Augustus or Julius Caesar? Ostia head another puzzle

Lately, I've been working on images I took of the Roman remains of the ancient port of Ostia.  I went to the official website of the archaeological site of Ostia to look through their images to help me identify some of the sculptures I photographed there and stumbled across an image of a head labeled as Augustus:

The notes accompanying the image says it was found on the Street of the Vigiles, the firefighters and watchmen of the city.  I realize Augustus is credited with establishing the vigiles in 6 CE after levying a 4% tax on the sale of slaves to fund the new force.  But this portrait head looks more like heads I have seen of Julius Caesar rather than Augustus.  I realize the damage to the frontal part of the forehead makes it difficult to determine the hairline but the hair appears much more sparse and combed forward rather than Augustus' thick locks almost always depicted in a slightly longer, more casual style:

Augustus as Pontifex Maximus photographed
at the Palazzo Massimo in Rome by Mary Harrsch.

I wish I knew if there was any accompanying epigraphic evidence discovered with the head.

I also noticed a portrait head of Hadrian found in a lime kiln:

Head of the Emperor Hadrian found in a lime kiln
 in the Caseggiato del Serapide in Ostia.

It pains me to think of all of the exquisite sculpture that was unceremoniously rendered down to make plaster in the Middle Ages.  What a tragic loss to our cultural heritage!

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Identifying Ancient Art - A game of smoke and mirrors?

History resource article by Mary Harrsch © 2012

Today, I watched a fascinating lecture "Mistaken Identities: How to identify a Roman emperor" by Mary Beard recently delivered at Stanford University.  As a "fan" of Julius Caesar, I thought her critique of a number of heads identified as Caesar over the years was very enlightening.

I also found her overall discussion of the rather tenuous nature of sculpture identification particularly interesting because lately, I have been re-editing a number of images I shot of Roman sculpture at the Capitoline and National Museums in Rome back in 2005.  I had just started my crusade to photograph historical art and make my images freely available to teachers, researchers and students and had not yet developed my current practice of photographing the identification placards in a sequence with the sculpture to enable me to properly identify the artwork once I returned home to my office.  So, on that first trip to Rome, I ended up with dozens of photographs that all I could say for sure were portraits of Roman men or women until I had a chance to research them further to label them properly.

With the internet and our current technology, I naively believed that proper identification would be a relatively straightforward process.  I have since learned that not only is it not straightforward, even what is thought to be accurate identification at the time changes as different scholars apply different interpretations or museums reliant on governmental support become subject to various political agendas seeking some kind of historical confirmation through a culture's art legacy.

It gets even more confusing when identification displayed at a museum differs from the museum's own collections catalog. I recently received a request from a publisher in Denmark for an image I took back in 2007 of a fresco at the Museo Archeologico Nazionale in Naples that, at the time, was labeled "Cleopatra greets the god of the Underworld'.  But, when I looked the image up in the collections book that I purchased at the museum, I noticed that it said it was Io being welcomed upon her arrival to Egypt by the goddess Isis to her sanctuary of Canopos.  The fresco was unearthed in 1764 in the Temple of Isis in Pompeii in a room dubbed the Ekklesiasterion.

The satyr-looking creature bearing up Io looks like it could be Hades but the catalog says it is a river god.  Io is identified by the vestiges of horns she still retains from her time as a heifer.  Isis appears to be dressed in the Greek fashion and holds a cobra coiled around her arm.  The catalog tells us that the painting originated from the court of the Ptolemies in Alexandria "in order to legitimize their dynasty by rooting it in ancient Heraclean and Argive origins which embraced the dual ethnic components of the new kingdom, the Egyptian and the Macedonian".  The fresco is thus dated to the the early Ptolemaic dynasty after a 3rd century BCE prototype .  This all sounds quite carefully researched and definitive.  However, there is no mention of technical dating examinations so I must assume this is educated conjecture.  The only thing that nags at me is the prominent display of the cobra and the knowledge that the fresco was apparently once thought to represent Cleopatra VII in the role of Isis.

