I finally got Lucilla!

To be fair most of my assessment of Claudius is based on what I’ve heard and read other historians say about him.

For example Adrian Murdoch of the Royal Historical society (and author of Rome’s Greatest Defeat: Massacre in the Teutoburg Forest and The Last Roman, a biography of Romulus Augustulus) says:

“This was the Praetorian Guard wanting to do a shift of Emperor in the same way that they had done with Tiberius. I’m sure they would’ve thought:

“He’s simple. He’ll do exactly what we want him to do.”

But it didn’t turn out that way. Claudius was a much cleverer and cannier political operative than anyone gave him credit for.”

So for me personally when I read and hear historians like Dr. Irving and Mr. Murdoch say that Claudius was much more competent and intelligent than ancient historians give him credit for I come to the conclusion that Claudius was indeed clever and competent.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

Maybe she inherited the pointy nose from her father? xD

 

I think Lucilla did what she did because she knew Commodus was not ready or capable of being an effective Emperor and she decided to put Rome before family.

What surprises me is that an intelligent and observant man like Marcus Aurelius didn’t see it for himself or if he did why he still named Commodus as his successor.

I know a lot of people will say “because Commodus was his son” but he could have adopted a more capable successor and that person would have been just as much his son as Commodus much like Antoninus Pius had adopted Marcus Aurelius himself.

 

I agree with you regarding Lucilla's intent with her plot, which is to save Rome. She is quite courageous to pull everything together. However, I think she would have a better chance of success, if she had the Imperial Guard support. On the other hand, I have also heard saying that she was motivated because she wanted to become an Empress. I don't know which side is correct.

As for Marcus Aurelius' decision, I agree that the reason is very likely because Commodus is his son. In a perfect world, the aging emperor probably would choose someone capable. However, political reality is harsh, especially during Roman times. What would happen to Commodus if someone else who is "capable" had been selected as emperor? History is full of people who are good at hiding their true intent. There is no guarantee that Commodus could remain safe AFTER Marcus Aurelius passed away. Commodus might likely be shipped off to Capri and be dealt with secretly, as he is a potential threat to the throne. This is especially true if there is any unforeseen trouble happening to the selected emperor. I think Marcus Aurelius has no choice, but to select his son.

Just my thoughts.

 

Very possible!

Faustina Junior, Lucilla's mother, may also has pointy nose as well, as illustrated in this sestertius.

 

Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia regarding the ascension of Commodus as co-emperor with his father, Marcus Aurelius.

Joint rule with father (176–180)

Marcus Aurelius was the first emperor since Vespasian to have a legitimate biological son and, though he himself was the fifth in the line of the so-called Five Good Emperors, each of whom had adopted his successor, it seems to have been his firm intention that Commodus should be his heir. Commodus was the first (and until 337, the only) emperor "born in the purple," meaning during his father's reign.[citation needed] On 27 November 176, Marcus Aurelius granted Commodus the rank of Imperator and, in the middle of 177, the title Augustus, giving his son the same status as his own and formally sharing power.

On 23 December 176, the two imperatores celebrated a joint triumph, and Commodus was given tribunician power. On 1 January 177, Commodus became consul for the first time, which made him, aged 15, the youngest consul in Roman history up to that time. He subsequently married Bruttia Crispina before accompanying his father to the Danubian front once more in 178. Marcus Aurelius died there on 17 March 180, leaving the 18-year-old Commodus sole emperor.

 

But apparently Commodus did not share this trait.

Circa 190 AD

 

To be fair Lucilla did have connections and support that even Commodus didn’t know about.

For example she managed to convince Praetorian Prefect Publius Tarrutenius Paternus into supporting her and having a Praetorian prefect on your side is a huge help. They tended to have influence and manpower behind them.

Commodus executed him later.

It’s true though that both Commodus & Lucilla would have been at risk if someone else had become Emperor. But I’m not sure if that risk would have applied if it was an adopted son of Marcus Aurelius rather than a random usurper.

Apparently Lucilla’s mother Faustina Junior tried to protect Commodus when she thought Marcus had died by urging Avidius Cassius (Praefect of Egypt and 2nd most powerful man in the Empire after Marcus) to claim the Emperorship with her name by his side.

Unfortunately for them both the rumors of Marcus Aurelius’ death were unfounded and he had just been very sick but he survived and recovered.

 

Hmm my denarius doesn’t portray Faustina the Younger with a pointy nose. It looks kind of stubby to me.


Maybe some engravers just sucked at engraving noses?

 

Assuming that sculptures were made with the subject posing, which may or may not be the case with this one of Lucilla, perhaps it is a more accurate depiction of her?

I'm not sure what die engravers used for reference when engraving. Judging from some versions of various emperors and other rulers, it seems very little!

 

Sometimes I wonder if the engravers were just given verbal descriptions.

Like those sketch artists who draw pictures of wanted criminals without any sort of reference.

 

That is fair enough. Maybe Suetonius was completely mistaken when he wrote the following ...

