Introduction
Ancient History GCSE provides an introduction to the ancient world. It gives you the opportunity to study some of the most fascinating characters in western history. These are the men and women who have helped to shape the way we see the world, and whose lives have a strong relevance to the modern world. The sources for these characters contain many interesting stories, but the task of the ancient historian is to study these stories and try to separate fact from fiction. The fact that there are limited sources requires you to think carefully about the meaning of each source, and work to a logical conclusion. This course encourages the discipline of creativity which is so essential for a historian, and which can be applied in all areas of later life.
In each unit there is a choice of options. You study one option from each unit. This book follows the way content is outlined in the specification. Each option has a section on context which explains the background understanding you will need to study the option. The option content is then split into themes, which are explained in detail. Then there is a section at the end of each option that looks at the sources that we have and considers what their aims may have been, how they relate to other sources, and how reliable they are likely to be.

Unit A031: The Greeks at war
Option 1: The Greeks defend themselves, 499–479 BC
Introduction
In the early years of the Fifth century BC, the Greeks found themselves under attack from their eastern neighbours, the Persians. The Persian Empire had expanded greatly during the previous century, and the next natural step for the Persians was to move into Europe.
Much of our knowledge of this period comes from the historian and researcher Herodotus. He researched and recorded the growth of the Persian Empire, and his account – some nine books in length – comes to a grand finale with the various battles between the Greeks and the Persians. In the first century BC, the Roman Statesman and Orator Cicero called him the ‘Father of History’. Although he was not the first person to write History, he is the first known historian to look at a more than local history. His achievement was considerable, and his work stands at the beginning of the subject which we call History today.
It is important to remember when studying this period that the Greeks were not a single people: they loved their independence, and lived in relatively small city-states or poleis which were politically separate. The geography of Greece with its mountains separating the plains in which people lived encouraged different peoples to live independently. No Greek would have wanted his neighbour to tell him what to do. Equally, to spend time fighting for a neighbour city, with whom a city might have had a border dispute only months before would be surprising. Without an external threat, the Greeks lived independently in their seperate states. When, however, the organised machine of the Persian Empire threatened them, they had to think again, and consider the things which they held in common. They had to find a way of working together, which would enable them to maintain their unique way of life.
The Persians, on the other hand, had a highly organised empire. As it grew, they developed a high level of political and cultural organisation. Their roads, for example, linked distant parts of the empire in a way which would have seemed impossible to their Greek neighbours. It is difficult to assess the Persian empire, because much of the information which we possess comes from Greek sources who are often biased against the Persians or have only a partial understanding of their culture. For example, a Persian word meaning ‘subject’ (i.e. subject of a king) was translated into Greek as doulos or slave. This reflected a Greek view that the Persians were all slaves of their king. This was almost certainly not so, as the Persians had considerable respect for the customs of the countries which became part of their empire.
For the Greeks, the conflict with the Persians was a successful attempt to maintain their freedom. To what extent they would really have lost it had they been conquered must remain a mystery. It was also a defining moment in the development of Greek history. The Greek and Persian cultures went on diverging routes, and, as a result of the bravery of the Greeks in the fifth century, European history moved in a different direction, with a flourishing of culture in fifth century Athens which might otherwise have been very different.

Context: Greek relations with the Persians under Darius and Xerxes
1.1 The Expansion of the Persian Empire into Ionia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_achaemenid_empire_en.png

Kings of Persia
Cyrus the Great 559-530BC
Cambyses II 530-522BC
Bardiya 522BC
Darius I 522-486BC
Xerxes I 486-465BC
Just before 546BC Croesus, the King of Lydia, made a fateful decision. He decided to attack his neighbours, the Persians. He had consulted one of the great oracles in the Greek world – that of Delphi. The Delphic oracle, greatly respected in the ancient world as a source of wisdom, responded by telling him that if he crossed the river Halys, a great empire would fall. Croesus attacked, and lost his own empire. In a battle at Sardis he was soundly defeated.
On the throne of Persia at the time was Cyrus (559-530BC), later known as Cyrus the Great for his conquests. In 550 BC he had defeated the Median ruler Astyages, and added the Median Empire to his own Persian Kingdom, creating one empire that is also refered to as the Achaemenid Empire. This was a fateful moment: the expansion of the Persian Empire had begun in earnest.
The Greeks of this area had been under Lydian rule, but the defeat of Croesus changed all that. The Persians, under the command of Mazares and Harpagus, took under their control the Greek peoples who lived on the west coast of Asia Minor, today part of modern Turkey.
One of the common questions in the area was ‘Do you remember the day the Persians came?’ At that time they appear to have been so desperate to escape that Bias of Priene proposed at the league of Ionian states that they all move and re-found their cities in southern Italy. This did not happen, but it gives a sense of how the Greeks must have felt about losing their independence to the Persians.
Cyrus’ conquests did not end with Lydia and the Greeks of Ionia: he also conquered Babylon and Egypt. He left his successors a mighty empire.
1.2 Power within the Persian Empire
The Persian Empire seems to have had a very organised and centrally controlled system. The King himself was regarded as being almost divine in status.
Darius
Darius was the Persian king from 522-486BC. He crossed the Bosphorus twice: once to invade Scythia, now in Southern Russia, and then the second time to attack Greece. Many of his exploits are described in the Bisitun Inscription, which was written in Elamite, Babylonian and Old Persian. It was cut into the cliff face of Mount Bisitun in northwest Iran. It lists the countries he ruled as Persia, Elam, Babylonia, Assyria, Arabia, Egypt, Ionia, Lydia, Media, Armenia, Cappadocia, Parthia, Drangiana, Aria, Chorasmia, Bactria, Sogdiana, Gandara, Scythia, Sattagydia, Arachosia and Maka.
Under King Darius (522-486BC), the Persian Empire became far more organised. Herodotus tells us that he set up twenty provincial governorships or satrapies; governors were appointed, and then each nation within the empire assessed for taxes. The King also seems to have had a system to ensure that he knew what was going on throughout the empire: a number of Greek authors (Herodotus and Aristophanes) mention the ‘King’s Eye’: which seems to have been the name for senior officials. The Greeks thought the these officials would report whatever happened back to the king, and anything out of line would be punished.
Herodotus (I.131-140) gives us some information about Persian customs. He notes that the Persians are particularly willing to adopt customs from other cultures. Other details include the following: boys’ education lasts from 5 until 20, and they were taught three things: to ride, to use a bow and to speak the truth; they regard telling lies as more disgraceful than anything else, and next to that owing money; even the king is not allowed to put a man to death for a single offence.
Herodotus describes the nature of Persian society and the power and position of the king.
When they meet one another in the streets, one would recognise whether these people were of the same rank as they met one another in the following way. For, before speaking they kiss each other on the lips if neither is inferior; they kiss on the cheeks, if there is a small difference, and, if one is much less noble than the other, he falls to the ground and prostrates himself before the other. Of all people, they honour those who are closest to them after their own people, then second in line they honour those who are next furthest away…
Herodotus, 1.134
TASK 1A
Read Herodotus 1.134.
(a) What does Herodotus 1.134 tell us about Persian Society and its values?
(b) What do you think a Greek would have thought of this custom? Explain your answer.
The inscriptional evidence gives us a sense of the official view of the Persian king: he was appointed by the single god Ahura Mazda, and ruled with his authority. A key inscription comes from Naqs-e Rustam, where four Persian kings were buried some 6 km from Persepolis. It reads as follows:
Darius the king says: ‘When Ahura Mazda saw this earth in commotion, he thereafter bestowed it upon me, he made me king. I am king. By the favour of Ahura Mazda I subdued it; they did what I said, as was my desire. If now you should think “How many are the countries which Darius the king held?”, look at the sculptures of those who bear the throne, then you will know. Then it will become known to you: the spear of a Persian man has gone far. Then shall it become known to you: a Persian man has given battle far indeed from Persia.’
Darius the king says: ‘That which has been done, all that I did by the will of Ahura Mazda. Ahura Mazda brought me aid, until I had done the work. May Ahura Mazda protect me from harm, and my royal house, and this land. This I pray of Ahura Mazda, this may Ahura Mazda give me.
‘O man, that which is the command of Ahura Mazda, let it not seem repugnant to you. Do not leave the right path, do not rise in rebellion!’
(First insciption from Naqs-e Rustam, Lactor 16, p.42-3)
TASK 1B
1. What does this tell us about the position of the King in the Persian Empire? Refer to at least two details and explain what you think they tell us.
2. Do you think that this is a reliable source on how the Persian King was seen by his people? Think about the official view and the view of ordinary people.
3. Given what you know about the Greeks, in what ways do you think this helps to explain why the Greeks were so keen to fight against the Persians and avoid becoming part of their empire?
1.3 The Ionian Revolt
Introduction
http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/gk_wrld.htm
The Greek world was not limited to the area which we call Greece today. Many Greek people lived on the east coast of Asia Minor – what is today Turkey. These people were known as the Ionians: they had ethnic and cultural links with the Athenians, who were regarded as their mother city. In the Seventh and Sixth Centuries BC, many larger states had sent out small groups of leading citizens to found new cities and create colonies around the Mediterranean. Some of the cities in Ionia claimed that they were related to the Athenians in this way, whilst others appear to have been from a different cultural background. Nevertheless, these cities had a fairly close connection with the Athenians and other mainland Greeks – they were very much part of the Greek world.
They were also very significant in the development of Greek thought. Many leading intellectuals of the day lived in this area, and propounded their theories about the nature of the universe. One such man was Herodotus, the historian, on whom we rely for much of our information about this period. He came from Halicarnassus (modern Bodrum) and appears to have had both Greek and non-Greek blood flowing in his veins.
In 508 BC the Athenians, under the guidance of Cleisthenes, made changes to their system of government which would ultimately see their state become one of the most extreme forms of democracy that the world has seen, where every male citizen had a vote on each matter of policy. The Athenians had begun to move away from living under a tyrant, and the individual citizens were beginning to take power for themselves.
The development of democracy in Athens may have had an effect on the peoples of Ionia, who were racially related to them, and may have been in touch with them. This may have given the Ionians the idea that the time for tyranny was over, and it was now right that they should rule themselves.
There were, however, other factors at play. The Persians levied considerable taxes on the states in Ionia, which probably had a crippling effect on their economy. Equally important were the military levies from the Persian central government, which required the Ionians to produce soldiers to fight in Darius’ army. After the revolt, many were required to fight against their fellow Greeks when Darius launched the Marathon campaign. The requirement to fight for an alien king may have proved too much for them.
Whilst the people themselves may have wished to rebel for the reasons outlined above, Herodotus himself places considerable emphasis on key individuals, such as Aristagoras and Histiaeus. He describes how their personal ambition led to the rebellion.

Three Forms of Government
In Greece there were three main forms of government. These were used in different states at different times.
Tyranny
In the Sixth Century, many states in Greece were governed by a single ruler or tyrant. Although some tyrants were extremely harsh rulers, not all were. Polycrates of Samos, for example, and Peisistratus of Athens both greatly improved their cities. The idea of a tyrant always being evil is a more modern idea.
Democracy
Democracy literally means ‘people’s power’ (demos – people; kratos – power). The people have the power. In Athens this meant that the Assembly of all male citizens over 18 had the ultimate power: they approved all decisions, and officials were either elected or chosen by lot.
Oligarchy
A small group of usually wealthy people take political power. The mass of the people is not in power.
Herodotus 3.80-83 recounts a debate in Persia which discusses these three forms of government. This is well worth reading for a fuller understanding of these concepts.
TASK 1C
1. Explain what is meant by each of the following:
(a) tyranny
(b) democracy
(c) oligarchy
2. Describe two possible causes of the Ionian Revolt.
Outline of the Revolt
In 499BC the inhabitants of Ionia decided to rebel; whether of their own accord or due to their leaders’ ambitions. The rebellion began on the island of Naxos, where the inhabitants decided to rise up against their oligarchic masters. The oligarchs went to the tyrant of Miletus, Aristagoras, to ask for help. Aristagoras, who saw this as an opportunity to gain power for himself, recognised the need for Persian military assistance. He asked Artaphernes, the local ruler in Sardis, for help. With the agreement of king Darius, Artaphernes sent an expedition under Megabates with 200 ships to crush Naxos. However, Megabates and Aristagoras quarrelled, and the Persian admiral warned the Naxians of the impending attack. They were therefore able to make the necessary preparations and withstand the siege for four months. This completely destroyed any prospect of Aristagoras bringing all the cities of Ionia under Persian control. His reputation with the Persian hierarchy was ruined. Caught in this difficult situation, he decided to incite a rebellion amongst the Asiatic Greeks against Persian rule. He would bring democracy to the peoples of Ionia.
Since the aim of the rebellion was apparently to establish democracies, Aristagoras began by resigning his position as tyrant of Miletus. At the same time many of the tyrants in the area took the same action. The Ionians then planned to gain help from mainland Greece, and so Aristagoras went to Sparta to seek their support, but was unsuccessful there.
He then visited Athens, and the Athenians agreed to send twenty ships. Herodotus describes these ships as the ‘beginning of troubles between Greeks and barbarians’: in his account the Athenian decision to help in this way brought Athens into conflict with Persia for the first time, and led to Darius’ desire to take vengeance on them.
Aristagoras with his own forces and those from Athens and Eretria who had agreed to help marched up to Sardis and occupied the city. Whilst they were there, a fire broke out which destroyed much of the town. The Athenians returned home at this point, but their involvement in the destruction of Sardis brought them to the attention of the king himself. Darius was not amused.
The revolt continued with further action in the south, and many of the cities threw off their Persian masters. However, when the Persians began to regain control, Aristagoras fled to Thrace. The rebellion came to an end shortly afterwards when in 494BC, the Persians laid siege to Miletus. The Greek fleet, which included some 353 ships, was nearby at Lade. A battle between the Greeks and the Persians followed, in which many of the ill-disciplined Greek states simply fled. Miletus was taken by storm, and Caria was recaptured. The rebellion was over. The Persians were back in control. They made one concession, however: they established democracies in Ionia.
TASK 1D
1. Look at a map of Greece and the Ionian coast and identify: Athens, Eretria, Miletus, Thrace and Sardis. State briefly what happened in each place.
2. Briefly outline the Ionian revolt.
3. Explain two reasons why the Ionians rebelled.
http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/greece.htm
Key Dates
508/7BC Cleisthenes and the Establishment of Democracy in Athens
499BC The Outbreak of the Ionian Revolt
498BC The Burning of Sardis
494BC Siege of Miletus and the Battle of Lade
490BC Battle of Marathon
484BC Birth of Herodotus
480BC Battles of Thermopylae, Artemisium and Salamis
479BC Battles of Plataea and Mycale
449BC Peace between Greece and Persia
444/3BC Herodotus moves to Thurii

Theme: The Battle of Marathon
Introduction
The battle of Marathon was one of the most significant moments in Greek history. It was the first time that the full might of the Persian Empire was brought to bear on the mainland Greeks. The Athenians with some help from the Plataeans managed to force the Persians to abandon their efforts to conquer the Greeks in Europe. Prior to this, Darius had sent messengers to various Greek cities to see whether they would accept his authority. The Persians used the term ‘to give earth and water’ to mean this, so the heralds went to each city asking for earth and water. A number of Greek cities, including the island of Aegina near Athens, offered the necessary earth and water to Darius. Darius was clearly interested in extending his territory into the Greek mainland, but he was not fully prepared for the response of the Athenians.
Medising
Some Greek states decided that the option of coming under Persian rule was more sensible than trying to oppose it. Submission to Persia was known by the Greeks as medising. This was because the Persians were known as Medes. Many states, most notably Thebes, medised. They probably preferred a quiet life paying taxes rather than the threat of military action.
2.1 Connections between the Ionian Revolt and the campaign at Marathon
Herodotus makes a close connection between the Ionian revolt and Darius’ attempts to invade Greece. He called the twenty ships which the Athenians sent in support of Aristagoras’ request the beginning of trouble between the Greeks and non-Greeks.
When Darius heard that Sardis had been taken and burned by the Athenians and Ionians, he asked who the Athenians were. When told, he took a bow and fired an arrow into the air, calling upon God to grant him vengeance on the Athenians. He then ordered one of his slaves to remind him daily of the Athenians, telling him to repeat to him three times the words, ‘Master, remember the Athenians’ (Herodotus, 5.105-6).
Caution is needed, however, in considering Herodotus’ account at this point. It is clear that Darius’ already had plans to expand his empire: he had made successful moves against Scythia in the north, and Greece was the next natural step, not least because the Ionians whom he already controlled were racially related to the Athenians. He had already sent envoys to discover whether Greek states would submit – and many did. It was not just the Athenians and Eretrians whom he wanted to crush. Herodotus may well have given Athens centre stage to make her seem greater and more important than she actually was.
TASK 2A
1. Explain the connection between the Ionian Revolt and the Battle of Marathon.
2. Explain one reason why Herodotus may have given the Ionian Revolt too much emphasis.

2.2 Persian preparations for an expedition against Greece in 492 and 490
Demaratus
Demaratus was King of Sparta from 515BC until 491BC. He lost his position on the throne when his fellow king, Cleomenes, manipulated the Delphic oracle to claim that he was illegitimate. He then went to the Persian court, and helped both Darius and Xerxes.
Darius had clearly been interested in attacking Greece for some time, and he had close connections with mainland Greece. Hippias, the ex-tyrant of Athens, had come to his court. After the failure of the Marathon expedition, Demaratus, ex-king of Sparta, would also come to join him, and give both Darius and his son valuable advice and information on the Greeks. In the 490s, he had also sent a Greek doctor who was resident at the Persian court and some officials to mainland Greece and south Italy (also part of the Greek world at this time) to gain further information.
Darius appointed Datis as his commander in the field and Artaphernes, his nephew, as his personal representative. According to Herodotus (Herodotus, 6.95.2) he assembled a force of some 600 triremes, a considerable force. His decision to attack Greece by sea was a bold one: the Ionians may have been used to his sailing up the coast and attacking them, but to send such a large force across the Aegean was another matter. He also brought with him horses and cavalrymen, in addition some 25,000 infantry in his force. According to Simonides, a contemporary poet, there were 90,000 people taken on this expedition.
On the way towards mainland Greece, Datis and Artaphernes landed at Naxos, and destroyed the temples and town there, before moving on to Delos, where Datis sacrificed to the god Apollo, in an attempt to gain the trust of the Greeks.
2.3 The Battle of Marathon: the role of Hippias, the role of the Plataeans and the Spartans, the progress of the battle, reasons for the Persian defeat, the roles of Miltiades and Callimachus.
Hippias
http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/attica.htm
Once the Persians had crossed the sea, they faced the challenge of landing their forces on Greek soil. In September 490BC the Persians found themselves off the coast of Attica, and ready to make their final move against the Athenians.
The Persians needed a place where their cavalry could be most effective. Hippias, the former tyrant of Athens, directed them to Marathon, some 26 miles from Athens. It provided a relatively flat plan, on which the cavalry could be easily disembarked and used to the Persians’ advantage.
Doubtless Hippias was hoping that he might regain a position of power within Athens, perhaps as a tyrant entrusted to rule by Darius. Herodotus tells us that the night before they landed Hippias dreamt that he was sleeping with his mother, and he thought that his dream meant that he would return to Athens and take power. However, as he was directing the troops ashore, he began to cough violently, and coughed one of his teeth out. It fell in the sand, but he could not find it. He turned to his companions and commented that they would never conquer this land, and that the only part of it which he would possess was the part which his tooth now held.

Spartans and Plataeans
Pheidippides’ Run to Sparta
When the Athenians sent Pheidippides from Athens to Sparta to ask for help, Herodotus tells us that he met the god Pan on the way. Pan was disappointed that the Athenians had not been honouring him, and made this clear to Pheidippides. The runner reported this to the Athenians on his return, and when they were victorious at the battle, the Athenians set up a shrine to the god.
Once the Athenians heard that they were being attacked, they drew up their forces ready to meet the Persians. They were commanded by ten generals: Miltiades amongst them. Before they left Athens the Athenians sent a message to Sparta. A long-distance runner named Pheidippides ran the 150 miles (240 km) to Sparta to ask the Spartans for help, and not to stand by whilst the most ancient city of Greece was crushed and enslaved by a foreign force. The Spartan response was rather unhelpful: it was the ninth day of the month, and they were engaged in a religious festival, so they could not come until the full moon. Pheidippides returned to Athens with the news that the Athenians would have to face the Persians without Spartan help.
However, the neighbours of the Athenians, the Plataeans, had decided that they would help with every available man. The Athenians had previously helped the Plataeans in a dispute with their neighbours the Thebans, and so the Plataeans were now obliged to help the Athenians. As a result when the battle began the Plataeans fought on the left wing, and were the only support that the Athenians had.
TASK 2B
1. Explain why the Spartans refused to help that the battle of Marathon.
2. Explain why the Plataeans decided to help.
The Progress of the Battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Marathon_Initial_Situation.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Marathon_Greek_Double_Envelopment.png
Our only nearly contemporary account for the battle of Marathon comes from Herodotus. He describes how the Athenian commanders were divided in their opinion: a number thought that their forces were too small to offer any hope of success. However, Miltiades was determined that they should fight. Because opinion was equally divided he had to pursue the eleventh person who was allowed to vote, the polemarch, or War Archon. At this point, Callimachus held this office, and it was to Callimachus that Miltiades turned to and spoke forcibly in favour of fighting. Miltiades persuaded Callimachus that it was indeed the right time to fight, and so the decision was taken that the Athenians should face the Persians in battle.
Under the Athenian democratic system, each general took the presiding position in turn, each for a day. Those who had voted with Miltiades offered that he should take their position on the days when they were in turn to be in charge. Whilst Miltiades accepted their offer, he refused to fight until it was his own day. When this day came, he moved the Athenian army into position ready for the fight: Callimachus commanded the right wing, and the Plataeans were on the left wing. Because the Persian forces were so wide, the Athenians were very spread out, and the centre, between the two wings, was very shallow, whilst the two wings were strong.
After making the appropriate sacrifices, the Athenians entered the battle at a run once they had been given orders to do so. The battle was a long one, and the Persians broke the Greek centre without great hardship. On the two wings, however, the Persians found themselves in difficulties, and were defeated by the Plataeans and Athenians. Once these Persian forces began to flee, the Athenians turned their attention to the Persians who had broken through the centre: they united with the Plataeans, and formed a single unit which followed the Persians down to the sea, where they defeated them.
At the end of the battle, Herodotus tells us that 6400 Persians had been killed, as opposed to 192 Athenians. The number of Athenian dead is likely to be accurate, as the Athenians recorded the names of each man on a grave marker on the mound where they were buried. That of the Persians is less likely: it is thought that it was calculated by assuming that every three Athenians who died killed 100 Persians.
The Persians must have thought that their large force would be sufficient to conquer the Athenians. Why then did they fail? One important aspect of the battle is the absence of the Persian cavalry. In Herodotus’ account there is no mention of them being used during the battle. If the Persians had been unable to deploy their cavalry, and were forced to fight the more heavily armed Athenians in hand to hand combat, it is easy to see how they might have been defeated.
Another aspect of the Athenian victory was their strategy: whether by design or accident their weak centre caused a large number of the Persians to pass through their ranks and then find themselves trapped between the Athenians and the sea with no means of escape.
TASK 2C
1. Write a brief account of the battle of Marathon.
2. Explain two reasons why you think the Athenians were victorious at this battle.
3. Explain two reasons why you think the Persians lost this battle.
4. What do you think of the Spartan response to the Athenian request for help? Explain your answer.
TASK 2D: Source-based Exercise
Read Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Marathon, Herodotus, 6.102-117.
1. Write a brief summary of the account.
2. Describe two features of this account which you think are distinctive.
3. What do you think the strengths and weaknesses are of Herodotus’ account? Explain your answer.
2.4 The significance of the battle of Marathon for the Athenians and the other Greeks
The battle of Marathon was a major turning point for the Athenians. In the late Sixth Century, some twenty years before this battle, the Athenians had begun to develop a democratic system of government in which each man had the right to speak about and vote on state policy. Each citizen was given some measure of power and responsibility for what happened in his state. Nevertheless, the system was a new one, and this must have been an uncertain time, as no other state had yet developed such a system.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that Athens went on to become a highly successful state: by just over sixty years after the battle of Marathon, her leader, Pericles, was claiming that the city was an education to the rest of Greece. Indeed, she had become something of a cultural centre with philosophers, historians, playwrights, architects and artists from all over the Greek world coming to the city. Athens became a leading state, with numerous political allies, and even turned her alliances into an empire, so that much of the Greek world was subject to her power. Marathon may have given the Athenians the confidence to move forward and take a more prominent role in Greece.
To what extent Marathon is responsible for the development of Athens it is impossible to say, but it is clear that had the Athenians lost the battle, they might well have become subjects of the Persians and become part of the Persian Empire. Given the Spartans somewhat laid back attitude before Marathon, it seems unlikely that they would have come to the aid of the Athenians had this happened.
Herodotus does not speak much about the consequences of the battle. However, something of his view may be implied by the speech which he puts into the mouth of Miltiades, as he was attempting to persuade Callimachus that it was time to fight.
‘It is down to you, Kallimachos, either to enslave Athens or to make her free and to leave a memorial of yourself for the whole span of human history greater than even Harmodios and Aristogeiton. For now the Athenians have come to the greatest crisis they have ever faced, and if they submit in slavery to the Persians, it is clear what they will suffer when handed over to Hippias; but if this city survives, it will be able to become the most powerful of all the Greek cities. … If you accept my opinion about what to do, our fatherland will be free and will be the first city in Greece. But if you choose to vote with those who do not wish to fight, you will achieve the opposite of what I have just said.
Herodotus, 6.109
This speech is, of course, written after the event by Herodotus, at a time when Athens had become one of the greatest states in the Greek world. It does show, however, that Herodotus at least saw Marathon as a key moment in the development of the city.
One important aspect of the Athenian victory was the absence of the Spartans: the Athenians had become a military force to be reckoned with. Until that time, everyone turned to Sparta for military help – the Ionians, for example, had done this when they wished to start their revolt. Now, however, the Athenians had been successful, and all the Spartans could do was to congratulate them. This must have strengthened Athens’ position both for the coming battles against Xerxes and, subsequently, in the development of her defensive league against Persia, the Delian League, which later became the Athenian Empire.
The Delian League
After the defeat of the Persians in 479BC, the Greeks were faced with the question of how to protect themselves against the continuing threat posed by the Persians. The Spartans were not willing to take on the burden of leadership, so the Athenians began a defensive league called the Delian League. It was so called because its treasury was at Delos, an island sacred to Apollo. Members of the league paid either tribute money or ships to the Athenians, who, in return, guaranteed their safety from Persian attack. During the course of the fifth century, this League changed into an Empire for the Athenians, who came to have ever increasingly power over their allies.
The Athenians themselves held the victors of Marathon in great esteem. Some forty years later, their leader Pericles persuaded the Athenians to build the Parthenon, a great temple on the Acropolis in the centre of Athens. Around the centre of this temple runs a sculptural frieze which depicts a religious procession in Athens, the Panatheaic procession. There are 192 men in this procession, and some believe that these were the victors of Marathon. There is no written evidence to this effect, but the fact that there are 192 men is suggestive. If this is this case, it would reflect the highest possible honour for those who died: to be shown on a temple, the house of the goddess Athena, at a time when the Greeks were only just beginning to show humans on their temples.
In the second century AD, a Greek doctor named Pausanias travelled around Greece, and wrote an extensive guidebook. He visited Marathon over half a millennium after the battle, and described the place as follows:
There is an area called Marathon… At this point in Attica, the barbarians landed and were overpowered in battled and they lost some of their ships which they were putting off from the land. There is a tomb of these Athenians in the plain, and on it grave-markers giving the names of each of those who died by their tribe, and another for the Plataeans from Boeotia and another for slaves. For slaves also fought then for the first time. And there is a separate monument for Miltiades, son of Cimon, alone, although he died later… There through the whole night it is possible to hear the horses neighing and men fighting… The Marathonians worship those who died in this battle, calling them heroes… The Athenians say that they buried the Persians, as the divine law always requires a corpse to be hidden in earth, but I was not able to find a tomb. I could not seen a mound nor anything other indication, as they took them to a trench and throw them in haphazardly.
Pausanias, 1.32
Herodotus also tells us that before the Battle at Marathon, no Greek could hear the name ‘Persian’ without terror. Perhaps the events of this day gave the Athenians and other Greeks to face the Persian threat when it reappeared in 480BC. Darius returned to Persia, and never again fought against the Greeks. It was left to his son, Xerxes, to launch the next expedition.
TASK 2E
1. Describe two ways in which the victors at Marathon were honoured by the Athenians.
2. Explain two reasons why the victory at Marathon was significant for the Athenians.
3. Describe how you think the battle of Marathon might have affected how the Athenians were seen by the rest of the Greeks.
TASK 2F: Source-Based Exercise
1. Read the section from the speech of Miltiades given above, Herodotus, 6.109.
(a) Summarise Miltiades’ seech.
(b) Explain whether you think this is what Miltiades actually said.
(c) Explain why you think Herodotus included this account at this point in his narrative.
2. Read the excerpt from Pausanias, and note that he was writing in the second century AD.
(a) What does this passage tell us about how the Athenians honoured those who fought at Marathon?
(b) What does this passage tell us about how the Persian corpses were treated?
(c) What information is given in this passage which is not in Herodotus? Why do you think Herodotus did not include it?
(d) How reliable do you think Pausanias is as a historical source? Explain your answer.

Theme: The Battles of Artemisium, Thermopylae, Salamis, Plataea and Mycale
Introduction
After Darius’ failed attempts to take Greece, he returned to Persia. He was greatly angered by news of what had happened at Marathon. He continued preparations for another attack on Greece, summoning soldiers from throughout Asia. However, in the third year after Marathon he faced a rebellion in Egypt. He therefore resolved to go to war against both Greece and Egypt.
Before he set out on these expeditions, a quarrel broke out between his sons about the succession. In Persian law, the successor to a king had to be decided before an expedition could leave. Finally, Xerxes won the argument, and was proclaimed the heir. Only Darius’ death stopped him from undertaking these two expeditions.
3.1 Reasons for Xerxes’ expedition against the Greeks
After the failure of the campaign which ended in the battle of Marathon, Darius returned to Persia to plan his next attempt. Although he made preparations to return to Greece, and attempt to subdue the Greek cities, it was left to his son Xerxes to make the next moves.
To some extent Xerxes must have felt compelled to continue the work of his father: Darius wanted to avenge the wrong done by the Athenians and others against Persia, particularly with the burning of Sardis and the defeat at Marathon. When Darius died in 485BC, Xerxes may have felt duty-bound to complete the job left unfinished by his father.
Another factor which may have motivated Xerxes was the simple desire to expand the empire. The kings before him, including Darius, increased the size of the Persian Empire. Conquering Greece would help to establish his status as King. In addition, fighting away from home was always a good way to avoid rebellion in the empire. Herodotus reports that his army was drawn from many places throughout the empire: soldiers who were fighting for their king were far less likely to fight against him.
Herodotus gives us an account of Xerxes’ motivations which requires careful consideration. He tells us that at first Xerxes was not at all interested in invading Greece. He was more interested in dealing with the Egyptians, who had rebelled in the final year of Darius’ reign.
Mardonius, Xerxes’ cousin, kept on talking to him, reminding him of the injuries which the Athenians had done to the Persians. He suggested to him, that if he led an army against Athens, his name would be honoured throughout the world, and it would deter others from attacking Persia (Herodotus, 7.5). Herodotus also states that Mardonius added to these points that Europe (i.e. Greece in Europe) was a beautiful place, and only the Persian king should really be ruling there. Herodotus notes that Mardonius was really motivated by the desire to become governor of Greece himself.
In addition to Persian court politics, Greek politics determined that the Persians were almost invited to attack. The ruling family in Thessaly offered assistance to Xerxes. The Pisistratidae, the former tyrants of Athens, were keen that he should attack, just as Hippias had supported Darius. They kept trying to persuade Xerxes to act. Part of their strategy was to use Onomacritus, a collector of oracles, who gave Xerxes prophecies which suggested that he would be successful in any attempt against Greece – those which suggested otherwise were carefully omitted. Herodotus describes how ‘Xerxes gave in and allowed himself to be persuaded to undertake the invasion of Greece’ (Herodotus, 7.6).
Once he had decided to act, Xerxes was not going to allow anything to stand in his way. He had clearly decided to leave nothing to chance, and aimed to conquer Greece. They were far larger in scale than those before: great numbers of troops from all over the empire, required to march over the newly constructed bridge over the Hellespont. These had to be given provisions, as well as co-operate with the naval forces. Xerxes had all this in mind, and must surely only have had the conquest of the whole of Greece in mind: he would not be content with merely subduing Athens, Greece as a whole must have been his idea. Herodotus agrees with this assessment stating that the purpose of Xerxes’ expedition was the conquest of the whole of Greek (Herodotus, 7.138).
TASK 3A
1. When did King Darius die?
2. Which two countries was Xerxes considering attacking when he became king?
3. Give details of three factors which suggested to Xerxes that he should attack Greece.
4. Explain two reasons why Xerxes wanted to attack Greece in 480BC.
5. Look at the description of Xerxes’ forces given in the paragraph above. What does this tell us about the nature of his expedition and his aims?
6. Do you think Herodotus is right to suggest that Xerxes had to be persuaded to attack Greece?
Explain your answer.
TASK 3B Source-based Task: Xerxes’ Route to Greece
Read Herodotus 7.23-24.
1. Describe Xerxes’ actions in this passage.
2. Explain why you think Xerxes took this course of action.
3. What does this episode show about Xerxes’ determination in attacking Greece?
4. How reliable do you think this account by Herodotus is? Explain your reasons for your
answer.
3.2 The Hellenic League
Greek Identity
After the battle of Salamis, the Spartans were approached by Alexander of Macedon, who brought a peace proposal from Xerxes. They rejected this, but were concerned that the Athenians might not. However, when they visited Athens, the Athenians also rejected the proposal, stating that they would not desert the Greek community: the community of blood and language, temples and ritual, and common customs. (Herodotus, 8.143). The Greeks were not politically united, but they held these things in common.
Barbarians
During the fifth century BC the Greeks coined the term Barbarian to describe foreigners. Literally it referred to those who did not speak Greek, because the Greeks thought that all other languages sounded like the bar-bar sound of sheep.
One of the main effects of the Persian attacks on Greece was to focus the Greeks’ minds on what they had in common, and draw out a sense of common identity which had not yet been developed in the Greek mind. This would develop further during the fifth century, with the Greeks calling non-Greek speaking people barbarians, and themselves Hellenes.
However, at the time of the Persian invasions, their sense of identity as a group was weak. They were very willing to fight one another and some states even felt that medising or joining the Persians was the best course of action. Often opinion was split even within a state – so some Thebans, for example, medised, whilst others fought at the battle of Thermopylae.
Once news of Xerxes’ expedition reached them, the Greeks or Hellenes decided to come together to discuss what action should be taken. At this stage, Sparta was still viewed as the natural leader of the Greek states, whilst Athens had also come into a position of authority because of her relatively recently success at Marathon.
The Athenians and Spartans jointly called a meeting of the Hellenic League at the Isthmus of Corinth to consult on what measures should be taken to stop the threatened invasion. The Isthmus was chosen because of its central location. Sparta took the presidency of the meeting.
http://plato-dialogues.org/tools/gr_south.htm
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rmhttp/schools/primaryhistory/images/ancient_greeks/sea_and_ships/g_isthmus_corinth.jpg
Thirty one states sent representatives. They bound themselves together with a simple oath that once things were back in order, they would punish those Greeks who had given themselves to Persia, without being compelled, by giving a tenth of their wealth to the god at Delphi (Herodotus, 7.132). At the first meeting power over all the forces was granted to Spartans. They also resolved to end all wars between member states.
At a second meeting, the members considered their strategy for the war. There were to be two aspects to their strategy: land and sea. On land they would make a stand at Thermopylae. By sea they would send a fleet to Artemisium. They also felt that because these two places were close together, communication would be easy.
TASK 3C
1. What decisions were made at the meetings at the Isthmus?
2. Look at the map of Greece given in the link above. Explain why the Athenians and Spartans might have had very different views about where to face the Persians in battle.
3. Why do you think the Greeks decided to fight together against the Persians at this point?
3.3 The Battle of Artemisium
The battle at Artemisium, all be it relatively small, was a significant moment in the fight against Xerxes. The poet Pindar, writing in the fifth century BC, said that the battle of Artemisium was where ‘the sons of the Athenians set down the shining corner-stone of freedom.’
Herodotus worked out the details of the Persian navy as follows: 1207 ships, with 241,400 men. Each ship also had thirty fighting men on board. He also claimed that there were 3000 penteconters, with 80 men on each. He therefore calculated that the total Persian naval force was in the region of 517610 men! A large number of these were lost in various storms on the way to Greece, with the result that by the time of the first sea battle (that at Artemisium) there were probably substantially fewer ships. Nevertheless, it was a large force.
The action in this battle was the first between the Greeks and the Persians in this phase of the conflict. The first engagement was a Greek success: fifteen Persian ships had fallen behind the others, and when they saw the Greeks at Artemisium, they thought that they were Persians, and innocently made towards them. The Greeks lost no time in capturing them.
After this, Herodotus describes how the Greek commanders met and decided to test the Persian seamanship and tactics. They sent out a few ships, which led the Persians to believe that they would have an easy victory over their enemy.
3.4 The Battle of Thermopylae
How the Spartans saw themselves:
‘A woman, after sending off her five sons to war, stood on the outskirts of the city to watch anxiously what the outcome of the battle might be. When someone appeared and she questioned him, he reported that all her sons had perished. She said: ‘Yet this isn’t what I asked you, vile slave, but rather how our country was doing.’ When he said that it was winning, she remarked: ‘Then I gladly accept the death of my sons too.’
(Plutarch, Plutarch On Sparta, p.160, n.7, trans. R. J. A. Talbert, Penguin, 1988)
Demaratus to Xerxes on the Spartans:
‘In this way the Spartans, fighting as individuals, are no worse than any others, but when fighting side by side they are the best of all men. Although they are free, they are not free in every respect: they have as a master the law, which they fear much more than your subjects fear you. They do whatever it orders, and it always orders the same thing – it does not allow them to flee from battle whatever the size of the opposing forces, but commands them to stay in formation and either conquer or be killed.’
In August 480BC whilst the Greek naval forces were attempting to stop the Persians by sea at Artemisium, the Greek land forces had to stand firm to stop the Persians entering Greece.
The spot which they had chosen was a narrow pass at Thermopylae, where it seemed that if they held the ground the Persians would be unable to make use of their superior numbers, and therefore unable to withstand the power of the Greek soldiers.
At the start of the confrontation, Leonidas, the Spartan king, had a force of some 6000-7000 Greeks. The army was small, either because many Greeks were attempting to religious observances or because the Peloponnesians did not wish to fight so far away from home.
Herodotus recounts how Xerxes sent spies to watch the Spartans. He was thoroughly convinced that they would make good their escape, but rather than seeing fleeing soldiers, the spies found themselves looking at men who had stripped for exercise, and were then combing their hair. Xerxes was baffled, but the former Spartan king, Demaratus, who was now advising Xerxes, explained that this was what the Spartans did when they were about to sacrifice their lives. Demaratus concluded his speech, saying: ‘But understand this: if you can overcome these men and those who are still in Sparta, there is no other race of men that will withstand you or raise a hand against you. You are facing the noblest kingdom in Greece and the bravest fighting men.’ (Herodotus, 7.209)
After this, Xerxes waited for four days, thinking that the Greeks would retreat. Nothing happened, and so on the fifth day, infuriated, he began the battle. The Spartans fought well on the first day, and drove back the opposition. The following day was similar. They would have been able to hold the pass, but a local Greek, Epialtes, showed the Persians an alternative route. The Persians marched through the night, following the newly suggested route. The Phocians, who had been guarding this route, tried to resist, but then withdrew. When the rest of the Greeks learned that the Persians had come through in this way, they held a council: some wanted to stay with Leonidas, others to depart. In the end, Leonidas dismissed them, and remained with the Spartans, Thespias, Thebans and some Mycenaeans.
That morning Xerxes poured a libation to the rising sun, and then began the attack. The remaining Greeks fought hard: first with their spears, then swords and then even their bare hands. Finally, though, they were overcome. Herodotus tells how there was a bitter struggle over the body of Leonidas. Finally, the Persians got the better of the Greeks, and took his body. Xerxes is then said to have beheaded him, and placed his head on a pole, such was his rage at the battle.
Numerous stories are told of the battle, which seem to characterise the Spartans. One such comes from Herodotus. Before the battle, a fellow Greek soldier told a Spartan, Dieneces, that when the Persians fired arrows, they sent so many that the sun was blocked out. Dieneces response was simple: they would be able to fight in the shade.
The Spartans greatly honoured those who died at Thermopylae. The dead were buried where they fell, and an inscription set up which read:
Stranger, tell the Spartans that here
We lie, obedient to their commands.
(Herodotus, 7.228)
The battle of Thermopylae was a defeat for the Greeks. It bought the remainder of the Greeks valuable time, and the Spartans and their allies who remained to the end showed true heroism.
Task 3D
Read Herodotus’ account of the battle of Thermopylae, Herodotus, 7.206-228.
1. Explain why it was important for the Greeks to hold the Persians at Thermopylae.
2. How did the Greek forces differ from the Persians?
3. Outline the course of the battle.
4. Explain how treachery led to the Greek defeat.
5. What aspects of Herodotus’ account do you think are most likely to be reliable? Explain your answer.
6. Debate or Essay: ‘A glorious, but futile defeat.’ How far do you think Herodotus’ account supports this assessment of the battle of Thermopylae?
TASK 3E: The film 300
Choose a section of the film 300, and watch at least 20 minutes. When you have finished, consider which parts are historically accurate and which not. Each aspect should be explained with reference to Herodotus (or Plutarch, if appropriate).
3.5 The Battle of Salamis
After their victory at Thermopylae, the Persians advanced into mainland Greece, burning villages as they went. Thebes was spared because the Thebans had shown sympathy to the Persians. In Athens, however, the mood was very different: the Athenians abandoned the city and all the surrounding land of Attica was evacuated. Those who remained in the city found themselves under a siege, which they eventually lost. The Persians destroyed the temples on the Acropolis, and ravished the city.
The prospects for a Greece free of Persian domination had never looked bleaker: only the Peloponnese now remained free, and with Athens taken, one of the great leaders of the Greek world had been destroyed – or had she?
The Effect of Events in Athens
The Greeks in Salamis, when the course of events at the Athenian acropolis was announced to them, were so disturbed that some of the generals did not wait for a decision on the matter being discussed, but hurried on board their ships and hoisted their sails to run away. Those who remained decided to fight a sea-battle at the Isthmus.
Herodotus, 8.56
The Athenians had taken a decision to abandon the city, under the advice of Themistocles. They had been advised by the Delphic oracle to put their ‘trust in the wooden wall’: debate had raged about what this meant, some thinking that it meant to stay behind the wooden wall on the Acropolis, whilst Themistocles argued the opposite. For him, it meant that they must leave the city, and take to their ships. This they did, evacuating the women and children to Troezen, Aegina and Salamis.
The Oracle
Herodotus tells of two oracles from Delphi, neither of which seemed very encouraging. Part of the second – the one which Themistocles interpreted - was as follows:
‘Though all else shall be taken within the bound of Cecrops
And the fastness of the holy mountain of Cithaeron,
Yet Zeus the all-seeing grants to Athene’s prayer
That the wooden wall only shall not fall, but help you and your children.
But await not the host of the horse and foot coming from Asia,
Nor be still, but turn your back and withdraw from the foe.
Truly a day will come when you will meet him face to face.
Divine Salamis, you will bring death to women’s sons
When the corn is scattered, or the harvest gathered in.’
(Herodotus, 7.141, p.462 trans. A. de Selincourt rev. Marincola, Penguin, 2003)
Delphi
Delphi was famous throughout the Greek world as a sanctuary to Apollo. It had an oracle, to which both Greeks and non-Greeks would go when they were looking for answers to important questions. The oracle was a priestess, or Pythia, who would commune with the god, and then speak in a strange language. This would be translated by the priests into Greek verse, like that given before Salamis. The oracles were usually in a riddle-like form, leaving the questioner to interpret what they really meant.
In command was the Spartan Eurybiades, since the Hellenic League had agreed that the Spartans would take command. This was despite the fact that almost half the fleet was Athenian. Themistocles, the Athenian commander, agreed to the Spartan taking control, although there were moments when Eurybiades appeared to be a disastrous choice for commander.
Herodotus’ Figures for the Greek Fleet
Sparta 16
Corinth 40
Sicyon 15
Epidaurus 10
Athenians 180
Megara 20
Aegina 30
Chalcis 20
Others 47
Total 378
After the commanders had agreed to fight at the Isthmus, an Athenian named Mnesiphilus came to Themistocles and pointed out that if the fleet left Salamis where it was now stationed, the consensus which they had gained would be lost. Each state would go in their own direction, and Greece would be lost for ever. He urged Themistocles to find a way to ensure that the battle was fought at Salamis.

