|
NikkolasKing posted:
None of them had living sons, most didn't have living children. Marcus Aurelius was the first one to have a son, and if he didn't want Commodus to succeed him, well, he wasn't stoic enough to follow Brutus's example and have Commodus put to death.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Is that line about the Roman Emperors adopting instead of just having their children succeed them true?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
It was never an ideal. Augustus spent basically his entire life trying to find a blood relative to pass the purple to before settling on his stepson in the end. Emperors were succeeded by their biological sons basically whenever they had one. It was just surprisingly rare for that to be the case, and the period of time mentioned in that passage was the end of an long run of emperors who didn't
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 20:58
|
|
|
Adoption to pass your property was very common for the Roman upper classes. There are familial successions, but it doesn't become common until like... the 600s? I'm struggling to think of any time before the Heraclians that it happened more than occasionally. There are examples but it's greatly outweighed by adoptions/usurpations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:03
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:The opposite is also amazing to think about. What's Cato the Younger's take on tomato being a staple of roman cuisine in 2020? Is Diocletian pleased that barbarous germans and their offspring love cabbages more than anyone else ever will? While Cato wouldn't be thrilled at new, barbarous foods replacing traditional Roman Cuisine, he would probably nod approvingly at the vast slave-worked tomato farms of Florida.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Rockopolis posted:None of them had living sons, most didn't have living children. Marcus Aurelius was the first one to have a son, and if he didn't want Commodus to succeed him, well, he wasn't stoic enough to follow Brutus's example and have Commodus put to death. In fairness to Marcus, he had like ten kids and all of them died except Commodus. For the sake of the empire he should have killed him, but it's real hard to come down on a guy for not wanting to murder his kid, let alone with the kind of grief he had from losing every other child too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:05
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:
If emperors had legal biological sons, those sons invariably succeeded their fathers. Such succession did not occur for a number of early emperors for various reasons. Augustus and Livia never had a son and stopped trying after several miscarriages, preferring to adopt various members of his and her extended families. Tiberius’ son predeceased him, perhaps at the instigation of someone in his court. Caligula and Nero had no legitimate sons. Claudius had two, but both died in adolescence; the younger at least was almost certainly murdered. Vespasian was the first emperor who succeeded in bequeathing the empire to his biological children, both of his sons were emperors in turn (both died without sons of their own). The Antonines before Marcus Aurelius had all been sonless (at least two of them were homosexually inclined) and therefore were obliged to adopt successors. Marcus on the other hand had a lot of children, though only one son (Commodus) survived him. Septimius Severus seized power after Commodus’ death and had himself retroactively adopted into the Antonine dynasty; he passed imperial power to his sons, Caracalla and Geta. Caracalla then murdered Geta and himself got assassinated with no heir; his mother’s sister-in-law then claimed that her grandson Bassianus was actually Caracalla’s bastard son and had him made emperor. Recurring themes here: -infant and childhood mortality was high, even for wealthy Romans. Not everyone’s kids lived to adulthood -not everyone had kids in the first place. A couple of these dudes were more or less gay, single, or at least sexlessly married. -succession was dangerous as a whole. The death of an emperor repeatedly caused civil war and a change of dynasty, and this problem only got worse for a long while after the 1st and 2nd centuries -a familiar name was worth a lot, hence the efforts of Severus to link himself to Commodus and Bassianus’ handlers to link him to Caracalla -it’s dangerous to be someone important. More than one imperial prince got knocked off by adults who stood to gain from it. This did not change even when the adults in question were related. You can kind of see this in the Caracalla-Geta thing but it would happen later on as well — Constantine I had a fairly large family, but the members of it that he didn’t kill off killed one another off within a couple decades until the last of them died childless. skasion fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Dec 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:09
|
|
|
Marcus Aurelius posted:"While you are kissing your child,"Epictetus once said, "murmus under your breath, tomorrow it may be dead." Marcus quoting Epictetus in his meditations. That whole book hits real different once you start looking into the mans history
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Adoption to pass your property was very common for the Roman upper classes. There are familial successions, but it doesn't become common until like... the 600s? I'm struggling to think of any time before the Heraclians that it happened more than occasionally. There are examples but it's greatly outweighed by adoptions/usurpations. It wasn't entirely father/son, but the Theodosians collectively ruled for a while. Grand Fromage posted:In fairness to Marcus, he had like ten kids and all of them died except Commodus. For the sake of the empire he should have killed him, but it's real hard to come down on a guy for not wanting to murder his kid, let alone with the kind of grief he had from losing every other child too. Also, some of this "for the sake of the empire he should have killed him", assumes, I think, that Marcus Aurelius had access to a time machine to be able to realize how turbulent Commodus's reign was. I don't think there was a lot, while Marcus Aurelius was alive, to suggest that Commodus would be a bad solo emperor. He did ok, if unremarkably, as Marcus Aurelius's junior emperor. Also, and maybe I'm being controversial here, but a lot of the stories related to the "Commodus was a bad" emperor conclusion come after a bunch of plots against him. After: 1. Your sister tries to kill you 2. Your praetorian prefect kills your chamberlain 3. Your brother in law tries to kill your new chamberlain 4. You find out your new chamberlain is stealing everything that isn't nailed down and investing in hammers to get the rest you might sort of become paranoid and kind of "get them before they get me" too. Epicurius fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Dec 10, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:23