In the historical record, Cleopatra VII represented herself as the living embodiment of Isis and the cobra was known to be not only a sacred creature but a pharaonic symbol.  When I check the "king's list" of the Ptolemaic Dynasty, I find a few females mentioned as co-rulers, usually regents for under-age male inheritors, beginning with Cleopatra II Philometora Soteira in 131 BCE, but you really don't find a woman ruling with the trappings of pharaoh until you reach Cleopatra VII in 51 BCE.  So the possibility that Cleopatra VII as Isis is the welcoming figure in the fresco cannot be totally dismissed.  I also can't help but think the widespread publicity surrounding Cleopatra and her death by the bite of a cobra in the 1st century BCE could easily have influenced a Roman artist charged with decorating the walls of a temple to Isis in Pompeii during that period.

Another confusing identification I encountered recently was a picture of a sculpture said to be Apollo of the Anzio type at the Capitoline Museum:

Call me crazy but it looks like remnants of grapes and grape leaves in the hair which would make me think it was Dionysos.  Many sculptures of Apollo also have an iconic knot in the hair on top of the head so I am baffled by the identification associated with this piece.

Reviewing my images from the Hall of Emperors in the Capitoline Museum, I came across the following bust:

After reviewing hundreds of images of Roman emperors (or said to be Roman emperors), I cannot find a single one that looks like him.  He appears to be wearing a laurel crown and in 2005 was positioned close to the busts of  Vespasian, Domitian and Titus (based on the photo time stamp).  This would make me think he may have been one of the emperors in the Year of the Four Emperors after the assassination of Nero but I checked images of Otho, Galba and Vitellius and he doesn't resemble any images identified as them.  Although I thought the museum positioned busts in relationship to the sequence of their reigns, this may not be the case either.  So, I would appreciate any information anyone could offer that would help identify this Roman.  

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Sexual innuendo and character assassination in the ancient world

Portrait of Caligula. Photographed at theGetty Villa in Malibu, California by Mary Harrsch.    

Whenever I review a novel set in the ancient world I always read up on the history behind the novel before I prepare my review of the work.  I just finished reading "Caligula", a novel by Douglas Jackson, and I remembered that years ago I had picked up a slim "history" text entitled "Caligula Devine Carnage: Atrocities of the Roman Emperors" by Stephen Barber and Jeremy Reed. So I thought I would begin my research with it.  Fortunately, for me, the reign of Caligula was covered in Chapter 1 of Barber and Reed's little tome so I didn't have to slog through any more sewage than was absolutely necessary.

The foreward in this historical travesty, subtitled "Orgy of Death" proclaims:

"Ever since the cinematic holocaust of Tinto Brass' blood-splattered porno epic Caligula in 1980, connoisseurs of visceral history have thirsted for more information and details on the pleasuredomes and necrodromes of Ancient Rome.  Yet the true glories of the Roman Empire - the slaughter, the sexual depravity, the insanity - were virtually impossible to glean from the handful of arid, academic texts available.  Finally, here is a book which counts - a book which pointedly eschews the mind-numbing minutiae of politico-military history and instead brings the glorious, often shocking decadence of Ancient Rome to bloody, pulsating life. "
"Here are the incredible cruelties, vices and vanities of emperors such as Caligula and Claudius [see Chapter One], Nero [see Chapter Four], Commodus [see Chapter Three] and Heliogabalus [see Chapter Four] in uncensored and vivid relief.", James Havoc, Caligula Divine Carnage: Atrocities of the Roman Emperors.

In my opinion, I have never read such trash pawned off as history in my entire life! Perhaps I'm just not a "connoisseur of visceral history!"  For those of you thirsting for more details on the slaughter and depravity of the Roman Empire, however, I can share some choice morsels.


