Liberty Lover
5th July 2003, 00:15
Assess the contribution and impact of Claudius and Nero as princeps
For the most part, the emperor Claudius is portrayed by historians of his day as a bumbling, dribbling fool incapable of administering an empire yet capable of significant cruelty. However, this depiction does not match the actual contributions of Claudius as princeps that, on the face of it at least, had a hugely beneficial impact on Rome and its empire. This contradiction seems to be a consequence of the inability of historians of the time to rid themselves of crude bias and deliver an impersonal and objective account of Claudius’ reign. Rather than look at Claudius the emperor, ancient writers, such as Suetonius and Tacitus, have preoccupied themselves with Claudius the man, who was apparently unattractive and suffered from medical conditions that stuttered his speech and created an impression of stupidity. Whether Claudius was attractive or repulsive, or whether he was a benevolent leader or a malevolent despot should not intrude too much on an assessment of his contributions to the Roman Empire, for history has produced many efficient and competent ugly tyrants. The expansion of the empire into Britain and the bureaucratic reforms that increased the efficiency of government are among the achievements of Claudius, and while they do not necessarily prove that he was an administrative genius they do disprove the suggestion that he was an incompetent fool.
During the reign of Claudius five provinces were added to the Empire, the most significant of these being Britain. In conquering Britain Claudius had succeeded where both the ‘divine’ Julius Caesar and the Emperor Gaius had failed. This fact did much to elevate the prestige of Claudius, reversing his relative unpopularity with the senate and endearing him to the people of Rome. His own role as a strategist and tactician in the invasion appears pivotal. He managed to overcome the reluctance of the army to brave the perils of the sea voyage and he selected carefully the commanders of the campaign. As a result of the conquest of Britain, Rome acquired, according to Grant, “a valuable source for the recruitment of auxiliary troops”, it was granted access to valuable raw materials such as metal and timber, and it had the benefit of the opening of new markets.
In attempt to centralise the power of the Roman government Claudius engaged in significant bureaucratic reforms. Whether this was done to destroy the power of the senate or to improve the efficiency of government is not certain, but both of these possible aims were the product of the reforms. Among the changes made by Claudius was the creation of several new offices of state, which included a secretary general, financial secretary, legal secretary and librarian. These officials were made up of imperial freedmen close to Claudius and formed the basis of an Imperial Civil Service that was independent from the Senate and the Equestrian Order. The extended executive powers granted to this newly formed bureaucracy allowed it to act much more decisively than the Senate ever had, taking over as the central administrative body. Further reforms saw Claudius’ Principate take control of the empire’s finances; this was done through the establishment of the office of a rationibus (central treasury), which was made up of several separate, rather inefficiently run, fisci (treasury). The centralised power of the emperor’s administration allowed it to, according to Drummond, “bypass the hindrance that was the senate and swiftly implement its own agenda”, such as the construction of the port at Ostia and the introduction of more humane laws for slaves.
The contributions of Claudius as Princeps, that constituted primarily of the conquest of Britain and the reforming of the bureaucracy, but additionally the expansion of Roman citizenship to the provinces and the construction of Ostia, did much to benefit the Roman Empire, adding to its prestige and, ultimately, the well being of its citizens. If the assumptions that Claudius adopted an authoritarian style of governance are correct little is done to tarnish the indisputable fact that during his reign things got done.
There is a general concurrence among the ancient sources that under Nero Rome experienced general peace and prosperity. Even after the deaths of Seneca and Burrus, and the subsequent intensification of Nero’s “sexual excesses” and other “irregularities”, sources reveal no change in this sound governance of Rome. The reasons for the traditionally negative portrayal of Nero, most notably the deliberate burning of Rome, the persecution of Christians and the direct murder of his wife, are backed only by questionable sources in the form of ancient writers such as Tacitus and Suetonius who not were not only dogged by extreme personal biases but also seemed unable to provide any solid evidence for their assertions. But even if Nero was responsible for these atrocities (by modern standards at least), his wife and the Christians formed a much to insignificant part of the empire to judge his contribution as princeps on. However, Nero’s peacemaking policy abroad, his providing of sufficient grain to the masses and assorted other achievements are something that had a direct impact of Rome and its Empire.
As a means of promoting essential grain imports to Rome, Nero exempted merchant ships from property tax and completed the construction of the port at Ostia, something revealed through numismatic evidence. Sufficient supplies of grain were pivotal for Rome, both to feed its rapidly increasing population and, by doing so, to prevent discontent among the Plebeian class. Tacitus would have us believe that the later of these was the Emperor’s primary concern, yet he fails to elaborate on how he came by this information. Nonetheless, Nero experienced greater success in achieving this necessity than any other emperor since Augustus, with each citizen receiving 400 sesterces in grain. As a result he created, what Grant calls, “a close emotional bond of gratitude and affection between himself and the potentially disorderly population of the city”. Thus Nero not only successfully fulfilled the basic needs of the people but also formed a deep respect among them for him, preventing any semblance of civil unrest.