|
|
|
The Constantinians, Theodosians, and Valentinians all got at least fifty years in the hot seat (the latter two overlapping and intermarrying though). That isn’t much, but it goes to show that ruling the Roman Empire for generations was fairly hard. Augustus’ family only got like 100 years of hegemony, and like half of that was just him.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Power Khan posted:*Carnyx solo* I know you're making a throwaway joke, but I'm not sure that'd be so bad: https://youtu.be/lVFGT2NX-YQ You could at least get a decent cover of Cantaloupe Island.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 22:42
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:In fairness to Marcus, he had like ten kids and all of them died except Commodus. For the sake of the empire he should have killed him, but it's real hard to come down on a guy for not wanting to murder his kid, let alone with the kind of grief he had from losing every other child too. It's just that adopting another heir is guaranteeing a civil war before Marcus Aurelius is even cold, assuming the next Emperor doesn't just bump off Commodus to be sure. Commodus doesn't even have to want the throne, him being alive is enough to get people using him as a pretender. Maybe he'd have a chance if he faked his death and ran off to Serica.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
yeah, i've come to the somewhat common belief that the roman emperors didn't adopt their heirs because they were especially capable but because they had no other good options. the general tendency to go with offspring as heir whenever possible seems to back that up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 02:35
|
|
|
It almost feels like the Romans had the opposite problems of Arab and Asian rulers, who had too many wives and concubines and stupid kids all jostling for position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Phobophilia posted:It almost feels like the Romans had the opposite problems of Arab and Asian rulers, who had too many wives and concubines and stupid kids all jostling for position. Don't see much difference, other than whether non-family members get to join the fun. For a roman emperor with no or single-digit number kids, your nephew and your brother-in-law and your best friend from lessons with the grammaticus when you were 9 are all thinking "if I knock off all the old man's kids and these other assholes, maybe he'll make me his heir". With polygamous marriages there's enough kids that generally the nephews keep their heads down, and there's no tradition of adoption so your former roommate doesn't even bother because he knows he's got no shot. For all of them you have the issue that determining succession by who can survive the plots and conspiracy to become the big cheese means you tend to get paranoids in charge of your nation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 06:55
|
|
|
Klyith posted:For all of them you have the issue that determining succession by who can survive the plots and conspiracy to become the big cheese means you tend to get paranoids in charge of your nation. Never before has weirdo joke "It's not paranoia if they're really after you" been so applicable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 07:00
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Black/long pepper, yeah. Or horseradish or mustard, I would assume.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
I think Hadrian was the peak of the emperor trying to plan for future heirs by adopting an heir on the condition that he adopt a specific heir. Generally most ways of selecting a supreme ruler suck because the more power you invest in a single person, the more perfect they have to be to use the power effectively for the good of their society rather than just for their own self-gratification. Also, I always thought of archaeologists as some of the most sociable and rustic scientists out there, and they're not taking well to the pandemic. https://twitter.com/falican/status/1336587147231383552
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 17:22
|
|
|
I really question how much say any given emperor had in selection of his successor. It was obviously an incredibly important, heavily political decision. Sure, you could pick your favorite but if the Senate, military and everyone else didn't like him, all you were accomplishing was marking him for death. So I imagine this was was a very collaborative, consent-driven process most of the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:55
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I think Hadrian was the peak of the emperor trying to plan for future heirs by adopting an heir on the condition that he adopt a specific heir. They should dig up their phone charger! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 19:57
|
|
|
