Of course, to an author of historical fiction, this can be seen as an opportunity rather than a problem. If the sources are missing, contradictory, or can be interpreted in multiple ways, then the novelist can choose the version that suits the story best. I have a personal rule that as far as possible I do not alter the known history when it comes to my books, even if the plot suffers as a result. Other authors are happy to change events, for example the dates, to improve the narrative flow, and this is a personal decision and certainly not wrong, especially if the reality is explained in an author’s note. But what I am happy to do is pick a possible but less probable version of the facts.
For example, let’s look at Caracalla’s date of birth. It is generally believed that Caracalla was born in 188 CE, the child of Julia Domna and Septimius Severus, and full brother to Geta. However, Dr Ilkka Syvänne, associate professor at the University of Haifa, and the author of the only full-length text on Caracalla, contends both in his book and in personal correspondence to me that it is possible he was born to Severus’ first wife, Paccia Marciana, in 186 or 174 CE, and that 174 CE, the date attested in the Historia Augusta, is the more likely. For me this is convenient, as it is more believable that Caracalla is having an affair with his stepmother Julia Domna if he is a bit older.
Stepmother? The accepted history is that Julia Domna was Caracalla’s mother, but Dr Syvänne says that if there was a larger age gap between the brothers, because Caracalla was born to Severus’ first wife, it would explain why he was promoted to Augustus so many years before his brother. He also speculates that the sibling rivalry would be more pronounced if they had different mothers, and less plausibly, he thinks that biologically the gap of twelve months between children is unlikely. In favour of Julia Domna being Caracalla’s mother was his original name of Bassianus, which was the name of Domna’s father. However, Dr Syvänne notes that Caracalla could have been renamed Bassianus when he was adopted by Domna.
I believe the conventional stories about Caracalla’s date of birth and parentage are probably correct, but the controversy over these two seemingly firm facts helps illustrate how much of history is uncertain, and is just a best guess.
So we return to Caracalla’s reputation. He was hated by his two main historians, a senator and civil servant, who he likely snubbed and paid insufficient respect to, preferring the company of the legions and the common soldiers. One of his most generous acts, his extension of citizenship to every free man in the Roman Empire, the Constitutio Antoniniana, may have rankled with the senatorial elite, who characterised this as a way of increasing the taxable population. This may be true, but as the majority enfranchised in this way would have been poor, it was unlikely to have contributed much to the Imperial coffers. He also gave all freeborn women the same rights as Roman women, which doesn’t seem to have brought any significant financial advantage.
What of Caracalla’s worst deeds? He was rumoured to have wanted to put a premature end to his father’s reign. The main documented attempt on his father’s life was during a meeting with surrendering Caledonian nobles, when he drew his sword behind his father’s back. Others present shouted a warning, and Severus turned and saw it. Severus later put a sword in Caracalla’s reach, in the presence of the Praetorian prefect Papinianus, and told Caracalla to use the sword or order Papinianus to murder him. Caracalla declined. However, another explanation is that Caracalla actually intended to kill the unarmed Caledonians, who he considered had been lured into a trap. This was consistent with his later behaviour as a general and Emperor. On the other hand, it may be that Caracalla genuinely wished to kill his father, and was suffering from the Oedipus complex so well known to classical history.
Some time after Severus died, Caracalla ordered the murder of his wife Plautilla, and her brother and child. Although the child was nominally his, he had hated his wife, who was thought to be unfaithful to him, and it is possible Plautilla’s child actually had a father other than Caracalla.
The next most egregious deed of Caracalla is the murder of his brother in his mother’s arms at a peace conference in which both brothers were supposed to be alone and unarmed. Dio Cassius puts the blame for this firmly in Caracalla’s court, but it is entirely possible, given the animosity between the siblings, that Caracalla’s claim that he was defending himself against an attempt on his life by Geta is true. Herodian says that both brothers repeatedly tried to murder each other with ‘every sort of intrigue,’ including poison. So even if Geta’s murder was planned and plotted by Caracalla, he may have considered it pre-emptive given that his brother was trying to do the same to him.
After the death of Geta, it becomes harder to defend Caracalla’s actions. He embarked on an orgy of slaughter of Geta’s family, friends and associates. Herodian says, ‘Geta’s friends and associates were immediately butchered, together with those who lived in his half of the Imperial palace. All his attendants were put to death too; not a single one was spared because of his age, not even the infants. Their bodies, after first being dragged about and subjected to every form of indignity, were placed in carts and taken out of the city; there they were piled up and burnt or simply thrown in the ditch.’
Caracalla may have become unhinged with guilt and grief at the death of his brother, or may have been shrewdly and ruthlessly securing his position, but in the modern day, no one would attempt to defend a mass slaughter. Put in the context of his time, though, it may have been no worse than the actions of other respected and not-so-respected rulers. The following are some examples of heinous acts of other Emperors and rulers of Rome that compare with Caracalla’s actions, with the disclaimer that some of these ‘facts’ may be malicious stories made up by hostile contemporaries.