Did you know that early in his reign, Caligula supposedly had a lavish amphitheater built where he and Drusilla fornicated publicly for the mob's enjoyment? Well, neither did I.   Just to be sure I haven't become senile in my retirement, though, I double checked Suetonius' bio of Caligula, one of the few ancient sources still available on the topic and probably the most salacious of the bunch.  Suetonius, despite the fact that Pliny the Elder claims he was a serious, studious type, seemed to enjoy inserting sexual entendres in his discourse and was not above embellishing his accounts with delicious details that he could not have possibly known - especially considering that he wrote his biography of Caligula almost 80 years after Caligula's reign.

In p441 of Thayer's translation, Suetonius begins with a general undocumented statement that Caligula engaged in incestuous relations with his sisters (a common slur between Roman political rivals) then it reads " and at a large banquet he placed each of them in turn below him, while his wife reclined above."

Roman couch and footstool with bone carvings and glass inlays
 possibly from the villa of co-emperor Lucius Verus 161-169 CE.
Photographed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art by Mary Harrsch.

In modern terms this sounds like he was having a public "threesome" with them, although a banquet would hardly qualify as an amphitheater seating thousands of leering spectators.   However, good scholars consider the context of the period and realize that it could have been merely a criticism of the reclining arrangements on the dining couches since Roman society was tightly controlled by rank and position. Thayer's translation is also a bit awkward which doesn't help. But using the word reclining in the passage, especially since the activity is stated to have taken place at a banquet, makes me think that Suetonius is trying to make a rather ludicrous play on words to infer a sexual liaison from a situation where one did not really exist.

Barber and Reed also claim Drusilla, Caligula's sister and rumored paramour, actually died from too much fornication rather than a fever.  Even Suetonius doesn't go that far.

Barber and Reed go on to describe a wild orgy aboard the famous Nemi ships that ended with the sexually sated participants being burned alive when the ships were set ablaze in the conclusion of an orgiastic spectacle that Caligula conceived in his demented mind. That's funny. If the ships were set ablaze how were they recovered intact from the lake bed by Mussolini just before WWII? Maybe Barber and Reed got their timing all mixed up when he read about the ships being burned by the Nazis as they retreated from Italy?

Historical photo of Caligula's "Nemi" ships courtesy of Joe Geranio.

The climax of chapter one (if you'll excuse the pun) described how Caligula planned his own assassination to be staged in front of the crowd in a gold and silver appointed amphitheater. In the center of the arena Caligula placed a golden altar and when Cassius Chaerea struck off Caligula's head it was so artfully done that his head bounced perfectly up onto the altar just as Caligula had planned it!

I can't believe that when you Google Stephen Barber he is hailed as an "award-winning" writer. Whoever wrote the reviews for his book about Caligula (or should I say chapter)  either knew absolutely nothing about history or never read the book at all.

Sadly, I guess that happens a lot. I read an article written by a woman trying to convince people that they could make a living writing reviews based on book dust covers and, considering a number of reviews I have read on line, apparently there are a number of people doing precisely that!
Of course Barber included no footnotes.  In his book where the bibliography should have been he gives us a general statement about his sources:

"This account is drawn from contemporary sources, biographies, manuals, polemics and newly-excavated documents (notably the "Butrinte Caligula"), as well as from works of the following centuries, from the golden era of Roman scholarship in Germany in the 1900s-1910s, and - least usefully by a wide margin - from recent biographies of Caligula and Commodus.  All material of every kind written on the Roman era, whatever its date of composition, reflects the structures and gaps and limitations of its time, and it would require the most omniscient oracle to say definitely what was authentic." - Stephen  Barber, Caligula Divine Carnage: Atrocities of the Roman Emperors

This certainly sounds like a cop out to me.

But, how reliable are even the ancient sources covering the reigns of Caligula and his predecessor Tiberius?  What political motivations could have influenced their sources?  I pose this last question because our most complete source on Caligula is Suetonius who was at one time an imperial secretary for Hadrian, decades after the actual reign of Caligula.  Therefore Suetonius had to have relied upon much earlier sources.

