Podcasti zgodovine

Avgustov rimski triumf

Avgustov rimski triumf


Avgust in uničenje zgodovine: politika preteklosti v zgodnjem cesarskem Rimu

Uporaba (in zloraba) preteklosti v prvih dneh rimskega cesarstva je že dolgo osrednja značilnost študij Avgustovskega principata. Ta zvezek - eden izmed več, ki izvira iz spominov na dvomesečje Avgustove smrti - nadaljuje to osredotočenost in trdi, da je bil avgustovski odnos s preteklostjo zakoreninjen v „odpravi nepredvidenih dogodkov iz zgodovinskega procesa v službi oblasti“. [1] Zdi se, da se je Avgust v svojem principatu želel oddaljiti od idej zgodovinskega časa kot negotovosti, v kateri je prihodnost nenapisana proti ideologiji brezčasnosti, v kateri je avgustovska zlata doba sedela zunaj vseh časovnih meja in v kateri je zgodovina se je sam končal. Seveda je Avgust pri tem zanemaril tiste trenutke, ko je bil njegov oprijem moči manj varen ali pa njegovih dejanj ni bilo mogoče odkupiti s "propagando". To je prepogosto vodilo znanstvenike do nehotenega dogovarjanja z princeps v svojem "uničenju zgodovine", na primer s prehodom s kronološke na tematsko analizo po 27. letu pr. Ta zveza izpodbija to težnjo skozi vrsto obsežnih in razmišljajočih esejev, ki z različnih zornih kotov napadajo problem Avgustovega odnosa s preteklostjo, pri čemer vsak poudarja vprašanja dvoumnosti in kompleksnosti. Dolg uvodnik urednikov zelo dobro poudari ključne teme dela in podrobno predstavi posebne argumente, predstavljene v glavnih poglavjih. Začnejo z uvodom v svojo ključno besedno zvezo "uničenje zgodovine", ki se uporablja za sklicevanje na vse, od "pozabljanja na neprijetna dejstva in namernega izkrivljanja do dejanskega zapisa" [2] do popolnega preoblikovanja ideje o zgodovinski čas, ki smo ga obravnavali zgoraj. Preostanek uvoda je namenjen koristni razpravi o vlogi kulturnega spomina v predaugustovskem Rimu ter težavah in izzivih, s katerimi se je tradicionalno zgodovinopisje soočilo ob prihodu triumviralnega obdobja in Avgustovega principata.

Pravilna knjiga se odpre z razdelkom v dveh poglavjih, ((En mogoč) red iz kaosa), v katerem Hodgson in Welch raziskujeta alternativne zgodovine Oktavijanovega prihoda na oblast s preučevanjem vlog liberatores in Antonij. Hodgson prepričljivo dokazuje, da je skupna sodobna fraza libera res publica je bil v starih virih razmeroma redek in se uporablja izključno za sklicevanje na sistem upravljanja, ki ga opredeljuje libertas ki so si ga zamislili Cezarjevi morilci po njegovi smrti. Tako predstavlja „pot, ki ni ubrana“ in nasprotuje tradicionalni domnevi, da je bil „avgustovski principat rešitev brez alternative neizogibni krizi“. [3] Podobno tudi Welchovo poglavje predstavlja alternativni pogled na Filipovo kampanjo, v kateri Antonije prevzame večjo vlogo maščevalca za Cezarja, kot bi predlagali Oktavijanovi kasnejši poskusi monopolizacije tega položaja. Navsezadnje prisotnost te alternativne pripovedi pomeni neuspeh Avgustovega poskusa, da bi popolnoma "uničil zgodovino". [4]

Oddelek B, Avgustove parcele, vsebuje tri poglavja, ki raziskujejo načine princeps uporabljal novejšo rimsko zgodovino za promocijo svoje vladavine v sedanjosti. Biesinger uporablja primere ludi saeculares in Forum Augustum za raziskovanje princeps ' poskuša sanirati bližnjo preteklost in prikazati avgustovsko sedanjost kot vrhunec zgodbe o Rimu, zlasti v zvezi z vojaškim osvajanjem. Po Biesingerju je ta fizični pristop k spominu na sedanjost vplival na literarno prakso zgodovinopisja in omejeval rimske zgodovinarje, da so le implicitno komentirali sodobne zadeve, v nasprotju z eksplicitnimi pripovedmi prejšnjih avtorjev, kot sta Asinius Pollio in Sallust. Gotter se osredotoča na grško idejo o translatio imperii, preko fragmenta Aemilius Sure, ohranjenega v Velleiusu. [5] Trdi, da Velleijevo upodabljanje Rima kot vrhunec v nasledstvu imperijev odraža avgustovsko spremembo ideologije z imperij zamenjava libertas kot vodilno načelo res publica. Nazadnje Havener preiskuje presečišče med minljivim obredom rimske zmage in trajnejšimi oblikami javnosti memoria. Trdi, da čeprav je veliko republikanskih aristokratov upalo, da bodo njihove zmage imele trajen vpliv na javni spomin (v nasprotju s tem, da bodo na dolgem seznamu prikazane le kot ena), je bil Avgust prvi, ki je to resnično dosegel. To je storil s spominom na svojo partsko zmago kot vrhunec rimske zmagovite zgodovine. Z namestitvijo Fasti Triumphales Capitolini na loku, ki je odločil, da se spominja njegove partske zmage, je to zmago postavil zunaj in nad vse, kar je bilo prej, s čimer je dejansko končal tradicijo republikanskih zmagov z implikacijo, da nihče v prihodnosti ne bo presegel njegovih dosežkov.

Oddelek C, Zgodovine pooblaščenih podrejenih, preusmerja pozornost na vlogo posameznikov, ki jih obkrožajo princeps, začenši z Osgoodovim esejem o družinski zgodovini. Osgood dokazuje, kako daleč so si tako elitne kot relativno nepomembne družine prizadevale promovirati svojo družinsko linijo z novim nizom pravil, ki so dajala večji poudarek vrlinam njihovih prednikov v nasprotju s pisarnami ter bližini in storitvam princeps. Nato Russellov dokument o senatu in Fasti Capitolini omogoča branje Fasti zelo drugačen od prejšnjega poglavja Havenerja, ki interpretira napis kot primer vstavljanja svojega pogleda na zgodovino v razvijajoči se zgodovinski diskurz, ki poudarja kontinuiteto med preteklostjo in prihodnostjo ter se upira kakršnemu koli »uničenju zgodovine«.