1. Mass slaughter/proscriptions. Caracalla is reported to have slaughtered 20,000 of his brother’s adherents after Geta’s death, though this may have been exaggerated by his hostile biographers. Sulla’s proscriptions are estimated to have resulted in the deaths of between 1,000 and 9,000 of Rome’s upper classes. Gaius Marius, the great Roman general, at the start of his seventh consulship, began a hideous massacre of his enemies in Rome, and it was only his death seventeen days into his consulship that brought this to an end. Octavian/Augustus, as part of the Second Triumvirate, was responsible for a more modest 300 deaths in his proscriptions, but these deaths were aimed at silencing political rivals and acquiring wealth. Diocletian, the saviour of the Empire who ended the Crisis of the Third Century, massacred Christians, with the Great Persecution estimated to have resulted in the deaths of 3,500, although earlier sources put the number as high as 17,000 in a single month.
2. Uxoricide (I had to look this one up – it’s the act of killing one’s wife), fratricide, matricide, etc. Nero kicked Poppaea, his pregnant second wife, to death, and had his mother assassinated. Messalina was ordered to be executed for infidelity and treason, though this was on Narcissus’ instructions rather than Claudius’. As for the murder of other family members, Constantine the Great ordered the execution of his own son, Crispus, Nero poisoned his brother Britannicus, and even the founder of the city, Romulus, murdered his own brother.
3. Incest. If Caracalla did commit incest with his stepmother or mother, he was in good company in ancient Rome. Although incest was illegal, Caligula was rumoured to have sex with his sisters, Claudius married his niece, and Nero was thought to have sex with his mother.
Caracalla undoubtedly had positive character traits. He was a good general, waging a brutal but successful campaign in Scotland under his father’s oversight. He won victories against the Alemanni in Germania, and also the Parthians, which weakened the Empire that had been a thorn in Rome’s side for centuries sufficiently enough that it fell to the Sassanids. He is described as launching surprise attacks under the guise of peace negotiations, which Dio Cassius characterises as treachery, but others may see as good strategy. Whatever the motivations for his Constitutio Antoniniana, it was clearly welcomed by the poor who strived to be Roman citizen
s. Unfortunately, it weakened recruitment to the legions, since citizenship on discharge was one of the big attractions of serving your lengthy term. He was also cultured to an extent, learning to play the lyre later in life and able to quote Euripides at length. The Historia Augusta characterises the young Caracalla as intelligent, kind, generous and sensitive, although he became more reserved and stern in later life. He was physically in good shape, enjoying swimming in rough water and long horse rides. He enjoyed the company of the army and the common soldier.
But he also had many characteristics, and performed actions, that modern readers would consider reprehensible. My contention in writing this article is not to be an apologist for Caracalla’s actions, but to set them among those of his contemporaries. Even if the worst actions and motivations for them ascribed to him are true, which is a big if, does Caracalla deserve his reputation for being one of the most despised of all the Roman Emperors, and ‘the common enemy of all mankind’, when so many other Roman Emperors, both hated and loved, behaved similarly?
Dio Cassius on Caracalla
Adapted from an English translation of Dio’s Roman History, Book 78, by Earnest Cary PhD, 1914, taken from the LacusCurtius website.
Epitome of book LXXVIII I–II
After this Antoninus assumed the entire power; nominally, it is true, he shared it with his brother, but in reality he ruled alone from the very outset. With the enemy he came to terms, withdrew from their territory, and abandoned the forts; as for his own people, he dismissed some, including Papinian, the prefect, and killed others, among them Euodus his tutor, Castor, and his wife Plautilla, and her brother Plautius. Even in Rome itself he killed a man who was renowned for no other reason than his profession, which made him very conspicuous. I refer to Euprepes the charioteer. He killed him because he supported the opposite faction to the one he himself favoured. So Euprepes was put to death in his old age, after having been crowned in a vast number of horse-races; for he had won seven hundred and eighty-two crowns, a record equalled by no one else. As for his own brother, Antoninus had wished to slay him even while his father was still alive, but had been unable to do so at the time because of Severus, or later, on the march, because of the legions; for the troops felt very kindly toward the younger brother, especially as he resembled his father very closely in appearance. But when Antoninus got back to Rome, he killed him also. The two pretended to love and commend each other, but in all that they did they were diametrically opposed, and anyone could see that something terrible was bound to result from the situation. This was foreseen even before they reached Rome. For when the senate had voted that sacrifices should be offered on behalf of their concord both to the other gods and to Concord herself, and the assistants had got ready the victim to be sacrificed to Concord, and the consul had arrived to superintend the sacrifice, he could not find them and they could not find him, so they spent nearly the entire night searching for one another, and so the sacrifice could not be performed then. And on the next day two wolves went up to the Capitol, but were chased away from there; one of them was found and slain somewhere in the Forum and the other was killed later outside the pomerium. This incident also had reference to the brothers.
