Annals I.22, I.23

Thence arose a more furious outbreak, with more leaders of the mutiny. Vibulenus, a common soldier, was hoisted in front of the general's tribunal on the shoulders of the bystanders and addressed the excited throng, who eagerly awaited his intentions. "You have indeed," he said, "restored light and air to these innocent and most unhappy men, but who restores to my brother his life, or my brother to myself? Sent to you by the German army in our common cause, he was last night butchered by the gladiators whom the general keeps and arms for the destruction of his soldiers. Answer, Blaesus, where you have flung aside the corpse? Even an enemy grudges not burial. When, with embraces and tears, I have sated my grief, order me also to be slain, provided only that when we have been destroyed for no crime, but only because we consulted the good of the legions, we may be buried by these men around me."

He inflamed their excitement by weeping and smiting his breast and face with his hands. Then, hurling aside those who bore him on their shoulders, and impetuously flinging himself at the feet of one man after another, he roused such dismay and indignation that some of the soldiers put fetters on the gladiators who were among the number of Blaesus's slaves, others did the like to the rest of his household, while a third party hurried out to look for the corpse. And had it not quickly been known that no corpse was found, that the slaves, when tortures were applied, denied the murder, and that the man never had a brother, they would have been on the point of destroying the general. As it was, they thrust out the tribunes and the camp-prefect; they plundered the baggage of the fugitives, and they killed a centurion, Lucilius, to whom, with soldiers' humour, they had given the name "Bring another," because when he had broken one vine-stick on a man's back, he would call in a loud voice for another and another. The rest sheltered themselves in concealment, and one only was detained, Clemens Julius, whom the soldiers considered a fit person to carry messages, from his ready wit. Two legions, the eighth and the fifteenth, were actually drawing swords against each other, the former demanding the death of a centurion, whom they nicknamed Sirpicus, while the men of the fifteenth defended him, but the soldiers of the ninth interposed their entreaties, and when these were disregarded, their menaces.

A new leader of the mutiny, Vibulenus, arises and falsely accuses Blaesus of killing his brother. The situation falls into greater chaos with the killing of a centurion and the torture of Blaesus' slaves. The soldiers nearly fight each other.

The mutiny already had a leader with Percennius. Clearly, some soldiers were not happy with how things were being handled. Percennius had clear demands and was communicating them to the emperor through Blaesus. The soldiers hadn't gotten anything in return except a few freed prisoners. Blaesus still had authority and legitimacy over the soldiers and was stalling.

Vibulenus wanted to shatter that authority and legitimacy. Blaesus had shown himself to be honorable with his offer of suicide. Additionally, Blaesus was able to appear to be facilitating by communicating Percennius' demands. Vibulenus' accusation and demands are a perfect attack on this. Vibulenus claims that Blaesus' slaves killed his brother and he wants his brother's body for burial. Blaesus' honor is now challenged and, with no actual brother, it is impossible for Blaesus to comply.

Again, through not important to the story at all, Tacitus mentions a leader, Lucilius, who was too strict and gets killed. All the other centurions are spared except Clemens Julius who is useful and Sirpicus who is on the bubble apparently.

As I said before, keeping Blaesus around had its advantages. Blaesus maintained order. With his power severed, the legions almost immediately take up arms against each other.

Annals I.20, I.21

Meanwhile the companies which previous to the mutiny had been sent to Nauportus to make roads and bridges and for other purposes, when they heard of the tumult in the camp, tore up the standards, and having plundered the neighbouring villages and Nauportus itself, which was like a town, assailed the centurions who restrained them with jeers and insults, last of all, with blows. Their chief rage was against Aufidienus Rufus, the camp-prefect, whom they dragged from a waggon, loaded with baggage, and drove on at the head of the column, asking him in ridicule whether he liked to bear such huge burdens and such long marches. Rufus, who had long been a common soldier, then a centurion, and subsequently camp-prefect, tried to revive the old severe discipline, inured as he was to work and toil, and all the sterner because he had endured.