Some scholars have speculated that this earlier source material may have included a significant amount of political propaganda put forward by the power base that brought the emperor Claudius to the throne.  Caligula was actually popular with the Roman mob who probably needed to be assuaged after his assassination. I would take this suggestion a step further and speculate that not only was the material about Caligula politically manipulated but that even the end of Tiberius' reign suffered collateral damage in an effort to lay the groundwork for Caligula's reputed maniacle behavior.

The emperor Tiberius wearing the
Corona Civica.  Photographed at the
Museo Archaeologico Nazionale di Napoli
 in Naples, Italy by Mary Harrsch

Tiberius, through most of his reign, demonstrated that he was a competent administrator and militarily gifted general.  His serious demeanor did not endear him to the Roman populace, unlike Germanicus, and, apparently, he was not well-liked by Augustus and ended up as successor simply because there was nobody else left in the line of succession.  He seemed to be a reluctant ruler  who disliked the mud-wrestling nature of Roman politics and after the particularly nasty business of Germanicus' suspicious death and the subsequent suicide of the suspected assassin procurer, Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (who it is reported was about to implicate Tiberius), Tiberius retreated to the island of Capri and left Sejanus in charge.

One thing I have realized over the years as I have studied ancient Rome is that the basic nature of humankind, despite all of the technological advances, has not really changed.  As social creatures, we become suspicious of individuals who separate themselves from the community and attempt to live an isolated existence.  The ancient Romans were no different.  Rumors spread that Tiberius must have been involved in unnatural activities on his island retreat and these rumors blossomed into tales of sexual depravity reported many years later by Suetonius.  But were these stories simply a result of purient speculation or an orchestrated effort by Claudian propagandists to point out how unworthy Caligula was as Tiberius' successor?

Most of the stories revolved around pederasty, detailing how Tiberius imported children and young men to satisfy his sexual appetites.  This included having the youngsters swim around in the palace's pools, nibbling on Tiberius.   Hence, the reference to his little "minnows", of which Caligula was one (although Caligula was not a child but a young man of 19 when he was asked to join Tiberius on Capri after the deaths of Livia and Octavia).

But what was the actual Roman attitude toward pederasty?

"Preeminent among Roman biases was a conviction that Greeks were excessively self-indulgent and inordinately fond of a life of luxury.  One might, then, have expected Roman writers to make use of pederasty as a major weapon in their assault against Greek cultural traditions, but they quite noticeably fail to do so.  And while we might conjecture that the influence of Greek culture encouraged an increased tolerance of pederastic relationships, ancient writers themselves give us little reason to do so, for they most often associate the influence of Hellenism with an increased tolerance of traditionally discouraged heterosexual practices, such as the poetic celebration of adulterous affairs or a luxurious overindulgence in female prostitutes.  In fact, the verb graeccari ("to act like a Greek") and its compounds, far from suggesting pederasty, evoke a hedonistic indulgence in food, drink and love, often in the company of female prostitutes; Festus for example, defines pergraecari as "being devoted to banquets and drinking-parties."  Likewise, in one after another condemnation of Greek decadence we hear not of pederasty but of a general levitas, hedonism or luxuriousness."  - Roman homosexuality by Craig Arthur Williams

Historically, gender or age of a sexual partner was considered irrelevant if the dominant sexual partner was Roman, especially if the submissive partner was a slave.  Procured participants would fall into that category.
However, Rome's martial society frowned upon a freeborn Roman male assuming a submissive role in any sexual encounter, hence, the implication that Caligula had done so would be, by far, the most scandalous part of the stories recorded as part of Tiberius' bio.

If Caligula, Tiberius' adopted heir, was involved in these aquatic escapades, Tiberius would only be viewed by traditionalists as violating an ancient custom that forbade the co-mingling of a father and son in the baths.