Themistocles went to see Eurybiades, and Herodotus describes how he gave an impassioned speech in an attempt to persuade him. His arguments were clear:
(i) Narrow Space benefits the Greeks: at Salamis the Greeks had the advantage of fighting in a narrow space.
(ii) Women and Children: by fighting at Salamis they would be able to protect their women and children who were on the island and on Aegina.
(iii) Defence of the Peloponnese: fighting at Salamis would enable them to defend the Peloponnese just as much as fighting at the Isthmus.
(iv) Naval Victory a Turning Point: if the Greeks are victorious at sea, the Persians will retreat in disarray.
The Corinthian, Adeimantus, who had previously attacked Themistocles’ arguments, did so again, accusing him of not having a country – because Athens was no in Persian hands. Themistocles, however, persuaded Eurybiades. He probably forced Eurybiades’ hand by threatening to withdraw his ships.
When the Persian fleet came near to Salamis, Xerxes was uncertain about the course of action: would he fight a naval battle or not? All his commanders voted for the battle, but queen Artemisia of Halicarnassus advised against it. She, alone of the commanders, seems to have had the courage to speak her mind. The others thought that Xerxes would be furious, but he was impressed with her words. Nevertheless, he decided that they should fight. This account from Herodotus (Herodotus, 8.67-8) seems a little strange: would this tyrannical ruler really have asked his commanders in this way? Perhaps, but it is worth thinking carefully about this.
The ships set sail, and proceeded towards Salamis. Meanwhile, on land, the Greeks were working hard to stop the Persian land-forces from taking the Isthmus.
At this point Themistocles decided to force the issue, and employed a tactic which would forever leave question marks over his name. He sent a man, Sicinnus, in a boat over to the Persian fleet. He had instructed Sicinnus to tell the Persians that Themistocles wished the Persian king well, and that the Greeks were afraid and planning to escape. If they were to attack now, the Persians stood a good chance of defeating the Greeks. The Persians believed Sicinnus, and prepared to fight the following day.
Whether Themistocles was really intending to help Xerxes or force a victory for the Greeks will always be a matter for debate. However, it is clear from Herodotus’ account that Sicinnus’ words (Herodotus, 8.75) highlighted one very important danger for the Greeks: they would break up, and their unity as a fighting force would be destroyed. This was already beginning to happen, and Themistocles may have realised that it was ‘now or never’.
Herodotus gives a detailed account of how the Persians prepared in silence for an attack the following morning. They had taken up stations which blocked the Greeks from both ends.
The playwright Aeschylus was an eye-witness at the battle. He tells us that Persians ships were drawn up in three lines outside the entrance to the sound. On the left were the Ionians, on the right the Phoenician sailors, who were the most experienced.
Aeschylus
Aeschylus (525-456BC) was a fifth century playwright who wrote some of the greatest tragedies produced in this period. He is most famous for his trilogy called the Oresteia which begins with the Agamemnon, a play describing the murder of Agamemnon by his wife Clytemnestra. The other two plays look at the effects of this murder and the search for justice. Despite his great career as a playwright, Aeschylus’ epitaph on his tomb recalled his fighting at Marathon. It stated: ‘Beneath this stone lies Aeschylus, son of Euphorion, the Athenian, who died in wheat-bearing Gela; the grove of Marathon can tell of his noble bravery, or the long-haired Persian who knows it well.’ This shows how greatly those who fought in these battles were honoured.
At day-break, the Persians began to advance. Because the space was so narrow, the Persians were crowded together. The Phoenicians led the way, and were immediately attacked by the Athenians, who cut them off from the rest of the fleet. The men from Aegina fought particularly bravely: they helped the Athenians to defeat the Phoenicians and forced the Ionians to turn tail.
An important aspect of the battle was the lack of space: this gave the smaller Greek fleet a relative advantage. Only relatively few Persian ships could face their enemy at any one time. The crowded space also made it difficult for the combatants to make much use of their naval skills. Also the Persians did not know the waters as well as the Greeks.
Once Xerxes saw the extent of the defeat, he was afraid that the Greeks might consider making a dash for the Hellespont. Here they could have cut the bridge which he had built, and stopped his land forces from returning to Asia. He made plans for his escape, including the development of a causeway across the water towards Salamis. This was intended to fool the Greeks, so that they thought he intended to remain continue the fight.
Salamis brought an end to Xerxes’ stay in Greece. Mardonius was appointed to continue the action by land, whilst the Great King himself returned to his own land.
TASK 3F
Read Herodotus’ account of the battle of Salamis, Herodotus, 8.78-112.
1. Briefly describe the battle of Salamis.
2. Outline the role of Themistocles in the battle.
3. What picture emerges of Themistocles’ character from Herodotus’ account?
4. Do you think Themistocles should be seen as a hero or a potential traitor? Explain your answer with reference to Herodotus’ account.
5. Xerxes wanted to watch the battle. Explain why you think this was.
6. How far do you think Herodotus’ account of the battle of Salamis is reliable?
3.6 The Battle of Plataea
Themistocles spent the winter of 480/79BC at the Congress in Sparta, discussing the future strategy against the Persians. The Athenians, however, clearly felt displeased with his efforts, and elected Xanthippus and Aristides as generals in his place.
The following summer, 479BC, Attica was again evacuated, as the Persians attacked again. The people withdrew to Salamis, and the Persians again destroyed Athens. The Athenians appealed to Sparta.
After the death of Leonidas at Thermopylae, his young son had become king. However, he was too young to rule, so Pausanias, his guardian, became regent. Pausanias, therefore, led a Spartan force to the Isthmus. He was joined by forces from Athens, Plataea, Megara, Aegina and Corinth. In total a force of some 30,000 men was assembled.
Meanwhile, after the defeat at Salamis, Xerxes retreated home. He left Mardonius, his general, in command. Mardonius first attempted to make a truce with the Athenians, but they refused these advances. When Mardonius saw Pausanias had his forces approaching, he retreated from Athens to Boeotia, where he prepared his 40,000-50,000 men for a battle at Plataea.
The battle which followed took an unusual course. It would appear that Pausanias had little control over the different contingents. At first Pausanias gave an order to retreat, intending to defend a particular pass, but Aristides, the Athenian commander, refused to obey. He advanced further north.
The Importance of the Persians at Plataea
It is clear to me that the whole barbarian operation depended upon the Persians: because when they saw the Persians retreat, even before they had even come to grips with the enemy, they fled.
Herodotus, 9.68
When the Persians attacked, they were met by a strong Spartan phalanx. The Athenians, on the other hand, found themselves fighting other Greeks. The Thebans had joined the enemy. Eventually, they were beaten. After the battle, Pausanias decided that those Thebans who had medised should be taken to the Isthmus and executed.
During the battle, Mardonius was killed, and so the Persians were defeated. The Athenians set up an altar to Zeus on the battle field. They also established a four-yearly festival in celebration of Salvation, which took place on the site of the battle.
Xerxes’ Tent
Herodotus describes how when he returned to Persia, Xerxes had left his tent for Mardonius. It was full of all kinds of luxury: embroidery, gold and silver. When the battle was over Pausanias came to this tent, and gave orders that the king’s former servants prepare a meal as they would have for him. The elaborate preparations led to the display of a magnificent feast. Pausanias then gave orders that a Spartan meal be prepared. This was an infamous black-broth, which had little to recommend it.
When the two meals were set side by side, the difference was striking. Pausanias then commented: ‘Men of Greece, I brought you together to see this, wishing to show you the folly of the Persian leader, who, having this life-style, has come to seize us when we live in such poverty.’
Herodotus, 9.82
3.7 The Battle of Mycale
Meanwhile, the Spartan king Leotychidas was leading a naval expedition to Ionia. He came across a Persian naval encampment at Mycale. He stormed this, and the Persian ships went up in flames. The Ionians also fought hard against the Persians, and killed many of their men.
This action led to a wider revolt from Persia in Ionia, and everywhere the tyrants and Persian garrisons were driven out. At this point, the Ionians asked the Spartans to protect them by allowing them to join the Hellenic Alliance. The Spartans refused, advising them to move to mainland Greece.
TASK 3G: ESSAY QUESTION
‘The Battle of Plataea, more than any other battle, ensured that the Persians would not make another attempt on Greece.’ Do you agree?

3.8 The relative roles of Athens and Sparta in defending the Greeks against the Persians
Both Athens and Sparta took leading roles in the defeat of the Persian attempts on Greece. Traditionally, Sparta had been the dominant military power in Greece. This can be seen at the time of the battle of Marathon: the Athenians’ first thought is to turn to Sparta for help. When that help was not forthcoming, they decided to act on their own with just the small contingent of Plataeans as support. This showed that they could take the military initiative, and be successful.
Later, it would appear to be a combination of Spartan leadership and Athenian intelligence which won the day. There can be little doubt about the power of Leonidas’ leadership at Thermopylae: he and those with him fought bravely to the last, and held up the Persian advance. However, like the battle at Atremisium in which the Athenians played a leading role, these battles did little because of delaying the enemy and causing them to think about the opposition.
A key element in the Greek success was the foresight of Themistocles in encouraging the Athenians to develop a fleet. According to Plutarch, he saw that the Persian conflict was not over with Marathon, and it was for this reason that he encouraged the Athenians to develop their fleet. Without this fleet, the Greeks would have failed at Salamis.
One criticism can be clearly levelled against the Spartans: they seemed slow to act, and unwilling to get involved beyond the Peloponnese. Initially at Marathon they were unconcerned, but later at the Isthmus and again at Salamis they seemed slow to act. If Herodotus’ account is accurate, it was only the trickery of Themistocles which forced Eurybiades to act. Had they not acted at this time, the story of the battle of Salamis might have been very different.
It is important to remember, however, that Herodotus was reliant on the sources available to him. Sparta was a notoriously closed society, and it was very difficult to discover much about it. On the other hand, Herodotus had spent considerable amounts of time in Athens, and so may well have heard an Athenian version of events, which increased the importance of his hosts’ city.
The Athenians had to abandon their city, and it was sacked by the Persians. This affected the Athenians so greatly that they decided not to rebuild the temples on the acropolis for thirty years after the conflict: and even then Pericles had to persuade them to move ahead with his plans to create the Parthenon and other now famous temples. The Athenians had lost a lot. The Corinthian commander Adeimantus was right on one level: at Salamis Themistocles was the only commander without a city. Perhaps that situation spurred the Athenians on to act in a way beyond what everyone expected.
TASK 3H
1. Make a list of what the Spartans and Athenians respectively did in the fight against the Persians. Complete this as a table.
2. Which state was more important in the defence of Greece against Persia – Athens or Sparta? Explain your answer.

3.9 Military tactics, armour and weaponry used by the Persians and Greeks
The Phalanx
A key element of the Greek strength in land-battles was the phalanx: ordered rows of soldiers, with their shields on their left arm, and their spears in the right. Because the shield only covered the left side of a soldier’s body, he was reliant on his neighbour’s shield for the safety of the right side.
Armour
There were two main types of soldier: the heavily armed hoplites and the more lightly armed peltasts. It is important to remember that many of the Persian troops would have been Greeks from Ionia or other hired hands, so the differences between the two sides are probably less than we might expect.
Hoplites
The mainstay of the Greek fighting force was the Hoplite, a heavily armed soldier. His main weapon was a long iron-tipped spear, which was between 3-4m in length. A hoplite would also have a short sword, some 60cm in length. The sword was used for both a cutting and thrusting motion. He also carried a round shield, made of wood covered with bronze and an inner leather lining. His upper body was covered with a breastplate below which a linen cuirass was worn. On his shins there were moulded bronze greaves, and simple leather sandals on his feet. The soldier’s head was protected by a helmet, and, in the case of the Corinthians, this was topped with a plume of dyed horse-hair.
Peltasts
A peltast was a more lightly armed Greek soldier. He carried a crescent-shaped wicker shield, covered with goat or sheepskin. Most also carried a one or two handled scythe or falx - a traditional Balkan weapon. Some of Darius’ force in 490 BC were Thracian peltasts.
Archers and Spearmen
The Persian force included archers from Scythia. These archers were able to fire very large numbers of arrows in a short space of time. However, they would have been lightly armed, and, once over run by hoplites, would not have survived long.
Herodotus gives the following description of the Persian soldiers:
‘First the Persians themselves: the dress of these troops consisted of the tiara, or soft felt cap, embroidered tunic with sleeves, a coat of mail looking like the scales of a fish, and trousers; for arms they carried large wicker shields, quivers slung below them, short spears, powerful bows with cane arrows, and daggers swinging from belts beside the right thigh.’
(Herodotus, 7.61, p.439 trans. A. de Selincourt rev. Marincola, Penguin, 2003)
Herodotus goes on to describe the other forces within the Persian expedition: Herodotus 7.61-80. His description gives a sense of the range of different nations involved. The idea of simply co-ordinating such a range of people is difficult, if one considers the different fighting methods and the challenges of numerous different languages. The very range of forces must have put Xerxes’ force at something of a disadvantage.
TASK 3I
1. Describe a Greek hoplite: their weapons, clothing and armour.
2. Describe a Persian soldier: their weapons, clothing and armour.
3. In an engagement between a Greek and a Persian soldier, which would have the advantage? Explain your answer.
TASK 3J: SOURCE-BASED
A. Read Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Marathon, Herodotus, 6.98-118.
1. Describe the Athenian tactics in the battle.
2. To what extent do you think these tactics were responsible for the Athenian victory?
B. Read Herodotus’ account of battle of Thermopylae, Herodotus, 7.206-228.
3. What were the Spartan tactics at this battle?
4. How did these tactics differ from those of the Athenians?
C. Compare and contrast the techniques used by the Athenians and the Spartans at Marathon and
Thermopylae.
3.10 The ships of the Greeks and Persians
Although the Greeks and the Persians may originally have had very different ships, the Persian forces included a large number of Greek ships from Ionia. The design of the ships, in particular the trireme, was an essential element in the sea battles at Artemesium and Salamis.
Persians
The Persians had an extremely strong naval presence in the Eastern Mediterranean because of the peoples they had conquered. The Phoenicians, Ionians and even Egyptians all added to their naval arsenal. The forces at the battle of Artemisium give a sense of the make-up of the Persian forces.
Persian Ships at Artemisium
Phoenicia 300
Egypt 300
Cyprus 150
Cilicia 100
Pamphylia 30
Lycia 50
Dorians 30
Caria 70
Ionians 100
Others 177
Herodotus tells us that the ships of the Phoenicians were the fastest. He says that there were native crews of 200 on each of their ships, but these were joined by an additional 30 Persians, Medes and Sacae, who served as archers. The military crew of each ships would have stood at around 44. This, combined with additional troops, would have brought the weight of Persians ships to about 4 tonnes, which is 8% heavier than the Greek ships.
Herodotus also states that the Persians included in their fleet 3000 small oared ships, loosely referred to as pentecontors. These had crews of 80 each.
Greeks
The key ship in the Greek fleet was the trireme. The word trireme literary means ‘three oared’: the trireme had three banks of oars on either side. Each ship had 170 rowers, and was about 120 feet in length.
The crew of a trireme usually consisted of 213 men: 14 spearmen, 4 archers, 25 officers and sailors and a further 170 rowers. The ships were propelled both by oarsmen and sails. The oarsman would have rowed in time with a flute. They could reach speeds of almost 6 knots, although only for short periods of time.
The trireme was built from pine. At the front there was a large ram also made from timber. It came to a point two metres in front of the stem. The front of this was covered with a bronze sheath. It has been calculated that the force generated by the ram would be of the order of 66 tonnes. Such a force was employed by skilled helmsmen as they directed their crew to ram opposing ships side on.
TASK 3K
Think about the description of the trireme. What do you think were the difficulties and challenges facing the ship commanders at the battle of Salamis.
3.11 Reasons for the failure of Xerxes’ Expeditions
Why, then, did Xerxes’ expedition fail? Clearly there are individual reasons at each battle why the Persians lost: the cunning of Themistocles and skill of the Greek navy at Salamis, the surprise at Mycale, perhaps even the absence of their commander at Plataea left the Persians without a will to fight. There are, however, a few over-arching reasons which are worth considering.
First, the Greeks were fighting for their homeland. This, for Herodotus, would probably have been the most important idea. They loved the ideal of freedom, and the thought of losing their homes, as indeed the Athenians did in 480/79BC, drove them to fight all the harder.
Secondly, the Persian forces did not have this spirit. They were fighting, as the Greeks saw it, as slaves to their master. They were not there of their own free will, but merely hired hands, and members of a vast empire, in which they had little belief. If Herodotus is right about the effects of the departure of Xerxes from Salamis, this may well be true. It is also shown in Artemisia’s actions at Salamis: she wanted to win for herself, and she had no loyalty to other members of her side.
Thirdly, for all the careful planning and organisation of provisions, the size of Xerxes’ expedition was such that it must have required enormous amounts of food and other materials. The further they were removed from Persia, the more difficult it would have been to maintain such supplies.
Fourthly, how important was Greece to Xerxes? Although Herodotus was keen to emphasise the importance of the conflict from the Greek side, was it that significant for Xerxes? He had a large empire, and, as Pausanias’ demonstration of the meals after Plataea showed, what were the Persians going to gain by continuing to attack Greece? He may well have decided after Salamis to cut his losses, and withdraw.
TASK 3L: SOURCE-BASED
Re-read Herodotus Book 7, sections 5-7, 23-24, 32-41, 101-104, 138, 206-228 and, Book 8, sections 78-112.
To what extent do you think Xerxes was to blame for the failure of his expedition against Greece?
Theme: The importance and contribution of key individuals in this period
Introduction
Throughout Herodotus’ account of the conflict with Persia, a number of individuals stand out. They took leading roles on either the Greek or Persian side. The aim of this part of the course is to consider their contribution to the course of events and their characters.
4.1 Miltiades
Miltiades played a key role in the Athenian victory at Marathon. It was he who showed them that they must fight, and persuaded Callimachus to vote with him, so that the Athenians were committed to fighting when they did. However, his career did not begin and end with Marathon.
In 524/3 BC he was an archon (leading official) in Athens. At this point he was sent by the then tyrant Hippias – the same man who led the Persians to Marathon – to go to the Chersonese to subdue it. This he did, and he ruled there. During this time he submitted to the authority of king Darius, and even took part in Darius’ expedition against the Scythians. Herodotus says that he, along with other Ionian tyrants, proposed destroying the bridge which Darius had built from mainland Persia over the Hellespont to Scythia. This would have left Darius stranded in Europe, and ruined his expedition. However, even if the Ionians ever had such a plan, it was never carried out.
Shortly after this, Miltiades was driven out of the Chersonese by a Scythian invasion, and he joined the Ionian Revolt. He gained control of Lemnos, but when the revolt was crushed he fled back to Athens. At first he was tried for being a tyrant in the Chersonese, but the Athenians acquitted him, and then elected him as one of the ten generals shortly afterwards. It was in this capacity that he served at Marathon.
His main contribution at Marathon was to persuade Callimachus to fight, when the other generals were doubting this course. Some have suggested that Herodotus exaggerates his importance in the battle, and that it was Callimachus who is really the hero of the day. However, it may be that Miltiades was responsible for persuading the generals to fight before the Persians could organise their cavalry. This would have been a key element in the victory, as the cavalry were the enemy’s great strength, and would have been a real challenge for the Athenian and Plataean foot soldiers.
Miltiades was acknowledged by the Athenians afterwards with a separate grave marker to indicate his pivotal role in the battle. A later Roman Biographer, Cornelius Nepos, writing in the first century BC, tells us that the sole honour that Miltiades received from the Athenians was a picture of the Battle of Marathon painted in a building in central Athens called the Poikile Stoa or Painted Colonnade. He says, ‘his portrait was given the leading place among the ten generals and he was represented in the act of haranguing the troops and giving the signal for battle’.
(Nepos, Miltiades, 6).
However, after his victory he led an Athenian fleet against the island of Paros, and failed to take the town. He was severely wounded in the action, and came home to anything but a hero’s welcome: he was brought to trial for his failure, and fined 50 talents – a very large amount of money. He died shortly afterwards from gangrene, and his son, Cimon, paid the fine.
TASK 4A
1. Outline Miltiades’ career
2. Read Herodotus’ account of the Battle of Marathon, Herodotus, 6.98.118. Explain in what ways Miltiades was essential to the Greek victory.
3. Do you think the Athenians adequately rewarded Miltiades for his role at Marathon? Explain your answer.
4.2 Leonidas
Leonidas was the hero of the Battle of Thermopylae. He refused to retreat and fought with his fellow Spartans to the death.
Leonidas was one of the kings of Sparta. His reign began around 490BC, and ended with his death at Thermopylae ten years later. In 480BC, whilst the rest of the Spartans were delayed by the festival of Carnea, he marched to Thermopylae with his elite force of 300.
Leonidas is most known for his determination in facing the Persian threat. In Herodotus’ account, he is the central figure, sending away men from the other states, and then ordering his own men to stand firm and fight (see Herodotus 7.206-228).
The later biographer Plutarch also collected various sayings which are attributed to Leonidas. These give a sense of his character:
When the ephors (Spartan officials) said: ‘Haven’t you decided to take any action beyond blocking the passes against the Persians?’, ‘In theory, no’, he said, ‘but in fact I plan to die for the Greeks.’
When Xerxes wrote to him: ‘It is possible for you not to fight the gods but to side with me and be monarch of Greece,’ he wrote back: If you understood what is honourable in life, you would avoid lusting after what belongs to others. For me, it is better to die for Greece than to be monarch for the people of my race.’
He passed word to his soldiers to eat breakfast in expectation that they would be having dinner in Hades (the underworld).
(From Plutarch on Sparta, Penguin, p.146-7)
TASK 4B
Read the selections from Plutarch given above, and Herodotus’ account of Leonidas’ involvement in the Battle of Thermopylae (Herodotus 8.206-228).
(a) Summarise Leonidas’ role in the battle of Thermopylae.
(b) Give two qualities of Leonidas as a leader and explain them with reference to the sources.
(c) How reliable do you think Herodotus and Plutarch are as sources for Leonidas’ character?
4.3 Themistocles
Themistocles was one of the most significant individuals in this period. He persuaded the Athenians to invest in the navy, at a time when they would have preferred to do otherwise, and he also engineered the circumstances for a Greek victory at Salamis.
Themistocles is the subject of later biographies by Cornelius Nepos (99BC-24BC) by Plutarch (AD50-AD120), as well as being the central figure of much of Herodotus’ narrative. Because he is so central to the battle of Salamis, this aspect of his life should be considered within the narrative of that battle, other aspects will be considered here. Both Nepos and Plutarch were keen to show their subject’s character, rather than his involvement in specific historical events. They were also writing a long time after the events, so they have to be used with caution.
Themistocles was the son of Neocles, who was of high birth. He quickly became famous because of his energetic interest in political affairs. His first major achievement was the development of the harbour at Piraeus for Athens. In 483/2BC, the Athenians found a large deposit of silver at mines in Laurium, in Attica. At the time Athens was in a dispute with the neighbouring island of Aegina. Themistocles persuaded the people to use the money to increase the size of the Athenian fleet from 70 to 200 ships. These ships were used in the battles at Artemisium and Salamis, and ultimately saved the Greek world from Xerxes’ invasion plans.
Ostracism
The Athenians developed a method of banishing any citizen they thought was becoming too powerful within the state. Each year, the Assembly would decide whether to hold an ostracism. This word comes from ostracon, a Greek word meaning a piece of pottery. The Athenians would choose who might be appropriate for banishment, and then the people would write the name of their chosen person on an ostracon. The man with the highest number of votes was ostracised: banished from the city for ten years.
After Themistocles’ pivotal role in the battle of Salamis (as described above), he was greatly honoured in Sparta. At the end of the 470s Themistocles was ostracised from Athens, and went to live in Argos in the Peloponnese. He visited other cities in the Peloponnese, where an anti-Spartan feeling was growing. Because of the threat from the Spartans he fled, ultimately to Persia. At some point after 465BC, King Artaxerxes I of Persia made him governor of Magnsesia, where he lived until he died a natural death. Meanwhile, the Athenians had condemned him to death in his absence.
In the ancient biographical tradition, Themistocles is often contrasted with Aristides. Aristides was known for his up-rightness and sense of justice, whilst Themistocles was seen as a trickster, always out to get what he could. Plutarch (Themistocles, 3-5) gives various clues to Themistocles’ character: he was keen to make money, may have been generous, very ambitious, well-loved by the people, a reliable arbitrator in disputes and keen to be in a leading position in the state.
To what extent this is true is impossible to judge: it is evident, however, that he had a powerful, positive influence on the Athenian navy, and must take at least some of the credit for the victory at Salamis.
TASK 4C
1. Outline Themistocles’ career.
2. Do you think Herodotus gives a fair treatment of Themistocles?
3. Was Themistocles the hero of Salamis or a trickster out to gain all he could? Explain your answer.
4.4 Xerxes
In October 485BC Xerxes, son of Darius, became King of the Persian Empire. His father, Darius, died, leaving him with some small problems: a rebellion in Egypt and the question of the Greeks.
Xerxes was the son of Darius and Atossa, the daughter of Cyrus the Great. Our main evidence for his actions is in Herodotus, where he appears to be a tyrannical and determined ruler. It is important to remember, however, that Herodotus was keen to characterise him as the ruler whose pride in the strength of his forces led to his failure and the collapse of his expedition. We have seen his part in the various battles which his forces fought. It may now be helpful to look at three different views of Xerxes: inscriptions from Persia, Herodotus himself and the Athenian playwright Aeschylus’ view.
(i) Inscriptions:
These show how Xerxes himself wanted to be seen within the empire. Many of the inscriptions which have been found state that Xerxes is the King, King of Kings, appointed by the will of Ahura Mazda, the great Persian god. (For further details, see Lactor 16, p.50-53).
(ii) Herodotus
Herodotus includes numerous stories about Xerxes. Here are a few in outline.
(a) When his engineers had built a bridge across the Hellespont, a storm destroyed the bridge. Xerxes had the engineers beheaded, and the Hellespont whipped. He then ordered that fetters be thrown into the sea.
(b) A Lydian subject, Pythius, asked Xerxes to allow one of his five sons not to march on the expedition to Greece. Xerxes was so enraged, that he ordered that Pythius’ eldest son be found, cut in half and that the two halves of his body be placed on either side of the road. The army would then march through the middle!
(c) Xerxes was so angered by Leonidas that he had his head cut off and stuck on a stake.
(d) At the battle of Salamis, Xerxes watched the course of the battle from nearby. Whenever he saw one of his officers act in a distinguished way, he had his secretaries write down his name, together with his city and parentage.
(iii) Aeschylus
In 472BC the Athenian playwright Aeschylus put on a play called Persians which showed the moment Xerxes returned to Persia after the defeat in Greece. It focussed on the grief and suffering of the Persian women, and glorified the Athenian achievement by showing the suffering which they caused to their enemy. Xerxes appears late on in the play, dressed in rags with a quiver but not a bow. Aeschylus is uncompromising in his characterisation. Xerxes opens his mouth for the first time with these words:
‘IO.
Io!
Wretched me, I have suffered a loathsome
and totally unexpected fate!
How cruelly god has come down on the Persian race!
Miserable me, what is to become of me?
The vigour has gone from my limbs
as I contemplate the advanced age of these citizens.
O Zeus, I which that fate had shrouded me
with death as well,
along with the men who died…
Later he continues:
I left them behind, destroyed,
Disappearing from Phoenician ships
onto the strands
of Salamis, striking
Against the harsh coast.
And then:
…It is a miserable
blow for me to have lost so great an army.
(Aeschylus, The Persians, l.908-917, 962-966, 1014-15 trans E. Hall, Aris & Phillips, 1997)
Three very different images of the King: the King of Kings, the cruel tyrant and the wretched, defeated king.
TASK 4D
Read Herodotus 7.32-41
1. Describe Xerxes’ actions in this passage.
2. What does this tell us about his ambitions and character?
3. Explain whether you think Herodotus’ narrative is accurate at this point. Give reasons for
your answer.
TASK 4E
Consider the three different accounts of Xerxes given above: the inscriptions, details from Herodotus and the Aeschylus. Assess how reliable you think each is: consider what motivated each writer, and explain whether you think their picture is reliable.

Sources: Herodotus’ qualities as a historian and factors which affect how he writes history
Introduction
Throughout the study of the conflict between Greek and Persia, any historian is dependent on the work of Herodotus. He was a highly intelligent and inquisitive student of humanity. He took great interest in different cultures, and was very open-minded in his approach to different peoples. This sense of inquiry into things, and the causes of events lies at the heart of history.
He opens his work by stating that it is the presentation of his researches, historie. This is the origin of the word, History: it is a form of research. His research is the first of its kind to have survived, and makes his work unique: it stands at the beginning of the study of history as a subject.
5.1 Herodotus’ aims and interests as a historian
Ionia
The Ionian coast of Asia Minor was one of the most exciting places to be in the early fifth century BC. It was full of highly intelligent, enquiring people. Hecataeus wrote the first geography book, whilst Heraclitus, a philosopher, is most famous for his saying that you cannot step twice into the same river. Herodotus was not the only intellectual from this area.
The Ionians were related to the Athenians. This may be why Athens later developed as such a cultural centre later in the fifth century BC.
Herodotus was called the Father of History by the Roman orator Cicero. He was a researcher: the opening to his work states that this is the ‘presentation of the researches of Halicarnassus’. He came from the city of Halicarnassus, a city on the West coast of Asia Minor (now known as Bodrum in Turkey), and seems to have travelled extensively during his life: he probably visited Egypt, Athens, and lived in his later days in Thurii in southern Italy.
The fact that he moved around the Greek world so much is significant: he may have spent time in Athens, and may well have received much of his information from the Athenians, but he had a wider view of the Greek world.
He was interested in all manner of things, so his history is not exactly how we might define history. His books include information on Egyptian and Persian customs and geographical descriptions, as well as the accounts of the battles which we have been studying. He states in his own aims the beginning of his work: that human achievements may not be forgotten in time, and that the great and marvellous actions, of both Greeks and non-Greeks, may not be without glory. He then says that he is particularly interested in showing why the Greeks and non-Greeks came into conflict.
The table summarising the contents of Herodotus’ work gives a sense of his interests. It is possible to see that it follows the expansion of the Persian Empire, coming to a crescendo with the failed attack on Greece by Xerxes. One important aspect of his work, though, is not always that apparent: his interest in different cultures. Consider, for example, his description of the mummification process in Egypt. He goes through a range of options, and then concludes: ‘This is the third method of embalming which is used for the poor. Having cleared the intestines with a purge, they pickle the body for 70 days and then they give it back to the family to take away.’ (Herodotus, 2.88). This is a good example of his interest not only in the direct theme of the expansion of the Persian Empire, but also in the people and their customs.
Herodotus makes an important observation about customs. He reflects that the custom (nomos in Greek) is the king of all: it controls all. He tells how Darius wanted to test peoples customs: he asked some Greeks to eat their dead relative: they were horrified, because they always burned their dead. Meanwhile, he also asked some Indians, a tribe known as the Callatiae, if they would burn their dead. They were equally horrified: they always ate their death, and regarded burning them as sacrilege, because it would profane the fire. Herodotus here (Herodotus, 3.38) again shows his interest in a wider form of research: he is interested in the people and their customs, as well as the narrower focus of the conflict between Greeks and Barbarians.
Summary of Herodotus’ Work
Book 1 Expansion of the Persian Empire: Croesus of Lydia and Cyrus the Great
Book 2 Egypt: Geography and History
Book 3 Rise and Fall of Samos; Death of Cambyses and the Rise of Darius
Book 4 Scythia: Persian Exploration in Europe: Ethnography of the Scythians
Book 5 The Ionian Revolt
Book 6 King Cleomenes of Sparta and Marathon; Xerxes’ decision to invade Greece
Book 7 Xerxes’ Expedition: Preparations, crossing the Hellespont; Thermopylae
Book 8 Artemisium and Salamis
Book 9 Plataea, Mycale and the Epilogue to the History
TASK 5A
1. Outline Herodotus’ interests.
2. How do you think these interests are reflected in his account of the battles against the Persians?
TASK 5B: SOURCE-BASED
Read Herodotus, 1.1-5
1. What are Herodotus’ aims in his work?
2. Summarise the stories of women-snatching between Europe and Asia.
3. Why do you think Herodotus includes the details of the mythological conflict between Europe and Asia? Explain your answer.
5.2 The nature of Herodotus’ sources and his use of them
The first key aspect of Herodotus’ sources is that they were human. He was keen to investigate the events and phenomena brought about by human activity. Unlike the poets before him, he was not going to ascribe a role to the gods in the course of a battle. He reported oracles: humans, such as Themistocles, were influenced by them. But, at the end of the day, generals, leaders and others determined the course of action, not the slight of hand of a god.
As a result of this, Herodotus rejects myths: in his opening chapters he outlines the mythical origins of the conflict between Europe and Asia. He gives different versions: that from the Persians is contrasted with a Phoenician version, and mention is made of a Greek version. He connects this with the story of the Trojan war: in essence there are a series of incidents in which women are snatched by each side. This culminates in the Trojan War, in which the Greeks destroyed Troy, because of the taking of Helen. He concludes, ‘From this point on it was considered that the Greek world was always in conflict with them (the Persians). For the Persians claimed as their homeland Asia and the barbarian races living there, whilst they considered Europe and the Greek world to be separate.’ (Herodotus 1.4)
He then outlines a key aspect of his historical method:
That then is what the Persians and the Phoenicians say. About these matters I am not going to say whether this or that version is true, but I will show you who I know to have been the first to harm the Greeks and then I will go on with my story, telling the stories of both small and great cities of men. For the majority of those cities which once were great have become less important, and those cities which were great in my time previously were small. As I realise that human happiness does not stay in the same place for long, I will recall both great and small equally.
Herodotus, I.5
This is a highly significant passage. It shows Herodotus’ interest in having direct knowledge of what he is describing: he will not just accept any story. Also, it shows that he is keen to look beneath the surface: a city today may be great, but was it great at the time of the Persian Wars? Herodotus, then, is an intelligent, critical historian.
Herodotus gives a similar message when describing events in Egypt. Again, this gives a very clear indication of his method:
Until this point my observation, opinion and research have guided what I have said. From here on, I will give arguments which are based on what the Egyptians have said, and I will record them as I heard them. In addition to this, there will be some things from my own observation.
Herodotus, 2.99
Here Herodotus again emphasises the importance of his own observation. Although he is clearly stating that he will have to rely on what he has been told by the Egyptians, he seems to have preferred using his own observation.
Herodotus seems to have made thorough use of other writers at the time, as well as using the information which he was able to gain from speaking to people who were present at the events which he describes.
A good example of the particular sources which Herodotus had guiding his narrative is the incident of Artemisia at the Battle of Salamis. He gives great detail about her ramming a fellow ‘Persian’ ship in an attempt to avoid an attack from a Greek ship. In the end, the plan worked, the Greeks assumed that she was a friendly vessel, and let her escape. In the process, she not only sank a ship on her own side, but also gained the respect of Xerxes. He is alleged to have made the comment, ‘My men have become women, my women men.’
Here it is important to note first that Herodotus was from Halicarnassus, and Artemisia was queen of that city. Did he include this detail because he was interested in his own city or because he had a source from within the city who told him the story? Secondly, how accurate is Xerxes’ response likely to be? In the first place, there is a theme both in his narrative and that of Aeschylus in Persians of showing Persians to be effeminate: this fits rather well into this pattern, so perhaps Herodotus added it, simply to add colour. Secondly, how could Herodotus have known Xerxes’ response? What was his source?
TASK 5C
1. Outline Herodotus’ historical method as described above.
2. What makes Herodotus a historian?
TASK 5D: SOURCE BASED
Read Herodotus 8.87-88.
1. Explain what is happening at this point in the battle.
2. Why do you think Herodotus includes this incident?
3. How accurate do you think this account is likely to be? Explain reasons for your answer.
4. What does this passage tell us about Herodotus’ use of sources and how they may have shaped
his narrative?
5.3 The role Herodotus ascribes to individuals
One distinguishing feature of Herodotus’ history is that he places considerable emphasis on the actions of individuals. In his account of the Ionian revolt, figures such as Aristagoras and Histiaeus loom large, whilst it is Darius’ almost personal grudge against the Athenians which leads him to launch the expedition against Athens. Equally, figures such as Themistocles or Xerxes play a key role in his narrative. He does not always give much weight to wider questions such as economic hardship in Ionia or the desire of the Persians to expand their Empire.
However, Herodotus often uses individuals to deal with wider questions. A good example of this is the discussion between Xerxes and Demaratus, the former king of Sparta, before the battle of Salamis (Herodotus, 7.101-104). The passage shows the differences between the Greeks and the Persians, and goes some way to explaining how the Greeks will stand and fight against a foreign force which is vastly superior in numbers.
TASK 5E:
Read Herodotus 7.101-104.
1. What aspects of Greek, and especially Spartan, character are shown in this passage?
2. What aspects of Persian character are shown in this passage?
3. How far do you think these character traits explain the Greek victories against Xerxes?
4. Why do you think Herodotus has included this dialogue?
TASK 5F: Essay
Consider the sections of Herodotus which you have read: Marathon, Thermopylae and Salamis. Does Herodotus give too much emphasis on the individuals in these episodes? Explain your answer.

Option 2: Alexander the Great, 356–323 BC
Introduction: the sources for Alexander
There are a number of surviving sources for Alexander from the ancient world, though there are only a few fragmentary contemporary references. In this course, there are three specified sources: Plutarch, Life of Alexander; Diodorus Siculus, Library of History; Arrian Anabasis of Alexander. There is also an extended account by Curtius Rufus (History of Alexander) and considerable material elsewhere. However, because these accounts were written long after Alexander’s death, there are some question marks about their reliability. There are also different presentations of Alexander, which seem to go back to sources writing about him during his life or soon after his death but which are now lost: for example, Callisthenes (see Plutarch Alexander 33; Arrian 4.10-12) was the official court historian and biased towards Alexander (he is the only source we know who actually wrote during the campaigns); Ptolemy (Arrian 1.14; 7.4, 26) and Aristobulus (Arrian 2.3; 4.8; 7.4, 24, 26, 28-9; Plutarch Alexander 75) both exaggerated their roles in events. In addition, there are references to the court journals (Ephemerides) which claim to be a record of what happened in the king’s court but may not be authentic. Not all contemporaries wrote favourably about Alexander; for example, Cleitarchus was probably the source of some of the negative material developed by later writers such as Curtius Rufus.

Context: Macedon and the Greeks
1.1 The Macedonian Background

The Kingdom of Macedonia played a minor role in the great events of the fifth century in Greece. Many Greeks regarded the Macedonians as barbarians, not part of the Greek world at all. This had begun to change in the fifth century BC, as Macedonian kings such as Perdiccas II and Archelaus played a more significant role in Greek affairs. However the turbulent relations between the Macedonian kings and their nearest neighbours to the north, and even the outlying areas of the kingdom, restricted what could be achieved. Even a successful king like Amyntas III was driven out of Macedon for a period of time. In addition, interest in the coastal areas of the Aegean Sea by states such as Athens restricted Macedonian influence over areas they considered rightfully theirs.
As the list of kings (above) shows, violence was seldom far away for members of the royal dynasty. This history of assassination and warfare formed an essential backdrop to Alexander’s childhood. His father, Philip II, spent a good deal of time on campaign, both strengthening his own position at home and establishing Macedon as a central force in the Greek world, partly through diplomacy and partly through the use of force.
This is clearly illustrated by events after the accession of Alexander II in 370/69 BC. He was the son of the successful Amyntas III and the older brother of Philip (later Philip II, father of Alexander the Great). He succeeded his father without dispute, but the Illyrians then chose to invade; while he was campaigning against them, a relative, Pausanias, mounted an invasion from the east. The king’s mother Eurydice was forced to call on the Athenians for help, which secured his position. Alexander II then sought to establish his wider influence to the south, helping the Thessalians against the tyrant of Pherae; he gained control of some significant strongholds, which he then tried to keep under his authority. The Thessalians called on Pelopidas of Thebes to assist them; Alexander was forced to surrender the territory he had gained, and some 30 hostages from leading Macedonian families were taken back to Thebes, including Alexander’s younger brother, Philip.
Philip’s chance came when Perdiccas III was killed fighting against the Illyrians in 359 BC. There were a number of other potential claimants to the throne, so his reign was challenging from the start.
1.2 The Persian Background
Interaction between the Greeks and the rulers of Asia Minor and beyond had a long history. Homer’s poems the Iliad and the Odyssey deal with a Greek expedition to Asia Minor against the city of Troy; these works were very important to Alexander (see the section 2.3 on the Mythological and Religious Background), as can be seen by his visit to the site of Troy in May 334 BC.
The Persian Empire was established by Cyrus the Great; he came into closer contact with the Greek world when he conquered the Lydian king, Croesus (c 547 BC). His successors continued the development of the Achaemenid Empire, which stretched from the coast of Asia Minor south to Egypt, north to shores of the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea, and east as far as the Hindu Kush.
The encroachment of the Persians into the Greek-speaking areas was well advanced by 500 BC, and in the early years of the fifth century BC there were a number of conflicts. First there was an attempt by states on the coast of Asia Minor and the islands of the Aegean Sea to escape Persian control (the Ionian Revolt, 499-493 BC). As a result of this, Darius I turned his attention to Greece, which resulted in the campaign leading to the Battle of Marathon in 490 BC. In this battle, against the odds, the Athenians (with a little help from Plataea) were able to defeat the Persian land forces and force them to withdraw. Darius is said to have become more determined than ever to conquer Greece, but his death forestalled any immediate plans for invasion.
His successor, Xerxes I, took some time establishing his control over the Achaemenid Empire. Egypt had seized the opportunity offered by Darius’ death to revolt, and had to be brought back under Persian dominance, so it was only towards the end of the 480s BC that preparation could begin for a major expedition against the Greeks. The resulting campaign is recorded by the earliest Greek historian, Herodotus, in considerable detail. The two most important Greek city-states of the period, Athens and Sparta, both played very important roles in the battles of this war (Thermopylae, Artemisium and Salamis (480 BC) and Plataea and Mycale (479 BC). The majority of Greek states were involved, though some fought on the Persian side, either because they were already in the Persian sphere of influence (island and coastal states) or because they ‘medized’ (literally joined the Medes), in effect surrendering in advance to the advancing Persian juggernaut. Macedonia (under King Alexander I) was forced to support Persia.
The Greeks achieved their freedom, though it was by no means clear that the Persians would not attempt a further invasion in 479 BC. The scale of the expedition made a lasting impression, as did the fabulous wealth and resources that the Great King (of Persia) could call upon.
Persia continued to pose a threat in the fifth century BC. The Battle of Eurymedon (469 BC) between the Persian fleet and the Delian League, led by Athens, prevented a further expedition, though the Persians controlled Asia Minor apart from the coastal area. It is possible that a formal peace was made in the early 440s (the so-called ‘Peace of Callias’), at least between the Athenians and the Persians, but the local Persian satraps (governors) continued to be interested in exploiting any opportunities they found to gain influence in the Greek world, especially when there was conflict. During the later stages of the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) between Athens and Sparta (and their respective allies), both sides looked to the Persians to provide resources to break the deadlock between them. In the end, the Persians offered sufficient financial support for Sparta to man a navy strong enough to challenge and then defeat Athens at sea. This victory left Sparta as the dominant state within the Greek world.
Sparta was not able to exploit its success in the Peloponnesian War, and other states in Greece challenged her. The Corinthian War (495-387 BC) involved Sparta fighting against four states in coalition (Thebes, Athens, Corinth and Argos). Persia supported the Athenians at one point, but later decided that Sparta suited her interests more. In the King’s Peace (or Peace of Antalcidas) in 387 BC, the Greek states committed to abide by a peace treaty guaranteed by the Persian King, who agreed to make war on those who broke the terms of the peace. Persia retained control of the coastal areas of Asia Minor, Clazomenae and Cyprus, while the Greek states were independent.
The most significant outcome of this was that the Ionian cities returned to the control of the Persian King; this lasted until the time of Alexander the Great. In this way, the great achievement of the Persian Wars of the fifth century BC was overturned. Greece was now independent, but the continuing squabbles between states further weakened the old-established states. Sparta managed for a time to use the terms of the peace treaty to her own advantage, but her own power was broken in a conflict with Thebes that resulted in the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC. This defeat undermined the basis of Sparta’s power at home by breaking her hold over Messenia. For a short time, Thebes was able to exercise considerable authority, but she was to be challenged by other Greek states. This weakness to the south provided opportunities for Macedon to emerge as a significant, and before long a dominant, power under Amyntas III and Philip II.
1.3 The growth of Macedon as a political and military power
Amyntas III, once he had established control of his kingdom, made a series of alliances with significant Greek states to help ensure the stability of his regime and strengthen his interests in areas close to Macedon. He gained control of Olynthus with Sparta’s help, and also agreed to assist Athens regain control of Amphipolis. Athens was particularly interested in good relations with Macedon at this time as the kingdom provided a significant supply of timber for shipbuilding.
After the death of Amyntas, there was considerable turbulence in Macedon for a number of years, and the succeeding rulers were forced to concentrate more on shoring up their own position at home than extending their influence beyond the boundaries of the kingdom. During the reign of Alexander II, Philip spent some years in Thebes as a hostage to secure Macedonian good behaviour. This provided him with an opportunity to study at first hand the Theban army whose success at Leuctra had brought to an end the dominance of Sparta, and he lived in the house of a Theban general, Pammenes.
On the death of Perdiccas III, Philip was in a position to become king himself in turn. Once he had secured the throne, he began to look beyond his borders. The most important of the Greek states (Thebes, Athens, Sparta) were now weaker, and, to the north, Thrace had been split into three parts after the murder of Cotys in 360 BC.
Philip dealt with the Illyrians in 358 BC, and again in 356 BC, using his loyal general Parmenio against them. He also dealt with the Paeonians, first by diplomacy, then he subjugated them to Macedonian control by 356 BC. Once this immediate problem had been dealt with, Philip looked to the east: in 357 BC he captured Amphipolis and then moved against Pydna, which was held by the Athenians at this time. He also seized the opportunity to respond to appeals from further along the coast to the east, assisting the state of Crenides against the Thracians; he refounded this city as Philippi, and subjugated the Thracian king who opposed him. In late 355 BC, Philip attacked Athens’ last stronghold on the coast, Methone, and forced it to surrender.
Philip also had the energy to look to the south towards Thessaly, which Macedonian kings had often sought to influence. Interventions in 358 and 355 BC brought some success, but Philip could not make headway further into Greece. He therefore turned his attention back to the north, where he dealt with the Chalcidian League, centred on the state of Olynthus, which was destroyed in 348 BC.
By 346 BC, Philip had further successes to the south. He made an agreement with Phocis and a peace with the Athenians, who gave up all interest in the areas now controlled by Macedon on the Aegean coast. Relations with the Athenians were still problematic, as they still feared Philip’s involvement both in the north and in central Greece. Philip had turned his energies to Thrace which he conquered by 341 BC; his control of this area threatened Athenian interests in the Hellespont, vital to them because of the grain shipments they needed. In 338 BC, Philip’s problems with states in central Greece came to a head at the battle of Chaeronea in August, when Philip’s army secured an emphatic victory over a coalition of states, many of whom had been allied to him at some point. Amongst these were Athens and Thebes, with contributions from others such as Corinth, Megara and Euboea. In the battle, Alexander was placed on the left wing and distinguished himself in the fighting. The Theban army, still one of the most powerful in Greece, was routed. After his overwhelming success, Philip took the opportunity to weaken the other Greek states to make sure his position could not again be challenged. Thebes was forced to accept a Macedonian garrison and its position in central Greece was weakened. The Athenians were treated less harshly. They were forced to give up control of the last remaining part of the northern shore line they controlled, the Thracian Chersonese, though Philip allowed them to maintain control of a number of islands. However, because of their dependence on grain from the Black Sea, the Athenians were now not free to oppose Philip, as he could easily use his control of the Hellespont to threaten vital supplies.
In the winter, Philip marched into the Peloponnese, and then organised the foundation of the League of Corinth. At a meeting held in Corinth, it was agreed that there should be a formal structure; there was to be a synedrion or council of representatives for member states who were guaranteed freedom and independence, and a military hegemon (leader), who was tasked with organising military contributions and ensuring that states maintained the peace. This role was given to Philip, and the council declared war on Persia, so giving Philip the opportunity to stamp Macedonian authority on the old enemy and to unite Greeks under his leadership against a common enemy.

