Evaluate the contribution and impact of Tiberius (AD 14-37) as Princeps.

The contribution and impact of the reign of Tiberius (AD 14-37) is highly controversial and abounds in inconsistency. Considering his rule marked the succession of a Principate that was created specifically for Augustus, it would prove to be a crucial time for the Empire. His frugal rule carried the Empire into a period of stable economic and military security, yet the negative repercussions of his rule were not seen until Gaius’ time. Despite an initial transition as Princeps that was based on obligation, Tiberius strove to uphold the glory of Augustus’s rule and endeavored to maintain the prosperity of the Roman Empire. Essentially, it was his inability to preserve the fragile power balance between Princeps and the Senate as well as the development of the Praetorian Guard and the Maiestas trials that proved difficult for his accession and subsequent rule. Although his diplomatic skills and military expertise were extensive, and continued to preserve the Pax Romana, his solemn and reserved figure formed a reluctance to rule that would cause great detriment to the Empire in the long run. It is evident that Tiberius’s contribution as Princeps was an effective continuation of Augustan precedent, however the impressions he sought to forge for himself were affected both by poor choices and the deceitful influences of men that ensured his dishonorable posthumous reputation.

Despite Tiberius' initial reluctance to assume the power of the Princeps, he was a ruler of “considerable abilities” 1 , as he efficiently ran the Empire the discretion and skill. Suetonius comments on his various contributions; whilst public business was largely left to the magistrates, he cut down on expenses associated with public entertainment2 and safeguarded the Empire by decreasing the distance between military posts. As he did not declare any wars, he was able to devote time to the economic and social situation of the Empire; steadying the economy, strengthening trade and stabilizing a potential financial crisis by paying out 100,000,000 sesterces to restore bank credit.3 However, Tiberius has been criticized avoiding any construction within his reign, other than the Temple of Divus Augustus, which is depicted on various coins and inscriptions on stones that were quarried for other buildings.

Regarding Tiberius’s militarian movements, the Princeps actions concerning Germanicus’ hasty military determinations and costly campaigns emphasized his rigid adherence to the Augustan non- expansionist policy. He actively halted the campaigns due to justified economic reasons, and were Tacitus goes as far to explain that he “avoided military action where possible”4, Alston justifies that “Tiberius was threatened by over-whelming military force.”5

Whilst Tiberius was largely popular with the Army, his susceptibility to his destructive temperament eventually destabilized his relationship with the Senate. Despite his high aspirations for the administrational powers, his inimical nature, especially when compared to Augustus, impeded his success. Scullard describes Tiberius’ reign as a ‘wise continuation of the policy of Augustus, even if it lacked brilliance, [that] provided a valuable period of stability for the Principate’.6 Tiberius initially intended to co-operate and extend the Senate’s electoral and legislative functions, thus keeping with Augustus’ desire of establishing co-rulership, yet, the Senate was largely hesitant. Tiberius gave the impression that he would need assistance to rule the Empire effectively, yet by explaining that Tiberius “did not convince people of his Republicanism.”7 Tacitus accuses the Princeps of ulterior

1 E. T. Salmon A History of the Roman World. 2 Suetonius (Tiberius 34) 3 Cassius dio (58.21. 4-5) 4 Tacitus. The Annals of Imperial Rome. (II.26.3) 5 R. Alston. Aspects of Roman History, p.30 6 H.H Scullard. From Gracchi to Nero, p.278 7 Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome. (V)

motives; whether or not Tiberius had a genuine desire to rule the Empire to the best of his otherwise obvious ability. Before Tiberius’ reign, the Senate had become increasingly subservient to the gregarious Augustus, and they became increasingly so, which perhaps created the power vacuum which the Praetorian Guard swiftly occupied.

Tiberius’s empowerment of the Praetorian Guard resulted in detrimental effects to the empire. He positioned Aelius Sejanus as the head of the Praetorian prefects, “Socius Laborum (Partner of my Labours)”8, who Suetonius claims, eventually grew to an “uncomfortable level of power”9. Tiberius had statues of Sejanus erected in the city10 and when Tiberius retired to Capri in AD26 on the advice of his Socius Laborum, Sejanus was left in charge of the entire state mechanism and the city of Rome. Tiberius’s development of the Guard from a small, inconsequential auxiliary force into the Emperor's personal bodyguard, evolved into a formidably dominant force. Mackay comments that Tiberius ‘’allowed the situation in Rome to get out of control, both during the domination of Sejanus and during the terror that followed his downfall’’.11