Oddelek D, Zgodovinski palimpsesti, preučuje „Avgustovo prekrivanje nad republiško stvarnostjo“ [6] v literaturi in materialni kulturi. Priceovo poglavje odpre poglavje tako, da preuči Avgustovo preoblikovanje rimskega foruma iz tradicionalno republikanskega prostora v popolnoma "avgustovskega". V avgustovski literaturi opredeljuje dvoumnost glede preoblikovanja tega prostora zgoščenega republiškega javnega spomina in vidi težave, ki so značilne za Avgustovo vstavljanje v že obstoječe konkurenčne pripovedi foruma, kot dejavnik, ki je prispeval k njegovi odločitvi, da bo zgradil svoj forum, na katerem se je "zgodovina začela in končala sama s sabo". [7] Lowejevo poglavje o Aeneida zapira poglavje s preučevanjem aluzij na sodobno politiko v Vergilijevi Eneida, smiselno poudarja raznolikost takšnih aluzij in opozarja, da je treba Vergilija obravnavati kot "bolj logografa kot ideologa". [8] Čeprav Virgil očitno ni nepristranski, ko gre za Avgusta, ni nujno, da so njegove aluzije na republikansko zgodovino v službi enotnega političnega sporočila in lahko pogosto preprosto dodajo barvo, še posebej, ker je poznal številne posameznike, ki jih omenjajo le kot like stran.

Zadnji del je sestavljen iz enega poglavja, ki služi kot epilog zvezka. Tu Geisthardt in Gildenhard preučujeta idejo zgodovine od pozne republike do vladavine Trajana s študijami primerov, osredotočenimi na Katula, Vergilija in Tacita. Avtorji zasledujejo sodelovanje teh pisateljev z rimsko preteklostjo, zlasti s trojanskimi izvori mesta, od Katulovega tragičnega in pesimističnega pogleda v pesmi 64, preko Virgilove epske zgodbe o usodi, ki je dosegla vrhunec v avgustovski dobi, do Tacitove uporabe Trojanske aluzije, da se nedavna cesarska preteklost prikaže kot "odklon s hudimi posledicami za politično (in literarno) kulturo Rima". [9]

Na splošno je to zelo razburljiva knjiga. Kljub številnim avtorjem obstajajo jasni argumenti in močan občutek sodelovanja med avtorji. Urednikom in sodelavcem je treba čestitati za zagotovitev tako visoke ravni splošne tematske enotnosti. Na eni ravni so številni argumenti, predstavljeni tukaj, razmeroma nesporni in ne bodo presenetili vsakogar, ki pozna avgustovsko štipendijo. Jasno je, da se je avgustovski režim močno zavedal "politike preteklosti" in je skušal s preteklostjo manipulirati v korist sedanjosti s kompleksnim procesom pozabljanja, izkrivljanja in prepisovanja. Primeri tovrstnega sodelovanja z zgodovino (z različnimi stopnjami uspeha) so prepričljivo predstavljeni v večini esejev v knjigi. Bolj kontroverzna in manj prepričljiva pa je trditev, da je bil ta odnos s preteklostjo del širšega programa, ki se ukvarja z "uničenjem zgodovine" s strani Avgusta, v katerem je poskušal odpraviti idejo o zgodovini sami in postavi svojega principata zunaj časovnih meja kot vrhunsko, brezčasno, 'zlato dobo'. Na prvi vtis se zdi, da to teorijo podpirajo nekateri primeri, predstavljeni v celotni knjigi (npr. Forum Augustum), vendar pa nujno obdaja tudi tiste primere, ko je mogoče videti Avgusta, ki gleda v prihodnost, nenazadnje v svojem znamenitem obsedenost z nasledstvom in njegova odločnost v Res Gestae ponuditi posebno branje svoje kariere (kar pomeni, da obstajajo in bodo še drugi). Kljub temu knjiga ostaja pomemben in dragocen vir za študente avgustovskega obdobja in je zelo priporočljiva vsem, ki jih zanimajo 'politika preteklosti' in kulturni spomin na splošno.

Avtorji in naslovi

Uvod
Obisk preteklosti: o politiki časa v starem Rimu, Ingo Gildenhard, Ulrich Gotter, Wolfgang Havener in Louise Hodgson
A. (Eden od možnih) Vrstni red iz kaosa
1. Libera Res Publica: Pot ni speljana, Louise Hodgson
2. Zgodovinske vojne: Kdo se je maščeval Cezarju in zakaj je to pomembno? Kathryn Welch
B. Avgustove parcele
3. Rupture and Repair: Patterning Time in Discourse and Practice (from Sallust to Augustus and Beyond), Benjamin Biesinger
4. Dedovanje imperijev in Avgusta Res Publica, Ulrich Gotter
5. Avgust in konec »zmagovite zgodovine«, Wolfgang Havener
C. Zgodovine podrejenih
6. Družinska zgodovina v Avgustovem Rimu, Josiah Osgood
7. Avgustov senat in rekonfiguracija časa na Fasti Capitolini, Amy Russell
D. Zgodovinski palimpsesti
8. Poplav Rimskega foruma, Hannah Price
9. Prah v vetru: pozno republikanska zgodovina in Aeneida
E. Epilog
10. Trojanski zapleti: pojmovanje zgodovine pri Katulu, Vergiliju in Tacitu, Johannesu Geisthardtu in Ingu Gildenhardu

[4] Čeprav je obseg, v katerem je bil to avgustov usklajen program, sporno (glej spodaj). Preživetje teh "alternativnih zgodovin" bi lahko preprosto izhajalo iz pomanjkanja zanimanja za izkoreninjenje nasprotovanja (prim. Suet. Avg. 51.3 o Avgustovem dopuščanju kritik).


Avgustov rimski triumf - zgodovina

Nekateri njegovi učenci so pripovedovali o tem, kako so tempelj krasili čudoviti kamni in darovi, posvečeni Bogu. Jezus pa je rekel: “Kot kar vidite tukaj, bo prišel čas, ko na enem ne bo ostal niti en kamen, vsak bo vržen. ” (Luka 21: 5-6)

Ko je pogled na tempelj leta 70 končno prišel do Titusovih oči, se je moral na podoben način čuditi slavi. Titus in njegov oče, veliki cesar Vespazijan, sta od leta 69 zatirala upor po vsej Palestini in Siriji. upor.

Tit je stopil proti Jeruzalemu, da bi našel mesto v razsulu. Nastale so tri ločene skupine fanatikov, od katerih je vsaka želela prevzeti nadzor nad borbenim uporom. Poleg tega je prišel letni čas za judovsko pasho, njihov največji verski praznik, med katerim so vsi Judje prišli v Jeruzalem, da bi se žrtvovali v templju, zaradi česar je bilo mesto gneča in kaotično.

Z obleganjem je Tit hitro prevzel dve zunanji steni močno utrjenega mesta, nakar je prišel do Herodovega templja. Čeprav manj veličasten od prvotnega templja Salomona, ki so ga Babilonci uničili leta 586 pr. Najpomembneje je, da je to kraj, kjer je bival en in edini Judovski Bog, najsvetejše mesto v celotnem Izraelu, zato so se Judje strastno borili za njegovo zaščito. Po neuspelem poskusu, da bi odstranili odpor, so Rimljani sprožili obsežen napad na obzidje okoli templja. V vročini bitke pa je rimski vojak na streho templja vrgel ognjeno ognje in ko je tempelj gorel okoli njega, je Tit vstopil v tempelj in zagledal Svetega, ki so ga prej gledali le judovski duhovniki. Rimljani so iz templja zasegli več predmetov, najpomembnejšo veliko menoro, sedem razvejan svečnik, ki simbolizira Judje kot luč za svet.

