Nerva, Emperor of Rome

Nerva was the first of the “five good emperors” of Rome, according to Edward Gibbon. However, he was probably the least influential of that group.

Nerva – his background and rise to power

Marcus Cocceius Nerva was born in 32AD at Narnia, a town not far from Rome. He came from a rich and privileged background, his father being a wealthy lawyer and his grandfather and great-grandfather both having served as consul. He was twice consul in his own right, in 71AD under Vespasian and in 90AD under Domitian, whom he was to succeed as emperor.

It would appear that Nerva knew Domitian, who was 19 year his junior, from the latter’s childhood. It is quite possible that he served as Domitian’s guardian for at least some of the time during which Domitian’s father, Vespasian, and elder brother Titus were away on campaign (his mother had died some time before). There is a story that Nerva abused Domitian sexually, but the source of this is doubtful, and it certainly appears that the two remained on good terms for many years.

It was almost certainly the case that Nerva knew about the plot to assassinate Domitian in 96AD, although it is unlikely that he was himself one of the plotters. The conspirators clearly did not believe that Nerva was so friendly with Domitian that he would betray them to the emperor, but Nerva also knew that not only was he in the frame as Domitian’s successor but that opposition to the conspirators would almost certainly lead to his own death.

Nerva as emperor

The proclamation of Nerva as emperor followed immediately on Domitian’s death, this being a highly welcome event, at least among the senatorial class of which Nerva was a prominent member. An orgy of denigration of Domitian followed, with the late emperor being declared “damnatio memoriae” by the Senate. All images of Domitian were destroyed, included the coinage, as the Senate tried to erase his memory from the public consciousness.

This reaction could have placed Nerva in an extremely difficult position, as it would have been very clear to him that any behaviour on his part that resembled that of his predecessor would have put him in grave danger of suffering the same fate. The Senate had made it blindingly obvious that the real power lay with them, leaving Nerva, potentially, as little more than a puppet in their hands.

However, Nerva proved to be a man with a measure of tact and good sense. His first act as emperor was to declare that no senator would be put to death during his reign, and he kept to his word even when a conspiracy led by one of the senators was uncovered.

He found it more difficult to keep firm control of the Army, particularly the Praetorian Guard. He was forced to give way to their demand that the assassins of Domitian be punished, but he made up for this by declaring as his successor the well-liked and respected general Marcus Ulpius Trajanus (Trajan). The Army now knew that their interests would be upheld, and so were able to give their firm support to Nerva throughout the rest of his reign, which did not turn out to be all that long.

Nerva had been 64 at the time of his accession (which was an advanced age in the first century AD) and he did not enjoy good health. He died suddenly (possibly from a stroke) on 27^th January 98AD, having reigned for little more than a year.

His reputation

Nerva is credited (by Edward Gibbon in particular) as being the first of the “five good emperors” between Domitian and Commodus. Whether this accolade would have been deserved had Nerva had a longer reign is open to doubt. Nerva certainly showed signs of weakness, and he did nothing to solve some of the outstanding problems that he inherited from his predecessor, particularly the embarrassment of having to pay tribute to Decebalus of Dacia, who could not be defeated.

He prided himself on being one of the few emperors with a clear conscience, who could step back from office any time he wanted to, but it has to be wondered how long the Army would have waited for strong leadership, knowing that a very strong leader was waiting in the wings.

© John Welford

The death of Domitian, 96 AD

On the 18^th of September 96 AD the Roman Emperor Domitian was assassinated in a plot orchestrated by his wife.

The jury is still out on Domitian, and whether it will ever return to give its verdict is another matter. Some historians reckon that he was among the cruellest and most bloodthirsty of the emperors, while others maintain that he has had a bad press over the centuries and was not as evil as previously believed.

Domitian was the son of an emperor (Vespasian) and the brother of another (Titus), both of whom generally get the “thumbs up” when their reigns are weighed up in terms of good versus bad. Domitian was kept well away from the business of government during their reigns, and when he got the job for himself he did rather let things go to his head, insisting on being addressed as “master and god”, for example.

There seems little doubt that life during Domitian’s reign was a chancy business if you were a senator or in any way close to the seat of power, and a number of summary executions did take place of individuals who caused offence to the emperor. However, much of the evidence comes from the pen of one man, namely the historian Suetonius, who seems to have taken a distinct dislike to Domitian.

Domitian’s main problem was that he wanted to rule as an absolute monarch, whereas Vespasian and Titus had involved the Senate in their decision-making, and there were elements of the old Roman Republic in the way they went about things. Having been sidelined by the new emperor, the senatorial class was never going to regard him favourably, and neither was Suetonius.

Whatever the facts of Domitian’s reign, those relating to its end seem undisputed. Enough people went in fear of their lives to make assassination a real possibility. One of these people was Domitian’s wife, Domitia Longina, and another was Stephanus, the steward of the emperor’s niece Domitilla. Stephanus had been accused of embezzlement, so had good reason to be fearful. The two hatched their plot together with members of Domitian’s personal staff.

Stephanus pretended to have hurt his arm, which he wrapped with a bandage. Domitian therefore had no suspicion that anything was amiss as Stephanus went about his business for several days in this state, although he was actually carrying a dagger inside the bandage.

On the morning of 18^th September Stephanus approached Domitian with a scroll that he wanted to show the emperor. Once Domitian was distracted, Stephanus whipped out the dagger and stabbed Domitian in the leg, which was probably not where he intended the first blow to fall. Domitian fought to defend himself and the two men rolled around on the floor until other members of the plot could land their dagger blows, which were better aimed.

The number of Roman emperors who died peacefully in their beds was not a large one. Domitian was one of many who came to a violent end.