On the arrival of these troops the mutiny broke out afresh, and straggling from the camp they plundered the neighbourhood. Blaesus ordered a few who had conspicuously loaded themselves with spoil to be scourged and imprisoned as a terror to the rest; for, even as it then was, the commander was still obeyed by the centurions and by all the best men among the soldiers. As the men were dragged off, they struggled violently, clasped the knees of the bystanders, called to their comrades by name, or to the company, cohort, or legion to which they respectively belonged, exclaiming that all were threatened with the same fate. At the same time they heaped abuse on the commander; they appealed to heaven and to the gods, and left nothing undone by which they might excite resentment and pity, alarm and rage. They all rushed to the spot, broke open the guardhouse, unbound the prisoners, and were in a moment fraternising with deserters and men convicted on capital charges.

A company who had been sent to build bridges joins the mutany and plunders a city. They also abused their camp-prefect. When the company returns, disorder intensifies and Blaesus must punish some soliders. The soldiers decide to liberate the punished.

In the first passage, Tacitus takes the time to mention a poor leader, Aufidienus Rufus. Despite being experienced, he was too strict and, thus, the company rebelled and tortured him. Here Rufus is the opposite of Blaesus, a man who was too lenient. What makes a great leader then? Well, in Tacitus' Agricola IV, he states that Agricola "was soon mellowed by reason and experience, and he retained from his learning that most difficult of lessons - moderation." Rufus may have been experienced, but he only learned extremism from it.

Amazingly, when the mutany again intensifies, Blaesus still has some controlover it. This dissolves quickly as they free prisoners . Still, Blaesus remains unharmed by the mutany. There is still a chain of command, though weakening rapidly. Perhaps the soldiers know they need Blaesus. He does maintain some sort of order and he is their channel of communication to the emperor.

Annals I.18, I.19

The throng applauded from various motives, some pointing with indignation to the marks of the lash, others to their grey locks, and most of them to their threadbare garments and naked limbs. At, last, in their fury they went so far as to propose to combine the three legions into one. Driven from their purpose by the jealousy with which every one sought the chief honour for his own legion, they turned to other thoughts, and set up in one spot the three eagles, with the ensigns of the cohorts. At the same time they piled up turf and raised a mound, that they might have a more conspicuous meeting-place. Amid the bustle Blaesus came up. He upbraided them and held back man after man with the exclamation, "Better imbrue your hands in my blood: it will be less guilt to slay your commander than it is to be in revolt from the emperor. Either living I will uphold the loyalty of the legions, or pierced to the heart I will hasten on your repentance."

None the less however was the mound piled up, and it was quite breast high when, at last overcome by his persistency, they gave up their purpose. Blaesus, with the consummate tact of an orator, said, "It is not through mutiny and tumult that the desires of the army ought to be communicated to Caesar, nor did our soldiers of old ever ask so novel a boon of ancient commanders, nor have you yourselves asked it of the Divine Augustus. It is far from opportune that the emperor's cares, now in their first beginning, should be aggravated. If, however, you are bent upon attempting in peace what even after your victory in the civil wars you did not demand, why, contrary to the habit of obedience, contrary to the law of discipline, do you meditate violence? Decide on sending envoys, and give them instructions in your presence." It was carried by acclamation that the son of Blaesus, one of the tribunes, should undertake the mission, and demand for the soldiers release from service after sixteen years. He was to have the rest of their message when the first part had been successful. After the young man departure there was comparative quiet, but there was an arrogant tone among the soldiers, to whom the fact that their commander's son was pleading their common cause clearly showed that they had wrested by compulsion what they had failed to obtain by good behaviour.

The legions begin comings together and form a plan for a merger. Their commander, Blaesus, offers his own life to them. They ignore the request. Blaesus agrees to communicate part of their demands to Tiberius.

Here the legions act very rationally and display that they have real, concrete demands. Tacitus at first stated that they had no good reason to revolt except "profit' and belittles them by saying the are seduced by the rhetoric of an actor (I.16). Blaesus, who Tacitus claims is a great orator, offers them his life.

The legions aren't out for blood and aren't rebelling for no reason. They ignore Blaesus completely. They want a denarius a day and termination after the sixteenth year with nor recall. Blaesus basically fails. He is forced to concede to communicating the demands. This only restores a mild amount of order and shows the soldiers that rebellion, not humility, works.