"According to Plutarch, Cato observed that his son's presence encouraged him to speak as decently as if he were in the presence of Vestal Virgins, and indeed he refused to bathe with his son.  Plutarch adds that this corresponded to an old Roman tradition: even fathers-in-law avoided bathing with their sons-in law. " - Roman homosexuality by Craig Arthur Williams

So the scandalous issue was not Tiberius' involvement in pederasty, if it even took place, but that he may have bathed with his adopted son.

"The resistance to nudity among traditionalist Romans (apparently an uphill battle) was not connected to questions of acceptable or unacceptable sexual desires but rather to more general questions of decent behavior among Roman citizens." - Roman homosexuality by Craig Arthur Williams

But according to Tacitus, Tiberius was so traditionally proper that he issued a written reprimand in 29 CE chastening the young Caligula for "love affairs with young men and unchastity not in accordance with ancestral traditions" shortly after Tiberius' mother Livia died - less than 8 years before Tiberius himself died.  As there was no reported episodes of stroke or illness in connection with Tiberius, how could such a traditionalist degenerate in such a short time into an individual who sexually frolicked with children in the baths?

Mosaic in bath complex in Herculaneum.
Photographed by Mary Harrsch

Furthermore, Suetonius himself says Caligula could not swim so if Caligula had been involved in water "sports", it would have had to have been in shallow water. Caligula was also said to have suffered from "the falling sickness," like Julii before him, so it would have been imprudent for Tiberius to risk his heir by exposing Caligula to the potential hazard of a seizure in the water.

When you read Suetonius, you must also stop and ask yourself, how did he know (or his sources know) about activities going on in the emperor's private apartments?  Ancient historians and philosophers existed on the patronage of emperors and other ultra-wealthy citizens.  Unlike today's yellow journalists, they would not take the risk of interviewing body servants of the imperial family to get the latest gossip.  They would not even consider interrogating imperial slaves (if they wanted to keep a luxurious roof over their heads and food on the table).  So, I tend to dismiss details of sexual adventures that supposedly occurred behind closed doors since  there would always be a big question mark as to how such information was acquired and it was a common ploy in elite Roman society to use sexual innuendo to damage the dignitas of a political rival.

I place more credance, however, in descriptions of behavior that were observed at public gatherings.  In the case of Caligula, it was not his private sexual behavior that is most disturbing, but his public brutality that is far more appalling and I have little doubt that the brutality he suffered in his formative years as his family was decimated (I use this word in the modern sense not the literal ancient sense) by power politics produced a man capable of extreme brutality himself.

"He forced parents to attend the executions of their sons, sending a litter for one man who pleaded ill health, and inviting another to dinner immediately after witnessing the death, and trying to rouse him to gaiety and jesting by a great show of affability. He had the manager of his gladiatorial shows and beast-baitings beaten with chains in his presence for several successive days, and would not kill him until he was disgusted at the stench of his putrefied brain. He burned a writer of Atellan farces alive in the middle of the arena of the amphitheatre, because of a humorous line of double meaning. When a Roman knight on being thrown to the wild beasts loudly protested his innocence, he took him out, cut off his tongue, and put him back again." - Suetonius, The Life of Caligula from The Lives of the Caesars

Much is made of Suetonius' reports that Caligula often selected sexual partners from his dinner guests then reported back to their husbands about the unfortunate woman's performance.  I would not be surprised if these charges were true.  However, Caligula is not the first powerful Roman to use sex to demean those who may be viewed as political rivals.  Julius Caesar was notorious for seducing the wives of his political opponents, although he was far more clandestine about it than Caligula, preferring his opponents to appear to be so politically impotent that they could be cuckolded by a rival.

Detail from "Romans of the Decadence" by Thomas Couture, 1847 CE.
Photographed at the Musee d'Orsay in Paris, France by Mary Harrsch.

