The History Book Club discussion

Hello Everyone,

This begins the fifth week's reading in our new Spotlighted group discussion.

The complete table of contents is as follows:

SYLLABUS:

Table of Contents

Introduction xi - cvi
A Note on the Text – cvii – cviii
Acknowledgements – cix
Selected Further Readings – cx – cxi
Chronology – cxii –cxiii
Preface – 1 – 4
Advertisement 5

TOC – First Volume

ONE: The Extent and Military Force of the Empire, in the Age of the Antonines p. 31

TWO: Of the Union and Internal Prosperity of the Roman Empire in the Age of the Antonines p. 56

THREE: Of the Constitution of the Roman Empire in the Age of the Antonines p. 85

FOUR: The Cruelty, Follies, and Murder of Commodus – Election of Pertinax – His Attempts to reform the State. – His Assassination by the Pretorian Guards. p. 108

FIVE: Public Sale of the Empire to Didius Julianus by the Praetorian Guards. – Clodius Albinus in Britain, Pescennius Niger in Syria, and Septimius Severus in Pannonia, declare against the Murderers of Pertinax. – Civil Wars and Victory of Severus over his three Rivals. – Relaxation of Discipline, - New Maxims of Government. p. 127

SIX: The Death of Severus. – Tyranny of Caracellaa. – Usurpation of Macrinus. – Follies of Elagabulus. – Virtues of Alexander Severus. – Licentiousness of the Army. – General State of the Roman Finances. – p. 149

SEVEN: The Elevation and Tyranny of Maximin. – Rebellion in Africa and Italy, under the Authority of the Senate. – Civil Wars and Seditions. – Violent Deaths of Maximin and his Son, of Maximus and Balbinus, and of the three Gordians. – surpation and secular Games of Philip. p. 187

EIGHT: Of the State of Persia after the Restoration of the Monarchy of Artaxerxes p. 213

NINE: The State of Germany till the Invasion of the Barbarians, in the Time of the Emperor Decius. p. 230

TEN: The Emperor Decius, Gallus, Aemilianus, Valerian, and Gallienus. – The general Irruption of the Barbarians, - The thirty Tyrants. p. 253

ELEVEN: Reign of Claudius. – Defeat of the Goths. – Victories, Triumph, and Death of Aurelian. p. 295

TWELVE: Conduct of the Army and Senate after the Death of Aurelian. – Reigns of Tacitus, Probus, Carus, and his Sons. P. 327

THIRTEEN: The Reign of Diocletian and his three Associates, Maximian, Galerius, and Constantius, - General Re-establishment of Order and Tranquility. – The Persian War, Victory and Triumph. – The New Form of Administration. – Abdication and Retirement of Diocletian and Maximian. p. 358

FOURTEEN: Troubles after the Abdication of Diocletian. – Death of Constantius. – Elevation of Constantine and Maxentius. – Six Emperors at the Same Time. – Death of Maximian and Galerius. – Victories of Constantine over Maxentius and Licinius. – Re-union of the Empire under the Authority of Constantine. p. 400

FIFTEEN: The Progress of the Christian Religion, and the Sentiments, Manners, Numbers, and Condition of the primitive Christians. p. 446

SIXTEEN: The Conduct of the Roman Government towards the Christians, from the Reign of Nero to that of Constantine. p. 514


Appendix I – 1084 - 1105

Edward Gibbon

Note: This is a group membership selected book.

The assignment for this fifth week includes the following segments/pages:

WEEK FIVE: Public Sale of the Empire to Didius Julianus by the Praetorian Guards. – Clodius Albinus in Britain, Pescennius Niger in Syria, and Septimius Severus in Pannonia, declare against the Murderers of Pertinax. – Civil Wars and Victory of Severus over his three Rivals. – Relaxation of Discipline, - New Maxims of Government. p. 127 - 148


We look forward to your participation; but remember this is a non spoiler thread.

We will open up threads for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers.

This book was kicked off on May 10th. This will be the fifth week's assignment for this book.

We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library.

A special welcome to those who will be newcomers to this discussion and thank you to those who have actively contributed on the previous Spotlighted book selection. We are glad to have you all.

Welcome,

~Bentley

TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL

I see in this chapter that we meet Septimius Severus and read of his climb to power and his defeat of Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger. One book that seems to offer a very good account of this interesting Emperor is;

by Anthony Richard Birley
Publishers blurb:
Septimius Severus, the African Emperor, was descended from Phoenician settlers in Tripolitania, and his reign, AD 193-211, represents a turning point in Roman history. Anthony R. Birley's biography explores how 'Roman' or otherwise this man was and examines his remarkable background and career.
In the first part of the biography, Anthony R. Birley explores what was African and what was Roman in Septimius' background, given that he came from an African city, Lepcis Magna, which prospered under Roman domination. In the second part of the book, Septimius' career as a Roman senator in the age of Antonines is studied, including his second marriage to Julia Domna which led to a conspiracy to overthrow the deranged emperor Commodus and the dramatic civil wars of 193-197 which concluded with Septimius as victor. In the final part of the book Anthony R. Birley examines Septimius' reign, most of which was spent in the provinces. Septimius greatly extended the eastern frontiers and returned in triumph to his native Africa in 202-3. He died at York after a three-year campaign aimed at reconquering the whole of Scotland. In this well-illustrated and stimulating biography, Anthony R. Birley looks at the multi-faceted and sometimes conflicting character of this strange and enigmatic emperor. He asks whether Septimius was a 'typical cosmopolitan bureaucrat', a 'new Hannibal on the throne of the Caesar's' or the 'principle author of the decline of the Roman emperor'?

