1.2 Tiberius AD 14- 37 Flashcards
Accession
Tiberius’ potential rivals Agrippa Postumus, whom Augustus exiled, was murdered soon after Augustus’ death (potentially on Livia’s orders). The transition of power is rather smooth, but there are hints of unrest. Like Augustus, Tiberius is hesitant to accept his powers (precedent, avoids looking eager) and Livia potentially plays a significant role behind the scenes to ensure that Tiberius becomes emperor. The Senate is weary of him, some rushing to swear allegiance to him to keep their positions, some afraid and resentful. Tiberius delivers a carefully worded speech, acknowledging the burden of rule and emphasising his desire to share power with the Senate (Tacitus implies that this is insincere and part of Tiberius’s strategy to secure his authority). Tiberius slowly consolidated his authority.
Tiberius and the Military
- Immediately upon his accession, uprisings took place in Pannonia and in Mainz, Germany in AD 14
- AD 17, issues in Judea and Syria
- AD 15- 24, Tacfarinas’ revolt in North Africa
Pannonian and German Revolts
Pannonian Revolt: Background: The legions stationed in Pannonia (modern-day Hungary and surrounding areas) were discontented with their conditions—long service, poor pay, and harsh discipline. The news of Augustus’s death in AD 14 sparked the revolt as the soldiers saw an opportunity to demand better terms from Tiberius.
Demands: The soldiers demanded immediate discharge, back pay, and improved conditions. They even went as far as threatening their commanders and starting mutinies.
Resolution: Drusus, the son of Tiberius, was sent to Pannonia to quell the revolt. He was accompanied by Sejanus, the future powerful prefect of the Praetorian Guard. Drusus used a mix of diplomacy and military force to suppress the mutiny. A lunar eclipse, interpreted as an ominous sign, also helped undermine the mutineers’ morale. The revolt was eventually brought under control, and some of the soldiers’ demands were met.
German Revolt: Background: The legions in Germania (along the Rhine) also rebelled, driven by similar grievances as those in Pannonia. The soldiers felt emboldened by the transition of power from Augustus to Tiberius and believed they could extract concessions.
Demands: The German legions demanded similar benefits, including higher pay, shorter service terms, and land grants upon discharge.
Leadership of the Revolt: The revolt in Germania was more severe and widespread than in Pannonia. The soldiers even attempted to proclaim Germanicus, the popular and capable commander of the legions, as emperor. However, Germanicus remained loyal to Tiberius and sought to pacify the troops.
Resolution: Germanicus used a combination of personal charisma, promises of rewards, and a strategic show of force to restore order. He also led the legions on a successful campaign against the Germanic tribes, which helped to redirect their focus and restore discipline.
Outcome of the revolts
Tiberius wasn’t very effective, his message wasn’t received and Germanicus was more liked than he was. The camps were miserable and unsatisfied and Tiberius clearly isn’t in power. The atmosphere is dangerous as Germanicus sends his family away. He ended up paying the men off to give up.
He didn’t deal with the revolts personally, which can be seen as both not caring but also not paying the revolts much attention and showing that he east shaken by them
Tacfarinas’ Revolt AD 15- 24
- Background and Causes:
Tacfarinas’ Background: Tacfarinas was a former soldier in the Roman auxiliary forces who became disillusioned with Roman rule. After deserting, he used his military experience to rally local tribes, particularly the Musulamii, against the Romans. - Tribal Discontent: The revolt was fueled by widespread discontent among the Berber tribes, who resented Roman exploitation and the imposition of taxes and land confiscations. Tacfarinas capitalised on this unrest, presenting himself as a leader who could resist Roman oppression.Phases of the Revolt:
Initial Successes (AD 15-17): Tacfarinas launched a series of guerrilla attacks on Roman settlements and military outposts. His forces, well-suited to the mobile warfare of the North African deserts, achieved several early successes, ambushing Roman troops and raiding towns. He also formed alliances with other tribes, increasing the strength of his rebellion. - Roman Response: The Roman governor of Africa, Marcus Furius Camillus, initially struggled to contain the revolt. However, over time, the Romans adapted their tactics, fortifying their positions and launching counter-attacks to disrupt Tacfarinas’s supply lines and tribal alliances.
- Tacfarinas’s Strategy: Tacfarinas aimed to force the Romans into recognising him as a legitimate ruler by engaging in formal negotiations. He even sought to establish a permanent base of operations, attempting to transition from a guerrilla campaign to more conventional warfare.
- Roman Counter-Strategy: Despite several setbacks, the Romans gradually regained control. After replacing Camillus with Publius Cornelius Dolabella in AD 24, Tiberius gave him more troops and resources to decisively end the revolt. Dolabella launched a series of coordinated military operations, relentlessly pursuing Tacfarinas and his forces, which eventually led to the collapse of the rebellion.
