Valerian, Emperor of Rome

Valerian is one of the lesser known Roman Emperors but he has a special claim to fame in that he was the only one who was captured by a foreign enemy and died in exile as a result. This puts him quite high on the list of failed Emperors, of which the later Roman Empire, in particular, had a large number.

Publius Licinius Valerianus was born in around the year 200 (possibly a few years earlier). Little is known about his early life except that he was a consul at some time in the 230s and a high-ranking member of the Senate who held the position of “princeps senatus” in 238, a year of civil war during which seven men claimed office as Emperor at various times.

It is known that Valerian was married to Egnatia Maririana, by whom he had two sons.

He was a trusted ally of both Emperors Decius and Trebonianus Gallus. The latter had been declared Emperor in 251 when Decius was killed by the Goths at the Battle of Abrittus (in modern Bulgaria).

Two years later Gallus was in turn threatened by a usurper, Aemilianus, and he called upon Valerian, who was commanding the legions on the Rhine, to come to his aid. However, Valerian was too late and Gallus had been overthrown and killed (possibly by his own troops) before he arrived.

The reign of Aemilianus was even briefer than that of Gallus, and his fate was similar in that his army mutinied and killed him before battle could be joined with the approaching army headed by Valerian, who was then acknowledged as Emperor. He was probably aged about 55 at the time (September 253).

One of Valerian’s first acts as Emperor was to elevate his son Gallienus to the rank of Augustus which signified his status as co-Emperor.

As Emperor, Valerian showed himself to be a deeply committed traditionalist, in that he was content to make the same mistakes that his predecessors had done in refusing to adapt to changing times. This meant that the borders of the Empire were to be defended at all costs and no concessions were to be made to the cultural diversity of the peoples who lived within those borders.

This thinking was behind Valerian’s edict in 257 that sanctioned persecution of Christians throughout the Empire. This included seizure of property and the execution of Christians who would not recant their beliefs.

On the military side, Roman armies failed to learn from their defeats against enemies such as the Goths and the Persians, in that Roman battle strategies were ineffective against the hit-and-run tactics of their opponents. The aim of these invaders was not so much to conquer territory as to raid and pillage and then retreat before the Romans could muster an army to confront them.

In 259 a new invasion threatened the Empire from the east. This was launched by Shapur, the leader of the Sassanid Empire that covered the whole of modern Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan and reached as far as India. Valerian headed an army to confront Shapur but his troops were in no shape to put up much of a fight due to disease and incipient mutiny.

Valerian offered to sue for peace and a meeting was arranged between the two rulers. However, this was a trick and Valerian fell into the trap. He was captured by Shapur and taken back to Persia in chains, never to be heard from again.

Various stories have arisen about what happened to Valerian, many of them put about by later writers who had a reason for denigrating the former Emperor. One story was that Shapur used Valerian as a footstool when mounting his horse, and another was that, when he died, his body was stuffed with straw and exhibited in a Persian temple. All that can be known for certain is that Valerian died in captivity, leaving his son Gallienus to rule as sole Emperor.

Shapur was clearly proud of his triumphs against the might of Rome, having the events preserved in the form of reliefs carved at Naqsh-i-Rustam, near Persepolis. However, it should be noted that, although in a submissive posture, the figure of Valerian is not shown as being on his knees. That dishonour is reserved for another former Emperor, namely Philip, who had been defeated in a previous battle.

© John Welford

Gallienus, Emperor of Rome

Gallienus is one of the Roman Emperors whose reputation has undergone considerable change over the centuries. Early historians regarded his reign as “one of the most ignoble and disastrous in the history of Rome” and himself as “indolent, profligate and indifferent to the public welfare” (to quote Smith’s Classical Dictionary) but modern research has credited him with some successes and qualities during a very difficult period of Roman history.

Publius Licinius Valerianus Egnatius Gallienus was probably born in 218, his father being the Emperor-to-be Valerian and his mother Egnatia Mariniana. When his father became Emperor in 253 he appointed Gallienus as his co-Emperor.

Gallienus was himself the father of three sons by his wife Cornelia Salonina. Two of these sons, Valerianus and Saloninus, were given the title of Caesar on Valerian’s accession, although they were probably aged only 15 and 11 respectively. The young princes were despatched to Illyria and Gaul respectively to create an imperial presence, but both were to die under suspicious circumstances.

