. Entering the city, the fetial would repeat the oath in the presence of the first person he came across. After going through several other rituals, the fetial made his demands to the city. The city was given ten days to consider it, after which the fetial made his demands another time. After thirty days, the fetial returned home and informed the Senators that if they wished to vote for war, the gods had no problem with it. If the Senate decided to declare war, the fetials went through another ceremony, in which the gods were again called to witness Rome's actions. War was officially declared when a fetial throw a spear across the boarder. The fetials were also responsible for the ceremony of a peace treaty, and again the gods were called as witnesses. If peace was made by generals, without consulting the fetials, it was invalid and the fetials would investigate it. Once peace was made it was the duty of the fetials to make sure Rome kept her end of the bargain (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 360).
A group subordinate to the Fetials were the Sodales. These priests were allowed to act only as one unified body, not allowing for individual opinions. They were concerned with annual rites. Particularly active among the Sodales were a group called the Saliens, the priests of Mars. They were active in March and October, the opening and closing of campaining season.
The head of all the other colleges and all other religious functions was the college of Pontiffs. The word Pontifex means bridge builder, and it was presumed by the later Romans that this originated from the duty of the pontiffs to build bridges. The pontiffs were responsible for the presentation and the interpretation of the ius divinum, as well as being Rome's earliest jurist, powerful in civil as well as criminal law. The college started out with three pontiffs, then was consequently increased to six, nine, fifteen, and at last to sixteen by Julius Caesar. The Lex Ogulnia passed in 300 B.C. dictated that at least half the number of pontiffs must be plebeians (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 860).
The Pontiffs were the judges of all religious cases, whether private citizens, magistrates, or priests were involved. They made laws for the observance of any religious rite, they investigated the conduct of any magistrate who performed any religious duty, and they took care that all they employed in religious functions committed no errors. They were not liable to persecution or punishment, nor were they accountable to the Senate or the people in religious matters (Dionysius of Halicarnus in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 131-132).
The head of the Pontiff college, and the Roman religion, was the Pontifex Maximus. Until 212 B.C., the Pontifex Maximus was chosen by the other pontiffs. After 212 B.C., the people voted for the Pontifex Maximus, although interestingly not by a majority. Of Rome's thirty five tribes, seventeen were chosen by a lot to vote for the Pontifex Maximus (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 860).
In addition to a general supervision of the state religion, the Pontifex Maximus was also responsible for keeping the records of the state, the Annales Maximi. The Pontifex Maximus was also in charge of the calender, and decided on which days state business could be performed (dies factis). The Pontifex Maximus was responsible for making sure the lunar calender corresponded with the solar year. To do this, an intercalary month was added every two years. When Julius Caesar was Pontifex Maximus, he got ride of the intercalary month by increasing the year to three hundred sixty five days, and establishing the leap year (Boren 1965: 20).
Besides these four main colleges, there were several other colleges as well. The Collegia Compitluia was concerned with the worship of the Lares at the Compita. The Collegium Capitolinorum was responsible for the ludi Capitolini (the Capitoline games). The Collegium Mercatorm presided over the temple of Mercury. There were many other minor colleges as well (Hammond & Scullard 1970: 264).
King Numa is credited with establishing all of the colleges. At first, the priests in the college were appointed by a king. Then, once the Republic began, when ever there was a vacancy in one of the colleges, the existing members would decide who would fill it. After the Lex Domitia was passed, the people themselves would vote on who is included in the colleges (Peck 1996: 1299).
The Vestal Virgins, who were under the direct authority of the Pontifex Maximus, were originally four in number, but increased to six because of the great amount of tasks they had to perform. They lived in the temple of the goddess Vesta, which all could enter in the daytime, but no man could enter during the night. It is very important that all the Vestals remained virgins for the thirty years they were in the service of the state, although they could marry after this time. The duties of the Vestal Virgins included offering sacrifices, keeping the wills of Roman citizens, and most importantly, tending the sacred flame of Vesta. During the first ten years, The Vestals learned their function. During the second ten years, they performed them, and during the final ten years, they taught others.
The Romans dreaded the extinction of the sacred fire, for it meant that the destruction of Rome was imminent. If the fire went out, it was immediately re-introduced with many added rituals. The extinction of the fire was also an indication that one of the Vestals was no longer a virgin. The violated Vestal was ceremoniously carried to the Coline Gate, and buried alive. Her male partner was flogged to death (Dionysius of Halicarnus in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 135).
A girl chosen to be a Vestal Virgin must be between six and ten. Both her father and mother must be living. She must be neither hearing impaired, nor with any mark or defect. Neither of her parents could be slaves, or have demeaning occupations. When the girl was brought to the house of Vesta, she passes from her father's control to the control of the Pontifex Maximus, and acquires the right to make a will (Aulus Gellius in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 136).
The specialized priests of individual gods were known as flamens, whose main function was to make sacrifices to their individual god. There are fifteen flamens in all, three flamines maiores, and twelve flamines minores. Of the twelves flamines minores, we know the names of six: Volturnalis, Palatualis, Furinalis, Floralis, Falacer, and Pomonalis. Of the three flamines maiores, the flamens of Jupiter, Mars and Quirinus, the flamen of Jupiter, or the Flamen Dialis, was the most important. There were numerous restrictions on the Flamen Dialis, among them he was not allowed to see the Roman citizens assembled in an army. Since he could not have a military career, or battle experience, the Flamen Dialis rarely was able to achieve the rank of Consul. The Flamen Dialis was also forbidden to take an oath, wear a ring, take fire from his home, have a slave cut his hair, go outside without a cap, or touch a she-goat, raw flesh, ivy or beans. The Flamen Dialis must be clothed at all times. If he changes his clothes he must do it under covers, so that he is never naked before Jupiter (Aulus Gellius as quoted in Lewis & Reinhold 1951: 134).
At state dinners, the Flamen Dialis had the second highest place at the table. The only one above him was the Rex Sacrificulus. When Rome was ruled by kings, the kings performed most of the religious taks. After the kings were expelled, the Rex Sacrificulus was created. The Rex Sacrificulus took on the sacral functions of the king. It is speculated by some that the Rex Sacrificulus was once the supreme authority in religious matters, and that the Pontifex Maximus was created to take power away from the Rex Sacrificulus by anti-monarchal Romans (McCullough 1996: 679). Called Rex for short, although he was subordinate to the Pontifex Maximus, he was still above all the Flamens. His wife, called Regina, also had certain ceremonial duties. The Rex must be a Patrician, he was chosen for life, and he could hold no other posts.
Decline
Saying that in the Roman Republic, religion and the state were inseperable is a novel idea to the modern American, but it was not unique to the time. What was unique about the Roman Republic was that the responsibility of the Roman citizen was non-existent. All the religious duties were taken care of by state officials (Boren 1965: 36). This ultimately resulted in many Romans searching elsewhere for spiritual fulfillment. Caesar was elected as Pontifex Maximus over serveral other respectable men in spiute of the fact that his private lifestyle was well-known to be lacking morals. Caesar had little interest in religious activities, but desired both the respect and the position carried with it, and needed the security (his enemies wouldn't dare kill the Pontifex Maximus) (Cowell 1964: 237).
"Religion at Rome was less a set of beliefs than a set of practices," (Boren 1965: 132). Even when many Romans no longer bought into it, or were apathetic about the state religion, it was fiercely protected. "The Romans were never a really religious people, they lacked the imagination to be devout," but they were "ritualists and formalists to the heart's core," (Stobart 1961: 33).
The influence of religion declined towards the end of the Republic. The introduction of cynicism in the second century B.C., as well as Greek learning, produced a great amount of skepticism in Rome towards the old ways. The changing population in the Roman empire introduced many new religions and offered an alternative to disenchanted Romans (Gruen 1992: 132). Yet even with all this enlightened thought, Cicero, who was a "cultivated, philosophic and common sense man of the world," spend days in January of 56 B.C. studying the Sibylline books with other Senators to see if there was a quoatation that would prevent a Roman army from entering Egypt (Cowell 1964: 186).
At the end of the Republic, religion also became a political tool between the two parties: the optimates and the populares. One example among many is in 59 B.C., when Bibulus, an optimate, tried to stop the land reforms of Julius Caesar by finding a prophecy in the Sibylline books which indicated an omen of great importance would appear. Bibulus demanded that all business be stopped so he could watch the sky in search of the sign. Caesar foiled him by calling for a vote in the Senate, and the vote was against Bibulus (Cowel 1964: 348).
Perhaps the feeling of the time is best summed up by Cowell's statement. "Although Cicero and the men of his age had no real faith in the traditional religious beliefs of the Roman people, they had by no means proceeded to complete atheism or a clear affirmation that there were no gods (Cowell 1964: 384).
Conclusion
The Romans believed that the city of Rome was predestined by the gods, and that by serving Rome, they were serving the gods. This belief was advantageous to the government of Rome, and allowed them to keep the citizens submissive and obediant. Religion played a large part in the Roman government, as well as the history of Rome. The large amount of religious officials shows the importance the Romans placed on religion.
Bibiliography
Boren, Henry
1965 The Roman Republic. Princeton; Van Notrand Company
Cowell, F.R.
1964 Cicero and the Roman Republic. Baltimore: Penguin Company
Grant Michael
1960 The World of Rome. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson
Gruen, Erich
1992 Culture and National Identity in Republican Rome. Ithica: Cornell University Press
Hammond, Mason and Anne Amory
1967 Aeneas to Augustus. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
Hammond & Scullard
1970 The Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon
McCartney, Paul
1969 Teenage Wonder. Liverpool: Beatles Press
McCullough, Colleen
1996 Caesar's Women. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Peck, Thurston
1996 Harpers Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. New York: American Book Company
Reinhold, Meyer and Naphtali Lewis
1951 Roman Civilizations. New York: Columbia University
Scullard, H.H.
1951 Roman Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Stobart, J.C.
1961 The Grandeur that was Rome. London: Sidgwick and Jackson
Professors's Comments
This paper is certainly a thorough treatment of Roman religion and its inherent role in the politics of the Republic. I will certainly be consulting it when I teach the Roman Republic in Hist. 301 this spring, because good systematic treatments of Roman religion are rare.
One minor flaw: McCartney was definitely wrong when he attributes Caesar's sponsorship of the pop concert of 48 B.C. to his office as pontifex. Such entertainments were always the responsibility of Rome's aediles, an office Caesar also held.