- Conclusion and Aftermath: Final Defeat: In AD 24, Tacfarinas was finally cornered by Roman forces and killed in battle, bringing an end to the revolt. His death marked the conclusion of one of the most persistent and challenging uprisings faced by the Romans in Africa during this period.
Roman Control Restored: Following the defeat of Tacfarinas, Roman control over North Africa was reasserted, and the region was pacified. However, the revolt had exposed the vulnerabilities of Roman rule in the provinces, particularly in dealing with local resistance. - Legacy: Impact on Roman Military Policy: The revolt led to changes in Roman military strategy in the region, including the strengthening of garrisons and more proactive measures to prevent similar uprisings.
Tiberius’s Rule: The revolt, lasting nearly a decade, was a significant challenge to Tiberius’s authority, but its eventual suppression reinforced the emperor’s reputation for dealing effectively with internal threats.
Maiestas Trials
- Expansion of the Law: Broader Interpretation: Under Tiberius, the maiestas law, originally intended to protect the state from serious threats, was increasingly interpreted in a much broader sense. It encompassed a wide range of actions that could be construed as offensive to the emperor or the state, including slander, disrespectful behaviour, and even seemingly trivial gestures.
- Instrument of Control: The law became a tool for controlling and eliminating political rivals, as accusations of maiestas could be used to discredit and prosecute senators, equestrians, and others in positions of influence. This expansion of the law was part of Tiberius’s broader strategy to maintain his grip on power and to neutralise any potential threats.
- Role of Informers (Delatores): Rise of Informers: The maiestas trials encouraged the rise of delatores (informers), who sought to gain favour with the emperor by bringing forward accusations of treason. These informers were often motivated by personal gain, as successful prosecutions could lead to rewards, confiscation of the accused’s property, and even political advancement.
- Culture of Fear: The prevalence of informers and the ease with which accusations could be made created a culture of fear and suspicion within Roman society. Many leading figures lived in constant fear of being accused, and this atmosphere contributed to the growing paranoia of Tiberius.
- Notable Trials and Victims: Some of the most notable victims of the maiestas trials were members of the Roman elite, including senators and former allies of Tiberius. For instance, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso, accused of treason following the death of Germanicus, was one of the most prominent figures to face a maiestas trial.
- Use Against Rivals: Sejanus, Tiberius’s powerful Praetorian Prefect, was known to use maiestas charges against his rivals to eliminate them and consolidate his own power. After Sejanus’s fall in AD 31, many of his associates were themselves prosecuted under maiestas, demonstrating the law’s role as a double-edged sword.
Impact on Tiberius’s Reputation: - Decline in Popularity: The increasing use of maiestas trials contributed significantly to the decline in Tiberius’s popularity, both among the Senate and the wider population. The trials were seen as indicative of his repressive and paranoid rule, particularly during his later years when he had retreated to Capri.
- Legacy of Fear: The maiestas trials left a lasting legacy of fear and repression in Roman political life. They contributed to the perception of Tiberius as a tyrant and played a key role in the negative portrayal of his reign by later historians, such as Tacitus and Suetonius.
- Aftermath and Consequences: Continued Under Successors: Although the maiestas trials reached their peak under Tiberius, they did not end with his death. The precedent set during his reign for using maiestas charges as a political weapon continued under subsequent emperors, further entrenching the culture of suspicion and political purges in the Roman Empire.
Tiberius’ relationship with Germanicus
- Adoption: Tiberius was instructed by Augustus to adopt Germanicus as his son, even though Tiberius had a biological son, Drusus. This adoption was part of Augustus’s plan to secure a stable line of succession, and it reflected Germanicus’s importance within the imperial family.
- Military Command: Tiberius entrusted Germanicus with significant military responsibilities, including command of the legions on the Rhine. Germanicus’s campaigns in Germania were initially successful and increased his popularity, both with the troops and with the Roman public.
- Germanicus’s Popularity: Public Adoration: Germanicus’s charisma, military successes, and his association with the Julian family made him immensely popular. He was seen as a potential future emperor who embodied the virtues of the Roman people. This widespread adoration likely created a sense of rivalry or jealousy in Tiberius, who was not as well-loved by the populace.
- Triumphal Return: After his campaigns in Germania, Germanicus was awarded a triumph, a significant honour that further boosted his status. His return to Rome was celebrated with great enthusiasm, highlighting the contrast between his popularity and Tiberius’s more austere image.
- Growing Tensions: Tiberius’s Suspicion: As Germanicus’s popularity grew, Tiberius became increasingly suspicious of him. Despite his favour towards Germanicus, Tiberius may have viewed him as a potential rival, especially given the widespread support Germanicus enjoyed from the Senate, the army, and the people.