Caligula's behavior seems consistent with the "I'll show you" attitude that Caligula apparently possessed.  Caligula used overt demonstrations of his unlimited power throughout his brief 3 1/2 year reign, such as the building of the bridge across the Bay of Naples, to convince the Roman populace and, in my opinion, even himself, that he could do whatever he could imagine and he appeared to have a very fertile imagination.  Did this confirm that he was clinically insane?  No, I don't think so.  I think it is just an example of absolute power corrupting absolutely.   I just know I wouldn't want to be a member of his imperial court.

Whenever I read an account of a Roman who is described as "way out there", I also ask myself about later motivations of those involved in the transcription of ancient source documents as well as ancient authors.  I find it interesting that the colorful and demeaning biography of Caligula by Suetonius has come down to us almost totally intact while almost the entire section of Tacitus' Annals dealing with Caligula's reign, with the exception of a few derogatory statements, has been "lost".  Most ancient manuscripts were copied and recopied over the centuries by monks who belonged to a religion that had its own axes to grind.  When Christianity became the state religion after the reign of Constantine, pagans were actively persecuted and the Roman elite during the predominately pagan period of Roman history were vilified in efforts to convert remaining pagans to monotheism. See Persecution of Pagans by the Christian Roman Empire.

Having watched the ever-popular History Channel series "The History of Sex", I also can't help but wonder about those lewd illustrations found in the margins of medieval manuscripts and consider the possibility that the same apparently sexually-deprived individuals that were copying the ancient texts may have inserted some of their own fantasies in the process.  Unfortunately, it's something we probably will never know unless we discover something other than philosophy in the remaining charred papyri from the Villa dei Papyri in Herculaneum.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Romano Britain website resurrected!

I just received word that the website Romano Britain (http://www.romanobritain.org) has been resurrected by Marsh Wise, aka Decimus Mercatius Varianus of LEGIO IX HISPANA on the east coast of the U.S.  Apparently the original webmaster developed serious medical issues some time ago and the original website disappeared .  Fortunately, Marsh had stored a copy of the website for reference purposes and decided to resurrect the site so the Roman history community would not lose it as a valuable online resource.

Kudos to Marsh!

Related articles

• The Eagle of the Hispana (juliagaleriacasca.wordpress.com)
• Ghost Romans in Britain (broeder10.wordpress.com)
• Legion IIII present at battlefield at Kalefeld (adrianmurdoch.typepad.com)

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!

Review: Lion of the Sun by Harry Sidebottom

Dr. Harry Sidebottom's "Lion of the Sun" continues the story of Marcus Claudius Ballista, a courageous "Warrior of Rome" born to the Angles but raised as a hostage in the Roman imperial court .

When we left Ballista at the end of "King of Kings" he, along with his emperor Valerian, had fallen victim to a treacherous plot by the emperor's treasurer, T. Fulvius Macrianus, known as Macrianus the Lame, who had betrayed the emperor and his field army  to Sassanid King of Kings, Shapur I.

Sassanid Persian King Shapur I with the captive Roman

Emperor Valerian at Naqsh-e Rustam. Image courtesy of

 Flickr user farflungistan

Fortunately, although Ballista's prospects looked pretty grim, especially considering his past victories against the Persians and his practice of cremating the Persian dead despite the knowledge that it was viewed as a desecretion of holy fire by the enemy Zoroastrians, Ballista's famillia including his devoted Hibernian body guard Maximus, his lovingly irrascible Caledonian guardian Calgacus and his poetic Greek secretary Demetrius had escaped. So I wondered how they would rescue him from what looked like certain death.  Having met the revolting Macriani in "King of Kings" I also hoped Ballista could avenge himself and his emperor as the tale unfolded.

But it was not Ballista's famillia that came to his rescue.  It was the frail old emperor who finally remembered who he had always been able to trust.