Theme: the upbringing, character, life and death of Alexander
2.1 Olympias: character and influence
Olympias was no doubt a significant figure in Macedonian life and her influence on Alexander considerable. Some of the more lurid stories about her may reflect the negative views of the author towards her son. She was able to survive in the tempestuous world of Macedonian royal politics, which must have taken considerable skill.
What does the following passage tell us about Olympias?
On his father’s side Alexander was descended from Heracles through Caranus. On his mother’s he was a descendent of Aeacus through Neoptolemus. This is beyond doubt. Philip is said to have been initiated into the mysteries at Samothrace with Olympias, when he was still a young man. He fell in love with her when she was an orphan and proposed marriage to her, after persuading her brother, Arymbas, to consent. The bride, on the night before they slept together in their bedroom, thought that there was a peal of thunder and that a thunderbolt fell on her womb. From the blow much fire sprung up, and then it broke into flames that went everywhere, before being extinguished. Philip, at a later time, after his marriage, dreamt that he was putting a seal on his wife’s womb. In his opinion, the carving on the seal had the image of a lion. When the other seers considered the vision, they thought that Philip needed to keep as close an eye as possible on his marriage relations. Aristander of Telmessus said that the woman was pregnant, because a seal is not used on empty things, and that she was carrying a child who was bold in spirit and had a lion-like nature. In addition, a snake was seen stretched out next to Olympias’ body as she slept. And they say that this, more than anything else, reduced Philip’s love and friendliness towards his wife, and that he no longer slept with his wife, either because he feared some spells and enchantments might be used against him by his wife or because he was avoiding association with her, as she was the partner of a superior being.
Plutarch, Life of Alexander 2
See also:
Plutarch, Life of Alexander 2 [‘There is another story ... terrify the men.’]
When Alexander left for Asia, he left Olympias behind and placed Antipater in charge of Macedonia and Greece. However they did not agree with each other about what should happen, and both wrote many letters to Alexander, which gave rise to the story reported by Arrian (7.12) that Alexander in exasperation remarked that his mother was charging him a very great deal for his nine months’ stay in her womb.
Plutarch finishes his Alexander (77) with some further stories about her which suggest how important she was in Macedonian affairs. Whether they are true or not, Olympias continued to be a significant figure in the struggles for supremacy after Alexander’s death, until Cassander, who later proclaimed himself King of Macedonia, had her put to death in 316 BC.
2.2 Alexander’s childhood and youth
Alexander was raised within the Macedonian court, with more direct contact with his mother than with his father, who was often away from Macedonia, campaigning to the north or trying to establish Macedon’s position in the Greek world. Although he was a member of the royal family, he was not isolated from others of his own age. One of the ways Philip promoted stability in Macedonia was to bring to the sons of leading families the court for education. This provided the basis for the close relationship Alexander enjoyed with his ‘companions’, the important group on whom he relied particularly both for support in battle and for relaxation.
We have only limited information for Alexander’s youth. The first two books of Curtius Rufus have not been preserved, so we are heavily dependent on Plutarch. As a biographer, Plutarch was very interested in character, and his selection of material reflects his desire to bring out the essential aspects of Alexander’s nature.

Philip made arrangements for Alexander to receive an education that would prepare him for an important role in the wider Greek world; this was all the more important because of Macedon’s cultural isolation, though the royal family had long been accepted as fully Greek. By 343 BC, Aristotle was already a significant figure in the Greek intellectual world, and the impact of his teaching on Alexander was profound (Plutarch Alexander 7-8). This may have contributed to Alexander’s desire for exploration and discovery. Plutarch writes:
He admired Aristotle from the beginning and loved him not less, as he himself said, than his father, as he gained the gift of life from his father, but from Aristotle he had learnt how to live nobly.
Plutarch Alexander 8
There are two important incidents that give a sense of Alexander’s relationship with his father. Read through these sources carefully:
(a)
Philoneicus the Thessalian brought Boucephalas to sell to Philip for 13 talents. They all went down to the plain to inspect the horse, and he appeared to be difficult and completely unmanageable, not allowing anyone to ride him or responding to the voice of any of Philip’s men, but rearing at all of them. Philip was annoyed and ordered them to take the horse away as it was completely wild and untrained. Alexander was there and said, “What a horse they are losing when they cannot handle him through lack of skill and patience.” At first Philip kept quiet, but when Alexander said the same thing many times and was in great distress, he said, “Do you find fault with your elders because you know more than they do or are better able to handle a horse?” Alexander replied, “I could certainly manage this horse better than anyone else.” “And if you don't, what penalty should you pay for your recklessness?” Straightaway Alexander said, “By Zeus, I will pay the price of the horse.” This made everybody laugh, and then father and son made an agreement about the penalty. At once Alexander ran up to the horse and, taking the reins, turned him towards the sun, as he had noticed that the horse was disturbed by seeing his own shadow falling in front of him and dancing around. Then he calmed the horse a little by doing this and stroked it, and when he saw that it was full of spirit and energy he took off his cloak quietly, leapt up and seated himself safely. Then gently directing the bit with the reins without striking the horse or tearing his mouth, Alexander held the horse back. When he saw that the horse had stopped misbehaving and was eager for a run, he spoke more boldly, kicked with his heels and gave the horse his head. At first those with Philip were terrified and kept quiet. But when Alexander came back proud and overjoyed, everyone there cried out and his father is said to have cried with joy; when the boy had dismounted he kissed him on his head and said, “My child, you must seek a kingdom equal to yourself; Macedonia is not big enough for you.”
Plutarch Alexander 6
(b)
But the disturbances in the Royal household, brought about by his marriages and his love affairs, caused problems in his kingdom very similar to those in the women's quarters of the palace and resulted in great quarrels between Alexander and his father, which the bad temper of Olympias, an envious and sullen woman, made still worse, as she encouraged the young man. The most obvious quarrel was brought about by Attalus at the time of Philip's marriage to Cleopatra; Philip fell in love with a young girl, even though he was too old for her. Attalus was her uncle and when he was drunk at a banquet he called on the Macedonians to ask the gods for a legitimate inheritor of the kingdom from Philip and Cleopatra. Stung by this remark Alexander said, "Do I appear to you to be a bastard, you fool?" And he threw a cup at him. Philip drew his sword and stood up to face Alexander, but fortunately for both of them because of his anger and the wine he tripped and fell over. Alexander insulted him and said, "Look at this man, my friends, who is preparing to cross to Asia from Europe, who comes a cropper crossing from one couch to another." After this drunken brawl he took Olympias and put her in Epirus, while he spent time amongst the Illyrians.
Meanwhile Demaratus the Corinthian, who was a friend of the family and prepared to speak his mind, went to Philip. After they greeted each other, when Philip asked how the Greeks were agreeing with each other, Demaratus replied, "It is certainly very appropriate, Philip, to be worried about Greece, when you have filled your own house with such strife and difficulties." Philip realised he was right, and sent for Alexander and brought him home with Demaratus’ help.
Plutarch Alexander 9
In 340 BC, Alexander was left as regent in Macedonia while Philip was away on campaign, which shows how highly regarded he was by his father. When the Maedi caused trouble to the north, Alexander did not hesitate to lead forces against them, and he set up a military colony there called Alexandropolis.
2.3 The Mythological and Religious Background
Alexander grew up in the tempestuous Macedonian court. His status as a son of the king must have marked him out from an early age, and the claims on both sides of his family to descent from important figures in the distant past must also have given him a sense of his own standing in the world. The kings of Macedonia performed an essential role as leaders of their people in peace and war, but they were also a link to the gods; their religious role was sanctified by tradition, and Alexander certainly seems to have taken it very seriously, even before the issue of divine honours was raised.
It is important to understand the significance of the heroic world described by Homer in his poems and the impact this had on the development of Alexander. This can be seen in his visit to Troy (Arrian 1. 12); Arrian wrote that Alexander ‘had been eager to emulate Achilles ever since boyhood’ (Arrian 7. 14).
The importance of religious ritual to the king can be seen in the accounts of Alexander’s last days (which may go back to the so-called court journals). It is also worth considering his visits to Gordium and to the oracle of Ammon.

2.4 Philip’s final years
Although there were arguably sound dynastic reasons for it, Philip’s decision to take another young wife in 337 BC risked destabilising relationships within his own palace. Cleopatra was the niece of Attalus, a Macedonian of noble birth. According to one source, Satyrus, Philip ‘fell in love with her’. There had been other marriages, three of them before his marriage to Olympias, and two of the later ones served particular political purposes during campaigns.
Although Philip never got the chance to begin his long-planned expedition against the Persians, he had already made extensive preparations for it after the decision was taken at the meeting of the League of Corinth in 338/7 BC. One purpose of the expedition was to cement Philip and Macedon at the centre of the Greek world. There was also the realistic prospect of success.
An advanced force was organised and sent to Asia Minor in the spring of 336 BC, under the command of Parmenio and Attalus. It is likely that Attalus was sent out on the expedition to remove him from the court after the fiasco at Philip’s wedding to his niece Cleopatra, which led to Alexander and his mother leaving the court in 337 BC. Philip’s reconciliation with Alexander meant that, for the moment at least, Alexander was the heir presumptive. However we do not know how Philip planned to organise the Persian expedition; presumably he intended to take Alexander with him. However he had also to ensure that Macedonia was in safe hands while he was away; it is possible he intended to use Antipater in this role, as Alexander later did. Before that, he needed to make the state as stable as possible, so he used a political marriage between his own daughter Cleopatra and Alexander I of Epirus, brother of Olympias. The celebrations for this wedding were to be used by Philip to demonstrate his standing within the wider Greek world, but the assassination of the king changed the course of events. There has been much discussion about the murder of Philip and the extent to which it reflected a wider conspiracy against the king: some have suggested that Olympias or Alexander were behind it, though they are not the only potential suspects.
2.5 Alexander the King
After the death of Philip, Alexander had to move quickly to secure his position as king. The recent history of the Macedonian royal family (see above) must have prepared him for this, and he had supporters ready to act on his behalf. To become king, he had to be accepted by the Macedonian army; but although this was important he had also to deal with potential problems. One of these was Attalus, uncle of Philip’s most recent wife, Cleopatra. Alexander quickly organised men to remove this potential threat and sent them to kill Attalus. As he was in Asia with the Macedonian forces under Parmenio, this must have been done with Parmenio’s agreement. The killing of Cleopatra and her child is attributed in the sources to Olympias.
Alexander also moved quickly to secure his own status in the wider Greek world, as there was some unrest after Philip’s death. He made an expedition through central Greece, securing his position in the Amphictyonic League and also election as hegemon (leader) of the League of Corinth; he took his father’s place as leader of the proposed expedition against Persia.
However a new Macedonian king had also to establish his position at home, and so Alexander was forced to campaign in 335 BC against the tribes to the north in Illyria and Thrace. This also helped reinforce Alexander’s position within the army, and demonstrated that he understood the potential of the army inherited from his father and had the ability to employ it effectively in combat.
There were further problems in Greece, in which Athens and Thebes played an important role. The Athenian politician and orator Demosthenes tried to build a coalition against Alexander, and the Thebans were confident enough to turn on the Macedonian garrison established there in 338 BC after Chaeronea, perhaps expecting Alexander to be distracted by campaigns in the north for some time. However Alexander turned the tables effectively on the Thebans and took the city very quickly: he ordered the city to be razed to the ground, though he is reported to have preserved the house of the poet Pindar. This act of destruction undermined any chance of unity amongst the Greeks, who swiftly returned to obedience. (Further details can be found in Plutarch Alexander 11-14.)
2.6 Alexander’s relationships with members of his court
From his childhood, Alexander was surrounded by important members of the Macedonian aristocracy. Those who were important under Philip and continued to play significant roles during the reign of Alexander include Parmenio and Antipater.
Antipater (c397-319 BC) was appointed by Philip in 342 BC to oversee Macedon while he campaigned in the north and he also represented the king at the meeting that year of the Amphictyonic League at Delphi. After Chaeronea in 338 BC he was entrusted with negotiations in Athens. Even more importantly, he had a good relationship with Olympias, and so was well-placed to offer Alexander effective support after the assassination of Philip. When Alexander departed for Asia, he was left as regent in his place, and continued in this role until Alexander’s death in 323 BC. During this time he had to deal with the threat posed by Memnon’s Persian fleet in the Aegean, though that came to nothing after the death of Memnon at Mytilene in 333 BC. The Thracians caused problems in 332 BC, and, a little later, Agis III of Sparta, with the help of Persian money, tried to break Macedonian control of the Peloponnese that had left the Spartans effectively sidelined. Together with the Achaeans, Arcadians and the state of Elis, the Spartans put the city of Megalopolis under siege in 331 BC, and Antipater was forced to make a treaty with the Thracians so he could deal with the problems in the Peloponnese. In the spring of 330 BC, a decisive battle resulted in the death of Agis and the restoration of Macedonian control, though not without serious Macedonian losses. The relationship between Antipater and Olympias deteriorated over time, and in 324 BC Antipater was summoned to bring fresh troops to join Alexander, while Craterus was appointed regent in his place; however Alexander’s death allowed Antipater to stay in charge in Macedon, and in a strong position in the crisis that followed.
Parmenio (c400 - 330 BC) was a successful general under Philip, defeating the Illyrians in 356 BC and closely involved in the development of the Macedonian army which enabled Macedon to emerge as the dominant power in Greece during Philip’s reign. In 336 BC, he was sent ahead to Asia with Amyntas and Attalus to prepare for Philip’s expedition against the Persians, leading a force of 10,000 men. On Alexander’s succession, he did not attempt to save Attalus from the anger of the young king, and remained a powerful force, becoming Alexander’s second in command, in command of the important left wing of the Macedonian forces in battle. In the sources he is often represented as the more cautious and traditional tactician; Alexander is recorded as rejecting his advice about the time to attack at the Battle of the Granicus, but accepting his advice at the Battle of Gaugamela. However his son Philotas, one of the younger group of Alexander’s companions, was caught up in the so-called ‘conspiracy of Philotas’ in 330 BC, and was condemned to death by the army. Alexander then dispatched trusted men to kill Parmenio, in case he retaliated to the death of his son.
Alexander was brought up at court with Macedonians closer to his own age, many of whom became the companions on whom he relied for leadership in the army and for friendship. These were the sons of leading figures, such as Philotas, son of Parmenio. This childhood intimacy and the strong tradition of Macedonian free speech brought about some difficulties in the relationship between Alexander and his companions, especially as he began to adopt more openly foreign customs, such as wearing Persian clothes and introducing the obeisance. Two prominent figures in this group were Cleitus and Hephaestion.
Cleitus (known as Cleitus the Black) (c375 – 328 BC) was some 20 years older than Alexander; his sister Lanike was Alexander’s nurse. He was commander of the Royal Squadron in battle, and dramatically saved Alexander’s life in the Battle of the Granicus, when Alexander was leading the charge against the Persian forces. Spithridates was about to strike Alexander who was fighting another Persian, Rhoesaces, but Cleitus cut off his arm. This incident was brought up by Cleitus during the drunken party which led to his death. Reorganisation of commands may have led him to feel he was being demoted within the companions at this point. Alexander’s extreme reaction to his own behaviour shows his close, if tempestuous, relationship with his companions, and the narrative provided in our sources suggests a close friendship.
Hephaestion (c356-324 BC) was about the same age as Alexander and had an extremely close relationship with him. There is limited evidence for Hephaestion’s early years, though he may well have been at Mieza with Alexander, studying under Aristotle. There is even limited evidence for his involvement in the early stages of Alexander’s campaigns, though at Gaugamela he was ‘commander of the bodyguards’, according to Diodorus, which indicates he fought in battle beside Alexander, and Arrian tells us he received a wound. After the so-called ‘conspiracy of Philotas’ in 330 BC, he was made joint commander of the companion cavalry with Cleitus. Hephaestion was significantly involved in the rest of Alexander’s campaigns, and was eventually appointed Chiliarch, which shows the extent to which Alexander trusted and relied on him. His relationships with Craterus and Eumenes, Alexander’s secretaries, were more difficult (there are quarrels recorded in the sources), but the lack of information may reflect his early death. In the mass marriage ceremony at Susa in 324 BC, Hephaestion was married to Drypetis, daughter of Darius, whose sister, Stateira, married Alexander. This again underlines the close connection between the two men. Alexander’s extreme reaction to Hephaestion’s sudden death from a fever is discussed at length by our sources, and there is also considerable information about how he intended to enshrine Hephaestion’s memory. However after Alexander’s own death, these plans were set aside as the surviving companions tried to take control of all or part of Alexander’s conquests.
2.7 The character of Alexander
It is difficult to make a final assessment of the character of Alexander. Although we have a considerable amount of material about the Macedonian king, we have little contemporary evidence. It is probable that the herm of Alexander originally found at Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli and now in the Louvre Museum can give us an idea of what he looked like. It is based on an original by the Greek sculptor Lysippus who ‘was the only sculptor Alexander judged worthy of portraying himself’ (Arrian 1.16). The accounts of his campaigns also enable us to understand his energy, particularly in warfare: his resilience, determination and courage are well documented. His judgment is more questionable: he was certainly decisive and intuitive in battle, but many historians have criticised the risks he took not only with the lives of his men but with his own. This was particularly important because he did not make provision for his own death: there was no clear succession and he had not followed Parmenio’s advice before the campaign began to father a successor. Events after his death showed how significant a problem this would prove to be.
Picture source: Herm of Alexander from Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AlexandreLouvre.jpg
We can certainly form a judgment of the impact he had on his men. The aftermath of the mutiny at Opis shows the very strong feelings between the army and their king (Arrian 7.11). His relationship with his companions was more complex. He was very close to Hephaestion, and to many of the others; the Macedonian tradition of free speech in the presence of the king made relations with some companions more difficult, as shown by the events leading to the death of Cleitus (Arrian 4.8).
Alexander’s character
Modern historians have emphasised certain aspects of his behaviour, arguing that he was some or all of the following:
• an alcoholic
• a megalomaniac
• paranoid
• convinced of his own divinity.
Many of the ancient writers emphasise the negative or positive sides of the picture. Arrian (7.30), for example, is largely positive, and is critical of those who focused only on Alexander’s faults: he thinks that someone who draws attention to these should remember that he ‘is himself a meaner person who has pursued trivial goals and not even achieved these.’
On the other hand, Cleitarchus was responsible for some of the negative stories to be found in the surviving sources about Alexander. He had access to eye witness accounts for some at least of what he wrote, and he preserves important details; however his interpretation of Alexander’s actions is equally open to question.
It may be helpful to make a list of significant events from Alexander’s life and contrast the different interpretations that can be made of it. There may be a variety of possible interpretations possible.
Example:
Event Positive Interpretation Negative interpretation
Alexander’s adoption of Persian dress To demonstrate to the conquered peoples that he was the rightful heir of Darius III Shows Alexander’s desire to be treated as a Persian king rather than a Macedonian
2.8 The death of Alexander
We have two accounts of the death of Alexander to consider in detail.
There has been considerable speculation over the years about the cause of Alexander’s death. Years of campaigning must have taken its toll, together with the hardships of the journeys he undertook, such as the disastrous march through the Gedrosian Desert on his return from India: he had also received near fatal wounds on several occasions, as he himself told the troops at the time of the mutiny at Opis (Arrian 7.10). There are also references in the sources to prolonged drinking bouts, which certainly played a part in the death of Cleitus, though Arrian (7.29) considers Alexander’s drinking not to be significant:
As Aristobulus says, his drinking bouts were not long because of the wine, as Alexander drank little wine, but because of his friendship with his companions.
Plutarch (Alexander 77) discusses the idea that the king was poisoned, which he says the majority of historians dismiss. Neither Arrian nor Diodorus support the case for poisoning, and the historian Robin Lane Fox argues that the length of time Alexander was ill is a strong argument against the use of poison.
2.9 The Successors of Alexander: Alexander’s body
The death of Alexander precipitated a crisis within the Macedonian elite. His only gesture towards appointing a successor as he lay ill was the handing of his signet ring to Perdiccas. As his body ‘lay unattended in a stifling hot place’ (Plutarch, Alexander 77), some of his companions began to manoeuvre themselves into positions to secure some or all of Alexander’s conquests for themselves. In the immediate aftermath, there were a number of principal contenders and there was the threat of a split between the members of the elite officer class and the infantry, who remained loyal to the royal house of Macedon and demanded that Arrhidaeus, an older half-brother of Alexander, be named as king, despite his apparent mental weakness. A compromise was reached whereby Arrhidaeus was renamed Philip and accepted by the army as king (jointly with the as yet unborn child of Roxane, Alexander’s wife), with Perdiccas as regent. Antipater and Craterus were also prominent in the new arrangements. This agreement was reached in the presence of Alexander’s dead body.
The army were given the opportunity to hear and reject Alexander’s plans for further expansion of the empire and major building projects in honour of the gods, his father Philip and Hephaestion (Diodorus 18.4). It is very possible that these so-called plans were exaggerated by Perdiccas or others to ensure that they would be rejected by the rank and file of the army.
Although Perdiccas emerged as the most powerful figure in Babylon, there were other important figures whose views about the future would be important. Antipater remained in Macedonia with a powerful army; Craterus had been sent to replace with him by Alexander but was in Cilicia with some 10000 veterans; there was also Antigonus One-Eye at Celaenae. Within a few months, Roxane gave birth to a strong male child, who was acclaimed by the army as Alexander IV.
In a relatively short time, the empire created by the will of one man began to fragment. One question that had to be settled was what to do with the body of Alexander. It was agreed by the Macdonian leadership at Babylon that he should be embalmed and then taken to Ammon’s sanctuary at Siwah to be buried. However by the time the arrangements for transporting the dead king in due pomp were completed two years later, Perdiccas tried to get the body transported to Macedonia so that Alexander could be buried in the traditional resting place of Macedonian kings at Aegae. However Ptolemy managed to intercept the funeral cortege at Damascus, and took the king’s body back to Egypt. He first buried him at Memphis and then installed him in a magnificent tomb in Alexandria.
The importance of Alexander to his successors is clear from the way their service with him is regularly used to strengthen their claim to authority. Coins continued to be issued with Alexander’s name on them after his death; Ptolemy was the first to introduce new coins, showing Alexander wearing an elephant scalp headdress together with the ram’s horns of Ammon; much later, he issued coins as king with his own portrait on one side and Alexander on a chariot drawn by elephants on the other. Seleucus followed very much the same pattern in Babylon. Lysimachus, originally awarded the satrapy of Thrace, managed to profit from the fighting in the years after Alexander’s death, and gained control of Asia Minor; he too struck coins with Alexander’s image.
Ptolemy’s coinage Picture Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PtolemyCoinWithAlexanderWearingElephantScalp.jpg
Lysimachus’ coinage Picture Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:LysimachusCoinWithHornedAlexander.jpg
2.10 The deification of Alexander
Alexander was brought up to believe himself descended from Heracles, and so a descendant of Zeus. However his attitude towards deification is more problematic. Plutarch (28) believes he used divine status as a political tool to ensure control of his new territories, though it is clear from the sources that this resulted in some tensions within the Macedonian leadership, as shown by Cleitus, Callisthenes and the so-called ‘Pages’ Conspiracy’. The attempt to introduce the obeisance can be interpreted as a desire for recognition of his divine status, though it may also reflect the desire to integrate Persians and Macedonians within the court. In the final years of his life, it is recorded that Alexander asked for divine honours from the Greeks, together with a hero-cult for Hephaestion. There is also evidence going back to Ephippus, who wrote a pamphlet on the death of Alexander, that Alexander would dress up as Ammon and other gods such as Artemis and Hermes; this may be mere play-acting at parties. There were some cults established in Asia Minor, and some lasted a long time; one was in the city of Alexandria, where Alexander’s body was finally conveyed by Ptolemy; another at Ephesus. Greece was less enthusiastic, though there are references to discussions in both Sparta and Athens about divine honours for the ‘son of Ammon’; this suggests that Alexander was indeed seeking some recognition of his ‘divine status’.
Further discussion of this question can be found at:
http://www.livius.org/aj-al/alexander/alexander_z3.html

Theme: Alexander’s Campaigns
3.1 The Persian Empire at the time of Alexander’s accession
The Achaemenid Empire was still very powerful when Alexander came to the throne, though in recent years there had been turmoil after a long period of stability. Towards the end of the fifth century BC, Artaxerxes II (404-358 BC) came to the throne at a difficult time; Egypt was no longer part of the empire and an attempt to recover it in 373 BC failed. However he engaged in a range of building projects and moved the capital of the empire back to Persepolis. In the Peace of Antalcidas (also known as the King’s Peace) in 387 BC, Artaxerxes regained control of the coastal cities of the Aegean coast.
On the death of the king, his son Artaxerxes III (358-338 BC) took over control of the empire, eliminating competition by assassinating a number of his close relatives. One significant achievement was the re-establishment of Persian control of Egypt, which once again became a Persian satrapy in 343 BC. The Persians offered significant aid to opponents of Philip: in 340 BC forces were sent to support Cersobleptes, a Thracian ruler, and, more successfully, the city of Perinthus which was able to withstand a siege by Philip’s forces.
Artaxerxes III died in 338 BC, either of natural causes (cuneiform tablet in the British Museum BM 71537) or, according to Diodorus Siculus, poisoned by the successful eunuch Bagoas. He was succeeded by the young Artaxerxes IV (338-336 BC), who almost at once had to face two revolts in Egypt and Babylon, as well as the threat posed by the advance guard of Philip’s forces under Parmenio. Internal disagreements within the leading Persian families led to pressure on Bagoas’ position, who responded by killing the king. In his place Darius III was appointed king; he ordered the execution of Bagoas.
3.2 The Persian Army
The resources of the Achaemenid Empire were vast, as Plutarch records before Gaugamela:
Alexander knew that Darius would not stop fighting through lack of weapons or men since he had so great an army and so vast an empire, but only when he gave up any hope of success and was convinced by clear-cut and utter defeat.

Plutarch, Alexander 31
The Persian king could draw on his own trained Persian troops, including those who served in his personal guard, the so-called Immortals, distinguished by the golden apples on the pommels of their spears: evidence for these can be found at Susa on reliefs in glazed brick or in stone at Persepolis. In addition to the professional Persian forces, there were conscript forces whose abilities were less well developed and there were also Greek mercenaries deployed against Alexander, such as those under the leadership of Memnon at the Battle of the River Granicus. The army as a whole was commanded by the king himself, his family or by close companions. However there were significant difficulties drawing on the full range of forces available to be called up. At the first encounter at the river Granicus, the local satraps and commanders drew on forces close at hand, and did not wait for the further troops to arrive. In later battles, Darius was able to choose the ground and so could make sure he had appropriate forces ready. Alexander’s judgment that he needed a clear-cut defeat of Darius in open battle is probably correct, though he received a number of peace offers before the final battle. Even though the empire was weaker than it had been, under a strong leader it remained very powerful and there is no evidence that the western satrapies were acting independently of the centre at this time, though it is clear that Egypt at least was keen to throw off the Persian yoke, to judge by their enthusiastic response to Alexander’s arrival.
To get a sense of the strength of the Persian army for each battle, it is important to examine the sources, though there is a tendency to exaggerate the numbers. However the main types of troops available to the king were chariots, cavalry and infantry, together with a powerful navy. The cavalry were a very important element, regularly armed with bows and javelins; the horses could have some protective armour. Persian infantry was often deployed in mixed units of archers and shieldbearers armed with spears. Chariots were also employed, including the visually impressive scythe-bearing chariots used at Gaugamela, which also had a spear projecting forward from the end of the chariot pole (Curtius IV.9.5): the driver sat in a high armoured box. However their effectiveness was limited by the need to choose appropriate terrain for the battle, and they appeared to present little threat to well trained troops such as those of Alexander:
The barbarians sent into battle their scythe-bearing chariots towards Alexander himself, in an attempt to disrupt his phalanx. They had no success in this, for as soon as they began to get close, the Agrianians and the javelin throwers led by Balacrus, who were drawn up in front of the cavalry of the companions, hurled their weapons; they grabbed hold of the reins, dragged the men out of the chariots and stood around the horses and struck them. There were a few that got through the Greek battle line, for, as they had been ordered to, the Greeks moved apart at those points where the chariots attacked; this was the reason some got through safely and passed through those they were attacking without doing any damage. The grooms of Alexander’s army and the royal guards finished them off.

Arrian 3.13
3.3 Alexander’s campaign against Darius
It is worth getting a good understanding of the ground covered by Alexander during his campaigns. Below is an exercise using Google Earth, which makes it easy to switch between ancient and modern views of the territory he conquered. The scale of Alexander’s conquests is still breathtaking today, even if his early death meant that his empire was soon broken up between competing factions. Although strictly beyond the demands of this specification, it is worth noting the impact that Alexander’s conquests had on the subsequent history of the region; the kingdoms that resulted, ruled by the descendants of Alexander’s companions, competed largely with each other and allowed time for Rome to grow beyond its boundaries to become a Mediterranean superpower. Although the Achaemenid Empire had been weakened in the 4th century by internal disputes, a strong king, such as Darius III might have become, could once again have turned his attention to the Greek world and beyond.
3.4 The beginning of Alexander’s campaign
Alexander crossed over into Asia in 334 BC with an army of some 35000 men (there are disagreements in the sources about the exact numbers), consisting of 30000 heavy infantry and light infantry and 5000 cavalry. The majority of these were Macedonian, though the Greeks contributed 7000 infantry and a small cavalry force, together with a navy of some 160 ships.
Plutarch (Alexander 15) records that he first went to Troy to show his respect for the earlier achievements of the Greeks, before joining Parmenio and the advanced force, which made up about a quarter of the final total.
He then went on to Ilium and sacrificed to Trojan Athena, and dedicated his full suit of armour in the temple, and took down in their place some of the sacred weapons that were preserved from the Trojan war. They say that the royal guards carried these before him into battle. He then sacrificed to Priam as well on the altar of Zeus of Enclosures (as the story goes), asking that the anger of Priam should not be visited on the race of Neoptolemus, as Alexander himself was descended from him.

Arrian 1. 11
It is worth considering what Alexander was intent on doing at this point in the campaign. He had crossed over to Asia with a relatively small force: he had left a considerable body of men in Greece under Antipater, who had been put in charge of Macedonia in his absence; this was to guard against further problems to the north and also to discourage any trouble in Greece itself. According to Plutarch, he had only 70 talents in cash for the expedition and provisions for thirty days. Some modern historians have argued that this suggests Alexander initially intended only to conquer Asia Minor, while others suggest that his aims were always on a greater scale.
Alexander appears to have regarded the campaign as part of his inheritance from his father, who had persuaded the League of Corinth to send him to gain revenge for the Xerxes’ destruction of Greek cities and to free the cities on the coast of Asia Minor. Philip could satisfy this mandate with a relatively brief campaign to free Asia Minor from Persian control. However, not all historians agree with this view of Philip’s intentions: some suggest that it is likely that he intended to place himself on the Persian throne, and that he was actively trying to promote himself as an equal to the gods at the marriage ceremony of Cleopatra at which he was killed:
In addition to magnificent displays of all kinds, the king set in the procession statues of the twelve gods crafted with extraordinary skill and wonderfully decorated with a dazzling display of wealth; there was in the procession a thirteenth statue, worthy of a god, but of Philip himself, who was revealed enthroned amongst the twelve gods.

Diodorus Siculus 16.92.5
This could suggest that at the outset of the campaign, Alexander already had his eyes on the greater prize of the Persian throne, and that his thoughts could already have turned towards higher things. It is difficult to come to firm conclusions as we do not have any direct evidence for Alexander’s intentions (or for Philip’s).
Another possibility is more easily grounded in the evidence of contemporary historians. That Alexander only had 70 talents in cash when he crossed to Asia comes from Aristobulus, while Onesicritus, another historian who accompanied Alexander, claimed that he also owed 200 talents. This could suggest that Alexander needed continuous campaigning to maintain the army he had inherited from his father.

Map of Alexander’s Empire
Picture source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MacedonEmpire.jpg
3.5 Battle of the River Granicus
Once Alexander had combined his forces with the advanced guard, he began to move forwards. The local Persian leaders, according to Arrian, held some discussion about the best way to deal with Alexander, receiving advice from Memnon, a Greek mercenary leader from Rhodes who was the son-in-law of Artabazus; he suggested they should draw Alexander further away from the coast and instigate a scorched earth policy to undermine his advance. This was, however, rejected (Arrian 1. 12), so they had drawn up their forces to block his way, selecting ground that would favour them. According to Arrian, Parmenio was concerned at the difficulty presented by the situation:
In my opinion, O king, it would be good in this situation to set up camp on the riverbank just as we are. I do not believe that the enemy will dare bivouac near us as we outnumber them in infantry, and by doing this we will ensure that the army can easily cross the river at dawn; for we will be able to do this before they can get ready for battle. But as things are, I think it would be dangerous to make the attempt, because it is not possible to lead the army through the river in a broad line of battle. You see how there are many deep stretches in the river, and the banks are very high and extremely steep in places; the enemy cavalry drawn up in battle order will be upon us as we come out of the river in marching formation and in no proper order, which puts us in a very weak position. The first defeat would be difficult in the present situation and damaging for the outcome of the whole campaign.

Arrian 1.13
Alexander was determined to fight, and drew up his forces accordingly.

Once he had done this, Alexander sent Parmenio to take control of the left wing, while he went along with his forces to the right. He had already put in position a number of commanders. On the right there was Philotas, son of Parmenio, in charge of the companion cavalry, the archers and the Agrianian javelin men; next to him was Amyntas, son of Arrabaeus, who was in charge of the lancers, and the Paeonians and the squadron of Socrates; next were the royal guards, under the leadership of Nicanor, son of Parmenio; then the phalanx of Perdiccas, the son of Orontes, and next to that, the troops led by Coenus, son of Polemocrates, then those led by Amyntas, son of Andromenes, and finally on the right wing the phalanx led by Philip, son of Amyntas. On the left wing, the Thessalian cavalry were positioned first, under the leadership of Calas, son of Harpalus, and next to them the allied cavalry, commanded by Philip, the son of Menelaus; then Agatho led the Thracian contingent; beyond them were infantry battalions, the phalanx of Craterus, then those of Meleager and Philip, right up to the middle of the whole battle line.

Arrian1.14
The accounts of the battle show it to have been hard fought and in places desperate. Arrian sums up the problems the Macedonians faced:
Where those with Amyntas and Socrates first reached the bank, the Persians assailed them with missiles from above; some threw javelins from their high position on the bank into the river, while others, where the ground was more level, went down to meet them as far as the water. There was a great thrusting of cavalry, some trying to get out of the river, while others tried to prevent them; there was a great shower of javelins from the Persians, while the Macedonians were fighting with their spears. But the Macedonians, as they were greatly outnumbered, began to struggle in the first assault, since they were defending themselves from the river on ground that was not firm and from a lower position, as the Persians held the high bank.
Arrian 1.15
Task 4D
(You may find it helpful to search the internet for better quality versions of the original painting.)
Picture Source: Bronze sculpture of Alexander on horseback from Herculaneum
http://www.nga.gov/podcasts/images/102808bs04-fs.jpg
After the battle Alexander proceeded more cautiously and fulfilled an important element in the campaign agreed by the League of Corinth, as he set about freeing the Greek cities of Asia Minor. He was generous towards those who came over to him: the Persian ruler of Sardis, Mithrenes, surrendered his city to Alexander (and was later rewarded with control of Armenia in 331 BC). He dealt more harshly with those who put up some resistance, notably the cities of Miletus and Halicarnassus, where Memnon, in charge of the Persian navy, was active. At this point Alexander disbanded his fleet, a decision which seemed surprising to some; Alexander presumably felt it was unlikely to be successful against the Persian navy, and the loyalty of its Greek crews was open to question; in addition, maintaining a fleet at sea was expensive. He therefore set about depriving the Persians of any friendly ports along the coast. During this winter, he continued his campaign in Lycia and Pamphylia.
In the spring of 333 BC, Alexander made his way to Gordium, where he ‘solved’ the problem of untying the Gordian knot: ‘whoever undid the knot of the yoke of the wagon was destined to rule Asia’ (Arrian 2.3). This visit suggests that whatever Alexander’s intentions were at the outset, his ambitions was already leading him on to greater expectations. His careful approach to the coastal areas laid the foundations of a lengthy campaign and challenged the Persian king to defend his territory. This suggests that Alexander was already interested in achieving more than the freedom of the Greek cities in the area.

3.6 Battle of the Issus
Darius III had by now collected his forces and now chose to force the issue with Alexander. There are various accounts of the battle: Plutarch Alexander 19-20, Arrian 2. 7-11, Curtius 3. 8-11. This proved to be another decisive victory for Alexander, as Darius had allowed himself to be drawn into terrain that was more suitable for the smaller Macedonian army. The decisive moment came when Alexander led a charge directly at the king, who turned and fled. There was considerable slaughter after the battle, and the Macedonians made themselves masters of a considerable quantity of Persian equipment, though much had previously been sent on to Damascus. This too was soon captured by Parmenio, thereby completing a significant victory, though Darius had made good his escape and could assemble another army in the heartland of his empire.
After the battle, Alexander found himself in control of Darius’ camp. Darius’ mother, wife and several other family members were captured. Alexander treated them as royalty and looked after them well.
Picture source: Mosaic from the house of the Faun in Pompeii depicting Darius and Alexander at Issus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Issus.jpg
Picture source: The Alexander sarcophagus, showing Alxander at the battle of Issus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Alexander_Sarcophagus.jpg
3.7 The Siege of Tyre
After the initial pursuit of Darius, Alexander returned to his previous plan of occupying the coastal cities to deprive the Persian fleet of any base in the region. Most proved easy to convince, though the siege of Tyre was long and difficult. It is arguable that there was no need for the siege, as the people of Tyre were prepared to submit to Alexander, but did not want to allow him to enter the city to sacrifice at the Temple of Heracles there. This made Alexander very angry (Arrian 2. 16). Although the siege took seven months, it left no doubt of Alexander’s seriousness and the siege convinced the Cypriot kings and the Phoenicians to bring their fleets over to Alexander. This helped bring the siege to a successful conclusion.
Alexander himself took great interest in the preparations for the attack on the city, which was extraordinarily well defended:
The eagerness of the Macedonians for the task was great, and Alexander was there directing each step of the work, sometimes inspiring them with his words, at other times encouraging those who worked exceptionally hard with gifts.

Arrian 2. 18

After this, Alexander moved on to Gaza, which was captured after a siege of two months. According to Curtius (4.6.29), the Persian garrison commander Batis (or Betis) was dragged round the walls of the city by Alexander, imitating the way Achilles treated Hector. This is not supported by Plutarch or Arrian.
3.8 Alexander in Egypt
Alexander’s progress in Egypt was swift, as he was welcomed by the people eager to throw off Persian control, only recently reasserted over them. He was accepted as the rightful pharaoh and was recognised as the son of Ammon; he made a journey to the oracle of Ammon at Siwah to be recognised by the god.
The adoption of Egyptian custom was acceptable to the Egyptian people and in line with what the Persian kings had done to legitimise their rule. However it is likely that this behaviour by Alexander caused more difficulty for his loyal Macedonian troops, who felt by acknowledging publically that he was the son of Ammon, he was denying the paternity of Philip. This is the first occasion when dissatisfaction emerged amongst his own forces. There is increasingly in the sources a tension between Alexander’s apparent desire to be recognised as a god and his troops’ view of him as a Macedonian king. Alexander could well be displaying political skill in choosing the best way to present himself to those he had conquered; however as he tried to integrate these newcomers with his Macedonian forces, this became increasingly difficult.
In 331 BC, Alexander founded the city of Alexandria on the site of a small Egyptian town of Rhakotis. Although Alexander never returned to the city after he left to continue his pursuit of Darius, the city thrived under the new administration, as it gained a great deal from the destruction of Tyre. After Alexander’s death, Egypt came under the control of Ptolemy, one of his generals, and the city steadily increased in size and importance.
3.9 Battle of Gaugamela
By 331 BC, Darius had called up further conscripts and was ready to take to the field against Alexander. He set out from Babylon, placed his baggage at Arbela and set up camp near Gaugamela; this time he chose a battle field more appropriate to his mix of troops, and he spent some time ensuring that he would be able to deploy his scythe-bearing chariots and his elephants.
Alexander was under pressure at this time as he had received news that the Spartans in Greece were agitating against the established peace. His choice of commander in Greece proved sound however, as Antipater proved more than equal to the task, defeating the Spartans at Megalopolis, reducing Spartan numbers considerably and killing King Agis III.
Alexander was eager for a decisive confrontation, even though he was considerably outnumbered. Once the two armies were close, he
‘summoned his companions, generals, squadron leaders and the commanders of allied and mercenary forces and held a council of war to discuss whether he should press on towards the enemy from where they were straightaway, or follow Parmenio’s advice to set up a camp where they were and reconnoitre the whole area, in case there was something suspicious or a serious obstacle, or ditches anywhere, or stakes concealed in the ground; the organisation of the enemy forces could also be checked more carefully. It was decided to follow Parmenio’s advice, and they set up camp where they were, organised ready for the coming battle.’
Arrian 3. 9
3.10 After Gaugamela
After the victory at Gaugamela and Darius’ headlong flight, the centre of Persian power was open to Alexander. One of Darius’ commanders, Mazaeus, fled to Babylon, but then surrendered the city to Alexander. In due course, Alexander appointed him satrap, though he also installed a Macedonian garrison in the city; he did the same at Susa, where Abulites was in turn rewarded for recognising the inevitable and surrendering the city and its treasures. His usual practice was to employ local figureheads but ensure that the real power lay in the hands of loyal Macedonians. These native satraps proved less than successful; of the eighteen appointed, ten were removed for murder, treason or incompetence.
As he moved on, there was limited opposition, which he easily bypassed. Soon Persepolis was taken, surrendered by Tiridates; here Alexander allowed some freedom to his army after the long campaigns, and there was considerable pillaging and the destruction of the palace.
In the autumn of 330 BC, the so-called ‘conspiracy of Philotas’ came to light and revealed further the tensions within the Macedonian high command. Whatever the truth behind the charges laid against Philotas, Alexander moved decisively and presented his case to the army, who sided with the king. Philotas may have been guilty of no more than ignoring mutterings against Alexander and speaking his mind freely and critically about the king in Macedonian style. The execution of Philotas led to the killing of his father, Parmenio, who was in Ecbatana. As a result of this, there was some reorganisation of the army commands; Alexander promoted Hephaestion though this proved not to be successful.
In 330 BC, news finally came that all was well in Greece after Antipater had dealt with the Spartans at Megalopolis, so Alexander could continue his pursuit of the Persian king. As Darius fled towards Central Asia, his army and advisors began to desert him. In the end, two of his commanders Bessus and Nabarzanes acted against their king, placing him in golden chains, and finally in July they killed him. Alexander was now accepted as the legitimate heir to Darius’ kingdom, which placed on him a duty to avenge his predecessor.
Bessus declared himself king (as Artaxerxes V) and retreated to his satrapy of Bactria and Sogdiana in the north. Alexander may have chosen to adopt Persian dress to a greater extent at this point to emphasise visually his claim to be the rightful king; his Macedonian troops did not find this easy to accept.
Diodorus (17.77) describes the changes made by Alexander at this point:
• court chamberlains of Asian race
• a bodyguard of Persian noblemen
• he wore some elements of Persian dress – the diadem, white tunic, Persian sash
• scarlet cloaks for his companions
• he took over Darius’ retinue of 360 concubines
As Alexander pursued the murderer across the Hindu Kush into Bactria, founding several cities called Alexandria along the way, Bessus’ fellow leaders turned on their new king and allowed him to be captured and brought to Alexander. Bessus was sent back to Ecbatana to be punished in Persian fashion, while Alexander tried to bring the frontier tribes under control. The foundation of new cities, such as Alexandria Eschate, threatened the way of life in the region, and local leaders, perhaps concerned that they would suffer the same fate as Bessus, proved difficult to subdue. It took two years of campaigning (329-327 BC) before it was possible to use an arranged marriage with Roxane, daughter of Oxyartes, to bring the fighting to an end.
It was during this period that the death of Cleitus (known as ‘Cleitus the Black’) occurred, during a drinking bout in Maracanda (modern Samarkand) in which tempers became roused.
Another significant development that raised tensions within the Macedonian leadership was Alexander’s interest in obeisance (proskynesis). This behaviour had been introduced by Cyrus the Great. In the hierarchical Persian court, it allowed individuals to show that they understood their position in the hierarchy; low-ranking individuals or petitioners might prostrate themselves, but that would not be required of those of higher rank. In return, the Persian king recognised his subjects’ behaviour, and might kiss those closest to him, his kinsmen. The Persians did not regard their king as a god, but behaviour such as this was reserved for the gods in Greek custom. At this time the attempt to introduce such behaviour almost certainly reflects Alexander’s desire to integrate all those now under his rule, rather than an attempt to claim divine honours for himself, though some sources did not take that view.

Soon after this the so-called ‘Pages’ Conspiracy’ occurred; this may have begun for personal reasons when one of the King’s pages was flogged after an incident while hunting. However it again reflects the tensions within the Macedonian elite (the pages were the sons of leading companions of the king) about Alexander’s plans for the future. Callisthenes, who was tutor to the king’s pages, was caught up in this and was either put to death on Alexander’s orders (Arrian 4. 14.3) or died in custody awaiting trial (Plutarch Alexander 55).
3.11 The final campaign in the Indus valley
Alexander turned his attention to the furthest reaches of the Persian empire to the east in 327 BC. His progress was not without incident, but he was, as always, successful. This led to the confrontation with Porus at the Hydaspes in July 326 BC, which was, after a fierce battle, another success for Alexander. However in the aftermath he confirmed Porus in his position and tried to create some stability amongst the peoples of the area, as needed to secure the eastern frontier of his empire. He established the cities of Bucephala and Nicaea, but there is some doubt about his intentions; Plutarch records (Alexander 62) that the army refused to cross the Ganges and that Alexander retired to his tent in anger; however the river was certainly the Hyphasis, and it is not clear he planned to go further. He began to prepare a fleet which would sail down the Hydaspes to the coast. The campaign through this area almost cost Alexander his life during one attack, but his forces successfully brought in line the various territories they passed through. He sent Nearchus on with the fleet, while he led the army by a difficult route through the Gedrosian desert, which again gave Alexander the opportunity to share the privations of his troops (Plutarch Alexander 66). It could be argued that this was a self-inflicted disaster that cost the Macedonian army a great deal.
3.12 The return to Babylon
As Alexander began his journey back towards the centre of the empire, he found that there had been considerable disruption during his absence, as many had not expected him to return. Harpalus, who had been left as treasurer in Ecbatana on Alexander’s departure, had made free use of the king’s treasure for his own enjoyment (including a succession of Greek courtesans), and in 325 BC fled when news of Alexander’s return reached him. Alexander instigated a thorough review of the behaviour of those he had left in control of the various regions of the empire, and there were significant changes made. Arrian records (7.4):
[Alexander] arrested and killed Abulites and his son Ozathres, because they had administered the Susians badly. Many offences had been committed by those who were in charge of the countries which Alexander had conquered. These related to temples, graves and the subjects themselves, because the king had been undertaking the expedition to India, and it did not seem credible that he would return from such a great number of nations and elephants! They thought that he would be killed beyond the Indus, Hydaspes, Acesines and Hyphasis. The disasters which happened to him in Gadrosia did yet more to encourage the satraps to despise any idea of his return home. Not only this, but Alexander is said to have become quicker in giving credence to accusations at this time, as if they were to be believed all the time, and to give great punishments even to those who were convicted of small offences, because he thought they might carry out great offences based on the same thoughts.
What does this passage tell us about Alexander’s behaviour on his return from India?
On his journey, Alexander visited Persepolis and then went to Susa. Arrian (7.4) and Plutarch (Alexander 70) provide accounts of the marriage ceremonies he arranged there for himself and his companions.
He himself married Barsine, the eldest of the daughters of Darius, and another woman in addition to her, Parysatis, the youngest of the daughters of Ochus, according to Aristobulus. He was already married to Roxanne, the daughter of Oxyartes from Bactria. To Hephaestion he gave Drypetis, another daughter of Darius and the sister of his own wife. For he wanted Hephaestion’s children to be cousins to his own. To Craterus he gave Amastrine the daugher of Oxyartes, Darius’ brother; to Perdiccas, a daughter of Atropates, satrap of Media. Ptolemy, his bodyguard, and Eumenes, the royal secretary, married the daughters of Artabazus, Artacama and Artonis respectively. Nearchus married the daughter of Barsine and Mentor; Seleucus the daughter of Spitamenes from Bactria, and likewise the other Companions – about eighty in all - married the most noble daughters of the Persians and the Medes.