© John Welford

The Battle of Zama, 202 BC

The battle of Zama was fought on 15^th October 202 BC. It was the battle that finally decided which power would be master of the Mediterranean region – Rome or Carthage.

The battle that decided Rome’s dominance over Carthage

Carthage, a powerful city-state in North Africa, had been a thorn in the side of Rome for many years, particularly under the generalship of Hannibal who had inflicted a heavy defeat on Rome at Cannae in 216 BC. However, Rome simply refused to cave in. Hannibal’s main problem was that he did not have the right equipment for siege warfare - although he came within three miles of the walls of Rome at one point he could never hope to breach them.

What tipped the balance for Rome was the emergence of a general who was at least the equal of Hannibal. This was Publius Cornelius Scipio, a survivor of Cannae, who managed to recapture virtually all the land lost to Hannibal in Spain. In 204 BC, with Hannibal still in Italy, Scipio gathered a large army and set sail for Carthage.

After several Roman victories in North Africa, Hannibal was forced to return home. However, it was two years later that the issue was finally decided on the battlefield at Zama, five miles south of modern Tunis. Hannibal could muster 40,000 troops and 80 elephants as against Scipio’s 34,000 men, but the latter were better trained and included three times as many cavalry troops as the Carthaginians could put into the field.

The elephants were soon taken out of the account, being panicked by the blare of Roman trumpets, and the cavalry battle was decisively won by the Romans. The infantry of the two armies now faced each other, and the initial advantage went to the larger force of Hannibal’s army. However, the Roman cavalry, having chased off that of the Carthaginians, was then then able to attack the infantry from the rear, and this was the decisive move. More than 20,000 Carthaginians were killed during the battle.

Scipio was magnanimous in victory and allowed Hannibal to remain in Carthage, where he became his country’s ruler. However, the Roman Senate was later to demand that Hannibal should be punished and he was forced to flee into exile, where he eventually committed suicide.

Scipio became one of Rome’s greatest heroes and he was awarded the title Africanus. As a general, he never lost a battle during a 25-year long career.

© John Welford

Marcus Aurelius becomes Emperor of Rome, 161 AD

On 7^th March 161 AD Marcus Aurelius became Emperor of Rome on the death of his predecessor Antoninus Pius.

Marcus Aurelius was the last of the “five good emperors” who ruled the empire during a period of relative stability, and without giving way to greed or paranoia, for 84 years. (The three who preceded Antoninus were Nerva, Trajan and Hadrian).

Antoninus chose his successor wisely and gave him every opportunity to learn what the job entailed. Marcus was therefore able to take over the reins of power smoothly – indeed, Antoninus had already delegated many of them to Marcus before he died.

Marcus Aurelius is known to history as the “philosopher emperor” thanks to the collection of sayings that he left behind him and which are known as his “Meditations”. These were jottings made for his own benefit and many were probably not original to him although he clearly agreed with their general tone and meaning. They summarised the Stoic principles of treating triumph and disaster with equal disdain, and of playing a constructive role in public affairs.

However, the state of the empire did not allow Marcus to spend much time thinking lofty thoughts. He had to campaign long and hard to defend the empire against its enemies, most notably the Parthians who were threatening Rome’s eastern provinces.

When the Roman legions returned from fighting off the Parthian challenge they brought with them a deadly plague infection that swept through the empire and killed possibly as much of 10% of the entire population. Marcus consulted various oracles and prescribed anti-plague measures (mostly concerned with making appropriate sacrifices to various gods) as dictated by those oracles. Plague outbreaks tend to disappear as rapidly as they appear, so Marcus Aurelius was probably lucky to have reaped the credit for saving the empire from a terrible disease.

Although Marcus Aurelius ruled with wisdom and justice, he made a huge mistake by declaring his son Commodus to be his nominated successor and grooming him for the post in the same way that Antoninus Pius had groomed him. When Marcus Aurelius died in 180 the era of the good emperors was well and truly over.

© John Welford

Cicero meets his end, 43 BC

On 7th December 43 BC the orator and politician Cicero died at the hands of his enemies, aged 63. He had been a staunch defender of the old Roman Republic but backed the wrong side in the shenanigans that transformed the republic into an empire, and he paid the ultimate price for so doing.

He came from a wealthy family and was a noted lawyer, famed for his speeches and rhetorical style. He was elected to the Senate and became a consul, during which time he was active in defeating a conspiracy, led by a senator named Catiline, that aimed to overthrow the republic.

Once the ringleaders (with the exception of Catiline himself) had been arrested, Cicero condemned them in the Senate and ordered their immediate execution without trial. This made enemies for Cicero among the conspirators’ powerful friends.

Cicero backed Pompey in the civil war against Julius Caesar for the same reason that he detested the Catiline conspirators, namely that he saw Caesar as an enemy of the republic. Although he took no part in the plot to assassinate Caesar in 44 BC, he spoke in favour of the conspirators and against the new strong men, namely Mark Antony and Octavian (the future Emperor Augustus). He was particularly vehement in his condemnation of Mark Antony, whom he declared to be a criminal, a drunkard and a consorter with prostitutes.

In 43 BC the triumvirate that ruled Rome (Mark Antony, Octavian and Lepidus) drew up a list of undesirables whom they wished to eliminate. The list was headed by the assassins of Caesar but also included Cicero. Any Roman citizen who killed him could be assured of freedom from reprisal.

As Cicero fled from Rome in his litter he was overtaken by a group of soldiers. Knowing that he could not escape, he stuck his head out of the litter and asked a soldier to make a proper job of beheading him, which is what happened. 

© John Welford