Ko sta Tit in njegova vojska končala upor, sta se vrnila v Rim, da bi ugotovila, da sta senat, njegov brat Domicijan in njegov oče uradno prejela triumfe. Njihova posamična prizadevanja so presegla pet zahtev, ki jih je določil senat. Prvič, vsak od njih je bil sodnik. Drugič, sovražnika so premagali v pravični vojni proti tujemu sovražniku, ki ga je sankcioniral senat, s čimer so ga ljudje odobrili in obvezen za preživetje cesarstva. Tretjič, vsak je ubil več kot 5000 mož. Četrtič in morda najpomembnejše, saj je izkazoval slavo Rima in vlival ponos in zaupanje njegovim ljudem, so se vrnili z ogromno trofejami in zaporniki. Končno je bila vojna popolnoma popolna, kar je vojakom omogočilo vrnitev na veličastno praznovanje.

Najbolj znane lastnosti tega veličastnega loka so njegove zapleteno podrobne notranjosti. Severni friz prikazuje Tita sredi njegove zmagoslavne slave. Upodobljen je, kako jaha na svojem zmagoslavnem vozu, ki ga vlečejo štirje neverjetni beli konji. Na vozu z njim vozi Victory, na robu, da bi Tit okronal z lovorovim vencem, voz pa vodi Rim. Na nasprotnem frizu ponosni rimski vojaki, ki se vračajo, dvignejo plen iz Jeruzalemskega templja. Stotine let kasneje so srebrne trobente in miza pastirjev še vedno jasno vidne. Najbolj impresivno pa je ogromna sedem razvejana menora, ki leži v središču tega reliefa, očitno najbolj veličasten predmet v celotnem zmagoslavju. Vojni ujetniki potrto korakajo pred vojaki in pričakujejo njihovo bližajočo se smrt.

Zunanja stran loka je morda prvotno vsebovala dodatne frizure, ki prikazujejo zmagoslavje. Lok pa je bil v srednjem veku, ko so se velike in močne družine borile za nadzor nad Rimom, vključen v steno družine Frangipane. Čeprav je bil zunanji del oboka pri tem uničen, v vojnah v 12. in 13. stoletju pa je bil še bolj poškodovan, je stena okoli oboka v marsičem služila za ohranitev tega spomenika, tako kot so druge strukture po vsem Rimu zgrajene nad starodavnimi zgradbami služila za njihovo ohranitev.

Sam lok se vzpenja nad Via Sacra na najvišji točki. Ko se približamo loku z vzhoda, gremo po Via Sacra, ki potuje po natančni poti starodavnih zmagov. Globoki žlebovi vozov, ki potujejo po tej prometni cesti, ostajajo v velikih kamnih, ki so jih tlakovali že davno.

Ker je bilo samo zmagoslavje najbližje pravemu etosu Rimljanov, so slavoloki služili kot stalni opomniki na preteklost slave in sedanjo varnost in prevlado. V starih časih bi bil na vrhu loka postavljen velik kip iz brona ali druge plemenite kovine. Dodatna figura na vrhu tega že tako zastrašujočega spomenika, ki počiva na vrhu Via Sacra, bi postala še bolj znana in bi služila kot stalni opomin na zasenčeno prisotnost in moč rimskega cesarstva.

Predvsem pa je bil sam triumf verski dogodek. Zmagoslavci so pobarvali svoje obraze rdeče, da bi simbolizirali njihov intimen stik z rimskim bogom Jupitrom, katerega tempelj je bil končni cilj procesije. Bili so tako blizu Bogu, da so jih videli kot posrednike med bogom in ljudmi. Zaradi tega so imeli čast žrtvovati dva velika bela bika v Jupiterovem templju kot pomiritev za vojne zločine, ki jih je zagrešila vojska. Ker je bil zmagovalec v neposredni bližini tega mogočnega boga in je bil tako impresiven dogodek, kot je zmagoslavje, lahko vzbudil ponos na tistega, ki je bil v središču parade, je bil suženj na vozu, vladar pa mu je šepetal “ so smrtni. ”

Prisotnost zmagoslavja je jasno vidna v celotni rimski arhitekturi danes. Številni veliki spomeniki ponosno prikazujejo ogromne kipe veličastnega zmagoslavnega kočije, ki ga vlečejo štirje slavni konji. Vpisan lok je pogost motiv, ki označuje prisotnost pomembne poti v življenju Rimljanov.

Zmaga še vedno vznemirja srca vseh, ki se z njo srečujejo danes, tako kot jo morajo imeti že stari Rimljani. Njegov pravi pomen zmage je vključen v citat iz Roberta Paynea ’s Rimski triumf.

Najvišja čast, ki jo je dobil Rimljan, je bila čast zmagoslavja: za to so se moški borili, zanimali, trpeli in umrli. Za slavo zmage so bile porabljene ogromne vsote denarja, nešteto ljudi je bilo po nepotrebnem pobitih, ogromni zakladi raztreseni in cele države opustošene. Gospodarstvo Evrope, Afrike in Azije je bilo neusmiljeno moteno, sto mest in sto tisoč mest pa je bilo oropanih, tako da so se osvajalci lahko z ropanjem vrnili v Rome in pokazali, kaj so dosegli. Toda iste bitke je bilo treba vedno znova voditi, in ko je cesarstvo nazadnje propadlo, so cesarji še vedno vpisovali Pax Aeterna na svoje kovance, ko ni bilo miru niti upanja na mir.

Payne, Robert. “Rimsko zmagoslavje. ” New York, 1962.

Romae, Mirabilia Urbis. “ Čuda Rima. ” New York, 1986.

Yarden, Leon. "Jeruzalemski plen na Titovem loku: A
Ponovna preiskava ". Stockholm, 1991.

Zaho, Margaret Ann. “Imago Tiumphalis: funkcija in pomen
Triumfalne posnetke za italijanske renesančne vladarje. ” New York, 2004.

Programsko opremo UW KnowledgeWorks, uporabljeno za izdelavo tega spletnega mesta, je razvil Program za izobraževalno preoblikovanje s tehnologijo na Univerzi v Washingtonu.


Avgustov rimski triumf - zgodovina

Triumfe so obeležili na različne načine. Najbolj vseprisotne so skovanke. Odličen primer kovanca, kovanega za zmagoslavnega generala, je kovanec iz leta 101 pr.n.št. Gaja Fundanija za Mariusovo zmago nad Cimbrijci in Tevtonci. Ta kovanec je verjetno prvič, da se je na valuti (Potter) pojavil živi Rimljan. Bellori v svojo knjigo vključuje ploščo takih kovancev iz cesarske dinastije Severan.

Druge oblike komemoracije vključujejo loke, ki so podrobno zajeti v drugem delu rimskega projekta.

Plošča 5
Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Plošča 5. Veteres arcus Augustorm triumphis insignes ex reliquiis quae Romae adhuc supersunt: ​​cum imaginibus triumphalibus restituti, antiquis nummis notisquae Io: Petri Bellorii illustrati nunc primum / per Io Iacobum de Rubeis. Rim: Ad Templum Sanctae. Image Digitalna knjižnica [email protected] Villanova. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:38641.