Annals I.17

At last, when there were others ready to be abettors of a mutiny, he asked, in the tone of a demagogue, why, like slaves, they submitted to a few centurions and still fewer tribunes. "When," he said, "will you dare to demand relief, if you do not go with your prayers or arms to a new and yet tottering throne? We have blundered enough by our tameness for so many years, in having to endure thirty or forty campaigns till we grow old, most of us with bodies maimed by wounds. Even dismissal is not the end of our service, but, quartered under a legion's standard we toil through the same hardships under another title. If a soldier survives so many risks, he is still dragged into remote regions where, under the name of lands, he receives soaking swamps or mountainous wastes. Assuredly, military service itself is burdensome and unprofitable; ten ases a day is the value set on life and limb; out of this, clothing, arms, tents, as well as the mercy of centurions and exemptions from duty have to be purchased. But indeed of floggings and wounds, of hard winters, wearisome summers, of terrible war, or barren peace, there is no end. Our only relief can come from military life being entered on under fixed conditions, from receiving each the pay of a denarius, and from the sixteenth year terminating our service. We must be retained no longer under a standard, but in the same camp a compensation in money must be paid us. Do the praetorian cohorts, which have just got their two denarii per man, and which after sixteen years are restored to their homes, encounter more perils? We do not disparage the guards of the capital; still, here amid barbarous tribes we have to face the enemy from our tents."

Here Percennius, the leaders of the mutany, presents the soldiers' complaints. They want more pay. But what exactly happened?

Let's go back it time a little. The year is now AD 14. Augustus just died and Tiberius just became emperor. We don't know when exactly the mutany takes place. As we just read, Tiberius was taking time claiming the full powers of emperor, for whatever reasons, fake or real. The event could have easily hastened Tiberius' decission to ascend.

But if we go back in time a little to AD 6-9, we find there was a rebellion in Illyricum. In fact, some call it the Great Illyrian Revolt. These soldiers saw hard action. Additionally, Tiberius and Germanicus both fought there as well, so they know the land, the war and the soldiers.

The most important line in the passage is "under the name of lands, he receives soaking swamps and mountainous wastes." Under Augustus, veterans were receiving nice Italian lands. Apparently, Augustus ran out of good land and started assigning provincial land in Illyricum. The policy was likely Augustus' and now the soldiers are appealing to Tiberius.

It's important to note that the soldiers are not looking to overthrow Tiberius. In fact, since Tiberius fought with them, they may be loyal to him. They just want higher pay and better lands.

Annals I.16

This was the state of affairs at Rome when a mutiny broke out in the legions of Pannonia, which could be traced to no fresh cause except the change of emperors and the prospect it held out of license in tumult and of profit from a civil war. In the summer camp three legions were quartered, under the command of Junius Blaesus, who on hearing of the death of Augustus and the accession of Tiberius, had allowed his men a rest from military duties, either for mourning or rejoicing. This was the beginning of demoralization among the troops, of quarreling, of listening to the talk of every pestilent fellow, in short, of craving for luxury and idleness and loathing discipline and toil. In the camp was one Percennius, who had once been a leader of one of the theatrical factions, then became a common soldier, had a saucy tongue, and had learnt from his applause of actors how to stir up a crowd. By working on ignorant minds, which doubted as to what would be the terms of military service after Augustus, this man gradually influenced them in conversations at night or at nightfall, and when the better men had dispersed, he gathered round him all the worst spirits.

There is rebellion in Pannonia (near today's Hungary). The forces under Junius Blaesus want more pay and are rallied by a man named Percennius.

Tacitus is going to compare two rebellions- this one in Pannonia and another Germany. Again, we are going to be looking at the lineage. Drusus, Tiberius' real son, is going to put down Pannonia. Germanicus, the adopted son who everyone loves, is going to put down Germany. We'll see how each one handles the situation. Though Tacitus tried to claim that Drusus was getting dissed and the path was already paved for Germanicus to become emperor, it is likely that Drusus still had a pretty good chance of becoming emperor.