Video Version HERE
Saturday, December 10, 2005
The Real Catiline
Paper I did for 12th Grade Advanced Composition. Please keep in mind this is only a high school paper, and try and forgive the over reliance on a single source, as well as the oversimplification of some aspects of Roman politics.
In its last days, the republic of Rome was beginning to collapse under its own weight. Military conquests had brought in a new kind of luxury. The rich amassed all the wealth, the poor soon found themselves unemployed, since slaves did all the work. It was clear that things could not go on much longer, and many thought that change had come in Catiline. Catiline plotted to overthrow the Roman government, and to redistribute the wealth. Catiline’s plot was exposed, and he was killed in battle. Yet even today, we have a view of Catiline that is probably different from what he was really like. Catiline’s historical reputation is inaccurate, as can be seen from examining the style of ancient historians, looking at his probable innocence in the murder of Gratiadianus, and critically evaluating his first conspiracy.
Catiline was born in 108 B.C. He gained power from his support of Sullla, and was elected praetor, as well as the governor of Africa. His radical ideas about redistribution of property and abolition of debts gained him popularity with the lower classes, but fierce enemies among the rich. Failing to achieve his ends by legal means, Catiline plotted to seize control by force. Cicero was informed of the plot by his spies, and exposed Catiline to the Senate. Catiline and his fellow conspirators were killed (Kaplan).. Although it faired, the conspiracy was not without historical significance. Cicero’s place in history was largely secured by this event (Church 92).
The saying that the winners write the history book is glaringly true in the Catiline conspiracy. None of Catiline’s own speeches or writings have survived. The two main sources we have about the conspiracy come from Marcus Tullius Cicero, and Gaius Sallustus Crispus, both of whom had good reasons to place Catiline in an unfavorable light. From their writings Catiline emerges as a figure of satanic proportions. He was accused of almost every crime imaginable including murdering his brother in law, sister, step son, and wife, raping a vestal virgin, and practicing homosexuality. Virgil, in The Aenied, didn’t think twice about placing Catiline in hell. “There (Tartarus) Catiline hung from a threatening rock, and trembled to see the Furies’s faces;...” (221). There is much to suggest that neither the portrait of Catiline painted by Cicero, nor Sallust, can be taken at face value.
Cicero, to start with, was one of the most egotistical figures in classical history. As Michael Grant writes in his introduction to Cicero’s speeches, “Readers will be appalled at the boastfulness of Cicero. He blows his trumpet with an unremitting loudness which can scarcely be paralleled” (11). Ordinarily, if an orator wished to publish his speeches he would do so immediately after they were delivered, yet Cicero waited three years to publish his speeches against Catiline. He had much time to rewrite them during this period, and evidence suggests he probably did. His speeches appear to be too long for the Senate to have sat through, considering the emotion present. More likely, they were what the Romans called “altercation”, or give and take. Catiline’s supporters would shout one thing, and Cicero would respond to it (Grant 11).
In his own eyes, Cicero had saved Rome from the greatest danger possible. He wanted to make sure the rest of Rome knew that, and his reworked speeches do everything to maximize the danger Rome was in, and the depravity of Catiline. Michael Grant writes, “Cicero’s picture of his (Catiline’s) personal character...is too classically frightful and diabolical to be true” (72).
Sallust, on the other hand, had high expectations when he began his political career. In his writings, he claimed that any man who did not make himself great was no better than the animals, who lived only to satisfy their appetites. Sallust entered the political scene as a populare. His support of Gaius Julius Caesar caused him some humiliating setbacks at the beginning, but by 49 B.C. Caesar had acquired a position of power, and Caesar rewarded his friends well. Sallust was on the verge of attaining his consulship, the ultimate goal for all politicians, when Caesar was murdered by the optimates. The political scene changed rapidly, and it soon became clear that Sallust was to have no part in the changing order (Linderski).
Sallust’s hopes were dashed. He had spent all of his adult life (he was 45 at the time) trying to achieve greatness through politics, only to leave the scene a nobody. In writing his histories, Sallust had two purposes: to achieve greatness in his writings that he never achieved in politics, and to get revenge on the political system and people he felt had kept him from greatness.
Sallust admits putting his own words of criticism into Catiline’s mouth. Through Catiline, Sallust harshly criticizes the optimates, who had opposed him at every turn. Nor do the populares escape denunciations, since Sallust felt they had been unappreciative of his actions. In other words, all the anger and cynicism we normally associate with Catiline really belong to Sallust (Hutchinson 24-28).
Secondly, these histories were Sallust’s last chance of greatness, and he was taking no chances. He wanted his readers to be on the edge of their seat as they read about the Catiline conspiracy, wondering how Rome could possibly escape the danger, only to see it narrowly survive, the reader would breath a sigh of relief. Naturally, th reader had to passionately hate Catiline, and Sallust painted Catiline as a villain of the vilest nature (Hutchinson 24-28).
Sallust was not unique to his time in doing this. The ancients drew the line between history and story incredibly thin. Fact was often sacrificed for dramatization. Later historians writing about Catiline painted him much like Cicero and Sallust and, of course, made up events of their own to impress the reader. Most notably is Plutarch, who accused Catiline of killing his own brother, deflowering his own daughter, and eating flesh, while encouraging other young men to do the same (1046). No doubt these juicy crimes widened the eyes of his reader, but there is no apparent evidence behind them. Not only was Catiline never prosecuted for these crimes, but if there was any thread of rumor to these effects, you can bet Cicero and Sallust would have brought it up.
If all the crimes Catiline was charged with were believed to be true, he would not have been elected praetor or been allowed to stand for consul twice, much less have his array of powerful friends. In fact, few believed the crimes because it was common in ancient Rome to accuse an opponent of imaginary crimes. In schools of rhetoric, advocates were taught to make use of colours, a way of presenting insignificant facts, mixed with a few useful lies, to produce what appeared to be evidence of shocking guilt. “It had become a habit,” said Cicero (as quoted in Hutchinson 31) referring to this practice, even though he did it often himself. Also, in the law courts of the time, there were no rules of evidence. It was the duty of the prosecutor to create a maximum of prejudice. It is unfortunate that many of these fake crimes have leaked into history (Hutchinson 29-35).
Of all the crimes Catiline was accused of, the murder of Gratidianus was the most popular. To make sense of this, it should be understood that in the late republic, Rome had two main political parties: the optimates and the populares. To say that the optimates were primarily for looking out for the interests of the aristocrats, and the populares primarily concerned about helping the poor, would be an oversimplification bordering on falsehood, but perhaps a useful working definition for our purposes (Asimov 47).
Tensions between these two groups were always high, but it exploded under the influence of Marius and Sulla. Marius, the populare, was forced to flee when Sulla gained control of Rome. Narrowly escaping Sulla’s many death traps, Marius fled to Africa. Sulla, thinking Marius was dead, decided all was safe at home and left for Asia to conduct war against Pontus. Marius returned with an army to seize control of Rome. For many days the city stunk of rotting flesh as Marius conducted one of the most brutal massacres in Roman history. Everyone associated with the optimate party was murdered (Plutarch 478).
But Marius’s reign was short lived. He died of a stroke while his massacre was still in full swing. Sulla returned to regain control. Foremost on his mind was revenge. He wanted to conduct a slaughter of the populares that would exceed that of the optimates. He succeeded (Plutarch 556).
Among the victims was a man named Gratidianus, a native of Arpinum and related to Marius and Cicero. From what we know of Gratidianus, he was one of the few honest politicians Rome had. He attained popularity as a praetor by withdrawing bad money from circulation. Several statues had been raised in his honor, but he was a populare, and condemned as such (Hutchinson 39).
Catiline, although his political views would later change rapidly, was at this time one of Sulla’s right hand men. According to Plutarch, Catiline dragged Gratidianus to the tomb of Catulus, a former consul who had committed suicide to avoid being killed by Marius. In front of an applauding mob, Catiline broke Gratidianus’s legs, cut off his hands, and plucked out his eyes before finally decapitating him. After placing Gratidianus’s head at Sulla’s feet, Catiline added sacrilege to his crimes by washing his hands off in the sacred fountain of Apollo (Plutarch 946).
Yet there is sufficient evidence to doubt this story. Catiline remained on friendly terms with the populare senators, and was a successful candidate for high office. Of more importance, Sulla had insisted that the names of those who had received money for killing or betraying the proscribed (those killed by Sulla) were entered into the public records. In 67 B.C., when the quastor Cato made them refund this money, Catiline was never called into question (Hutchinson 40). The following year, Julius Caesar brought to court and condemned all those who had taken part in Sulla’s massacre. No mention was made of Catiline (Grant 19).
Catiline was first accused of murdering Gratidianus in De Petitione Consulatus, a book written to Marcus Cicero by his younger brother Quintus, on how to become successful in politics. Catiline was then later strongly attacked for this murder in “In Toga Candida”, a speech made by Cicero. It seems strange that Cicero would so strongly attack Catiline, when earlier the same year he had written the following to his friend Atticus, while Catiline was facing charges of extortion in Africa: “I design at present to defend my competitor Catiline....I hope if he be acquitted that he will be the more ready to join me in our common candidature....Catiline is a good citizen, a lover of honest men, a firm and faithful friend,” (as quoted in Hutchinson 43). It turned out that Cicero was not needed; all the senators of consular rank, and then consuls themselves gave testimony in Catiline’s favor, also indicating that he was innocent of the brutal murder. Based on the accusations made in “In Toga Candida”, Catiline was brought to court for the murder of Gratidianus, and prosecuted by Lucius Lucceius, an optimate and friend of Cicero. He was acquitted. (Hutchinson 39-41).
In 66 B.C., Publius Cornelius Sulla and Publius Autronius were elected consuls for the coming year. Unfortunately for them, they were never to see the day they would take office. They were found guilty of bribery, and disqualified, fined, and sentenced to permanent exclusion form the Senate and magistracies. Aurelius Cotta and Manlius Torquatus were elected in their place. According to traditional history, Sulla and Autronius believed they had spent too much money on the consulship to be defeated now. They soon came together with Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, a hot-headed social revolutionary. Together the three plotted to overthrow the senate and place themselves in power.
Thinking Catiline would be sympathetic to their ideas, they approached him. Catiline eagerly accepted, and soon was dominating the whole plot. On the appointed day, Catiline was supposed to give the signal, and armed gladiators would storm into the Senate, killing all inside. Catiline, in his thirst for blood, gave the signal too soon before the gladiators had fully assembled, and the plan collapsed (Plutarch 1054).
