Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XI: Pax Romana

(3) VESPASIAN –
FLAVIAN DYNASTY
(69 – 79 AD: 9 YEARS 11 MONTHS 22 DAYS)

Founder of the Flavian dynasty (of himself and his two sons), restorer of the Pax Romana, divine pharaoh – and possibly…the Messiah? Well perhaps not that last one – to paraphase Monty Python’s Life of Brian, he wasn’t the Messiah, just a good emperor.

Vespasian did after all found a dynasty, having to advance his imperial claim in a civil war of succession. Like it or not, dealing with the Senate and senatorial class was a fact of political life in Rome, at least the Rome of the principate – and hence managing relations with the Senate was an important part of being emperor. The diplomacy and tact of Augustus towards the Senate is part of what made him so acclaimed, not least by the Senate who loved him for it – as they did Vespasian and his son Titus (as opposed to mutual antagonism with his other son Domitian).

Vespasian restored the Pax Romana and political stability to the empire after the civil war of the Year of the Four Emperors (of which he was the fourth), as well as fiscal stability to an empire left desperately in debt by the depradations of Nero and Vitellius (albeit with some slight debasement of the currency).

“His fiscal reforms and consolidation of the empire generated political stability and a vast Roman building program.” The latter included that most famous of Roman landmarks, the Colosseum.

Vespasian had a distinguished military career in Britain and, most famously, leading the campaign (and besieging Jerusalem) against the Jewish Revolt, in the First Jewish-Roman War.

He left the latter for his son Titus to achieve victory while he advanced his imperial claim in the civil war of succession after the death of Nero, seizing Egypt and its critical grain supply to Rome. In Egypt, he was hailed as literally divine pharaoh (son of the creator god Amun or Zeus-Ammon, and incarnation of Serapis) amidst claims of miracles and visions – doubling down on literally messianic prophecies.

“According to Suetonius, a prophecy ubiquitous in the Eastern provinces claimed that from Judaea would come the future rulers of the world. Vespasian eventually believed that this prophecy applied to him, and found a number of omens and oracles that reinforced this belief.”

“Josephus (as well as Tacitus), reporting on the conclusion of the Jewish war, reported a prophecy that around the time when Jerusalem and the Second Temple would be taken, a man from their own nation, viz. the Messiah, would become governor “of the habitable earth”. Josephus interpreted the prophecy to denote Vespasian and his appointment as emperor in Judea.”

One of the more entertaining theorists of ‘Christ-myth’ history, Joseph Atwill, in his 2005 book Caesar’s Messiah, proposes that the Gospels and Jesus were nothing more than Flavian fanfiction written by Josephus and others, concocting Christianitity as a pacifist and pro-Roman religion as a solution to the problem of militant Judaism. Although apparently Atwill proposes that the Son of Man in the Gospels was Vespasian’s son Titus – which would make a Flavian holy trinity of Vespasian the Father, Titus the Son, and Domitian the Holy Spirit…?

Back to more mundane earthly matters, aided by the spoils of war from the Jewish Temple, Vespasian restored the finances and treasury of the empire, through tax reform and other means, most famously the urine tax on public toilets (such that urinals are named for him in modern Romance languages) with an anecdotal saying attributed to him that money doesn’t stink.

Apart from the First Jewish-Roman War, Vespasian suppressed the (second) Batavian Rebellion in Gaul and expanded the Roman conquest of Britain in campaigns led by the skilled general Agricola.

“Vespasian was known for his wit and his amiable manner alongside his commanding personality and military prowess..According to Suetonius, Vespasian ‘bore the frank language of his friends, the quips of pleaders, and the impudence of the philosophers with the greatest patience'”. Hence, it could be said that Vespasian had a flair for diplomacy and tact to rival Augustus (in marked contrast to his younger son) – and at a similarly critical juncture to placate the Senate and secure the stability of the principate under a new dynasty.

Dying of diarrhea (no, really), “Vespasian appears to have approached his own impending cult” (of imperial divinity) “with dry humour: according to Suetonius, his last words were puto deus fio (“I think I’m turning into a god”).

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

The Flavian dynasty of…chads. One of only two dynasties to be depicted by Dovahhatty as consisting entirely of chads – and rightly so.