physeter posted:I really question how much say any given emperor had in selection of his successor. It was obviously an incredibly important, heavily political decision. Sure, you could pick your favorite but if the Senate, military and everyone else didn't like him, all you were accomplishing was marking him for death. So I imagine this was was a very collaborative, consent-driven process most of the time. Kaldellis makes a solid case for this in The Byzantine Republic with lots of examples of the Senate/people being ultimate arbiters on whether an emperor takes power or not. It's a general (and to me, persuasive) argument for why we should take the Romans seriously when they continue to refer to their government as a res publica and discuss the powers of the Senate and the people, and that the emperor is best seen as a special type of magistrate rather than a dictator or absolute monarch. Emperors who do behave that way tend to not end well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:06
|
|
|
physeter posted:I really question how much say any given emperor had in selection of his successor. It was obviously an incredibly important, heavily political decision. Sure, you could pick your favorite but if the Senate, military and everyone else didn't like him, all you were accomplishing was marking him for death. So I imagine this was was a very collaborative, consent-driven process most of the time. The enormous power the incumbent exercises is not by saying "this guy is next", it's by bringing him along to exercise power with you, appointing him to various offices, and thereby allowing him to build relationships with the various power brokers. By dumping favors on somebody like that you can give them a huge advantage over would be competitors. Obviously this isn't foolproof (particularly if it's your child and you have to wait 15 years for them to grow up first), but the senate/people/army should have an established opinion of the favorite, and the incumbent would be at least partially aware of it. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:25
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I get not wanting to downplay how important the various notables were for the passage of power and the general running of the state, but that's not all that especially different from what later official monarchies were like. Very often factions would form supporting this candidate or that candidate, maybe even getting into a war from conflicting claims to the throne, or they'd use the new monarch as an opportunity to extract some kind of concessions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:I get not wanting to downplay how important the various notables were for the passage of power and the general running of the state, but that's not all that especially different from what later official monarchies were like. Very often factions would form supporting this candidate or that candidate, maybe even getting into a war from conflicting claims to the throne, or they'd use the new monarch as an opportunity to extract some kind of concessions. Yeah, it's important to remember that political authority is not self-enforcing; it always ultimately rests on the consent of some group of people, even if that's only the group of people with the guns.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Another thing to keep in mind with regards to the frequent lack of natural sons for Roman Emperors, the Romans were truly awful at infant/child care. Given what they did to infants and children, its a miracle any of them lived to adulthood.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
You can't just leave a post like that without elaborating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
mmkay posted:You can't just leave a post like that without elaborating. I don’t know about the Roman specifics but in a lot of places kids weren’t people until the father accepted them into the household, which was usually after the point they were pretty sure they wouldn’t die and that could be shocking old to us now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
So I finally finished The Longest Day In Chang’An (as recommended by this thread months ago) and it was a total blast, really picked up in the last 1/3rd too. I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good narrative history of ancient-medieval china, preferably through the Tang at least, preferably one with some humor in it too. Is there anything that comes to mind? I’m a modern European history specialist so this is pretty far from anything I’m familiar with. Also — are there any other worthwhile tv shows in that vein? The costumes and sets were so much fun and I developed a soft spot for Zhang Xiaojing
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Delthalaz posted:So I finally finished The Longest Day In Chang’An (as recommended by this thread months ago) and it was a total blast, really picked up in the last 1/3rd too. It’s a bit early and you may have seen it, but the 2010 Romance of the Three Kingdoms loving rules and is all on youtube (except for the episode where Sun Jian takes the imperial seal)
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:16
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It’s a bit early and you may have seen it, but the 2010 Romance of the Three Kingdoms loving rules It’s really good. Probably actually bad, but if so it’s good-bad in the best (worst?) way. E: Edgar Allen Ho posted:and is all on youtube (except for the episode where Sun Jian takes the imperial seal) Why is this? Schadenboner fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:19
|
|
|
Schadenboner posted:It’s really good. Probably actually bad, but if so it’s good-bad in the best (worst?) way. A fatuous post!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
From Plutarch's Roman Questions, a book that sought to offer explanations for various weird traditions and customs:quote:Why do they name boys when they are nine days old, but girls when they are eight days old? until it comes off, the child is more like a plant than an animal is the part I was thinking of with regard to roman infant-rearing The whole text is pretty interesting: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/Roman_Questions*/home.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:27
|
|
|