This was known as Catiline’s first conspiracy, but it appears to be more rumor than anything else. Sallust presents it as fact, but even he has to admit that the whole thing was uncertain (Hutchinson 44). Torquatus, the consul who supposedly was marked for death, said “he had heard something of it, but believed none of it” (as quoted in Hutchinson 45). Neither a prosecution nor an enquiry was conducted, which suggests no one seriously believed the rumors. All of the so called conspirators remained on good terms with the rest of the senate, which is unlikely had the senators truly believed the conspirators planned to kill them (Hutchinson 45). Even if the conspiracy did exist, Catiline’s involvement in it was most likely minimal, if at all. R.E. Smith writes, “The truth was rather that this so called first conspiracy of Catiline was a conspiracy of two disgruntled men” (86).
To add to the confusion, two men told a different story of the conspiracy. Aedile Marcus Bibulus, and a former consul, the elder Curio, told a version picked up by some other historians, most notably Suetonius. In this version, Catiline is in the background; the two masterminds were Crassus and Caesar. On the appointed day, Caesar was to give the signal for the massacre by letting his toga fall. All the senators would be murdered, and Crassus would be set up as dictator, with Caesar as his master of the horse. When the time came, Crassus chickened out, didn’t show, and the plan was aborted (Grant 20-30).
This view also has some inconsistences in it. For one thing, it contradicts the historical view we have of Crassus and Caesar. Crassus was always cautious never to put himself in front of things, preferring to achieve his means as inconspicuously as possible (Smith 86). Caesar, at this point in his career, was known for following the Roman constitution to the letter (Smith 87). Both men were too shrewd as politicians to ever do something as daring as this. Plutarch tells us that Caesar refused the crown from Mark Antony three times, instead of just seizing power when he had the chance (Plutarch 1233). Furthermore, even if the plan had been successful, it would only have succeeded in bringing Pompey and his legions, currently stationed in Spain, back to Rome, where Pompey would have assumed the dictatorship (Smith 90).
Two-thousand years after he died, it’s hard to get an accurate picture of what Catiline really was like. Since the only information we have on him is from his enemies, it is more than likely he is different than we usually think of him. Whatever his character was, his vision was correct. The republic didn’t last much past him. The first Triumvirate was formed three years later.
Bibliography
Asimov, Isaac The Roman Republic Cambridge, Houghton Mifflin Company 1966
Cicero, Marcus Tullius Contra Catiline I-IV Rome, 66 B.C.
Church, Alfred Roman Life in the Days of Cicero New York, Bilso and Tannen, 1959
Grant, Michael Cicero: Selected Political Speeches London, Penguin Books 1969
Grant, Michael The Founders of the Western World: A History of Greece and Rome New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989
Grant, Michael Julius Caesar. New York. M. Evans & Company. 1969
Hutchinson, Lester The Conspiracy of Catiline New York, Barnes and Noble 1967
Kaplan, Arthur “Catiline” (Electronic Encyclopedia) Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. Copyright 1995
Linderski, James “Sallust” (Electronic Encyclopedia) Grolier Electronig Publishing, Inc. Copyright 1995.
Maier, Paul Josephus: The Essential Writings Kregal Publications, Grand Rapids, 1988.
Plutarch Vitae Rome 105
Smith, R.E. Cicero the Statesman Cambridge, University Press 1966
Virgilius, Publius Maro The Aeneid Rome, 19 BC
Teacher’s Comments: I appreciate your work on transitions! You have a talent Joel! I can envision you as a history scholar. You should go for it. You’re talented. Be sure to be aware of info your reader needs to know. You improved this! Nice. Watch documentary style.
Grade 98% A
Video Version
In its last days, the republic of Rome was beginning to collapse under its own weight. Military conquests had brought in a new kind of luxury. The rich amassed all the wealth, the poor soon found themselves unemployed, since slaves did all the work. It was clear that things could not go on much longer, and many thought that change had come in Catiline. Catiline plotted to overthrow the Roman government, and to redistribute the wealth. Catiline’s plot was exposed, and he was killed in battle. Yet even today, we have a view of Catiline that is probably different from what he was really like. Catiline’s historical reputation is inaccurate, as can be seen from examining the style of ancient historians, looking at his probable innocence in the murder of Gratiadianus, and critically evaluating his first conspiracy.
Catiline was born in 108 B.C. He gained power from his support of Sullla, and was elected praetor, as well as the governor of Africa. His radical ideas about redistribution of property and abolition of debts gained him popularity with the lower classes, but fierce enemies among the rich. Failing to achieve his ends by legal means, Catiline plotted to seize control by force. Cicero was informed of the plot by his spies, and exposed Catiline to the Senate. Catiline and his fellow conspirators were killed (Kaplan).. Although it faired, the conspiracy was not without historical significance. Cicero’s place in history was largely secured by this event (Church 92).
The saying that the winners write the history book is glaringly true in the Catiline conspiracy. None of Catiline’s own speeches or writings have survived. The two main sources we have about the conspiracy come from Marcus Tullius Cicero, and Gaius Sallustus Crispus, both of whom had good reasons to place Catiline in an unfavorable light. From their writings Catiline emerges as a figure of satanic proportions. He was accused of almost every crime imaginable including murdering his brother in law, sister, step son, and wife, raping a vestal virgin, and practicing homosexuality. Virgil, in The Aenied, didn’t think twice about placing Catiline in hell. “There (Tartarus) Catiline hung from a threatening rock, and trembled to see the Furies’s faces;...” (221). There is much to suggest that neither the portrait of Catiline painted by Cicero, nor Sallust, can be taken at face value.
Cicero, to start with, was one of the most egotistical figures in classical history. As Michael Grant writes in his introduction to Cicero’s speeches, “Readers will be appalled at the boastfulness of Cicero. He blows his trumpet with an unremitting loudness which can scarcely be paralleled” (11). Ordinarily, if an orator wished to publish his speeches he would do so immediately after they were delivered, yet Cicero waited three years to publish his speeches against Catiline. He had much time to rewrite them during this period, and evidence suggests he probably did. His speeches appear to be too long for the Senate to have sat through, considering the emotion present. More likely, they were what the Romans called “altercation”, or give and take. Catiline’s supporters would shout one thing, and Cicero would respond to it (Grant 11).
In his own eyes, Cicero had saved Rome from the greatest danger possible. He wanted to make sure the rest of Rome knew that, and his reworked speeches do everything to maximize the danger Rome was in, and the depravity of Catiline. Michael Grant writes, “Cicero’s picture of his (Catiline’s) personal character...is too classically frightful and diabolical to be true” (72).
Sallust, on the other hand, had high expectations when he began his political career. In his writings, he claimed that any man who did not make himself great was no better than the animals, who lived only to satisfy their appetites. Sallust entered the political scene as a populare. His support of Gaius Julius Caesar caused him some humiliating setbacks at the beginning, but by 49 B.C. Caesar had acquired a position of power, and Caesar rewarded his friends well. Sallust was on the verge of attaining his consulship, the ultimate goal for all politicians, when Caesar was murdered by the optimates. The political scene changed rapidly, and it soon became clear that Sallust was to have no part in the changing order (Linderski).
Sallust’s hopes were dashed. He had spent all of his adult life (he was 45 at the time) trying to achieve greatness through politics, only to leave the scene a nobody. In writing his histories, Sallust had two purposes: to achieve greatness in his writings that he never achieved in politics, and to get revenge on the political system and people he felt had kept him from greatness.
Sallust admits putting his own words of criticism into Catiline’s mouth. Through Catiline, Sallust harshly criticizes the optimates, who had opposed him at every turn. Nor do the populares escape denunciations, since Sallust felt they had been unappreciative of his actions. In other words, all the anger and cynicism we normally associate with Catiline really belong to Sallust (Hutchinson 24-28).
Secondly, these histories were Sallust’s last chance of greatness, and he was taking no chances. He wanted his readers to be on the edge of their seat as they read about the Catiline conspiracy, wondering how Rome could possibly escape the danger, only to see it narrowly survive, the reader would breath a sigh of relief. Naturally, th reader had to passionately hate Catiline, and Sallust painted Catiline as a villain of the vilest nature (Hutchinson 24-28).
Sallust was not unique to his time in doing this. The ancients drew the line between history and story incredibly thin. Fact was often sacrificed for dramatization. Later historians writing about Catiline painted him much like Cicero and Sallust and, of course, made up events of their own to impress the reader. Most notably is Plutarch, who accused Catiline of killing his own brother, deflowering his own daughter, and eating flesh, while encouraging other young men to do the same (1046). No doubt these juicy crimes widened the eyes of his reader, but there is no apparent evidence behind them. Not only was Catiline never prosecuted for these crimes, but if there was any thread of rumor to these effects, you can bet Cicero and Sallust would have brought it up.
If all the crimes Catiline was charged with were believed to be true, he would not have been elected praetor or been allowed to stand for consul twice, much less have his array of powerful friends. In fact, few believed the crimes because it was common in ancient Rome to accuse an opponent of imaginary crimes. In schools of rhetoric, advocates were taught to make use of colours, a way of presenting insignificant facts, mixed with a few useful lies, to produce what appeared to be evidence of shocking guilt. “It had become a habit,” said Cicero (as quoted in Hutchinson 31) referring to this practice, even though he did it often himself. Also, in the law courts of the time, there were no rules of evidence. It was the duty of the prosecutor to create a maximum of prejudice. It is unfortunate that many of these fake crimes have leaked into history (Hutchinson 29-35).
Of all the crimes Catiline was accused of, the murder of Gratidianus was the most popular. To make sense of this, it should be understood that in the late republic, Rome had two main political parties: the optimates and the populares. To say that the optimates were primarily for looking out for the interests of the aristocrats, and the populares primarily concerned about helping the poor, would be an oversimplification bordering on falsehood, but perhaps a useful working definition for our purposes (Asimov 47).
Tensions between these two groups were always high, but it exploded under the influence of Marius and Sulla. Marius, the populare, was forced to flee when Sulla gained control of Rome. Narrowly escaping Sulla’s many death traps, Marius fled to Africa. Sulla, thinking Marius was dead, decided all was safe at home and left for Asia to conduct war against Pontus. Marius returned with an army to seize control of Rome. For many days the city stunk of rotting flesh as Marius conducted one of the most brutal massacres in Roman history. Everyone associated with the optimate party was murdered (Plutarch 478).
But Marius’s reign was short lived. He died of a stroke while his massacre was still in full swing. Sulla returned to regain control. Foremost on his mind was revenge. He wanted to conduct a slaughter of the populares that would exceed that of the optimates. He succeeded (Plutarch 556).