Arrian 7.4
This suggests a determined attempt by Alexander to make strong links between the conquered elite and their conquerors. It is worth noting that no Macedonian or Greek women were married to Persian nobles, so this should not be seen as an attempt to join the two peoples. At about the same time, Alexander took steps to send home those amongst his veterans who were unfit to continue fighting, and brought in to his army the thirty thousand so-called ‘successors’ he had left behind for Greek training in 327 BC. This produced a strong reaction from his Macedonian soldiers, who felt they were being supplanted by the foreigners; Alexander’s reorganisation of his army may have been prompted as much by a shortage of manpower as anything else. There was a brief mutiny and confrontation with the king at Opis, which was over very quickly. The strong and deep connection between the king and his army was re-established, though the ringleaders were condemned to death. Arrian records (7.12) that Alexander declared that he recognised all his Macedonian troops as ‘kinsmen’, the term used by Persian kings for their most distinguished courtiers.
He held a great banquet of reconciliation at Opis: according to Arrian (7.12), there were 9000 guests present. The king sat at the centre with his companions, then next to them were the Persian notables, and the other guests beyond. During the banquet, Alexander is supposed to have made a prayer for agreement and friendship between the Macedonians and the Persians. After this, he arranged for all those who were no longer fit for service to return to Greece.
Alexander appointed Craterus to replace Antipater in Greece, and sent him to convey the veterans returning home back to Greece. In the summer of 324 BC, Nicanor of Stageira was sent to the Olympic games to announce the Exiles’ Decree, which ordered the Greek cities to receive back all exiles, apart from those who were robbers of temples or murderers. This caused considerable problems for some states such as Athens and was not within the terms of the League of Corinth. Another controversial issue amongst historians concerns deification; there is no clear evidence that Alexander put forward a decree asking to be awarded divine honours by the Greek states, though many believe that he did. The subject was certainly discussed in Athens and Sparta. Perhaps Plutarch (Alexander 28) is correct about this:
From these accounts it is clear that Alexander was not affected by, nor did he become conceited through, a belief in his own divinity, but rather used it to overcome others.
From Susa, he went to Ecbatana, where personal misfortune struck: Hephaestion became ill after drinking and died. Alexander’s reaction was extreme:
Writers have given very different accounts of Alexander’s grieving; they all agreed that his grief was very great, but there are different versions of what he actually did, dependent on the goodwill or envy each felt towards Hephaestion or Alexander himself. For those who recorded his reckless excesses seem to me to consider that whatever Alexander did or said in his great grief for the friend closest to him of all men either adds to his glory or bring shame upon him, on the grounds that such behaviour was not fitting for a king or for Alexander. Some say that for the greater part of that day he flung himself down beside the body of his friend groaning and did not wish to be separated from him, until he was forcibly removed by his companions; in other accounts, he lay beside the body all day and all night; other writers say he strung up the doctor Glaucias, either because of the wrong drug being given or because he saw Hephaestion drinking heavily and allowed him to continue. I think it is likely that Alexander cut his hair over the body, especially because he had been eager to emulate Achilles ever since boyhood.
Arrian 7.14
What does this passage suggest about the difficulties assessing Alexander’s behaviour?
This event also raises the issue of divine honours:
According to most historians, Alexander ordered that Hephaestion should always receive rites appropriate for a hero, and some say that he sent to the oracle of Ammon to ask the god whether he allowed Hephaestion to receive sacrifices as a god, but that permission was not granted.
Arrian 7.14
In the last months of his life, Alexander seems to have become very sensitive about religious matters. He had always respected the gods of the countries through which he had travelled, and he regularly fulfilled his religious duties as king. Plutarch, himself a religious man, writes:
Alexander, since he had become troubled about divine matters and fearful in his mind, now treated everything unusual or strange, however insignificant, as a portent or omen. The royal palace was full of people sacrificing and purifying and making predictions of the future. It is true that disbelief in divine matters and contempt for them is a terrible thing, but terrible also is superstition, which, just as water always flows down to the lowest point, now filled Alexander’s fearful mind with foolishness.
Plutarch Alexander 75
3.13 Alexander’s intentions
It is impossible to be certain what Alexander’s exact intentions were at each stage of the campaign. At the outset, he may have intended a relatively short campaign to free the Greek cities of Asia Minor and secure Greek lands freedom from Persian control. However there is uncertainty over his father’s plans, and Alexander seems likely to have wanted to outdo his father. His visits to the acropolis at Gordium and the oracle of Ammon may have raised his ambitions further; the prospect of defeating Darius and capturing the most important Persian cities with their fabulous treasure may also have drawn him on. Once he was accepted as the new king of Persia, he took on the task of avenging the murder of his predecessor. Alexander recognised the need to employ local elites to maintain control over the vast territories of Persia, as earlier Persian kings had done, though there were difficulties integrating oriental court practices to the far different expectations of both the Macedonian elite and the Macedonian army. In India he may have reached the limit of his ambitions, though the sources suggest he wanted to press further. The account of his final days suggests that he had no intention of resting on his achievements; he was already planning further travel, and had his officers preparing for a further expedition to Arabia (and perhaps even further).
There were considerable problems facing him: the Exiles’ Decree had caused considerable concern in Greece, and some states were trying to stir things up, particularly the Athenians. Although he had already decided to replace Antipater with Craterus, it was not clear that this would make the situation in Greece any better, and there was the difficult issue of divine honours. The relationship between Macedonians and Persians had still to settle down, and his proposed absence would allow tensions to surface.
3.14 Alexander’s Legacy
Alexander’s achievements had a considerable impact on his own times, and after his death, the break-up of his empire drew a new map for the future development of the areas he had conquered. The ruling families founded by his companions, such as Ptolemy in Egypt or Seleucus in Babylonia, had a lasting impact on the ruling elites in those areas. Arguably just as important for the spread of Greek influence through the vast areas conquered were the various cities he founded (or refounded): Plutarch (On the Fortune of Alexander 1.5) claims he established ‘more than seventy’, but this is clearly an exaggeration; there may have been as few as eight cities called Alexandria in various parts of the empire, and a larger number of other towns transformed in some way by Alexander’s passing (and in later years at least eager to claim an association with the great man).
Many of these cities were set in strategically important sites: Alexandria on the coast in Egypt at one end of the empire; Alexandria Eschate to the north in Sogdiana; Alexandria on the Hyphasis in the east. The cities were founded for mixed populations: Alexander left behind those of his forces who were not fit to fight any further or whom he no longer trusted, but there were also natives of the region. The effect of the dispersion of Greek culture through the empire helped hold it together over time.
Not all the Greeks and Macedonians settled in this way were happy to be so far from their homeland. There were attempts by the mercenaries settled in Alexandria Eschate to return to Greece, but these were bloodily suppressed.
The most famous of these cities was Alexandria in Egypt, where Ptolemy transformed his satrapy into an empire. Although he originally buried Alexander’s body at Memphis, he later brought it to Alexandria which developed into a major centre of Greek culture over the next few centuries. It was developed by the Ptolemaic dynasty as the capital of Egypt and a major port. The Tomb of Alexander was a major attraction, as was the famous library.

Theme: Developments in the Macedonian Army
4.1 The Macedonian Army under Philip II and Alexander
The victory at Chaeronea in 338 BC was in large part due to the development of the Macedonian army under Philip and the experience of lengthy campaigns over a long period of time. By tradition there was a very strong link between the army and the king from his accession; one significant limitation on the powers of a Macedonian king was that the army had to decide on matters of treason.
Even at the beginning of his reign, Philip was able to muster a significant body of infantry, though the cavalry remained the most important element in the Macedonian army. As his control over his kingdom became more assured, and his success in expanding his influence increased his wealth, he was able to draw on a greater number of men and introduce some important refinements in equipment and tactics. However the limitations of the sources are such that we cannot be sure of the exact sequence of development.
The cavalry were the traditional core of the Macedonian army, and they remained significant under Philip. The ‘companion cavalry’ consisted of Macedonians close to the king, and they played a very significant role in Macedonian success. Philip probably combined together during his reign what had been separate cavalry units from Upper and Lower Macedonia. The Macedonian cavalry wore protective armour (corselet, helmet), may have carried a shield and the main offensive weapon was a strong cornel wood spear, together with a sword. They trained hard to ride in a wedge formation, which allowed them to change direction in response to the leader and to manoeuvre very quickly wherever gaps appeared in the enemy line. It was the speed of deployment in battle that made them such a formidable force against both Greek and Persian armies.
The Macedonian infantry in the fifth century BC was little better than a mob (Thucydides 4, 125), but later kings had tried to improve it by establishing ‘Foot-Companions’ (Pezhetairoi), who were more organised and better trained. Philip continued this development and increased the numbers, as well as improving the training and taking a greater interest in the leadership and equipping of this element in the army. Much of this development is unclear, but Philip had, during his time as a hostage in Thebes, been in a position to observe the organisation and effectiveness of the Sacred Band of Thebes, the strongest fighting force in Greece at the time. They used the sarissa, a pike of about 15-18 feet in length, metal helmet, greaves and a circular shield, together with a dagger. Units fought together in a phalanx, 8 men deep, and were trained to change formation in response to command and conditions. Their training meant that they were an effective force even on uneven and difficult terrain. The main weakness of the phalanx was exposed by an attack at the sides or rear, especially once engaged with the enemy; however Philip’s highly trained cavalry could manoeuvre quickly to reduce or eliminate this risk.
There were also light-armed troops, both mounted and on foot. These allowed for a great deal of flexibility in the way the army was deployed in battle, and contributed to the effectiveness in the field against less well-organised or well-trained opponents. It is difficult to be sure to what extent Philip used these, as the evidence we have is insufficiently detailed. We do have more evidence from the time of Alexander, but it is impossible to decide whether these developments were down to Alexander or were part of his father’s legacy.
Both infantry and cavalry units were commanded by individuals close to the king, and there was a much greater emphasis on training, so much so that by the time of Chaeronea the Macedonian army was significantly better prepared for battle than other Greek armies.

Philip did not rely only on his own forces, but could also draw increasingly on contributions from his allies. Once his influence on Thessaly was assured he could draw on the traditionally strong Thessalian cavalry to support his own. He could also draw on a range of mercenaries, the more so as his successes brought him control of important resources.
It is likely that Philip was responsible for significant tactical developments that contributed to his success. He certainly improved the training of the Macedonian forces and improved the organisation of his forces.
Alexander’s success undoubtedly depended on the army developed by his father, though we lack the evidence now to decide the precise contribution of each. Because of his training, Alexander had a quick understanding of how best to use his troops in particular circumstances, as Arrian records (7. 28):
He was very quick to see what needed to be done in situations that were still uncertain, and he was very successful in judging what was likely to happen from the facts available to him.
He was very experienced in organising, arming and equipping his troops, and he was outstanding in raising the spirits of his troops, and filling them with confident expectation, and dispelling their terror in dangerous circumstances through his own lack of fear. When it was clear what needed to be done, he did it with the greatest boldness, and whenever he had to secure an objective before any of the enemy even suspected what would happen, he was very skilful at taking the initiative and acting first.
This is amply demonstrated by the accounts of the main battles, and by his organisation of the siege of Tyre, as described above.

Sources
The two main sources we use in this course are Arrian and Plutarch. Both are considerably later than Alexander, and they approach their material in different ways.
5.1 Plutarch
Plutarch (c AD50 – c AD120) came from Chaeronea where his family had lived for a long time. He spent some time in Athens studying philosophy, and also visited Rome where he spent some time teaching. In his later years, he was a priest at Delphi, and he had a deep interest in traditional Greek religion. He probably was known to the Roman emperors Trajan and Hadrian, and he may have held an official post as procurator of Achaea. In his writing he actively promoted the close ties between Greece and Rome, as can be seen in the planning of his greatest work, the ‘Parallel Lives’. In these he selected two figures from Greek and Roman history that he saw as in some way comparable; he wrote separate lives with a short linking section which explained the reason for linking them together. He was more interested in character than history as such, and he tended to choose incidents that revealed the character of the individuals he selected.
Plutarch paired Alexander with Julius Caesar, though in this particular case there was no separate section discussing the comparison (it has probably been lost over time). He set out to examine ‘what sort of a man’ each was’; he differed from a modern writer of biography as he generally assumed that the nature of his subject stayed the same, rather than developing over time. He also concentrated on vices and virtues, and the reader is asked to make moral judgements on the actions of the individuals. His interest is focused on character as revealed in action and behaviour, and he does not try to set his characters in a historical context; we get little sense of the significance of Alexander for the development of the Greek world after his death. The lives are entertaining and have preserved a good deal of information that might otherwise have been lost.
At the beginning of his Alexander, Plutarch asks the reader to understand if he does not deal with all the famous deeds of his subject (1):
For I am writing not history but a life story, and virtue and vice are not always revealed in the most remarkable actions, but in many cases a small matter, such as a comment or a joke, reveals more than battles in which many thousands die or sieges of cities. So, just as painters produce their portraits from the faces of their subjects and the expression of their eyes, which reveal most about their character, and pay much less attention to the rest of the body, I must be allowed to concentrate on the signs of the soul of my subjects and to use these to sketch out the life of each.
Plutarch is prepared to state his own opinions about his subject. For example, he is clear that in his opinion Alexander did not consider himself divine (28):
From what I have recorded it is clear that Alexander was not maddened by a belief in his own divinity but used it to control others.
However his account does not help us resolve many questions we have about particular incidents such as battles, where the focus on Alexander himself prevents us from getting a sense of what was happening around him.
5.2 Arrian
Arrian (Lucius Flavius Arrianus) (c AD 86 – 160) was born in Bithynia, where he had a political career and studied philosophy with Epictetus. He went on to gain senatorial rank through his association with the emperor Hadrian, and was consul in Rome about AD 129. He then served as an imperial legate in Cappadocia, before he retired to Athens. Most of his considerable writings are lost, but his Anabasis of Alexander survives (together with the Indike which deals with India, and gives an account of Nearchus’ voyage from India to Susa). Arrian was clear about his procedure in writing (Preface to Book 1):
Wherever Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, and Aristobulus, son of Aristobulus have written the same things about Alexander, son of Philip, I have followed their accounts as true in every way; but where they give different accounts, I have chosen what seems to me the more reliable account as well the more worthy of recording in my history. Other writers have given different versions of Alexander’s life, and there is no other figure who has attracted such contradictory accounts. In my opinion Ptolemy and Aristobulus are more reliable; Aristobulus was on the expedition with king Alexander, as was Ptolemy - since he later became a king himself, lying would have been more shameful for him than for any other writer. Both wrote their accounts when Alexander was already dead, so there was no necessity or expectation of reward for them to write down anything except the truth.
Arrian also felt his experience of public life and his own pedigree as a writer fitted him for the task of writing a history of a great man such as Alexander. He records in the Anabasis (1. 12):
No other single individual, either Greek or barbarian, has achieved such incredible success on so many occasions and to such an overwhelming extent. For that reason I have myself started writing this history, as I think I’m up to the task of bringing Alexander’s deeds to a wider audience. Whatever my abilities as a writer may be, I do not need to write my name here, for it is not unknown to my contemporaries, nor is my country nor my family, nor the successes that I’ve had in public life in my own country. But I do state this, that these stories are and have been from my youth my country and my family and my successes. It is for that reason that I consider myself worthy of the finest writers in the Greek language, since my subject, Alexander, was the finest of warriors.
This makes clear his admiration for his subject, as does his conclusion to the Anabasis where he criticised those writers who have concentrated on Alexander’s faults and states his belief in Alexander’s greatness (7. 30):
In my opinion, there was no race of men, no city in those times, not even a single man the name of Alexander had not reached. So I do not believe that a man without equal in all the world would have been born without the involvement of the gods. Oracles are said to have shown this at the time of Alexander’s death, and visions and dreams came to different people; so too the honour paid to Alexander by men up to the present day and the greater than human memory of him; even now after so many years further oracles in his honour have been granted to the Macedonian people. I have myself criticised in this history some of Alexander’s actions, but I’m not ashamed of my admiration of Alexander himself. I have criticised some actions because of the truth in my opinion, and at the same time to emphasise the benefit for men; I started on this history for that reason and I also have been helped by god.
5.3 Plutarch’s sources
Plutarch makes a number of references to named sources, and he concentrates more on the incidents which for him reveal the character of the individual. He preserves a great deal of material, but because he is interested in the ‘inner character’ he focuses more on the story than on authenticity or the quality of the evidence. Because he is interested in both virtue and vice, he draws across the range of sources on Alexander (as the contemporary or near-contemporary sources for Alexander present either a positive or a negative slant of his actions).
There are over 30 references to letters written by Alexander, but unfortunately there is no way to show that any of these are genuine. There are explicit references to Aristobulus, Chares and Onesicritus (6 times each); other sources named include Callisthenes, Cleitarchus, Ptolemy and the so-called Ephemerides (Court Journals). Plutarch selects some incidents from particular named sources, but it is not easy to determine how he used them. He was aware of the different approaches taken by the sources towards Alexander, but the incidents he chooses to concentrate on in his life reflect his own interest in character.
5.4 Arrian’s sources
Arrian makes explicit reference to a number of sources, and preserves some details of these for us. However we should consider his explicit discussion of the sources he trusts (see above), and his own endorsement of Alexander’s positive qualities (7.30), which suggests his approach to the available sources was not even-handed. The reasons he gives for preferring the evidence provided by Ptolemy (Preface to Book 1, above) may strike the modern reader as absurd; we should therefore be cautious about the apparently more historical approach.
Although the statement in the preface (quoted above) seems quite clear, it is not certain that Arrian keeps to this plan. It is likely that he used Ptolemy to a considerable extent, especially for the military details. He may also make use of other sources in places, but this is hard to corroborate. However his narrative is more detailed and structured than what survives in Diodorus or Curtius Rufus. This is probably because he makes extensive use of Ptolemy and Aristobulus, as both seem to deny or omit the less credible stories about Alexander and his campaigns. Unfortunately the best evidence for the qualities of these two sources is the work of Arrian himself.

Timelines
Events in bold type are referred to (either directly or indirectly) in the specification content and set sources. Those in italics are not.
Timeline of Alexander the Great
356 BC Alexander born in Pella
343 BC Aristotle becomes Alexander’s tutor
340 BC Alexander left as regent in Macedonia while Philip on campaign
Alexander’s raid on the Maedi
Foundation of Alexandropolis
338 BC Battle of Chaeronea
Alexander visits Athens
Olympias and Alexander leave Pella after the marriage of Philip and Cleopatra
337 BC Alexander recalled to Pella
336 BC Cleopatra gives birth to a son for Philip
Murder of Philip
Alexander becomes King of Macedonia
Alexander confirmed as leader of the expedition against Persia at a meeting of the Hellenic League at Corinth
335 BC Alexander deals with Thrace and Illyria
Alexander deals with the revolt of Thebes
334 BC Alexander crosses into Asia Minor
Battle of Granicus
Capture of Miletus
Capture of Halicarnassus
Alexander marches through Lycia and Pamphylia
333 BC Alexander to Gordium
[Memnon’s campaign in the Aegean]
[Death of Memnon]
Darius mobilises Persian forces at Babylon, then moves west
Alexander to Ancyra and Cilician gates
Alexander at Tarsus
Battle of Issus
Alexander marches towards Phoenicia
Darius makes first offer of peace
332 BC Byblos and Sidon submit
Siege of Tyre
Darius makes second offer of peace
Fall of Tyre (July 29th)
Gaza captured
Alexander crowned as Pharaoh of Egypt at Memphis
331 BC Alexander visits the oracle of Ammon at Siwah
Foundation of Alexandria in Egypt
Alexander marches to Thapsacus on the River Euphrates
Darius moves his forces from Babylon
Alexander crosses the River Tigris (Sept 18th)
Darius’ final offer of peace rejected
Battle of Gaugamela
Alexander marches from Arbela to Babylon and captures it
[Defeat of King Agis of Sparta by Antipater at Megalopolis]
Alexander occupies Susa
330 BC Sack of Persepolis
Alexander marches to Ecbatana
Darius retreats towards Bactria
Alexander sends Greek allies home from Ecbatana; leaves Parmenio with Harpalus as treasurer
Darius found murdered near Hacatompylus
Bessus sets himself up as the ‘Great King’
The ‘conspiracy of Philotas’
329 BC Alexander crosses the Hindu Kush
Alexander advances towards Bactria; Bessus retreats across the River Oxus
Alexander crosses the River Oxus; he sends home veterans and Thessalians
Surrender of Bessus
Revolt of Spitamenes
Execution of Bessus
328 BC Alexander campaigns against Spitamenes
The death of Cleitus
Defeat and death of Spitamenes
327 BC Capture of the Sogdian Rock
Alexander marries Roxane
30,000 Persian ‘Successors’ recruited
The ‘Pages’ Conspiracy’ and the death of Callisthenes
Invasion of India begins
Alexander reaches Nysa; the ‘Dionysus episode’
326 BC Battle of the Hydaspes against Porus
Death of Bucephalas
Mutiny at the Hyphasis
Campaign against the Brahmin cities; Alexander seriously wounded
325 BC Revolt in Bactria
Alexander reaches Patala
Alexander begins the march through the Gedrosian Desert
Harpalus abandons his post and returns to Greece
Purge of the Satraps
Nearchus and the fleet reach Hamozia and meet with Alexander at Salmous
Arrival of Craterus
324 BC Nearchus and fleet sent to Susa
Alexander at Cyrus’ tomb
Alexander returns to Persepolis
Alexander at Susa
The arrival of the Persian ‘Successors’
The marriages at Susa
The Exiles’ Decree and the Deification Decree
Craterus appointed as successor to Antipater as Regent
Alexander to Ecbatana
Death of Hephaestion
323 BC Harpalus killed in Crete
Campaign against the Cossaeans
Alexander returns to Babylon
Alexander explores the Pallacopas Canal
Arrival of Cassander, Antipater’s son
Death of Alexander

Timeline of Philip II of Macedon
Sent to Thebes as a boy, under the control of Epaminondas the Theban leader
364 BC Returns to Macedonia
359 BC Becomes King of Macedon
358 BC Victories over Illyrians in the Macedonian hinterland
Reorganises Macedonian army
357 BC Marries Olympias of Epirus
Captures Amphipolis
355 BC Sacred War with Phocis
352 BC Takes control of Thessaly
349 BC Besieges Olynthus
348 BC Chalcidice seized by Philip; non-Macedonians enslaved
339 BC Siege of Byzantium
338 BC Battle of Chaeronea: decisive victory over the Greek forces
337 BC Forms League of Corinth
Marries Cleopatra, niece of Attalus
336 BC Advanced force for Persian expedition sent to Asia Minor under Attalus and Parmenio
Murdered at the wedding of his daughter Cleopatra to Alexander of Epirus

Useful websites
Please note that I have given here some references to Wikipedia: because of the way the articles on this site are edited, students should exercise due caution when using them.
Macedon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)
Persia
http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/achaemenians/achaemenians.html
Darius III
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darius_III_of_Persia
http://www.gaugamela.com/
Philip II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Macedon
Alexander the Great
http://www.pothos.org/
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/Alexanderama.html
Sources for Alexander:
Arrian: http://www.alexander-sources.org/
Curtius Rufus: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/curtius/home.html
Diodorus Siculus: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Diodorus_Siculus/home.html
Plutarch: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3atext%3a1999.01.0243

Unit A032: The Rise of Rome
Option 1: The origins of Rome: The Kings, 753-508 BC
Context: Geography of Rome and the indigenous peoples of Latium
1.1 Geography of Rome
Map of ancient Italy
http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map16it.htm
The site of Rome was on the river Tiber and the Mediterranean Sea, which was excellent for foreign trade, was only a few miles down the river. The hills of Rome overlooked a shallow bit of the river which was the easiest place to cross the Tiber as it came to the sea. The location was half way between the north and south of Italy so it could develop good communication links as Italy itself is in the centre of the Mediterranean and has easy access to the rest of Europe, to Africa, and to the east.
The location was easily defended as there were the high mountains called the Alps to the north and the sea to the south. The settlement was easy to defend as it was on top of the hills with the marshy land in between and later the people could drain the marshy areas and use them to grow crops. Due to past volcanic activity, the land in the area was fertile with rich soil for growing olives, figs and vines. The Alps provided some mountain water and the river valleys provided summer pasture for animals. The climate was good for crops with the wet winters and hot sunny summers so as long as you irrigated the land in summer and this was done with water from the river Tiber.
Map showing the seven hills of Rome:
http://www.musesrealm.net/rome/sevenhills.html
Map showing the peoples of Italy in about 500BC:
http://www.worldhistory.timemaps.com/europe/italy-500BC.htm
Task 1A
Draw or print out some maps of Italy and then annotate them to show why Rome was such a good place to settle. Make a key and colour code it or make up symbols.
1.2 The Peoples of Latium
Latins
The Latins were farmers and lived in huts in villages in the area that became Rome and in the hills of Alba. They kept herds of animals and grew crops. They lived in tribal groups on the hills defended by wooden palisades. They worshipped gods such as a sort of Jupiter, Diana and Venus. The Latins were very much influenced by the Etruscans and the Greeks when they arrived, but kept their own language. Rome grew up on the border between Latium and Etruria.
Etruscans
The Etruscans lived in Northern/Central Italy about 800-300 BC. They excavated metals from their land to trade with the Greeks and were heavily influenced by the Greeks and in turn they influenced the Romans. The Bronze She wolf was made by the Etruscans. The Etruscans ruled Rome at some time. The Etruscan alphabet is derived from Greek but is very different. The Etruscans built the Cloaca Maxima (main sewer) to drain the Forum (town square) in the centre of Rome. Etruscans made use of the arch in making buildings, something which the Romans got really good at e.g. the Colosseum:
http://images.google.co.uk/images?hl=en&q=colosseum&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
The Lictors (king’s attendants) with fasces (bunches of rods with axes in, carried by lictors) were Etruscan as was the purple-bordered toga.
Greek City States
The Greeks set up city states in southern Italy and Sicily around 700BCE. The Greeks traded with the Etruscans. At about the same time as the first settlement on the Palatine Hill, the Greeks were establishing sea-ports round the south and west coasts, and in Sicily. The port farthest north, and one of the first to be built, was Cumae on the bay of Naples, which is not far from Rome. Through these ports Rome had access to the Greek world; from the Greeks at Cumae, the Latins learned the Greek alphabet, which they adapted for their own use and language. The interaction went both ways and the early Romans were known to the Greeks.
Task 1B
Research the peoples of Latium and make a fact-file of evidence on each group of people. Later this can be compared to the literary evidence.

Theme: Identity of the Romans; conflicting versions of the origins of Rome
2.1 The story of Aeneas according to Virgil and Livy
Virgil:
Aeneid Book 2: the connection with Troy
Aeneas lived in Troy with his wife Creusa and their son Ascanius. When the Greeks were destroying Troy, Hector (one of the Princes of Troy, who had been killed earlier in the war) appeared to Aeneas in a dream and told him to escape from Troy and take the holy headbands and fire of Vesta and start a new city. Aeneas was a hero and did not want to run away from the fighting like a coward so he continued to fight. Eventually his mother the goddess Venus came and told him to leave. She showed him that even the Gods were fighting against Troy so defending it was no use. Aeneas then had to persuade his old father Anchises to leave with him. At first the old man refused but was convinced when a magical flame appeared on the head of Aeneas’ baby son Ascanius. A roll of thunder and a shooting star were the final signs from heaven and Aeneas set off out of Troy with his father on his back carrying the holy symbols of Troy; he held Ascanius’ hand and his wife Creusa followed behind. Just when Aeneas thought he had escaped, he realised he had lost his wife on the way. He went back and looked everywhere for her but he could not find her. Eventually her ghost appeared to him and told him to go and start a new kingdom and get a new wife.
I sing of arms and the man who, made an exile by fate, first came from the borders of Troy to the shores of Lavinium. He who was thrown about greatly on both land and sea by the power of the gods, on account of the relentless anger of savage Juno. He also suffered much from war, before he founded his city and brought his gods to Latium; from whence came the Latin people, the Alban fathers, and the lofty walls of Rome.
Muse, call to my mind the causes of this: for what insult to her divine power, or angered by what action, did the Queen of the Gods drive a man famous for his piety to face such a great cycle of suffering and labour? How can there be such anger in heavenly hearts?
Aeneid Book 1
This is the opening of the Aeneid and the man Virgil is talking about is of course Aeneas. An exile is someone who has been sent away from their homeland. It is explained in Aeneid Book 2 how Aeneas escaped from Troy. Notice that here, Virgil points out that it was fate that made Aeneas into an exile so that Aeneas does not look bad – it wasn’t his fault because the gods were against Troy. Aeneas’ heroic image is kept intact.
Virgil mentions the ‘relentless anger of savage Juno’, but why was she so angry at Aeneas?
Well, it wasn’t just Aeneas but the whole Trojan race and all their descendants she was angry with – relentless and savage. There were three main reasons for this. These are mythological so the details may vary.
Reason 1: The Beauty Contest
On the day of the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, they forgot to invite one goddess: Eris the goddess of arguments. Obviously she was not going to put up with this so she decided to cause some trouble. Taking a beautiful golden apple with the words ‘for the fairest’ written on it, she threw it into the wedding reception right in between the three goddesses who thought they were the best looking: Juno the queen of the gods, Venus the goddess of love and Minerva the goddess of wisdom. All three goddesses squabbled over the apple until Jupiter confiscated it. It would not have been fair for Jupiter to decide who to give the apple to as Juno was his wife and Minerva his daughter, so he decided to let a very handsome man decide. He gave the job to Paris who was a Trojan prince. Each goddess offered Paris a bribe to help him choose who was the best looking. Juno offered great power; Minerva offered wisdom and skill in war, and Venus offered the love of the world's most beautiful woman. Paris accepted Venus's bribe and gave the apple to her. The most beautiful woman in the world turned out to be Helen the wife of Menelaus and when Paris received the bribe it caused the Trojan War. Giving the apple to Venus also caused her to love him and the Trojans very much and Juno to hate him and anything to do with Troy.
Reason 2: Ganymede
This was another young Trojan man who made Juno angry. One day Jupiter noticed Ganymede and found him very handsome and charming. He turned himself into an eagle so that he could swoop down and kidnap Ganymede. Once he had Ganymede in Mount Olympus he was delighted with him and gave him the job as his personal wine waiter. All the gods and goddesses loved Ganymede except Juno who was very jealous of him and hated him and his entire race.
Reason 3: Carthage
This was Juno’s favourite city on earth and she loved Dido the queen of Carthage. There was a prophecy which foretold that the city founded by the descendants of the Trojans – the Romans, would eventually destroy Carthage. This was supposed to have come true when the Romans eventually defeated the Carthaginians in the Punic wars. So Juno hated the Trojans for what their descendants would do in the future.
Virgil writes:
He also suffered much from war, before he founded his city and brought his gods to Latium; from whence came the Latin people, the Alban fathers, and the lofty walls of Rome.
Here Virgil points out Rome’s warlike origins and describes the link from Aeneas (son of the Goddess Venus) through Alba to Rome’s foundation so that the Romans can claim to be descended from the Trojan race from the heroic past and also from the goddess. This gives the Romans a much more impressive ancestry than being descended from country folk from Italy who lived in villages.
Livy:
According to Livy, because Aeneas had worked for peace and to have Helen returned, he was allowed to leave Troy unharmed. The fates were planning a greater destiny for Aeneas and he went to Macedonia, then Sicily, then Laurentum. On their travels, Aeneas and his men lost everything except their ships and their swords. While exploring the countryside in Laurentum, they were met by King Latinus and his army.
Livy tells us that there are two versions of what happened next:
1. There was a fight and Latinus lost and then agreed to give his daughter to Aeneas to marry.
2. The battle was about to start when Latinus asked to have a talk. He asked the Trojans about themselves and when he heard their story was so impressed that he made friends with Aeneas and gave him his daughter to marry so they had a family tie and a public agreement.
The Trojans had found a new home and began to build a town which Aeneas named Lavinium after his new wife Lavinia. Soon Aeneas and Lavinia had a baby boy who was called Ascanius.
Before Aeneas came along, Lavinia was engaged to Turnus the king of the Rutulians, when he found that he had been replaced, he started a war against the Trojans and the Latins. The Rutulians lost but Latinus was killed.
Turnus and the Rutulians then joined forces with the Etruscans whose king was called Mezentius. The Etruscans lived nearby and had felt threatened by the new town which Aeneas was building. The Etruscans were very powerful. To keep his army strong, Aeneas decided to call them all Latins which meant the Latins were just as loyal to him as those he had brought with him.
Even though the Rutulians with the Etruscans were a powerful enemy, Aeneas trusted the loyalty of the Latins and led his army onto the battlefield, instead of waiting for the Etruscans behind his walls. The Latins won the battle, but Aeneas was killed. His tomb is on the bank of the river Numicius. The people call him "The Local Jupiter."
His son, Ascanius, was not old enough to take over as king; but his throne was kept safe by Lavinia while he was a child. Livy acknowledges the fact that there are two different stories about Ascanius/Iulus, he says there is no point in discussing which is true as it was so long ago you could never decide. Some say that Ascanius was the son of Creusa and came from Troy others say that this was a baby born to Lavinia and he has the two names Ascanius and Iulus. The Julian Clan (family of Julius Caesar, the Emperor Augustus and their descendants) claimed to be descended from this Iulus. It would not be a good idea for Livy to prove either story wrong: the son of Creusa as a founder meant that the Romans could also claim descent from the Trajan royal family. If he says the Iulus story is wrong, he is disrespecting the emperor’s family. Whoever he is this son leaves his mother/stepmother in Lavinum and goes off to found his own city: Alba Longa. Nobody dared to attack the Latin cities as they were very prosperous and powerful. The river Albula, later named the Tiber, was fixed as the boundary between the Etruscans and the Latins.
2.2 The story of Romulus and Remus according to Virgil and Livy
Virgil:
He had placed there too the motherly wolf, lying stretched out in the green cave of Mars. The twin boys hung around her teats playing, and suckled from their ‘mother’ without fear. With her noble neck bending backwards, she caressed each of them and touched them with her tongue.
Virgil Aeneid Book 8
This picture appears on the shield of Aeneas. On the shield are represented lots of things the Romans are proud of. It is a very patriotic image. The fact that the wolf story is mentioned shows that the Romans were proud of their wild countryside image. Mars is mentioned recalling the Romans’ divine and very warlike ancestry. The Mars/wolf story fits perfectly with the image the Romans like to have as godlike dominators of the world with not too much softness.
Livy:
Ascanius King of Alba Longa eventually died and his son Silvius took over; Silvius means ‘from the forest’ and he was supposed to have been born in the forest. The forest aspect once again brings in the wild countryside image of the Romans. His son was called Aeneas Silvius and his son was called Latinus Silvius. Latinus Silvius created some other settlements. All the following kings of Alba kept the name Silvius. Their names were Alba, Atys, Capys, Capetus and Tiberinus, who was drowned crossing the river Albula so the name of the river was changed to Tiber. Next came his son Agrippa and then Romulus Silvius. He was struck by lightning and his son Aventinus took over. There was a hill in Rome called the Aventine where the shrine of Aventinus was. Proca took over from him and had two sons, Numitor and Amulius.
Numitor was supposed to take over as king but Amulius forced his brother out and seized the crown. To make matters worse, he murdered his brother's sons and made his daughter, Rea Silvia, a Vestal virgin which was supposed to be an honour but meant she couldn’t have any children. Livy believes that the fates then intervened because Rome ‘the mightiest empire under heaven’ was destined to be founded.
Rhea Silvia the Vestal Virgin was raped and gave birth to twin boys. She said that Mars was their father, either because she really believed it, or because she would not look so bad if she blamed a god. She was thrown into prison, the boys were ordered to be thrown into the river. As luck would have it, the river Tiber was flooded so it was not possible to get near the main river. So the men with the job of drowning the children just left them near the side of the flood water. This was where the Ruminal fig-tree was, which was said to have been previously called the fig-tree of Romulus. This was a wild place then and the story goes that a she-wolf heard the children crying and treated them like cubs and let them drink her milk. Faustulus one of the king’s shepherds found the wolf licking the babies gently and he took the children to his hut and gave them to his wife Larentia to bring up. Some writers think that Larentia was a prostitute and had got the nickname of "She-wolf" from the shepherds, and that this was the real origin of the amazing story.
The boys were named Romulus and Remus. They grew up and were good shepherds but their favourite hobby was hunting in the woods. They were strong and brave and they didn’t just hunt animals, but they even attacked robbers carrying stolen goods. They shared what they took among their gang of shepherds. While the Lupercalia, a traditional festival was being celebrated on the Palatine Hill, the robbers attacked Romulus and Remus. Romulus defended himself violently, but Remus was captured and dragged before King Amulius to be charged with crimes. The robbers said that Remus and his gang had attacked in the lands of Numitor, and had stolen things so Remus was given to Numitor for punishment. Faustulus the shepherd had always hoped the twins were royal as he knew all along that two babies had been exposed by royal command at the time when he had found Romulus and Remus. He was afraid now so he told the story to Romulus. Numitor also suspected it and after questioning Remus he was pretty sure.
Romulus and his gang of shepherds made an attack on King Amulius and Remus helped out with another gang from the home of Numitor. So, King Amulius died and Numitor called an assembly, he told everyone his brother’s crimes against him, the story of his grandsons and everyone said he was the real king. Now that Numitor was King of Alba, Romulus and Remus decided to set up a city in the place where they had been left as babies and grown up. Unfortunately both brothers thought they should be in charge. Since they were twins and both the same age, they said the gods should decide. Romulus went up the Palatine Hill and Remus the Aventine Hill, where they both built temples from where they would look for omens.
The story goes that the first omen came to Remus in the form of six vultures. After this omen had been announced, twelve vultures came to Romulus. So the supporters of each man claimed their leader as King. Remus’ supporters claimed the kingdom because he got the omen first, while Romulus claimed the kingdom as a result of the larger number of birds. The argument turned into a fight in which Remus was killed. Livy says that there is another more common story which is that Remus was mocking Romulus and jumped over the walls that Romulus had been building. Romulus was furious and killed his brother shouting: “The same will happen to anyone else who jumps over my walls”. And so Romulus was the king, and when the city was built it was named after him.
Bronze she-wolf with (later addition of) twins from the Capitoline museum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitoline_Wolf
2.3 The story of Evander and Hercules according to Livy
As one of his twelve tasks, Hercules had to take the cattle belonging to a monster called Geryon. After he had done this and killed Geryon, he drove the beautiful cattle to a place which was near the river Tiber. He stopped in a green field so that the cattle could eat the grass and he could rest. When he fell asleep, a giant shepherd called Cacus saw the beautiful cattle and wanted them for himself. But if he led the cattle into his cave, their hoof-prints would give away where they were. So he turned the best bulls round and dragged them by their tails to his cave. When Hercules woke up and realised that some of his cattle had gone. He looked in the nearest cave, but when he saw that all the prints lead away from there but went nowhere, he started to drive the rest of the herd away. As they were leaving, some of the cows lowed because they missed the others. The bulls in the cave lowed in reply and Hercules turned around. Cacus, tried to fight Hercules but he hit him with his club and Cacus died.
At that time a Greek called Evander ruled the place. People admired him because he could write, and because his mother Carmenta, was believed to be divine and could tell the future. Evander found out what Hercules had done and why. He saw that Hercules stood out and asked who he was. When he found out it was Hercules, Evander said that his mother had told him Hercules would come and the locals would make him one of their gods and set up an altar, which one day the most important people in the world (i.e. the Romans) would call “the Greatest”, and worship Hercules . So Hercules built the altar. One of the cows was offered as a sacrifice for Hercules. The Potitii and the Pinarii, who were the most important local families were put in charge and had to provide a feast. By chance, the Potitii were there at the start of the sacrifice so they got the entrails, (animals’ innards) and the Pinarii came after the entrails had been eaten and were given the rest. From then on the custom continued, as long as the Pinarii family did, that the entrails from the sacrifice were not given to them. The Potitii, who had been taught the ceremony by Evander, were the priests of the cult for a long time, until the entire Potitii family had died out and the sacred rites were handed over to public slaves to perform. This was the one foreign cult that Romulus adopted.
2.4 The story of the Sabines and their connection to Rome
Rome was powerful and had fought well against the neighbouring communities, but they did not have enough women so they wouldn’t be able to keep the population going.
The Romans couldn’t marry the women from the neighbouring communities because they had been fighting them. With advice from the senators who sent messages asking people from the towns a bit further away if they would like to make links by marrying their daughters to the Romans. None of them agreed because they saw the Romans as a big gang of outlaws.
Romulus hatched a cunning plan and invited the neighbours to celebrate a new festival for Neptune the god of horses (and the sea) and he called it the Consualia. All the neighbours came: the Caeinenses, the Crustimini, the Antemnates and all the Sabines with their wives and children.
After the signal was given, all the Roman men scattered and grabbed the unmarried girls who had come with the visitors. The families went away very sad. Romulus made the men marry the stolen women properly and treat them well to make up for the fact that they kidnapped them.
As a result of this the Caeninenses attacked the Roman lands. After defeating the Caeninenses tribe Romulus founded the first temple in Rome to offer the armour he had taken from the enemy leader to Jupiter who he called Jupiter Feretrius. Next the Antemnates attacked. The Roman army beat them and then took their town. According to Livy, at this point Romulus’ wife, who felt sorry for the women, persuaded Romulus to forgive their parents and let them become citizens of Rome. The Crustimini were also defeated by Rome.
This led to the expansion of Roman power, as Roman settlers went to Crustumeria and the territory that had been the Antemnates. Some of the people from these places also came to live in Rome.
Finally, the Sabines attacked the Roman citadel. According to Livy, they gained control of the citadel using a trick.
They made a cunning plan. Spurius Tarpeius was in charge of the Roman citadel. By chance Tarpeius’ virgin daughter went outside the walls to get water for the religious rituals and Tatius bribed her with gold so that she would let armed soldiers into the citadel. After they got in they killed her by crushing her with their weapons, either so that it looked like they forced their way into the citadel, or to set an example for the future so that no one would keep a promise to a traitor. There is another story, that the Sabine people wore heavy gold bracelets on their left arms, and lovely rings with jewels, so she asked them for the things they had on their left arms: but they heaped upon her their shields instead of the gold gifts she meant. Some people say that they had the weapons in their left hands to hand them over to make peace but they thought she was tricking them so they killed her with the payment she had chosen.
Livy 1.11
The Romans and the Sabines fought, but when one of the Roman leaders, Hostius Hostilius, was killed, the Romans started to run away. Romulus prayed for help to Jupiter and then told the men that Jupiter commanded them to stop running and fight. After this the battle continued, and according to Livy the Roman force was stronger and the Romans started to defeat the Sabines. However, at this point the battle was interrupted.
Then the abducted Sabine women, who the war was about, threw themselves between the flying spears with their hair flying and their clothes ripped. They were brave because their upset took away female fear. They ran across the battlefield and separated the clashing armies, stopping their conflict. Begging their fathers on one side and their husbands on the other, they said that fathers and sons-in-law should not have one another’s blood on them, that the curse of killing your father should not be passed down to their children, grandfathers onto grandsons and fathers onto children. “If you don’t like the ties between you, if you don’t like our marriages, then take your anger out on us! We are the cause of this war; we are the cause of fathers and husbands lying wounded and dead. It is better for us to die, since by losing one of you we’ll be widows or orphans”. This moved both the leaders and the crowd. Suddenly there was silence and stillness. Then the commanders came forward to make a treaty, not only to make peace but also to make one community out of two. They shared the power, and made Rome the capital. The joint populations were named the Quirites after the Sabine city of Cures to please the Sabines.
Livy 1.13
The abducted women ended the war with the Sabines which meant that neither side had to look weak by losing. Romulus made peace with Titus Tatius the king of the Sabines. They shared the power, and made Rome the capital. The joint populations were named the Quirites after the Sabine city of Cures to please the Sabines.
Romulus divided the population into thirty groups and he named them Curiae after the women because they had made peace. Also three groups of one hundred Knights were recruited: the Ramnenses, named after Romulus, the Titienses, named after Titus Tatius, and the Luceres (the origin of their name is not certain). From then on there was joint rule and peace between the two Kings.
Remember, foundation myths are not necessarily true. This does not make them any less important as they still say a lot about the people who accept them as their heritage.
Task 2A
Read through the myths in this section and for each one say what impression it gives of the people whose foundation it describes.
• What do the myths have in common and where do they differ?
• What messages about the Romans were Livy and Virgil trying to send by telling these stories about them?
• Why did the Romans want to link themselves to Troy?