- Transfer to the East: In AD 17, Tiberius sent Germanicus to the eastern provinces, ostensibly to resolve diplomatic issues and oversee the region. Some historians suggest that this was a way for Tiberius to distance Germanicus from Rome and reduce his influence, though it also reflected the importance of the eastern command.
- Germanicus’s Death: Germanicus died suddenly in AD 19 in Antioch, under mysterious circumstances. His death led to widespread speculation and rumours, with some believing that he had been poisoned on Tiberius’s orders, though there is no conclusive evidence to support this.
- Public Grief and Aftermath: Germanicus’s death was met with deep public mourning in Rome. His widow, Agrippina the Elder, accused Tiberius and his trusted adviser, Sejanus, of being involved in a conspiracy against her husband. This further strained the relationship between Tiberius and the Julian branch of the imperial family.
- Succession Issues: Germanicus’s death left a significant void in the imperial succession. His sons, Nero Caesar and Drusus Caesar, were viewed as potential heirs, but their fates were eventually sealed by the political machinations of Sejanus, leading to their downfall.
- Historical Perception: Tiberius’s relationship with Germanicus is often portrayed negatively by ancient historians like Tacitus, who emphasised the tension and jealousy between them. The suspicion surrounding Germanicus’s death and the subsequent treatment of his family contributed to Tiberius’s reputation as a cold and possibly treacherous ruler.
The Pisonian Conspiracy
- Piso’s Appointment: Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso was appointed by Tiberius as governor of Syria, a position that placed him in close proximity to Germanicus, who had been sent to the eastern provinces to oversee diplomatic and military affairs. Piso was known for his staunch support of Tiberius and was seen as an adversary to Germanicus, possibly due to Tiberius’s suspicion of the popular general.
- Conflict in Syria: Once in Syria, tensions between Germanicus and Piso escalated. Germanicus was highly popular and had significant authority, which may have threatened Piso’s position. Their conflict became increasingly public, with Germanicus accusing Piso of undermining his efforts and challenging his authority.
Germanicus’s Death: - Mysterious Circumstances: Germanicus fell ill and died suddenly in Antioch in AD 19. His death was unexpected, and rumours quickly spread that he had been poisoned. Before his death, Germanicus himself reportedly believed that Piso had a hand in his illness, and his widow, Agrippina the Elder, supported these suspicions.
- Accusations Against Piso: After Germanicus’s death, Agrippina accused Piso and his wife, Plancina, of poisoning her husband. Piso’s earlier conflict with Germanicus and his actions after the general’s death, including allegedly trying to reassert his authority in Syria, further fuelled these accusations.
- The Trial: In AD 20, Piso returned to Rome, where he faced a highly publicised trial in the Senate. The charges against him included poisoning Germanicus and attempting to usurp control of the province. The trial was politically charged, with Agrippina and the public calling for justice, while Tiberius appeared to distance himself from the proceedings, though some suspected he was protecting Piso.
- Piso’s Death: Before the trial could conclude, Piso died under mysterious circumstances, widely believed to have committed suicide. This added to the intrigue and suspicion surrounding the case. His death prevented a definitive conclusion to the trial, leaving many questions unanswered.
- Public Outrage: Germanicus’s death and the trial of Piso led to widespread public outrage. Many Romans believed that Piso had indeed been responsible for Germanicus’s death and that Tiberius might have been complicit or, at the very least, had not done enough to protect Germanicus or pursue justice.
- Tiberius’s Reputation: The Pisonian conspiracy damaged Tiberius’s reputation, contributing to the view that he was a paranoid and possibly treacherous ruler. The death of Germanicus and the subsequent events also deepened the rift between Tiberius and the Julian family, particularly Agrippina and her children.
- Historical Interpretation: Ambiguity: Ancient sources, particularly Tacitus, present the events with a strong bias against Tiberius, often suggesting that he had a hand in the conspiracy, though concrete evidence is lacking. The true nature of Piso’s involvement and Tiberius’s role remains a matter of historical debate, shrouded in ambiguity and political intrigue.
Tiberius’ relationship with Sejanus, “the sharer of my cares”
- Rise to Power: Sejanus, originally an equestrian, rose to prominence as the commander of the Praetorian Guard. He quickly gained Tiberius’s trust and became one of his closest advisers. Sejanus’s influence grew as he managed the emperor’s security and increasingly involved himself in political matters.
- Consolidation of Power: Tiberius relied heavily on Sejanus, especially as he began to withdraw from the day-to-day running of the empire. Sejanus was instrumental in reorganising the Praetorian Guard, bringing all its cohorts into a single barracks in Rome, which significantly increased his power and control.