Among the victims was a man named Gratidianus, a native of Arpinum and related to Marius and Cicero. From what we know of Gratidianus, he was one of the few honest politicians Rome had. He attained popularity as a praetor by withdrawing bad money from circulation. Several statues had been raised in his honor, but he was a populare, and condemned as such (Hutchinson 39).
Catiline, although his political views would later change rapidly, was at this time one of Sulla’s right hand men. According to Plutarch, Catiline dragged Gratidianus to the tomb of Catulus, a former consul who had committed suicide to avoid being killed by Marius. In front of an applauding mob, Catiline broke Gratidianus’s legs, cut off his hands, and plucked out his eyes before finally decapitating him. After placing Gratidianus’s head at Sulla’s feet, Catiline added sacrilege to his crimes by washing his hands off in the sacred fountain of Apollo (Plutarch 946).
Yet there is sufficient evidence to doubt this story. Catiline remained on friendly terms with the populare senators, and was a successful candidate for high office. Of more importance, Sulla had insisted that the names of those who had received money for killing or betraying the proscribed (those killed by Sulla) were entered into the public records. In 67 B.C., when the quastor Cato made them refund this money, Catiline was never called into question (Hutchinson 40). The following year, Julius Caesar brought to court and condemned all those who had taken part in Sulla’s massacre. No mention was made of Catiline (Grant 19).
Catiline was first accused of murdering Gratidianus in De Petitione Consulatus, a book written to Marcus Cicero by his younger brother Quintus, on how to become successful in politics. Catiline was then later strongly attacked for this murder in “In Toga Candida”, a speech made by Cicero. It seems strange that Cicero would so strongly attack Catiline, when earlier the same year he had written the following to his friend Atticus, while Catiline was facing charges of extortion in Africa: “I design at present to defend my competitor Catiline....I hope if he be acquitted that he will be the more ready to join me in our common candidature....Catiline is a good citizen, a lover of honest men, a firm and faithful friend,” (as quoted in Hutchinson 43). It turned out that Cicero was not needed; all the senators of consular rank, and then consuls themselves gave testimony in Catiline’s favor, also indicating that he was innocent of the brutal murder. Based on the accusations made in “In Toga Candida”, Catiline was brought to court for the murder of Gratidianus, and prosecuted by Lucius Lucceius, an optimate and friend of Cicero. He was acquitted. (Hutchinson 39-41).
In 66 B.C., Publius Cornelius Sulla and Publius Autronius were elected consuls for the coming year. Unfortunately for them, they were never to see the day they would take office. They were found guilty of bribery, and disqualified, fined, and sentenced to permanent exclusion form the Senate and magistracies. Aurelius Cotta and Manlius Torquatus were elected in their place. According to traditional history, Sulla and Autronius believed they had spent too much money on the consulship to be defeated now. They soon came together with Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, a hot-headed social revolutionary. Together the three plotted to overthrow the senate and place themselves in power.
Thinking Catiline would be sympathetic to their ideas, they approached him. Catiline eagerly accepted, and soon was dominating the whole plot. On the appointed day, Catiline was supposed to give the signal, and armed gladiators would storm into the Senate, killing all inside. Catiline, in his thirst for blood, gave the signal too soon before the gladiators had fully assembled, and the plan collapsed (Plutarch 1054).
This was known as Catiline’s first conspiracy, but it appears to be more rumor than anything else. Sallust presents it as fact, but even he has to admit that the whole thing was uncertain (Hutchinson 44). Torquatus, the consul who supposedly was marked for death, said “he had heard something of it, but believed none of it” (as quoted in Hutchinson 45). Neither a prosecution nor an enquiry was conducted, which suggests no one seriously believed the rumors. All of the so called conspirators remained on good terms with the rest of the senate, which is unlikely had the senators truly believed the conspirators planned to kill them (Hutchinson 45). Even if the conspiracy did exist, Catiline’s involvement in it was most likely minimal, if at all. R.E. Smith writes, “The truth was rather that this so called first conspiracy of Catiline was a conspiracy of two disgruntled men” (86).
To add to the confusion, two men told a different story of the conspiracy. Aedile Marcus Bibulus, and a former consul, the elder Curio, told a version picked up by some other historians, most notably Suetonius. In this version, Catiline is in the background; the two masterminds were Crassus and Caesar. On the appointed day, Caesar was to give the signal for the massacre by letting his toga fall. All the senators would be murdered, and Crassus would be set up as dictator, with Caesar as his master of the horse. When the time came, Crassus chickened out, didn’t show, and the plan was aborted (Grant 20-30).
This view also has some inconsistences in it. For one thing, it contradicts the historical view we have of Crassus and Caesar. Crassus was always cautious never to put himself in front of things, preferring to achieve his means as inconspicuously as possible (Smith 86). Caesar, at this point in his career, was known for following the Roman constitution to the letter (Smith 87). Both men were too shrewd as politicians to ever do something as daring as this. Plutarch tells us that Caesar refused the crown from Mark Antony three times, instead of just seizing power when he had the chance (Plutarch 1233). Furthermore, even if the plan had been successful, it would only have succeeded in bringing Pompey and his legions, currently stationed in Spain, back to Rome, where Pompey would have assumed the dictatorship (Smith 90).
Two-thousand years after he died, it’s hard to get an accurate picture of what Catiline really was like. Since the only information we have on him is from his enemies, it is more than likely he is different than we usually think of him. Whatever his character was, his vision was correct. The republic didn’t last much past him. The first Triumvirate was formed three years later.
Bibliography
Asimov, Isaac The Roman Republic Cambridge, Houghton Mifflin Company 1966
Cicero, Marcus Tullius Contra Catiline I-IV Rome, 66 B.C.
Church, Alfred Roman Life in the Days of Cicero New York, Bilso and Tannen, 1959
Grant, Michael Cicero: Selected Political Speeches London, Penguin Books 1969
Grant, Michael The Founders of the Western World: A History of Greece and Rome New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989
Grant, Michael Julius Caesar. New York. M. Evans & Company. 1969
Hutchinson, Lester The Conspiracy of Catiline New York, Barnes and Noble 1967
Kaplan, Arthur “Catiline” (Electronic Encyclopedia) Grolier Electronic Publishing, Inc. Copyright 1995
Linderski, James “Sallust” (Electronic Encyclopedia) Grolier Electronig Publishing, Inc. Copyright 1995.
Maier, Paul Josephus: The Essential Writings Kregal Publications, Grand Rapids, 1988.
Plutarch Vitae Rome 105
Smith, R.E. Cicero the Statesman Cambridge, University Press 1966
Virgilius, Publius Maro The Aeneid Rome, 19 BC
Teacher’s Comments: I appreciate your work on transitions! You have a talent Joel! I can envision you as a history scholar. You should go for it. You’re talented. Be sure to be aware of info your reader needs to know. You improved this! Nice. Watch documentary style.
Grade 98% A
Video Version
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Caligula
10th Grade English Speech—Caligula
March 25th, 1994
I. Introduction
The Roman Empire—A forum through which ran some of the best and worst history has to offer. Commonly ranked as second only to Nero in the worst is Caligula. He came extremely close to destroying the whole Empire, and only a handful of brave men were able to stop him. They were faced with the impossible task of killing an Emperor.
II. Background
A. Childhood
1.Born in Gaul-12 AD-with the army—father Germanicus famous general
2. Named
a. Gaius Julius Caesar in honor of ancestor
b. Dressed up like soldier at three—earned the nickname “little boots”—Caligula in Latin
B. Reign
1. Became the third Emperor after Tiberious—AD 37
2. Ruled wisely for the first few months, but overtook by an unknown mental illness
3. Treasury
a. Used up by faulty spending
b. Executed rich people on false charges for their money
c. Over 38 known victims
4. Germanic tribes
a. giving him trouble—marched troops down to restore order
b. boasted he would conquer Britain also
(1). Disloyal troops made this impossible
(2). As a way out, he told troops they must first conquer the sea, and had them collect sea shells in helmet—great humiliation
III. Trouble in Judea
A. Declared himself God—ordered the whole empire to worship him as such
B. Alexandria
1. When the Jews refused to do so, Greeks burned their houses
2. Tensions rose so high that the case brought before Caligula
a. Greek spokesman—Apion—claimed Jews failed to honor the emperor
b. Jewish spokesman—Philio—cut off by Caligula
C. Statue
1. Sent Petronius to replace Legate of Syria
2. Told Petronius to march to Jerusalem and place the statue in the Holy of Holies
3. At Ptolemais—met by thousands of Jews
a. Pleaded for peace
b. Threatened revolution
c. Threatened destruction of crops—famine
4. At Tiberius
a. Same result
b. Gathered meeting—explained situation
c. Wrote a letter to Caligula saying plan wouldn’t work
5. King Aggrippa
a. Grandson of Herod the Great
b. Pleaded for Jews
c. Caligula reluctantly agreed
d. Letter from Petronius
(1). Only agitated him
(2) Ordered Petronius to commit suicide, but news of assassination reached Petronius first
IV. Asssassination
A. Three Groups
1. Originally worked without knowing about each other
2. Later joined into one group
B. Key conspirators
1. Chaerea
a. High pitched voice—Caligula mocked with hand and password
b. Liberty
c. Republic
2. Sabinus
3. Vinicianus
C. Omens
1. Sacrifices squirted blood
2. Actors at play vomited blood
D. Plan
1. Get him when he left play to bathe and lunch
2. Caligula showed signs of staying through play
3. Vinicianus—urged Chaerea to do act—stopped by Caligula
4. Chaerea almost committed assassination in theater, but Caligula convinced to leave
E. Assassination
1. Took a shorter route—unguarded alley
2. met by conspirators—Chaerea asked for password
3. Usual obscene reply
4. Chaerea struck neck
5. Caligula ran but Sabinus pushed him down
6. Stabbed thirty times—fatal blow from Aquila—41
7. Litter barrens took poles from litter to try and fight off—little good
V. Aftermath
A. German body guards
1. Arrived and cut down anyone in sight
2. Many conspirators escaped thanks to Alcyon, Physician who smuggled many out while pretending to look for supplies
B. Wife Caesonia and daughter Drusilla killed at home by Lupus
1. Wife—ran through with sword
2. Daughter—head smashed against wall
C. Claudius made emperor
1. Stuttered so Caligula had made him clown
2. Found hiding by the soldiers, and then hailed as Emperor—Caligula’s Uncle
D. Executions
1. Claudius glad of Caligula’s death, but wanted to make example
2. Chaerea and others killed
3. Public opinion against—so executions stopped
4. Sabinus felt guilty—committed suicide
VI. Conclusion
Through the valor of brave men, who risked their lives to stop a madman, the empire was saved. The republic never returned. It’s time had passed for a while. But history will always remember those who died to save the world from the corruption of power—from Caligula.
