I read rather a lot of classical history, especially first century Roman history. I don't know how many times I've been through Suetonius's Lives of the Twelve Caesars, and I was recently thrilled when I discovered audio versions of Tacitus's Annals and Josephus's The Jewish War.
Lately I've been boning up on this period for an upcoming set of projects, and a thought keeps striking me:
Why would anybody back then want to be the Roman emperor?
This was something people competed fiercely over. There were multiple civil wars fought over this. But why on earth would anyone want the job? Being Roman emperor had a frightening tendency to Not End Well.
Let's look at the track record:
- Julius Caesar (reigned 49 BC-44 BC): Assassinated by senators (also not technically an emperor, but what the hey)
- Augustus (44 BC-AD 14): Possibly died of natural causes, but at least two of the three major historians of this period report rumors that he was poisoned by his wife, Livia, in favor of her son, his successor Tiberius
- Tiberius (14-37): Possibly died of natural causes, but widely reported to have been killed by his successor, Caligula, possibly in conjunction with the head of his own guard, Macro
- Caligula (37-41): Assassinated by his own guards (yes, he was that bad)
- Claudius (41-54): Widely thought to have been poisoned by his wife, Agrippina, in favor of her son, his successor Nero
- Nero (54-68): Declared and enemy of the state by the senate and forced to commit suicide
- Galba (68-69): Killed in civil war by the soldiers of his successor, Otho, after reigning only seven months
- Otho (69): Committed suicide in civil war after his successor, Vitellius, achieved a decisive advantage; only reigned three months
- Vitellius (69): Killed in civil war by the troops of his successor, Vespasian, after regining only eight months.
That takes us up through A.D. 68-69, the "Year of Four Emperors," which began with Nero on the throne and ended with Vespasian on it.
There were other, even worse years, such as the Year of Five Emperors (A.D. 193) and the Year of Six Emperors (A.D. 238).
So, see what I mean?
Being the Roman Emperor wasn't exactly a good path toward a happy death.
I know that vast numbers of people lived in absolutely horrific conditions back then (by today's standards), and one can't blame the first few emperors for not noticing the pattern of what tended to happen, but once the pattern was established, one would think everyone would shun the job like the plague.
It would certainly make sense to adopt a philosophy like that of Londo Mollari: "I prefer to work behind the scenes. The rewards are almost as great, and the risks far less."
That worked out well for him, right?
What are your thoughts?
