Currently reading: Ten Caesars - Roman Emperors from Augustus to Constantine (Barry Strauss)
A breeze of a read to refresh one’s understanding of Ancient Roman history . I also hope to read Mary Beard’s and Tom Holland’s latest books on Rome as well, maybe over the holidays. As the meme goes, I probably think about Ancient Rome too much.
The passage below is on the chapter on Hadrian, and the cycle of a more defensive emperor following and “correcting” an expansionist one.
Few emperors came to office with as much vision and self-confidence as Hadrian. He wanted nothing less than to be a transformative leader. He came to see himself—eventually, if not at first—as a second Augustus. Indeed, in time he called himself Hadrian Augustus, preferring it to his full name, Imperator Caesar Traianus Hadrianus Augustus. He considered himself a second founder of the empire.
Actually, he was a second Tiberius. By reversing Trajan’s policy of expansion, he restored the largely defensive strategy of Tiberius. If Hadrian was more of a humanist than Tiberius, he did not shy away from Tiberius’s quarrels with the Senate and, from time to time, his tyranny.
Hadrian faced revolts east and west at the start of his reign: in Dacia, on the Danube, in Mauretania (Morocco), and Britain. He responded by firmness in some areas and pullback in others. He ordered an immediate withdrawal from the little territory that was left of Trajan’s conquests in the Parthian Empire, and he made peace with the Parthian king. He also gave up the eastern part of Dacia. As a precautionary measure to stop invaders, Hadrian even had the superstructure of Trajan’s great bridge across the Danube dismantled.
Surrendering territory seemed un-Roman, and many senators opposed it fiercely. Indeed, disagreement with the new policy and not a conspiracy was probably the real reason the Four Ex-Consuls paid with their lives. But Hadrian insisted. In his judgment, the empire was exhausted after Trajan’s wars of expansion. Furthermore, he seems to have recognized the advantages of rearmament: militarily, economically, and morally.
Though the emperor did have his opponents, most members of the Roman elite probably agreed with Hadrian. There was no longer the same incentive to fight wars to conquer new territory. In fact, there was a disincentive, since emperors feared and sometimes executed victorious generals. It was no longer necessary to have major military experience in order to forge a successful public career or be a senator.