Bibliography
March 25th, 1994
I. Introduction
The Roman Empire—A forum through which ran some of the best and worst history has to offer. Commonly ranked as second only to Nero in the worst is Caligula. He came extremely close to destroying the whole Empire, and only a handful of brave men were able to stop him. They were faced with the impossible task of killing an Emperor.
II. Background
A. Childhood
1.Born in Gaul-12 AD-with the army—father Germanicus famous general
2. Named
a. Gaius Julius Caesar in honor of ancestor
b. Dressed up like soldier at three—earned the nickname “little boots”—Caligula in Latin
B. Reign
1. Became the third Emperor after Tiberious—AD 37
2. Ruled wisely for the first few months, but overtook by an unknown mental illness
3. Treasury
a. Used up by faulty spending
b. Executed rich people on false charges for their money
c. Over 38 known victims
4. Germanic tribes
a. giving him trouble—marched troops down to restore order
b. boasted he would conquer Britain also
(1). Disloyal troops made this impossible
(2). As a way out, he told troops they must first conquer the sea, and had them collect sea shells in helmet—great humiliation
III. Trouble in Judea
A. Declared himself God—ordered the whole empire to worship him as such
B. Alexandria
1. When the Jews refused to do so, Greeks burned their houses
2. Tensions rose so high that the case brought before Caligula
a. Greek spokesman—Apion—claimed Jews failed to honor the emperor
b. Jewish spokesman—Philio—cut off by Caligula
C. Statue
1. Sent Petronius to replace Legate of Syria
2. Told Petronius to march to Jerusalem and place the statue in the Holy of Holies
3. At Ptolemais—met by thousands of Jews
a. Pleaded for peace
b. Threatened revolution
c. Threatened destruction of crops—famine
4. At Tiberius
a. Same result
b. Gathered meeting—explained situation
c. Wrote a letter to Caligula saying plan wouldn’t work
5. King Aggrippa
a. Grandson of Herod the Great
b. Pleaded for Jews
c. Caligula reluctantly agreed
d. Letter from Petronius
(1). Only agitated him
(2) Ordered Petronius to commit suicide, but news of assassination reached Petronius first
IV. Asssassination
A. Three Groups
1. Originally worked without knowing about each other
2. Later joined into one group
B. Key conspirators
1. Chaerea
a. High pitched voice—Caligula mocked with hand and password
b. Liberty
c. Republic
2. Sabinus
3. Vinicianus
C. Omens
1. Sacrifices squirted blood
2. Actors at play vomited blood
D. Plan
1. Get him when he left play to bathe and lunch
2. Caligula showed signs of staying through play
3. Vinicianus—urged Chaerea to do act—stopped by Caligula
4. Chaerea almost committed assassination in theater, but Caligula convinced to leave
E. Assassination
1. Took a shorter route—unguarded alley
2. met by conspirators—Chaerea asked for password
3. Usual obscene reply
4. Chaerea struck neck
5. Caligula ran but Sabinus pushed him down
6. Stabbed thirty times—fatal blow from Aquila—41
7. Litter barrens took poles from litter to try and fight off—little good
V. Aftermath
A. German body guards
1. Arrived and cut down anyone in sight
2. Many conspirators escaped thanks to Alcyon, Physician who smuggled many out while pretending to look for supplies
B. Wife Caesonia and daughter Drusilla killed at home by Lupus
1. Wife—ran through with sword
2. Daughter—head smashed against wall
C. Claudius made emperor
1. Stuttered so Caligula had made him clown
2. Found hiding by the soldiers, and then hailed as Emperor—Caligula’s Uncle
D. Executions
1. Claudius glad of Caligula’s death, but wanted to make example
2. Chaerea and others killed
3. Public opinion against—so executions stopped
4. Sabinus felt guilty—committed suicide
VI. Conclusion
Through the valor of brave men, who risked their lives to stop a madman, the empire was saved. The republic never returned. It’s time had passed for a while. But history will always remember those who died to save the world from the corruption of power—from Caligula.
Bibliography
Barrett, Anthony. Caligula: The Corruption of Power. New Haven. Yale University Press. 1989.
Josephus. The Jewish War. Grand Rapids. Kregal Publications. 1988 (Translated by Paul Maier)
Grade: 96% A-
Teacher’s comments:
Nicely informative poster. Excellent information. Excellent conclusion. I really enjoyed everything you said.
Delivery—look at the sides as well. Don’t play with your pen.
The test of a good speech is whether you are able to retain audience attention throughout. You do this well. Keep working on delivery skills. I’d like to see your positioning reflect confidence.
Time: 7:09—long!
A-( I really wanted to give you an “A”, but for a couple of reasons I had to take off points).
Update: For my Roman History ESL Listening project, I've attempted to re-write this based off of my old notes. I'm hoping I got all the details right.
Google: docs, pub
Watch the Video: https://youtu.be/3PMN9OrN2Zs
Caligula 12-41A.D.
The Roman Empire—A forum through which ran some of the best and worst history has to offer. Commonly ranked as second only to Nero in the worst is Caligula. He came extremely close to destroying the whole Empire, and only a handful of brave men were able to stop him. They were faced with the impossible task of killing an Emperor.
Caligula was born in 12 AD in an army camp in Gaul. His father was one of Rome’s most famous generals--Germanicus.
Caligula was named after Gaius Julius Caesar, who was one of his ancestors (by adoption--his great grandfather was Augustus Caesar, who had been adopted by Julius Caesar in his will.) But Caligula enjoyed dressing up like a soldier at three years old, and so earned the nickname “little boots”, or Caligula in Latin
Caligula became the third Roman Emperor after Tiberius died in AD 37. He ruled wisely for the first few months, but then he fell sick and suffered from an unknown illness. This illness seemed to have an effect on his mental health, and he was never quite the same after he recovered.
Caligula used up all the money in the treasury through reckless spending. Then, when he needed more money, Caligula had rich people executed on false charges in order to confiscate their fortunes. There were over 38 known victims who were killed in this way.
When the Germanic tribes began to make trouble on the border, Caligula marched his troops over to restore order. He then boasted that he would conquer Britain also. However disloyal troops made this impossible. As a way to save face, Caligula told the troops that they must first conquer the sea, and had them collect sea shells in their helmets. The troops viewed this as a great humiliation.
In 40 A.D., Caligula declared himself a god, and ordered the whole empire to worship him as such. In the Egyptian city of Alexandria, the Jews refused to do so. There had been a long standing rivalry between the Jews and the Greeks in Alexandria, so when the Jews refused to worship Caligula, the Greeks burned down their houses. The tension in Alexandria rose so high that the case was brought before Caligula. The Greek spokesman, Apion, spoke first. He claimed that the Jews were failing to honor the emperor by refusing to worship him. The Jewish spokesman, Philio, attempted to reply, but he never got the chance. Caligula angrily cult him off.
As a result of this conference, Caligula sent Petronius to replace the Legate of Syria. Caligula told Petronius to march to Jerusalem and place a statue of himself in the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple.
While he was still on his way, Petronius was met by thousand of Jews at the city of Ptolemais. The Jews pleaded for peace, but also threatened revolution if the statue of Caligula was placed inside their temple They threatened to destroy all of their crops, which would cause famine throughout the region. At the city of Tiberias, the same thing happened. Petronius was met by a group of Jews who also pleaded for peace, but promised they would stop at nothing to resist Caligula’s statue being placed in their temple.
At last, Petronius decided to sit down and write a letter to Caligula, explaining the situation, and telling Caligula why the plan to put his statue in the Jewish temple wouldn’t work.
While all of this was going on, Herod Agrippa, the King of Judea, met with Caligula and pleaded with him to stop his plans. Herod Agrippa was the grandson of the famous Herod the Great, and had actually been an intimate friend of Caligula before Caligula became emperor. Caligula reluctantly agreed to stop his plan.
It was at this moment that the letter from Petronius arrived. Coming as it did when Caligula was still feeling disappointed about his plan, the letter only agitated Caligula further. He wrote back and ordered Petronius to commit suicide. Petronius, however, must have laughed when he read the letter. News of Caligula’s assassination had reached him first.
Caligula’s Assassination
At first there were three groups working on Caligula’s assassination. Originally they each worked without knowing about the others. But later they joined into one group.
The key conspirators were Chaerea, Sabinus, and Vinicianus. Chaerea was a member of Caligula’s Praetorian guard, but he had a high-pitched voice, and Caligula mocked him for it. Whenever Chaerea had to kiss Caligula’s ring, Caligula would hold out his hand with only the middle finger extended--a gesture which meant the same thing in Roman times as it does today. Whenever Charea was in charge of giving out the nightly passwords, Caligula would always make the password obscene.
In addition to his humiliation by Caligula, Chaerea was also motivated by his love for liberty. He dreamed of restoring the Republic.
The other key conspirators were Cornelius Sabinus, a military tribune of the Praetorian Guard, and a Roman Senator Vinicianus.
On the appointed day for the assassination, the omens were bad for Caligula. As he was sacrificing, the blood from the sacrifice squirted on him. When Caligula went to see a play, one of the actors got nervous, and started vomiting blood. The other actors who were on stage were eager to show that they also had the same talent, and pretty soon the play turned in to a contest to see who could vomit the most blood.
The conspirators had planned to get Caligula when he left the play to bathe and have lunch. However, when Caligula showed signs of intending to stay through the whole play, the conspirators began to panic. Vinicianus urged Chaerea to do the act, and Chaerea almost committed assassination in the theater, but in the end Caligula was convinced to leave.
Caligula took a shorter route out of the theater than normal through an unguarded alley, where he was surrounded by conspirators. Chaerea asked Caligula for the password of the day. Caligula, suspecting nothing, gave his usual obscene reply. Chaerea stabbed Caligula in the neck. Caligula ran, but Sabinus pushed him down. Caligula was stabbed thirty times. The fatal blow is credited to a man named Aquila. During this time, Caligula’s litter barrens took poles from the litter and tried to fight off the assassins, but it did little good.