Theme: The character and reigns of the kings
3.1 The nature of kingship in early Rome
Who were the Kings of Rome?
According to legend there were seven kings of Rome and there are traditional dates for when they ruled.
Romulus 753 BCE–716 BC
Numa Pompilius 715 BCE–674 BC
Tullus Hostilius 673 BCE–642 BC
Ancus Marcius 642 BCE–617 BC
Lucius Tarquinius Priscus 616 BCE–579 BC
Servius Tullius 578 BCE–535 BC
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus 535 BC–510 BCE/509 BC
Romulus
According to the legend, Romulus and his twin brother Remus were sons of Mars the god of war from when he raped a Vestal Virgin called Rhea Silvia. Whether this is true or not, it creates a violent, warlike image. The twins were left to die by the river but saved when a female wolf let them suck her milk. Again this sounds rather suspicious, but it reinforces the wild, dangerous image. The twins were brought up by a shepherd and his wife which implies a simple, down to earth upbringing with no pampering or pretentiousness and this fits in with the Roman ideas of being manly and sensible and not weak or soft.
When Romulus was young he and Remus worked hard as shepherds. They also led a gang of shepherds who attacked robbers and took away their stolen goods. This shows leadership qualities, violence and perhaps a sense of justice, but they kept the loot so maybe it makes them as ruthless as the robbers. They led groups of men in an uprising and killed Amulius the evil king of Alba and made their grandfather Numitor king again.
Romulus argued with his brother over who should be in charge of the city they were building which shows he liked to be the boss and had a temper. When Remus jumped over the walls Romulus was building, Romulus killed him and said “That’s what will happen to anyone who jumps over my walls”. This reinforces the ‘don’t mess with the Romans’ image and shows a ruthless, violent nature.
Romulus set up worshiping customs in the Alban style except for the worship of Hercules which he carried on in the Greek way as Evander had started it. Notice the story involves violence and defeating an enemy. Hercules was made a god after he died just as Romulus was. They don’t let anyone get the better of them.
Romulus gave the people laws and so that they would obey them, he made himself look more impressive by having twelve attendants or body guards called lictors. Livy says he got the idea from the Etruscans. Romulus is again shown as knowing how to manipulate people and as resourceful by learning from another culture.
Romulus made the city of Rome bigger when there weren’t many people there which shows his ambition. He pretended that his original gang of settlers was his tribe who were born from the earth which shows him manipulating people again. Then he opened up the city to asylum seekers so that he had plenty of men. So Rome’s original inhabitants were a very mixed bunch and Livy portrays a humble, rough and ready start to the city of Rome. Romulus created one hundred senators to help govern the people and this shows his organisational skills and leadership.
Romulus tried to get more women for the Roman men to marry by sending ambassadors to ask the neighbours whether they could marry their daughters but they refused so Romulus made a plan and they took the women by force after inviting them to a festival. This shows him always getting what he wants by asking or by force if necessary and also reflects a lack of respect for women.
After defeating the Caeninenses tribe in a battle Romulus was just as good at showing off what he had done as he was at doing it in the first place so he climbed up the Capitol carrying the armour he had taken from the dead enemy leader and he hung it up on a specially made frame. This shows his character as a person proud of his achievements but also dutiful to the gods as he dedicated the armour to Jupiter and built a temple for him there.
When Romulus came back from the wars with the parents of the abducted women, he was very pleased with his victories. His wife Hersilia had been touched by the begging of the abducted women and she asked him to forgive their parents and let them be citizens. So that Rome could grow in peace Romulus agreed happily. Here we can see Livy shifting the sensitive side onto the woman so it doesn’t make Romulus look soft. This happens again when the abducted women stop the battle between their fathers and husbands and ask them to make peace.
During the battle against the Sabines, when the Roman citadel has been taken, Romulus prays to Jupiter offering to build him a temple there if he helps them and then tells the men: “Here, Romans, Jupiter the Best and Greatest orders us to stop running and start fighting” Romulus inspires his men using his ‘piety’ and their faith in the gods. After the war with the Sabines, Romulus makes a deal to share power with the Sabine King Tatius which is rather out of character for Romulus.
After a few years, some relatives of King Tatius attacked some Laurentine ambassadors, but when the Laurentines, asked the relatives to make up for it which was the law, Tatius was biased and believed what his relatives said. So he got their punishment himself because when he went Lavinium to an important religious festival, he was killed in the riot he caused by being there. People say that Romulus was less upset by this than he should have been, either because he did not like sharing being king, or because he believed that the killing was fair, so he did not cause a fight about it. To make up for the ambassadors being attacked and the king being killed, he renewed the treaty between the cities of Rome and Lavinium.
In the battle against the Fidenates Romulus’ skill as a general is shown as he hides men in the undergrowth and then lets the enemy think his army is disorganized and retreating so the Fidenates come out of the city thinking they can beat the Romans and fall straight in the trap. Romulus is shown as cunning and ruthless. The last thing we are told he did was defeated the Veii in battle then destroyed their farms but gave them a peace treaty when they asked for it in exchange for some of their land.
The death and deification of Romulus according to Livy
Romulus’ deeds were so great that he was practically immortal. Once he was reviewing the army, when suddenly a storm with great thunder-claps and thick cloud covered him, so that he was hidden from view and never seen again. The senators, who had been standing nearest, said that Romulus had been carried away to heaven. The soldiers accepted this but they were still afraid and sad. Then a rumour started that Romulus was a god and all the soldiers saluted Romulus as King and Father of the city of Rome. They prayed for peace, and that Romulus would protect them. Some people suggested that the King was torn apart by the senators. But admiration for Romulus and the panic felt at that time made the people believe he was a god. A man called Julius Proculus who was supposed to be very wise told everyone in the assembly that Romulus appeared to him and told him that the gods wanted Rome to be the capital of the world so they should build up an unbeatable army then Romulus rose into the sky. The people were much happier once they believed that Romulus was now a god.
Romulus’ death matches his birth – mysterious and unusual. The things he is supposed to have done all reflect aspects of Rome’s identity as a strong, ruthless, warlike nation which did go on to be ‘the capital of the world’.
Livy says that Romulus ruled for 37 years.
Numa
Numa Pompilius lived in a Sabine town called Cures and was famous because he was fair and religious and he knew a lot about humans’ and gods’ laws. According to Livy, there was a myth that said Pythagoras of Samos (the man who proved that A2+B2=C2) was his teacher but Livy says this is not possible because Pythagoras lived one hundred years later than Numa. Livy believed that Numa was great because of his own character, because the ancient Sabines had a serious and harsh nature and you could not bribe them.
When Numa was nominated to be king, nobody could think of anyone better so the Senators offered him the job. He said they had to ask the gods like Romulus did, which shows he was very religious from the start. The priest saw the good omens and Numa became king.
Numa decided that Rome was very warlike so gave the city a new start with laws and religion. First he founded the temple of Janus which showed that the Romans were at war when the doors were open and at peace when they were shut. He made peace with the neighbours and shut it. Livy takes this opportunity to mention the two other times when the doors have been shut. These are: after the war with Carthage which was one of Rome’s greatest wars (they really hated the Carthaginians), and after Octavian/Emperor Augustus won the battle of Actium and made peace. This gives Livy an opportunity to praise Augustus and make him out to be very special and link him to the heroes of the past.
Livy then says that Numa decided to use fear of the gods to control the people and he pretended to meet the goddess Egeria and pretended that she told him how to set up the rituals and the priesthoods. This shows clever leadership on the part of Numa and cunning manipulation of the people but is also quite cynical as it does not reflect much real religious feeling and shows Roman religion as a tool for control. Numa went on to set up all the important religious ceremonies the Romans had which seems to show that he was supposed to be a genuinely religious character as well as a shrewd leader.
Numa led by example and all the Romans became very religious people, so that the neighbours did not want to attack because the Romans were all very peaceful. Numa continued to pretend to meet Egeria the goddess and made a holy place for her. In complete contrast to Romulus, there were no wars while he was in charge. This meant that by the end of his reign the Romans had skills in both peace and war. Here we see the different sides of the Roman identity being developed.
According to Livy, Numa ruled for 43 years.
Tullus Hostilius
He became the next king by a vote of the people and was very warlike. He led Rome to victory in a war against the Albans and then made war on the Sabines which was also successful. Tullus was not a very religious king but when strange things started to happen and he caught a plague which was affecting the Romans, everyone decided they should revive Numa’s religious ways. Tullus is said to have made Jupiter angry by getting a ceremony wrong and Tullus died when the palace was struck by lightning. He was king for 32 years.
Ancus Marcius
Ancus Marcius was the grandson of Numa and was chosen by the people to be king. He made sure religion was properly looked after but was also successful in war against the Latins and extended Rome’s lands. He had two sons and in his will said that Lucius Tarquinius Priscus should look after them when he died. He ruled for 24 years.
Tarquinius Priscus
Lucius Tarquinius Priscus was an ambitious Etruscan with an ambitious wife called Tanaquil. They travelled to Rome with the intention of becoming powerful. (His name was Lucumo then but he changed it.) On the way an eagle took off Priscus’ hat and then put it back on again which was seen as an omen that he would be king.
Tarquinius Priscus got the throne after Ancus Marcius by sending his sons out on a hunting trip and then getting the people to vote him in while they were away. He was quite a good man but a bit of a trickster as can be seen from how he made himself king.
Tarquinius Priscus increased the size of the senate, made war successfully on the Latins, planned out the Circus Maximus, established games and improved the forum.
Then there was a war with the Sabines and Priscus tried to rearrange the cavalry but was told he could not do this without consulting the bird omens. He was very rude about this but in the end was proved wrong by the priest called Navius. In order to defeat the Sabines, the Romans scared them by making a big fire which floated down the river and burnt the bridge they were going to escape across so a lot of them had to jump in the river. Tarquinius Priscus made an offering to Vulcan the god of fire and invaded Sabine territory causing the Sabines to surrender in the end. Tarquinius then made peace with the surrounding people and set about improving Rome’s walls and sewers and he laid the foundations for the temple of Jupiter on the Capitoline hill.
In the end, Tarquinius Priscus was killed by shepherds hired by the sons of Ancus Marcius who were still upset because they said he cheated them out of the throne. The shepherds pretended to argue with each other and when the king was concentrating on listening to one of them, the other one hit him with an axe.
Servius
Servius got the throne when his father-in-law was killed by the shepherds and Tanaquil, his mother in law, made it look as though Tarquinius Priscus had named him as his successor.
Some said Servius was the son of a slave, but the other story is that his mother was the wife of the chief of Corniculum which was conquered by the Romans. She was pregnant and after her husband was killed Tanaquil the Queen of Rome took her to the palace so she had her baby there.
There was something magical about the child from the start.
At that time, there was an event in the palace which was amazing in its outcome and appearance. There was a boy called Servius Tullius and, as he slept, his head burst into flames – an event that many people saw. Of course, this caused uproar, and the royal family came excitedly to see the miracle. When one of the slaves had brought water to put out the flames, he was held back by the Queen Tanaquil. She wouldn’t let the boy be disturbed and asked them all to be quiet until he woke up on his own. Soon the flames died away and he woke up. Then she took her husband Tarquinius away in secret and said, “Do you see this boy we are bringing up in our house in such a poor position? It is obvious that he will be the shining light and protector of the royal house when it is in trouble in worrying times. So let’s look after this boy as best we can so that he will be useful to us and to the people.” From then on they started to treat the boy as if he was their own son, and brought him up in a way that would give him a good character for a great role in life. It happened easily because the gods wanted it to. He had a very royal nature and none of the other young men in Rome looked like they would be as good as Servius as a son-in-law, so the king let his daughter get engaged to him
Livy 1.39
This was why Tanaquil was so convinced that he should be the next king of Rome.
Servius led the Romans in a successful war against the Veii and proved he was a good leader.
Servius then set about organizing the Roman society. He called a census so that he could tax people according to what they could afford. The details are given in Livy book 1 chapter 43. Servius extended Rome as there were more people so he added the Quirinal, Viminal and Esquiline Hills to the city and made the defences better. Servius made peace with the Latins by getting them to help build a temple to Diana in Rome and accept Rome as their capital. The Romans made sure that they made the first sacrifice to Diana in the temple by tricking the Sabine who tried to do it first so as to get their power back.
Lucius Tarquinius the son (or possibly grandson) of Tarquinius Priscus was starting to complain that he should have been the king so Servius first gave lots of land away to the people and then asked them to vote him in which they did. Eventually Lucius Tarquinius (Superbus) succeeded in taking the throne from Servius by force.
Servius Tullius ruled for 44 years and had a very successful reign.
Tarquinius Superbus
This king’s name was Lucius Tarquinius but he got the name Superbus (arrogant or proud) because of all the things he did.
Lucius Tarquinius and his brother Arruns were the sons of Tarquinius Priscus and they were married to Servius’ daughters who were both called Tullia. Lucius Tarquinius and the younger Tullia (who was married to Arruns) were both very ambitious so they got their partners killed so they could marry one another. Servius was now an old man and Tullia went on and on at her husband telling him to get on with it and take the throne. Eventually he started to gather supporters and one day he went to the forum with a group of armed men. He sat down on the king’s chair and called the senate to come to King Lucius Tarquinius. They came and he started to say terrible things about Servius and how he should not really be the king. Servius soon arrived and there were supporters on both sides. Tarquinius threw Servius out of the senate house and then his assassins killed him. People say that it was Tullia who told the assassins to kill him. She drove into the forum in her carriage and greeted her husband by calling him the king. He told her to go home and the story goes that she ran over Servius’ body on purpose on the way.
Tarquinius refused to let his father-in-law be buried and pretended this made him more like Romulus who never got buried. He killed any senators that he thought preferred Servius. He surrounded himself with armed men. He conducted trials with no jury and killed or punished people he did not like or just took their money because he wanted it. He did not consult the senate and made war and peace with other without asking anyone. He made good friends with the Latins and married his daughter to Octavius Mamilius who was the most important Latin chief and had lots of friends.
Tarquinius and Turnus
When he had got himself a lot of respect with the Latins, Tarquinius called them all to a meeting. Lots of people arrived at dawn but Tarquinius did not arrive until sunset. He gave the excuse that he had been trying to solve an argument between a father and a son. Turnus, who was one of the Latins who had been saying that Tarquinius wanted power over the Latins and was disrespecting them by calling a meeting then not coming, said that the argument should have ended fast as a son should obey his father. Tarquinius was really angry with Turnus so he decided to get him convicted. He bribed someone to hide a lot of swords where Turnus was staying and then he told the Latin chiefs that Turnus had been plotting to kill him and them. He took the chiefs to look for the evidence and when the swords were found, they believed his story. Turnus did not get to defend himself and he was thrown in the river in a basket full of rocks.
Tarquinius praised the Latin chiefs for punishing the trouble maker then took control of all their land by saying there was an ancient treaty that said it was his and if they did not give it to him he would destroy them. Then he mixed up the soldiers into one army with his centurions in charge.
Tarquinius made war on the Volsci and decided to build a magnificent temple for Jupiter with the money he made out of the war. Then he started a war with the Gabii but they were difficult to conquer so he pretended to be concentrating on building the temple and sent his son Sextus to the Gabii as a refugee pretending that Tarquinius was really cruel to him. The Gabii took him in hoping that he would help them fight back against the Romans. Sextus made the Gabii trust him so much that he was running the city then his father sent him a coded message by knocking the heads of his tallest poppies with a stick. Sextus understood and killed the important men in Gabii then shared out the wealth with the others and finally handed the city over to his father without a fight.
Tarquinius then decided to build the temple of Jupiter on the Tarpeian Mountain which his father had promised to build. The omen from the gods allowed him to remove all the other shrines from the area except the one of Terminus which had to stay where it was and then Rome would be safe. While the temple was being built, a human head was found which was said to mean that Rome would be the head or capital of the world because caput means head in Latin. The temple cost a lot of money. Tarquinius hired people to finish the temple and he also made the Roman men help to build it to keep them busy. He also got the Roman men to build seats in the circus and a great big sewer which they didn’t enjoy as much as building the temple. He sent some men to set up towns in places the Romans had conquered.
One day a snake crawled out of a column in the palace. This was seen as an omen so Tarquinius sent two of his sons, Titus and Arruns, to Delphi to find out what it meant. They took Lucius Junius Brutus with them. Everyone thought he was stupid but he was just pretending so he could stay safe. While they were at Delphi the boys asked who would have the most power in Rome. The oracle told them it would be the first one to kiss their mother. The boys decided to keep it secret from their brother Sextus and decided by lot (like picking out of a hat) who would kiss their mother first when they got back. Brutus realised what the oracle really meant and he pretended to fall over and kissed the earth which is where we all come from. When they got back, Rome was preparing for war with the Rutuli.
The Rape of Lucretia
The war with the Rutuli became a siege so sometimes the officers had nothing to do. During a drinking party they began to say what good wives they had. Tarquinius Collatinus was convinced he had the best wife and to test their wives he suggested they all ride to Rome to see what they were up to. All the wives were found partying except Lucretia the wife of Tarquinius Collatinus who was spinning wool. Lucretia being so good and well behaved made Sextus Tarquinius want to rape her because he was evil. A few days later Sextus Tarquinius went back to see Lucretia, he threatened her with a sword and said that if she did not sleep with him, he would kill her and put a dead slave in the bed with her so it looked like she slept with the slave, so she had to give in to his force. Then she called her husband and father to come, each with one friend (one of these was Brutus). She told them what had happened and made them promise to punish Sextus Tarquinius. Then she killed herself. Brutus then led an uprising against the king and his family because they had treated everyone so badly. The people went along with him and the Tarquins were thrown out.
Tarquinius Superbus reigned for 25 years.
Task 3A
What qualities did a king of Rome need to succeed?
How realistic do you think the kings are as historical figures? Give reasons for your answer.
What do the stories about the kings show about the later Romans?
What do you think Livy’s opinion was of each king?
Task 3B
Read the following article about the kings of Rome.
Article about kings of Rome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_Rome

Theme: The constitutional, religious and economic development of the Roman state under the kings
4.1 The establishment of Rome under Romulus
What did Romulus do for Rome?
Romulus started Rome and it was named after him. He set up defences on the Palatine hill, where he grew up. He started ceremonies for the gods in the same way as the Albans did them, but for Hercules he made everyone worship in the Greek way which had been started by Evander. Romulus gave the people laws.
He made himself seem grander in his general appearance and so that the country folk would follow his laws he got himself twelve lictors. (Body guards who had the power to beat people with their sticks or kill them with their axes.) Some people said it was twelve because twelve vultures appeared to Romulus but Livy thinks it was because the idea of lictors came from the Etruscans who had twelve – one for each of their tribes.
Romulus made his city bigger with big walls round it but not many people lived there so he invited lots of people to come and start new lives there.
Once he had lots of men, Romulus started to organise the place. He created one hundred senators (wise old men to help rule the place), either because this number was enough, or because there were only one hundred who were fit for the job. They were called ‘Fathers’ as a result of their good reputation, and their descendents were called ‘Patricians’ (pater means father in Latin).
Romulus increased Roman territories and power by defeating the Caeinenses, the Crustimini, and the Antemnates, (according to Livy these peoples had all attacked Rome after the Romans tricked them and abduted their daughters). Romulus made a treaty with Tatus Tatius, the king of the Sabines, (whose daughters the Romans had also abducted). They agreed to share power with Rome as capital of their joint populations. Romulus then divided the population into thirty groups and recruited three groups each of one hundred Knights were recruited: the Ramnenses, the Titienses, and the Luceres.
Romulus became the only king again a few years later, when Tatius was killed in a riot in Lavinium, caused by his taking the side of his relatives after they attacked some Laurentine ambassadors. Romulus renewed the treaty between Rome and Lavinium at this point, in order to make up for the ambassadors being attacked and the king being killed.
The Fidenates thought the Romans were getting too powerful so they attacked them but Romulus defeated them easily by tricking them into an ambush. The last thing we are told he did was defeated the Veii in battle then destroyed their farms but gave them a peace treaty when they asked for it in exchange for some of their land.
Livy concludes that, ‘this was what Romulus achieved while he was king at home and at war and all of it shows that he was descended from a god and deserved to be a god after he died. He had the courage to get his grandfather’s kingdom back for him, he planned and built a city and he took care of it in peace and war. He made Rome so strong that it was safe and peaceful for the next forty years. But the ordinary people were more grateful than the senators, and the soldiers liked him more than everyone else. He had 300 of them as bodyguards, both in peace and in war, who he called ‘The Swift Ones’.’ – Livy 1.15
In typical Romulus fashion, he was looking at his army when he was whisked off in a cloud to become a god. Julius Proculus claimed that Romulus appeared to him to give his final message to the people of Rome: He said, “Citizens, at dawn today Romulus, the father of this city, suddenly came down from the sky and stood in front of me as clear as day. I stood still because of respect and fear, and prayed to him to ask if I could look up at him. He said to me, ‘Go and tell the Romans that the gods in the sky want my city, Rome to be the capital of the world: so they should become good soldiers, and tell them, and they should tell their children, that no one can stand up to the Roman army’. When he had said this, he went up into the sky”. Amazingly everyone believed him and they were all much happier then.
And that was the end of Romulus but he had set Rome on a course to be ‘the capital of the world’ and laid the foundations for a no-nonsense city with a very warlike attitude.
Task 4A
How realistic is Romulus as a historical figure?
Why is Romulus a good hero?
What makes Romulus a good founder for Rome?
Why was Romulus’ death and what happened after fitting and useful?
4.2 The development of religion under Numa
How did Numa develop religion?
Numa Pompilius was famous because he was fair and religious and he knew a lot about humans’ and gods’ laws. When Numa was nominated to be king, nobody could think of anyone better so the Senators offered him the job. He said they had to ask the gods like Romulus did, which shows he was very religious from the start. The priest saw the good omens and Numa became king.
Numa’s first act was to found the temple of Janus which showed that the Romans were at war when the doors were open and at peace when they were shut. He made peace with the neighbours and shut it. This was so that he could tame the warlike city and give it new laws and religious rituals.
Then Numa decided to use fear of the gods to control the people so he pretended to meet the goddess Egeria and said that she told him how to set up the rituals and the priesthoods. Here Numa is developing religion but perhaps mainly to keep people under control, although even though Livy says that Numa invented the meetings with the goddess, he is portrayed as very religious. Numa is supposed to have created the twelve lunar months and a method to remedy the fact that they do not quite fit. He also decided which days were right for doing public business and which were not.
Livy tells us:
He sorted out putting priests in charge of things, but he did the most holy ceremonies himself, especially the ones the priest of Jupiter does now. But he thought that in a warlike community there would be more kings like Romulus than like himself, and that they would want to go to war themselves. So that the holy ceremonies of the kingdom didn’t get neglected, he made the priest of Jupiter a permanent job and then made it more important with a special toga and the royal curule chair. He added two other priesthoods to this: one for Mars and one for Quirinus. He also chose the Vestal Virgins, a priesthood that came from Alba which the founder of Rome would have recognised. He gave them money from the public funds so that they would be really careful priestesses of the temple, he showed that they should be respected and were holy by making them stay virgins and other ceremonies. He also chose twelve ‘Dancers’, the Salian priests of Mars Gradivus, and gave them embroidered tunics, and on top of them they wore bronze breastplates. He ordered them to carry the heavenly shields, which are called the ancilia, and to go through the city singing songs and performing their special dance with three steps. Then he chose Numa Marcius, son of Marcus, from the senators as the priest of state religion, and he put him in charge of all the holy documents which said what animals should be used, which days, and which temples the sacrifices should be at, and where to get the money to pay. He also put that priest in charge of all other private and public ceremonies, so that the people would come to him in case they upset any of the gods’ laws by forgetting traditional ceremonies and joining foreign cults. That same priest was not only in charge of the ceremonies for the heavenly gods but also funerals and pleasing the spirits of the dead. He also said what omens should be recognised from lightning flashes and other events and what people should do about them. To find out about these things from the gods, he set up an altar for Jove the Revealer on the Aventine hill, and he looked for signs from the god, for which omens should be accepted.
Livy 1.20
Numa was very peaceful and religious and he got the Romans to copy him. According to Livy, the neighbours were so impressed by how religious the Romans all were that they did not want to attack and no longer saw Rome as just a great big army camp. Numa gives Rome a new side to its character.
Numa was supposed to go to meet Egeria his spiritual ‘wife’ in a forest and he made this a holy place. He also created many other ceremonies including one to celebrate keeping promises. His main achievement was that he kept his power while keeping peace the whole time. When Augustus became Emperor of Rome, he started a religious revival which may be linked to Numa’s creation of all the religious aspects of the Roman culture.
Task 4B
How realistic do you think Numa is as a historical figure? Give reasons for your answer.
What is the significance for the later Romans of describing Numa in creating all the religious practices?
Do you think the Romans would have thought Numa was right to deceive the people? Give reasons for your answer.
4.3 The nature of the Tarquins and their effect on the development of Rome
There are three Tarquins who are most important for the purposes of this section: Tarquinius Priscus, his son Tarquinius Superbus and his son Sextus Tarquinius. The first two were kings of Rome but the behaviour of the last one was the final straw for the monarchy in Rome.
Tarquinius Priscus
Lucius Tarquinius Priscus was originally called Lucumo and was Etruscan. He went to Rome with his wife Tanaquil intending to do something to make himself powerful. On the way an eagle took off Priscus’ hat and then put it back on again which was seen as an omen that he would be king.
Tarquinius Priscus managed to get the king Ancus Marcius to trust him to be in charge of his sons but he betrayed this trust after Ancus died by sending his sons out hunting and then getting the people to vote him in as king. Livy says that he was quite a good man but a bit of a trickster as can be seen from how he made himself king.
Tarquinius Priscus did some good things for Rome: he increased the size of the senate, made war successfully on the Latins, planned out the Circus Maximus, established games and improved the forum. We start to see the Tarquin arrogance when in a war with the Sabines and Priscus he tried to rearrange the cavalry units set up by Romulus and name some after himself. The omen interpreter Attius Navius pointed out that before Romulus did this he checked the omens so Tarquinius should do the same. Tarquinius replied very rudely that the priest should say, with his gift of prophecy, whether what Tarquinius was thinking just then could be done. When the priest said it could be done, Tarquinius replied that he was wondering whether you could cut a knife-sharpening stone in half with a razor. Amazingly the priest did it. This shows the haughty attitude of Tarquinius, the importance of the omens and also that the gods did not let him get away with this. On the whole, however, Tarquinius Priscus was not that bad.
Tarquinius Superbus
Lucius Tarquinius who was given the name Superbus because he was so arrogant was trouble from the start. First he had his wife killed so he could marry his sister-in-law Tullia who had got her husband killed. Then he seized the throne by force and threw out the old king who was run over in a chariot by Tullia and Tarquinius Superbus did not even let him be buried.
Lucius Tarquinius Superbus surrounded himself with armed men and did exactly what he wanted to in Rome without consulting anyone. He made particular friends with the Latins and then manipulated them into handing their power over to him by faking a plot by a man called Turnus who he had thrown in a river in a basket of stones even though he was innocent. He told the Latins they could either give him their power according to some treaty that he had probably just made up, or he would destroy their fields and cities.
Sextus Tarquinius
Next is Sextus Tarquinius. When Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was unable to conquer the Gabii in the normal way, he sent his son Sextus to trick them. Sextus told tha Gabii that he was sick of his father and was now his enemy. Slowly Sextus built up the trust of the Gabii until they put him in charge. His father sent him a silent message by knocking the heads off the tallest poppies in front of the messenger who did not understand. Sextus knew just what to do and so he killed all the important Gabii, shared their wealth out among the others and handed the whole city over to his father.
Sextus Tarquinius also raped Lucretia, the wife of Tarquinius Collatinus. She killed herself and her father, her husband and his friend Lucius Junius Brutus vowed to avenge her.
4.4 Reasons for the removal of the kings
Although the Tarquins did some good things for Rome such as building things and had military victories, eventually the Roman people got sick of their behaviour.
Task 4C
Make a table showing all the good and bad things the Tarquins did.
Down with the monarchy!
Brutus swore on the bloody knife that Lucretia had stabbed herself with that he would punish the Tarquins and get rid of the kings of Rome forever. He made a great speech to the Romans and persuaded them to stand up to the king’s power and send all his family away then he got the army on his side and established the Roman republic in which two consuls were in charge and the people voted for them.
The story of the horrible rape of Lucretia and the men swearing on the bloody knife to remove the kings is very dramatic and makes a good story. It is thought that there is an influence from the overthrowing of the kings of Athens and the conspiracy of Cataline so a lot of this story is just that, an exciting story. However some people are quite certain that the people began to hate the Tarquinius Superbus because he was being tyrannical and that the noble men made a conspiracy and got rid of him.
Task 4D
How do the Tarquins’ actions help to explain the later Romans’ views on kings?
How accurate do you think the stories are? Give reasons for your answer.

Sources: Livy and Virgil as sources
5.1 Livy’s own statements on his work in his preface
Livy’s preface:
I do not know for sure (and if I did, I wouldn’t dare to say) whether the job I have taken on – writing the story of Rome and the Roman people from the very beginning – will be worth the effort. Since I see that it is an old and common practice that the new writers always think they will either write more truthfully or write more skillfully than the older writers. Anyway, I shall be pleased to set out, as best I can, the record of the things the greatest people on earth have done and if I am not noticed in the crowd of writers, I shall comfort myself because they are such great and talented writers who put me in the shade. Besides, this is a really big job. It goes back more than seven hundred years and having started from humble beginnings it has grown so much that the job may be too big.I have no doubt that most readers will find the earliest times, and those just after, less enjoyable and they will hurry on to the modern times when for a long time by being so powerful the state has worn itself down. But I shall enjoy this work since as long as I am looking back at the old days in my mind, it will take away from my sight the bad things which our generation has seen for so many years. I shall be free from the concern which can cause anxiety in the mind of a writer, even if it does not push him away from the truth. What happened before the foundation of the city or while it was being built has been passed down in a way more suitable for the stories of poets than an authentic historical record of what happened and I don’t intend to prove it right or wrong.The stories of old days can be allowed to mix human events with supernatural ones since it makes the origins of the city more impressive and if any people should be allowed to say they are descended from supernatural beings and trace their founders to the gods, Rome’s glory in war is so great that when they say that Mars is their first ancestor and the father of their founder, the countries of the world accept it in the same spirit as they accept their power. But no matter how these things and ones like them are considered and judged, I don’t think they are very important. Instead I would like people to think carefully about what sort of lives and morals the people had, and the men and their skills which they used at home and in wars to win power and extend it. Then I would like people to notice the discipline slipping gradually, first the sinking morals then them slipping more and more, then beginning to fall steeply, until we arrive at these days when we can’t put up with either our faults or the ways to fix them. There is something especially beneficial and useful in studying what happened long ago, because you can look at examples of everything that can happen clearly set out in a record. From this you can take for yourself and your country, things to copy, and things which are rotten from start to finish which you can avoid. On the other hand, unless my love for this job which I have started has tricked me, there has never been a country either more powerful or with better morals or with so many good examples to follow. There has never been a place where people have moved so slowly towards greed and extravagance or where there has been respect for such a long time for living without luxury and being for economical. Really, the fewer possessions people had the fewer they wanted. Recently, riches have brought greed and the huge quantity of pleasure has brought a desire for ruining and destroying everything because of self-indulgence and lust. But unwanted complaints, even when perhaps they are necessary, really must not appear at the start of such a grand piece of work. I would much rather begin by using the poets’ way of doing things, with good omens and wishes and prayers to the gods and goddesses to ask them to give a favourable and successful outcome to the great task before me.
At the start Livy makes the point that what he is doing has been done before.
He calls the Romans the greatest people on earth so we can see that he is openly biased. He does not care if the stories are not very believable as long as they show the Romans in a good way.
He also says that he does not intend to prove the old stories true or false. When we ask ourselves how reliable Livy is and come to the conclusion that he is not always very factually reliable we have to remember that in this section of his history he was not that bothered. Livy was more interested in putting his message across. He wanted to show the Romans in a certain way and he wanted to stop the moral decline by showing examples of good (and bad) behaviour from the past.
At the end of the preface Livy makes a sort of prayer to the gods and goddesses which is very much like Virgil’s invocation at the start of the Aeneid (which in turn is modeled on Homer’s beginnings). Perhaps Livy is praying not only that he will write a good book, but that his message about the moral decline of his beloved city will be listened to.
Task 5A
Go through the preface and pick out phrases that show:
• Livy’s opinion of the Romans
• Livy’s motive for writing
• Livy’s morals
• Livy pretending to be modest
5.2 Foundation myths as presented by Livy and Virgil
Livy is a historian but this part of his history is largely legendary but he does not try to pretend it is true or say that it is false. It is part of the Roman culture.
Virgil is a poet. What he writes doesn’t have to be true. The importance is in what these legends say about the Romans and their culture. It might not be their real heritage but it is the one that a patriotic Roman wishes to claim for the Romans.
Task 5B
Think about the motives Livy and Virgil had for writing and use these to explain why they chose their versions of the foundation myths.
5.3 Livy’s sources and how he used them
The first Roman to write about Rome’s history was Fabius Pictor who was alive in 200 BC, which was 300 years after the end of the monarchy. Not exactly an eye witness account. Other historians came after Pictor and covered the same information but added their own ideas. For example Calpurnius Piso (Livy refers to him), who was a consul in 133 BC and C. Licinius Macer, who was Tribune of the Plebs in 73 BC. Valerias Antias and Q. Aelius Tubero (who was possibly the son of a friend of Cicero) are two more examples.
All these historians had certain things in common. They were all men with jobs in the government who were writing history as a hobby. They had no interest in historical research. They used history as a way to draw attention to the issues and debates of their time. For example ‘it is no wonder the Romans are so brave and warlike because they are descended from brave warlike ancestors.’ These historians did not try to find out whether the standard version of Roman history was true, they just accepted it and added their own spin.
Livy does tell the traditional version of events and it is pretty obvious that it is not a true story. A lot of the stories from early Roman history come from old Greek myths. The Romulus and Remus story and some of the events in the lives of the kings come from Greek myths. The kings of Athens were overthrown and replaced with a democracy in 510 BC; a tale which miraculously appeared in the history of Rome. The Romans do not seem to have had a developed mythology of their own so they borrowed it from the Greeks. This is not that surprising when we remember that there were Greek city- states in Italy.
Roman historians also used events in their recent history and put them into the distant past on the assumption that human nature stays the same. For example the conspiracy of Cataline is very similar to the plot against Rome by Tarquinius Superbus.
Just because Livy’s account is embroidered with Greek myth and later Roman history, it does not mean that the basic facts are made up. Greek colonies were neighbours to Rome in the early days. Even though the Romans did not write things down in those days, the Greeks did and they included stories of early Rome in their local history. Rome was even mentioned in history books from mainland Greece. Etruscans may also have written about Rome in their history books although they did not survive.
The other source of information for early Roman history is archaeology, which can sometimes be used to check if Livy was right although this is a very tricky business.
5.4 Attitudes towards kingship in Livy and Virgil’s writing
Livy or Titus Livius was born in Patavium, which is now called Padua, in the north of Italy in either 59 BC or 64 BC (nobody knows for sure which one). Nobody knows that much about his family but we do know that Padua was supposed to be a place where people had good moral standards but the Roman Civil Wars caused great problems there. Some people say that Livy meant his history to be an example to the Romans. They had suffered, but that had been due to their own immoral behaviour and a moral recovery was still possible, and Livy offered some inspiring and cautionary tales. It was a serious and important project, and Augustus, the Roman emperor, was interested in it. Livy did not belong to the inner circle of the emperor but the historian and the emperor respected each other and it is said that Augustus once (perhaps after the publication of Books 91-105) made a good-natured joke that Livy still was a supporter of Pompey, the enemy of Caesar. If this was a criticism at all, it was not serious. Livy is not said to have been friends with the Emperor Augustus, but he was close enough to the emperor’s circle to encourage the young Claudius (who later became emperor) to write history. Livy died in 17 CE in Padua.

Virgil or Publius Vergilius Maro, was born in 70 BC in a small village near Mantua in Northern Italy where his parents had a farm. Virgil’s family farm was confiscated during the Civil War. It was the Emperor Augustus who asked Virgil to write the Aeneid, which was written in about 29 BC. As far as Virgil was concerned, it was not finished when he died and he did not want it published. The emperor Augustus however, said that it had to be published. Virgil died in 19 BC.
Neither author lived in the time when Rome had kings so their views on them are historical, but the ways that they wroteabout them will have been influenced by recent Roman history. At the start of the first century BC (the century both writers were born in and wrote towards the end of) Rome was still a Republic, where the Senatorial elite had most of the power, but the class of equites and the common people also had a limited say in some things and a degree of protection under the laws. This had been a relatively stable political sytem and had lasted as Rome expanded her influence first within Italy and then overseas. However, during the first century BC a small number of politicians became increasingly powerful, which upset the balance of the system and led to the Civil wars. At the end of this period Octavian (who became the emperor Augustus) restored peace. Both authors lived through the Civil War and were affected by it. Both authors benefitted from the peace brought to the empire by Augustus.
Augustus was an emperor, and effectively sole ruler of the Roman Empire, however he liked to emphasise that he had restored a lot of control to the senate. When Livy criticises the later actions of the Tarquins, this should not be seen as a criticism of Augustus, because if anything Augustus would be associated with brave Brutus, who overthrew the tyrant and restored power to the senate. Comparisons could also be made with earlier kings like Numa, who brought peace and gave the Romans laws and religion, and who asked for the Senator’s approval at the start of his reign.
Remember, all writers are biased, no matter how hard they try to avoid it.
Task 5C
What is the difference between an Emperor and a King?
Think about Livy and Virgil’s possible reasons for being biased and list them.
Write down what effect you think this has on their writing.
Try to find out some more information about the Civil War and how it would have affected people.
Research the life of Augustus and what he did for Rome.

Timelines
Remember, all dates are approximate or ‘traditional’ and c. stands for circa which means about. All dates are BC (before Christ), which is sometimes also refered to as BCE (before Common Era) -they both mean the same time.
Historical/traditional
1184 Fall of Troy; beginning of Aeneas' wanderings
c. 1176 Aeneas founds Lavinium
c. 1152 Aeneas' son Ascanius founds Alba Longa
c. 1152-753 Period of kings at Alba Longa
753 Traditional date of founding of Rome by Romulus and Remus

753-509 Period of Kings at Rome
c. 753-716/15 Romulus
c. 715-674/3 Numa Pompilius
c. 673-642 Tullus Hostilius
c. 642-617 Ancus Marcius
c. 616-579 Tarquinius Priscus
c. 578-535 Servius Tullius
c. 534-510 L. Tarquinius Superbus
c. 509 Overthrow of the monarchy and foundation of the Republic by L. Junius Brutus
Arcaeological
1200 Beginning of the iron age. The Latins arrive in Italy from near the river Danube.
1000 Latins settle in the area of Latium and Etruscans move to Italy.
c. 800-750 Iron-Age settlement on Palatine Hill a simple village of thatched huts.
750 Greeks set up cities in Italy.
700 Etruscan civilisation dominates the area.
c. 600 The Roman forum is built and Etruscans build tombs
578 Cloaca Maxima, the first sewer, is built.
550 Roman city walls are built.
c. 510 Overthrow of the Etruscan Kings

Option 2: Hannibal’s invasion and defeat, 218–146 BC
Context: Relations between Rome and Carthage under Hasdrubal: Sicily and Spain
1.1 Background: Carthage: its foundation and growth
Carthage was a city founded by the Phoenicians on the northern tip of what is now Tunisia. The traditional date for the foundation of Carthage is either 814 BC or 813 BC as recorded by Timaeus of Tauromenion. It was founded by settlers from Tyre in Phoenicia, on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean. The story tells of a queen, Elissa, forced to escape from Tyre because of her brother Pygmalion. In Roman legend she becomes Queen Dido who commits suicide after being abandoned by Aeneas. He goes onto settle in Italy and become the ultimate ancestor of the Romans.
More likely the founders of Carthage were merchants or traders who established a trading post in a situation where they could access both the east and west of the Mediterranean with good agricultural land to support them. The Carthaginians soon gained control over the native tribes who became known as the Libyans and Numidians. Once settled and eventually becoming independent of Tyre, the colony of Carthage established its own organization. During the 6th century BC it also began to set up colonies of its own, first along the Western Mediterranean and down the western coast of Africa. Archaeological evidence shows that its traders reached as far as Britain. Pliny the Elder [Natural History 2.169a] tells us that Himilco explored ‘the outer coasts of Europe’. He was probably looking for tin and other metals which could be found in those areas, including Britain.
Carthage was not the only Phoenician settlement: there were ones at Gades in Spain, and on the Mediterranean coast at Malaca. Once these colonies could no longer rely upon Tyre to help defend them, Carthage took on this role and began to unite these cities into an empire of her own. From these cities, along the African coast, Carthage gained tribute either in the form of money or in produce, but also in the form of service in her army and navy.
Carthage also helped the Phoenician cities in Sicily against the Greek colonists until, in 480 BC, she was defeated at the battle of Himera, so dividing the island between Phoenicians in the West and Greeks in the East. War started again at the end of the 5th century BC but was ended with a treaty in 405 BC. For the next 150 years there were wars between the Greeks and Carthaginians in Sicily. In one of these wars the Greeks had the help of Pyrrhus of Epirus who after leaving Sicily remarked that Sicily would be the focus of a struggle between Rome and Carthage.
Carthage also came into conflict with the Greeks in Spain at the battle of Alalia where she defeated them and took control of Sardinia and parts of Southern Spain. This gave her access to immense natural wealth and manpower, as well as control of the Atlantic trade routes. Carthage kept these closed to other traders, thus exploiting her Empire to her own advantage, and treating many of her ‘allies’ as subjects from whom she demanded money and men.
Rome and Carthage first came into contact after the removal of the Etruscan kings from Rome. The Etruscans had been allies of the Carthaginians and now they wanted a treaty with the Roman republic. The dates of the treaties are uncertain and perhaps there was one in 508 BC (as Polybius states). There was certainly one in 348 BC, which restricted where Romans could sail and what they could do. Roman traders were excluded from Sardinia and Libya, and the Western Mediterranean. This left Carthage to continue to expand her control of trade in these areas.
Task 1A: Research
Internet search for a map of the Mediterranean and locate Phoenicia, Tyre, Carthage and trade routes.
• Search for the story of Elissa/Dido by the author Justin.
http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/carthage/carthage_t01.html
• Research the settlement at Carthage: its position; its military and commercial advantages.
http://www.livius.org/cao-caz/carthage/carthage.html
Timeline
814 BCE: The traditional date for the foundation of Carthage by Phoenician traders.
6th Century BCE: Carthage extends control over nomadic African tribes (Libyan and Numidian) establishing a dominat role in North Africa, stretching from today's Morocco to the borders of today's Egypt; Carthage establishes her control also over Sardinia, Corsica, and Spain.
580 BCE: first conflicts with the Greeks in Sicily
509 BCE: first treaty with Rome (according to Polybius)
480 BCE: Battle of Himera: the Greeks defeat the Carthaginians in Sicily.
450- 20 BCE: Himilco reaches the British Isles; Hanno sails down the West African coast.
405 BCE: treaty with the Greeks in Sicily
396 BCE: A new defeat for Carthage by the Greeks of Sicily.
348 BCE: treaty with Rome renewed; Carthage establishes control of the Western Mediterranean.
306 BCE: Agreement between Rome and Carthage: Rome agrees to keep out of the affairs of Sicily and Carthage keeps out of Italy.
264 BCE: Rome’s treaty with the Mamertines of Messana: Rome in conflict with Carthage over Sicily.

1.2 Carthage: Military and Political structures
The Cathaginian Constitution:
2 ‘Judges’ or Suffetes: magistrates or officials/ generals; elected by the Assembly.
Council (30) : elected by the Assembly
Senate (300) : elected by the Assembly
Council of 104 Judges : supervised the conduct of the officials, chosen by a group of magistrates, not by the People
Assembly of the People: decisions of matters which the Senate or Council could not agree.
The government of Carthage was controlled by a small group of noble families. These families gained their wealth and position from both commerce and large estates in Africa, worked by cheap slave-labour.
The Military Organisation: The Army
The original army of the Carthaginians consisted of citizens, in the same way as Rome and Mainland Greek city states. However, once Carthage began to dominate first in Africa, then the Western Mediterranean, she used the armed forces of those peoples she conquered and she began to pay mercenaries to fight in her army and navy. It is likely that, at least in wars outside Africa, the citizens of Carthage did not fight in the wars, except as generals and officers. In the Punic wars, the army included:
Libyphoenicians (perhaps the core of the infantry and cavalry); they fought in a phalanx and armed with round shield, a spear between 5 and 7 metres long like the Macedonians according to Polybius), and a short sword in typically Greek style
Spaniards: 8000 of Hannibal’s 20,000 infantry were Spanish; there were two types – swordsmen and slingers; they used a large shield, a short javelin, and a short sword (which was eventually taken up by the Romans – the gladius with a 45 cm blade;they also used a barbed javelin called a saunion. They wore a sort of hood rather than a helmet. Spain also supplied a cavalry unit who were armed in much the same way as the infantry.
Gauls and Celts: They were armed like the Spaniards with a long oval shield and short sword but tended not to wear body armour.
Balearic islanders: they were used a slingers.
Italians and Greeks: they fought in their native armour and weapons.
Numidians: light armed cavalry, armed with javelins, small round shield.
Libyans: they provided both heavy infantry and troops lightly-armed with javelins and a small shield.
Elephants: were of the smaller north-African type.
Because we have accounts of the Carthaginian army from Greek and Roman writers, it is difficult to be certain about the military organisation.
Task 1B
Read Livy 21.21-22 about Hannibal’s forces.
A description of the forces at Cannae:
At dawn Hannibal sent his Balearic slingers and light-armed troops out ahead, and then crossed the river with the main body of his army. He deployed them in position as they crossed, with Gallic and Spanish cavalry on the left wing, near the river bank, facing the Roman cavalry, and the Numidian cavalry on the right wing. In the centre he stationed his infantry, strengthening the whole formation by putting his African troops on both flanks, with Gauls and Spanish soldiers placed between. You would have thought that the Africans were an almost totally Roman battle line. Their weaponry consisted mainly of the spoils of Trasimene, but also of Trebia. The Gauls and Spanish troops had shields that were broadly similar, but the swords differed in size and design, the former having long swords which had no points, the Spanish short and pointed ones, since their fighting technique was to stab rather than slash their enemy. The effect of these tribesmen was uniquely terrifying, both for their giant physique and ferocious looks. The Gauls were naked from the waist up; the Spanish, with their linen tunics edged with purple, presented an extraordinary line of dazzling white. When fully deployed, their overall numbers came to 40,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry.
Livy 22.46
The Navy:
The Carthaginain fleet included ships with two or three banks of rowers (triremes), and warships with four and five banks of rowers on no more than 3 levels (quadriremes and quinquiremes). The rowers in the fleet came from the poorer parts of the citizens of Carthage and her subjects. The author Appian says that the docks at Carthage could hold 200 ships. Polybius tells us that in 256 BC Carthage had a fleet of 350 ships. Parts of two Carthaginian ships were discovered near the harbour of Lilybaeum which allows us to gain a picture of what they were like.
Task 1C:
• Research the organization of the Carthaginian army and navy.
• Look up the finds at Lilybaeum and the remains of the ships.
• Find out about the different armour and weapons and tactics of the Carthaginian army.
http://www2.rgzm.de/Navis/Ships/Ship056/NaveMarsalaEnglish.htm
http://www.crystalinks.com/romenavy.html
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/C/carthage/index.html
1.3 The Carthaginian Empire and the First Punic War
By 264 BC Carthage was the dominant power in the Western Mediterranean; she had a strong commercial hold on the trade routes, with a large income from her subjects; her navy was the largest and her rowers the most experienced. Her leaders were highly professional and her generals had been largely successful. The city itself had been constructed to be impossible for an enemy to capture. However, she relied on mercenaries to some extent and her ‘allies’ were really her subjects and expected to obey her wishes. The state was controlled by a small number of rival families competing for power.
Rome, on the other hand, had built up control of most of Italy; her allies provided manpower for the army but her relationship with them was not like Carthage and her subjects. Rome had made her allies loyal by fair treatment to some extent. She had a citizen army which had fought a number of wars in Italy. Her government had developed from the time of the removal of the kings into a relatively stable system. However, she had no navy to speak of. Her generals were appointed only for one year as magistrates of Rome, usually the consuls.
The conflict over Sicily began when Rome decided to help the Mamertines, mercenaries who had taken over the city of Messana against the Carthaginians. The Roman people in the Assembly may have thought that Carthage was planning to extend its influence into Southern Italy, since Messana was on the tip of Sicily right opposite the toe of Italy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Punic_War_264_BC.png
Timeline of the First Punic War
262 BC Capture of Agrigentum by the Romans
260 BC Roman naval victory at Mylae
258 BC Roman naval victory at Sulci
257 BC Roman naval victory at Tyndaris
256 BC Roman naval victory at Ecnomus
255 BC Regulus and the Romans defeated in Africa. Naval victory at Cape Hermaeum.
250 BC Roman naval victory at Panormus
249 BC Carthaginian naval victory at Drepana
241 BC Roman naval victory at Aegates Islands; Peace with Carthage; Romans occupy Sicily.
The Romans started with the limited intention of restricting Carthage from Italy, but by 262 BC they realised they could not do this without challenging Carthage at sea; the capture of Agrigentum encouraged them to think of taking Sicily from Carthage and to do that they needed a fleet. This would also mean they could attack Africa and Carthage itself as well as the cities of Sicily.
Polybius describes this in his Histories Book 1.20. In sections 21 and 22 he describes how the Romans built the ships and trained the rowers, but also how they invented the ‘corvus’ or ‘raven’. This was a plank designed to be dropped onto the deck of the enemy ship and allow the Romans to board it, making the sea battle into a land battle.
The effect of Rome’s success was that Rome had her first overseas ‘province’. She was now committed to administering this possession and collecting the tax from the provincials. Sicily became an important source of grain for Rome. It meant, among other things, that more officials had to be created to do the job of governing Sicily. In 238 BCE Sardinia was added to Rome’s possessions, creating more work for the magistrates.
Rome was now a small, but significant, Mediterranean power. She was gaining in wealth but also commitments. Her leading citizens could also see the benefits from expanding Rome’s ‘empire’.
This conflict showed too the extent of the loyalty of Rome’s allies which was to prove vital in the struggle with Hannibal.
Task 1D
• What were the reasons for Rome’s success against Carthage?
• Polybius describes Hamilcar Barca, the father of Hannibal, as the greatest general during this war (1.64) – research what Hamilcar did and consider why Polybius praises him so much.
http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hamilcar/hamilcar2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Punic_War
1.4 Importance of Spain to Carthage
With the loss of Sicily and Sardinia, Carthage needed to recover some income and revenues. It affected the wealth of the traders and also the opportunities of the craftsmen and seamen. In addition there was a war indemnity to pay to the Romans. The Carthaginians and Hamilcar Barca in particular therefore looked to Spain as an alternative source of manpower and money. Spain had supplies of timber, minerals and soldiers. Hamilcar was sent there in 237 BC, perhaps also because the ruling families of Carthage were becoming worried at his growing popularity and power.
It is questionable whether Hamilcar, and afterwards Hannibal, had really been planning to renew the war with Rome and take revenge for the defeat from the start of the campaign in Spain. In Spain Hamilcar could train and develop support for an army without intervention from the Romans. He could not have acted without the support of the government in Carthage and the supply of money and goods ensured support. In 231 BC a Roman embassy came to check on what he was doing and he replied that he was simply getting money to pay of the war indemnity to the Romans. In 226 BC Hasdrubal agreed a treaty with the Romans that he would not cross north of the River Ebro with an armed force.
1.5 Saguntum
Saguntum was south of the Ebro, but also an ally of Rome. When Hannibal demanded its surrender, Rome ordered him to respect their ally. The Romans went onto Carthage itself but did not get an agreement there either. One group in Saguntum had appealed to Rome to help over a dispute with a local tribe (the Torboletae) who were allies of Carthage. Rome had therefore interfered with a Carthaginian ally and Hannibal came to help them in the spring of 219 BC. After an 8 month siege, the city was captured by Hannibal. At this time Rome was occupied with a threat from the Illyrians. The Romans waited until March 218 BC before sending an ultimatum to Carthage demanding the surrender of Hannibal and his staff – this was rejected and war declared.
Hannibal’s attack on Saguntum was not justified for military reasons; while Saguntum was a Roman ally south of the Ebro, it was not a military threat. Hannibal used Saguntum to push Rome into making the declaration of war, so that the government of Carthage would see Rome as the aggressors and so support him. Both Hannibal and his father, Hamilcar, probably saw that Carthage’s extension of power in Spain might renew the rivalry with Rome. They wanted to be prepared for such a war and to fight the war on land. Hasdrubal had maintained good relations with Rome through his treaty. However, they had seen Rome take Sardinia when Carthage was in no position to defend her rights to it. Over Saguntum, Hannibal was not willing to give in again.
However, Livy (21.5) and Polybius (2.36) have no doubt that from the moment Hannibal took command he intended to make war on Rome.