Historically, Valerian apparently had a high regard for Ballista, as illustrated by the following communication from Valerian to a prefect of Illyricum quoted in the Historia Augusta:

 "From Valerian to Ragonius Clarus, prefect of Illyricum and the provinces of Gaul. If you are a man of good judgement, my kinsman Clarus, as I know that you are, you will carry out the arrangements of Ballista. Model your government on them.  Do you see how he refrains from burdening the provincials, how he keeps the horses in places where there is fodder and exacts the rations for his soldiers in places where there is grain, how he never compels the provincials or the land-holders to furnish grain where they have no supply, or horses where they have no pasture?  There is no arrangement better than to exact in each place what is there produced, so that the commonwealth may not be burdened by transport or other expenses.  Galatia is rich in grain, Thrace is well stocked, and Illyricum is filled with it; so let the foot-soldiers be quartered in these regions, although in Thrace cavalry, too, can winter without damage to the provincials, since plenty of hay can be had from the fields.  As for wine and bacon and other forms of food, let them be handed out in those places in which they abound in plenty.  All this is the policy of Ballista, who gave orders that any province should furnish only one form of food, namely that in which it abounded, and that from it the soldiers should be kept away. " - The Historia Augusta, The Lives of the Thirty Pretenders, Volume III:18, p113.     

But the old emperor had been seduced by Macrianus into believing his seemingly loyal courtier acted upon reliable intelligence about the whereabouts of Persian forces and ignored Ballista's repeated warnings about the army's precarious position.  Now that it appeared all was lost, Valerian realized the ambitious Macriani had inadvertently left him an instrument of redemption.

The anachronistic "Humiliation of Valerian" by Hans Holbein the
Younger, 1521 CE.  Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Without a hint to Shapur that Valerian had finally realized the ambitious author of the treachery, the old Roman asked Shapur to send Ballista to Macrianus' headquarters to negotiate a ransom, knowing full well that Macrianus would refuse any suggestion of ransom.  But Valerian's  best general would then be free to first, drive out the Persians, then deal with the imperial traitors.

But is Ballista being snatched from the frying pan only to be delivered to the fire?


Much of the ensuing story is based on the few fragments of history that survived Rome's brutal Third Century.

"The plague throughout these years was still rampant over the empire.  Zosimus sets it alongside the invasions as if in doubt which was the worse.  Inflation was raging.  The normal course of bourgeois economic life was dislocated.  Famine was endemic around the theatres of war, though the wheat fleets of Egypt and Africa still fed the Roman populace.  The Christians had as much to fear from the imperial officials as from the Germans or the Persians.  The social tension between the old senatorial class, tenacious in its grasp on its traditional preserves of office, and the new aspiring officer class, mainly Illyrian in origin, called for resolution.  Loyalty in high places was far to see; provincial governorships and provincial high commands were potential focuses of usurpation; the soldiers tended to be sullen and mutinous.  To some minds the complete dissolution of society might have seemed to be imminent." 

"Spiritually and culturally too things were at an impasse.  The old traditional forms of religion had long since lost their credibility outside the peasantry.  There were the mystery religion, Greek and oriental.  There were for the educated and intellectual the various schools of philosophy, the Stoic in decline, the neo-Platonist in the ascendant. Those in authority sought desperately, and sought in vain, for some cohesive belief or principle capable of welding the various classes of peoples of the empire into a spiritual unity and inspiring a common purpose and a common devotion." - Gallienus: A study in reformist and sexual politics by John Bray.

The few ancient sources we have to decipher the events of this tumultuous period is the much maligned and historically suspect Historia Augusta.


The Historia Augusta says Maeonius Astyanax claimed Ballista openly supported the usurpation of the Macriani saying:

"As for myself, my age and my calling and my desires are all far removed from the imperial office, and so, as I cannot deny, I am searching for a worthy prince.  But who, pray, is there who can fill the place of Valerian except such a man as yourself, brave, steadfast, honourable, well proved in public affairs, and — what is of the highest importance for holding the imperial office — possessed of great wealth?  Therefore, take this post which your merits deserve. My services as prefect shall be yours as long as you wish."  - The Historia Augusta, The Lives of the Thirty Pretenders, Volume III:12, p97.