After the assassination, Caligula’s German bodyguards arrived on the scene. Fiercely loyal, they began taking their revenge by cutting down anyone in sight. Many people were killed, both conspirators and innocent bystanders alike. However, many of the conspirators also escaped thanks to Alcyon, a physician who smuggled many out while pretending to look for supplies.
After escaping from the German bodyguards, Chaerea began to get nervous that Caligula’s wife and daughter were still left alive, and so he sent a soldier named Lupus to go to Caligula’s house and take care of them. Lupus killed Caligula’s wife, Caesonia, by running her through with a sword. He killed Caligula’s daughter, Drusilla, by smashing her head against the wall.
Meanwhile, while the German bodyguards were looking for the assassins, they found Caligula’s uncle, Claudius, hiding behind a curtain. Claudius had a speech impediment that made him stutter, so Caligula had mocked Claudius and used to force Claudius to dress up as a clown. But when the German bodyguards found Claudius hiding behind the curtain, they hailed him as the new emperor.
The new emperor, Claudius, was glad of Caligula’s death. But, nevertheless, since he was emperor now, he did not want to reward people who assassinated emperors. He needed to make an example of them. Claudius had Chaerea, and several other of the conspirators killed. Public opinion turned against these executions, so Claudius had the executions stopped before all the conspirators were killed. But Sabinus felt guilty about being left alive after the others were killed, and Sabinus committed suicide.
Through the valor of brave men, who risked their lives to stop a madman, the empire was saved. The republic never returned. Its time had passed. But history will always remember those who died to save the world from the corruption of power—from Caligula.
Video Version
Josephus. The Jewish War. Grand Rapids. Kregal Publications. 1988 (Translated by Paul Maier)
Grade: 96% A-
Teacher’s comments:
Nicely informative poster. Excellent information. Excellent conclusion. I really enjoyed everything you said.
Delivery—look at the sides as well. Don’t play with your pen.
The test of a good speech is whether you are able to retain audience attention throughout. You do this well. Keep working on delivery skills. I’d like to see your positioning reflect confidence.
Time: 7:09—long!
A-( I really wanted to give you an “A”, but for a couple of reasons I had to take off points).
Update: For my Roman History ESL Listening project, I've attempted to re-write this based off of my old notes. I'm hoping I got all the details right.
Google: docs, pub
Watch the Video: https://youtu.be/3PMN9OrN2Zs
Caligula 12-41A.D.
The Roman Empire—A forum through which ran some of the best and worst history has to offer. Commonly ranked as second only to Nero in the worst is Caligula. He came extremely close to destroying the whole Empire, and only a handful of brave men were able to stop him. They were faced with the impossible task of killing an Emperor.
Caligula was born in 12 AD in an army camp in Gaul. His father was one of Rome’s most famous generals--Germanicus.
Caligula was named after Gaius Julius Caesar, who was one of his ancestors (by adoption--his great grandfather was Augustus Caesar, who had been adopted by Julius Caesar in his will.) But Caligula enjoyed dressing up like a soldier at three years old, and so earned the nickname “little boots”, or Caligula in Latin
Caligula became the third Roman Emperor after Tiberius died in AD 37. He ruled wisely for the first few months, but then he fell sick and suffered from an unknown illness. This illness seemed to have an effect on his mental health, and he was never quite the same after he recovered.
Caligula used up all the money in the treasury through reckless spending. Then, when he needed more money, Caligula had rich people executed on false charges in order to confiscate their fortunes. There were over 38 known victims who were killed in this way.
When the Germanic tribes began to make trouble on the border, Caligula marched his troops over to restore order. He then boasted that he would conquer Britain also. However disloyal troops made this impossible. As a way to save face, Caligula told the troops that they must first conquer the sea, and had them collect sea shells in their helmets. The troops viewed this as a great humiliation.
In 40 A.D., Caligula declared himself a god, and ordered the whole empire to worship him as such. In the Egyptian city of Alexandria, the Jews refused to do so. There had been a long standing rivalry between the Jews and the Greeks in Alexandria, so when the Jews refused to worship Caligula, the Greeks burned down their houses. The tension in Alexandria rose so high that the case was brought before Caligula. The Greek spokesman, Apion, spoke first. He claimed that the Jews were failing to honor the emperor by refusing to worship him. The Jewish spokesman, Philio, attempted to reply, but he never got the chance. Caligula angrily cult him off.
As a result of this conference, Caligula sent Petronius to replace the Legate of Syria. Caligula told Petronius to march to Jerusalem and place a statue of himself in the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem temple.
While he was still on his way, Petronius was met by thousand of Jews at the city of Ptolemais. The Jews pleaded for peace, but also threatened revolution if the statue of Caligula was placed inside their temple They threatened to destroy all of their crops, which would cause famine throughout the region. At the city of Tiberias, the same thing happened. Petronius was met by a group of Jews who also pleaded for peace, but promised they would stop at nothing to resist Caligula’s statue being placed in their temple.
At last, Petronius decided to sit down and write a letter to Caligula, explaining the situation, and telling Caligula why the plan to put his statue in the Jewish temple wouldn’t work.
While all of this was going on, Herod Agrippa, the King of Judea, met with Caligula and pleaded with him to stop his plans. Herod Agrippa was the grandson of the famous Herod the Great, and had actually been an intimate friend of Caligula before Caligula became emperor. Caligula reluctantly agreed to stop his plan.
It was at this moment that the letter from Petronius arrived. Coming as it did when Caligula was still feeling disappointed about his plan, the letter only agitated Caligula further. He wrote back and ordered Petronius to commit suicide. Petronius, however, must have laughed when he read the letter. News of Caligula’s assassination had reached him first.
Caligula’s Assassination
At first there were three groups working on Caligula’s assassination. Originally they each worked without knowing about the others. But later they joined into one group.
The key conspirators were Chaerea, Sabinus, and Vinicianus. Chaerea was a member of Caligula’s Praetorian guard, but he had a high-pitched voice, and Caligula mocked him for it. Whenever Chaerea had to kiss Caligula’s ring, Caligula would hold out his hand with only the middle finger extended--a gesture which meant the same thing in Roman times as it does today. Whenever Charea was in charge of giving out the nightly passwords, Caligula would always make the password obscene.
In addition to his humiliation by Caligula, Chaerea was also motivated by his love for liberty. He dreamed of restoring the Republic.
The other key conspirators were Cornelius Sabinus, a military tribune of the Praetorian Guard, and a Roman Senator Vinicianus.
On the appointed day for the assassination, the omens were bad for Caligula. As he was sacrificing, the blood from the sacrifice squirted on him. When Caligula went to see a play, one of the actors got nervous, and started vomiting blood. The other actors who were on stage were eager to show that they also had the same talent, and pretty soon the play turned in to a contest to see who could vomit the most blood.
The conspirators had planned to get Caligula when he left the play to bathe and have lunch. However, when Caligula showed signs of intending to stay through the whole play, the conspirators began to panic. Vinicianus urged Chaerea to do the act, and Chaerea almost committed assassination in the theater, but in the end Caligula was convinced to leave.
Caligula took a shorter route out of the theater than normal through an unguarded alley, where he was surrounded by conspirators. Chaerea asked Caligula for the password of the day. Caligula, suspecting nothing, gave his usual obscene reply. Chaerea stabbed Caligula in the neck. Caligula ran, but Sabinus pushed him down. Caligula was stabbed thirty times. The fatal blow is credited to a man named Aquila. During this time, Caligula’s litter barrens took poles from the litter and tried to fight off the assassins, but it did little good.
After the assassination, Caligula’s German bodyguards arrived on the scene. Fiercely loyal, they began taking their revenge by cutting down anyone in sight. Many people were killed, both conspirators and innocent bystanders alike. However, many of the conspirators also escaped thanks to Alcyon, a physician who smuggled many out while pretending to look for supplies.
After escaping from the German bodyguards, Chaerea began to get nervous that Caligula’s wife and daughter were still left alive, and so he sent a soldier named Lupus to go to Caligula’s house and take care of them. Lupus killed Caligula’s wife, Caesonia, by running her through with a sword. He killed Caligula’s daughter, Drusilla, by smashing her head against the wall.
Meanwhile, while the German bodyguards were looking for the assassins, they found Caligula’s uncle, Claudius, hiding behind a curtain. Claudius had a speech impediment that made him stutter, so Caligula had mocked Claudius and used to force Claudius to dress up as a clown. But when the German bodyguards found Claudius hiding behind the curtain, they hailed him as the new emperor.
The new emperor, Claudius, was glad of Caligula’s death. But, nevertheless, since he was emperor now, he did not want to reward people who assassinated emperors. He needed to make an example of them. Claudius had Chaerea, and several other of the conspirators killed. Public opinion turned against these executions, so Claudius had the executions stopped before all the conspirators were killed. But Sabinus felt guilty about being left alive after the others were killed, and Sabinus committed suicide.
Through the valor of brave men, who risked their lives to stop a madman, the empire was saved. The republic never returned. Its time had passed. But history will always remember those who died to save the world from the corruption of power—from Caligula.
Video Version
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Etruscan War: 12th Grade Forensics Speech
Video version HERE.
In the year 507 B.C., Tarquinius Superbus, the last king of Rome, was expelled, and the Republic of Rome began. This new entity, however, did not have long to wait before it endured its first real test. The idea of people ruling themselves was greatly disturbing to the surrounding monarchs, among the Porsena, king of the Estrucans, who vowed to nip this republic in the bud and replace Tarquinius as king of Rome. Some of the greatest examples of heroism ever seen can be found in this war, as the Romans were determined not to give up their freedom.
As the Estrucan army approached, the Romans set up several garrisons. At many places they relied on the city wall, or the Tiber River as a sufficient barrier. The only place this river was crossable was at one point where a wooden bridge was built across it. It was at this point that the Etruscans attacked, taking the garrison station there completely by surprise. The Roman soldiers quickly lost order, throwing down their weapons and fleeing. One man alone stood his ground. His name was Horatius Cocles. With all the power he had, he urged his comrades to destroy the bridge by any means necessary. He offered to hold up the Etruscan army by himself while the task was being completed. Two other soldiers, Spurius Lartius and Titus Herminius offered to help him, but he forced them to save themselves instead.
As the Etruscan army approached, Horatius faced them with sword and shield held ready for battle: one man against an army. He called out to them, mocking them, and challenging one after another to single combat. For a while the Etruscans just stood there, each waiting for his neighbor to make the first move. Then, finally they gave a fierce cry and the first line all hurled their spears at Horatius. Horatius blocked the missiles with his shield, and held his ground. The army then advanced, intending to thrust him away with their numbers, but they were stopped by the sudden sound of the collapsing bridge. Before the Etruscans could react, Horatius plunged fully armed into the river, and swam to the other side, narrowly avoiding all the missiles the Etruscans threw at him.