Fasti triummphales.
Benoît, Rossignol. Fasti triummphales. Licenco Wikimedia pod Public Domain. 28. oktober 2011. http://commons.wikimedia.org
/wiki/File:CILI(2)p47fgtXXFastitriumphales.jpg.

Fasti Triumpahles

Najbolj popoln seznam in najpogosteje naveden triumf v republiki je fasti triumphales. To je bil marmor, postavljen na forumu v avgustovski dobi, v katerem so bili našteti generali s konzuli v času zmagoslavja, od Romula leta 753 pr.n.št. do Balbusa leta 19 pr. Vse, kar je ostalo od fasti zdaj so drobci razstavljeni v Kapitolinskem muzeju v Rimu. Navedel je več kot 200 zmag. Zanimivo je, da je razlikoval med tipičnimi in pomorskimi zmagami (Brada). Onofrio Panvinio, katerega delo o zmagah je v posebni zbirki Villanova, je na podlagi fasti. Avtor dela je neznan- Panvinio ga je pripisal Valeriusu Flaccusu, zamisli, ki se zdaj šteje za napačno.

Panvinio's Fasti
Panvinio, Onofrio. Fasti et triumphi Rom. a Romulo rege usque ad Carolum V. Caes. Avgusta, sive, Epitome regum, consulum, diktatorum, magistror. equitum, tribunorum militum consulari potestate, cenzor, impp. & aliorum magistratuum Roman. cum orientalium tum occidentalium,: ex antiquitatum monumentis maxima cum fide ac diligentia desumpta. Onuphrio Panuinio Veronensi F. Augustiniano avtor. Additæ sunt suis locis impp. & orientalium, & occidentalium uerissimae icones, ex vetustissimis numismatis quam fidelissime delineatae. Ex musaeo Iacobi Stradæ Mantuani, ciuis Romani, antiquarii. Venetiis: Impensis Iacobi Stradae Mantuani. 1577. Slika CC-NC-BY-SA Digitalna knjižnica na Univerzi Villanova. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:76363

Ženske in ujetnice: "drugi" v zmagoslavju

Ženske običajno niso imele velike vloge v zmagoslavni procesiji, zlasti v času republike (Flory). V času cesarstva je bilo več možnosti, da so bile ženske del dneva bolj kot gledalke. Suetonius na primer piše, da je Messalina jahala v zmagoslavju svojega moža cesarja Claudija (Brada). V povorki bi lahko bile tudi hčere zmagovitega moža. Zdi se, da je Livia, Avgustova žena, priredila večerjo v čast Tiberijevemu zmagoslavju (Flory). Pogosteje so bile ženske v vlogi ujetnice ali živega plena. Tako je bila na primer kraljica Takonelda v Germanovi povorki Arsinoja, Kleopatrina sestra, vodena v eni izmed Cezarjevih Zenobij, kraljico Palmire, ki so jo vodili v Aurelijanu (Brada).

Ujetniki so se seveda soočili s ponižujočo potjo skozi mesto- vendar, kot piše Mary Beard, procesija ni bila vedno hoja do smrti, ampak je lahko predstavljala »ključni trenutek, v katerem je sovražnik postal rimski« (Beard 140). Primer tega procesa je Publius Ventidius Bassus, ki je leta 38 pred našim štetjem slavil zmagoslavje, potem ko je bil kot otrok ujetnik v zmagoslavju med socialno vojno. Plinije tako piše o svojem nesrečnem začetku: "Masurius pravi, da je bil dvakrat zmagoslavno voden in je po Ciceronu izpustil mule za pekare tabora" (Plinij, Naravna zgodovina, Knjiga VII, poglavje 1).

Prototipnega rimskega zmagoslavja ni. Večina tega, kar vemo o rimskem zmagoslavju, je združevanje zgodovinarjevih poročil o posameznih slovesnostih, letopisov, literature in umetnosti ter arhitekturne dediščine dogodkov. V starih virih se ne strinjajo številne pomembne podrobnosti (in celo obstoj zmagov), da ne omenjamo sodobnih znanstvenikov. Osnovno okostje zmagoslavja je naslednje: parada, ki jo je vodil zmagovalni vojaški poveljnik, v mesto Rim in skozi njega, vrhunec pa je bil z žrtvovanjem v templju Jupitra Optimusa Maximusa. Ujetniki, plen, živali, oklepi, celo modeli bojnih polj so bili pred zmagovitim človekom in njegovim vozom. Sledili so njegovi vojaki. Kot piše Mary Beard Rimski triumf, »Zmaga, z drugimi besedami, je ponovno predstavila in upodobila zmago. Prinesla je robove cesarstva v središče «(32). Podrobnosti je treba podrobneje določiti.

Triumfalna povorka iz dela Giovannija Bellorija
Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Veteres arcus Augustorm triumphis insignes ex reliquiis quae Romae adhuc supersunt: ​​cum imaginibus triumphalibus restituti, antiquis nummis notisquae Io: Petri Bellorii illustrati nunc primum / per Io Iacobum de Rubeis. Rim: Ad Templum Sanctae Mariae de Pace, 1690. Slika Digitalna knjižnica [email protected] Villanova. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:38641.

Izvor

Plutarh piše, da je Romulus najprej posekal hrast, nosil lovorov venec in se sprehajal po Rimu ter trdil, da je "njegova procesija izvor in vzor vseh kasnejših zmagov" (Plutarh, Življenje Romula, 16). Vendar pa so Plinij, Varro in drugi verjeli, da je izviral iz Bacchusa, zato so ga poimenovali po njegovem epitetu triambos. V Fasti Triumphales, pozno republikanski seznam zmagov, je Romulus prvi. Domneva se, da je bilo v tem času več kot 300 zmag

1000 letno obdobje od ustanovitve republike do konca zahodnega rimskega cesarstva (brada).

Kako do zmage in zmage

Vse zmage so se začele z vojaško zmago nad sovražniki Rima. Po besedah ​​Livija mora zmagoviti general, ki se vrača v Rim, ostati zunaj mestnega obzidja, dokler zmaga ne podeli tako senat kot ljudstvo. Senat bi imel formalno glasovanje, ki bi ga ljudje odobrili vir triumphalis, zmagovalec, imperij v mestu za čas povorke. Na primer, iz njegovega poročila o zavrnjeni Marcellusovi zmagoslavni ponudbi vemo, da bi teoretično zmago lahko podelili le, če bi poveljnik s seboj pripeljal svojo vojsko in vojno zaključil vojno (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 22.21). Vendar, kot trdi Beard, ni bilo trdnih pravil v zvezi s zmagami, ki bi jih lahko določili- kot v primeru z Appiusom Claudiusom Pulcherjem leta 143 pr. Rečeno mu je bilo, da je zmagovalec zavrnil in ga vseeno vzel (Brada).

Druge možnosti za vrnitev generala, ki mu niso bile podeljene zmagoslavne časti, so bile ovacije in zmagoslavje zunaj mesta na gori Alban. V ovacijah general ni dobil lovorike niti voz (Brada). Marcellus je ob zavrnitvi slavil svoje zmagoslavje na gori Alban.