According to Suetonius, “Nero felt no ambition or hope to extend or enlarge the Roman Empire”. This is a claim reflected by the minimal addition of provinces to the Empire during his reign. However, Nero’s was a foreign policy that’s strength lay not in territorial acquisition but in the brining of peace, specifically to the tumultuous region of Armenia, which had seen decades of war. Rather than continue the traditional, and ineffective, imperialist policy that advocated annexation, Nero implemented, with stiff traditionalist opposition, a policy of cooperation with the rival power in Armenia, the Parthians. This policy saw Nero approve Tiridates, an Armenian royal also favoured by the Parthians, as candidate for the throne. From here the Romans agreed to withdraw from Mesopotamia so long as the Parthians withdraw from Armenia. With this Nero had diplomatically brought a lasting peace to Armenia, something even Augustus had failed to achieve. The Emperor’s own role in the establishment of the enduring peace appears to have been integral, for, as Grant suggests, “It was he [Nero], young though he was, who presided over the councils whose general directives, in his name, even strong minded commanders like Corbulo were obliged to obey”.
Certain other, less significant, contributions of Nero are worthy of some note. Among them were; the providing of, according to Suetonius, “an immense variety of entertainments” that included chariot races, gladiatorial contests, coming of age parties and a staged naval engagement on an artificial lake; the construction of porches from the front of houses that acted as fire fighting platforms; and an attempt at establishing free trade within the empire through the abolition of all indirect taxes, while the scheme was dropped it, according to Scullard, “showed interest in promoting the economic life of the empire”.
It remains a possibility that the later stages of Nero’s reign were marked with the emergence of a despotic atmosphere. However the only significant impact that this alleged tyranny had on the course of Roman history was that it resulted in the death of all potential Julio-Claudian heirs to the throne and the ushering in of a new dynasty. The Christians, assorted senators, and other victims of the suspected terror were much too insignificant to have an impact on Rome. Regardless of this, Nero’s contribution in areas of foreign affairs, food supplies and entertainment mark an Emperor who was largely beneficial to the Roman world outside of the Royal Palace and the Senate house.
Mark. T
Bibliography
H. H. Scullard, (1982) From the Gracchi to Nero
Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
Michael Grant, (1970) Nero: Emperor in Revolt
Ed. Arthur Cotterell, (1993) Classical Civilisations
Andrew Drummond, The world of Rome
Richard Holland, (2000) Nero: The man behind the myth
For the most part, the emperor Claudius is portrayed by historians of his day as a bumbling, dribbling fool incapable of administering an empire yet capable of significant cruelty. However, this depiction does not match the actual contributions of Claudius as princeps that, on the face of it at least, had a hugely beneficial impact on Rome and its empire. This contradiction seems to be a consequence of the inability of historians of the time to rid themselves of crude bias and deliver an impersonal and objective account of Claudius’ reign. Rather than look at Claudius the emperor, ancient writers, such as Suetonius and Tacitus, have preoccupied themselves with Claudius the man, who was apparently unattractive and suffered from medical conditions that stuttered his speech and created an impression of stupidity. Whether Claudius was attractive or repulsive, or whether he was a benevolent leader or a malevolent despot should not intrude too much on an assessment of his contributions to the Roman Empire, for history has produced many efficient and competent ugly tyrants. The expansion of the empire into Britain and the bureaucratic reforms that increased the efficiency of government are among the achievements of Claudius, and while they do not necessarily prove that he was an administrative genius they do disprove the suggestion that he was an incompetent fool.
During the reign of Claudius five provinces were added to the Empire, the most significant of these being Britain. In conquering Britain Claudius had succeeded where both the ‘divine’ Julius Caesar and the Emperor Gaius had failed. This fact did much to elevate the prestige of Claudius, reversing his relative unpopularity with the senate and endearing him to the people of Rome. His own role as a strategist and tactician in the invasion appears pivotal. He managed to overcome the reluctance of the army to brave the perils of the sea voyage and he selected carefully the commanders of the campaign. As a result of the conquest of Britain, Rome acquired, according to Grant, “a valuable source for the recruitment of auxiliary troops”, it was granted access to valuable raw materials such as metal and timber, and it had the benefit of the opening of new markets.
In attempt to centralise the power of the Roman government Claudius engaged in significant bureaucratic reforms. Whether this was done to destroy the power of the senate or to improve the efficiency of government is not certain, but both of these possible aims were the product of the reforms. Among the changes made by Claudius was the creation of several new offices of state, which included a secretary general, financial secretary, legal secretary and librarian. These officials were made up of imperial freedmen close to Claudius and formed the basis of an Imperial Civil Service that was independent from the Senate and the Equestrian Order. The extended executive powers granted to this newly formed bureaucracy allowed it to act much more decisively than the Senate ever had, taking over as the central administrative body. Further reforms saw Claudius’ Principate take control of the empire’s finances; this was done through the establishment of the office of a rationibus (central treasury), which was made up of several separate, rather inefficiently run, fisci (treasury). The centralised power of the emperor’s administration allowed it to, according to Drummond, “bypass the hindrance that was the senate and swiftly implement its own agenda”, such as the construction of the port at Ostia and the introduction of more humane laws for slaves.