RANKING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(2) TIBERIUS –
JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY
(14 – 37 AD: 22 YEARS 5 MONTHS 17 DAYS)

Like Claudius, you could arguably swap Tiberius into the top ten, albeit probably with more protest than for Claudius as some people – including contemporary Roman historians – seem to rank Tiberius among the worst. Even the Senate denied him the posthumous divine honors it gave Augustus and Claudius.

Those people are wrong. Indeed, it was a close call for me whom I ranked higher out of Claudius and Tiberius. As we’ve seen, ultimately I ranked Claudius higher, primarily because he inherited the empire from its worst emperor rather than its best – and because he was thrust into the position by the Praetorian Guard without any choice or preparation on his part.

Not that Tiberius was any happier to be emperor, although at least he had been nominated as heir in advance. “At the age of 55. Tiberius seems to have taken on the responsibilities of head of state with great reluctance…He came to be remembered as a dark, reclusive and sombre ruler who never really wanted to be emperor; Pliny the Elder called him ‘the gloomiest of men'”.

The problem for Tiberius is that he was overshadowed by Augustus as his predecessor, even in his own eyes. Perhaps foremost for his contemporaries was his absence of conquests as emperor, accustomed as they were to measuring an emperor by this criterion.

In my eyes, the prudence of Tiberius was exactly what the doctor ordered to consolidate the empire of Augustus – effectively Tiberius was the Hadrian to Augustus’ Trajan, but without withdrawing from any territory.

“Rather than embark on costly campaigns of conquest, he chose to strengthen the existing empire by building additional bases, using diplomacy as well as military threats, and generally refraining from getting drawn into petty squabbles between competing frontier tyrants. The result was a stronger, more consolidated empire, ensuring the imperial institutions introduced by his adoptive father would remain for centuries to come”.

This also overlooks that Tiberius had proved himself under Augustus as “one of the most successful Roman generals: his conquests of Pannonia, Dalmatia, Raetia, and (temporarily) parts of Germania laid the foundations for the empire’s northern frontier”.

It also overlooks an even better part of his prudence, though not unrelated to his prudence with respect to avoiding costly military campaigns – his financial prudence, rare among Roman emperors, such that he left the imperial treasury in huge surplus. Even Suetonius begrudged him that. While Suetonius notes that his successor and worst emperor Caligula squandered this, one wonders if the empire would have survived Caligula’s financial depredations otherwise – or whether the empire would have weathered its crisis of the first century, also known as the Year of the Four Emperors, quite so well but for the part Tiberius played in the empire’s military and financial consolidation.

Of course, it wasn’t just Augustus who overshadowed Tiberius, but Tiberius himself – particularly the latter part of his reign, after he retreated into isolation in Capri from 26 AD and his reign descended into despotism and depravity, albeit both overstated by Roman historians. The former accompanied the rise and fall of his Praetorian prefect Sejanus who effectively ruled Rome in his absence, while the latter was attributed to him in Capri by Suetonius. Let’s just say the less said about his little fishes the better – personally, I think it was just tabloid gossip made up or passed on by Suetonius. He’d probably be in a shoo-in for top ten if he’d died about halfway through his reign.

And like Claudius, when it came to a successor, he chose…poorly.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Like Claudius, the other emperor above all others destined to be depicted as a wojak – he “hated triumphs, hated people, hated being alive” (and pretty much hated being emperor as well.

RATING: 4 STARS****
A-TIER (TOP TIER)
EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome X: The Mad Emperors

(1) CLAUDIUS –

JULIO-CLAUDIAN DYNASTY

(41-54 AD: 13 YEARS 8 MONTHS 19 DAYS)

“Such was life for Uncle Claudius”

Yes – it’s the first of six special mentions where you could arguably swap them into the top ten best emperors without too much protest.

It was a close call between Claudius and the other good imperial candidate from the Julio-Claudian dynasty who is my next special mention entry. Claudius just won out for a few reasons, but primarily because he inherited the empire from the worst emperor as opposed to the best. And I use inherited very loosely, as he was not a formal heir but was thrust into his position as emperor by the Praetorian Guard after they had assassinated his predecessor, Caligula – the tradition is that one of the Guard found him hiding behind a curtain and declared him emperor.