Gallienus concentrated on securing the northern borders of the Empire while Valerian headed east to face the Persian threat. In this he was largely successful, but his main troubles were to come from internal revolts. One of these was from a commander named Ingenuus who had been entrusted with the care of young Valerianus. He declared himself Emperor after Valerianus died and Gallienus sought to demote him. Gallienus defeated Ingenuus in battle in 260, after which the usurper commited suicide.

Another revolt was launched by a general from Dacia named Regalianus, who attempted to seize power when Gallienus was busy elsewhere. He was, however, murdered by his own troops in 260.

A more serious threat was posed by general Marcus Postumus, who declared himself “Emperor of the Gauls” and remained in power until after Gallienus’s own death in 268. Gallienus believed that Postumus had been responsible for the death of his second son, Saloninus, and could never forgive him for that.

The number of rebellions throughout the reign of Gallienius was so great that the ancient “Historia Augusta” listed “thirty tyrants” who were pretenders at various times. Although later scholarship has disputed several of these names, the evidence that Gallienus was never secure on this throne is very strong.

A number of these revolts were occasioned in or around 260 when Gallienus became sole Emperor with the capture and disappearance of Valerian when fighting against the Sassanid Empire under Shapur.

One reason why the reign of Gallienus has had such a “bad press” among historians is that they have misunderstood the way in which Gallienus sought to deal with threats to his rule. He recognised that Rome could no longer be self-sufficient in organising its defence and that other powers had to be accommodated.

An example of co-operation of this kind is that with Palmyra (in modern Syria). The prince of Palmyra was Septimius Odaenathus who gave invaluable assistance to the Roman army after the capture of Valerian. He was himself threatened by the Sassanids and realised that an alliance with Rome was in his best interests. He had considerable success against Shapur and proclaimed himself “king of kings” but was always loyal to Gallienus. It is therefore unfair for Odaenathus to be counted among the “thirty tyrants” as he was never a threat to Roman rule.

However, Gallienus could not withstand the constant onslaughts for ever. In 268 he fell victim to a plot by his own senior officers who had staged a rebellion in northern Italy, and was killed while besieging Milan.

As sole ruler, Gallienus offered a new model for ruling the Empire in which the monolithic structure of the earlier Empire was broken down into largely self-contained units, often governed by commanders who had asserted themselves but who were nevertheless loyal to the Emperor. At least some of the thirty tyrants need to be seen in this light as opposed to being merely pretenders to the throne.

Although Gallienius’s personal reputation was smeared by many later commentators, he did have some qualities that should be cited in his favour. He was, for example, less interested in persecuting Christians than his father had been, and he granted freedom of worship to many Christian communities, returning property that had been seized during Valerian’s rule.

Gallienus had one of the most difficult reigns of any Emperor of Rome, but he achieved some major victories and proved himself to be a pragmatic ruler who responded well to the crises that arose.

© John Welford

Macrinus, a short-lived Emperor of Rome

Macrinus was the first Roman Emperor to come from a non-Senatorial background, but his occupation of the highest office in the Empire was neither long nor distinguished.

Macrinus becomes Emperor thanks to a murder

Marcus Opellius Macrinus was what might be termed an “accidental Emperor” in that he had neither background nor training for the job, and there is some evidence that he did not actually want it.

He was probably born in around the year 165 in Mauretania, North Africa, but nothing is known about his parentage. He rose through the ranks of the Army to become a prefect in the Praetorian Guard, the task of which was to protect the person of the Emperor, who – from the year 211 – was Caracalla, a brutal and obnoxious man who became the target of plots against his life.

One such plot had Macrinus’s fingerprints all over it, although it is possible that he was actually framed as a plotter by Flavius Maternianus, a friend of Caracalla.

Whatever the truth of the matter, Maternianus wrote a letter to Caracalla with evidence that implicated Macrinus, and recommended that the latter be eliminated. However, the letter fell into Macrinus’s hands and he decided to get his retaliation in first.

On 8^th April 217 Caracalla – who was on campaign against the Parthians – made a detour to visit a shrine devoted to the moon-god Lunus. He stopped en route for a toilet break, but Macrinus’s assassin seized the opportunity to plunge his sword between the Emperor’s ribs.

