Emperor Vespasian Was Reportedly Pelted With Turnips

Vespasian was born around the year 9, and in his early decades of life, he followed the average path of the up-and-coming Roman statesman. He was successful (but remarkably average) in his early military and political career, ascending the typical Roman social ladder to power—moving through the ranks of military tribune, quaestor and aedile, and finally reaching the post of praetor in the year 39. Vespasian was able to maintain his growing power and prestige during the troubled reign of Caligula (r. 37-41), but it was during the time of Emperor Claudius (r. 41-54) that his career really began to skyrocket.

Vespasian was appointed as a legion commander (of the II Augusta) in the year 43, just in time for him to participate in Claudius’ invasion of Britain. During the war against the Britons, Vespasian distinguished himself and as a result, he was awarded triumphal decorations and prominent priestly titles. His next big step up the political hierarchy came in the year 51, when Vespasian became a consul—one of the loftiest positions in Rome. Just as Vespasian was reaching what he may have then considered the height of his political career, his potential for further advancement was suddenly thrown into chaos. In the year 54, Emperor Claudius died and was succeeded by Nero.

Vespasian and Nero seemed to have had a rocky relationship in the beginning. Over the years, however, the middle-aged military veteran and statesman was able to slowly, but surely, work his way into the good graces of the young and flamboyant Nero. The diligent relationship-building eventually paid off, and Vespasian was appointed by Nero as proconsul (governor) of Africa around the year 63. Although his term of office in North Africa was described by Suetonius as “characterized by justice and great dignity” (The Twelve Caesars, Vespasian, 4), Vespasian apparently had not yet refined his public relations skills, and many of the people under his governance showed him great hostility.

The most dramatic incident during his time as governor occurred in the region of Hadrumetum. For unexplained reasons, the inhabitants of that area became extremely outraged and they held Vespasian responsible for whatever it was the drew their ire. Vespasian, the dutiful proconsul, traveled to the epicenter of unrest in order to deal with the situation. The problem, he soon found out, could not have been famine—for there were so many vegetables on hand that the people vented their frustration by showering poor Vespasian with produce. As Suetonius bluntly put it, “the people of Hadrumetum rioted and pelted him with turnips” (The Twelve Caesars, Vespasian, 4). Unfortunately, Vespasian’s response to the turnip-pelting incident was not recorded. Whatever the case, Suetonius presented the situation as an anomalous, once-occurring incident that was never again repeated.

Turnips, however, cannot keep an ambitious man down. Vespasian was transferred by Nero to Judea between 66 and 67, where he and his son, Titus, led the Roman response to the Jewish revolt in the region. Finally, in 69, Vespasian used his connection in the Middle East and Africa to become the winner of the so-called Year of the Four Emperors, out-surviving and supplanting his rivals, Galba, Otho and Vitellius.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Image of Vespasian by Egidius Sadeler (1570–1629) over a picture of turnips, both [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves and edited by James B. Rives. New York: Penguin Classics, 2007.
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Vespasian 
• https://www.ancient.eu/Vespasian/
• https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/vespasian.shtml 
• https://www.livius.org/articles/person/vespasian/  

Emperor Nero Had A Divine Beard

Not only was Emperor Nero a member of the Julian family (Augustus was his great-great-grandfather), he was also part of the Ahenobarbi clan. This latter group, which Nero was connected to through his father, Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, was said to have earned their name through a peculiar event that supposedly occurred in 5th century BCE.

According to Roman tradition, it was not long after Rome had ousted its Etruscan overlords in 509 BCE, when an army of Latins attacked, intending to re-impose Etruscan rule over the Romans. As legend has it, the army of the fledgling Roman Republic defeated the would-be oppressors at Lake Regillus with the help of the horse-riding gods, Castor and Pollux, who supposedly led the Romans in a decisive cavalry charge.

Castor and Pollux were apparently excited about Rome’s victory at Lake Regillus and were impatient about spreading the news back to the victorious city. Instead of waiting for the soldiers to naturally make their way back home, Castor and Pollux miraculously appeared to a random wanderer. Exactly where this encounter took place differed from source to source—Suetonius claimed the setting was on a country road to Rome, while Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicarnassus claimed it occurred at a fountain in the Forum. Whatever the case, the first person who supposedly made contact with the two gods was a certain Lucius Domitius, an ancestor of Nero.