This passage has one line that is fiarly clever. "....on hearing of the death of Augustus and the accession of Tiberius, had allowed his men a rest from military duties, either for mourning or rejoicing..." Though, on first glance, one assumes it is the mourning of the death of Augustus and the rejoicing of the accession of Tiberius, it is still written with some ambiguity. Were some happy Augustus was dead? Were some sad Tiberius has accended? That would certianly explain some motiviation for the rebellion.

Annals I.15

It was then for the first time that the elections were transferred from the Campus Martius to the Senate. For up to that day, though the most important rested with the emperor's choice, some were settled by the partialities of the tribes. Nor did the people complain of having the right taken from them, except in mere idle talk, and the Senate, being now released from the necessity of bribery and of degrading solicitations, gladly upheld the change, Tiberius confining himself to the recommendation of only four candidates who were to be nominated without rejection or canvass. Meanwhile the tribunes of the people asked leave to exhibit at their own expense games to be named after Augustus and added to the Calendar as the Augustales. Money was, however, voted from the exchequer, and though the use of the triumphal robe in the circus was prescribed, it was not allowed them to ride in a chariot. Soon the annual celebration was transferred to the praetor, to whose lot fell the administration of justice between citizens and foreigners.


Some election powers went from the Emperor and partialities of the tribes (the tribunes of the people or plebian representatives) to the Senate.

In this seemingly boring passage, Tacitus has actually made a very strong statement. The Campus Martius is the “field of Mars,” which was an area of northwest of Rome. In Tiberius’ time, it was filled with public temples and public baths. So, Campus Martius refers to the “public” defined as both the tribunes of the people and Tiberius (being their Princep or “first citizen”).

But, it’s a little darker than that. The historian Livy uses the same phrase “from the Campus Martius to the Senate” in his History of Rome (32.7). Back then, the Campus Martius was also public, but was mainly a bunch of fields. The military would use it for training, thus the “fields of Mars.” Livy also talks about elections under the Republic. He tells of how the general Scipio Africanus gets his election vetoed by the tribunes of the people. The decision is differed to the Senate to overturn it. “Campus Martius” in this case is used to refer to the public and the military.

Why refer back to a time when the Senate had power? To show what they had become. Tacitus says they are now reduced to solicitations to the tribunes and the Emperor. Additionally, Tacitus highlights Tiberius as a military force. The “field of Mars” is the public and Emperor with show of brute force while the Senate is a bunch of intellectuals.

But, Tacitus also mentions that they just gave up their power to the Senate, surprisingly. Tiberius went from determining all elections to only four and the tribunes of the people because completely powerless.

Annals I.14

Great too was the Senate's sycophancy to Augusta. Some would have her styled "parent"; others "mother of the country," and a majority proposed that to the name of Caesar should be added "son of Julia." The emperor repeatedly asserted that there must be a limit to the honours paid to women, and that he would observe similar moderation in those bestowed on himself, but annoyed at the invidious proposal, and indeed regarding a woman's elevation as a slight to himself, he would not allow so much as a lictor to be assigned her, and forbade the erection of an altar in memory of her adoption, and any like distinction. But for Germanicus Caesar he asked pro-consular powers, and envoys were despatched to confer them on him, and also to express sympathy with his grief at the death of Augustus. The same request was not made for Drusus, because he was consul elect and present at Rome. Twelve candidates were named for the praetorship, the number which Augustus had handed down, and when the Senate urged Tiberius to increase it, he bound himself by an oath not to exceed it.

So, now, despite Tacitus’ previous claim that Livia was horrible to the state (see I.10), the Senate felt like sucking up to her. To what end? Well, none, because despite Livia being manipulative, she apparantly couldn’t get Tiberius to what she wanted. Germanicus, Tiberius’ adopted son, is given a proconsul powers and Drusus, Tiberius’ real son, is given nothing.

Suspiciously, the whole mother-son relationship between Livia and Tiberius parallels the future adventures of Agrippina the Younger and Emperor Nero too closely. In both of Tacitus’ tales, a manipulative mother (Livia, Agrippina) poisons the emperor (Augustus, Claudius) to put her ungrateful son (Tiberius, Nero) in power who kills the “true” heir (Postumus, Britannicus).