At least, that is the story. The murderer was himself killed immediately afterwards and so could not reveal who had paid him to do the job, but Macrinus was certainly very high on the list of suspects.

A reluctant Emperor?

Macrinus was acclaimed Emperor by the Army, but there is some evidence that he was reluctant to accept the honour. It is possible that he did not want to throw the suspicion for Caracalla’s murder on to himself by appearing to be too eager to seize the crown, and it is also possible that he knew exactly how difficult it was going to be to take over the Empire, given the fact that a strong Parthian army was heading his way.

Whatever the reason, there was an interregnum of several days before Macrinus took the job, which was never going to be an easy one.

Emperor Macrinus

Macrinus’s first problem was the Parthians, led by their king Artabanus V. In the end he had to buy them off at great expense, and he also had to reach accommodations with the Dacians and Armenians who had seen the change of Emperor as an opportunity to make nuisances of themselves.

He decided against returning immediately to Rome, which was a mistake given that the Imperial city was suffering from a major fire followed by flooding and the people looked to their new Emperor for support which they were not getting.

He also managed to cause disquiet in the Army by not treating them with the same generosity, in terms of pay, that Caracalla had done.

A new Emperor, especially one with highly dubious claims to office, needs powerful friends if he is going to enjoy a long reign, and Macrinus was clearly lacking in that department.

Powerful female foes

However, it was the women of the Severan clan who would prove to be Macrinus’s undoing.

Caracalla had been the son of Septimius Severus, a well-respected and long-serving Emperor. Septimius’s widow Julia Domna was still alive at the time of Caracalla’s death, as was Julia’s sister Julia Maesa. The sisters did not want the upstart Macrinus as Emperor as long as there were suitable Severan candidates.

Julia Domna died within a few months of Macrinus’s accession – she was suffering from breast cancer but there is a suggestion that she was forced into suicide by Macrinus.

That left “aunt Julia Maesa” to take up the cause, aided by her own daughters (two more Julias!), who each had a son of their own who were therefore suitable Severan candidates to be Emperor.

One of Julia Maesa’s grandsons was Varius Avitus Bassianus, then aged 14. He bore a passing resemblance to Caracalla, and the Julias invented the idea that he was actually Caracalla’s illegitimate son. This was a clever move, given that the soldiers recalled the former Emperor’s reign with fond nostalgia and were willing to believe anything that might promise a return to the good old days.

Avitus, despite his youth, was therefore declared Emperor by the local legion (Legio III Gallica stationed at Emesa in Syria), and Macrinus clearly had a problem on his hands.

The end of Macrinus

Macrinus had no choice but to declare war on the Severan family and the legion that supported them. The battle looked to be going in Macrinus’s favour until Julia Maesa and her daughter Julia Soaemias leapt from their chariots and persuaded the soldiers to fight on.

Macrinus then lost heart and fled the scene, possibly hoping to end his days in exile. However, he was eventually captured, along with his own young son whom he had lined up to succeed him. They were duly executed and their heads stuck on pikes.

Rome was now back under Severan control, but a period of even worse government lay ahead.

© John Welford

Deucalion and Pyrrha: a Greek flood myth

Flood myths are common in the mythologies of ancient civilisations across the world, and several theories have been put forward to account for why this might be so.

One such theory is that the release of large amounts of water at the end of the last Ice Age (at around 10,000 BCE) could have caused sudden catastrophic flooding as natural barriers were breached. This would have created folk memories that were subsequently passed down through many generations. Another theory is that such stories were invented to explain the presence of marine fossils and shells far above current sea levels (which are now known to be the result of geological processes over millions of years).

Whatever the reason, most of the stories have similar themes relating to the anger of a god and the saving of the only men and women who are righteous enough to be trusted to rebuild the human race after the rest have been wiped out. In Babylonian mythology (the Gilgamesh tablets) the lucky survivor is Utnapishtim, whose story is remarkably close to that of Noah in the Book of Genesis. In Greek mythology the equivalent story is that of Deucalion and Pyrrha.

As is usually the case with Greek mythology, various versions of the story exist, told by such writers as Hesiod, Apollodorus or Homer. One version has it that Lycaon, king of Arcadia, tried to trick Zeus unto eating the flesh of a murdered child, but Zeus responded by destroying Lycaon and his family with a thunderbolt and then decided to destroy the rest of mankind by sending a flood, given that Lycaon’s wickedness was only symptomatic of the evil that pervaded everyone else.