The attempt to take the city by assault had failed, so Porsena lay siege to it. As the siege dragged on, food became scarce. It looked like Porsena might actually starve the city into submission. One Roman, Gaius Mucius, devised a plan. He presented himself to the Roman Senate, and asked permission to cross the river and enter the enemy’s camp, where he would assassinate Porsena. The Senate granted their permission.
Concealing a dagger in his clothing, Mucius arrived at the Etruscans camp and stood among the soldiers. There was a large crowd, since it was pay day. Porsena and his secretary sat side by side, dispensing the money to the soldiers. Since they were dressed identically, it was impossible to tell which one was which. Mucius had a fifty-fifty chance, and he took it, pushing his way through the crowd and stabbing one of the men. He then tried to make his escape, but was quickly apprehended. King Porsena now had one less secretary.
Mucius was brought before Porsena. Mucius defiantly told Porsena that he had come into the camp to kill him, and even added that there was a long list of other young men who demanded to know more about this plot, but Mucius would tell him nothing. In rage, Porsena ordered Mucius to be burned alive. Mucius responded, “See how cheap men hold their bodies when they care only for honor.” With that he thrust his hand into a nearby fire, kindled for sacrifice, and let it burn there as if he felt no pain. He didn’t even change his expression.
Porsena was so astonished that he leapt to his feet and ordered a guard to drag Mucius away from the fire. “Go free,” he said. “You have dared to be a worse enemy to yourself than to me. I should bless your courage, if it lay with my country to dispose of it. But as that cannot be, I, as an honorable enemy, grant you pardon, life, and liberty.”
As if he were thanking Porsena for his generosity, Mucius finished off the lie about the plot, saying that there were 300 men determined to kill Porsena, and one would come to the camp each night until they had fulfilled their mission.
Porsena was hardly pleased with this news. He hastened to make peace with the Romans. His demand that Tarquinius be returned to the throne was denied, bu t he did get the Romans to agree to give hostages over to him. Gaius Mucius was welcomed home a hero, and given the new name Gaius Mucius Scaevola, or “Gaius Mucius, the left handed man”.
One of the hostages given over to Porsena was a young maiden named Cloelia. One day, when the army was camped by the Tiber, she and some other girls who agreed to follow her eluded the guards, dove into the Tiber, swam through a rain of missles to safety, and then journeyed back to Rome. Porsena was furious, and demanded their return. Later, as his anger subsided, he admitted he had been impressed by their bravery, and agreed to let the girls stay free. In addition, he also released several other hostages. To honor Cloelia’s courage, the Romans erected a statue of her on horseback, the first time in history a woman was honored in this way.
Through the work of these brave individuals, the republic was saved. Had they not stepped forward, the world we know today would be entirely different. But because of their courage, the idea of a republic was preserved for future generations.
In the year 507 B.C., Tarquinius Superbus, the last king of Rome, was expelled, and the Republic of Rome began. This new entity, however, did not have long to wait before it endured its first real test. The idea of people ruling themselves was greatly disturbing to the surrounding monarchs, among the Porsena, king of the Estrucans, who vowed to nip this republic in the bud and replace Tarquinius as king of Rome. Some of the greatest examples of heroism ever seen can be found in this war, as the Romans were determined not to give up their freedom.
As the Estrucan army approached, the Romans set up several garrisons. At many places they relied on the city wall, or the Tiber River as a sufficient barrier. The only place this river was crossable was at one point where a wooden bridge was built across it. It was at this point that the Etruscans attacked, taking the garrison station there completely by surprise. The Roman soldiers quickly lost order, throwing down their weapons and fleeing. One man alone stood his ground. His name was Horatius Cocles. With all the power he had, he urged his comrades to destroy the bridge by any means necessary. He offered to hold up the Etruscan army by himself while the task was being completed. Two other soldiers, Spurius Lartius and Titus Herminius offered to help him, but he forced them to save themselves instead.
As the Etruscan army approached, Horatius faced them with sword and shield held ready for battle: one man against an army. He called out to them, mocking them, and challenging one after another to single combat. For a while the Etruscans just stood there, each waiting for his neighbor to make the first move. Then, finally they gave a fierce cry and the first line all hurled their spears at Horatius. Horatius blocked the missiles with his shield, and held his ground. The army then advanced, intending to thrust him away with their numbers, but they were stopped by the sudden sound of the collapsing bridge. Before the Etruscans could react, Horatius plunged fully armed into the river, and swam to the other side, narrowly avoiding all the missiles the Etruscans threw at him.
The attempt to take the city by assault had failed, so Porsena lay siege to it. As the siege dragged on, food became scarce. It looked like Porsena might actually starve the city into submission. One Roman, Gaius Mucius, devised a plan. He presented himself to the Roman Senate, and asked permission to cross the river and enter the enemy’s camp, where he would assassinate Porsena. The Senate granted their permission.
Concealing a dagger in his clothing, Mucius arrived at the Etruscans camp and stood among the soldiers. There was a large crowd, since it was pay day. Porsena and his secretary sat side by side, dispensing the money to the soldiers. Since they were dressed identically, it was impossible to tell which one was which. Mucius had a fifty-fifty chance, and he took it, pushing his way through the crowd and stabbing one of the men. He then tried to make his escape, but was quickly apprehended. King Porsena now had one less secretary.
Mucius was brought before Porsena. Mucius defiantly told Porsena that he had come into the camp to kill him, and even added that there was a long list of other young men who demanded to know more about this plot, but Mucius would tell him nothing. In rage, Porsena ordered Mucius to be burned alive. Mucius responded, “See how cheap men hold their bodies when they care only for honor.” With that he thrust his hand into a nearby fire, kindled for sacrifice, and let it burn there as if he felt no pain. He didn’t even change his expression.
Porsena was so astonished that he leapt to his feet and ordered a guard to drag Mucius away from the fire. “Go free,” he said. “You have dared to be a worse enemy to yourself than to me. I should bless your courage, if it lay with my country to dispose of it. But as that cannot be, I, as an honorable enemy, grant you pardon, life, and liberty.”
As if he were thanking Porsena for his generosity, Mucius finished off the lie about the plot, saying that there were 300 men determined to kill Porsena, and one would come to the camp each night until they had fulfilled their mission.
Porsena was hardly pleased with this news. He hastened to make peace with the Romans. His demand that Tarquinius be returned to the throne was denied, bu t he did get the Romans to agree to give hostages over to him. Gaius Mucius was welcomed home a hero, and given the new name Gaius Mucius Scaevola, or “Gaius Mucius, the left handed man”.
One of the hostages given over to Porsena was a young maiden named Cloelia. One day, when the army was camped by the Tiber, she and some other girls who agreed to follow her eluded the guards, dove into the Tiber, swam through a rain of missles to safety, and then journeyed back to Rome. Porsena was furious, and demanded their return. Later, as his anger subsided, he admitted he had been impressed by their bravery, and agreed to let the girls stay free. In addition, he also released several other hostages. To honor Cloelia’s courage, the Romans erected a statue of her on horseback, the first time in history a woman was honored in this way.
Through the work of these brave individuals, the republic was saved. Had they not stepped forward, the world we know today would be entirely different. But because of their courage, the idea of a republic was preserved for future generations.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Mutiny in Pannonia: 11th Grade Forensics Speech
Video HERE
We live in a world today that is constantly manipulated by people who only want you to see one side of things. It is easy to get discouraged in this type of environment, but we must remember that the problem is not unique to our culture of even our time period. It is a problem that even the ancient Romans had to deal with.
This story of propaganda, violence, and compromise began in what is now known as Western Hungary and Northern Yugoslavia, then known as Pannonia. In that region were stationed, under the command of Quintus Junius Blaesus, the 8th, 9th, and 10th brigades. When the emperor Augustus Caesar died in the year 14 A.D., and was succeeded by his adopted son, Tiberius, Blaesus suspended the normal duties of the soldiers for a time of public morning. The soldiers soon grew accustomed to the relaxed life, and were not too thrilled about the idea of returning to their grueling schedules.
In addition, the men were also worried about their future. Now that there was a new emperor his plans for the army remained to be seen. It was on this base that a man named Percennius was able to take advantage of the situation. Percennius had been a professional applause leader before he became a soldier. He was experienced in manipulating crowds, and began to put his skills to use. He talked to the soldiers in the twilight or dark, after the more obedient ones had gone to bed, leaving only the other element behind.
One night Percennius gave his big finale. He pointed out the harsh discipline of the army, its low pay, the old men still stuck in the ranks, and the disappointing retirement plan. His speech struck home. The soldiers shouted that the three brigades should merge into one for a mutiny. However this idea was not to be, as each brigade wanted to keep their former name. They did, however, begin piling dirt to build a focal point for the mutiny.
At this point, Blaesus came on the scene and was horrified by what he saw. He began to run from one man to another, urging them to end this project. The platform kept increasing despite his efforts. But Blaesus never stopped his shouting and eventually convinced them to stop. Then Blaesus pleaded with them to send delegates to Rome instead of mutiny. The men insisted that Blaesus’s own son, a colonel, represent them. He was instructed to request a sixteen year maximum service, and he would receive further instructions once that was done. The colonel left for Rome, and the men became quite peaceful.
Unfortunately the story does not end here. Before the mutiny had even begun, detachments had been sent to the nearby town of Nauportus. When the soldiers there heard about the troubles in Pannonia, they tore down their colors and looted Nauportus and the surrounding villages. The company commanders who tried to stop them were mocked, abused, and beaten. The corps chief of staff, Aufidienus Rufus, who was known for reviving the strict army rules of the past, was the main victim of the anger. He was pulled out of his carriage, had baggage piled on his back, and forced to march at the head of the column, enduring frequent inquiries about his enjoyment of the experience.
Once the men from Nauportus reached camp, the mutiny was revived. The whole district was ransacked by the soldiers. In a desperate act to retain some sort of order, Blaesus ordered those who looted more than the rest to be flogged and confined to cells, for he was still obeyed by company commanders and loyal soldiers. The plan backfired. As they were being dragged off to be flogged, the guilty soldiers did everything they could to arouse sympathy. Everyone rushed to their rescue, freeing all those in the cells. This let condemned murderers out as well.