According to Gibbon he believed that Septimius Severus was 'principle author of the decline of the Roman emperor', is that really true?

There are quite a few sections in this chapter that I found to be a real pleasure to read, like when Didius Julianus had time to reflect on what he had done;
"Yet it was observed, that after the crowd of flatterers dispersed, and left him to darkness, solitude, and terrible reflection, he passed a sleepless night; revolving most probably in his mind his own rash folly, the fate of his virtuous predecessor, and the doubtful and dangerous tenure of an empire, which had not been acquired by merit, but purchased by money."

On the following page I enjoyed this from Gibbon:

"In his government, Niger acquired the esteem of the soldiers, and the love of the provincials. His rigid discipline fortified the valour and confirmed the obedience of the former, whilst the voluptuous Syrians were less delighted with the mild firmness of his administration, than with the affability of his manners, and the apparent pleasure with which he attended their frequent and pompous festivals."

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I see in this chapter that we meet Septimius Severus and read of his climb to power and his defeat of Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger. One book that seems to offer a very good account of this ..."

I am not sure Aussie Rick about that. Commodus for sure began the downward slope of the Empire.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "On the following page I enjoyed this from Gibbon:

"In his government, Niger acquired the esteem of the soldiers, and the love of the provincials. His rigid discipline fortified the valour and co..."

It appears that the Syrians and the Romans were made for each other (smile).

By the way Aussie Rick...thank you so much for all of your posts here. All excellent.

Severus's march on Rome looks like a good example of 'to git thar fust with the most men' A great marching performance of his troops. I'm worn out after walking 6 miles in gym clothes. I can't imagine doing 20 miles day after day with a heavy pack. I guess I'm pretty soft compared to what was considered good shape in those days.

Hi Patricrk, it was amazing what distance the Legions could cover, regardless of season, weather or terrian and once they got to the night location they had to dig an entrenchment and set up a fortified camp as well!

Roman Legion Camp

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Hi Patricrk, it was amazing what distance the Legions could cover, regardless of season, weather or terrian and once they got to the night location they had to dig an entrenchment and set up a fort..."

I was wondering if the Romans had existing camps already in place along the main roads so a days march was from camp to camp.

That's an interesting question Patricrk and it would make a lot of sense. I am sure they had major fortifications in strategic areas but not a large number along the main roads as they would require regular maintenance to be kept in condition and also they would not have liked to leave forts empty to be used by any potential enemies or rebels within the provinces. However having said that I can’t recall reading anything on the subject to confirm that and someone else may have a better idea/answer.

Bentley wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I see in this chapter that we meet Septimius Severus and read of his climb to power and his defeat of Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger. One book that seems to offer a very..."

Hi Bentley, I tend to agree with you, I don't think the rot started with Septimius Severus but I am intrigued why Gibbon thinks it did.

'Aussie Rick' wrote: "Bentley wrote: "'Aussie Rick' wrote: "I see in this chapter that we meet Septimius Severus and read of his climb to power and his defeat of Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger. One book that seems..."

Maybe Gibbon explains later on or in his footnotes.

On Severus as the catalyst for decline and fall:

I can't help but notice that Severus did not earn some of Gibbon's favorite adjectives: "stupid" or "timid." Gibbon applies these liberally to those emperors he finds to be particularly weak executives. Instead, the author goes into lavish, analytical detail to understand what went wrong.

Here is Gibbon's analysis I found best described the true dynamics of the empire's descent into decline and fall (emphasis mine):

"The civil wars of modern Europe have been distinguished, not only by the fierce animosity, but likewise by the obstinate perseverance, of the contending factions. They have generally been justified by some principle, or, at least, coloured by some pretext, of religion, freedom, or loyalty. The leaders were nobles of independent property and hereditary influence. The troops fought like men interested in the decision of the quarrel; and as military spirit and party zeal were strongly diffused throughout the whole community, a vanquished chief was immediately supplied with new adherents, eager to shed their blood in the same cause. But the Romans, after the fall of the republic, combated only for the choice of masters. Under the standard of a popular candidate for empire, a few enlisted from affection, some from fear, many from interest, none from principle. The legions, uninflamed by party zeal, were allured into civil war by liberal donatives, and still more liberal promises. A defeat, by disabling the chief from the performance of his engagements, dissolved the mercenary allegiance of his followers; and left them to consult their own safety, by a timely dessertion of an unsuccessful cause... In the vast extent of the Roman empire there... (was no) person, or family, or order of men, whose natural interest, unsupported by the powers of government, was capable of restoring the cause of a sinking party." pp. 69-70

It seems to me that Severus was an opportunist who exploited a vacuum created by a fatal weakening of the executive itself. Chapter IV and the beginning of Chapter V showed how the Praetorian Guards, patronage, and personal wealth were used to depose and establish new emperors by application of market forces and guile. While I do not celebrate a vanquishing military junta as the ideal steward of republicanism, I do grudgingly acknowledge it is an improvement over the pathologically weak system advanced by Commodus and his ilk. Thus, Severus was not so much a part of the problem as a reaction to it.