The titan Prometheus got to know of Zeus’s plan and warned his son Deucalion, whose wife Pyrrha was the daughter of Epimetheus (brother to Prometheus) and Pandora, the first human woman. The couple stored enough food for nine days and nights which they placed in a large chest (or a ship, in some accounts). When the flood came they floated in the chest until it came to rest on Mount Parnassus.

Deucalion and Pyrrha were now the only mortals left alive, for which they gave thanks to Zeus and consulted the goddess Themis as to what they should do next (some accounts say that it was Hermes who conveyed instructions to them from Zeus).

Themis (or Hermes) advised them to throw their mother’s bones over their shoulders. They interpreted this as meaning the bones of Mother Earth, and they each picked up stones and threw them behind them. Every stone that Deucalion threw turned into a man and those thrown by Pyrrha became women.

As well as creating new humans in this way, Deucalion and Pyrrha had children of their own, most notably Hellen who gave his name to the Hellenes who occupied the land of Hellas, which is the name that the Greeks use for their country down to the present day.

Hellen’s sons and grandsons would become the founders of the four main branches of the Greek people, namely the Aeolians, Dorians, Ionians and Achaeans.

There is therefore another parallel between this myth and that of Noah, in that Noah’s sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, would give their names to the Semites, Hamites and Japhethites respectively.

© John Welford

Atalanta in Greek mythology

Mortal women (i.e. not goddesses) do not get a particularly good press in Greek mythology. They tend either to be driven to murder as revenge for wrongs done to them, e.g. Clytaemnestra and Medea, or seducers who bring death and destruction in their wake, most notably Helen but others include Phaedra and Astydameia.

An exception to this pattern is Atalanta, a character who fights like a man, is involved in no subtle plots, and has forsworn sex. It is when she is finally tricked into marriage that her fate overtakes her.

There are not many warrior women in the Greek myths, with the notable exception of the tribe of Amazons encountered by Jason and his Argonauts, the latter including Atalanta among their number. This in itself makes her story an interesting one.

As with most Greek myths, there are conflicting details that occur as a result of different sources saying different things. The oral tradition of stories being passed down the generations, eventually being written down by a number of writers in different places and at various times, is bound to lead to variant accounts. In the case of Atalanta, two different regional traditions included her story, namely those of Arcadia and Boeotia, and these stories, although clearly referring to the same character, have a number of differences. The myth of Atalanta can therefore be pieced together by combining these accounts.


Childhood and upbringing

Her father Iasus (or Schoenus in the Boeotian version), was unhappy to have fathered a girl and had the child left on a mountain slope in the expectation that it would die. This practice is familiar throughout the Greek myths, and almost invariably the baby is rescued by a passing shepherd, bear or wolf and survives to adulthood, often much to the surprise of the original parent. In Atalanta’s case it was a she-bear who became her foster mother, and she grew up to be strong and healthy because she was then found by a group of hunters who taught her the skills of hunting.

The mountain in question was Mount Parthenius, which was sacred to Artemis, the virgin huntress goddess. It was Artemis who sent the bear to rescue Atalanta, and in return Atalanta forswore men and determined to remain a virgin. Her protection by Artemis continued; on one occasion she almost died of thirst but, on striking a rock with her spear and calling on the goddess, a spring burst out and saved her.


The Argonauts

Atalanta’s reputation as a fearless huntress was enough for her to be chosen as the only female crew member of the Argo, captained by Jason in the quest for the golden fleece. Accounts of that adventure make little mention of her, except that she was one of those wounded as Jason and his companions escaped with the fleece to their ship at the mid-point of the story. She was healed by the magical medicines supplied by Medea, the king’s daughter who had now agreed to help Jason.


The Calydonian boar

Atalanta also took part in the quest that followed that for the golden fleece, namely the hunting of the Calydonian boar, which had been sent by Artemis to ravage the countryside of Calydon after an oversight, in terms of sacrifices offered, by Oeneus, the king of Calydon.

Although Atalanta’s presence on board the Argo had caused no problems, it did so now because several members of the hunting party objected that having a woman among their number would bring bad luck. The king’s son, Meleager, declared that if they did not back down, the hunt would not take place. His main reason for taking this line was that he fancied Atalanta for himself, despite already being married.