1.6 The Barcids in Carthage
The Barcids were one of the leading noble families in Carthage. They opposed the expansion of Rome as a threat to Carthage. The following were members of this family:
Hamilcar Barca (275-228 BC): the most successful of the Carthaginian generals in Sicily where he led a guerilla war against the Romans in the latter part of the war and negotiated the peace with the Romans; Livy tells us that the loss of Sicily and Sardinia angered him greatly (Book 21.1). He felt Rome had deceived Carthage. He had been successful also in defeating the mercenaries in Africa who had threatened Carthage. Livy is certain that his nine years in Spain building Carthage’s resources were just a preparation for the invasion of Italy. Polybius (3.10) describes his anger at the peace and his preparation for war in Spain. Both tell the story of how Hamilcar got his 9 year old son, Hannibal, to swear always to be an enemy of the Romans (Livy 21.1, Polybius 3.11).
Hasdrubal the Fair (?-221 BC), Hamilcar's son-in-law, after Hamilcar's death (228 BC), took over command of the forces in Spain; he continued to expand Carthage’s control, and founded Carthago Nova as the capital of the new province.
Hamilacar’s three sons were: Hannibal (247-182 BC); Hasdrubal, (245-207 BC) and Mago.
Hasdrubal defended the Carthaginian cities in Spain while Hannibal fought in Italy. He took reinforcements to Hannibal in 207 BC, and was killed in the Battle of the Metaurus.
Mago (243 - 203 BC) was involved in most of the battles with Hannibal, and was often a very important factor in the victories.
Task 1E
Draw a family tree of the Barcids; include information about the career of Hamilcar and Hasdrubal the Fair in Spain.

Theme: Hannibal’s invasion of Italy
Theme: Character, role and achievements of key individuals
Introduction
Because these two themes (the invasion of Italy and the battles, and the character, role and achievements of key individuals) are so bound up together, with one providing evidence of the other, they have been treated together for this section of the textbook.
2.1 The Crossing of the Alps
Hannibal’s intention in invading Italy was to cut off the source of Rome’s strength – her Italian allies and this meant fighting in Italy not Spain. He hoped they would rise up against Rome and welcome him as their liberator. He expected to gain support from the Gauls in North Italy. He would use this as a base instead of Spain. Because Rome commanded the seas, he would lose communications with Carthage and Spain. The Romans expected to meet him in either Northern Spain or Southern Gaul and so sent P. Cornelius Scipio with a force of 24,000 men and 60 ships. Scipio was delayed by trouble caused by two tribes in North Italy, the Boii and Insubres, which could well have been due to Hannibal. By the time he arrived in mid-August Hannibal was already crossing the Alps.
Hannibal began his invasion of Italy in April 218 BC. He had 50,000 infantry, 9,000 cavalry and 37 elephants when he marched north of the River Ebro. He left Hanno in Spain with 11,000 infantry and himself set off with 38,000 infantry, 8000 cavalry and 37 elephants (Polybius 3.42.11). He reached the River Rhone in mid-August, he found Gauls opposing his crossing (Livy 21.28). He sent Hanno (son of Bomilcar) upstream to distract them while he crossed unopposed.
Livy tells us:
Most of his army regarded the Romans as formidable opponents, since the memory of their previous war (First Punic War: 264 -241) was still fresh in many of their minds. But they were much more apprehensive of the long march and the crossing of the Alps, which camp gossip made all the more terrifying to those who had no experience of such things.
Once he had decided to stick to his original plan to march on Italy, Hannibal called his troops together and harangued them with a mixture of withering scorn and general encouragement, declaring that he could not believe that such sudden cowardice should have overwhelmed a body of men, whose brave hearts had never quailed before.
Livy 29.7-30.1
Task 2A
The passage occurs just before Hannibal’s speech to his men: read the speech: what does Hannibal say to encourage his men? How does Livy portray Hannibal as a leader?
Meanwhile Scipio had landed in Spain only to find Hannibal gone!
Meanwhile Publius Cornelius Scipio recruited a fresh legion to replace the one which had been sent off with the praetor, Gaius Atilius. He left Rome with 60 warships and followed the coast past Etruria, Liguria, and the Salluvian mountains. When he reached the nearest of the estuaries of the Rhone (the river has a number of similar outlets to the sea) he encamped there. He still could not really believe that Hannibal had crossed the Pyrenees, but when he learned that in fact he was already planning a crossing of the Rhone, he was faced with a dilemma. He could not be sure where he would actually find him and his soldiers had endured a rough sea crossing, from which they had not yet fully recovered. As an interim measure, therefore, he picked 300 cavalry and sent them on ahead to reconnoitre the whole area and keep an eye on the enemy from a safe distance, with Massiliot guides and a support group of Gallic auxiliaries.
Livy 21.26.3-4
Task 2B
What does this passage from Livy tell us about Scipio’s abilities and qualities?
What does Scipio do when he learns Hannibal is already crossing the Alps? (Livy 21.32.1-32.5)

Task 2C
Read the following account of an incident early in the march: what abilities as general and leader does Hannibal show?
He reacted accordingly and devised the following plan. He struck camp and with the whole of his army advanced openly until he was close to the key positions, which threatened his advance. There he set up a new encampment within easy reach of the enemy. When night fell, he ordered the usual camp fires to be lit and left the majority of his troops in position. But he ordered his most highly trained troops to take off most of their heavy equipment and then slipped through the narrowest section of the pass by night. They then seized the positions previously held by the enemy tribesmen, who had as usual retired to the nearby town.
Polybius 3.50.8-50.9
Hannibal took in the situation and decided that there would be no hope of safety, even for those who survived the immediate danger, if the baggage train was destroyed. So he collected the special forces with which he had seized the high points during the previous night and rushed to the support of those at the front of the column. 51.7. As a result the enemy suffered severe losses, because Hannibal had the advantage of charging down on them from higher ground. But their losses were matched by those of his own troops.
Polybius 51.6-51.7
Task 2D
Read the rest of Polybius’ account (3.51-53): what more do you learn about Hannibal’s character?
Compare Polybius’ account with that of Livy (21.32-33): whose do you prefer and why?
The elders of these fortified hill villages came in an embassy to him, claiming that the misfortunes of others had taught them a useful lesson and that they would prefer to gain the friendship of the Carthaginians, rather than test their strength. 34.3. They were happy, therefore, to follow orders and hoped he would accept supplies, guides for the next stage of his journey, and hostages as proof of their goodwill. 34.4. Hannibal was reluctant to trust them, but felt that it would be unwise to reject their overtures in case it would make them openly hostile. So he made a friendly response, accepted the offered hostages, and made excellent use of the food supplies which they had brought with them. He followed their guides, but took good care to keep the column tightly closed up, rather than in open order appropriate to travel through peaceful territory.
Livy 21.34.2-34.3
Task 2E
Read the rest of 21.34: was Hannibal right to mistrust the Gauls? What ability does he show in this episode?
Hannibal and his army overcame the hardship and losses by determination and discipline: it was a magnificent achievement and an indication of Hannibal’s confidence in himself and his men. He had wrong-footed Scipio who had now to hurry back to defend Italy. Roman strategy had been to keep Hannibal in Spain and attack Africa itself: with this in mind the Romans had sent one consul , Scipio, to Marseille, and the other, Tiberius Sempronius, to Sicily. Hannibal had overcome this strategy in one decisive blow by attacking Rome’s resources in Italy. However, in one way, he failed: Polybius (3.74.11) says that only one of his elephants survived the cold and difficulties.
Scipio left his army with his brother Gnaeus in Spain but within a month was back in Italy facing Hannibal with the legions left there to fight the Gauls. His decision to leave the army in Spain meant that Carthage would be occupied with keeping a hold on Spain, and reinforcements would not reach Hannibal from Spain.
Task 2F
Review the various routes Hannibal could have taken: why is Mt. Genevre the most likely?
http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/alps.html
Polybius 3.56 and Livy 21.36-37 tell the story of the descent and its difficulties for Hannibal and his army: how do they overcome the problems they faced?
2.2 The Roman Army in 3rd Century BC
Livy describes the formation of the Roman army as it was c340 BCE and to some extent it was much the same when Hannibal invaded.
The heavy infantry was drawn up in three lines : hastati (the front line), principes, and triarii (veterans). The legion was divided into 30 maniples, 60 from the hastate and 60 from the principes, with 20 leves attached to each maniple of hastati. At the back the triarii the rorarii and accensi were organized into a group of three maniples, about 180 men, called an ordo.
So a legion might number about 4,800 soldiers.
hastati younger soldiers 1200 a rectangular shield (scutum) a sword, javelins*; helmet, breast-plate
leves/ velites light-armed troops; skirmishers 600 a spear and several javelins
principes more experienced soldiers 1200 heavy infantry; a rectangular shield (scutum) a sword, javelins; helmet, breast-plate
triarii veterans 600 heavy infantry; a rectangular shield (scutum) a sword, javelins; helmet, breast-plate
rorarii/ accensi inexperienced young men/ poorer citizens; skirmishers; reserves 1200 less equipment than the heavy infantry; light-armed; no shield, slings. [Probably not used by the time of the war with Hannibal]
equites (cavalry) wealthier young men 300 a round shield, helmet, body armour, sword and one or more spears
*the pilum: a heavy javelin, part metal, part wood which could be effective in a range of about 30 yards
Tactics in general:
1. The hastati would charge the enemy. They could retreat through the lines of the heavy infantry principes and be used again as reserves or counter-attacks.
2. Behind the principes were the triarii who could charge forward with their spears, if the principes were under-pressure in order to surprise the enemy with a sudden supply of fresh soldiers and allowing the principes to form up again. The triarii were the last line of defence, behind which the hastati and principes could retire, if the battle was lost
3. 'It has come to the triarii.' is a saying by the Romans meaning that the battle was going very badly!
Task 2G
Research Polybius 18.31 for his assessment of the flexibility of the Roman military organization/legion; for more details of the army and its tactics, review these sources of information:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/home.html (translation of Polybius’ Hstories on line)
http://www.garyb.0catch.com/site_map.html
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/army.html
http://www.unc.edu/awmc/awmcmap4.html (Maps of Italy)
2.3 The Early Battles
Ticinus
A cavalry battle near the River Ticinis (at Lomello) in Northern Italy between 6000 Carthaginian cavalry and 2000 Roman cavalry (November 218).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battles_second_punic_war.png
The Roman cavalry was defeated by Hannibal’s tactics in which the enemy’s centre was held while the flanks and rear were attacked. In the retreat, Publius Scipio was injured, and saved by his son Scipio (later to Africanus). It meant that Scipio was unable to take command in the next battle. it also revealed the superiority of the Numidian cavalry. Another result was that the Celtic tribes deserted to Hannibal, and a grain store at Clastidium was handed over to Hannibal.
Trebia
Scipio was joined by Sempronius in late November at the River Trebia near Placentia. With Scipio injured, Sempronius was eager to fight a battle and win the victory before his year as consul ran out on January 1st 217 BC.
Hannibal used the eagerness of Sempronius to force a battle in a place of his choosing. He understood the psychology of his enemy. He sent his cavalry across the river to lure the Romans into an attack before they had breakfasted; they then crossed the river, waist-high, which was freezing in early December. Hannibal’s forces lined up only when the Romans had crossed. He had 20,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry, but he had also placed 1000 cavalry and 1000 infantry in a concealed water-course under the command of Mago, ready for an ambush at the right time. The Roman infantry consisted of 16,000 Romans and 20,000 allies with 4000 cavalry. Hannibal’s centre held the Romans while the wings were attacked by the cavalry and the elephants. At the right time the ambush was released breaking the Romans; however, about 10,000 Romans broke through and made it to Placentia. The rest were either killed or taken prisoner. Hannibal used the terrain to his own advantage using the river to weaken the enemy at the start and prevent a retreat at the end. Polybius tells how he used the skirmisher and spearmen to harass the Roman line effectively. He had made the weather and the flooded river work in his favour, with the help of Sempronius’ desire to fight so late in the season. Nothing was left to chance.
Task 2H
Read Polybius’ account of the battle (3.73-74) at http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/3*.html
What aspects of Hannibal as general and leader are shown in this account?
The Romans remained very confident despite the defeat: how far was this justified?
As a result of this battle, 15,000 Roman soldiers were either killed or captured. The Celts in Cis-alpine Gaul deserted to Hannibal. Hannibal now had control of the entry into Italy through the Apennines. The Romans now raised 11 new legions. Scipio was sent to Spain. The two new consuls, C. Flaminius and Servilius Geminus were to confront Hannibal when he crossed the Apennines.
2.4 Battle of Lake Trasimene
Hannibal’s route into Etruria:
He appears to have taken the road over the Collina Pass into the marshy area of the River Arno which was flooded at this time of the year. Most of the baggage animals were lost in the marshes and the horses developed scurvy. Hannibal had ophthalmia and lost the sight in one eye.
The exact site of the battle is uncertain. Flaminius certainly did not fall into every trap that Hannibal set; despite the devastation he remained in camp at Arretium. Even when Hannibal marched round the left flank of Flaminius, the consul did not move. Only when he moved off towards Cortone and Apulia did Flaminius follow. He may have been waiting for his fellow consul to arrive; he knew he could not let Rome’s allies lose crops and possession in Hannibal’s destruction of the land. Flaminius had a history of success, particularly against the Insubres and would have been seen as a sound choice. However, in the sources, he seems to behave without much sense and understanding.
Task 2I
Read the following passages:
Hannibal decided that for many reasons Flaminius was bound to give him ample opportunity to attack. In this his calculations were both sound and thoroughly realistic. No-one in his right mind could reasonably argue that there is anything more important to the art of military command than an understanding of the character and temperament of the enemy general.
Polybius 3. 81.1
On this occasion Hannibal had certainly anticipated the plans of Flaminius, the Roman commander, and got the measure of his opponent. As a result his plan proved totally successful. As soon as he had struck camp and moved off from the area of Faesulae, he advanced a short distance beyond the Roman camp and launched a raid upon the surrounding countryside. Flaminius was immediately beside himself with rage, convinced that this was a deliberate insult by his opponents.
Polybius 3. 81.12 -82.2
As he marched he continued to devastate the countryside with fire and sword, with the deliberate intention of provoking his opponents to battle. He now saw that Flaminius was already getting close. As he had identified a position ideally suited to his plans, he made ready for battle.
Polybius 3. 82.10-11
What do we learn of about Polybius’ opinion of Hannibal and Flaminius from these passages? Is Polybius being fair to Flaminius in 3.81-82?
Read Polybius 3.81-82: list the differences between Hannibal and Flaminius as leaders.
Hannibal moved along the north shore of Lake Trasimene setting an ambush: read the following passage and draw a plan of the placing of the troops.
Hannibal marched along the side of the lake and through pass, and then personally led the occupation of the hill in front, on which he set up camp with his Spanish and Libyan soldiers. He then sent his Balearic slingers and spearmen round to front and stationed them to his right on the lower slopes of the hills that lay along the line of pass. Meanwhile in a similar manoeuvre he led his cavalry and the Celts round the hills to his left, and stationed them in extended line so that their extreme left flank lay at the entrance to the pass itself (as already described) between the lake and the hillsides.
Polybius 83.2-4
The following websites have plans and photographs of the battle field so you can check how accurate your plan is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_lake_trasimene.gif
http://www.livius.org/to-ts/trasimene/trasimene.html
Flaminius followed Hannibal into the pass very early the next day. In the mist, unable to see the enemy forces, Flaminius and his army were completely surprised when attack on all sides. 6000 men in the front fought their way through but were rounded up later. Two legions were destroyed. A second success followed when Maharbal and the cavalry destroyed 4000 Roman cavalry sent by Servilius near Assisi. (Polybius 3.86.3) However, no towns in Eturia and Umbria opened their doors to Hannibal despite his actions after the battle:
When he had finished, he handed over the Roman prisoners to his various regiments to be kept under guard, but released the allied troops without ransom and sent them all home. 85.4. declaring, as he had on previous occasions, that he had not come to make war on the Italians but to fight for their freedom against the Romans.
Polybius 3.85.3
Task 2J
Polybius 3. 83-4 gives a detailed account of the battle: what does he say about
(a) Flaminius’ role in the battle?
(b) the behaviour of the Roman soldiers?
(c) the tactics used by both sides?
The importance of the battle of Lake Trasimene:
• Hannibal had control of central Italy and its resources but had not secured the support of the cities of the Confederacy.
• His losses amounted to 1500 - mostly Celts [Livy says 2500].
• There was no army between Hannibal and Rome.
• Rome had one consul instead of two and no effective army in the field.
• Roman strategy changed from the offensive to defensive: Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus was appointed Dictator. with the policy of avoiding battles, keeping to the hills, depleting Hannibal’s forces by frequent attacks and giving his own soldiers renewed confidence
• Two new legions were raised which joined Servilius force
Polybius tells us what happened after the battle:
At the same time he sent messengers to report back to Carthage on the turn of events, despatching them by sea, because this was the first time he had reached a coastline since invading Italy. The Carthaginians were delighted by the news, and with great enthusiasm set about organising support for their armies in Italy and in the Iberian peninsula. The Romans meanwhile appointed Quintus Fabius as Dictator. He was a man of admirable character and supreme intelligence, and his descendants to this day bear the surname Maximus, “the Greatest,” in recognition of his victorious achievements. … At the same time Marcus Minucius was appointed Master of Horse. This officer is subordinate to the dictator, but acts as his deputy, taking command when he is elsewhere.
Polybius 3.87.4-6
2.5 Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus
The Romans meanwhile appointed Quintus Fabius as Dictator. He was a man of admirable character and supreme intelligence, and his descendants to this day bear the surname Maximus, “the Greatest,” in recognition of his victorious achievements.
Polybius 3.87.6
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romansag/g/FabiusMaximus.htm on the background to Quintus Fabius [with a link to Plutarch’s Life of Fabius].
Fabius took over Servilius’ army and marched to Apulia and camped at Aecae near the enemy. Hannibal moved in Campania while Fabius followed. His strategy allowed Hannibal to destroy allied land, causing economic loss and a lowering of morale. Fabius at one point thought he had Hannibal trapped as he tried to move back north. But Hannibal tricked Fabius when he drove 2000 oxen with burning sticks attached to their horns towards Fabius’ camp at night. In the confusion Hannibal’s army slipped past Fabius. (Livy 22.15-17)
Task 2K
Read Polybius’s assessment of the situation and his contrast between the Romans and the Carthaginians at this point in the war (3.89).
What difficulties did Fabius face both against Hannibal and with his own people?
Plutarch gives us the following account:
He concentrated all his own thoughts on Hannibal. He had no plans for a single fight to the finish, since his enemy was at the peak of his strength. So his strategy was to wear him down over time, to use Rome’s financial strength to counter his limited resources, and Italy’s manpower to decrease his relatively small army.
Plutarch, Life of Fabius Maximus, 5.1
The civilian population viewed such time-wasting tactics with contempt. He certainly had a poor reputation in his own army, but the Carthaginians went further, despising him as an insignificant coward. Only one man saw it differently – and that was Hannibal himself.
He alone understood his opponent’s strategy and realised how intelligently he applied it. He realised that he must use every possible tactical device to bring him to battle. Otherwise the Carthaginians would be done for, unable to use the weaponry in which they were superior, while steadily losing their already inferior manpower and wasting their inadequate resources with nothing to show for it.
Plutarch, Life of Fabius Maximus, 5.2-3
His Master of the Horse, Minucius, wanted a much more aggressive strategy and tried to undermine his command among the soldiers. When urged by his friends to counter the insults of Minucius he replied (according to Plutarch 5.6).
“If I did that, I would be an even greater coward than I now appear, since I would be abandoning my calculated strategy for fear of a few jokes and insults. There is no disgrace in being afraid for the future of one’s country; but if a man is frightened of the insults and criticisms of popular opinion, he betrays his high office and becomes a slave to the fools over whom it is his duty as ruler to exercise control.”
Task 2L
How is Fabius characterised by Plutarch?
Livy tells us how Fabius was partly undermined by a cavalry action by Minucius which had some success but which was exaggerated by Minucius when reporting to Rome. He had forced Hannibal to move his camp. When Fabius returned to the camp from Rome after power was to be shred between him and Minucius, they decided to divide the army rather than sharing the command. Minucius fell into a trap set by Hannibal on hilly, broken ground suited to his ambushes and Minucius’ forces were saved only by the arrival of Fabius’ army (Polybius 3. 104-105). However, Fabius’ term of office ended in 217 BC and new consuls were elected for 216 BC: Terrentius Varro and Aemilius Paulus.
Livy’s account of the treatment of Fabius
This describes the treatment of Fabius by the Roman people and the Senate and displays a sympathy for Fabius and portrays him as an honourable patriot who refuses to be diverted from what he knows is right. Minucius is the popular leader, not a member of the traditional aristocracy.
Everyone in Rome and in the army, whether friend or foe to Fabius, regarded this decision as a calculated insult – except the Dictator himself. With the same calmness and mental resolution as he had endured the denunciations of his enemies in the popular assemblies, he now bore this cruel injustice inflicted on him by an angry nation. En route for the army, he received the despatches reporting the Senate’s decree (senatus consultum) about the division of powers. But undaunted and undefeated by citizen or enemy alike, he rejoined the army, entirely confident that no legislation could enforce equality of military genius along with equality of military command.
Livy 22.26.5-7
Compare this with Livy’s portrayal of Varro at 22.26:
As a young man, Varro had inherited the fruits of his father’s “business” activities, and immediately conceived somewhat loftier ambitions. Smart suits and political activity (literally: the toga and the forum) became his stock in trade and he began to make speeches on behalf of the dregs of society. By taking up such populist causes and denouncing the wealth and reputation of the better class of citizens, he soon won himself a national reputation amongst the common people, and thus gained political office. He became a treasury official (Quaestor), and was then twice elected a city magistrate (Aedile), first as a deputy to the Tribunes (Plebeian Aedile), and then as a part of the city administration (Curule Aedile). Finally, having won the praetorship and completed his term of office, he had now set his eyes on the consulship. He had sufficient low cunning to make political capital out of the Dictator’s unpopularity, and when the proposal (to divide the powers of the dictatorship) was carried in the popular assembly (became a plebiscite), he alone got the credit.
Livy 22.26
Varro was a ‘novus homo’ – a new man whose family had never held the consulship: but he must have had support in the Senate to succeed in politics and cannot have been the enemy of the Senate as the sources suggest. Aemilius was the patrician aristocrat who is presented as cautious and sensible, who had already held a consulship in 219 BC. He was the experienced statesman, Varro the young and inexperienced hothead. The ancient accounts always present events as the result of the characters of those involved, and the accounts of 216 BC are no different.
2.6 The Battle of Cannae
The Romans increased their army to eight legions (according to Polybius), although it is thought that 80,000 Roman soldiers and allies is far too large an army. Hannibal’s force amounted to 40,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalry (Livy 22.46.6). The Roman army was probably slightly larger in infantry but less in cavalry. Hannibal had taken the supply-depot at Cannae on the right bank of the River Aufidus. He had chosen a site suitable for his cavalry. Livy explains how the commanders differed on their approach, just as Fabius and Minucius had.
Once again disorder broke out in the Roman camp, with the troops proving mutinous and the consuls incapable of agreement. Lucius Aemilius Paulus (Varro’s colleague in the consulship) kept reminding Varro of what had been the results of the rash leadership of Sempronius and Flaminius; Varro sarcastically threw back at him Fabius’ “wonderful” example, as a cowardly and un-enterprising general.
Livy 22.44.5
Once the forces were massed at Cannae, the commanders shared the command on alternate days. Livy (22.44.5) gives the impression that Varro crossed the river and drew up the battle line without Aemilius’ agreement on a day when he had command. The Infantry was massed in the centre, with cavalry on the wings, each consul taking command of a wing (22.45.6-8).
Livy (22. 46) describes the Carthaginian formations, although he does not mention that the infantry were drawn up in a crescent shape at this point. However, at 47.7 he makes it clear that this was the tactic.
Hannibal had aimed to contain the attack of Roman infantry and then use it against them in a trap. Polybius describes the formation as a ‘moon shape’. It was meant to take the shock of the attack from the Romans. The Celts and Spaniards in the centre did not break- if they had done so and the Romans had broken through their superiority in infantry the Romans would have won the battle. The Africans on the wings turned inwards and attacked the sides of the Romans. Then the heavy cavalry of Hasdrubal attacked the rear of the Roman lines.
Aemilius Paulus, Servilius, Minucius, 80 senators, 29 military tribunes, 45,500 infantry and 2,700 cavalry (Livy 22. 49). Polybius (3.117) says 70,000 Romans died and about 10,000 were captured. Varro escaped to Venusia with about 50 cavalry. Scipio Africanus with some infantry reached Canusium.
Carthaginian losses were 4000 to 5,700 Celts, 1,500 Spaniards and Africans and 200 cavalry (Polybius 3.117).
Task 2M
Research the full account of the battle:
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-cannae.html
http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/hannibal.html
Did Hannibal win because of his own military skill or because of Roman incompetence?
Maps of Cannae
http://www.livius.org/a/1/maps/cannae_map.gif
After the battle
Task 2N
Why did Hannibal not immediately march on Rome? Do you think it was the right decision? Read the following extracts and information and make points for and against his decision.
In his moment of victory Hannibal was surrounded by his staff, crowding round to congratulate him and urge him after such a massive success to spend the remainder of the day and the following night resting himself, and giving his exhausted soldiers time to recover. But Maharbal, his cavalry commander would have none of it, urging him not to waste a moment. “I’ll tell you what this battle has really achieved,” he declared, “when in five days time you are feasting on the Capitol. Follow up quickly. I’ll go ahead with the cavalry, and before they even realise we are coming, the Romans will discover we’ve arrived.” For Hannibal it all seemed far too optimistic, an almost inconceivable possibility. He commended Maharbal for his imaginative idea, but said he needed time to think it through. Maharbal’s reply was short and to the point. “The gods do not give all their gifts to any one man. You can win a battle, Hannibal. But you have no idea how to exploit it.”
That single day’s delay, by common consent, proved the salvation of Rome and her empire.
Livy 22.51

So, why didn’t he march on Rome immediately?
• Many towns in Apulia, Samnium, Lucanai and Bruttium revolted to Hannibal; Capua followed in the autumn giving him a good base for the winter. it looked as though the confederacy was breaking up. However Etruria, Umbria and Latium remained loyal to Rome, as did most of the coastal cities of Campania.
• Rome’s army in Italy was destroyed and her finances were seriously lessened with demands from Sicily and Sardinia for pay for army and fleet.
• However, Hannibal did not have the equipment to undertake a siege, nor the numbers to starve Rome to surrender.
• His veterans were reduced in numbers since 219 BC and he needed fresh reserves which were not immediately sent. He received 4000 cavalry and 40 elephants.
Instead Hannibal consolidated his support in the south and used his forces to garrison towns, thus dividing and weakening his army. Supplies would be a constant worry. Protecting his new allies became his concern and as such he lost the initiative.
Rome:
• The Senate maintained the army in Spain to prevent resources reaching Hannibal. Hasdrubal was defeated there at Ibera in 215 BC. This meant that resources went to Spain not Hannibal in Italy.
• The Romans recruited two urban legions from 17 year olds, 8000 slaves who volunteered, and 6000 criminals released from jail. By 212 BC she had 25 legions
• Allies in Sicily and Sardinia provided money for the fleet and army.
• Roman naval superiority was maintained.
• Taxes were doubled, men served in the army without pay, voluntary contributions were made by senators; public business was conducted by private money according to Livy (23. 48).
• The senate was now in charge of the war: they turned again to Fabius’ approach, realizing that he had been right.
Carthage - The government sought to extend the war:
• They sent Hasdrubal to Sardinia but he achieved little. He was defeated by Manlius Torquatus.
• They sought to gain the alliance of Philip of Macedon (215 BC); the Romans disrupted this alliance through Valerius Laevinus who took control of the Illyrian coast and then stirred up trouble for Philip in Greece.
• They tried to cause a revolt against Rome in Sicily; Marcellus was sent to the island; in 212 BC he captured Syracuse and defeated a Carthaginian fleet. Sicily, the bridge between Africa and Italy was safely in Rome’s hands and Hannibal was cut off from his government in Carthage.
The war continued in Italy as a war of attrition, both sides destroying the crops and possessions of their enemies supporters. Hannibal had some notable success – taking Capua, Tarentum and other Greek cities in the south. There was also the moment in 211 BC when his army camped 4 miles from Rome and he himself rode up to the Colline Gate. This was really an attempt to divert Rome from the siege of Capua which failed (Polybius 9.5-6).
In 207 BC Hasdrubal, Hannibal’s brother, crossed the Alps from Gaul and had an army of 30,000 in Northern Italy. The armies of the consuls met him at the River Metaurus and defeated him, Hasdrubal dying in the battle. The attempt to reinforce Hannibal had failed and Rome had won a set battle in Italy for the first time. The battle is described by Livy in Book 27. 47- 49.
Hannibal was forced to retreat to South Italy and wait for developments. He was on the defensive now waiting to see what Rome and Carthage would do. The course of the war was now in the hands of others such as Scipio in Spain.
In 205 BC Mago had been sent by the Carthaginians with 12,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry to the gulf of Genoa. He received a further 6,000 infantry, 800 cavalry, 7 elephants and 25 warships from Carthage plus money to hire soldiers. The intention was to keep Scipio in Sicily or Italy. In 203 BC Mago and the Romans fought a battle in the land of the Insubres, near Milan. Mago was wounded and retreated; then he was ordered by Carthage to return to Africa; he died on the journey. So the final attempt to bring reinforcements to Hannibal failed.
2.7 The younger Scipio (Africanus) and the battle of Zama
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Scipio.jpg
The younger Scipio had defeated Hasdrubal at the battle of Baecula in 208 BC, and at Ilipa in 207 BC, he defeated a second Carthaginian army decisively. He captured Gades in 206 BC and effectively ended Carthage’s control of Spain. He then left for Rome to become consul for 205 BC.
His qualities:
• he was a natural leader;
• he understood the need to know the terrain and have knowledge of the enemy’s troops and movements;
• he recognized how important it was to understand the thinking of the enemy;
• he knew how to use the terrain to advantage;
• he learnt from the past battles and used Hannibal’s tactics but adapted them for his own use;
• he was determined but cautious, and like Hannibal, knew when to take risks and when not to;
• he was, like Hannibal, a professional soldier.
He had already begun negotiations with both Masinissa and Syphax, Numidians, so that they might be his allies once the war moved to Africa and provide him with essential cavalry.
Scipio’s view was that a purely Italian policy was out of date and Rome needed not just to get Hannibal to leave Italy but to deal with Carthage once and for all. Fabius was more conservative – his aim had only ever been to force Hannibal out of Italy and he opposed the aggressive line of Scipio. But, with the Assembly’s support, Scipio won the province of Sicily with the option of invading Africa. However he was given only the two legions in Sicily, although he raised 7000 volunteers and had 30 warships. It was not until the spring of 204 BC that he crossed to Africa with 30,000 troops.
Task 2O
Read Livy 30.28 for the opposing views in Rome: how much support does Scipio have in Rome?

At Carthage feelings were very much the same. There were many who regretted that they had sought to make peace, when they thought of Hannibal and his great achievements; but the next moment they would remember that they had twice been defeated by Scipio, that Syphax was a captive, and that they had been driven out of Spain and Italy – all this thanks to the courage and military genius of one man, Scipio. He became their bogeyman, a figure of dread, the agent of Fate, a general born to bring them to destruction.
Livy 30.28.10
This is Livy’s description of the Carthaginians just before Hannibal’s return and the battle of Zama.
Task 2P
What does he mean by ‘two defeats’ and what was the importance of Syphax?
Research the following sites for the information:
http://www.historynet.com/second-punic-war-battle-of-zama.htm [detailed account of Scipio’s campaign in Africa]
http://www.fenrir.dk/history/index.php?title=Publius_Cornelius_Scipio_Africanus for links to events in Africa.
http://www.xenophon-mil.org/milhist/rome/scipio.htm
Scipio proves his tactical ability (and his willingness to use deceit and trickery) in winning a number of engagements in Africa before the arrival of Hannibal. His second-in-command, Laelius, had captured Syphax. The Carthaginians now asked for peace terms. Scipio agreed and offered terms which the Carthaginians accepted. It gave them time during the armistice to recall Mago and Hannibal. The armistice was broken by a Carthaginian fleet attacking Roman supply ships. Meanwhile Hannibal had returned and moved to Zama.
When they returned to camp, both generals ordered their soldiers to prepare for battle and stiffen their sinews for the final struggle. For if they won and the luck was with them, they would be victors not just for a day, but forever after. Next day, before night fell, they would know whether Rome or Carthage would make laws for all the nations; the reward for victory was not just Italy or Africa, but all the world. But for those that lost the battle, the risk equalled the reward. For the Romans, there would be no quick escape route home, here in an unfamiliar foreign land; for Carthage, with their last hope gone, immediate destruction loomed close at hand.
And so, next day, they reached the moment of decision. The two most famous generals, the two most powerful armies of the two richest nations upon earth, came to do battle, destined either to double or destroy the countless battle honours they had previously won.
Livy 30.32.1-4
This is Livy’s assessment of the importance of the battle.
Livy (30.30-31) gives an account of the two generals meeting before the battle
They were the two greatest generals of their age, the equals of any king or commander of any nation, in the whole of human history. 30.2. At first neither said a word, as if each was awe-struck at the sight of the other, each lost in admiration of his opponent. Hannibal was the first to speak.
Livy 30.30.1-2
This is part of Hannibal’s speech:
As for myself, time sees me now an old man returning home to the native land he left while still a boy. Success and failure have long since taught me that philosophy is a better guide to action than any reliance upon blind Fortune. You are young and luck has always been on your side. This, I fear, will make you too aggressive when what we need is quiet diplomacy. … You stand today where I once stood at Trasimene and Cannae. …Whatever risks you took, however bold, good fortune never let you down. … You avenged your father’s and your uncle’s deaths. …Spain was lost; you won it back by driving out four Carthaginian armies. They made you consul, when others lacked the guts to fight for Italy; but you went further, and sailed out to Africa. There you slaughtered two armies, captured and fired two camps, took prisoner Syphax, our most powerful ruler…. And now, finally, you have dragged me out of Italy after sixteen years of stubborn occupation of that land. To men of action, victory can often seem a greater prize than peace. … But if, when all goes well, the gods would only give us the blessing of good sense, we would bear in mind not only what has already happened, but also what may happen in the future. …I am proof enough of how luck changes. …The more Fortune smiles upon you, the less she should be trusted.
Livy 30.30.10-18
Discussion points
• How accurate is his assessment?
• What is the point he is making?
• Does the rest of his speech support his argument?
This is part of Scipio’s reply:
You are actually asking to profit from your treachery, even though you do not deserve to retain even the original conditions. Our ancestors did not start the war in Sicily; we did not start the war in Spain. In Sicily it was our allies, the Mamertines, who were under threat; in Spain it was the sack of Saguntum, which drove us to take up arms in two just and holy wars. You have acknowledged, and the gods are witnesses to the truth of what you say, that you are the aggressors. Justice and the laws of heaven gave us victory in Sicily; they have given us victory in the recent war; and they will do so again if we fight here. As for myself, I am all too aware of human weakness, and there is no need to lecture me on the power of Fortune; I know very well that all our deeds are subject to a thousand strokes of luck. 31.7. I would be all too willing to admit that my conduct was arrogant and brutal, if of your own free will you had come to me to ask for peace before you abandoned Italy …. But now I have no such inhibitions, when we are here in Africa, on the eve of battle, and I have dragged you ducking and weaving and against your will to these negotiations. So now, therefore, if you have anything you wish to add to the peace conditions previously proposed, … then I will have something to take back to our authorities. But if that is too much for you, prepare for war, since peace you clearly find intolerable.
Discussion points
• How accurate is his assessment?
• What is the point he is making?
• Does the rest of his speech support his argument?
Both sides were fairly evenly matched with between 35,000 and 40,000 troops; Hannibal had slightly more infantry but was weaker in cavalry, unlike at Cannae. Hannibal placed his veterans in the third line – the intention was to weaken the Romans having to fight through two lines before the veterans were brought into the battle; the first two lines were made up of foreign mercenaries and the native Carthaginian soldiers. The cavalry was on the wings. The 80 elephants were placed at the front to charge the Romans and disrupt their lines. The Romans were also drawn up in three lines with the maniples directly behind each other in order to allow the elephants to run through herded by the light-armed troops.
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/zama.html
http://www.unrv.com/empire/battle-of-zama.php
Livy describes the battle in three phases:
As soon as Scipio became aware of it, he ordered the recall to be sounded for the front rankers (hastati) to re-group, pulled out the wounded and sent them to the rear, and led the second and third rankers (principes and triarii) out to the wings, so that the front rank (hastati) could consolidate and secure the line. That was the beginning of a completely new battle.
Livy 30.34.11-12
It was the final demonstration of Hannibal’s brilliance as a military commander.
Livy 30.35.3
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/15*.html
For Polybius’ account of the battle Polybius 15.11-16
According to Livy:
20,000 Carthaginians and their allies died that day; a similar number were taken prisoner, along with 132 military standards, and 11 elephants. The victorious Romans lost some 1500 men.
Livy 30.35.3
Factors which enabled Rome to succeed:
• superiority at sea;
• roads and fortresses;
• the loyalty of her allies;
• the stability and determination of the Senate;
• the co-operation of the people and their desire to win;
• the strategy of attrition against Hannibal despite the destruction of the countryside;
• the blocking of reinforcements for Hannibal;
• the success in undermining Carthaginian power in Spain;
• the superior discipline, numbers and organization of the army of Rome;
• the arrival of a military commander in Scipio who reformed the way the army fought in response to Hannibal.
Discussion points:
• What evidence for these factors can you find in the sources you have read?
• Which of these factors do Livy and Polybius think are most important?
• Which of these factors do you think were most important and why?
Task 2Q
Make a list of the strengths and weaknesses of Hannibal as a general and leader. Use the sources as evidence for your views.
Polybius provides an assessment of his character in Book 9.22-26
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/polybius-hannibal.html

Theme: Significance of the conflict against Carthage in the development of Rome
3.1 The results for Carthage
Hannibal first fled to Hadrumentum, then returned to Carthage. The Carthaginians sent a delegation to Scipio to ask for peace terms (Livy 30.37):
• they could live as free men under their own laws;
• they could keep their pre-war territorial possessions and trading centres along the coast;
• deserters, runaway slaves, and all prisoners of war must be returned;
• except for ten warships, their whole fleet were to be handed over along with all elephants;
• without the permission of the Roman people, they were to make war on no nation within Africa; they were not to make war under any circumstances outside Africa;
• They had to restore all lands and property to Masiniss and sign a solemn treaty with him;
• a war indemnity of 10,000 talents, spread over 50 years in equal instalments, must be paid;
• 100 hostages to be chosen by Scipio, aged between fourteen and thirty, must be handed over;
Carthage became a dependent ally of Rome and vulnerable to any aggressor in Africa, such as Masinissa.
3.2 The results for Rome
Rome, on the other hand, now controlled the Western Mediterranean; the Senate and the ruling men of Rome now had considerable power and opportunities. There was now no power in the Mediterranean which could challenge Rome. Even the Eastern kingdoms collapsed before Rome.
Rome’s people were war weary in 201 BC and the treasury was empty. Large parts of Italy were devastated, and provinces now needed to be organized and governed.
During the next 50 years Rome is occupied with the Kingdoms of Greece and Asia:
214-205 The First Macedonian war (Philip allies with Carthage: this brings him into conflict with Rome)
200-196 The Second Macedonian War
192-188 War with Antiochus of Syria
172-168 The Third Macedonian War
149 The Fourth Macedonian war
147 Macedon becomes a Roman province
146 The Achaean League War: Corinth destroyed. Carthage destroyed.
Rome’s initial policy was to avoid interference in Greek politics and she actually removed her forces from Greece in 194 BC. Reluctantly she became involved again in 189 BC but became increasingly dissatisfied with the behaviour of the Greeks. Finally in 149 to 146 BC she embarked on a conquest of Greece and an annexation of Macedon.
By 146 BC Rome’s provinces were Africa, Spain, Macedon, Greece, Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica.
This expansion brought wealth, and this itself brought problems. Sallust (Catiline Conspiracy 10) sees the fall of Carthage in 146 BC as the point from which the corruption of Rome’s leaders began. This wealth and luxury undermined the traditional values in his view. Changes took place in the agricultural organization of Italy. Slaves became more plentiful. There was a movement away from the countryside and traditional peasant farming towards the cities and towns. This had effect upon recruitment for the army which had depended upon the owners of small farms. The opening up of trade routes and trading and banking opportunities led to the growth of a wealthy business class (equites). They provided the organization for the collection of taxes from the provinces. The allies had born the brunt of the devastation of land and grew discontented. All this time, the power and wealth became concentrated in the hands of a ruling group of nobles, about 20 families. Therefore, the political, economic, social and cultural effects of Rome’s victory spread far and wide over the next century.
3.3 The destruction of Carthage
In Carthage in 196 BC Hannibal succeeded in breaking the power of the ruling class and re-organising agriculture and commerce so that Carthage could offer to pay off her indemnity in a lump sum in 191 BC. The ruling class appealed to Rome accusing Hannibal of plotting with Antiochus of Syria. Supported by some Romans, they succeeded in chasing Hannibal out of Carthage to Antiochus.
Over the next 50 years Masinissa consistently tried to expand his kingdom into Carthaginian territory (in 193, 182, 174, 172 BC) and Carthage responded only by appealing to Rome for arbitration. This occurred again in 153 BC, when Cato the Elder was sent to arbitrate. In 150 BC Masinissa tried to insist on the reinstatement of his supporters in Carthage who had been exiled. In response Carthage, against the treaty of Zama, declared war. In 149 BC Rome declared war on Carthage despite efforts to make peace. 80,000 men crossed over to Africa. Carthage made every effort to accept any terms Rome would offer, but in series of negotiations eventually Rome demanded that the Carthaginian left their city to be destroyed and settle where they liked at least ten miles from the sea.
Carthage was besieged for three years from 149 to 146 BC. In the spring of 146 BC Scipio Aemilianus finally succeeded and Carthage was destroyed and the land ploughed over. Its remaining citizens were sold into slavery.
Sources: Livy and Polybius as historians and the relationship between their works
4.1 Polybius
Who was Polybius?
(c.200-118BC): various dates are given for his birth e.g. 203 BC and 208 BC
Polybius was a Greek, from the city of Megalopolis. He was among 1000 Achaean nobles taken to Rome for possible trial in a purge of political opponents to Rome in 168 BC during a period when Rome was in conflict with Greece. He became a close associate of Scipio Aemilianus. He traveled widely, to many of the places he writes about including Spain, Africa and the Alps. He also saw the destruction of Carthage.
His aims as a historian
He wrote a history of the period 264-146 BC, effectively of Rome’s rise to power in the Mediterranean. This was to be a political and military history – what he called pragmatike historia. But it was also meant to provide a lesson (Book 1.35). He writes his History with the intention to explain to his Greek readers why it is they should accept Roman rule. He intends to instruct them by showing them the inevitability of Roman success.
This is how he expressed his aim:
No-one could be so unimaginative, so intellectually idle that he would not be fascinated to know how and under what sort of constitution in less than fifty-three years and all alone Rome came to conquer and rule almost the whole of the inhabited world. As an achievement it is totally unprecedented.
Book 1.5
Task 4A
Read Book 1. section 2 and section 4:
What further aims does he have?
To what does he compare the Roman achievement?
In Book 1.14 he states:
"For as a living creature is rendered wholly useless if deprived of its eyes, so if you take truth from history, what is left but an idle unprofitable tale?"
His Sources
Because of contacts in Rome and elsewhere, he was able to interview persons who were present at events. He was himself an eyewitness to some events, so much of his information is first hand and the result of his own personal investigation. He says (Book 4.2) that he expects to gain information from those who witnessed events themselves, if he himself was not an eye-witness of the events he records. Two whom he mentions were Laelius (Scipio’s second in command) (Book 9.25) and Masinissa (Book 10.23).
He also used documents and inscriptions such as treaties, as well as personal memoirs and letters which we no longer have. In Book 3.26 he refers to the treaties existing in the Treasury of the Aediles.
At 3.56.4 he says:
His surviving forces numbered 12,000 African and 8,000 Spanish foot soldiers, together with a maximum of about 6,000 cavalry. He himself has confirmed this on the column at Lacinium, which is inscribed with the statistics of his armed forces.
In Book 12.25 he says it is important for the historian to check available documents.
Writers he used were: Philinus of Agrigentum who was a supporter of Carthage and Quintus Fabius Pictor, the first Roman Historian, who was alive during the Hannibalic war. He also used the Memoirs of Aratus and the Histories of Phylarchus. He complains (Book 1.14) that Phuilinus and Fabius have failed to report the true version of events. This he claims was due to their bias towards either the Carthagnians or the Romans. He mentions Fabius in Book 3.8 when discussing the causes of the Hannibalic war. he warns against trusting him and asks his readers to test what he says against the fact (3.9.4). He criticizes Philinus in Book 3.26 for effectively falsifying a treaty that did not exist. In Book 3.47-8 he is very critical of writers who have exaggerated or mis-interpreted Hannibal’s action and motives in crossing the Alps or worse still, have introduced gods and religion to explain rational events.
In Book 1.14 he says:
An equally powerful motive with me for paying particular attention to this war is that, to my mind, the truth has not been adequately stated by those historians who are reputed to be the best authorities on it, Philinus and Fabius. I do not indeed accuse them of intentional falsehood, in view of their character and principles, but they seem to me to have been much in the case of lovers; for owing to his convictions and constant partiality Philinus will have it that the Carthaginians in every case acted wisely, well, and bravely, and the Romans otherwise, whilst Fabius takes the precisely opposite view.
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Polybius/1*.html
He says that it is the task of the historian to record the truth of what happened and not to sensationalise events with vivid recreations and speeches that did not occur. The Historians task was to provide information which may instruct and guide future generations. (Book 2. 56)
However, he is not free from bias himself, towards Scipio for example. He also includes speeches in his work. This was the usual practice for historians in the ancient world. There are thirty seven speeches in his work as it survives, for some of which he used existing records; for others he had to rely on versions in other writers which may not be accurate.
http://www.livius.org/pn-po/polybius/polybius.html

