chapter 7 The War Comes Home: Rome and Romans during Civil Conflict in the Roman History

Alex Imrie

The murder of the emperor Pertinax by his praetorians on 28th March 193 CE shattered the fragile peace that had settled over Roman political life follow- ing the assassination of Commodus at the close of the preceding year (Cass. Dio 74[73].9.4–10.3).1 The Empire was faced with a second power vacuum within four months and, while the assassins of the final Antonine emperor seem to have had at least some inclination of whom they wanted to succeed Commodus, there was now no immediately apparent choice to assume the imperial throne.2 In the hours following Pertinax’ death, central Rome was to become the backdrop for an episode that Cassius Dio venomously labelled “a most disgraceful business and one unworthy of Rome” (74[73].11.3: ὅτε δὴ καὶ πρᾶγμα αἴσχιστόν τε καὶ ἀνάξιον τῆς Ῥώμης ἐγένετο).3 This was the so-called ‘auc- tion’ of the empire, in which an ambitious senator, Didius Julianus, bid against the Urban Prefect (and the slain Pertinax’ father-in-law) Flavius Sulpicianus for control of the Principate, with the praetorian guard as the deciding authority.4 Julianus was to win the contest with Sulpicianus, but his short reign was to be cast by Dio as an ignominious chapter in Rome’s history, ending with his murder shortly before the arrival of another claimant to the throne, Lucius Septimius Severus.5 In reading the Roman History for Julianus’ reign, however, it becomes clear that Dio was eager to demonstrate that neither he nor the ordo senatorius were the only parties to feel angered by the nature of the emperor’s rise or

1 Also see Hdn. 2.5. 2 For a brief outline of the circumstances surrounding Pertinax’ accession, see Ando 2012, 18–20; Champlin 1979. 3 All translations have been taken from Cary’s Loeb edition, some with minor adaptations. 4 Imrie 2018, 15–16; Bingham 2013, 43–44. 5 For a counterpoint to Dio’s version of events, see Leaning 1989, who notes the problem for Julianus’ legacy in featuring between Pertinax (whom Dio is openly more positive towards) and Septimius Severus, whose own propaganda was initially predicated on discrediting his rival in Rome.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/9789004434431_009 166 Imrie subsequent regime.6 Indeed, in his account of the period following Julianus’ accession, the author offers a vivid picture of the urban populace voicing their distaste for their new leader. In Dio’s version of events, while members of the Senate were careful to visit the new emperor and pay their respects on the morning after his confirmation, the wider populace was making its displeasure known. He describes how tensions finally flared later that day, as the emperor prepared to sacrifice to Janus in front of the senate-house; the urban plebs la- belled him a parricide and thief of the empire (74[73].13.3). Julianus’ initial re- sponse to this outburst was to offer the assembled mass some money, before ordering his troops to descend on the nearest bystanders when his proposal was loudly rebuffed. This act of violence only incited the mob further, accord- ing to Dio (74[73].13.4–5):

καὶ ὁ δῆμος ἔτι καὶ μᾶλλον ἐπιπαρωξύνθη, καὶ οὐκ ἐπαύσατο οὔτε τὸν Περτίνακα ποθῶν οὔτε τὸν Ἰουλιανὸν λοιδορῶν οὔτε τοὺς θεοὺς ἐπιβοώμενος οὔτε τοὶς στρατιώταις ἐπαρώμενος, ἀλλὰ καίτοι πολλοὶ πολλαχοῦ τῆς πόλεως καὶ τέλος ὅπλα ἁρπάσαντες συνέδραμον, ἐς τὸν ἱππόδρομον, κἀνταῦθα διετέλεσαν ἐς τὸν Νίγρον τὸν Πεσκέννιον καὶ τοὺς μετ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ Συρίᾳ ὄντας ἐπαμῦωαί σφισι δεόμενοι. καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο τῇ τε κραυγῇ καὶ τῷ λιμῷ τῇ τε ἀγρυπίᾳ κακωθέντες διελύθησαν καὶ ἡσυχίαν ἦγον, τὰς ἔξωθεν ἐλπίδας ἀναμένοντες.

That exasperated the populace all the more, and it did not stop express- ing its regret over Pertinax and abusing Julianus, invoking the gods and cursing the soldiers; but though many were wounded and killed in many parts of the city, they continued to resist. Finally, they seized arms and rushed together into the Circus, and there spent the night and the follow- ing day without food or drink, shouting and calling upon the remainder of the soldiers, especially Pescennius Niger and his followers in Syria, to come to their aid. Later, exhausted from all their shouting, by their fasting and their loss of sleep, they dispersed and kept quiet, awaiting the hoped- for deliverance from abroad.

Following this account of mass civil disobedience, Dio describes Julianus’ subsequent attempts to curry favour with the disgruntled urban population, primarily by frequenting the theatre regularly and throwing numerous ban- quets (74[73].14.1–2). What is striking about the senator’s testimony here, even accounting for the hand of Xiphilinus throughout this section of the Roman

6 While Dio himself often seems to conflate his own interests with those of the senatorial order, there remains some question on how far the two can be viewed together. For contrast- ing views, see Scott 2015; Davenport 2012.