Tacitus is all over the map on Tiberius’ motivations. Is he doing as he pleases, is he doing Augustus’ wishes or is he doing what he needs to do to survive? Dissing his mom against the wishes of the Senate seems to be his wishes. Dissing his son and advancing Germanicus reaffirms Augustus’ wishes. In truth, he’s probably just doing what he can to politically survive. He has to show humility in his line and strengthen the opposition. Tiberius is a Claudian and, while Germanicus is too, he is married to a Julian (Agrippina the Elder). Germanicus and Agrippina's children (i.e. Caligula) represent true unity of the Julians and Claudians while Drusus does not.

Once again, we see that the Emperor is not all powerful

Annals I.13

Next, Lucius Arruntius, who differed but little from the speech of Gallus, gave like offence, though Tiberius had no old grudge against him, but simply mistrusted him, because he was rich and daring, had brilliant accomplishments, and corresponding popularity. For Augustus, when in his last conversations he was discussing who would refuse the highest place, though sufficiently capable, who would aspire to it without being equal to it, and who would unite both the ability and ambition, had described Marcus Lepidus as able but contemptuously indifferent, Gallus Asinius as ambitious and incapable, Lucius Arruntius as not unworthy of it, and, should the chance be given him, sure to make the venture. About the two first there is a general agreement, but instead of Arruntius some have mentioned Cneius Piso, and all these men, except Lepidus, were soon afterwards destroyed by various charges through the contrivance of Tiberius. Quintus Haterius too and Mamercus Scaurus ruffled his suspicious temper, Haterius by having said - "How long, Caesar, will you suffer the State to be without a head?" Scaurus by the remark that there was a hope that the Senate's prayers would not be fruitless, seeing that he had not used his right as Tribune to negative the motion of the Consuls. Tiberius instantly broke out into invective against Haterius; Scaurus, with whom he was far more deeply displeased, he passed over in silence. Wearied at last by the assembly's clamorous importunity and the urgent demands of individual Senators, he gave way by degrees, not admitting that he undertook empire, but yet ceasing to refuse it and to be entreated. It is known that Haterius having entered the palace to ask pardon, and thrown himself at the knees of Tiberius as he was walking, was almost killed by the soldiers, because Tiberius fell forward, accidentally or from being entangled by the suppliant's hands. Yet the peril of so great a man did not make him relent, till Haterius went with entreaties to Augusta, and was saved by her very earnest intercessions.

After Gallus calls bullshit on Tiberius, a few more men join in. Tactitus' Senate sycophancy argument seems to be pretty weak. So, in addition to Gallus, we have Cneius Piso, Quintus Haterius, Mamercus Scaurus and, perhaps most importantly, Lucius Arruntius. Arrunitius is named by Augustus as a man who is both capable and ambitious. Others too say Piso is the man.

Oddly, though Tacitus claims Tiberius is most angry at Scaurus and has the most to fear from Arruntius and Piso, he lashes out at Haterius. Haterius crumbles and physically begs for forgiveness. Why would Tiberius do this?

Well, it is pretty clear that Tacitus' claim that the Senate was rolling over is wrong. Tiberius has enemies and several at that. He does not go for the strong ones, though. Gallus is outspoken, which may be foolish, but may be somewhat safe if he has support. Arruntius and Piso, being bright, are probably even stronger and safer than Gallus. Even Scaurus, a nobody, gets away with trashing Tiberius.

This safety, though, seems to be only temporary. Tacitus already blows the secret that Gallus, Arruntius and Piso are dealt with.

Annals I.12

Meantime, while the Senate stooped to the most abject supplication, Tiberius happened to say that although he was not equal to the whole burden of the State, yet he would undertake the charge of whatever part of it might be intrusted to him. Thereupon Asinius Gallus said, "I ask you, Caesar, what part of the State you wish to have intrusted to you?" Confounded by the sudden inquiry he was silent for a few moments; then, recovering his presence of mind, he replied that it would by no means become his modesty to choose or to avoid in a case where he would prefer to be wholly excused. Then Gallus again, who had inferred anger from his looks, said that the question had not been asked with the intention of dividing what could not be separated, but to convince him by his own admission that the body of the State was one, and must be directed by a single mind. He further spoke in praise of Augustus, and reminded Tiberius himself of his victories, and of his admirable deeds for many years as a civilian. Still, he did not thereby soften the emperor's resentment, for he had long been detested from an impression that, as he had married Vipsania, daughter of Marcus Agrippa, who had once been the wife of Tiberius, he aspired to be more than a citizen, and kept up the arrogant tone of his father, Asinius Pollio.

