Prescript
I’ve written about Rome in a Substack before. More precisely a Roman centurion in what is my own personal favorite post that I’ve written; which is why I have it pinned and why I’ve inserted it here 👇
I’ve had this post started for a few weeks and have two others started (so far) that focus on Roman “leaders” too. Earlier this week someone tagged me, and your favorite Suspendables Kyle Seraphin and Steve Friend, in a post on social media where they asked if we ever think about the Roman Empire and if we ever compare America to it.
I figured I thought about the Roman Empire more than your average homosapien, but soon learned that wasn’t the case. Books by Seneca and Marcus Aurelius, both Roman emperors, as well as by Epictetus who lived in Rome until he was banished adorn one of my shelves. Then there’s How to Think Like a Roman Emperor which was gifted to me by a former colleague shortly after our empire banished me from “service.”
A simple search engine query will result in a litany of returns about America and Rome, like this one from 2012; which might as well have been plucked out of antiquity itself with the rapid pace “history” seems to be moving in today. Then, someone responded to the aforementioned social media post and said that Rome, or thinking about it, was a topic on The Matt Walsh show this week too.
I certainly was chuckling as I listened to the segment, which is worth the 10 minutes (or less if you speed it up as you know I’m fond of!), regarding men thinking of the Roman Empire as a common occurrence. It’s clear from the snickers and laughter heard from their girlfriends or wives that most women don’t think about the Roman Empire; ever. I confirmed that theory with my wife when I discussed this chain of events with her and she told me that’s why she doesn't bother asking me “what’re you thinking about?” as much anymore when she can tell that I am indeed thinking about something. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
Not just the Roman Empire aspect, but often times what I may be thinking about is inconsequential to her, and vice versa, because men and woman are created differently (and that’s a good thing). Alas, I am not as unique of a person as I thought at the outset of this series, nor do I have as novel of a thought process. But hopefully I can help keep you entertained with some of my thoughts on Rome.
Caesar Nerva Traianus Augustus, or just Trajan (53-117 AD), is regarded as one of Rome’s “Five Good Emperor’s” as explained by Machiavelli in chapter ten of The Discourses of Livy. In order of when they ruled, the five are Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius.
Of them Machiavelli wrote, after first discussing a span of 26 emperors that was filled with corruption, subterfuge and assassination, “Let any prince now place himself in the times from Nerva to Marcus Aurelius, and let him compare them with those that preceded and followed that period, and let him choose in which of the two he would like to have been born, and in which he would like to have reigned.
“In the period under the good Emperors he will see the prince secure amidst his people, who are also living in security; he will see peace and justice prevail in the world, the authority of the Senate respected, the magistrates honor, the wealthy citizens enjoying their riches, nobility and virtue exalted, and everywhere will he see tranquility and well-being.
“Let him also note how much more praise those Emperors merited who, after Rome became an empire, conformed to the laws like good princes, than those who took the opposite course; and he will see that Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius, and Marcus Aurelius did not require the Praetorians, nor the multitudinous legions to defend them, because they were protected by their own good conduct, the good will of the people, and by the love of the Senate.
Sounds like many of our own “emperors” over the years may have been able to learn from Trajan and the other good Roman rulers; or even from Machiavelli’s argument as to how and why they were “good” amidst a plethora of bad, evil, corrupt, vile, murderous, treacherous and wicked emperors throughout the span of Rome’s many emperors during their time of world dominance.
The Pax-Romana, in large part, is how Rome was able to expand their boundaries and keep peace across an extremely large area of land and sea. During the 207 or so years of the Pax-Romana, Rome flourished in trade and as the dominant world power. Although the Pax-Romana is often viewed as a time of peace, there were still plenty of uprisings and revolts throughout the empire, as well as wars (you can see just how many their were between 27BC and 180 AD here). Nonetheless, it was perhaps the peak age of the Roman Empire as far as wealth and comfort goes for the ruling class and plenty of the citizenry of the empire. As history has often shown us though, the path of hard times to easy times often ends with corrupted “leaders,” a weak military and a soft citizenry which eventually results in hard times once again.
Trajan played no small part in that era as well. Under Trajan’s rule, and during the Pax Romana, Rome was able to expand its boundaries to their furthest extent ever. Trajan would not have been able to expand those boundaries without the sword. Of course he wouldn’t have, which brings us to the tip of his sword, in a way. When Trajan succeeded the throne after Nerva (the first of the five “good” emperors) adopted him and announced the succession, one of Trajan’s first acts was with the sword.
Nerva had found himself in a conundrum to say the least. He did not have any children of his own that could assume the throne and what relatives he did have were not suited for it. Nerva did not rule long, coming to power in 96 AD after his predecessor, Domitian, was assassinated by the Praetorian Guard. During his short rule, 96-98, Nerva was not able to assert control over the military. In 97 the Praetorian Guard revolted, essentially forcing him to adopt Trajan and name him as the heir. In his short reign, only about 15 months, Nerva vowed to restore freedoms that had been trampled on by Domitian, and perhaps the best thing he did was ensure the peaceful transfer of power by adopting the young and popular Trajan.