4.2 Livy
He lived (c. 59 BC-AD 17). He wrote his History under the patronage of Augustus; he was not, as Polybius was, experienced in war or politics; he never visited the places he wrote about.
His work begins at the foundation of Rome and he wrote a year by year account (annalistic). It starts in 753 BC and ended in 9 BC. There were 142 books, and only 35 still exist. What remains covers 753-293 BC and 219-167 BC. In his Preface he makes it quite clear that he aimed to record the story of the greatest nation on earth. He also wanted to offer models of behaviour in the lives and achievements of the heroes of the Republic.
Sources
In writing his History he had to use earlier writers as his sources since he did not, as Polybius had done, search out eye-witnesses or documents. He used Polybius a great deal, and Fabius Pictor, Valerias Antias and Claudius Quadrigatus, as well as many others which have since been lost.
Sometimes he is vague about the sources:
Some authorities suggest that Hannibal in fact fled straight from the battlefield to the court of King Antiochus, and that when Scipio demanded his surrender as an absolute priority, he was told that Hannibal was no longer in Africa.
Livy 30.37.13
Sometimes he more precise:
The author Celsus tells us that as he (Scipio) spoke his whole stance and demeanour were so uplifted, so transported with happiness that you might have thought that he had already won the day.
Livy 30.32.10
And he admits that he cannot always find out the truth:
So he sent an envoy to Scipio to ask for a chance to hold discussions. Whether he did this on his own initiative or on the instructions of his government, I have no way of telling.. Valerius Antias records that he was defeated by Scipio in a preliminary encounter, in which he lost 12,000 men and a further 1700 taken prisoner. It was after this that he went to Scipio’s camp as an official envoy with ten other colleagues.
Livy 30.29.5-7
Livy is capable of vividly creating an atmosphere and psychology for his readers?:
As they explored such terrors in their minds, people simply increased their own general level of anxiety. For many years they had grown used to seeing war waged before their very eyes in different parts of Italy, without much hope of any near likelihood of a finish to the fighting; but now, it added to their anxieties and raised the whole level of public expectation that the two generals, Scipio and Hannibal, were getting ready for their final showdown. Those who had the greatest confidence and hope that Scipio would win were the ones who were the most on tenterhooks, the closer they imagined victory to be.
Livy 30.28.8-9
He has no problem with presenting speeches which he has invented or updated ones from his sources.
Task 4B
Find examples of his speeches from the sources you have read – how likely is it that he had copies of these?
Discussion:
• Why does Livy include speeches in his work?
• Does this make him a good or bad historian?
He does include mistakes which he fails to correct from his sources and fails to check the truth of what they say. He does expand upon his material imaginatively, especially where it gives him the chance to praise Romans or condemn their enemies, such as the Carthaginians. In describing the places and topography of events he is inclined to be inconsistent or vague. He has limited understanding of military and political matters and this leads him to biased accounts. However, he provides considerable detail, facts and figures of senatorial meetings, assemblies, administrative organization and individual contributions to events.
Task 4C
For more information and an assessment, read:
http://www.livius.org/li-ln/livy/livy.htm
• Read this comparison of accounts of Hannibal’s crossing of the Alps from both Livy and Polybius: what are the strengths and weaknesses of each author?
http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hannibal/alps.html

Timeline:
218-201 2nd Punic War
218 Hannibal marches on Italy
Hannibal victories at Rivers Ticinus and Trebia
217 Hannibal victory at Battle of Lake Trasimene; Quintus Fabius named dictator
216 Hannibal victory at Cannae. Capua joins Hannibal
215- Philip V allies with Hannibal
215 Spain: the Scipios defeat Hasdrubal at Ibera;
214 Rome prevents Philip V of Macedonia gaining support in Greece.
213 Rome besieges Syracuse
212 Tarentum, Herakleia, Metapontum, Thurii join Hannibal. Roman siege of Capua
211 Hannibal fails to save Capua; he pretends to march on Rome to divert Rome from Capua but fails.
Syracuse captured.
The two Scipios are killed in Spain
210 P. Cornelius Scipio (Africanus) given procunsular imperium of Spain. Winters in Tarracco
209 Rome takes back Tarentum. Scipio captures New Carthage in Spain
208 Scipio defeats Hasdrubal at Baecula
207 Battle of Metaurus River, Death of Hasdrubal, Hannibal’s brother, while trying to reinforce Hannibal.
Spain: Battle of Baecula; Hasdrubal loses half his cavalry
206 Scipio victorious at Battle of Ilipa
205 as consul Scipio moves to Sicily
End of Macedonian war; Rome withdraws from Greece
204 Scipio lands in Africa. Carthage allies with Syphax of Numidia; Scipio with Masinissa. Hanno ambushed by Scipio and Masinissa at the Tower of Agathocles.
203 Siege of Utica. Scipio tricks Syphax and Hasdrubal with negotiations and then destroys their camps in a night attack. Battle of the Great Plains: Hasdrubal and Syphax (20,000 men) defeated by Scipio (12,000). Defeat of Mago inItaly. Hannibal recalled.
Syphax defeated and captured; Masinissa given the Numidian kingdom
202 Battle of Zama;
201 Peace: end of the 2nd Punic War. Carthage becomes a client state of Rome.
195 Hannibal exiled from Carthage and goes to Antiochus III of Syria; Masinissa starts to raid Carthaginian lands.
183 Deaths of Scipio Africanus and Hannibal
173 Rome arbitrates between Masinissa and Carthage
152 Rome sides with Numidians;
151 Carthage declares war on Masinissa
150 Numidians massacre Hasdrubal’s army at Oroscopa
149 Rome declares war against Carthage: 3rd Punic War
Carthage surrounded by Africans, Romans, and private army of Hasdrubal.
148-46 Achaean War
146 Destruction of Carthage and Corinth; Africa becomes a Roman province

Useful websites:
http://www.roman-empire.net/army/cannae.html
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/C/carthage/chronology.html
http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/C/carthage/find_out_more.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal

Unit A033: Women in ancient politics
Option 1: Cleopatra and her impact on Roman politics, 69–30 BC
Context: The expansion of Rome into Egypt
1.1 Dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt
The Ptolemies were not Egyptian. The family was Greek from Macedonia, descended from one of Alexander’s generals, Ptolemy, who had taken over Egypt on Alexander’s death in 323 BC. He had chosen perhaps the wealthiest and most secure of the areas which Alexander’s generals acquired. It had a well-established agricultural system and organization, minerals and semi-precious stones in the mountainous areas, a people used to being ruled by a god-king, and natural defences on at least three sides and the fortress at Pelusium to guard the fourth.
Maps of Ancient Egypt: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/maps/mainmap.html
http://homepages.tcp.co.uk/~nicholson/egypt/nilemap.html
http://www.unc.edu/awmc/downloads/aegyptusPtolSml.jpg
Ptolemy I reigned until 282 BC and died at the age of 85. he had established Egypt as a major power in the Mediterranean with control of Cyprus and parts of the Eastern Mediterranean coastline. Perhaps his most famous legacy is the Library of Alexandria. He had the next two Ptolemies maximize the economic potential of Egypt and systemize the farming of the land. One reason why they were accepted by the Egyptians was that they participated in the religious aspects of kingship and continued the god-Pharaoh style of ruling, to the extent that inter-marriage within the family was accepted. Ptolemy’s son, Philadelphus, married his sister, Arsinoe, and were represented in art as the gods Osiris and Isis. This is also seen in the time of Cleopatra and Antony.
However, later Ptolemies became corrupt and brutal. Ptolemy IV killed his father, Ptolemy VIII killed his nephew to become king, then married his niece, who killed his first wife, and was herself killed by the first wife’s son. Ptolemy X killed his mother to become ruler. Ptolemy XI was supported by Sulla, the Roman general who was fighting a war in the Middle East during the 80s BC. He had married his step-mother, Berenice, only to have her killed. The Egyptian people reacted violently to both this and having a ruler set up by the Romans. They dragged him from the palace and killed him. However, he left his kingdom to the Roman People in his will, making Ptolemy XII Auletes depend upon the Romans for his survival.
While Rome was not concerned to add Egypt to their Empire and the Egyptians did not like the idea of joining the Roman Empire, the Egyptians still asked the Romans to arbitrate between rival claims to the throne. This meant that Egypt’s rulers sought the support of a strong and powerful politician in Rome. They would become the client of an important patron who would, in theory and usually for money, look after their interests.
Task 1A
Research more about the dynasty of the Ptolemies at
http://www.houseofptolemy.org/housekng.htm
http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm
Research the Library at Alexandria and its history.
Sometimes the powerful members of the dynasty were women: find some examples of important women among the Ptolemies.
1.2 Ptolemy Auletes 115 BC- 51 BC
Cleopatra’s father was Ptolemy XII Auletes (the Flute-player). He became ruler (pharaoh) of Egypt in 80 BC. His daughter, Berenice, was born in 76 BC, and Cleopatra in 70/69 BC. His sons, Ptolemy Xiii and Ptolemy XIV, were born in 61 BC and 59 BC.
Carving showing Ptolemy XII smashing enemies with a mace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PtolSmash_212.jpg
Relief from the first pylon in the temple at Edfu
Ptolemy XII Auletes is generally considered to have been weak and corrupt, and not at all like he is represented in the reliefs of him.
Coin of Ptolemy Auletes, British Museum
http://virtualreligion.net/iho/ptolemy_12.html
The coin (Southern page 16 Illustration No. 1) from the British Museum represents him as typically Greek, following the image of Alexander the Great. In Egyptian reliefs he is seen as a typical pharaoh in keeping with the Ptolemies way of taking on the role acceptable to the Egyptians.

Further examples of coins of Ptolemy XII
http://www.snible.org/coins/bmc/ptolemies/29.html
Task 1B
Compare this representation with other coins of Ptolemy XII and of other members of the family:
http://www.snible.org/coins/bmc/#ptolemies
His benefactor among the Romans was Pompey the Great who in 63 BC had won a war against Mithridates and was completing a re-organisation of the provinces of the East. Ptolemy sent Pompey a crown of gold and an invitation to visit Egypt. Pompey took the crown but did not accept the invitation.
Roman politicians had been casting a greedy eye on Egypt for some time and Ptolemy knew that he needed a wealthy and powerful patron if he was to survive. Crassus and Julius Caesar had already, in 65 BC, tried to persuade the Senate and people of Rome to add Egypt to the Empire, hoping to use the wealth of Egypt for popularity and even resources against Pompey.
In 59 BC, he persuaded Caesar by means of 6000 talents to pass a law recognizing Ptolemy as the King of Egypt. However, it did not work because in 58 BC he was forced to flee from Egypt to Rome when the Alexandrians rose against him. This was due to the heavy taxes needed to pay the bribes and his close association with Rome. His daughter Berenice IV took control in Egypt.
The economy had declined; agricultural land was abandoned by peasants rather than paying the taxes, the coinage had been devalued; necessary work had not been done on the infrastructure and the cost of living had risen a great deal.
Ptolemy stayed in Pompey’s villa in Rome and was basically Pompey’s client, owing to Pompey his position as ruler of Egypt. The Senate in 57 BC agreed that Rome’s interests were for Ptolemy to be returned as King to Egypt but no one wanted Pompey to have the glory and wealth of restoring him. In fact Crassus made sure that Pompey could not take on the task. Finally in 55 BC, with Pompey’s help, Ptolemy bribed (at a cost of 10,000 talents) the governor of Syria, Aulus Gabinius, to return him to Egypt. Declaring war on Berenice and Archelaus, King of Pontus, whom Berenice had married, Gabinius led Ptolemy back to Egypt, where he immediately had Berenice and her supporters executed. Cleopatra was now the eldest of the surviving children, although only 14 years old. She may also have met Mark Antony now, since he led the cavalry in the capture of Pelusium.
Supported now by the presence of Roman soldiers in Egypt, Ptolemy XII Auletes reigned until spring of 51 BC. It seems that Cleopatra may have ruled jointly with Ptolemy for a short period before his death, and perhaps, alone after his death until she and her 10 year old brother Ptolemy XIII were declared co-rulers of Egypt. She inherited an Egypt which was weak and dependent on Roman patrons, who were exploiting Egypt for financial and political advantages.
1.3 A note on Client Kings
The system of patron and client was well established in Rome. This system tied two people together in terms of helping each other when it was needed. They had obligations towards each other. Perhaps the most common form was the relationship between an ex-slave (freedman or woman) and their former master. The freed man or woman had certain duties to perform for the ex-master while he or she had some responsibilities towards the ex-slave. Many poorer Romans found this helpful, even to the point of getting food, hand-outs of money and jobs from their patrons. The patrons used these clients for financial or political advantages, especially at election time. The system ran right through every level of society, so that even an important politician such as Mark Antony relied on others, such as Julius Caesar, who might advance his career or provide him with opportunities.
Client Kings were similar. They were clients of the Roman state rather than individuals, although as with Ptolemy and Pompey, that was not always obvious. They were also part of the frontier areas which made them important to Rome’s security. They were expected to keep their kingdom peaceful and secure. They needed to control the activities of the peoples, especially those who might take part in piracy and robbery.
Rome’s obligation in this relationship was to support them in their kingdom – often that was keeping them in power while the Romans did not interfere too much in local politics. Auletes gained a garrison of Roman soldiers from Gabinius. In the Empire, after Augustus, financial aid might be provided, such as that to Herod. In return client kings provided resources when needed. This usually amounted to armed men, supplies, money, strategic positions, local knowledge, contacts, ad hoc payments on demand and war-indemnities. For the Romans it had the benefit of having some control without having to use soldiers and resources to police the state, while they still could exercise some influence over especially foreign policy. For the king and his subjects, it meant that Rome did not impose her rule, taxes, way of life or demands on the kingdom.
Cicero, as governor of the province of Cilicia in 51-50 BC, dealt with client kings Deiotarus and Brogitarus when Parthia threatened the province, just as Antony was to use client kings in his wars with the Parthians 20 years later. Deiotarus brought two legions to Cicero, and later sided with Pompey in the Civil War against Caesar.
These kings were often given the title of Friends and Allies of the Roman People. However, Rome considered these allies to be in a sense part of the Empire, and it was not unknown for the Romans to take over the kingdom because there was more benefit from direct rule. This had happened in Cyprus in 58 BC when Clodius annexed the island and removed Ptolemy Auletes’ brother from the throne.
Plutarch describes how the Kings of the East rushed to gain the patronage of Antony when he first came to the east after the death of Julius Caesar:
Then he left behind Lucius Censorinus in charge of Greece. He went across to Asia and took possession of the wealth there. Kings waited at his door. The wives of kings competed with one another with their gifts and using their beauty, allowed themselves to be seduced by him.
Plutarch Antony 24
According to Plutarch Antony 37, when Antony marched against the Parthians, Artavasdes, King of Armenia, provided six thousand cavalry and seven thousand infantry. And he was only one of many!
At the Battle of Actium Plutarch lists the Kings in support of Antony:
The subject kings who fought with him were Bocchus the king of Libya, Tarcondemus the King of Upper Cilicia, Archelaüs of Cappadocia, Philadelphus of Paphlagonia, Mithridates of Commagene, and Sadalas of Thrace. These kings were present. Armies were also sent by Polemon from Pontus, by Malchus from Arabia, by Herod the Jew, and also by Amyntas the King of Lycaonia and Galatia; the King of the Medes also sent an auxiliary force.
Plutarch Antony 62
These kings were looking for rewards for their help – perhaps some addition to their kingdom, perhaps support against a rival, or perhaps even just the idea that if they did not help and Antony won, they would not last long as king!

Theme: Development of Egypt under Ptolemy Auletes and Cleopatra
2.1 Julius Caesar and Civil War 49 BC- 44 BC
At the time of the birth of Cleopatra, much of the Mediterranean World was either governed by Rome or under the control of the Romans. During the 60s BC Pompey added and organized the provinces of the East and settled client kings in place. During the 50s BC Caesar added Gaul (France and Belgium). He also made two attempts to add Britain to the Empire. The result was that in 49 BC the Empire stretched from the River Rhine south to the Alps and across to the Black Sea in the north. In the East the area included lands between the Black Sea and Egypt, while much of the northern coast of Africa was Roman.
Maps of the Roman Empire at this time
http://www.roman-empire.net/maps/map-empire.html
http://www.history.com/maps.do?type=view&catId=174&letter=R&mapId=1159
Task 2A
Research the extent of the Roman Empire at this time: using the maps identify the provinces and client kingdoms.
During these two decades Rome was dominated by three politicians/generals. One of these, Publius Licinius Crassus, said to be the wealthiest man in Rome, died in 53 BC attempting a conquest of Parthia. The remaining two, Pompey and Julius Caesar, fought over the spoils of the Empire in a Civil War which started in 49 BC.
Pompey was defeated by Caesar at the battle of Pharsalus in 48 BC. Escaping to Egypt, where he expected support, he was murdered by Pothinus and Achillas, the agents of the young king Ptolemy XIII. When Caesar arrived in Egypt, he was given Pompey’s head, Instead of leaving, as the Egyptians expected, he stayed and began the first real involvement of Rome with the Egyptians, one in particular, Cleopatra.
Although Pompey was dead, the civil war was not over, Caesar still had battles to fight in Alexandria (see Julius Caesar and Cleopatra), at Zela in Syria, at Thapsus in Africa and at Munda in Spain. Only then, on March 17th 45 BC after the victory at Munda, was the issue settled and Rome was controlled by a single man. He was given the title dictator later that year.
This was the end of over three decades of individual Romans struggling for power and using the resources of the Empire to do so. Cleopatra grew up, therefore, well aware that survival meant the support of this super power; and as the power slowly came into the hands of one man rather than the Senate or the People of Rome, it was the support of this one man she needed to survive.
2.2 The expansion of Egypt under Cleopatra: gifts of Caesar and Antony.
Cleopatra was clearly intent upon regaining as far as possible the old Ptolemaic possessions and extending Egyptian control to the Eastern Mediterranean. She focused Egyptian policy on ensuring the continued wealth of Egypt and adding to the trading opportunities.
Caesar had already returned Cyprus to Egypt.
From Antony, she got control of the important ports along the coast of Phoenicia (Lebanon) and Syria. She gained harbours in Cilicia (S. Turkey). She managed to gain control of the balsam trade in Judaea from Herod (whom she had helped when he escaped the Parthians).
In 37 BC when Antony returned to the East he handed over a number of territories. These were:
‘the kingdoms of Phoenicia, Coele Syria, Cyprus, and a large part of Cilicia; in addition he gave her the balsam-producing part of Judaea, and all that part of Arabia of the Nabataeans which slopes toward the Red sea.’
Plutarch Life of Antony 36

In 34 BC, Antony had a successful campaign in Armenia. He celebrated his triumph in Alexandria with Cleopatra as the New Isis. Antony was the New Dionysus. Within a few days, a ceremony took place in which the children were given their royal titles with Antony sitting on the throne as well. Ptolemy XV (Caesarion) was made the co-ruler with his mother and was called the King of Kings. Cleopatra was called the Queen of Kings. Alexander Helios was named Great King of the Seleucid empire (Armenia, media and Parthia). Cleopatra Selene was called Queen of Cyrenaica and Libya. Cleopatra and Antony's son, Ptolemy Philadelphos was named King of Pheonicia, Syria and Asia Minor at the age of two.
These ‘gifts’ were called the Donations of Alexandria and they caused more than a little irritation in Rome!
The extent of the Ptolemaic Kingdom
http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm (information and map)
http://www.explorethemed.com/PtolEgypt.asp (maps)
First he announced that Cleopatra was Queen of Egypt, Cyprus, Libya, and Coele Syria, and that Caesarion was to rule with her. Caesarion was considered to be a son of Julius Caesar, who had made Cleopatra pregnant. Secondly he said that his sons by Cleopatra were to be named Kings of Kings, and to Alexander he gave Armenia, Media and Parthia (once it was conquered); to Ptolemy he gave Phoenicia, Syria, and Cilicia. In this meeting he displayed his sons in the dress of their kingdoms:, Alexander in the clothing of the Medes, upright crown with a tiara, and Ptolemy in boots, short cloak, and broad-brimmed hat with a diadem. Ptolemy was wearing the dress of those kings of Macedon who followed Alexander the Great; Alexander on the other hand wore the traditional costume of Medes and Armenians. When the boys had embraced their parents, one was given a guard of Armenians, the other of Macedonians. Cleopatra, at this meeting and at others later, in public wore the sacred robe of Isis, and was called the New Isis.
Plutarch Life of Antony 54
Task 2B
Read the passage above: what impression is Antony trying to create by this demonstration? How do you think Romans felt about his actions?
Silver denarius of 32 BC, with heads of Antony and Cleopatra, British Museum
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/s/silver_denarius_of_cleopatra.aspx
Task 2C
How are Antony and Cleopatra portrayed here?
The legend around Antony says that Armenia was conquered; Cleopatra’s says she is Queen of Kings and of her sons who are kings.
What messages does this coin convey about the relationship between them and their positions in the East?

Theme: Life, character and death of Cleopatra
3.1 The family of Cleopatra

3.2 Cleopatra becomes Queen of Egypt
Ptolemy XII had made a will which indicated that he wanted his daughter, Cleopatra VII, and his son, Ptolemy XIII, to rule Egypt together. She was 18 when Ptolemy XII Auletes died in the spring of 51 BC. Cleopatra and Ptolemy were married as was the Egyptian custom. Her brother was 10 years old, and so guardians were appointed for him. These included Acjhillas, the army commander, a Greek Theodotus and an eunuch Pothinus, his financial minister. These three were clearly aiming to ensure their own position through the young king. In the context of Egyptian politics this meant the removal of Cleopatra as soon as possible, despite the fact that technically Rome was protecting her.
In 51 BC an incident occurred which showed Cleopatra’s political sense. Bibulus the governor of Syria needed support because there was a threat from the Parthians after the defeat of Crassus in 53 BC. So he sent his two sons to Egypt to arrange the return of the soldiers who had been garrisoned there by Gabinius in 55 BC. They, however, had settled down in Egypt, married and did not wish to return. They mutinied and went so far as to kill the two sons of Bibulus. Cleopatra had the ring-leaders arrested and sent to Bibulus to be dealt with by Rome. As a result no action was taken against Egypt.
In Egypt problems had arisen. Bad harvests in 50 BC resulted in food riots. She had the grain supply sent to Alexandria to ensure the population there were fed. They had killed Ptolemy XI over famine and Cleopatra was taking no chances. She also brought her younger brother more into the public eye, since up to this point she had been ruling effectively on her own. Palace politics and external pressures were making her position less secure.
At some point she left Alexandria for Upper Egypt, perhaps at the end of 49 BC. Julius Caesar in his account of the Civil War mentions that Ptolemy XIII had driven Cleopatra out of Egypt. It was now that events beyond Egypt began to affect Cleopatra and her future. She had gone to get together an army and fight her way back to the throne. Before she could do that, Civil War broke out in the Empire and eventually reached Egypt in the shape of Pompey the Great.
Cleopatra’s forces and those of Ptolemy were at Pelusium when Pompey arrived by boat from Cyprus. Ptolemy’s advisers decided to seek the favour of Caesar by killing his enemy. They persuaded Pompey to come ashore and there killed him. However, when Theodotus took the head of Pompey to Caesar he was not as pleased as Theodotus had expected. Instead he dismissed him, quite clearly angry that Pompey had been treated as he was.
It was now that Cleopatra acted, and in the most dramatic way. The story goes that she gained access to Caesar by sending him a gift of a carpet, which was rolled up with her inside it! Whatever the truth, she knew she had to speak to him directly. Ptolemy and his armies were between her and Caesar, so some secret means had to be found. She also had to act quickly; there were too many threats, not just her brother but also her sister Arsinoe and the youngest Ptolemy, and the intrigues of the court.
Cleopatra succeeded in her aim and before the end of 47 BC she was indeed the Queen of Egypt.
3.3 Cleopatra as presented in Roman and other sources
Coins and statues
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/online_tours/egypt/cleopatra_history_to_myth/cleopatra_of_egypt_from_histo.aspx (pictures of Cleopatra from coins and statues)
http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/acans/caesar/CivilWars_Cleopatra.htm (Coins of Cleopatra and representation at Dendera).
Plutarch describes Cleopatra:
Her beauty, so we are told, was not itself outstanding; it did not immediately strike those who saw her; yet being with her had an inescapable hold; when talking with her, she was persuasive, and the character which surrounded her whole manner in company had a force to it.
Plutarch Life of Antony 27
Task 3A
What qualities do you think Cleopatra had which attracted Caesar?
Do the portraits present her as attractive?
Research the comments of ancient writers about her beauty at:
http://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/miscellanea/cleopatra/bust.html
Plutarch describes Cleopatra’s effect on Antony
But Dellius was sent by Antony, but when he saw Cleopatra, he understood her cunning and cleverness in conversation. Straightaway he realized that Antony was unlikely to do such a woman any harm, in fact it was more likely that she would have the greatest influence with him.
Plutarch Life of Antony 25
In this way she so completely took control of Antony, that while Fulvia his wife was waging war on his behalf with Octavian in Rome, and a Parthian army commanded by Labienus was threatening Mesopotamia, and was about to invade Syria he let himself be carried off by her to Alexandria. There, like some a young man with time on his hands for leisure, he wasted his time spending it upon amusements and pleasures.
Plutarch Life of Antony 28
Now the disastrous flaw in his character, asleep for so long, - his passion for Cleopatra- flared up again all the greater as he approached to Syria; they had imagined it had been charmed away and lulled to rest by common sense and good reasons. But at last, like the disobedient and uncontrollable horse of the soul, he rejected all the good advice for his safety and sent Fonteius Capito to bring Cleopatra to Syria.
Plutarch Life of Antony 36
He was so eager to spend the winter with her that he began the war too early in the season for campaigning, and then made such a mess of his management of the campaign. He was not in control of his own judgement, but he behaved as though influenced by some drug or magic spell; he was always looking in her direction, always thinking about how fast he could return to her rather than how best to defeat the enemy.
Plutarch Life of Antony 37
Velleius Paterculus on Cleopatra’s effect on Antony
His love for Cleopatra was now burning all the more and his vices getting greater; these vices were always fed by his love of power, by the luxury he liked and the flattery from those around him. As a result, he decided now to wage war on his own country.
Veleius Paterculus 2.82
Task 3A
Apart from Cicero’s letter (see below), the accounts of Cleopatra were all written by Romans and after her defeat and death when Octavian/Augustus had become the first Roman Emperor. Do you think this affected the way they portray Cleopatra?
How fair a picture of her do they give?
3.4 Cleopatra’s Suicide
Antony’s death
After Antony and Cleopatra were finally defeated by Octavian, Cleopatra sent Antony a message that she was dead. Antony then tried to kill himself.
Then with his infantry defeated, he retreated into the city, crying out that Cleopatra had betrayed him to men with whom he waged war for her sake. However, she, fearing his anger when so out of his mind, fled for safety into her tomb; then she sent messengers to Antony to say that she was dead. Antony believed this.
Antony had with him a faithful slave named Eros. Antony had sometime before encouraged him, if it was necessary, to kill him, and he now asked him to keep his promise. So Eros drew his sword and held it as if he was about to strike him, but then turned his face away and killed himself. He fell at his master's feet and Antony said: "Well done, Eros! Although you could not do what needed to be done, you did teach me what I must do"; then he struck himself through the belly and fell on the bed. He did not die at once from this wound. The blood stopped flowing once he lay down. He came round and begged those nearby to strike a second blow. But they fled from the room while he was lying there crying out in pain, until Diomedes the secretary came from Cleopatra with orders to bring him to her in the tomb.
Plutarch Life of Antony 76
Antony is taken to Cleopatra’s mausoleum where he is hauled up in a stretcher. He probably died soon after. Cleopatra was allowed to attend his funeral (Plutarch 82). Octavian meanwhile, according to Plutarch (79), was worried that Cleopatra would destroy the wealth she had stored in her Mausoleum. She was eventually taken prisoner but managed to arrange her suicide despite being watched. First she tried starving herself to death but Octavian threatened her children and this forced her to stop.
Cleopatra’s reasons for killing herself
Dear Antony, I buried you recently with free hands; now, however, I make my offerings for you as a prisoner, and guarded so that I cannot disfigure my body either with blows or tears; my body is now the body of a slave; I am watched so that I can be used to celebrate the triumph over you. Do not expect any more honours or libations; these are the last that Cleopatra the captive will bring. While we lived nothing could keep us apart, but in dying we must change places; you, the Roman, are buried here; I, the unfortunate woman, will be buried in Italy, gaining only enough of your country for a burial in exchange. But if there is any strength or power in the gods of Rome (for the gods of Egypt have betrayed us), do not abandon your own wife while she still lives; do not allow me to be included in the triumph over you. But hide me here and bury me with yourself, because out of all the terrible evils that have happened to me, none has been so great or so terrible as living apart from you for even this brief time.
Plutarch Life of Antony 84
Task 3B
These are Cleopatra’s words at Antony’s tomb: what do they tell us about her reasons for suicide? Do they seem believable to you?
Horace also gives us an account of her death:
But she sought a nobler way to die; she did not, like most women, fear the sword, nor did she escape on a swift ship to some secret shore where she could hide. She dared to look upon her defeated palace calmly and bravely held onto the bitter snakes so that her body might drink their black poison. Determined to die, she became even more fierce; she had no intention, although no longer a queen, to be brought in ships to Rome, and led in a proud triumph, for she was not some obscure, ordinary woman
Horace Odes 1.37
Task 3C
How does Horace portray her reasons?
After Cleoparta’s death
Octavian, although angry at the death of this woman, admired her noble spirit; and he ordered that her body should be buried with that of Antony in with all royal splendour appropriate to a Queen. Her maid-servants were also given honourable burials.
Plutarch Life of Antony 86
Task 3D
Were there any reasons why Octavian might be pleased that Cleopatra was dead?
Read Plutarch Life of Antony 81-82: how did he treat her children?

Theme: Cleopatra’s relationships with Julius Caesar and Mark Antony and their political significance
4.1 Caesar, Cleopatra and Caesarion
In the relationship between Caesar and Cleopatra, it is important to keep in mind that both of them were intelligent and determined politicians whose main aims were always to preserve themselves and their power. They would also be concerned to protect the interests of their own countries. it is important to consider this: if Caesar had felt that Cleopatra was not up to the task of helping Rome and preserving Rome’s (and his) interests in Egypt and the East, no matter what he felt about her, he would have abandoned her and found some one else. Cleopatra, also, was aware that, in 48 BC, Caesar was the source of power and without his support she was likely to be killed by her enemies. She knew he would soon leave, and she would probably never see him again.
Before he left, he and Cleopatra cruised down the Nile, despite the pressing problems in Rome and the Empire. For Cleopatra this displayed her as the Queen of Egypt beyond the city of Alexandria, and the support she had from Caesar. Shortly after Caesar left Cleopatra gave birth to her son, Caesarion, or Ptolemy Caesar. Throughout his life Cleopatra made Caesarion a very important part of her plans. In 44 BC when he was three, and Ptolemy XIV had died, she made a point of sharing the throne with him. Later in the Donations which Antony handed out to their children, Caesarion was given kingdoms and title’King of Kings’.
What was the importance of Caesarion to Cleopatra?
Indeed M. Antonius confirmed to the senate that he had been acknowledged by him and that C. Matius and C. Oppius knew this along with the rest of Caesar’s friends. Of them Oppius, on the grounds that this matter needed some explanation and defence, published a book saying that he was not Caesar’s son as Cleopatra claims.
Suetonius The Divine Julius 52
Relief portraits of Cleopatra and Caesarion from the temple of Dendera, British Museum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Denderah3_Cleopatra_Cesarion.jpg
(Southern . P. Cleopatra page 47 Ill. 9)
Coin showing Cleopatra and Caesarion
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/b/bronze_coin_of_cleopatra.aspx
Task 4A
How are Cleopatra and Caesarion represented?
What does this representation of Cleopatra and Caesarion tell us about their position and role in Egypt?
After Cleopatra’s death, her children and their servants were guarded closely but otherwise were treated well. As for Caesarion, however, who was said to be Cleopatra's son by Julius Caesar, he was sent by his mother with a very large amount of money through Ethiopia to India. Another tutor Rhodon, a man much like Theodorus, persuaded him to return, claiming that Octavian was calling him back to be King of Egypt. However, they say that, while Octavian was considering this, Areius said:
“It is not a good thing to have many Caesars.”
So he was killed by Octavian but after the death of Cleopatra.
Plutarch Life of Antony 81-82
Task 4B
Why did Octavian treat Caesarion differently from the other children?

4.2 Cleopatra in Rome 46-44 BC
When Caesar left Egypt to deal with Pharnaces, King of Pontus, whom he defeated at the battle of Zela, Cleopatra built the Caesareum near the harbour at Alexandria. In front of the building were two obelisks, now known as ‘Cleopatra’s Needles’. One of these now stands on the bank of the Thames. The Caesareum was intended to keep the name of Caesar in the minds of the Egyptians and to emphasise the succession of her son, Caesarion, supported by Rome.
In 46 BC, therefore, she went to Rome to see that her position as ruler was formally agreed by the Senate, becoming a friend and ally of the Roman People. Caesar would not always be there to protect her and she needed more friends and allies in Rome. The continued stability of Egypt depended on her ability to survive as an independent ruler.
She could have been in Rome during Caesar’s Egyptian triumph as Arsinoe was led through streets as a captive, and then sent to the temple of Artemis at Ephesus, rather than being executed as was normal for captured enemies. She stayed in one of Caesar’s houses on the banks of the Tiber. She must have met some of the important politicians in Rome: Cicero mentions her in a letter to Atticus (Letters to Atticus 15.15) and shows his dislike of her; Mark Antony undoubtedly met her again (he had helped restore her father in 55 BC); she almost certainly met Octavian.
Caesar made a great deal of her presence in Rome. He placed a statue of her in his new temple to the goddess Venus, from whom he claimed his family descended. It led to rumours that he was about to marry her and make her his co-ruler. Her presence was resented by the nobles and leading men of Rome: she was a foreigner apparently more powerful than the Romans themselves, and even worse, she was a woman.
Task 4C
Research some of the views of the Romans about foreigners and women. What view do Romans take of the East? http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/special/library.html
How might views like this affect Cleopatra’s reception at Rome?
What other aspects of Cleopatra’s character and position might the Romans dislike and why?
Read the following extracts and list the attitudes and opinions about Cleopatra in them.
Extracts from Cicero’s comments on meeting Cleopatra
‘I do not wish to be unfair to the graecula. She is clever beyond words, no denying it. … And of her fabled treasure: although her aides had promised a purely literary acknowledgment of my merits, I came and went empty handed. … I will not even touch upon her unfathomable impertinence. She seemed intent upon challenging my own undeserved reputation for caustic humor, while I was at pains to be most gracious, even condescending toward her. … This to a citizen of Rome! This to a guest in her house! This to a distinguished statesman! And from a woman! She is, by the way, a beauty in no way, shape, manner, or form. Her figure is anything other than voluptuous, and her face is marred not merely by the inbred Ptolemy hooked nose, but by a strong chin and hard features which detract from the sweetness and gentleness we prize in our women.’
Cicero to Atticus 15.15
4.3 Caesar’s assassination: Cleopatra leaves Rome
In Februrary 44 BC Caesar had accepted the title of dictator for life. The post of Dictator was one which was used occasionally at times of crisis and difficulty. It also would be held only for a few months. There were those who were concerned at the way he had virtually taken over the Republic, and thought that he had plans to make himself king. Whatever Caesar’s plans were for his future and that of Cleopatra, some decided to act before he had the chance to develop them. On the 15th March 44 BC, he was assassinated by a group of senators and other led by Marcus Brutus and Cassius in Pompey’s Theatre at a meeting of the Senate. However, the conspirators seemed to have had very few ideas about what to do next. Caesar’s supporters probably thought that the assassins would come for them soon after. Antony shut himself up in his house.
Cleopatra must have felt certain that she would be on the list to be killed. But nothing happened, and Antony was able to take control of the situation; Cleopatra may have discussed the situation with him. She was in a difficult situation; she was simply a visiting foreign Queen, whose position was unstable and who depended on Roman support and arms. If the conspirators gained the power, then they would have eliminated her and her son eventually. Octavian had been named heir to Caesar, not Caesarion which may have been what Caesar intended to do at some time.
She left Rome soon afterwards unsure of what would happen. She had gained official recognition through Caesar and a formal treaty in the Senate, although she must have been unsure about what the future held.
4.4 Antony and Octavian
http://www.vroma.org/~riley/augustus/portrait_stemma.gif : a family tree of Octavian
When Caesar was killed, Mark Antony was consul and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus was his Master of the Horse (second in command to the dictator). This gave them both the important positions in dealing with the reaction to his death. Antony, with Lepidus’ help, took control of the troops, and Caesar’s will and money. He arranged a meeting of the Senate in the temple of Tellus, where the conspirators were guaranteed an amnesty and allowed to leave Rome for provinces. All of Caesar’s acts were to remain in force. Antony was praised for avoiding a civil war and in dealing with this difficult situation in a very sensible way (Plutarch Life of Antony 14). However, he discovered that Caesar had made Octavian his heir which probably surprised him, although he would not have considered the 18 year old teenager a problem. Still, he made the best of the situation with Caesar’s funeral. His announcement that Caesar had left 75 denarii to each citizen, and his speech, displaying Caesar’s bloodstained toga, created a riot which forced the conspirators to escape from Rome. Despite the fact that he was now in complete control of Rome, he continued to be careful in his treatment of the conspirators and respectful to the Senate, going so far as to abolish the office of dictator.
All the while he was building up his power and ensuring that he kept control. He provided land for Caesar’s veterans and sent Lepidus off to Spain. He is said to have forged documents from Caesar. He arranged to have the province of the two Gauls in order to keep an eye on Italy when he left to be a governor. He also kept control of the legions in Macedonia. It was becoming clear to Cicero among others that Brutus and Cassius had made a mistake in not getting rid of Antony when they killed Caesar (Cicero to Atticus 14.12).
When Octavian arrived in Rome from Apollonia, he borrowed money to pay Caesar’s legacies and arrange games when Antony refused to hand over Caesar’s property (which he had probably spent!). Antony did not allow his adoption by Caesar to be legalized. In response Octavian raised an army at his own expense from Caesar’s veterans and legions from Macedonia deserted Antony and joined him. He joined with the two consuls in their attack on Antony who was defeated twice. When both consuls died in battle, Octavian demanded the consulship although he was only nineteen, and he used his military strength to force the Senate to grant it. Instead of marching against Antony as the Senate wanted, he marched on Rome and took the consulship. He legalised his adoption and set up a court to try the assassins of Caesar. Then he made an agreement with Antony and Lepidus – which became the Second Triumvirate. Next they moved to punish the assassins in the war which resulted in the battle of Philippi in 42 BC and the deaths of Brutus and Cassius.
Now the three men divided up the world. Antony married Octavia, Octavian’s sister. He received the Eastern half of the Empire and he set off for Syria to collect tax and organize the kingdoms and provinces in preparation for an invasion of Parthia. At Tarsus he met Cleopatra.
4.5 Mark Antony in the East 42 BC
Antony arrives in the East:
At any rate, when Antony entered Ephesus, women dressed as the followers of Bacchus, with men and boys made to look like Satyrs and Pans, led him in. The city was full of ivy-wreaths and thyrsus-wands and harps and pipes and flutes while the citizens called him Dionysus bringer of Joy and Protector. And of course he was seen like that to some, but to many others he was Dionysus Eater of raw flesh and the Savage. For he stole from the well-born men their possessions and gave it as gifts to rogues and flatterers. Some indeed took the property of others who were still alive by claiming that they were dead. He gave as a gift the house of a man from Magnesia to a cook. It is said that he did this because the cook became famous on the basis of one dinner. Finally, when he was placing a second tax on the cities, Hybreas, speaking for Asia, dared to say this: "If you are able to take the tax twice in one year, you can surely provide us with two summers and two harvests.”
Plutarch Life of Antony 24
Task 4D
Why are the people of Asia unhappy with Antony’s behaviour?
How is Antony portrayed in this passage?
Antony had come east to continue with Caesar’s plan to invade and conquer Parthia. It was an issue for the Romans that in 53 BC Crassus had been defeated and the standards of Roman legions had been captured by the Parthians. When he arrived, after the disruption of the previous 8 years, the Eastern provinces were in no state to support such a campaign. He spent some time strengthening the states on the borders. One such kingdom was Egypt. Another was Judaea and Antony took time to establish Hyrcanus and Herod in control.
He had hurried back to Italy where Octavian was having trouble with Sextus Pompeius, but when he reached Brundisium, Octavian was not there. This delayed his departure for Syria for the war with Parthia. He and Octavia had gone to Greece while Ventidius was sent to Asia against the Parthians. There Ventidius won the battle of Gindarus while Antony was on his way from Greece. (Plutarch Life of Antony 33)
Ventidius however, decided not to pursue the Parthians any further, because he feared the jealousy of Antony; but he moved against those who had revolted and defeated them. He besieged Antiochus of Commagené in the city of Samosata. When Antiochus asked permission to pay a thousand talents and do as Antony commanded, Ventidius told him to send his offer to Antony. Antony himself was now quite near, and would not allow Ventidius to make peace-terms with Antiochus. He wanted at least this one achievement to be in his name, and not everything credited to Ventidius.
Plutarch Life of Antony 34
Task 4E
How does this event end? What does it tell us about Antony as a general?
Antony now revises the kingdoms of the area. Galatia was given to Amyntas and Pontus was handed over to Polemo. This again shows Antony was keen to establish safe and stable client kings in charge. He had managed to make a successful organization of the Eastern Empire. The next year (37 BC) he is again delayed by request for help from Octavian. He travels to Italy and eventually comes to an agreement at Tarentum.
On his way back to the east he decides to send the pregnant Octavia back to Rome. His treatment of Octavia is one of the factors used by Octavian against Antony. He now met Cleopatra at Antioch with the two children Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene.
However, they say that all this preparation and power, which frightened even the Indians beyond Bactria and caused all of Asia to shake with fear, was of no use to Antony because of Cleopatra. He was so eager to spend the winter with her that he began the war too early in the season for campaigning, and then made such a mess of his management of the campaign. He was not in control of his own judgement, but he behaved as though influenced by some drug or magic spell; he was always looking in her direction, always thinking about how fast he could return to her rather than how best to defeat the enemy.
Plutarch Life of Antony 37