Zemljevid Rima, ki ga je izdelal Onofrio Panvinio
Panvinio, Onofrio. Onuphrii Panvinii Veronensis, De ludis circensibus, libri II. De triumphis, liber neobičajno. Venetiis: apud J. B. Ciottum Cenensem. 1600. Slika Digitalna knjižnica [email protected] Villanova. http://digital.library.villanova.edu/Item/vudl:75216

Pot

Pot zmagoslavja je bolj sklop smernic kot kamnita pot. V bistvu se je procesija začela zunaj mesta v Campusu Martius, nato je potekala skozi Slavoločna vrata, skozi Forum in se končala pri Temperju Jupitra Optimusa Maximusa na Kapitolinu (brada).

Procesija

Zanimivo je, da se zdi, da za zmagoslavno povorko ni določenega reda ali celo jasne slike o tem, kdo bi bil del nje. Kot poudarja Beard, se vrstni red, viden v slavolokih in spomenikih, kakršen je ponazoril Bellori zgoraj, ne ujema z vrstnim redom rimskih zgodovinarjev. V bistvu lahko povorko posplošimo in razdelimo na tri dele: plen, splošno in vojake.

Plen bi vodil zmagoslavno povorko. Plen bi lahko vključeval vse, kar je bilo vzeto iz osvojenih ljudstev- kipe, zlato, srebro, orožje, sužnje, kovance, živali, kraljeve ujetnike in celo plovce, ki prikazujejo dogajanje na sprednji strani (Brada). V Livijevem poročilu o zmagi Nerona in Livija leta 207 pr. Kar se tiče razstavljenih ljudi, so bili pogosto kralji in kraljeve družine nasprotnih sil. Splošno velja, da si je Kleopatra vzela življenje, ko je Octavian zmagala iz državljanskih vojn drugega triumvirata, da ne bi zmagala (Bringmann).

General sam naj bi bil glavna atrakcija- čeprav so ga lahko ujetniki ali bleščice zlata presegli. Spet zelo splošna in osnovna shema njegove vloge je ta: s svojimi otroki se je vozil z vozičkom v obliki stolpa, ki so ga vlekli konji (Cassius Dio v Potterju). Vsaj enkrat se zmagoslavni poveljnik ni vozil z vozičkom. V zmagi Nerona in Livija po 2. punski vojni je Nero jezdel na konju- Livy piše, da je »tako zmagoslavno porazdelitev med njima povečala slavo obeh, predvsem pa tistega, ki je tovarišu dovolil, da ga v časti preseže kolikor ga je sam presegel po zaslugah «(Livij 28,9). Na splošno pa je general stal na vozu za celotno povorko. Na glavi sta imela lovorov venec in zlato krono, nosil pa je vijolično tuniko in a toga picta, toga, ki naj bi bila prekrita z vzorci ali vzorci. Držal je žezlo. V nekaterih poročilih je njegov obraz obarvan rdeče. To je povzročilo razpravo med znanstveniki. Versnel pojasnjuje dve teoriji- prvo, da je bil oblečen v imitacijo kipa Jupitra Optimusa Maximusa, in dve, da je bil oblečen v slogu prvotnih etruščanskih kraljev v Rimu (Versnel). Ne glede na izvor, vir triumphalis bi bil čudovit prizor. Mary Beard trdi, da bi bil rdeči obraz v pozni republiki manj pogost.

Po vir triumphalis in njegov voz so bili vojaki zmagovite vojske. V nasprotju s splošnimi so nosili popolno vojaško obleko in regalije. Kričali bi "io triumpe ", stavek, katerega pomen je bil takrat in zdaj še vedno ni razumljen. Zapeli bi tudi pesmi, ki se posmehujejo ali hvalijo svojega generala, imenovanega carmina incondite avtor Livy (Beard). Najbolj znane pesmi so tiste, ki so jih prepevali ob zmagah Julija Cezarja nad Galijo, vključno s to, ki jo je zapisal Suetonius:

"Možje iz Rima, držite se svojih soprogov, tukaj je plešast prešuštnik. Zlato v Galiji ste porabili za dallacijo, ki ste si jo izposodili tukaj v Rimu" (Suetonius, Življenje Julija Cezarja 50).

Triumf Julija Cezarja Andrea Mantegna
Mantegna, Andrea. Triumfi Julija Cezarja IX. Anglija: Kraljevska zbirka, palača Hampton Court. 1488. Javna domena. "Triumph9-Mantegna-Julius-Caesar" Andrea Mantegna. Licencirano v javni domeni prek Wikimedia Commons-http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph9-Mantegna-Julius-Caesar.jpg#/media/File:Triumph9-Mantegna-Julius-Caesar.jpg

Republikanski triumfi

V času republike je bila zmaga čast, o kateri so sanjali moški. Veljalo je za vrhunec rimske vojaške in pogosto politične kariere. Eden najbolj znanih zmagovalcev je bil Pompej Veliki. Pompey je v svoji karieri slavil redke tri zmage. Plutarh piše, da še ni imel brade, ko je dobil prvo zmago- še ena redkost. In this first celebration, Pompey reportedly “tried to ride into the city on a chariot drawn by four elephants for he had brought many from Africa which he had captured from its kings. But the gate of the city was too narrow, and he therefore gave up the attempt and changed over to his horses” (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, 14). Pompey celebrated his triumphs on his birthday, which was also the day he died in Egypt.

The end of the Republic, the 30’s BCE, saw a jump in the frequency of triumphs. In fact, the number of triumphs dropped off sharply after the Augustan settlement and the end of the fasti triumphales in 19 BCE (Beard).

Imperial Triumphs

After the founding of the Roman Empire, triumphs were only awarded to emperors or members of the imperial family (Beard). Some scholars link this change to the triumph becoming a step in the coronation and legitimacy of the new emperor, starting with Julius Caesar (Versnel). Triumphs in this period were much scarcer than during the Republic, and could often be quite flimsy to the modern eye. For example, Caligula is said to have dressed up Gauls as Germans to celebrate his triumph by Suetonius, and Dio relates that he raided the palace for “spoils” (Beard). Tactitus describes the triumph of Germanicus in terms of the new imperial regime:
“There were borne in procession spoils, prisoners, representations of the mountains, the rivers and battles and the war, seeing that he had been forbidden to finish it, was taken as finished…Still, there was a latent dread when they remembered how unfortunate in the case of Drusus, his father, had been the favour of the crowd how his uncle Marcellus, regarded by the city populace with passionate enthusiasm, had been snatched from them while yet a youth, and how short-lived and ill-starred were the attachments of the Roman people” (Tacitus, Letopis 2).

Germanicus celebrated his triumph before the war was even completed and in the shadow of the mysterious deaths of two other popular generals. Tacitus highlights the change in tenor of the celebration in the empire. The Arch of Titus even seems to show the deification of the Emperor, linking the triumph and the divine during the Empire (Beard).