Atalanta was armed with a bow and arrows, which she first used to shoot dead two centaurs which tried to ravish her. She was also successful in inflicting the first wound on the boar, which was finally killed by Meleager.

The original deal had been that whoever killed the boar should be presented with its pelt and tusks, and Meleager proposed that Atalanta should be so honoured, as she had drawn first blood. However, this led to objections that in turn led to much greater violence, but that is definitely another story!


Avoiding marriage

Atalanta’s success led to her being accepted back home by her father, but he was determined to see her safely married, which was not what she wanted, especially as the Delphic Oracle had warned her against marriage. As she was exceptionally fleet of foot, she offered a deal along the lines that any man who could beat her in a race could marry her. There was a catch, though, in that she claimed the right to kill anyone who failed the test.

Many suitors tried playing this highly dangerous game, which might sound surprising given that the later contenders would have known full well what had happened to their predecessors, but that is typical of myths and folk tales! The men would be given a head start and be allowed to run unencumbered by clothes, which was normal practice in ancient Greek athletics. Atalanta, however, ran fully clothed and carried a spear. Every time she would overtake her opponent and thrust her spear into him as she did so.

There was a successful applicant, but he only won by cheating. Melanion (or Hippomenes in some versions) called on divine assistance in the person of Aphrodite, the goddess of love. She gave him three golden apples, which he was instructed to drop, one at a time, during the course of the race. Atalanta stopped each time to pick them up, which was just enough delay to enable Melanion to win the race. This is therefore a version of the “Tortoise and the Hare” fable that is ascribed to Aesop. (The picture attached to this article is based on this story)

Atalanta was therefore obliged to marry Melanion, but the Delphic prophecy proved true in the end. Not long after they were married, Melanion persuaded her to make love in a place that was sacred to Zeus. As their punishment, Zeus changed them both into lions. The reasoning behind this was the strange belief that lions cannot mate with each other, but only with leopards, the error being possibly because, at a distance, a lioness might be mistaken for a leopard, unlikely though that might sound. The couple would then have been fated to remain together for ever but unable to mate.

One version of the story has it that it was Cybele, the “Earth Mother”, whose precinct was defiled and who had the couple turned into lions to draw her chariot.

There is also a story that Atalanta was not as virginal as she pretended, and had actually had a child by Meleager. This was Parthenopaeus, who was abandoned by his mother at the same place that she had been, and with a similar result in that he was rescued by shepherds and survived to become one of the “Seven against Thebes” in the Oedipus story.


Messages in the Atalanta myths

One can read several messages in the Atalanta story. One is that male story-tellers cannot abide the idea that a woman could really wish to remain a virgin, and will eventually succumb to her natural urges. When she does so, as in the Atalanta story, she suffers no ill consequences for that reason but only for the sin of offending a sacred place.

Another reading could be a sexist one, in that a woman’s high principles can be overcome by dangling something bright and shiny in front of her. This is a similar theme to one that runs through the literatures of many nations, namely that women are inconstant and fickle, whereas men are made of sterner stuff and are more trustworthy.

This is, as mentioned above, a highly sexist conclusion to draw, and the current writer has no intention of endorsing such thoughts!

© John Welford

Caratacus, a Celtic British king

Caratacus was a Celtic British king at the time of the invasion of Britain by the Romans under Emperor Claudius. Caratacus’s defeat and capture marked the true beginning of Rome’s occupation of Britain that was to last for nearly 400 years.


Caratacus – his origins and early successes

Caratacus was the son of Cunobelin, who was king of the Catuvellauni tribe and, incidentally, a possible original of William Shakespeare’s character of “Cymbeline”. The Catuvellauni tribe were very powerful and had led the earlier resistance to Julius Caesar when he had tried to conquer Britain in 55 BC. Their tribal lands were in the area to the north and west of present-day London, but they had aggressively tried to extend their influence to both east and west. The Catuvellauni capital of Camulodunum (present-day Colchester in Essex) had previously belonged to the Trinovantes tribe but the Catuvellauni moved their base there when they defeated the Trinovantes.