With Sejanus at the fore of both the Senate and the Praetorian, the Guard was so powerful that it was "in danger of controlling the throne".12 Sejanus ordered the deaths of numerous Julians, and ultimately hoped to marry into the Claudian family through Tiberius’ granddaughter. When Sejanus, anticipating the succession to the throne, discovered that Tiberius was promoting Gaius as the next ruler, he plotted to murder Gaius. Tiberius exposed the plot and organized the downfall of Sejanus, however the equally malicious Naevius Suetonius Macro replaced him. Sejanus was condemned to death, and subsequently his statues were destroyed and his name was obliterated from the public records, evident in the coin from Augusta Bilbilis that has had his name erased.13 By the time Macro came to be leader of the Praetorian Guard, Tiberius had concreted the Principates reliance on this institution, regardless that Tiberius was rumoured to have assassinated Macro himself.14

The elevation of Sejanus and the Principates increasing dependence on the Praetorian Guard was essentially what catalyzed the terrible impact on Rome later in the Julio-Claudian period. However, another key event was the consequential development of the Maiestas trials, as it resulted in future Princeps to use it for negative reasons, and ultimately secured Tiberius’ enduring reputation as a vindictive ruler.

Tiberius’s development of a Maiestas trials lead the assembly became susceptible to a period of manipulation and political unrest, referred to by Tacitus as the “Reign of Terror”.15 These Maiestas Trials reflect Tiberius’ desire to operate a legislation of treason within the law, yet his interference meant that he is often attributed with spiteful adjudication and a Principate riddled with nepotism. By Tiberius’ rule of the Maiestas, it no longer simply defined offences against Rome, as it was broadened to protect the princeps against treachery and insult.16 According to Dudley, this became a corrupt ‘’odious system, destructive of the fabric of society’’17, whereby delatores (informers) would manufacture evidence and bribes to secure the conviction of a wealthy person to obtain their possessions.

Tacitus ultimately attempts to form the idea that both the frequency and quantity of the Maiestas trials increased as Tiberius’ reign progressed, culminating into the ‘reign of terror’. However, this

8 Ibid (IV, 2) 9 Suetonius (26) 10 Ibid (IV, 2) 11 C.S. Mackay, The Breakdown of the Roman Republic: From Oligarchy to Empire. 2009 12 Massie, Allan. Tiberius: The Memoirs of the Emperor. 13 Pilates and Sejanus. http://www.bethlehemstar.net/the-day-of-theusoss/pilate-and-sejanus/ 14 Laurens (1864) *Painting depicting Macro smothering Tiberius 15 Tacitus, Annals of Imperial Rome. (IV) 16 Ibid, p.284 from Walker, B. The Annals of Tacitus. 1952, p.86. 17 Donald R. Dudley, The World of Tacitus.

impact of Tiberius’ rule may have been wrongly attributed, considering that of the 18 trials that ended in executions, none of the condemned were prosecuted for personally vilifying Tiberius; most charges dealt with conspiracies. 18

Whilst Tiberius was, perhaps, not suited to life as a Roman Princeps, his ultimate contribution to the Empire was great. However, his effective administration, strong economy and maintenance of the Pax Romana is outweighed by the disastrous reliance on Sejanus and his reluctance to rule resulted in the Principate. His reluctance of character and political altercations with Sejanus proved detrimental, although he continued to uphold the majority of the Augustan administration. However, his ultimate influence upon the Principate was undeniable, and proved to have negative ramifications that would impact the future of the Principate succession.

Bibliography

R. Alston. Aspects of Roman History. Routledge. 1998.

Cassius Dio. Roman History Vol. VII . Loeb Classical Library edition, 192

Donald R. Dudley. The World of Tacitus. Martin Secker & Warburg Ltd. 1968.

Ibid. from Walker, B. The Annals of Tacitus. 1952

Laurens (1864) - Painting depicting Macro smothering Tiberius

C.S. Mackay, The Breakdown of the Roman Republic: From Oligarchy to Empire. 2009

Massie, Allan. Tiberius: The Memoirs of the Emperor. Carroll & Graf Pub. 1993.

Pilates and Sejanus. http://www.bethlehemstar.net/the-day-of-theusoss/pilate-and-sejanus/

E. T. Salmon A History of the Roman World. Routledge. 1990

H.H Scullard. From Gracchi to Nero. Routledge. 2010.

Suetonius [trans. Graves, Robert], The Twelve Caesars, Penguin, Middlesex, 1987

Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome, Penguin, London, 1989

Coin from Augusta Bilbilis showing Sejanus’ name erased on the right.

18 Ibid, p.143