"... Then at last Claudius abandoned all hope of advancement and gave himself up to idleness, living in obscurity now in his house and gardens in the suburbs, and sometimes at a villa in Campania; moreover from his intimacy with the lowest of men he incurred the reproach of drunkenness and gambling, in addition to his former reputation for dulness...."

" ....But all this did not save him from constant insults; for if he came to dinner a little after the appointed time, he took his place with difficulty and only after making the round of the dining-room. Whenever he went to sleep after dinner, which was a habit of his, he was pelted with the stones of olives and dates, and sometimes he was awakened by the jesters with a whip or cane, in pretended sport. They used also to put slippers on his hands as he lay snoring, so that when he was suddenly aroused he might rub his face with them...."

" ...But in hearing and deciding cases he showed strange inconsistency of temper, for he was now careful and shrewd, sometimes hasty and inconsiderate, occasionally silly and like a crazy man.

"... But most of all he was devoted to his secretary Narcissus and his treasurer Pallas, and he gladly allowed them to be honoured in addition by a decree of the senate, not only with immense gifts, but even with the insignia of quaestors and praetors. Besides this he permitted them to amass such wealth by plunder, that when he once complained of the low state of his funds, the witty answer was made that he would have enough and to spare, if he were taken into partnership by his two freedmen.

Wholly under the control of these and of his wives, as I have said he played the part, not of a prince, but of a servant lavishing honours, the command of armies, pardons or punishments, according to the interests of each of them, or even their wish or whim; and that too for the most part in ignorance and blindly...."


It is absolutely possible that Suetonius presented us with a wholly inaccurate depiction of Claudius. I guess we will never really know.

 

It’s true Suetonius didn’t exactly paint him in a great light. But I also believe it’s possible that he was biased as many Roman historians were. Even my favorite historian Livy was biased.

Most of the craziest things Suetonius says are hearsay. Like how would he know what was going on in the palace? For example being pelted with olive pits or woken by jesters?

That sounds to me like something heard on the streets and repeated assumed to be true. Rumors.

It’s like Dr. Irving said: “He was never popular or well liked.”

A lot of the criticism also doesn’t sound like much of a deal. “He was inconsistent in temper”, for example. That could be said about Julius Caesar too. But no one would argue that Caesar was incompetent. He is the complete opposite “absolutely competent”.

However a lot of the criticism makes me wonder if the Roman people actually believed his “simple” masquerade. He played a lot dumber than he really was so as not to seem a threat to Caligula who tended to execute all threats both real and imagined. I mean look what he did to his sisters Drusilla, Livilla and Agrippina. Not to mention Gemellus (Tiberius’s grandson).

Perhaps he played his role too well for so many years that it stuck in the average Roman’s mind and because they probably didn’t have access to him as Emperor they assumed he was indeed simple minded.

Then there is the fact that he reigned for so many years as Emperor. In a time of palace intrigue and political backstabbing I don’t think it’s possible to survive for long without being both clever and canny. There is always someone who thinks they should be Emperor and that the current Emperor needs to go.

He saw that happen to Caligula and I’m sure he would’ve been totally aware that it’s how he became Emperor in the first place so why couldn’t he be replaced too?

In many ways I think Claudius had a mindset similar to Himmler (mentally not morally) in that he knew how to appoint the right person to the right job where they would excel. A wise ruler knows that he/she doesn’t know everything and listens to the counsel of those who know more than he/she. It’s the bad rulers who think they know everything and listen to no one.

 

... or a useful fool who could be manipulated, as Suetonius claims. He certainly allowed freedmen like Narcissus and Pallas to amass great wealth, while his own funds dwindles. If he really was "wholly under the control of these and of his wives" and if he "was not a prince but a servant", as Suetonius claims, we will probably never know.

 

You’re right we will never know. It’s an interesting debate though. Sometimes I like to play devil’s advocate just to try to see things from another point of view.

I learn things from arguing view points even if I don’t believe them. It’s something Socrates used to do. He said it didn’t matter what he said because it taught him the opinions and beliefs of others. For example if someone argues that Julius Caesar should be Consul he would argue that Julius Caesar should not be Consul and learn why the other person believes what they do and promote the debate further and by the end both debaters would have both points of view and a better perspective.

To be honest though I think allowing freedmen to make wealth like patricians had is pretty cool. I guess it would depend on exactly how they got that wealth.

If they were just doing a great job and he wanted to reward their loyalty and good work I think it would be a positive rather than a negative.

One interesting thing about ancient historians is that most of them came from powerful and wealthy families hence they had the luxury of time to research and write history.

I’ve noticed Roman historians in particular tend to be in favor of a societal system of the Patricians having the most power and the Plebians having as little as possible.

So to a man like Suetonius I think it would be infuriating to see a freedman becoming so wealthy and successful. To see that freedman have the wealth and power to equal a Patrician.


But judging by today’s standards we tend to view things like that as positives because we believe “all men (and women) are created equal”.