Antoninus wished to murder his brother at the Saturnalia, but was unable to do so; for his evil purpose had already become too obvious to remain hidden, and so there now ensued many sharp encounters between the two, each of whom felt that the other was plotting against him, and many defensive measures were taken on both sides. Since many soldiers and athletes, therefore, were guarding Geta, both abroad and at home, day and night, Antoninus induced his mother to summon them both, unattended, to her apartment, with a view to reconciling them. Geta was persuaded, and went in with him, but when they were inside, some centurions, previously instructed by Antoninus, rushed in a body and struck down Geta, who at the sight of them had run to his mother, hung about her neck and clung to her bosom and breasts, lamenting and crying: ‘Mother who bore me, mother who bore me, help! I am being murdered.’ And so she, tricked in this way, saw her son perishing in the most impious fashion in her arms, and received him at his death into the very womb, as it were, from where he had been born; for she was all covered with his blood, so that she took no notice of the wound she had received on her hand. But she was not permitted to mourn or weep for her son, though he had met so miserable an end before his time (he was only twenty-two years and nine months old), but, on the contrary, she was compelled to rejoice and laugh as though at some great good fortune, so closely were all her words, gestures, and changes of colour observed. Thus she alone, the Augusta, wife of the Emperor and mother of the Emperors, was not permitted to shed tears even in private over so great a sorrow.
Herodian on the death of Septimius Severus and the co-reign of Geta and Caracalla
Adapted from Herodian’s history of his own times, original translation J. Hart 1749.
Book III, Chapter xv and Book IV, Chapters i–iv
Antoninus, having now taken power, began to perform cruelty and murders. He put to death the physicians who had refused to murder his father as he ordered, together with all his own and Geta’s tutors, because they attempted to reconcile him with his brother. Nor did he allow one man of honour or authority among all his father’s servants to long survive their old master. By large bribes and larger promises, he tempted the principal officers to persuade the army to declare him sole Emperor, and by all kinds of artifices he plotted his brother’s ruin. But the soldiers would not comply. For remembering that Severus had educated both with equal care, they resolved to pay the same respect and obedience to both.
When Antoninus therefore found that he could not get what he wished from the army, he made a treaty with the barbarians and granted them peace. Having received hostages of their faith, he left the enemy territory and marched back hastily to his brother and mother. She, with the assistance of the chief officers and counsellors, her husband’s friends, tried with all her power to bring them to agreement. Antoninus, at length, when all opposed his plans, was prevailed upon to make a show of reconciliation, more out of necessity than choice, for his malice still remained in his breath, somewhat smothered, but not extinguished.
The two brothers, co-partners in Imperial affairs, agreed to embark their troops and hasten to Rome, carrying with them their father’s remains (for the corpse was burnt and the ashes enclosed in an alabaster urn with all kinds of spices and sweet smells), in order to inter them among the sacred tombs of the Emperors. They set sail with the army in triumph for their victories over the Britons, and having crossed the sea, landed on the opposite coast of Gaul.
This Third Book ends with the account of Severus’ death and the joint succession of his two sons to the Empire.
The memorable actions of Severus, during the whole eighteen years of his rule, have been related in the preceding book. His sons, both still very young, together with their mother, proceeded to Rome with haste, quarrelling frequently along the way. They did not stay in the same inn or use the same table, and took strict care when eating or drinking for fear that the other may have secretly mixed some poison in the food, or corrupted some of the other’s slaves to poison their master. These suspicions made them pursue their journey with greater speed, for they believed they might have better security in Rome, because, having divided the sovereignty, they imagined that in a spacious palace, greater than any city, and containing so many separate apartments, they should be able to live each as they pleased.
When they arrived in Rome, the people, with laurel in their hands, gave them a joyful reception, and the Senate addressed them in the usual manner. The two princes went first, clothed in Imperial Purple. Next came the consuls, bearing the urn in which were the remains of Severus. The senators and magistrates, after saluting the new Emperors, paid their respects to the urn. Then all in their respective ranks joined the procession and followed with the urn with great pomp to the temple, where it was deposited among the sacred monuments of Marcus and the
former Emperors.
After performing these ceremonies, as the law required, the two Emperors retired to the palace, which they divided between them, and took care to block all the private avenues and passages, and permitted none to enter or leave except by the public gates and entrances of the court. The brothers never met, except when they decided to appear together in public, and this was seldom.
The first thing they did was to perform the funeral rites for their father. It is a custom among the Romans to consecrate those of their Emperors who die and leave sons or designated successors, and they call this apotheosis. At this ceremony there is a big show of mourning, feasting and worshipping throughout the whole city. The corpse is buried the same as any other man, but in a very costly manner, with an image made of wax representing very closely the size and form of the deceased which lay on a magnificent bed of state made of ivory, with coverings richly embroidered with gold. The bed is raised and exposed to view in one of the galleries of the court. The image has a pale, languid countenance like a sick person, and is attended for most of the day by the most illustrious of people, for on the left side of the bed the members of the Senate sit in black mourning robes, and on the right, the women of quality, whose husbands or fathers are the principal officers of state. None of these ladies has any ornament of gold or jewels, but they are all dressed in plain white, and in every way resemble mourners. For seven days, the image lies in state, during which the physicians pay constant visits, approach the bed, inspect the fictitious patient, and every time declare that he grows worse and there appears no hope of recovery.
Emperor's Knife Page 34