During the time of Nerva’s brief rule, Trajan was serving as a general on the Limes Germanicus (German frontier) in Germania Superior where Rome had fortifications that separated the Roman Empire from the barbaric tribes of Germania which Rome had not yet been able to bring to heel. Trajan was also a highly renowned military leader instead of simply appointed and rising through the ranks without paying heed to properly learning and fulfilling his military duties. Perhaps his military prowess is what led to his dealings with the Praetorian Guard after becoming Caesar.
Trajan recognized that the Praetorian Guard, who had assassinated Domitian, also humiliated Nerva. The Praetorian Guard overtook the Imperial Palace and took Nerva hostage in late 97, thus forcing him to abdicate to their demands; which included naming Trajan as successor. The two shared the consulship for a brief period in 98, only about 27 days.
Nerva had a stroke on January 1 and died on January 27. Shortly thereafter, Trajan deified Nerva and had those involved with the hostage taking of Nerva executed. Trajan is alleged to have said, “Use this sword against my enemies, if I give righteous commands; but if I give unrighteous commands, use it against me” upon appointing a new leader to the Praetorian Guard.
This statement is what has caused Trajan to stand out to me as a “good emperor.” No doubt all the people who revolted or warred against Rome under Trajan’s rule would disagree. However, a leader who takes the throne and commands those under him to use the sword against him if he rules wickedly, as Domitian did just a few years earlier, is a leader any nation would be well off to have.
A leader who understands tyranny because they served under a tyrannical ruler themselves (Domitian) yet then actively calls those under his rule to fight against him if he becomes a tyrant has rarely come to dominance in world history; that I'm aware of at least. It’s no wonder Machiavelli included Trajan in his list.
Trajan is lauded by many historians as a reasonable and fair leader who gained favor with the people and the military through his humility and his accomplishments. He was seen as fair and just. Perhaps the Senate adored him because he was rarely in Rome, rather choosing to lead armies in hopes of greater Roman conquest. Although some Christians were executed under Trajan’s rule for not worshipping Caesar and Roman gods, Trajan still had a far more balanced approach than some of his predecessors in how he dealt with them.
Regarding “the Christian problem,” Trajan is noted for having said in correspondence to Pliny the Younger, "You observed proper procedure, my dear Pliny, in sifting the cases of those who had been denounced to you as Christians. For it is not possible to lay down any general rule to serve as a kind of fixed standard. They are not to be sought out; if they are denounced and proved guilty, they are to be punished, with this reservation, that whoever denies that he is a Christian and really proves it--that is, by worshiping our gods--even though he was under suspicion in the past, shall obtain pardon through repentance. But anonymously posted accusations ought to have no place in any prosecution. For this is both a dangerous kind of precedent and out of keeping with the spirit of our age."
This statement stands out for a few reasons because of its reasonableness from a governance standpoint over different cultures and religions that were part of Rome. On one hand, it shows a sort of laissez-faire approach to dealing with “criminals” who Trajan sees as really no more than a nuisance because they worship the one true God, which was blasphemy to Rome since Caesar was god. On the other hand it also shows Trajan’s understanding of most humans and even of most who profess some type of belief. They will renounce that belief if their circumstances become too dire. All but the true believers at least. The last part of his statement about anonymously posted accusations setting a dangerous precedent seems to ring as true today as it did then too.
Tacians would certainly disagree with me about Trajan and view him as an oppressor though. Trajan’s most consequential victories were against the Dacians, whom he effectively wiped off the face of the earth. In 101 and 106 he, along with his army, crossed the Danube and fought the Dacians in the First and Second Dacian War.
The Dacians occupied land in what today is Romania. Although Rome suffered heavy casualties in the Dacian Wars, they ended up succeeding and they were perhaps the defining period of Trajan’s rule. One historian claims that, aside from the luscious new province and expanded borders for Rome, a half million pounds of gold and a million pounds of silver were seized and brought back to the Roman coffers.
Oft away from Rome, Trajan would meet his end of days out on another campaign. Away from Romania and this time in what is modern day Iran, fighting the Parthians. Rome typically bested their foes from Parthia during this conflict too starting in 114 AD. By 115 Trajan had already captured Ctesiphon, the capital city for Parthia, as well as other regions which were annexed as Roman provinces. But, uprisings began to break out as the campaign continued. Seeking to regroup, Trajan returned to Syria but eventually became ill. Trajan attempted to return to Italy in 117, getting so far as modern day Turkey where he died in August of that year. A mausoleum still exists for him today.
I hope you were entertained…
Great article! At least a few Christian female writers I know, myself including, are Romano-philes. My interest came from studying the early Christian church, plus the Roman Empire has always fascinated me! One friend , Carol Ashby, has written an entire series set of Christian novels set around Rome and events--she's an encyclopedia of Rome LOL. Keep the articles coming!