As the story goes, the gods told Lucius Domitius that a great battle had been won at Lake Regillus. They then commanded the man to spread the word to the Roman people. To make sure that Lucius Domitius was believed, the gods then touched the man’s black beard, turning it a vibrant bronze color.

After that encounter, Lucius’ descendants began to have good luck in their endeavors. According to Suetonius, Lucius Domitius and his immediate descendants earned for their family the rank of patrician and achieved seven consulships, two censorships, and a military triumph. Lucius Domitius also discovered that his divinely colored locks were hereditary, as all of his descendants had shades of bronze for their hair.

The bronze-colored (aheneus) beard (barba) sported by Lucius Domitius and his male descendants allegedly served as the origin of their family surname, Ahenobarbus. By the time of Nero (r. 54-68), however, the miraculous bronze hair of the Ahenobarbi may have diluted in color, as Suetonius claimed Nero’s hair was mostly blonde.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (heavily modified painting of Nero by Eugène Delacroix  (1798–1863), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Twelve Caesars (Divus Claudius, 15) by Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves and edited by James B. Rives. New York: Penguin Classics, 2007.  
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nero-Roman-emperor 
• https://www.britannica.com/place/ancient-Rome#ref26585 
• http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_lake_regillus.html 
• https://www.ancient.eu/Castor_and_Pollux/ 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Aemilius*.html 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Dionysius_of_Halicarnassus/6A*.html  

Nero Reportedly Survived An Assassination Attempt Because Of A Discarded Snakeskin

Agrippina the Younger was a member of the Julio-Claudian family who was exiled from Rome during the reign of her brother, Emperor Caligula (r. 37-41). Fortunately for her, Caligula was soon assassinated and Agrippina was almost immediately invited back to Rome by the next emperor, her uncle, Emperor Claudius (r. 41-54).

When Agrippina returned to Rome, she was allowed to resume raising her young son, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. As Agrippina and her son were among the increasingly rare surviving descendants of Augustus (Agrippina was his great-granddaughter), their return to Roman society brought about all sorts of possibilities for Rome’s ruling elite to use in their endless political maneuverings. Agrippina the Younger welcomed the plotting, as she was an ambitious and cunning woman who thrived in court intrigue.

Unfortunately for Agrippina, ruthless and independent-thinking women were not in short supply in ancient Rome. In particular, she had a worthy rival in Messalina, who had been the wife of Emperor Claudius since the year 39 or 40. As Messalina was just as ambitious and politically savvy as her adversary, she immediately realized the threat that Agrippina and Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus could potentially pose to herself and to her own son, Britannicus. Naturally, a great feud formed between the two sly women. Several ancient historians and biographers mentioned the battle of intrigue between the two women. Tacitus (c. 56-117+) wrote that Messalina was a “particularly virulent” persecutor of Agrippina and that Messalina was only distracted from her campaign by a wild affair with a certain Gaius Silius (Annals, Book XI).

The Roman biographer, Suetonius (c. 70-130+), claimed that the feud between the two women almost became murderous. In his book, The Twelve Caesars, Suetonius alleged that Messalina eventually sent a team of assassins to murder Agrippina’s son, Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. According to the tale, the assassins found the young boy sleeping and were about to strangle him when they saw something terrifying. At the foot of the bed, the assassins were confronted by the coiled, scaly hide of a snake that was seemingly guarding the sleeping young boy. Believing that their target was divinely protected, the assassins loudly fled from the scene. The commotion either woke Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus or his mother, Agrippina, for they knew that assassins had been near and that a snake had been the reason of their indiscreet exit.

Upon inspection, however, all was not as it seemed. What was at the foot of the boy’s bed was not a live snake, but just the shed skin of one that had slithered by recently. Even so, Agrippina must have thought it was lucky, for she reportedly had the snakeskin gilded and turned into a bracelet, which she gave to her son.