- Political Manipulation: Sejanus used his position to manipulate the Roman political landscape. He systematically eliminated rivals and those who opposed him, often through treason trials. His ambition became more apparent as he sought to marry into the imperial family and secure his position as Tiberius’s successor.
- Isolation of Tiberius: Sejanus played a key role in Tiberius’s decision to withdraw to the island of Capri in AD 26. From Capri, Tiberius ruled remotely, which allowed Sejanus even greater control over the administration in Rome. Sejanus effectively became the ruler in all but name, exercising significant power and influence.
- Growing Suspicion: Over time, Tiberius began to grow suspicious of Sejanus’s intentions, particularly as rumours of his ambitions and machinations reached the emperor. Tiberius, always cautious and distrustful, started to question Sejanus’s loyalty.
- Sudden Fall: In AD 31, Tiberius, acting on these suspicions, orchestrated Sejanus’s downfall. He lured Sejanus into a false sense of security by continuing to show favour publicly, while secretly planning his arrest. Sejanus was suddenly arrested, tried, and executed, along with many of his supporters.
- Purge of Sejanus’s Allies: After Sejanus’s execution, Tiberius ordered a purge of his remaining allies and associates. This period saw widespread fear and numerous executions as the emperor sought to eliminate any lingering threat posed by Sejanus’s faction.
- Tiberius’s Legacy: The relationship with Sejanus left a lasting stain on Tiberius’s reign. The trust he placed in Sejanus, followed by the brutal crackdown after Sejanus’s fall, contributed to Tiberius’s image as a paranoid and reclusive ruler. The affair also exacerbated the atmosphere of fear and repression that characterised the later years of his rule.
Downfall of Sejanus
Tiberius was insecure of his power and wary of Sejanus’ growing power, unknown who the support of the Praetorians lay with. Sejanus was given a false sense of security by Tiberius, who handed him power and cut him short at an unexpected time to prevent potential usurping of power. Sejanus had to be publicly denounced, which, once occurred tuned into everyone denouncing him. The Senate, probably under Tiberius’ implications, was more responsible for his death. His family was condemned and murdered, with some attempting to win favour with Tiberius.
Imperial Cult
- Reluctance to Promote the Cult: Avoidance of Deification: Tiberius was notably reluctant to encourage the worship of himself as a living deity, which was a key aspect of the imperial cult. Respect for Augustus’s Cult: While Tiberius was hesitant to promote his own deification, he showed respect for the imperial cult established in honour of Augustus, his adoptive father.
Use of the Imperial Cult in the Provinces: - Provincial Worship: In the provinces, the imperial cult was a tool for fostering loyalty and integrating diverse populations into the Roman state. Delegation to Local Authorities: Tiberius often delegated the promotion and management of the imperial cult to local elites and provincial governors, allowing them to handle its administration.
- Rejection of Excessive Honours and discouragement of Excessive Worship: Tiberius was known to discourage excessive honours and titles that might imply his divinity. For example, when the people of Asia proposed building a temple to him, he declined, suggesting that only the gods should receive such honours.
- Moderation in Rome: In Rome itself, Tiberius maintained a more traditional and restrained approach, avoiding the overt religious veneration of the emperor that was more common in the provinces.
- Maintenance of Authority: Despite his personal reluctance, the imperial cult still functioned as an important tool of propaganda and control, particularly in the provinces.
Deified posthumously by Gaius - Long-Term Influence: Tiberius’s approach to the imperial cult demonstrated a more traditional and cautious perspective on the role of the emperor in Roman religion.
Relationship with the senate, equestrians and ordinary people
- Senate: Duplicitous, mutual dislike, especially due to the maiestas trials and favourism of Sejanus. Marked by a shift from initial cooperation and respect to increasing control, manipulation, and eventual alienation. His reign left the Senate weakened and distrustful, setting a precedent for the further erosion of senatorial power under later emperors.
- Equestrians: Tiberius had a productive and mutually beneficial relationship with the equites. He relied on them for their administrative skills and loyalty, which helped him govern the empire effectively while reducing his dependence on the Senate. This relationship strengthened the equestrian class’s role in Roman politics and administration, leaving a lasting impact on the structure of Roman government.
- Plebs: Tiberius’s relationship with the plebs was characterised by a focus on maintaining order and economic stability, with little effort to court popular favour. His reserved and pragmatic approach ensured stability but did not win him much affection from the common people, contributing to a legacy of detachment and, in some cases, unpopularity.
Death and Succession
Tiberius died on his way to Rome, aged 77. Suetonius claims Gaius played a part in his death by smothering or starving him. Seneca claims that he collapsed when getting out of bed to give someone his ring. His death was well received, suggesting that he wasn’t liked, with threats of flinging his body off the Gemonian Stairs. He named two co-heirs in his will, Gaius and Gemellus with might have caused a potential constitutional crisis.