Triumph of Germanicus
Guerber, Helene. Triumph of Germanicus. 1896. Public domain via Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Triumph_of_Germanicus.gif

Triumph through the Ages

Triumphs survive in the many victory parade celebrations that are still held and commemorated. Mary Beard writes that the last parade of looted art throughout the streets of Europe was Napoleon’s plunder of Italian art and procession through Paris in 1798. Perhaps a more well-known example is the New York City Victory Parade in 1946, following the conclusion of World War II. Thankfully, the display of captives has fallen off thanks to the U.N. and the Geneva Conventions.

Montgomery, Alabama. World War I Victory
Paulger, Stanley. World War I victory parade for the 167th Infantry regiment on Dexter Avenue in Montgomery, Alabama. 1919. Alabama Dept. of Archives and History. CC-PD-OLD. Image Public [email protected] Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Montgomery_Alabama_WWI_parade.jpg

A Roman Triumph
Rubens, Peter Paul. A Roman Triumph. National Gallery, 1630. PD-US PD-ART. Image Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rubens-roman-triumph.jpg#/media/File:Rubens-roman-triumph.jpg

Bibliografija

Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Bellori, Giovanni Pietro. Roman Triumphal Arches. 1690.

Diodorus Siculus. The Library of History Vol. II, Book IV. Translated by C. H. Oldfather for the Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1933.

Fasti Triumphales in Inscriptiones latinae liberae rei publicae. Translated and edited by Attilio Degrassi, 1957. On view at the Capitoline Museum in Rome.

Flory, Marleen B. “The Integration of Women into the Roman Triumph” in Zgodovina: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte Bd. 47, H. 4 (Oct 1998): 489-494.

Livy. Ab Urbe Condita. An English Translation Translated by William Heinemann,. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press London, Ltd. 1919.

Panvinio, Onofrio. On Circus Games/On Triumphs. 1600.

Plutarch. Lives. Translated by John Dryden. Modern Library: 1942.

Polybius. Thatcher, Oliver J. ed., The Library of Original Sources (Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co., 1907), Vol. III: The Roman World, pp. 166-193

Potter, David. Ancient Rome: A New History. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2009.

Suetonius. Lives of the 12 Caesars vol. II. Translated by J. C. Rolfe for the Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, revised 1998.

Tactitus, Letopis. Translated by Alfred John Church and William Jackson Brodribb. http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.1.i.html

Versnel, H. S. Triumphus: An Inquiry Into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.

Further Reading

Beard, Mary. The Roman Triumph. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2006.

Potter, David. Ancient Rome: A New History. New York: Thames and Hudson, 2009.

Versnel, H. S. Triumphus: An Inquiry Into the Origin, Development and Meaning of the Roman Triumph. Leiden: Brill, 1970.


Augustan Age

Naši uredniki bodo pregledali, kar ste oddali, in ugotovili, ali želite članek popraviti.

Augustan Age, one of the most illustrious periods in Latin literary history, from approximately 43 bc to ad 18 together with the preceding Ciceronian period (q.v.), it forms the Golden Age (q.v.) of Latin literature. Marked by civil peace and prosperity, the age reached its highest literary expression in poetry, a polished and sophisticated verse generally addressed to a patron or to the emperor Augustus and dealing with themes of patriotism, love, and nature. One decade alone, 29 to 19 bc , saw the publication of Virgil’s Georgics and the completion of the Aeneida the appearance of Horace’s Odes, Books I–III, and Epistles, Book I the elegies (Books I–III) of Sextus Propertius, a member of a group of promising young poets under the patronage of Gaius Maecenas and Books I–II of the elegies of Tibullus, who was under the patronage of Messalla. During those 10 years also, Livy began his monumental history of Rome, and another historian, Pollio, was writing his important but lost history of recent events. Ovid, the author of Metamorphoses, a mythological history of the world from the creation to the Augustan Age, was the last great writer of the Golden Age his death in exile in ad 17 marked the close of the period.

By extension, the name Augustan Age also is applied to a “classical” period in the literature of any nation, especially to the 18th century in England and, less frequently, to the 17th century—the age of Corneille, Racine, and Molière—in France. Some critics prefer to limit the English Augustan Age to a period covered by the reign of Queen Anne (1702–14), when writers such as Alexander Pope, Joseph Addison, Sir Richard Steele, John Gay, and Matthew Prior flourished. Others, however, would extend it backward to include John Dryden and forward to take in Samuel Johnson.


ResoluteReader

The fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of Imperial Rome remains the central story that underpins all attempts to understand later-day Roman history.

Anthony Everitt's biography has at its heart the individual who personifies the historical transformation. Octavian, the man who became Caesar Augustus, was adopted posthumously by his great uncle, Julius Caesar. His adopted name gave him enormous gravitas in the years immediately following Caesar's murder, as did the enormous wealth that came with it. But Octavian was not an outsider to wealth and privileged. This was no upstart from the fields, or slave made good, Octavian was a Roman, and he fought to ensure the continuation of Rome.

The story of Octavian and his transformation into Augustus brings into play many of the great figures of Roman history. There is of course Julius Caesar, and Augustus' great rival, Mark Anthony. There is also Cleopatra, and to a lesser extent other wives and mistresses. Everitt also introduces many of the poets who were part of Augustus' circle. Though occasionally I felt lack of material meant that Everitt strays a little from his topic, delighting, on occasion, in salubrious detail. (Did we really need that Horace poem on his wet dream)?

That aside this is a useful and readable account of the period. A nice summary of Anthony and Cleopatra the stories of Augustus' limitations as a military commander and the genius of those (Agrippa in particular) who laid the basis for Rome's Empire.

Whether named Octavian or Augustus, the subject of this biography is far from the fair minded ruler that some later Emperors claimed to wish to emulate. He was ruthless and violent. Whether or not he had Cleopatra murdered as some suggest, he certainly made sure her heirs were killed. Octavian was given "a personality makeover" even while alive. Stories were spread to convince the rest of the world that "the young revolutionary whose career had been founded on illegality and violence a respectable, conservative pedigree."

At the core of this book is this notion of revolution. To what extent did Augustus revolutionise Rome? There is no doubt that both Augustus and the other two members of his Triumvir engaged in a vicious, brutal fight to ensure they gained power. The destruction of much of the old Roman ruling class and the absorption of their wealth and land into the new Roman state seems, on the surface, revolutionary. Yet there seems more continuity in other respects. Roman remained a society based on slavery, and its political institutions, at least at a senate and regional level seemed very similar. And there was little between Augustus and his main rival Anthony, as Everitt comments, the "choice was simply between two kinds of autocracy: tidy and efficient, or laid-back and rowdy."