Also, Claudius was put upon throughout his life – hence Dovahhatty’s catchphrase for him “such was life for Uncle Claudius”, originating from his physical infirmities he had since youth, including a limp and stammer, although he claimed to have exaggerated them to survive the reign of Caligula.

And a lot of people have a soft spot for him from his sympathetic portrayal in Robert Graves’ I, Claudius and its BBC TV adaptation.

Anyway, he was thrown headfirst into the position of emperor without any choice or background for it on his part and he did a pretty damn good job of it, essentially emulating Augustus and pulling it off to a substantial degree.

He was an able and efficient administrator, above all restoring the empire’s finances after their ruination by the excesses of Caligula’s reign – while also being an ambitious builder of projects and public works across the empire and in its capital.

He also expanded the empire in its first (and most enduring) major expansion since Augustus – annexing or completing the annexation of Thrace (so that the empire finally encircled the Mediterranean completely), Noricum, Lycia, Judaea and Mauretania – but is best known for the conquest of Britain during his reign, although Rome might have been better off without that province in the long run.

His biggest drawback was his choice of successor as Nero, albeit secured largely through his wife (and Nero’s mother) Agrippina’s manipulation of him – including, as it was widely believed by contemporaries, murdering him by poison.

DID DOVAHATTY DO RIGHT?

If ever an emperor was destined to be depicted as a wojak, it was Claudius. Also, I now can’t imagine Claudius without thinking of Dovahhatty’s catchphrase for him – “such was life for Uncle Claudius” – as encapsulating how put upon Claudius was (and what a sad sack of a life he had).

RATING: 4 STARS****

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

EMPIRE BASER

Dovahhatty – Unbiased History of Rome XII: The Five Good Emperors (depicting Trajan and peak Rome)

That’s right – I’m ranking all the Roman emperors (until 476 AD). By definition, my top ten best Roman emperors only ranked those ten, but I rank the balance of Roman emperors in these special mentions. My usual rule is twenty special mentions for a top ten – here I have twenty special mentions for the ‘good’ emperors and twenty for the ‘bad’.

To my surprise, I was able to make out twenty special mentions for the ‘good’ emperors with some more arguable entries, taking me up to those emperors right on my dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors.

Surprise that is, because there were notoriously more bad than good emperors, although the bad emperors tended to reign for shorter periods so it more than evens up by length of reign (otherwise one might think the empire would have collapsed sooner).

I think one can usually list about twenty ‘good’ emperors without too much contest or controversy but will start to peter out or at least get a little heated after that. However, I stand by my twenty special mentions, including the two emperors right on my dividing line between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ emperors, which would give Rome thirty ‘good’ emperors all up (including my Top 10 Roman Emperors).

Or perhaps thirty-two if you extend my dividing line to the two emperors right on the threshold of being ‘good’ emperors in my special mentions for ‘bad’ emperors. Spoiler – they’re the founders of the two worst Roman imperial dynasties before 476 AD.

To recap those top 10 best Roman emperors ahead of these special mentions:

1 – Augustus

2 – Trajan

3 – Aurelian

4 – Hadrian

5 – Constantine

6 – Marcus Aurelius

7 – Probus

8 – Diocletian

9 – Valentinian

10 – Majorian

EMPIRE MAKER / SAVIOR / BASER OR EMPIRE BREAKER / DEBASER / DEBAUCHER

In addition to my usual star and tier-rankings, I also have my own particular (and hence subjective) rankings for those (good) emperors that made or saved the empire (or strengthened its base) – or the (bad) emperors that broke, debased or debauched it. Given these are my special mentions for good emperors, I’ll throw in whether they are empire makers, saviors or basers after their star and tier rankings.

DID DOVAHHATTY DO RIGHT?

Finally, because I have used Youtuber Dovahhatty’s Unbiased History of Rome animated video series as the source of images to depict each emperor, I’ll rank how well Dovahhatty did in his depiction of them.  His Unbiased History of Rome videos are probably my single biggest influence for Roman history – and certainly on Youtube.

While he does not actually rank the emperors as a whole, he does rank them individually by meme cartoon figures as being (good) chads or (bad) virgins, with the occasional (good or bad) wojaks. Of course, his tongue is firmly in his parody cheek, such as when he depicts some of the worst Roman emperors as the chads they proclaimed themselves to be.