Messalina, of course, was right to suspect and fear Agrippina and Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus. In the year 48, Messalina was executed by Claudius after word spread about the aforementioned affair that his wife was having with Gaius Silius. One year after Messalina’s execution, Claudius married Agrippina the Younger and adopted her son, who, upon adoption, assumed the infamous name Nero. When Claudius died of suspicious circumstances in the year 54, Agrippina and her allies ensured that it was not Britannicus, Claudius’ son by blood, but Nero, the late emperor’s adopted son, who became the next leader of the Roman Empire. In the year 55, Emperor Nero (r. 54-68) fulfilled Messalina’s nightmare by assassinating her son, Britannicus, who was only 13 or 14 years of age at the time of his murder.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (scene with Dionysus and a snake (c. 62-79 AD) - from Pompeii, House of the Centenary, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 
• The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves and edited by James B. Rives. New York: Penguin Classics, 2007. 
• https://www.ancient.eu/Nero/ 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nero-Roman-emperor 
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/nero.shtml 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Agrippina 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Messalina-Valeria  

In the Reign of Nero, Romans Rioted In An Attempt To Save The Lives Of Condemned Slaves

Between his descriptions of wars and imperial intrigues, the Roman historian, Tacitus (c. 56-117+), enjoyed filling his pages with various crimes that occurred within the Roman Empire. He stated several reasons why he recorded the crimes. For one, the accounts reinforced his idea that Rome had become corrupt and morally degraded in the time period in which he was writing about. On the other hand, he believed that seemingly trivial and insignificant events, such as criminal trials, could influence the direction of history, as a whole, and therefore were worth examining. It must also not be forgotten that Tacitus was one of the most accomplished orators of his day, so he must have known that the scandal and drama of great crime stories would be of great entertainment value to his readers.

While writing about events in the last decade of Emperor Nero’s life, Tacitus took some time to write about an interesting crime that involved murder and slavery. The event in question took place in Rome around the year 61 or 62, not long after Boudicca led her destructive, but ultimately unsuccessful, rebellion in Britain. The incident that occurred that year would ultimately rile up the masses and force Emperor Nero to take a side in a debate between law and morality.

According to Tacitus, a City Prefect named Lucius Pedanius Secundus owned a large household of slaves. This Pedanius, as Tacitus referred to him, somehow inspired the bitterest kind of hate in one of his many slaves. The historian mentioned two theories as to how this occurred. In the first account, Pedanius refused to let one of his slaves buy freedom, even though he had promised to release the slave for a predetermined price, which the slave had obtained. In the alternate version, Pedanius and the unnamed slave were both competing for the very same person’s affection and the slave was infuriated because he was losing the competition of courtship. Whatever the cause of the animosity, the slave eventually murdered Lucius Pedanius Secundus.

According to Roman law, not only the murderer, but also every single slave in Pedanius’ large household, would be held responsible for the crime. Therefore, all of Pedanius’ slaves (young and old, men and women) were condemned to execution. This verdict, sentencing to death many innocents, caused rioting to break out in the streets of Rome. The angry citizens were said to have had enough strength to besiege the senate-house, itself. Faced with the angry mob, the senators quickly began to debate whether the slaves should be shown mercy or if the ancient custom of execution should be upheld. When the senators ultimately decided in favor of upholding the executions, the rioters picked up stones or any other available weapons and put themselves between the slaves and the authorities.

With an armed conflict seemingly imminent in the streets, Emperor Nero sent out his troops to clear the roadways and to ensure that the executions were carried out. Caught up in the bloodlust, some of the more extreme senators also proposed that freed former slaves of Pedanius should also be expelled from Italy. Nero, however, rejected this second proposal.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome (Chapter 10) by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996.

The Spectacular Destruction Of Nero’s Gymnasium

Between the years 60 and 62, Emperor Nero (r. 54-68) dedicated a gymnasium that he had constructed in Rome. According to ancient sources such as Cassius Dio, Philostratus and Tacitus, it was a beautiful building that was decorated with great statues, including a bronze piece modeled after Nero, himself. The great gymnasium, however, did not last long—unfortunately, it burned in a dramatic fire.

Tacitus recorded the building’s destruction in his work, The Annals of Imperial Rome. According to his account, it seemed as if the sky-god, Jupiter, had a personal grudge against Nero and the gymnasium. In the year 62 or 63, the building was apparently struck by a powerful bolt of lightning, igniting a fire that destroyed the gymnasium. Tacitus paid particular attention to the statue of Nero that held a prominent position in the structure. According to the historian, all that was left of the emperor’s bronze statue was a melted puddle of shapeless metal. In the eyes of the superstitious, this was considered an ill omen for the emperor’s future.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (1st century bust of Emperor Nero, housed in the National Archaeological Museum of Tarragona, on top of Illustration of ancient Rome by Edgar S. Shumway, published in the 1880s, both [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Europe/Italy/Lazio/Roma/Rome/_Texts/PLATOP*/Gymnasium_Neronis.html

The Horrible Life Of Emperor Claudius’ Daughter, Octavia

While many people may believe that the family of an ancient Roman Emperor would live in luxury and peace, the truth was quite often the opposite. This was especially true for the famous Julio-Claudian Dynasty, to which Julius Caesar and the first five emperors of the Roman Empire belonged. One particular woman in that family realized just how far good fortune could fall. She learned this sad lesson as she watched her entire family succumb to suspicious or violent deaths before she, too, faced execution.