The Marxist historian of Rome, Neil Faulkner, has a different analysis. Rather than the revolutionary Augustus, he sees a stabilising force:

"Caesar’s brief rule in 45 to 44 BC was also ‘absolutist’-it was, in effect, that of a military dictator governing against the opposition of much of the ruling class but with strong popular backing. Caesarism was a form of what Marxists call ‘Bonapartism’. It arises when a clash of class forces produces chronic instability but no clear outcome-when there is no revolutionary class able to seize power for itself and remodel society in its own image. In such circumstances, revolutionary leadership can be ‘deflected’-it may devolve on ‘strongmen’ who lift themselves above the warring factions, building support by promising popular reform and a restoration of order, and maintaining power by balancing between evenly matched class forces. Caesar, the imperialist warlord and popular reformer, provided ‘deflected’ leadership to the Roman Revolution, and, once in power, ‘Bonapartist’ leadership to the fractured Roman state. His immediate successor, Octavian-Augustus (30 BC to AD 14), who became the first emperor, led a conservative reaction which largely restored the unity of a Roman ruling class that was now purged, enlarged and more open to recruitment from below. It was this that distinguished Caesar from Augustus, not that one was a democrat and the other an absolutist."

The "Roman Revolution" had begun some years earlier and Augustus was, in large part, consolidating earlier change. But it was less a revolution and more, in Faulkner's words, of "a struggle between aristocratic factions over the future of empire". By strengthening the Roman state, expanding and developing it, Augustus was making it into the system that could govern most of the known world. In this context Augustus was less of a revolutionary and more the figure who ensured that change became permanent.

It might be suggested that this is a minor part of Everitt's book. But it does get to the heart of who Augustus was. While much of the biography is readable and fascinating and an excellent introduction to Roman history, I felt the core argument lacked strength and undermined the viability of the whole work. That said, this is a complicated period that has challenged all those who have tried to understand those turbulent Roman years. While I don't agree with all of Everitt's conclusions, his book is an excellent introduction and will give readers a useful over-view of the subject.

Related Reviews


Augustan Roman Triumph - History

Jerusalem fell. No matter how zealous they were, or how determined they were, those barbaric Jews should never even dreamed of challenging the absolute right of Roman rule.

The great poet Virgil had made this point clear in his Aeneid nearly a century ago. Those who question the rule of the Empire will vanquish! Fools! How dare they shame our Gods! We privileged them to be a self-governed section, and this is how these arrogant fools repay the favor? Our Gods will not allow such disgrace! If their temples do not honour our Gods, then let them burn! Let this be an example for all!

In 66 the Jews declared independence from the Roman Empire. This action infuriated the emperor Roman legions led by Titus Flavius were sent to punish the Jews. After four years Titus's army sacked the city of Jerusalem, putting an end to the bitter rebellion. Titus burned the Jewish Holy Temple of Solomon and brought back to Rome the most sacred relics in Jewish faith: the Menorah, the seven-branched golden candelabrum that represented the nation of Israel. It demonstrated the idea that the nation of Israel would accomplish its goals by setting an example for other nations, not by force, hence the term "a light unto the nations".

Now, ironically, the Menorah lay in the hands of the Romans, taken by force.

This war deserved a celebration. Romans loved seeing the Triumph, where the victorious Roman army marched in the city to show off the loot and captives.
Now Titus could parade the city with his soldiers and his spoils of war, to show the fellow Romans how valiant he had been, and how successful this war was. To have a triumph granted by the Roman Senate, all he needed was to face 5,000 enemies of a foreign nation he captured 50,000. Even more importantly, this war protected the honor of the Empire this war ensured the supremecy of Roman power. If this would not get him a Triumph, nothing would.

Of course, the Triumph of Titus was one of the greatest triumphs ever held.

Roman Senators, spoils of war (including the Menorah) and captured Jewish generals lead the parade but that was but a minor part of what the citizens of Rome came for. They came out to cheer for their valiant sons and brothers, the shining future of the empire. "Here comes Titus the Imperator!" Citizens cried out as the great man's chariot finally appeared from Campus Martius. Clothed in toga made of purple silk, crowned with wreath embroidered in laurel, proudly, there rode Titus, the pride of Rome! The smile! The gestures! Citizens cried to cheer for him!
"io triumph", "Io Triumph"! Welcome back! Valiant sons of Rome!

The appearance of Titus and his soldiers marked the peak of the parade. Musicians blew their horns, dancers showed their moves, commoners cheered and yelled, and children chased after the chariots: this procession absorbed everyone everyone loved this celebration.

The Temple of Jupiter lay in front of the procession. Here the procession marched into a complete stop, and Titus offered two giant white bulls to Jupiter, thanking the God for watching over Rome. In addition to the appeasement and the show of gratitude, Titus also asked for a favor from Jupiter: the soldiers justly and honorably protected the Empire by plunging into the river of blood and guilt only Jupiter could cleanse them and purify them.

After the purification and sacrifice, the last of the rituals began. For the Roman citizens it was merely a performance, yet for the captured generals it marked the end of their lives.

O great Jupiter, here we present you the leaders of the enemies of state! Those who dare to offend you must not live. Off, off with their heads!

The Colloseum side of the ceiling contains this inscription: "Senatus Populusque Romanus Divo Tito Divi Vespasiani Filio Vespasiano Augusto", or, "the Roman Senate and People to Deified Titus, Vespasian Augustus, son of Deified Vespasian". The Senate and people honoured Titus by dedicating this triumphal arch to him.

The two relief panels on the side of the passageway make up the core of this arch. The first relief shows the spoils of war from the Temple of Solomon: The Menorah, the Altar, the trumpets, and the placards. What is remarkable about this relief is its depth and perspective. The spoils procession, heading towards a honourary arch, is lead by the Altar and followed by the Menorah, but the arch is much smaller in size compared to the Menorah hence the arch must appear from a distance. The Menorah party is also considerably larger than the Altar carriers. As a result, the Menorah appears much closer to the observer, and this generates a sense of realism in the procession.

The second relief shows Titus in his quadriga, a royal chariot drawn by four horses, riding with the winged goddess of victory on his shoulders. Similar to the first relief, Titus also appears closer to the observer. Together the two reliefs complete the core of Titus' triumph procession. Furthermore, this imaginary procession faced in the actual direction of the real triumph procession, proceeding from the Colloseum to the Palatine Hills through Via Sacra.

When a traveler walks under the arch, he could look up into the vault and find the carving of Titus riding on an eagle. The sacred eagle is the messenger sent by the Gods. It would carry Titus to Heaven, where the deceased emperor shall continue to watch over the people from above.

Although the arch today seems to have survived two thousand years of wear and tear, and it may appear in a great shape, it actually is not. The first major reconstruction came during the Middle Ages when the Frangipani family, then ruler of Rome, incorporated the arch into their city wall. Huge holes were punched into the wall to make places for beams. Later the wall was taken down and the arch was saved, though in quite a mess. Miraculously, the reliefs were preserved in great condition.

My own research had shown that the seven-branched golden Menorah was the core relic for Jewish faith. The Holy Book prohibited the remake of seven-branched holy Menorah with any material, yet Professor Michael and Debra both told me the holy Menorah had nine branches.

Confused, I looked up more information: the Menorah in Solomon's Temple was originally seven branched, but in re-dedication of the Temple the new Menorah had nine branches. Legend has it that the candles of Menorah lasted eight days, even though supposedly they were meant to last for only one day. So the new Menorah had nine branches, where one central branch was used to light the other eight. The name of the central branch is Shamash, name for the Jewish God of Sun.