Here Tacitus is really putting an exclamation point on the fake humility of Tiberius. Gallus, a loudmouth and the husband of Tiberius' ex-wife, confronts the humility of Tiberius. He urges Tiberius to take some power. This angers both the Senate and Tiberius.

What is going on here? Does Tiberius really not want power? Is the Senate mad because Gallus is telling Tiberius to take power? Does Gallus want Tiberius to take power?

To start, Gallus is a Senator and occasional consul. He has no reason to want Tiberius to have more power, yet he asks him to. Plus, they kind of have a personal feud over Vipsania. Still, he requests it.

Let's take a look at Gallus' first question. He says, "I ask you, Caesar, what part of the State you wish to have intrusted to you?" The question is paradoxical. It's like asking if God can create a rock he cannot lift. The Emperor has the power to choose his role. This implies he is already an autocrat with all the power. How can a man with limitless power limit his power? Tacitus, through Gallus' words, is highlighting how there is no going back from tyrany. A tyrant has power and it is just not possible for him to abdicate this power.

Gallus is calling bullshit on Tiberius. He is really claiming that Tiberius is not really humble because its impossible for him to be humble. He's the princip and let's call a spade a spade. Tiberius is angry at Gallus because he is called out and the rest of the Senate is angry at Gallus because they hope that maybe, just maybe, Tiberius will actually abdicate power.

Gallus' protest is also foreshadowing. Gallus is eventually arrested by Tiberius and starves in jail awaiting trail. A man that told Tiberius to take power, for whatever reason, got his wish.

Annals I.11

After this all prayers were addressed to Tiberius. He, on his part, urged various considerations, the greatness of the empire, his distrust of himself. "Only," he said, "the intellect of the Divine Augustus was equal to such a burden. Called as he had been by him to share his anxieties, he had learnt by experience how exposed to fortune's caprices was the task of universal rule. Consequently, in a state which had the support of so many great men, they should not put everything on one man, as many, by uniting their efforts would more easily discharge public functions." There was more grand sentiment than good faith in such words. Tiberius's language even in matters which he did not care to conceal, either from nature or habit, was always hesitating and obscure, and now that he was struggling to hide his feelings completely, it was all the more involved in uncertainty and doubt. The Senators, however, whose only fear was lest they might seem to understand him, burst into complaints, tears, and prayers. They raised their hands to the gods, to the statue of Augustus, and to the knees of Tiberius, when he ordered a document to be produced and read. This contained a description of the resources of the State, of the number of citizens and allies under arms, of the fleets, subject kingdoms, provinces, taxes, direct and indirect, necessary expenses and customary bounties. All these details Augustus had written with his own hand, and had added a counsel, that the empire should be confined to its present limits, either from fear or out of jealousy.

Tiberius takes the stage again and claims that he doesn't want the full power of Emperor. Only Divine Augustus could possibly handle the authority, he claims. The humility of a new leader is a reoccurring theme in Tacitus. Tacitus mentioned Tiberius' humility in I.7 with more detail as well. Of course, it's all bull. The leader claims a return to republican ways, but ends up acting dictatorial (i.e. the "uniter not a divider' speech). Tacitus is setting the story up with some foreshadowing.

Oddly, though, Tacitus speaks of Tiberius not being able to hide his uncertainty, as if he actually might believe that republican rule is best, or that he just isn't strong enough personally to take control. Could Tiberius really be a reluctant ruler? Well, if he were, it would certainly go against all the grooming by Augustus and the alleged plotting by him and Livia and the murder of Postumus. It seems pretty unlikely. Tiberius' rise was a long, planned ordeal. He knew for a decade he was next in line and was paraded around as the next ruler. On top of this, he was expected to be the ruler by the Claudian faction. Despite Tacitus' claims, uncertainty did not seem to be a real part of the time.