mmkay posted:You can't just leave a post like that without elaborating. Roman writings on the care of infants is sometimes pretty wild. A bunch of different Roman era medical texts talk about the importance of "moulding" newborns, a process that called for pushing still flexible bones and vertebrates into the "correct" posistion. For example, Soranus of Ephesus, a Greek physician who practiced in Rome in the second century AD wrote that: quote:One must anoint freely and at once massage and model every part so that imperceptibly that which is as yet not fully formed is shaped into its natural characteristics. quote:smoothe out the spine by both straight and circular movements. Then..make it hollow by pressing upwards along its length with the thumb..so that the arrangement of the vertebrae may be perfected, and with it comeliness and ease of movement...gently push away the parts overlying the highest vertebra of the spine..and in the same manner down the back and between the shoulders so that these parts may not easily be distorted nor become deformed. quote:With the thumbs she should massage the eyes [and] shape the nose, raising it if flat, but pressing it if it is aquiline Galen, another 2nd century Roman doctor also wrote that: quote:The child is born; but even at this stage it remains extremely wet, not just in its vessels, organs, and flesh, but even in its bones, which are the driest part in us. These bones, and with them the limbs as a whole, are then moulded by the infant’s nurses, in the manner of wax objects. Plutarch also wrote about "moulding" babies as though it were a common and accepted practice that needed no explanation. Another area where Romans had questionable ideas on infant care was with breastfeeding. Soranus wrote that babies should be starved for the first days of their life, and then only after that should they be breastfed. Another doctor, Rufus of Ephesus, disagreed with this, saying that instead they should be fed honey and Hydromel (alcoholic beverage) for the first four days of their life before milk, so Soranus's starve the babies idea at least wasn't universally accepted the way "moulding" of infants was. Pliny's Natural history also records a number of potentially harmful treatments for infants and children. The treatment of varicose veins in children, Pliny writes that the child's leg should be rubbed with lizard blood while the child is fasting. To prevent epilepsy, infants should be fed donkey liver for 40 days. If an infant had trouble digesting breast milk, they should be given a vinegar mixture. Infants experiencing constipation should be given various animal types of animal dung, both to ingest and to sleep with on their skin. There were also a number of poisonous plants used by the Romans as medicine. Hellborne was used in Roman times to treat epilepsy and fever as a "purgative" because it induces diarrhea (something that will only make a fever worse). Doctors were divided on giving Hellborne to children, but it is clear that is was at least sometimes given to children. Galen wrote that he could treat fevers in children "without the use of hellborne," which implies that it was often given out to them. Another second century doctor, Antyllus, fully endorsed the use of hellborne on children, even though he acknowledged it could be hazardous. CrypticFox fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Dec 11, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:28
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:It’s a bit early and you may have seen it, but the 2010 Romance of the Three Kingdoms loving rules and is all on youtube (except for the episode where Sun Jian takes the imperial seal) Link? Can't see it easily.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:The whole text is pretty interesting:
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:34
|
|
|
Bar Ran Dun posted:I don’t know about the Roman specifics but in a lot of places kids weren’t people until the father accepted them into the household, which was usually after the point they were pretty sure they wouldn’t die and that could be shocking old to us now. I seem to recall that there was an ancient (even by late republican standards) law requiring the pater familias to consult with his neighbors before exercising his (ultimately absolute) power of life and death over his family. Suggesting that even if infanticide was legal, doing it without thinking it through and talking it over was seen as a problem, as least by some people.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:42
|
|
|
skasion posted:A fatuous post!! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:43
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:I seem to recall that there was an ancient (even by late republican standards) law requiring the pater familias to consult with his neighbors before exercising his (ultimately absolute) power of life and death over his family. Suggesting that even if infanticide was legal, doing it without thinking it through and talking it over was seen as a problem, as least by some people. The actual extent to which infanticide in Rome was practiced is contested. There is limited evidence for actual practice of many of the rituals around infanticide that are described in certain texts, leading some scholars to question whether the texts that claim a father had full right to kill an infant reflect actual practice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:46
|
|
|
Uh, wow. I'm pretty glad to be living with modern medicine available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
I found the source I was thinking of, and I was misremembering. A later moralizing author attributed to Romulus a law that Romans ought to raise all non-deformed children, and only kill deformed children if they can get five of their neighbors to agree that the infant should be killed. It was probably never a real law but rather probably reflected that infanticide was a practice with varying levels of acceptance, with different people disagreeing on how and when it should occur. The moralizing author in question (Dionysius of Halicarnassus) was a Greek though, so who knows. There was a much more well-attested law in the Twelve Tables (c. 450 BCE) saying positively that deformed infants should be killed, but it's silent on non-deformed infants.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2020 23:52
|
|