What's interesting to me is that Severus also isn't quite a product of the system Gibbon describes as republican degradation. Severus doesn't strike me as a Roman "beltway" insider (not an Augustus, Commodus, even Perennis or Cleander). Quarantined against the avarice of Roman politics, a generalissmo in the field may act from pure ambition, not one cut with any manner of political intrigue. As a vanquishing force, Severus may have even imagined himself as a prototypical Lord Protector or other virtuous player.

I think Gibbon is telling us that the body politic itself was so diseased that no "person, or family, or order of men, whose natural interest, unsupported by the powers of government, was capable of restoring the cause."

Patrick stated as follows:

It seems to me that Severus was an opportunist who exploited a vacuum created by a fatal weakening of the executive itself. Chapter IV and the beginning of Chapter V showed how the Praetorian Guards, patronage, and personal wealth were used to depose and establish new emperors by application of market forces and guile. While I do not celebrate a vanquishing military junta as the ideal steward of republicanism, I do grudgingly acknowledge it is an improvement over the pathologically weak system advanced by Commodus and his ilk. Thus, Severus was not so much a part of the problem as a reaction to it.

I agree with you Patrick. Commodus sounded to me like the worst emperor that anyone could imagine. Generals do have big egos even modern ones like a Patton or MacArthur so I can see where you are coming from.

Are you suggesting that the reign of Commodus had already inflicted irreparable harm and it was a foregone conclusion that the decline could not be abated even then?

Q. Are you suggesting that the reign of Commodus had already inflicted irreparable harm and it was a foregone conclusion that the decline could not be abated even then?

Pertinax may have thought so. His vision, which for lack of a better term I might call "libertarian," was to simplify government back to an "innocent" condition. His experiment was aborted, so we don't have the benefit of knowing the extent of his ideology. If he had envisioned a wiping clean of the slate of state, which I can imagine him doing, the Commodus brand of decline may have been abatable.

Though his methods took a distinctly different shape, I do not doubt Severus felt a strong hand could also steady the listing motion of the empire, even steer it past the shoals.

I can't help but feel Severus's brand carried a higher probability of success than Pertinax's. But I'd rather live under an inattentive ruler than a dictator. So to answer your question requires something I'm not sure Gibbon has given us: A metric for how he measures decline.

The right military dictatorship could have extended the success of the Roman era, but at the expense of the republican spirit that defined it. Such an extension is so ideologically hollow that it constitutes a fall, even if the state continues in name.

To truly succeed would have required something more imaginative than the ancients may have even been capable of. Taking an existing structure and redesigning it without first destroying it is not a common episode in world history. Since there was no imperial precedent for the Roman empire, there can be no historical precedent for peaceful revolution. Without a precedent, there is only innovation to pilot a course. If Gibbon's thesis is true (that the Roman empire declined and fell through a comprehensible chain of events), I guess no one (A) had a eureka moment or (B) couldn't sell it if (s)he did.

What do you think?

I think the problem with any authoritarian regime is the problem of peaceful succession. The seeds of the destruction of the regime were planted when Augustus took over. The Roman Empire had survived Nero it would have survived Commodus as long as it didn't fall into Civil War. When the security forces learned their own power and could make money by changing out emperors the civil wars errupted.

Hi Patrick,

I liked your statement that; "I think Gibbon is telling us that the body politic itself was so diseased that no 'person, or family, or order of men, whose natural interest, unsupported by the powers of government, was capable of restoring the cause'." That makes a lot of sense but I suppose we will have to read more to see if it’s true.

I enjoyed this section of the book where Gibbon is describing the advance of Severus's forces on Rome and the affect that was having on the Praetorian Guards;

"Fear and shame prevented the guards from deserting his standard; but they trembled at the name of the Pannonian legions, commanded by an experienced general, and accustomed to vanquish the barbarians on the frozen Danube. They quitted, with a sigh, the pleasures of the baths and theatres, to put on arms, whose use they had almost forgotten, and beneath the weight of which they were oppressed. The unpractised elephants, whose uncouth appearance, it was hoped, would strike terror into the army of the north, threw their unskilful riders; and the awkward evolutions of the marines, drawn from the fleet of Misenum, were an object of ridicule to the populace; whilst the senate enjoyed, with secret pleasure, the distress and weakness of the usurper."

Does this not hint at one of the main reasons most historians site for the fall of the Roman empire, that the Romans themselves had become soft and weak. That they had become too dependent on non-Romans to defend their extensive borders and had become unused to the ways of war, as their forefathers had been?

As a result of reading this chapter I think I would like to read more on Septimius Severus to see what sort of man he actually was.