Pax

Continuing his excellent series of books on the Roman Empire, starting with Rubicon about the fall of the Republic, followed up with Dynasty about the House of Augustus, Tom Holland has now written Pax, bringing the story into the golden age of the empire. Of course, the title is partly ironic, given that even in times of relative peace, Rome’s legions were rarely without someone to fight somewhere. Read on to learn more about Pax and how Holland’s thoughts on Rome can sometimes go against the grain.

The Roman Civil War

Pax begins with, and devotes a full third of its page count, to two wars in the year 69. First, the civil wars that broke out after Nero’s suicide, and second the final phase of the Judaean revolt. Holland is an excellent storyteller and brings to life the brief and chaotic tenures of the men who fought for ultimate power in the year of the four emperors: The stern general Galba, Nero’s crony Otho, and The gluttonous Vitellius. The ultimate victor in the civil war, Vespasian, waits his turn in Alexandria, sending a subordinate to march on Rome. Possibly encouraging a treasonous mutiny by German auxiliaries on the Rhine to add to the chaos, and letting his son, Titus complete the crushing of the Judaean revolt and destruction of their great Temple in Jerusalem.

Holland emphasizes how important the war against Judaea was. He makes a point that it would be anachronistic to refer to Judaeans of the time as Jews- wo Vespasian and the legitimacy of his dynasty. He pays particular attention to the propaganda campaign they led to glorify what was in reality merely, the suppression of a revolt: Triumphing in Rome as if they had brought new territory to the empire, showcasing tax revenue from other provinces as if it was war booty, and even absurdly claiming that Jerusalem had never been conquered before.

Trajan and Domitian

Holland’s judgments of the emperors of this period largely conform to most modern historians, especially in disagreeing with who the ancient sources viewed as the worst and best. Namely Domitian and Trajan. Domitian is still presented as an off-putting, greasy teenager; someone you could believe enjoyed pulling the wings off flies. But Holland also notes his dedication to work and is more understanding of his willingness to cut bait in over-ambitious enterprises like his general’s conquests in Scotland. To shore up more important defenses along the Danube. In contrast, Trajan, known in his own time and later as “Optimo Princeps” the best of emperors, comes off as relatively likable and judicious. But who, like a compulsive gambler, couldn’t be satisfied with his great conquest of Dacia, and had to launch a reckless invasion of Parthia. Leaving the empire in chaos at his death.

Holland’s Sources

One problem Holland faces is the lack of sources for the later period covered in this book. As Tacitus and Suetonius drop away, he has to rely on either non-narrative sources like the letters of Pliny the Younger and His panegyric to Trajan, or, more troublingly, the Historia Augusta. The Historia Augusta is a notoriously unreliable collection of lives of later emperors which many historians believe was some form of literary prank or satire of other biographers. All historians inevitably reference it when discussing the second-century empire. But usually, they make sure to emphasize how cautiously readers should approach its assertions. I say this because a particular episode mentioned by Holland stood out to me as so unusual. And with so little elaboration, that I checked the end notes for his source to learn more. He mentions that during Hadrian’s travels in the East as emperor, he held a summit with the Parthian King Chosroes on the banks of the Euphrates.

I was surprised that such a momentous occasion, a meeting between perhaps the two most powerful men in the world, merited only a passing mention. I didn’t recall ever hearing that a Roman emperor, save the defeated and captured Valerian a century later. Had ever met a Parthian or Persian King face to face? Their discussions would be worth a section of their own. The source that Holland cites, and the only source to ever mention this titanic occasion is the Historia Augusta – no wonder It isn’t more famous. Holland would have better served his readers to either cut this sentence out, or at least added some qualifier or equivocation to his assertion that it happened.

Romans and Their Customs

Holland makes pains to take the Romans and their customs, especially their brutal sexual practices, on their terms. Mentions of Trajan’s love of boys get no elaboration. One very unusual relationship, even by ancient standards, was that between Hadrian and Antinous. Antinous was a Greek adolescent from Bythinia whose good looks were said to be incredible. On encountering him in 123, Hadrian sent him to Rome to be educated and sometime in the next few years he became his favorite. By the year 128 Antinous was accompanying the Emperor on his tour of the East. Probably being conducted into the Eleusinian mysteries together outside Athens.

In the year 130, while Hadrian’s party toured the Nile, Antinous’ body was found dead. Hadrian said only that he had drowned. Ever since there have been many theories about what happened. Had Hadrian lashed out in a moment of anger and murdered him? Had Antinous committed suicide? Had a jealous member of Hadrian’s inner circle killed him? Or did the fact that the Egyptians had been celebrating the festival of Osiris, a god who had been killed and resurrected, have something to do with it? Perhaps some form of ritual sacrifice to prolong Hadrian’s life? Whatever the real story, Hadrian’s grief was monumental.

After a dream, he declared Antinous to be a god and promoted his worship throughout the empire. Never before had a non-member of the imperial family, let alone a Greek who wasn’t even a citizen, been declared divine. Nevertheless, his cult became genuinely popular. To this day, more statues exist of Antinous than any other figure of classical antiquity save Augustus and Hadrian himself.

Hadrian: The Man Behind Pax Romana

Despite this macabre episode, Holland insists it is Hadrian who fulfilled the promise of the Pax Romana. He praises Hadrian for two great achievements. First, by stabilizing the situation in the immediate aftermath of Trajan’s disastrous Parthian invasion, he managed to reorient the empire away from constant conquests. Where Domitian had failed to convince the Roman elite that protecting the empire was good enough, Hadrian, with spectacular monuments like his famous wall in Britain, successfully made the case that Rome already possessed all the best territory there was to be had. And barbarian territory on the outside wasn’t worth the trouble of conquest. Secondly, his founding of the Panhellenion centered in Athens successfully brought the Greek East into accord not only with each other but with Rome. This to Holland represented a new trend of dual identity, Greek and Roman, that would become central to the eastern half of the empire for many centuries to come.

My Final Thoughts

Despite Hadrian’s brutal suppression of yet another Judaean revolt, Holland credits Hadrian with establishing the empire on a genuinely peaceful footing at his death. Perhaps the best evidence of that is his chosen successor, Antoninus Pius. Despite reigning for over twenty years, he is one of the least famous emperors in Roman history. Conflict and scandal are the basis for historical fame, and his time as emperor lacked both. Bad times would return soon enough for Rome however, and I look forward to Holland’s next entry in this series.