Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GinoLR, post: 8192343, member: 128351&quot;]Dio&#039;s tale is full of details, names, motivations, he even tells what the characters think. Dio&#039;s tale is written from the point of view of an omniscient narrator, in other terms it is the prose of a novelist, not a historian. Today&#039;s historians, thus, must consider the following question: how, from which source did Cassius Dio know all this?</p><p><br /></p><p>In 217, soon after Caracalla&#039;s assassination, it seems obvious that nobody knew this. There is no word in any source about any opposition to Macrinus&#039; elevation. The army proclaimed Macrinus Augustus immediately, and in Rome the Senate confirmed this election, despite the unprecedented fact that the new Augustus was from the equestrian order. This was a real revolution, you know. More than an alleged plot involving a handful of conspirators named Macrinus, Nemesianus, Apollinaris, Julius Martialis, etc. the simple fact that such a revolution took place shows that there was a consensus in the army and in Rome. In Rome there were other people, especially members of the Antonine family, who could have claimed more legitimacy than Macrinus, a mere praetorian prefect. The Antonine dynasty was still the reference at this time: Caracalla (Marcus Aurelius Antoninus) was officially supposed to be Marcus Aurelius&#039; grandson, and Elegabalus (M. Aurelius Antoninus too) married a certain Annia Faustina, from the Antonine family. But in 217 everybody recognized Macrinus, an <i>homo novus</i>, as Augustus.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thus I only ask this simple question: how could Cassius Dio, a senator, know all those details about Macrinus&#039; alleged conspiracy? Especially if some key characters like the Egyptian soothsayer Serapion or the assassin Martialis had been killed... If Dio&#039;s tale is true, it is obvious that nobody knew these facts in 217 when Macrinus was elevated to succeed Caracalla without raising opposition. Even Julia Domna Augusta retired to Emesa without trying to protest, Macrinus even granted her a special guard, evidence that she at least officially recognized the new power.</p><p><br /></p><p>A possible reason for Macrinus&#039; elevation by the troops on the spot was that, as the praetorian prefect, he had the control of the expedition cash and was the only man with the power of immediately distributing the expected donativum... And if the Senate recognized him so easily, it was probably because he was appreciated in Rome and was trusted by the Severian dynasty: despite having been one of the key Plautianus&#039; men, he had avoided death or dismissing, had been authorized to add Severus to his name and made a praetorian prefect.</p><p><br /></p><p>There was obviously no word of his alleged treason and conspiracy in 217. On the opposite, this story corresponds perfectly with Julia Maesa&#039;s propaganda in 218 when she rebelled against Macrinus. &quot;Alternative facts&quot; were her speciality: she claimed that it was Caracalla who had fathered her daughters&#039; sons Bassianus and Alexianus, and she had also to justify why Macrinus was an illegitimate usurper...</p><p><br /></p><p>Cassius Dio was writing and publishing his history under the reign of Severus Alexander, Julia Maesa&#039;s grandson, owing all his legitimacy as an emperor to his supposed Severian ancestry and his grandmother&#039;s version of history in 218. Could Cassius Dio write he doubted the story of Macrinus conspiracy?...[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in