Octavia was the daughter of Emperor Claudius (r. 41-54) and his third wife, Messalina. Based on the ages and dates reported by the historian, Tacitus (c. 56-117+), Octavia would have been born around the year, 45. Claudius and Messalina also had a son named Britannicus, who was born about four years before Octavia.

The tragedy in Octavia’s life began around the year 48, when her mother, Messalina, was executed after being accused of a very public, and very treasonous, affair. Emperor Claudius only waited a year after killing the mother of his children before he decided to remarry. In the year 49, he married his own niece, Agrippina the Younger. When Agrippina entered the imperial household as Claudius’ fourth wife, she brought along with her a son, named Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbas, who was born from a previous marriage. Emperor Claudius quickly adopted the boy and gave him the much more memorable name of Nero.

In the year 53, when Octavia was only about eight years old, her father and stepmother arranged for her to marry Nero, who was sixteen at the time. During their approximate nine years of marriage, neither party found the arrangement enjoyable and no children were ever born from their union. Not long after her marriage, tragedy struck Octavia again. In the year 54, Emperor Claudius died a suspicious death. The ancient historians almost all unanimously accused Agrippina the Younger of causing the death by poisoning the emperor. Sadly, before she was even ten years old, young Octavia had lost both of her parents.

Due to Agrippina’s diligence and diplomatic skill, Nero was proclaimed emperor instead of Claudius’ son, Britannicus. Unfortunately, the new emperor still considered his stepbrother to be a threat. In the year 55, when Octavia was ten, Nero had her fourteen-year-old brother poisoned at a feast. Nero’s own mother, Agrippina, allegedly thought that the crime was appalling and she surprisingly became one of Octavia’s most powerful supporters. Yet, the relationship between the domineering Agrippina and the rebellious Nero continued to deteriorate until the year 59, when the emperor had his own mother assassinated.

As stated earlier, Octavia and Nero never had any chemistry between them, and this undoubtedly worsened when Nero killed Octavia’s brother. As a result, Nero was prone to having affairs—one of these extramarital relationships tragically proved fatal for Octavia. In the year 62, when she was twenty, Nero divorced Octavia in order to marry another woman, Poppaea Sabina. According to Tacitus, Nero first claimed that the divorce happened because Octavia was unable to have children, yet he later paradoxically accused her of having an abortion. Finally, Nero had his friend, Anicetus, confess to having an affair with Octavia. After delivering the confession, Anicetus was allegedly given rewards and a lavish place to retire. After Nero and Poppaea Sabina accused Octavia of having additional affairs, she was exiled to the island of Pandateria.

Not long after her arrival on the island, assassins were sent to claim Octavia’s life. Tacitus wrote a vivid and likely dramatized account of her death. He alleged that the assassins sliced at her with blades, hoping she would bleed to death. When she persisted in living, Octavia was thrown into a bath to speed up the blood flow. The Assassins apparently became impatient, though, and ultimately drowned her in the water. After the deed was done they reportedly removed Octavia’s head so that Poppaea Sabina would have proof that Nero’s former wife was dead.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Photograph of a Roman-Style bust from the Historian's Hut archives, atop a Public Domain scene of ancient Rome painted by J. M. W. Turner (1775–1851)).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nero-Roman-emperor 
•   https://www.britannica.com/biography/Julia-Agrippina 
• https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/nero

Ancient Romans Used Unnerving Family Loopholes To Gain Rewards During The Reign Of The Julio-Claudian Dynasty

During his reign, Augustus (r. 31 BCE-14 CE) instituted and amended several laws that encouraged marriage and the cultivation of large families in the Roman Empire. Most importantly, the Lex Papia Poppaea was enacted in 9 CE, which revised the preexisting Lex Julia laws. These pieces of legislation gave married men with large families certain exemptions from state obligations, and also gave fathers of many children preferential treatment in disputes over inheritance and even in promotions to state and military positions. Unmarried and childless Romans, on the other hand, received none of the aforementioned benefits, faced punitive fines, and were barred from certain celebrations.