Macadam, Alta. "Blue Guide: Rome". A&C Black: 2003.

Steves, Rick. "Rick Steves' Italy 2004". Avalon Travel Publishing, 2003

Yarden, Leon. "The spoils of Jerusalem on the Arch of Titus : a re-investigation". Stockholm, 1991

Zaho, "The History of the Roman Triumph". Honors Summer Italian Packet 1, University of Washington Copy Center, 2003

The UW KnowledgeWorks software used to create this site was developed by the The Program for Educational Transformation Through Technology at the University of Washington.


Augustus&apos work with the senate

Augustus’ revitalisation of the senate highlighted how Augustus maintained a prevalent auctoritas of the senate, despite revoking his official powers in 23 BC. Augustus’ auctoritas and work with the senate over the senate was delineated through his statement, “I excelled all in auctoritas,” which commented on how Augustus was able to pass laws himself through several ways. Augustus’ 𠆊uctoritas’ that Augustus explained referenced to how he utilised his Tribunicia potestas (from 23 BC onwards) in order to present bills to the people.

This was clear through how Augustus could take action through judicial decisions, which was especially evident through his treatment of the Aediles as their traditional functions were taken away gradually. For instance, Cassius Dio ( Roman History, page 375), had explained that “In this same year. the praetors and the tribunes performed the aediles&apos duties,” which essentially referred to the role of the aediles from 22 BC- 6 AD.


Augustus and the Legions

Augustus, like the imperator generals before him, garnered the bulk of his political strength from the Roman armies. Loyalty of the various legions in the Late Republic had always been mainly to their individual generals, as opposed to the Senate, or Rome itself. As Augustus emerged the victor in the final civil war to end the Republic, the situation for him was no different, and the settlement of the military issue was of paramount importance.

Soon after his return from Egypt, and the official ascension as Augustus, the issue was at the top of a long list of reforms. According to his own 'Res Gestae' Augustus quickly dismissed as many as 300,000 troops from active service. In this however, he seemingly didn't show preferential treatment to his own armies, but allowed any who wished to retire the right to do so, while keeping the willing men from both his and Antony's troops as part of a new standing army. The remaining legions, some 150,000 men strong, were organized into 28 total legions and spread throughout the empire. This new professional army would be paid a salary directly by the emperor, ensuring loyalty to Augustus, and after 6 AD, payments were to come from a new public treasury (the aerarium militare). Those troops which had been retired from service were given the customary grants of land, but after 14 BC, Augustus instituted a retirement pension for the legions, granting cash payments in lieu of land rewards.

Further organizing the legions as a professional army, the military became an actual career choice for Italian and provincial citizens alike. Terms of service were originally instituted at 16 years to qualify for retirement packages, but this was later extended to 20 years. In so doing, the concept of massive conscripts in times of war, thereby taking citizens from other necessary occupations, was mostly avoided. As an added benefit, this new professional career allowed the common poor new opportunities without being reliant solely on the state welfare system. Though spoils of war could still be shared among the troops, soldiers could now look forward to regular pay without commanders forcing a campaign simply to provide looting opportunities.

At the time of Augustus and through to the mid 1st century AD, it's been estimated that the legions were composed of up to 70% Italian recruits. As time went by and the placement of legions, which were always on the frontiers, was established for long periods, the legions became less reliant on men from the Italian peninsula. Under Claudius and Nero, the number of Italian recruits dropped to just fewer than 50%, and that number continued to decline over the next century. By the time of Hadrian, Italians made up only 1% of the total legion compliments. Under Augustus, however, provincial non citizens also had military opportunities in the restructured auxilia. Though the auxilia was still mostly an 'as needed' operation in the early empire, it's been estimated that auxilia soldiers represented at least an equal number of active soldiers to that of the citizen army. The status, however, was ever evolving and it wouldn't be long before they were really a permanent part of the standing army. Auxiliaries could also receive regular pay from the treasury, though at a lesser amount, had similar terms of service and had access to variable retirement benefits. The chief of these benefits could be the rewarding of citizenship, on the non-citizen provincial and his family, making them eligible for all the perks of being a 'Roman'.

To command his legions, Augustus, and each successive emperor, also turned to those closest to them. No longer was command bestowed through the Senatorial hierarchy, but the practice of choosing the best was still sadly ignored. Having close relations to or being an intimate member of the emperors' inner circle usually carried more merit than one's actual battlefield capability. Under Augustus, the bulk of this duty fell to his close friend Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, his stepsons Tiberius and Drusus (along with his son Germanicus), and even later his grandsons Gaius and Lucius Caesar. In the early empire, unrelated but successful men like Marcus Licinius Crassus (grandson of the first triumvir) created problems for Augustus.

Many generals still viewed military service in the old Republican fashion, where success should be met with triumphs and personal rewards. In the case of Crassus, his exceptional success in the Balkans very early in Augustus' tenure highlighted the potential for disaster. Crassus' demand of a triumph as well as the spolia opima (or ultimate spoils) could've potentially placed the loyalty of the men serving him in serious doubt. During the principate, the legions were to be loyal to the emperor himself and not the Legates who served him. Augustus did possibly grant the triumph but Crassus seems to have been quickly removed from service and essentially disappears from the historical record afterward. Another of Augustus' early governors, C. Cornelius Gallus the prefect of Egypt, lauded himself with rewards. Statues erected with glorifying inscriptions resulting from victories over neighboring tribes and revolting provincials, were a source of both anger and distrust for Augustus. Gallus' behavior led ultimately to his own suicide (by 26 BC), certainly under pressure from Rome.

As the new constitutional arrangements of Augustus began to alter the fabric of Roman government, it was imperative that this Republican military ideology cease to exist. From the incident with Crassus onward, the emperor was solely responsible for the victories of men in the field. If a triumph was due, it was the emperor who received it. Even Agrippa the close confidant of Augustus, perhaps understanding this fundamental change in philosophy more than any other, refused all such personal honors and allowed Augustus to celebrate Agrippa's victories as if they were truly his own. Of course, the emperor, at least in the case of those who were strong enough to pull it off, was exempt from blame in the case of military disaster and these could be blamed entirely on the commanders. Still, the life of a legate could be one of supreme honor, respect and wealth. They simply had to understand the new rules and forego the honors of the Republican era. The emperor further solidified the legions as his own, by ensuring that each legionary swear a personal oath of loyalty directly to him. Essentially the emperor was not only the source of the soldier's pay, but he was truly the commander-in-chief and patron. In the case of Augustus, it didn't hurt that he was considered a living god.


1. Brutal Memorial

Augustus revered his great-uncle and adoptive father, Julius Caesar, even long after the legendary general’s death. He was so committed to Caesar’s memory, in fact, that he once ordered an absolutely horrific sacrifice to be held on the Ides of March, the anniversary of Caesar’s assassination (today we’d call it March 15th, but the Romans had a flair for the dramatic). 300 prisoners taken from the recent Perusine War were killed on the altar of Caesar in Rome, all to show how much the emperor respected the man who set the foundation for his rule.

HBO