Caratacus first came to notice as a warrior chief in the struggle against the Atrebates tribe in what is now central southern England. Fighting alongside his uncle Epaticcus, he had some success, but when Epaticcus died in about 35 CE the Atrebates, under their king Verica, fought back. Caratacus eventually regained the upper hand and was able to depose Verica and take over much of the territory of the Atrebates.


The threat of the Roman Empire

British tribal chiefs at this time were well aware that the mighty Roman Empire was expanding across Europe and that their positions were threatened by it. A king might fancy his chances at being able to resist any future invasion of his lands, or he might consider that his best bet was to do some kind of deal with Rome to protect his territory and status. It was therefore open to any defeated leader to appeal to Rome for protection in exchange for loss of independence as a client or vassal of Rome.

This was what Verica did, and his appeal to Emperor Claudius was all that the latter needed as an excuse for a full-scale invasion. Caratacus, who had by now succeeded his father as king, therefore found that, by defeating a relatively weak enemy, he had acquired a much more formidable one. Given that none of the other British kings had the strength to oppose the Roman legions, it was left to Caratacus and his brother Togodumnus, who ruled jointly with him, to lead all the Celtic tribes in their defence of Britain.


Defeat by Rome

For a time Caratacus had some success, especially when he used guerrilla “hit and run” tactics against the Romans. However, he had no answer to the legions when it came to set-piece battles, and he lost two crucial ones at the Medway and the Thames. There is a possibility that Togodumnus had thrown in his lot with the Romans and was acting against his brother, thus leading to the latter’s defeat, but it is also possible that he was killed in battle.

At all events, Claudius was able to march into Camulodunum and turn it into his own provincial capital. Caratacus escaped and continued the resistance to Roman rule from Wales, where he led the tribes of Silures and Ordovices. However, he suffered another defeat, this time at Caer Caradoc, and was forced to flee northwards.


Arrest and exile

Caratacus had hoped to find sanctuary with Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes but, unfortunately for him, she had already done a deal with the Romans and promptly had Caratacus arrested and handed him over. He was taken in chains to Rome in full expectation of being publicly executed when he arrived, on the grounds of having dared to oppose the might of the Roman Empire.

However, he was allowed to make a speech to the Senate, in which he made a reasoned argument for clemency along the lines that his dignity as a leader of royal descent required him to defend his people and territory rather than surrender meekly, which would have been a dishonourable thing to do. This impressed the senators, who appreciated that Caratacus had behaved in exactly the same way that they would have expected a Roman leader to behave. The Emperor granted him a pardon and the right to live in Rome with his family.

Caratacus therefore spent the rest of his life in Rome as a guest rather than a prisoner. Meanwhile, his defeat in Britain meant that his country would remain a Roman province for centuries to come.

© John Welford

The Fire of Rome. 64 AD

On 18^th July 64 AD large parts of the city of Rome were consumed by fire. At least, this was when the fire started – it burned for several days, died down, then had another go. By the time it finished only four of Rome’s fourteen regions had not been touched and three were consumed entirely. There were hundreds of deaths.

Blame for who started the fire has been laid at more than one door. Many historians have claimed that it was started on the orders of Emperor Nero, who had plans to rebuild the city so that it would become a permanent memorial to him. Nero chose to blame the Christians, and the event was used as an excuse for an orgy of persecution and punishment.

In all likelihood it began accidentally. Fires in tightly-packed cities were not uncommon, and given the fact that most of the houses in the poorer districts would have been built of wood, the rapid spread of a fire, once it started, was to be expected.

Nero’s conduct during the fire has long been debated. There is some evidence that he organised relief efforts for the people who were made homeless, but there is very little for the story that ‘Nero fiddled while Rome burned’ – a fiddle being a violin. For one thing, violins did not exist in Nero’s time, and for another he was not in the city at the time.

The fiddle reference might have been to the ‘fidicula’, which was a lyre-type instrument as depicted in the illustration which is a movie poster for ‘Quo Vadis’. However, there is no evidence that Nero played this instrument.

However, there is evidence that, after the fire, Nero donned his actor’s costume and recited his own composition ‘The Sack of Troy’.  Nero’s recitals were not voluntary – an invitation to one was a command and falling asleep during the performance was a capital offence. People were known to feign death during a recital of his terrible poetry – the idea was to be dragged out before one really died of boredom, but then to make a miraculous recovery!

© John Welford