In the excitement of the moment, a private soldier named Vibulenus was hoisted on the shoulders of his comrades. As he broke into tears, he told the tragic story of his brother, sent by the soldiers in Germany to talk with the soldiers in Pannonia about their common interests. When his brother had arrived at the camp, he had been butchered by Blaesus’s guards and his body hidden. The effect of this tale was stunning. Three bands where formed, one which arrested and tortured Blaesus’s slaves, one which arrested the rest of his household, and one that went in search of the body. Blaesus himself was almost killed. Things settled down when it was discovered Vibulenus never had a brother.
The passion aroused by this speech was not by any means gone. It just lashed out at a different victim: the senior officers, who were forced to flee. Only one senior officer was killed, company commander Lucius, better known to the soldiers as “another please”. When he was disciplining a soldier, it was not uncommon for him to break a stick over the soldier’s back. He would simply ask for another stick, and if need be another, and another, and so on.
The rest of his comrades were able to find safety, except for poor Julius Clemens. He was spared death because the mutineers thought he would make an excellent spokesman for them.
The emperor Tiberius sent his son, Drusus, and two battalions of the guard to deal with this problem. Drusus received no definite instructions. He was only told ot act as events warrant.
When Drusus arrived at camp, he mounted the dais. The soldiers roared at him, but Drusus fought for silence and eventually won it. He then read a letter from Tiberius which expressed how much the emperor cared for the soldiers, so he had sent his son to deal with them. Drusus had been authorized to make any decisions Tiberius could have made, and the rest would be left up to the Senate.
After this, Julius Clemens spoke the demands of the mutineers, on which he had been briefed. He asked for a sixteen-year term of service, gratuities at completion, the pay of four sesterces a day, and no recalls after release. Drusus replied that Tiberius and the Senate must decide this, which caused an uproar among the soldiers.
The army made many menacing gestures to all of Drusus’s staff, but they were particularly bitter against Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus II, who somehow struck them as a snob. Drusus realized the danger, and decided to evacuate Lentulus to the winter camp. Ironically, as the army saw him being escorted out of the camp by Drusus, they became convinced he was leaving for Rome so he could oppose them there. They surrounded him and hurled large stones. One stone hit Lentulus and he started to seriously bleed. Fortunately, the arrival of Drusus’s main force arrived and saved him from further injury.
That night, passions were high among soldiers, and Drusus was certain that it would bring disaster. Fortunately, the moon waned that night, and the soldiers were convinced it was a sign that the moon goddess was unhappy with them. They gathered every instrument they could get their hands on, and played in hopes that their music would appease the goddess, but it had no effect. Many thought the moon goddess was disgusted by their mutiny. Drusus saw his chance and seized it. He called together Julius Clemens, and any other officers who were popular with the soldiers. They were sent to go around the camp, reasoning with the soldiers to drop the mutiny.
By morning, the attitude of the soldiers had changed. Drusus called a meeting and gave a speech, in which he promised he would do all he could to make sure they were treated with mercy if the soldiers returned to work. They agreed. The younger Blaesus was sent back to Tiberius.
While the delegation was away, a debate sprang up over how to treat the soldiers. Drusus favored severity. Vibulenus and Percennius were summoned and executed. Other chief instigators were either hunted down and killed, or given up by their units as proof of loyalty.
That winter, the rain came down unceasingly, confining soldiers to tents. The brigades were convinced it was divine punishment. The only way to be forgiven, they thought, was to leave the defiled camp and go to their winter quarters. The 8th left first, followed by the 15th. The 9th was quite vocal in its decision to wait for a reply from Tiberius, but the withdraw of its comrades left it no choice. Drusus left for Rome, without waiting for the delegation to return.
The soldiers were easily manipulated, first by Percennius, then by Vibulenus, and finally by Drusus. From this example we can learn the value of examining critically what others say. We can also learn from Drusus the value of compromise.
We live in a world today that is constantly manipulated by people who only want you to see one side of things. It is easy to get discouraged in this type of environment, but we must remember that the problem is not unique to our culture of even our time period. It is a problem that even the ancient Romans had to deal with.
This story of propaganda, violence, and compromise began in what is now known as Western Hungary and Northern Yugoslavia, then known as Pannonia. In that region were stationed, under the command of Quintus Junius Blaesus, the 8th, 9th, and 10th brigades. When the emperor Augustus Caesar died in the year 14 A.D., and was succeeded by his adopted son, Tiberius, Blaesus suspended the normal duties of the soldiers for a time of public morning. The soldiers soon grew accustomed to the relaxed life, and were not too thrilled about the idea of returning to their grueling schedules.
In addition, the men were also worried about their future. Now that there was a new emperor his plans for the army remained to be seen. It was on this base that a man named Percennius was able to take advantage of the situation. Percennius had been a professional applause leader before he became a soldier. He was experienced in manipulating crowds, and began to put his skills to use. He talked to the soldiers in the twilight or dark, after the more obedient ones had gone to bed, leaving only the other element behind.
One night Percennius gave his big finale. He pointed out the harsh discipline of the army, its low pay, the old men still stuck in the ranks, and the disappointing retirement plan. His speech struck home. The soldiers shouted that the three brigades should merge into one for a mutiny. However this idea was not to be, as each brigade wanted to keep their former name. They did, however, begin piling dirt to build a focal point for the mutiny.
At this point, Blaesus came on the scene and was horrified by what he saw. He began to run from one man to another, urging them to end this project. The platform kept increasing despite his efforts. But Blaesus never stopped his shouting and eventually convinced them to stop. Then Blaesus pleaded with them to send delegates to Rome instead of mutiny. The men insisted that Blaesus’s own son, a colonel, represent them. He was instructed to request a sixteen year maximum service, and he would receive further instructions once that was done. The colonel left for Rome, and the men became quite peaceful.
Unfortunately the story does not end here. Before the mutiny had even begun, detachments had been sent to the nearby town of Nauportus. When the soldiers there heard about the troubles in Pannonia, they tore down their colors and looted Nauportus and the surrounding villages. The company commanders who tried to stop them were mocked, abused, and beaten. The corps chief of staff, Aufidienus Rufus, who was known for reviving the strict army rules of the past, was the main victim of the anger. He was pulled out of his carriage, had baggage piled on his back, and forced to march at the head of the column, enduring frequent inquiries about his enjoyment of the experience.
Once the men from Nauportus reached camp, the mutiny was revived. The whole district was ransacked by the soldiers. In a desperate act to retain some sort of order, Blaesus ordered those who looted more than the rest to be flogged and confined to cells, for he was still obeyed by company commanders and loyal soldiers. The plan backfired. As they were being dragged off to be flogged, the guilty soldiers did everything they could to arouse sympathy. Everyone rushed to their rescue, freeing all those in the cells. This let condemned murderers out as well.
In the excitement of the moment, a private soldier named Vibulenus was hoisted on the shoulders of his comrades. As he broke into tears, he told the tragic story of his brother, sent by the soldiers in Germany to talk with the soldiers in Pannonia about their common interests. When his brother had arrived at the camp, he had been butchered by Blaesus’s guards and his body hidden. The effect of this tale was stunning. Three bands where formed, one which arrested and tortured Blaesus’s slaves, one which arrested the rest of his household, and one that went in search of the body. Blaesus himself was almost killed. Things settled down when it was discovered Vibulenus never had a brother.
The passion aroused by this speech was not by any means gone. It just lashed out at a different victim: the senior officers, who were forced to flee. Only one senior officer was killed, company commander Lucius, better known to the soldiers as “another please”. When he was disciplining a soldier, it was not uncommon for him to break a stick over the soldier’s back. He would simply ask for another stick, and if need be another, and another, and so on.
The rest of his comrades were able to find safety, except for poor Julius Clemens. He was spared death because the mutineers thought he would make an excellent spokesman for them.
The emperor Tiberius sent his son, Drusus, and two battalions of the guard to deal with this problem. Drusus received no definite instructions. He was only told ot act as events warrant.
When Drusus arrived at camp, he mounted the dais. The soldiers roared at him, but Drusus fought for silence and eventually won it. He then read a letter from Tiberius which expressed how much the emperor cared for the soldiers, so he had sent his son to deal with them. Drusus had been authorized to make any decisions Tiberius could have made, and the rest would be left up to the Senate.
After this, Julius Clemens spoke the demands of the mutineers, on which he had been briefed. He asked for a sixteen-year term of service, gratuities at completion, the pay of four sesterces a day, and no recalls after release. Drusus replied that Tiberius and the Senate must decide this, which caused an uproar among the soldiers.
The army made many menacing gestures to all of Drusus’s staff, but they were particularly bitter against Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus II, who somehow struck them as a snob. Drusus realized the danger, and decided to evacuate Lentulus to the winter camp. Ironically, as the army saw him being escorted out of the camp by Drusus, they became convinced he was leaving for Rome so he could oppose them there. They surrounded him and hurled large stones. One stone hit Lentulus and he started to seriously bleed. Fortunately, the arrival of Drusus’s main force arrived and saved him from further injury.
That night, passions were high among soldiers, and Drusus was certain that it would bring disaster. Fortunately, the moon waned that night, and the soldiers were convinced it was a sign that the moon goddess was unhappy with them. They gathered every instrument they could get their hands on, and played in hopes that their music would appease the goddess, but it had no effect. Many thought the moon goddess was disgusted by their mutiny. Drusus saw his chance and seized it. He called together Julius Clemens, and any other officers who were popular with the soldiers. They were sent to go around the camp, reasoning with the soldiers to drop the mutiny.
By morning, the attitude of the soldiers had changed. Drusus called a meeting and gave a speech, in which he promised he would do all he could to make sure they were treated with mercy if the soldiers returned to work. They agreed. The younger Blaesus was sent back to Tiberius.
While the delegation was away, a debate sprang up over how to treat the soldiers. Drusus favored severity. Vibulenus and Percennius were summoned and executed. Other chief instigators were either hunted down and killed, or given up by their units as proof of loyalty.
That winter, the rain came down unceasingly, confining soldiers to tents. The brigades were convinced it was divine punishment. The only way to be forgiven, they thought, was to leave the defiled camp and go to their winter quarters. The 8th left first, followed by the 15th. The 9th was quite vocal in its decision to wait for a reply from Tiberius, but the withdraw of its comrades left it no choice. Drusus left for Rome, without waiting for the delegation to return.
The soldiers were easily manipulated, first by Percennius, then by Vibulenus, and finally by Drusus. From this example we can learn the value of examining critically what others say. We can also learn from Drusus the value of compromise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