The Lex Papia Poppaea did, however, give some leeway to certain groups, such as widows, bachelors and childless couples. Regarding the last two categories of people, the law declared that adopting children was a viable way to receive benefits from the state. For bachelors, too, the law stated that betrothals (contracts to marry at a later date) would amount to the same benefits as that of a full marriage.

Despite the state-sponsored drive for marriage and parenting, many ambitious Romans were not interested in marriage or child rearing. These determined Romans began using bizarre and unsettling loopholes to gain the benefits provided by the laws, while still not committing to a family life.

According to the historian, Cassius Dio (c. 163-235), betrothals were the first system that Romans exploited in order to bypass the marriage laws. Dio reported that men realized they could become betrothed to infant girls in order to attain the status of a married man in the eyes the law. They were given all of the state-sponsored benefits entitle to a married man in Rome, but did not have to worry about marrying their bride for many years to come. Augustus eventually regulated this loophole by decreeing that betrothals were only valid if the marriage was scheduled to occur within two years. Yet, even with this revision, girls as young as ten were still eligible to be betrothed.

Ambitious Romans who had no intention of having children also found loopholes to bypass the penalties against childlessness. While the Lex Papia Poppaea supported adoption, it did not penalize those who disowned the adopted. Therefore, according to the historian, Tacitus (c. 56-117+), childless people that ran for elected positions or governorships would often adopt children in order to receive the status and privilege granted to prolific fathers. Once they won their position, however, the adoptions were revoked. This practice persisted for decades, only ending in the reign of Nero (r. 54-68). By then, these fictitious adoptions, as Tacitus called them, came under criticism for not only being unethical (depending on the age of who was adopted), but also unfair to devoted parents who were spending time and money to authentically raise their children. Around the year 62, Nero and the Senate closed the loophole by decreeing that fake adoptions would no longer give any benefits or privileges to participants in inheritance disputes or elections to government offices.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Wall painting of a feast, c. 79 CE or earlier, located in Pompeii, photographed by Theodore H. Feder, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 
• The Roman History by Cassius Dio, translated by Ian Scott-Kilvert. New York: Penguin Classics, 1987. 
• http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/AugMarriage.html 
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/3292043?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents  

Nero Was Said To Have Encouraged Small Battles Between Supporters Of Theatre Dancers

During the reign of Augustus (r. 31 BCE – 14 CE) a certain type of dance became popular that would remain a theatrical favorite in Rome for centuries. In the dance, a performer, known as a pantomimus, entertained the crowd with a cross between the antics of a mime and the artistry of a ballet. These pantomimi, as they are known in plural, were said to have worn masks and elaborate costumes, dancing along to accompanying sounds from musicians and singers.

The pantomimi dancers found an interesting fan in the youthful Roman emperor, Nero (r. 54-68). As an aspiring musician and theatre performer, himself, Nero was naturally drawn to the dancers. Around the year 56, when Nero’s infamous bad habits were starting to become prevalent, he allegedly decided to liven up the bustling theatres where the performances were held. According to the historian and statesman, Tacitus (c. 56-117+), the audience of the pantomimi were already a rowdy crowd, often getting into fights over differing opinions concerning who would be named the best dancer. Tacitus claimed that Nero enjoyed these skirmishes so much that he abolished any penalties for fighting and gave prizes to the winners. He was also alleged to have sometimes taken part in the brawls.

Nero, however, eventually came to regret his enabling of the fights in the theatre. The enthusiastic crowds showing up for the dances became so rowdy that Nero ultimately imposed a temporary ban, forbidding all pantomimi from performing in Italy. Even so, the dancers would come back and continue to be popular after the downfall of Nero.

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Dancers and musicians, c. 475 BCE, tomb of the leopards, Monterozzi necropolis, Tarquinia, Italy. UNESCO World Heritage Site. Fresco a secco. [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Annals of Imperial Rome by Tacitus, translated by Michael Grant. New York: Penguin Classics, 1996. 
• https://www.britannica.com/art/pantomimus