The last two sentences are quite interesting. Augustus first asked for a census to be read of all of Rome's citizens and property. I guess Augustus wanted people to know the state of affairs when he died as a benchmark or so his memory wouldn't be tainted if Tiberius screwed up. Augustus then recommends that there be a maintenance of Pax Romana. Keep the borders of Rome stable. The Julio-Claudians, Tiberius especially, listen to Augustus for the most part.

Annals I.10

It was said, on the other hand, "that filial duty and State necessity were merely assumed as a mask. It was really from a lust of sovereignty that he had excited the veterans by bribery, had, when a young man and a subject, raised an army, tampered with the Consul's legions, and feigned an attachment to the faction of Pompeius. Then, when by a decree of the Senate he had usurped the high functions and authority of Praetor when Hirtius and Pansa were slain - whether they were destroyed by the enemy, or Pansa by poison infused into a wound, Hirtius by his own soldiers and Caesar's treacherous machinations - he at once possessed himself of both their armies, wrested the consulate from a reluctant Senate, and turned against the State the arms with which he had been intrusted against Antonius. Citizens were proscribed, lands divided, without so much as the approval of those who executed these deeds. Even granting that the deaths of Cassius and of the Bruti were sacrifices to a hereditary enmity (though duty requires us to waive private feuds for the sake of the public welfare), still Pompeius had been deluded by the phantom of peace, and Lepidus by the mask of friendship. Subsequently, Antonius had been lured on by the treaties of Tarentum and Brundisium, and by his marriage with the sister, and paid by his death the penalty of a treacherous alliance. No doubt, there was peace after all this, but it was a peace stained with blood; there were the disasters of Lollius and Varus, the murders at Rome of the Varros, Egnatii, and Juli." The domestic life too of Augustus was not spared. "Nero's wife had been taken from him, and there had been the farce of consulting the pontiffs, whether, with a child conceived and not yet born, she could properly marry. There were the excesses of Quintus Tedius and Vedius Pollio; last of all, there was Livia, terrible to the State as a mother, terrible to the house of the Caesars as a stepmother. No honour was left for the gods, when Augustus chose to be himself worshipped with temples and statues, like those of the deities, and with flamens and priests. He had not even adopted Tiberius as his successor out of affection or any regard to the State, but, having thoroughly seen his arrogant and savage temper, he had sought glory for himself by a contrast of extreme wickedness." For, in fact, Augustus, a few years before, when he was a second time asking from the Senate the tribunitian power for Tiberius, though his speech was complimentary, had thrown out certain hints as to his manners, style, and habits of life, which he meant as reproaches, while he seemed to excuse. However, when his obsequies had been duly performed, a temple with a religious ritual was decreed him.


Tacitus uses the passive voice to spew out another long opinion on Augustus. This one is much more negative, thus there is even more need for him to say that someone else saying it. It is almost comical how long the speech is, yet the passive voice is used like it was general hearsay. Who is saying this is, of course, not revealed.

Tacitus quickly sums up Augustus’ rise to power, which is incredibly complex. Originally, we have a divide between the military-backed Julius and the Republic-backed Pompey, in which Julius is the victor. Julius was assassinated by Brutus and Cassius with the help of leftover factions of Pompey. After the assassination, Brutus and Cassius flee and take up arms in Greece. Mark Antony was first consul, but steps down and takes up arms against the Republic in Gaul and northern Italy. Hirtius and Pansa, who are Julians, control the armies of the Republic. Augustus as consul is able to ally himself with both Hirtius and Pansa and the leftover factions of Pompey. Hirtius and Pansa die leaving Augustus in control of the Republic’s army against Mark Antony. Augustus is able to make peace with Mark Antony and defeats Brutus and Cassius’ forces in Greece. Augustus then focuses on Pompey’s son’s forces in southern Italy. He makes peace with Lepidus and Mark Antony, forming the second Triumverate, and then defeats Mark Antony to become Emperor.