What? His age precludes him from seeking the purple himself? Ballista was only in his thirties!  Although his military calling and personal ambitions may not have included the purple, he was hardly too old.  In fact, he was probably not that much older than the sons of Macrianus.

Quietus the usurper, son of Macrianus the Lame.
Courtesy of The Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
via Wikimedia

Sidebottom's novel, instead, has Ballista publicly accept the office of Prefect only after a henchmen of the Macriani makes veiled threats about Ballista's family in Antioch that was essentially at the mercy of the Macriani  if Ballista refused to support the regime.  I think this is a far more believable scenario as there is nothing in the histories to suggest Ballista was ever one to personally exploit a political situation.

But, either way, Ballista once more ends up in command of much of the Roman army in Syria and he once more inflicts serious losses on the invading Persians.  Sidebottom's gritty descriptions of 3rd century warfare leave you breathless and his excellent characterizations makes you worry about not only Ballista (who captivated me in the very first novel of the series) but loyal (and virile!) Maximus, cranky old Calgacus and even gentle Demetrius.  Ballista's wife, Julia, gets her moment to shine too as she confronts Persian warriors in a surprise attack on the city of Antioch.

The Persians, though, are not the ultimate enemy.  To restore the imperium, Ballista must kill the Macriani pretenders but not until he can find a way to safeguard his wife and two sons.

Bust thought to resemble the emperor Gallienus. 

Photographed at the Walters Art Museum 

by Mary Harrsch.

When Macrianus the Lame and his namesake, Macrianus the Younger, leave for Europe to challenge Valerian's son Gallienus for the throne of the entire Roman Empire, Ballista is ordered to remain with Quietus.  Now, at least, the odds for Ballista's opportunity to exact retribution improve.

However, when Quietus receives word that his father and brother have been defeated and killed in Thrace, he becomes paranoid and imprisons Ballista and his family.  Now Ballista must place his trust in an old acquaintance from Book 1, "Fire in the East" and "The Lion of the Sun", Odaenathus, King of Palmyra, to save all that Ballista holds dear.

"...while Valerian was growing old in Persia, Odaenathus the Palmyrene gathered together an army and restored the Roman power almost to its pristine condition.  He captured the king's treasures and he captured, too, what the Parthian monarchs hold dearer than treasures, namely his concubines.  For this reason Sapor [Shapur I] was now in greater dread of the Roman generals, and out of fear of Ballista and Odaenathus he withdrew more speedily to his kingdom." - The Historia Augusta, The Two Valerians, Volume III:4 

The Historia Augusta only includes a couple of brief paragraphs about Quietus but those few lines reveal why historians often find themselves so exasperated when trying to piece together the events of the period using the Historia Augusta as a source.

We read that Ballista was killed along with Quietus when Odaenathus captured the city of Emesa.  But in the very next section of the Augusta Historia about Odaenathus himself, the Historia Augusta says while Odenathus was defeating Quietus at Emesa, Ballista claimed the purple for himself to avoid being slain.

Then under section 18 of Volume III describing Ballista, the author of that portion (if it is not the same as the rest of the work) details yet another fate of Ballista but admits that he really doesn't know what happened to Ballista since most ancient sources only refer to his prefecture not any reign as usurper.

"This man [Ballista], then, while resting in his tent was slain, it is said, by a certain common soldier, in order to gain the favour of Odaenathus and Gallienus.  I, however, have not been able to find out sufficiently the truth concerning him, because the writers of his time have related much about his prefecture but little about his rule." -The Historia Augusta, The Lives of the Thirty Pretenders, Volume III:18, p113. 

 Fortunately, Sidebottom sorts this out in a much more satisfying conclusion that sets us up for the next novel in the series, "The Caspian Gates".

Note: This review is based on the unabridged audio version of this book produced by Blackstone Audio with an outstanding performance by Stefan Rudnicki.

If you enjoyed this post, never miss out on future posts by following me by email!