The contributions of Claudius as Princeps, that constituted primarily of the conquest of Britain and the reforming of the bureaucracy, but additionally the expansion of Roman citizenship to the provinces and the construction of Ostia, did much to benefit the Roman Empire, adding to its prestige and, ultimately, the well being of its citizens. If the assumptions that Claudius adopted an authoritarian style of governance are correct little is done to tarnish the indisputable fact that during his reign things got done.
There is a general concurrence among the ancient sources that under Nero Rome experienced general peace and prosperity. Even after the deaths of Seneca and Burrus, and the subsequent intensification of Nero’s “sexual excesses” and other “irregularities”, sources reveal no change in this sound governance of Rome. The reasons for the traditionally negative portrayal of Nero, most notably the deliberate burning of Rome, the persecution of Christians and the direct murder of his wife, are backed only by questionable sources in the form of ancient writers such as Tacitus and Suetonius who not were not only dogged by extreme personal biases but also seemed unable to provide any solid evidence for their assertions. But even if Nero was responsible for these atrocities (by modern standards at least), his wife and the Christians formed a much to insignificant part of the empire to judge his contribution as princeps on. However, Nero’s peacemaking policy abroad, his providing of sufficient grain to the masses and assorted other achievements are something that had a direct impact of Rome and its Empire.
As a means of promoting essential grain imports to Rome, Nero exempted merchant ships from property tax and completed the construction of the port at Ostia, something revealed through numismatic evidence. Sufficient supplies of grain were pivotal for Rome, both to feed its rapidly increasing population and, by doing so, to prevent discontent among the Plebeian class. Tacitus would have us believe that the later of these was the Emperor’s primary concern, yet he fails to elaborate on how he came by this information. Nonetheless, Nero experienced greater success in achieving this necessity than any other emperor since Augustus, with each citizen receiving 400 sesterces in grain. As a result he created, what Grant calls, “a close emotional bond of gratitude and affection between himself and the potentially disorderly population of the city”. Thus Nero not only successfully fulfilled the basic needs of the people but also formed a deep respect among them for him, preventing any semblance of civil unrest.
According to Suetonius, “Nero felt no ambition or hope to extend or enlarge the Roman Empire”. This is a claim reflected by the minimal addition of provinces to the Empire during his reign. However, Nero’s was a foreign policy that’s strength lay not in territorial acquisition but in the brining of peace, specifically to the tumultuous region of Armenia, which had seen decades of war. Rather than continue the traditional, and ineffective, imperialist policy that advocated annexation, Nero implemented, with stiff traditionalist opposition, a policy of cooperation with the rival power in Armenia, the Parthians. This policy saw Nero approve Tiridates, an Armenian royal also favoured by the Parthians, as candidate for the throne. From here the Romans agreed to withdraw from Mesopotamia so long as the Parthians withdraw from Armenia. With this Nero had diplomatically brought a lasting peace to Armenia, something even Augustus had failed to achieve. The Emperor’s own role in the establishment of the enduring peace appears to have been integral, for, as Grant suggests, “It was he [Nero], young though he was, who presided over the councils whose general directives, in his name, even strong minded commanders like Corbulo were obliged to obey”.
Certain other, less significant, contributions of Nero are worthy of some note. Among them were; the providing of, according to Suetonius, “an immense variety of entertainments” that included chariot races, gladiatorial contests, coming of age parties and a staged naval engagement on an artificial lake; the construction of porches from the front of houses that acted as fire fighting platforms; and an attempt at establishing free trade within the empire through the abolition of all indirect taxes, while the scheme was dropped it, according to Scullard, “showed interest in promoting the economic life of the empire”.
It remains a possibility that the later stages of Nero’s reign were marked with the emergence of a despotic atmosphere. However the only significant impact that this alleged tyranny had on the course of Roman history was that it resulted in the death of all potential Julio-Claudian heirs to the throne and the ushering in of a new dynasty. The Christians, assorted senators, and other victims of the suspected terror were much too insignificant to have an impact on Rome. Regardless of this, Nero’s contribution in areas of foreign affairs, food supplies and entertainment mark an Emperor who was largely beneficial to the Roman world outside of the Royal Palace and the Senate house.
Mark. T
Bibliography
H. H. Scullard, (1982) From the Gracchi to Nero
Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
Michael Grant, (1970) Nero: Emperor in Revolt
Ed. Arthur Cotterell, (1993) Classical Civilisations
Andrew Drummond, The world of Rome
Richard Holland, (2000) Nero: The man behind the myth