It is interesting that in this version, Tacitus attempts to show that Augustus achieved his throne through trickery, treachery and selfishness. Augustus tricked the Pompey Republican faction into supporting him (clearly Augustus was no Republican). He then murders the heads of the Julian faction. Defeating Brutus and Cassius is nothing more than a personal vendetta. He tricks Lepidus into peace and catches both Pompey’s son and Mark Antony off guard with promises of peace as well. There is no self-preservation, no protection of the state and no luck in this version of Augustus’ rise.

There is peace, according to Tacitus, except for defeats against German barbarians in 16 BC (Lollius) and AD 9 (Varus). He also mentions a series of murders against three families (Varros, Egnatii, and Juli) and the execesses of Quintus Tedius and Vedius Pollio. Historians have no idea what Tacitus is talking about with these family murders and excesses. Again, there is no mention of the many conspiracies again Augustus. Tacitus wraps things up by, once again, bashing Livia and claiming Augustus wanted to be worshiped (a little Caligula in Augustus?)

The final insult is a claim that Tiberius was chosen to rule not for the good of the State (as publically claimed) or because of manipulation from Livia (as Tacitus had previously claimed). Of course, in truth, Augustus probably chose Tiberius to rule to placate the Claudian factions and stay in power longer. But, Tacitus’ now claims that Augustus did it because he knew Tiberius would be a bad ruler and it would make him look better. Right.

Annals I.9

Then followed much talk about Augustus himself, and many expressed an idle wonder that the same day marked the beginning of his assumption of empire and the close of his life, and, again, that he had ended his days at Nola in the same house and room as his father Octavius. People extolled too the number of his consulships, in which he had equalled Valerius Corvus and Caius Marius combined, the continuance for thirty-seven years of the tribunitian power, the title of Imperator twenty-one times earned, and his other honours which had either frequently repeated or were wholly new. Sensible men, however, spoke variously of his life with praise and censure. Some said "that dutiful feeling towards a father, and the necessities of the State in which laws had then no place, drove him into civil war, which can neither be planned nor conducted on any right principles. He had often yielded to Antonius, while he was taking vengeance on his father's murderers, often also to Lepidus. When the latter sank into feeble dotage and the former had been ruined by his profligacy, the only remedy for his distracted country was the rule of a single man. Yet the State had been organized under the name neither of a kingdom nor a dictatorship, but under that of a prince. The ocean and remote rivers were the boundaries of the empire; the legions, provinces, fleets, all things were linked together; there was law for the citizens; there was respect shown to the allies. The capital had been embellished on a grand scale; only in a few instances had he resorted to force, simply to secure general tranquillity."

Here Tacitus gives another apology of Augustus. Tacitus seems to have conflicting feelings about Augustus or feels he must tread softly when speaking about him. Tacitus hates tyrants, which Augustus most certainly is. He also hates too much praising (is 21 times imperator too many?). Yet, he justifies tyranny in the face of chaos. Of course, this has always been the case for tyranny. Sulla and Julius also claimed they were protecting the state (as did Hitler and Stalin). But, Tacitus claims that Augustus was forced into tyranny by Lepidus' mental feebleness and Mark Antony's extravagance. Yeah, right.

I know I keep harping on this, but Tacitus' story is just illogical. If Augustus took control for domestic tranquillity and achieved transquility, then his tyranny is no longer justified and the Republic ought to be restored in the tradition of Sulla and other dictators. Tacitus clearly is a fan of the Republic, but does not blame Augustus for not restoring it despite claiming domestic tranquility. Instead, he blames Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero for their tyranny during supposedly less tranquil times. It makes no sense. According to Tacitus, Augustus had tranquility, but his tyranny was okay. The next four emperors had less tranquility, but their tyranny was not okay.

In truth, though, we know that Tacitus is lying. Augustus never achieved tranquility. This presents a rub to the idea that tyranny is okay if it brings tranquility. On the one hand, a lack of tranquility justifies Augustus' continued tyranny, but on the other hand, if Augustus never achieved tranquility, what was the point of taking over?

This is probably why Tacitus has been lying about everyone loving Augustus. He needs tranquility to justify Augustus' tyranny. It appears even Tacitus is scared to trash Augustus. But, of course, by justifying Augustus' tyranny, he shatters his argument for denouncing Tiberius, Caligula, Claudius and Nero's tyrannies.