4.6 The rivalry between Antony and Octavian
Aureus showing Antony and Octavian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antony_with_Octavian_aureus.jpg
Timeline
41 BC Octavian’s settlement of 40,000 veterans; confiscation of land for this; Lucius Antonius and Fulvia, Antony’s wife, support the dispossessed and start the Perusine War. Lucius forced to surrender to Octavian. Fulvia dies.
40 BC Antony arrives at Brundisium and besieges the town; Octavian marries the sister-in-law of Sextus Pompeius. The forces of Octavian and Antony force the generals to make an agreement.
40 BC Treaty of Brundisium: divided the world between the three triumvirs. Lepidus received Africa; Octavian took over the west including Gaul; Antony remained in control of the East, and he married Octavia, Octavian’s sister. Antony returns East to start his war against Parthia.
39 BC Treaty of Misenum: Sextus Pompeius had taken control of Sicily and Sardinia and disrupted the corn trade to Italy. He was given Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica and Achaea for 5 years. Antony makes his base of operations at Athens; his commanders conduct the war against Parthia.
38 BC Octavian asks for help from Lepidus and Antony who ignore his requests at first. Antony’s commander, Ventidius, restores Roman control of Syria
37 BC Sextus defeats Octavian in a naval battle at Messana; Conference of Tarentum: Lepdius agrees to help Octavian; Antony agrees to provide ships in return for 20,000 soldiers. The Triumvirate was renewed.
Antony sent Octavia back to Rome and summoned Cleopatra to meet him at Antioch. He recognizes their children and gave her Cyrenaica, Cyprus, parts of Crete, parts of Syria and Jericho.
36 BC Sextus defeats Octavian in 2nd naval battle; Marcus Agrippa defeats Sextus in the battle of Naulochus. Sextus flees East where he is killed by one of Antony’s officers. Lepidus tries to take over Sicily but his soldiers deserted to Octavian. He was forced to retire to an Italian town but kept the role of Pontifex Maximus.
Failure of Antony’s Parthian expedition.
35 BC Octavia arrives with resources, 2000 soldiers and money; Antony sends her back to Rome. Octavian campaigns in Illyricum
34 BC Antony invades Armenia. Donations of Alexandria. Caesarion recognized as Caesar’s legitimate heir. Triumph held in Alexandria.
33 BC Legal end of Triumvirate.
32 BC Antony divorces Octavia; war declared on Cleopatra by Octavian.
While Antony was playing the young fool like this, two messages brought him down to earth: the first from Rome, that Lucius his brother and Fulvia his wife had fallen out with one another; next they had started a war with Octavian, but they had lost badly and had fled from Italy; the second message was no more pleasing, that Labienus, commanding the Parthian force, was overrunning Asia from the Euphrates and Syria as far as Lydia and Ionia. So finally, like a man woken from a deep sleep brought on by a night of heavy drinking, Antony set out to stop the Parthians, and reached Phoenicia; there, a letter arrived from Fulvia full of complaints. He turned round and headed towards Italy with two hundred ships.
Plutarch Life of Antony 30
Task 4F
This is Antony’s response to the problems: how well does he deal with them?
Read Plutarch Life of Antony 31-33: what impression of the personal rivalry between Octavian and Antony do you get?
What is Plutarch’s opinion of Antony’s successes in these passages? Do you think he is fair to Antony?
However, they say that all this preparation and power, which frightened even the Indians beyond Bactria and caused all of Asia to shake with fear, was of no use to Antony because of Cleopatra. He was so eager to spend the winter with her that he began the war too early in the season for campaigning, and then made such a mess of his management of the campaign. He was not in control of his own judgement, but he behaved as though influenced by some drug or magic spell; he was always looking in her direction, always thinking about how fast he could return to her rather than how best to defeat the enemy.
Plutarch Life of Antony 37
Task 4G
Read Plutarch Life of Antony 51: the end of his campaign and his reaction.
Octavia and Antony:
He did not deny his affair with Cleopatra; he did not, however, agree that she was his wife, and in this matter of how to describe his relationship, his reason and his love for the Egyptian were fighting it out. Everyone was working to arrange this marriage. They hoped that Octavia, who had great dignity and commonsense to add to her beauty, would stand by Antony’s side and eventually be loved by him, as was natural with such a woman. In this way, they hoped, she would bring some stability and safety for their affairs and harmony for the world.
Plutarch Life of Antony 31
Task 4H
Why did Antony agree to the marriage to Octavia?
How does Antony treat Octavia? How important was she in the agreement at Tarentum? (Plutarch Life of Antony 35).
What does the passage below tell you about Octavia? How is she contrasted with Cleopatra?
Read the rest of passage 53 and passage 54: what does Cleopatra do and why? How does Octavian react to the treatment of Octavia?
What aim do you think Plutarch has in portraying Octavia as he does? How does it affect your view of Antony?
At Rome Octavia wanted to sail to Antony. Octavian allowed her to go, so most writers say, not to please her, but so that, if she were neglected and mistreated this might give him a plausible excuse for war. On arriving in Athens, she received letters from Antony in which he told her remain there and informed her of what had happened on the expedition. Octavia, although she realized this was an excuse and was upset, nevertheless wrote to Antony in order to learn where he ordered her to send the supplies which she was bringing to him. In fact she brought a great supply of clothing for his soldiers, pack-animals, and money and gifts for the commanders and friends with him; also she had with her two thousand selected soldiers splendidly armoured to serve as praetorian cohorts. A certain friend of Antony, sent by Octavia, told Antony all of this, a friend of his who had been sent from Octavia, and he added all the compliments and praises that she deserved.
Plutarch Life of Antony 53
4.7 The relationship between Cleopatra and Antony
Cleopatra in Egypt 44-41 BC
Once Cleopatra returned to Egypt she set about organising Egypt on a sound economic basis in order to face whoever turned about to be the power in Rome.
Technically she shared the throne with Ptolemy XIV although he had barely counted in ruling Egypt so far. He might have become a focus for opposition as he grew older. As it happened he was dead by September 44 BC, and Cleopatra ruled with her infant son Caesarion. There were plenty of ancient writers willing to suggest Ptolemy XIV was killed by her.
In administration she worked effectively to maintain the food supply and develop trade. She extended her control to Jericho and Nabatea, gaining access to valuable balsam and bitumen trade. She re-issued coinage with only her own name against precedent.
Religion was very important in Egyptian life and Cleopatra used this to her advantage. She is represented as Isis; Caesarion was identified with Horus. Horus was the avenger of his father’s murder which made the connection with Caesarion and Caesar. She is displayed with other Egyptian gods in reliefs. In Greek religion she continued the identification begun by her father with Dionysus (Ptolemy XII had been called the New Dionysus), and identified herself with Aphrodite.
Cleopatra had sent 4 legions to help Dolabella against Cassius, although they arrived too late. For this act Dio Cassius says that her and Caesarion’s rule of Egypt was recognized by the triumvirs. However the legions, made up of troops left by Caesar in Egypt, decided to join Cassius. She next took herself a fleet to help Antony and Octavian ferry troops across to Greece. But storms forced them to return to Egypt, during which Cleopatra risked her life.
The meeting at Tarsus
Antony summoned Cleopatra to meet him at Tarsus to answer the accusation that she had helped the conspirators. In fact Antony needed money and resources, and he needed to be sure his client kings and queens could keep the peace as he moved forward into Parthia. Cleopatra certainly needed to ensure his support. She delayed obeying the summons, until Dellius was sent to persuade her.
So this was Antony’s character when this final disaster - his love for Cleopatra - overtook him. This love stirred up to near-madness those many passions which were up till now hidden, or kept under control. It now removed and destroyed any useful or saving qualities which could have held out against it. In this way he was captured by her.
Plutarch Life of Antony 25
She arrived in her royal barge. Plutarch (26) describes this in great detail – also how she upstaged Antony and how the people viewed it as Aphrodite meeting Dionysus (Bacchus); he describes Cleopatra’s extravagant display at dinner; he tells us that Antony could not match the splendour of the setting. His description of her charms (27) makes it understandable when he says at 28:
In this way she so completely took control of Antony, that while Fulvia his wife was waging war on his behalf with Octavian in Rome, and a Parthian army commanded by Labienus was threatening Mesopotamia (the generals of the king had appointed Labienus Parthian commander-in chief over this area), and was about to invade Syria, he let himself be carried off by her to Alexandria.
Plutrach Life of Anthony 28
Winter in Alexandria 41-40 BC
According to Plutarch, he lived a life of pleasure and luxury, playing games rather than preparing for his war. (Plutarch Life of Antony 28-29). He tells the story of the fishing trip as an example of his childish games.
In fact Antony did take certain actions to support Cleopatra:
• it was now that Arisnoe was executed;
• Serapeion, the governor of Cyprus, was removed because he had aided Cassius to make it very clear that Cleopatra was not involved in any way with the murderers of Caesar.
• A man who claimed to be Ptolemy XIII had set himself up as a rival to Cleopatra in the East. Antony had no problem removing him from the scene.
In 40 BC he returned to Italy to deal with the problem of the Perusine war. There he married Octavia and did not return to Cleopatra at this stage. He was now engaged upon the serious matter of the Parthians.
By now Cleopatra had borne two children, Alexander and Cleopatra. As with Caesarion, this gave Cleopatra and Egypt an association with a powerful faction in Rome, which is what she wanted most of all. It meant some protection from other factions who might want Egypt. The relationship was political as much as personal.
Antony in Syria 37 BC
Now the disastrous flaw in his character, asleep for so long, - his passion for Cleopatra- flared up again all the greater as he approached to Syria; they had imagined it had been charmed away and lulled to rest by common sense and good reasons. But at last, like the disobedient and uncontrollable horse of the soul, he rejected all the good advice for his safety and sent Fonteius Capito to bring Cleopatra to Syria.
Plutarch Life of Antony 36
It is at this point that Antony hands over to Cleopatra a number of territories which had belonged at some time to Egypt. (see the Expansion of Egypt section); he also recognized his two children by Cleopatra, Alexander and Cleopatra.
These acts, we are told, angered the Romans, even more than his execution of Antigonus of Judaea. However, the portrayal of Antony as bewitched by the magical charms of Cleopatra in the sources is part of the propaganda of Octavian which made it easier to make war on Antony eventually. To portray a foreign woman as the real enemy was far more acceptable to the Roman public and Senate than to attack Antony who for all his problems was still popular in Rome.
The Parthian campaign
His campaign began at Zeugma. His intention was to attack Parthia from the North and make a rapid march into Parthia in order to capture the Median capital at Phraaspa. In doing so he left his siege train following slowly behind. It was attacked by the Parthians and the commander, Statianus killed. He was now forced to retreat through hostile territory. Many of his soldiers were killed in the constant attacks, but he reached Armenia, where he left the army and himself rode onto Syria, expecting to meet Cleopatra who was to bring resources, money and clothing. She arrived in January 35 BC at Leuke Come. Cleopatra could not afford Antony to lose since she depended upon him for her support. Octavian had just defeated Sextus Pompeius and eliminated Lepidus as a rival in the West.
Antony now needed time to recover and to re-supply his army. it was at this time that Sextus Pompeius, who was now in the East, was executed, partly because he was causing trouble in Syria and with the Parthians.
Antony now broke off relations with Octavia, his wife. He stayed in Alexandria when Octavia came to Athens. (Plutarch Life of Antony 53-54). He did not immediately divorce her – that happened three years later.
Her flatterers worked hard on Antony for her; they used to complain that Antony harsh and cruel and determined to destroy a mistress who was devoted to one man, him alone. They would tell Antony that Octavia had married him for politics and for her brother, and took pleasure in having the name of wife. Cleopatra on the other hand, queen of so many men, was called Antony's lover; she did not avoid this name nor think it unworthy of her, as long as it was possible for her to see him and be with him. If he drove her away, she could not bear to live. At last they melted and unmanned Antony so much that he was afraid that Cleopatra would kill herself, and so went back to Alexandria. He delayed the campaign with the king of the Medes until the summer, although the Parthian were said to be in the middle of an internal crisis.
Plutarch Life of Antony 53
The ancient sources represent this act as the result of the weakness of Antony and the cleverness of Cleopatra who manipulates him against his interests for herself.
The Armenian campaign 34 BC
Artavasdes was king of Armenia. His forces had deserted Antony in his Parthian campaign. However, Antony tried to make an alliance with him in 34 BC in the hope he would join him against Parthia where there was a civil war at the time. Control of Armenia was vital for an invasion of Parthia. When negotiation broke down Antony invaded, taking Cleopatra with him as far as the Euphrates. he captured Artavasdes, and garrisoned Armenia leaving Canidius Crassus in charge before returning to Alexandria to celebrate his triumph.
Task 4I
Read Velleius Paterculus 2.81: what does he tell us about the Parthian campaign and Armenian campaign?
4.8 Actium 2nd September 31 BC
We have accounts of the preparations for battle of Actium and of the battle itself which are written by people who were alive at the time: Velleius Paterculus, the historian, and the poets Virgil, Propertius and Horace. However, writing during the reign of Octavian/Augustus it was not possible in these accounts to present a favourable picture of the role of Cleopatra, no matter how Antony was portrayed. Cleopatra could never be anything other than the devious and cunning Queen who controlled a weak Antony to do as she wanted. Octavian presented the war as a war against Cleopatra, not Antony. Cleopatra, with her enlarged kingdom and resources, and with her children as kings and queens of the East, or even Caesarion who would succeed her, would be too powerful for Octavian to ignore regardless of Antony. If Antony had returned to Rome as conqueror of Parthia, viewed as likely at the time, Octavian would be inferior to him or worse. Octavian conducted a propaganda war against Cleopatra in which Antonys constant un-Roman behaviour in the East provided useful material.
When Octavian was well-prepared, there was a decree to wage war against Cleopatra, and to take from Antony the authority which he had given over to the woman. And Octavian added that Antony was under some drug and was not even in control of himself; the Romans, he said, were at war with Mardion, the eunuch and Potheinus, and Iras, the hairdresser of Cleopatra, and Charmion, who was in charge of conducting the most important affairs of state.
Plutarch Life of Anthony 60
Eventually Antony realized that this was inevitable and began to turn his attention away from Parthia, as Octavian had wanted. He started to mobilize his forces to fight Octavian.
Antony received Octavian’s reply while delaying in Armenia; and immediately he ordered Canidius to take sixteen legions and march down to the sea. He himself went to Ephesus with Cleopatra. His fleet was being collected there; there were eight hundred war-ships with merchant vessels; of these Cleopatra provided two hundred war-ships, as well as twenty thousand talents, and supplies for the whole army during the war. But Antony, advised by Domitius and others, ordered Cleopatra to sail to Egypt and there anxiously wait for the result of the war. Cleopatra, however was afraid that Octavia would again bring an end to the disagreements between the two men, bribed Canidius with a great deal of money to put her case to Antony; he was to say that it was not fair to drive away from the war a woman who had contributed so much money and supplies; nor was it right for Antony to demoralise the Egyptians, who were a large part of his fleet; and besides, there was no reason to think that Cleopatra was less intelligent than any of the other kings campaigning with him; she had after all ruled a large kingdom by herself for quite a long time, and being so long with Antony, she had learned how to deal with important matters. These arguments (since it seemed that fate had decided that Octavian Caesar should succeed in all things) were successful. Then they sailed to Samos with the entire fleet and there enjoyed themselves in pleasures. All the kings, rulers, tetrarchs, peoples, and cities between Syria, the Maeotic Lake, Armenia, and Illyria had been ordered to send or bring their preparations for the war to Samos.
Plutarch Life of Anthony 56
Task 4J
Plutarch describes the first moves towards war with Octavian: what part does Cleopatra take in this?
Read Plutarch Life of Antony 58: how does Octavian use Antony’s relationship with Cleopatra as propaganda against Antony?
Then, in the year when Octavian Caesar and Messala Corvinus were consuls, the battle was fought at Actium. Long before the battle was fought, everyone was certain that Octavian would win. On Octavian’s side the soldiers and their general were eager and confident; on Antony’s everything was weak and feeble. Octavian’s rowers were strong, Antony’s were affected by their lack of supplies. The ships of Octavian were of a reasonable size, capable of speed, while Antony’s were terrible only in appearance. No one deserted to Antony, while daily there were desertions from Antony to Octavian. King Amyntas recognised the advantages of joining the better side. Dellius stuck to his previous practice: just as he had deserted from Dolabella to Cassius, then from Cassius to Antony, so he now left Antony for Octavian. The outstanding Gnaeus Domitius, who alone of Antony’s followers never greeted the queen except by her name, crossed over to Octavian Caesar endangering himself in the process. Finally, right in front of Antony and his fleet, Leucas, Patrae, and Corinth were all taken by Marcus Agrippa, and he twice defeated the enemy’s fleet before the final battle.
Vellieus Paterculus 2.84
Plutarch claims in Life of Antony 59 and 63 that desertions were the result of Cleopatra’s presence.
One of Antony’s first acts was to divorce Octavia in 32 BC. This further helped Octavian in his claim that the war he was fighting was a foreign one. Antony, on the other hand, could not say this to his soldiers who were being asked to fight Romans in another civil war.
Octavian then seized Antony’s will which was kept by the Vestal Virgins in Rome. Despite the illegal and unprecedented action, Octavian read it out in the Senate. Antony confirmed the kingdoms he had given to Cleopatra and her children. He declared Caesarion was the true son of Caesar. He also requested that when he died he should be buried in Alexandria with Cleopatra. It was understood from this that Antony might make Alexandria the capital of the Empire if he won and turn the rest of the Empire over to Cleopatra. There was no way of knowing if any of what Octavian said was true. In any case the Senate believed it.
Antony chose to wait in Greece for Octavian to come to him rather than attack Italy. Cleopatra stayed with Antony throughout the campaign. Plutarch (see passage 56 above) claims that Canidius was bribed to argue for her staying.
The Battle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Battle_of_Actium_en.svg
Antony now had become so controlled by Cleopatra that, although he was far stronger on land, he wanted to win his victory at sea, all for the sake of Cleopatra; even though he saw that his captains had not enough men to crew the ships and were forcing travellers, mule-drivers, harvesters, and young men from Greece, already suffering much. Even doing this the ships were still short of men, and so were undermanned and badly crewed. On the other hand, Octavian’s ships were properly equipped, built to show of their height or their size, but easy to steer, fast and fully-manned.
Plutarch Life of Antony 62
Task 4K
How far does this description agree with other accounts of the forces on both sides?
Read Velleius Paterculus 2.84; Virgil Aeneid 6.75-88; Propertius 4.6.40
Antony chose to fight Octavian at sea rather than on land as his generals were suggesting (see Plutarch Life of Antony 64 for the story of the centurion and Antony.
Agrippa, Octavian’s general, had gradually gained control of the sea, capturing Methone, Patras and Corinth, cutting off supplies to Antony. Instead of controlling the situation, Antony was now the one in trouble. There were attempts to break through the blockade and attack Octavian’s camp on land. Despite some success Antony was unable to break through. (Plutarch 62-63, Velleius 2.84).
With disease spreading and supplies low, morale in Antony’s camp was getting low. He had problems with desertions and harsh punishments did not help. The longer he waited the worse it would get. Something had to be done. Cleopatra argued for a sea battle (Plutarch Life of Antony 62), while Canidius wanted to force a land battle. At this point, it was clear that the battle of Actium was unlikely to be the end of the war. Antony needed a place and time to recover and collect his forces. To escape from Actium to Egypt was an option, while his army marched overland to Egypt. In passage 64, Plutarch tells that Antony told the captains to put the sails on board, explaining that it indicated Antony had little hope of success and intended escape.
Task 4L
Velleius Paterculus 2.85 and Plutarch Life of Antony 64-68 describe the battle: how are Antony and Octavian compared as generals and leaders?
• What does Cleopatra do during and after the battle (passage 67)?
• What personal connection had Plutarch with the events around Actium?
http://www.livius.org/aa-ac/actium/actium.html for more detail.
http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=16 for a discussion of tactics
The significance of the battle
Who could in such a limited history would dare to explain what that single day provided for the world, the day which brought about the present changes in the good fortune for the state? Very many were shown mercy in the victory; no one was executed, and very few were banished and only those who could not bear the thought of pleading for mercy.
Velleius Paterculus 2.86
Task 4M
How do the poets Horace, Propertius and Virgil view the victory at Actium? Do they agree with Velleius on its effects for Rome?
What happened to Antony’s army and navy after the battle?
The war was not finished. Antony and Cleopatra could still gather the resources of Egypt and the east. As Caesar’s war had shown, defeating the main opponent did not end the struggle. Octavian still had to defeat and capture or kill them. Antony had escaped with his wealth on Cleopatra’s ship. His army had been undefeated and was supposedly on its way to Egypt. Octavian was forced to return to Italy to deal with a revolt started by the son of Lepidus. In Plutarch Antony is presented as having lost all resolve and ambition. Meanwhile, Cleopatra was making plans to escape (Plutarch Life of Antony 69).
Cleopatra took some actions: she introduced Caesarion more in public; Antyllus, Antony’s son, held his coming of age ceremony. Artavasdes was executed. There was an alliance with the Median king including the betrothal of his daughter to Alexander Helios. Eventually Octavian arrived at Pelusium which he captured from the commander, Seleucus. Cornelius Gallus arrived by sea and took the post at Paraetonium. Cleopatra and Antony were now surrounded in Alexandria. Antony won a brief cavalry victory outside Alexandria. When on 31st July BC the fleets and armies came out to fight, instead of doing so, the fleet of Antony joined Octavian’s and the army followed its example.

Sources: nature of the sources and the manipulation of Cleopatra’s image
5.1 The writers of the Augustan Age: Virgil, Propertius, Horace and Velleius Paterculus
These authors were all writing during the reign of Augustus and are, to some extent, supporting his view of events. Octavian/Augustus had to justify his actions. Presenting Cleopatra as the enemy of Rome and the ‘doomed, destructive monster’ as Horace says, would be the way he wanted it. Virgil and Horace were part of the circle of writers which Maecenas, Augustus’ political advisor, gathered around him. Both benefited from the patronage of the emperor in terms of property and livelihood and both, to some extent, repaid the favour.
Publius Virgilius Maro was born in 70 BC and died in 19 BC. The extract is from his epic poem The Aeneid, which traces the escape of Aeneas, the legendary ancestor of the Romans (specifically Julius Caesar!) from troy and his journey to Italy (Books 1-6). Books 7-12 tell the story of his settling in Italy and the wars he fights to establish his followers there. In Book 8 Aeneas is given a golden shield by his mother the goddess Venus, made by Vulcan. On it are carved scenes from future Roman history including the battle of Actium revealing Octavian/Augustus in all his glory. Some view this as propaganda for Augustus but there is much more to this work than a work celebrating the triumph of Augustus.
Quintus Horatius Flaccus was born in 65 BC. He made the mistake of joining the wrong side in the civil war between Brutus and Cassius and Octavian and Antony in 42 BC. As a result his family had their property confiscated. However, he was taken up and patronised by Maecenas in 38 BC and became friends with Augustus. He died in 8 BC. His Odes are short poems on all types of subjects from themes of love to politics. He does present Augustus almost as a god in some poems having saved the world from barbarians east and west.
Sextus Propertius was born around 50 BC. He wrote mostly love elegies. He tends to keep off serious themes of war and politics but there are some poems in which he has a nationalist approach and explores Augustus themes such as Book 4.6. Despite claiming not to have the inclination for it, he provides a very favourable view of Octavian at Actium!
All three poets portray Cleopatra in very much the same way which suited Octavian’s political purpose.
Horace describes Cleopatra as
‘that queen preparing some insane destruction for the capitol and planning a funeral for our empire. She had with her that disgraceful mob of diseased men; she herself was out of control, hoping for whatever she wanted, made drunk by sweet good fortune.’
He makes no mention of Antony at all describing the battle of Actium. Her defeat is a cause to bring out the wine and rejoice.
Virgil mentions Antony (victorious from the East but:
‘He brought with him Egypt and the strength of the East and furthest Bactria, but followed by his Egyptian wife (the shame of it!).’
Virgil contrasts this with:
‘Augustus Caesar led the Italians into battle with the senators and the people, and with the household gods and the great gods of Rome. He stood there well-pleased on the high stern. From his forehead there poured twin flames, and his father’s star appeared on his head.’
Virgil’s message about who was in the right in this struggle is emphasised with religious imagery. Propertius does the same in his poem Elegies 4.6 using the god Apollo to speak in favour of Octavian as the saviour of Rome. he presents Cleopatra as
‘That woman makes for the River Nile, vainly relying on her own ship in her pointless escape. One thing she did achieve: she did not die on the appointed day.
The gods had a better plan: one woman would not have made so great a triumph through the streets where previously the defeated Jugurtha had been led.’
Again, the poet provides political support for Octavian’s actions in the way Cleopatra is made out to be a disastrous enemy to Rome and her future. More than that she was a woman and a queen – and the Romans hated kings.
‘a disgrace that Roman javelins were held on the orders of a woman….
It’s a disgrace that Italian seas should suffer the presence of royal ships while you are our leader.’
(Propertius 4.6)
Included in this portrayal is the undercurrent of dislike of foreigners and of what is seen as the luxury and easy-living of the eastern peoples. Velleius (2.82) sees Antony’s behaviour as affected by his behaviour as an eastern prince:
‘As a result, he decided now to wage war on his own country. He had already ordered that he was called the new Father Liber. He wore a crown of leaves on his head, and a golden robe of saffron yellow; he held the thyrsus wand and wore the high boots, all to look like Father Liber when carried in procession on a chariot through the streets of Alexandria.’
Velleius Paterculus was born in either 19 or 20 BC. He served with Gaius Caesar (Augustus’ grandson) in the East and then with the future Emperor Tiberius in Germany. His book was written in AD 30. He took part in many of the events of the early years of the 1st century AD and was a senator himself. However, he is very uncritical of either Augustus or Tiberius. Although he was not alive at the time of the battle of Actium, he would have access to memoirs and documents which we do not have today. However, his work is a summary rather than a fully researched history and therefore contains less detail than other works. His comment on the significance of Actium is typical of his biased and sometime superficial analysis of events. Equally his claim that Octavian was merciful and executed no one is not supported by the facts.
‘In the summer when Caesar Octavian finished the war in Sicily against Pompeius Sextus so successfully, fortune was certainly generous to Caesar Octavian and to the state, but was savagely bad for the armies in the East.’
This is how he begins his short account of Actium and at once the contrast is made between Octavian and Antony which continues throughout his version showing his lack of objectivity.
Task 5A
Read Virgil Aeneid 6.688 and Propertius Elegies 4.6, lines 50-57: how is Cleopatra presented?
5.2 Plutarch
Plutarch was born in AD 46 in the Greek town of Chaeronea. His Lives of various Greek and Roman personalities is one of his works. His aim was to explore the character of famous men to provide lessons for the future. He does not approach his subjects with the intention of telling everything which happens but restricts himself to those events and incidents which reflect upon the subject of the biography. The biography of Antony is paired with that of Demetrius. In both he sees them as suffering reversals of fortune. In his view both became too involved in luxury and enjoyment. But the contrast is that Antony was harsh and cruel in his attempt to impose power on the Romans and too often let slip the chance to win victories, distracted by Cleopatra. Plutarch sees in Antony’s story a lesson concerning success and its dangers. He is concerned with the influence of character on lives and actions and so he presents ‘rounded’ character portrayals in a way which will develop that theme. He is interested in stories and sometimes emphasises those rather than the great events happening at the time. However, he does tell the story chronologically so that there is a clear and simple timeline to follow.
5.3 Suetonius
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus born AD 69. He became Secretary to the Emperor Hadrian (AD 117). He may have died around AD 140. He wrote a number of works, among which are the lives of the first twelve Caesars beginning with Julius. After the life of Nero, they become much less well-documented implying that he no longer had access to documents in the Imperial Library. This may be when he was dismissed for some affair with the Empress Sabina. The short passage from his biography of Julius Caesar is not the only time he mentions Cleopatra. In section 48 and 49 he tells us about Caesar in Egypt and the reasons for his interference in the family dispute. Otherwise he, like Plutarch, is focused on the character of his subject and he tells us his stories and rumours without much critical judgement. He also does not always give us a chronological order to his biography.
Both Suetonius and Plutarch lived long after the events described. Plutarch did travel and may have visited some of the places he mentions. Suetonius is unlikely to have done so. Both are relying upon other sources and information, although Suetonius had some access to documents as librarian to Hadrian. Both follow the tradition in ancient historical writing of providing speeches which may or may not be accurate but which dramatise or characterise the event or person. Their descriptions also may contain some imaginative recreations of events. Neither were military men and their experience of these matters was limited.

Timeline
Cleopatra’s reign
69 BC Birth of Cleopatra Cleopatra ; mother Cleopatra V
57 Ptolemy Auletes expelled from Egypt. Cleopatra VI queen.
56 Berenice IV Queen.
55 Gabinius restores Auletes to the throne. Berenice IV executed.
51 Death of Ptolemy Auletes. Cleopatra VII and Ptolemy XIII become rulers. Cleopatra appears alone on coins as Queen.
49 Cleopatra forced to flee Egypt; she tries to organize an army.
48 Ptolemy murders Pompey. Caesar arrives in Egypt. Cleopatra returns to Alexandria. Caesar organizes the joint rule of Cleopatra and Ptolemy; Ptolemy’s advisors, Pothinus and Achillas, start the Alexandrine war.
47 Ptolemy XIII defeated and drowned. Cleopatra made ruler with Ptolemy XIV co-ruler. Cleopatra's head appears on coins without partner.
47 Birth of Caesarion.
46-44 Cleopatra in Rome. Statue placed in the temple of Venus Genetrix. Caesar’s Egyptian triumph.
44 Cleopatra leaves Rome.
Ptolemy XIV dies. Ptolemy XV Caesarion becomes co-ruler.
43 Cleopatra sends help to Cassius (which never reaches him); Cleopatra supports the triumvirate, Octavian Antony and Lepidus.
41 Antony and Cleopatra meet in Tarsus. Arsinoe is killed in Ephesus.
41-40 Antony spends the winter in Alexandria.
Parthian invasion.
40 Alexander Helios and Cleopatra Selene born.
Perusine War. Antony marries Octavia.
38 Ventidius defeats the Parthians and forces them to retreat from Syria
Antony and Octavia celebrate Panathenaic games in Athens.
Antony proclaimed Neos Dionusios in Ephesus.
Settlement of the East. Polemo given Pontus; Amyntas given Galatia; Herod given Judaea; Cleopatra given several old Ptolemaic possessions in the Levant.
37 Cleopatra joins Antony at Antioch. Antony marries Cleopatra according to Egyptian rituals.
36 Antony invades Parthia and was defeated.
35 Cleopatra joins Antony in Syria.
34 Armenia invaded and taken over.
Donations of Alexandria.
33 The triumvirate ends; Octavian and Antony prepare for war.
31 Actium
30 Antony and Cleopatra suicide

Useful websites:
http://www.houseofptolemy.org/housekng.htm
http://www.livius.org/ps-pz/ptolemies/ptolemies.htm
http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/s/silver_denarius_of_cleopatra.aspx
coin of Antony and Cleopatra 32 BC (and more)
http://www.britishmuseum.org/search_results.aspx?searchText=Cleopatra
British Museum Cleopatra site.
http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/cleopatra/

Option 2: Agrippina the Younger and her influence on Roman politics, AD 41–59
Background: The Roman World
Use the maps to become familiar with the provinces and kingdoms of this period: The Roman world in AD 14: the provinces and client kings.
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/romanaad14.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:RomanEmpire_Phases.png
By the death of Augustus, Rome controlled the areas around the Mediterranean either directly or indirectly through client kings. During the Augustan period, Rome had expanded her control to include Egypt and part of North Africa and the Middle East. Illyricum and areas north and west of Italy were added also. Further efforts had been made south of Egypt and there was even talk of conquering Britain and Parthia, although that was largely propaganda. When Augustus died in AD 14, he left Tiberius, the next emperor, a very stable and well-organised empire.
The Position and Power of the Emperor in AD 14
Before Augustus took power in 30BC with the defeat of Antony and Cleopatra, the Roman constitution consisted of Assemblies of the citizens (male only), magistrates elected by the Assemblies, and a Senate which advised the magistrates and which was made up of elected officials. In principle it was a mixed constitution with elements of both democracy and oligarchy. Julius Caesar had, before his assassination in March 44 BC, effectively taken over the government with the post of dictator for life, but it was to be another 14 years before the first emperor took control. Even then, much of the republican system of magistrates and Senate (if not Assemblies) remained in order for the government to work effectively.
http://www.vroma.org/~bmcmanus/romangvt.html: this website contains a chart and information on the republican system of government:
Look at: the main magistrates and their duties: censors, Consuls, Praetors, Aediles, Quaestors, Tribunes; the role of the Senate; the Assemblies and their duties.
Augustus, however, took over a great deal of the tasks of the these bodies. Most importantly he took control of the legions and the most important provinces – Syria, Spain, Gaul and Egypt (this one being virtually a private kingdom since no senator was allowed to go there). He also had a power (imperium) which was greater than other magistrates and governors of provinces. In addition, he had the powers of a tribune in Rome, as well as rights and privileges which allowed him to make laws and control the debates in the Senate. Among other honours he was Chief Priest (Pontifex Maximus), leader of the Senate (Princeps Senatus) and given the title Father of his Country (Pater Patriae). Although in theory the constitution still carried on working, in practice the emperor made the most important decisions. The magistrates became more administrators than decision-makers and the Senate tended to agree with what Augustus wanted. By the time Tiberius took over, it was clear who was in charge. Although Tiberius found it difficult to take over from Augustus there was no real challenge to him when he became emperor in AD 14.
Context: Agrippina’s upbringing and the influence of the imperial family
1.1 Agrippina’s family: Germanicus, Agrippina the Elder and Gaius (Caligula)
Tiberius had been compelled by Augustus to adopt Germanicus as his successor. Germanicus was the son of Drusus, Tiberius’ brother, and Antonia, the daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia, Augustus’ sister. Augustus’ intention was to create a family dynasty to continue as ruler of the empire.
Julio-Claudian family tree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JulioClaudian.svg
The marriage of Agrippina the Elder and Germanicus brought together the two halves of the family of Augustus: Agrippina was the daughter of Julia, Augustus’ daughter and Germanicus the grandson of his sister. Germanicus was also a member of the Claudian family. Their children would be members of both the Julian and Claudian families. They would also be direct descendant of Augustus himself. Augustus had intended that his two grandsons, Gaius and Lucius, to succeed him, but they died in the youths. So he turned to Tiberius to hold the position until Germanicus was ready. Tiberius had a son of his own, Drusus but he made Germanicus his successor as Augustus had wanted.
Germanicus’ brother was the future Emperor Claudius, and later Claudius married one of Germanicus’ daughters, Agrippina the Younger. The cameo showing the two couples is a famous depiction of the relationship between them and the importance that relationship had for both Claudius and Agrippina the Younger. The two men are associated with weapons as victorious generals, while the women are represented in a way that suggests their importance and power. It may commemorate the marriage between Claudius and Agrippina the Younger.
View the cameo showing Claudius, Agrippina the Younger, Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder at http://ancientrome.ru/art/artworken/img.htm?id=1255 (also in A.A. Barrett illustration No 6 and page 103).
Germanicus was also the father of the next emperor Gaius (Caligula) And the grandfather of Nero. While he was alive, and perhaps even more after his death in AD 19, the Romans saw Germanicus as another Augustus. His father Drusus had been very popular. This popularity extended to him and his children, Gaius and Agrippina, benefited also. Tacitus, the Roman historian, is full of praise for his achievements in Germany, in contrast to the cautious Tiberius.
Meanwhile, as already said, Germanicus was making tax-assessments in Gaul when news reached him that Augustus had died. He was married to the elder Agrippina, the granddaughter of Augustus, and they had several children. Germanicus was the son of Drusus, brother of Tiberius, and grandson of Livia, Augustus’ wife. He was worried because his uncle and grandmother secretly hated him, which was made worse by the fact that it was unfair. Drusus, Germanicus’ father, was highly regarded by the Roman people and they believed that he would have given back their freedom, if he had become emperor. So they gave the same support to Germanicus hoping he would do the same. He had a polite and modest personality, a wonderful openness and honesty about him, very different from the proud and hypocritical words and expressions of Tiberius. The mutual enmities between the women added to this; Livia showed a stepmother’s dislike of Agrippina; Agrippina herself was too easily provoked to anger, which would have been apparent if her love and loyalty to her husband had not given her strong-willed character some worthwhile aim.
Tacitus Annals 1.33
Task 1A
How are Germanicus and Agrippina the Elder portrayed in this passage?
Suetonius (Gaius 1-7) provides a short portrait of Germanicus which agrees with Tacitus. He had, according to Suetonius, every good quality – moral excellence, courage, generosity and the ability to inspire others. But as Tacitus suggests he was disliked by the Emperor Tiberius and Livia, the wife of Augustus. Suetonius (Gaius 2) claims Tiberius arranged his death. Tacitus’ account is more complicated involving the governor of Syria, Piso, as the main agent, but he still blames Tiberius and his jealousy of Germanicus’ success. Tacitus (Annals 2.71) gives us Germanicus’ final words to his friends in which he blames Piso and his wife Plancina. Tacitus then adds: (Annals 2.72)
Then he turned to his wife. he begged her, by her memory of himself and their children, to put aside her anger, and submit to the savagery of misfortune; he told her, when she returned to the city of Rome, not to anger those in stronger positions by competing for power. This is what he said with others present. In private he said other things, where he was believed to have shown that he was afraid of trouble from Tiberius. Not much later he died. There was great grief in province and among the surrounding peoples. Foreign nations and kings mourned: he had shown such great friendliness towards his allies, clemency towards his enemies; in his looks and words, he had been respected equally; while he had kept a greatness and seriousness, suitable to his high position, he had avoided envy and pride.
Tacitus Annals 2.72
Task 1B
What concerns Germanicus about Agrippina’s character?
What do you learn from Annals 3.4 about Tiberius and Agrippina the Elder?
What does Tiberius claim about her when announcing her death? (Annals 6.25)
After Germanicus’ death in AD 19, Agrippina promoted her sons Drusus Caesar and Nero Caesar as the rightful successors to Tiberius, although Tiberius had his own son, Drusus. In AD 23, however, Drusus died (or was killed by Sejanus and Livilla, his wife). Agrippina’s efforts to make her sons the heirs seems to have annoyed Tiberius, and, with Sejanus’ persuasive help, she and her sons were gradually removed from the scene. Both Nero and Drusus Caesar were imprisoned and died before Agrippina herself, in exile, starved to death. Only Gaius survived, having been taken to live with Tiberius when he retired to the island of Capri in the Bay of Naples.
1.2 Agrippina’s Early Life: marriage, sister to the emperor and exile
Agrippina had been born on November 6th AD 15 and since her father’s death had lived with Livia, her grandmother and mother of Tiberius. In AD 28 she was 13 years old and Tiberius arranged a marriage with Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus (Tacitus Annals 4.75) who was about 30 when they married. His family was very rich and very distinguished as members of one of the leading families of Rome. Domitius had two sisters, one Domitia and the other Lepida in the sources. Both play a part in Agrippina’s later life. Domitia married a man called Sallustius Crispus Passienus, who later divorced Domitia and married Agrippina. Lepida was the mother of Messalina, the wife of Claudius before Agrippina. Her son Sulla was at one time due to marry Claudius’ daughter, Antonia. He was later executed by Nero.
In AD 33 Agrippina’s sisters were also married off. Drusilla was married to Lucius Cassius Longinus and Livilla to Marcus Vinicius. Gaius meanwhile was clearly being presented as a successor with Tiberius Gemellus, Tiberius’ grandson.
In March AD 37 Tiberius died (or was killed by Macro, the praetorian prefect) and Gaius became emperor. One of his first acts was to organised the gathering of the ashes of his mother and brothers and have them buried in a ceremony in the Mausoleum of Augustus in Rome. There were games in her honour, statues set up and coins minted. The family was promoted by Gaius, even Claudius who had been kept out the public eye by Augustus and Tiberius. Above all Gaius promoted his sisters. Their names were included in oaths and proposals to the Senate, and most importantly in the vow of allegiance taken to the emperor.
Sestertius showing Agrippina and her sisters
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caligula_RIC_0033.jpg (also in Barrett Ill. No 10 and p. 53)
The three sisters are represented on this coin from AD 37-8: Agrippina is Securitas, Drusilla (in the centre) is Concordia, and Livilla (on the right) is Fortuna.
Because Gaius based his claim to be emperor on his relationship to Augustus and the popularity of his father Germanicus, he was using the presentation of his family to secure his position.
This show of affection for his sisters also started rumours of incest between Gaius and them (Suetonius Gaius 24). This was to be a charge against Agrippina later with her son Nero. Whether these accusations were true or not is open to question since both Gaius and Agrippina are accused of all sorts of typical cruel and immoral behaviour in the sources in an effort to blacken their characters. These are stereotypical rumours and need to be considered carefully.
On 15th December AD 37 Agrippia gave birth to her son Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, later to be the Emperor Nero.
This is an account in Suetonius’ Life of Nero. Suetonius includes some stories and hearsay which add an extra atmosphere to the birth of the child, especially in view of later events.
Nero was born at Antium nine months after the death of Tiberius, On 15th December [AD 37]. The sun was rising with the effect that its rays fell on him almost before he could be laid upon the ground. Straightaway many made dreadful predictions about him from his horoscope, and even something said by his father Domitius was seen as warning: among all the congratulations of his friends, he said that "any child born from Agrippina and himself would be cursed and and a disaster for the state. Another sign of furtue misfortune occurred on the day of his purification; Gaius Caesar [Caligula] was asked by his sister to give the infant whatever name he wanted; he looked at his uncle Claudius, who as emperor would later adopt Nero; Gaius then said that he gave him the name of ‘Claudius’. He did this as a joke but Agrippina ignored the suggestion, because at that time Claudius was treated as an object of fun in the palace.
Suetonius Nero 6
Task 1C
How likely is it that the characters said what is reported?
What does this passage tell you about Suetonius’ interests in writing the biography of Nero?
Drusilla died on 10th June AD 38 and was deified on 23rd September. Her second husband had been Marcus Lepidus. He had seemed to be a close associate of Gaius and even perhaps presented as potential successor. However, in AD 39 a plot by the governor of Germany seems have included both Lepidus and Agrippina who were lovers. When discussing her possible incest with Nero Tacitus mentions this affair:
Possibly Agrippina really planned such a great wickedness, perhaps because the consideration of a new act of lust seemed more believable in a woman who as a girl had allowed herself to be seduced by Lepidus in the hope of gaining power; this same desire had led her to lower herself so far as to become the lover of Pallas, and had trained herself for any evil act by her marriage to her uncle.
Tacitus Annals 14.2
Tacitus seems to imply it was this affair which set her on the road to immorality. The possibility is that Agrippina was looking for political support and using sexual means to gain it. Tacitus says that she did this ‘in the hope of gaining power’. Already she is being portrayed as ambitious and devious, a woman who will do anything for power. Another of her lovers at this time was said to be Lucius Annaeus Seneca. He was to be closely linked to Agrippina in the future. In AD 41 he was exiled on the accession of Claudius and recalled only in AD 49 through Agrippina’s wishes.
Agrippina herself was exiled and Nero went to live with Domitia, his aunt when his father, Domitius, died late in AD 40. Claudius, her uncle, recalled her from exile on his accession in January AD 41.
1.3 Agrippina recalled: the rivalry with Messalina AD 41- 47
Although recalled from exile and reunited with her son, Agrippina had many problems. Firstly her property had been confiscated and auctioned off by Gaius. Claudius solved this by forcing Domitia to divorce Sallustius Crispus Passienus so that he could marry Agrippina. He was wealthy and powerful. He died in AD 47 among rumours that Agrippina had poisoned him to get his money. (Suetonius Nero 6)
Her most serious problem was the hatred of Messalina. Agrippina’s son, Domitius, was a serious rival for Britannicus, her son and Claudius’ son. Domitius’ connection to Augustus and Germanicus ensured his popularity.
Claudius was actually present when some young nobles performed the Troy Game on horseback. Among them were Britannicus, the emperor's son, and Lucius Domitius, soon afterwards to be adopted by Claudius and appointed his successor with the name of Nero. The obviously greater support given to Domitius was seen as a sign of the future. There was a well-known story that there had been snakes acting as guards during his childhood, a fantastic story probably modelled on stories from other lands. Nero, never one to be modest about himself, used to claim that only one snake was ever seen in his room.
Tacitus Annals 11.11
Suetonius version is more dramatic:
Once his mother returned from exile and gained some power and influence again, he became much more important. It was said Messalina, wife of Claudius, had sent men to strangle him while asleep around midday, because she saw him as a rival to Britannicus. There is also the story that the men sent to kill Nero fled, frightened by a snake which shot out from his pillow. This story arose because a snake’s skin was found in his bed by his pillow. Nevertheless his mother insisted that he have the skin put into a golden bracelet which he wore on his right arm for some time. Only when he grew to dislike the thought of his mother did he throw it away, although when his situation was at its worst, he looked for it but never found it.
Suetonius Nero 6
Task 1D
Compare the way the authors tell the story about the snake? What does it tell you about their approach to their subject matter?
The threat from Messalina, however, was real enough.
The people’s memory of Germanicus certainly added to his popularity; he was after all his last remaining male descendant; the sympathy for his mother Agrippina was increased by the violent cruelty of Messalina towards her. Messalina was always her enemy, but was even more violent towards Agrippina at this time. She was only prevented from making false charges and setting up accuser against her by a new passion which was close to madness.
Tacitus Annals 11.12
Agrippina had to be careful and keep as low as profile as possible in the face of this danger to herself and her son. At the same time she must have had ambitions for him. Whatever she aimed for she could do very little while Messalina was alive and, if we believe the sources, completely controlling Claudius. However, in AD 47 it all changed. Messalina went too far. Tacitus tells the story of her affair with Gaius Silius (it starts at Annals 11.12) and eventually the affair becomes public, so that even Claudius gets to know about it from his freedmen, Pallas and Narcissus. Suetonius is much briefer and provides little help in understanding what happened.
His next wife was Valeria Messalina, daughter of his cousin Messala Barbatus. Then he found out that, besides committing all sort of other criminal acts, she had even married Gaius Silius, with a contract signed by witnesses. He had her killed.
Suetonius Claudius 28
For Agrippina, it opened the way to achieve her ambitions for her son. The first step would be marriage to Claudius. To do that she needed the help of someone close to the emperor who could persuade him to marry her. The freedman Pallas supported her claim to be Claudius’ next wife.
Task 1E
What qualities of character does Agrippina show during this period?
Theme: The nature of the imperial court
2.1 Claudius the Emperor
In the ancient sources Claudius is often pictured as either a fool or weak or both. Most of all he is seen to be under the control of his wives and freedmen.
2.2 Freedmen
They were ex-slaves. It was common in the Roman world for masters to free their slaves, partly because it meant that the freed slave had certain duties to perform for the ex-master, and also they no longer had to be kept and fed by the owner. Often the ex-slave remained in the master’s employment, as a client to his patron. These freedmen (and women) often had skills the patron needed. It meant a change of status but not a change of job. Most wealthy Romans had freedmen and freedwomen in their households working for them, in very important roles, especially as accountants, secretaries and administrators of their businesses. For the emperor, however, this meant that his freedmen were working in the administration not just of vast estates and property but also of the empire. They were a sort of civil service, dealing with letters, petitions, requests and money from all over the empire. Claudius was not the first to have freedmen working for him – Augustus had had them in all parts of the administration. Gaius had relied on freedmen. The most powerful of his freedmen was Callistus, who continued to be used by Claudius. Because the administration of the palace and the empire became more complex and because the emperor took more of the roles of government on himself, such freedmen were essential for the smooth running of the administration. Gradually the traditional roles for the senators and magistrates were taken over by these men as the government became more and more centralised in the palace. Instead of decision being taken in the Senate as in Republican Rome, there were now taken in the rooms in the palace by the emperor and few advisors, his friends, members of his family, important officials and freedmen.
The sources give us accounts of decisions made by the emperor which are then simply agreed to by the Senate. An example of this is the way the Senate supported Claudius’ decision to marry Agrippina even though it was against the law since she was his niece. The freedman Pallas had convinced him to do this. Tacitus (AnnaIls 12. 1-7) describes how a suitable senator, Vitellius, was found (bribed according to Suetonius Claudius 26) to persuade the Senate. After his persuasive speech, Tacitus tells us this happened:
Some senators were quick to rush out of the Senate-house declaring loudly that if the emperor hesitated, they would force him to act. A mixed crowd gathered, and kept shouting that the Roman people demanded this too. Claudius delayed no more; he went to meet them in the forum to receive their congratulations; he entered the senate house and demanded a decree which declared marriages between uncles and nieces to be legal. No one else was found who wanted this sort of marriage except Alledius Severus, a Roman eques (business man); it was said by many that he was motivated by his wish to win Agrippina’s favour.
Tacitus Annals 12.7
Claudius, however, is the first emperor who is said to have been ruled by his freedmen, or at least to have relied on them too much.
I have already explained how much his freedmen and wives controlled Claudius; he behaved towards them more like a slave than an emperor. He gave them honours, army comands, freedom from penalties, and punishments depending on what each wanted or was interested in at the time. Most of the time he had had no knowledge of what he was doing.
Despite this he confirmed the order, since his freedmen said that the soldiers had done their duty because they had hurried to avenge their emperor without waiting to be told. Surely it is too much to believe that he himself signed the contract for the dowry in the marriage of Messalina and Silius just because the freedmen persuaded him that the marriage was really a fake, arranged so that they could transfer to another a certain danger which the omens said was threatening the emperor himself.
Suetonius Claudius 29
This is typical of the claims made about how easily freedmen and wives manipulated Claudius.
When he was trying to decide whom to marry, after the death of Messalina in AD 47, the freedmen were the advisors he turned to for help according to Tacitus:
Callistus supported Lollia; Pallas supported Agrippina. Aelia Paetina however, of the family of the Tuberones, had the backing of Narcissus. Claudius constantly changed his mind depending on who he was listening to at the time; so finally he called them all to a conference and told them to give their views and explain their reasons.
Tacitus Annals 12.1
Task 2A
Read Annals 12.2: what arguments do each of them put forward? Who succeeds and why?
How is Claudius presented in these passages?
Narcissus and Pallas
These two freedmen are perhaps the most influential with Claudius. They had been the ones to warn Claudius against Messalina and had made sure that Claudius executed her. They seemed to be the ones he relied on most for advice. Pallas was in charge of the finances and Narcissus was in charge of correspondence. Their power was dependent on the emperor, or whoever had influence with him. Agrippina could not succeed without the support of one or more of them, and they would need her also. Both Pallas and Narcissus had been important in the downfall of Messalina. They would expect that if Britannicus, the son of Claudius and Messalina, became emperor, he would take revenge on them. It was therefore in their interest to promote not just Agrippina, but also the young Domitius as a successor.
We are told that Pallas was Agrippina’s lover by Tacitus (Annals 12. 25, 12.65, 14.2). As before, Agrippina was prepared to use sexual attractiveness to gain her ambitions. She used Pallas to persuade Claudius to adopt Nero.
In the consulship of Caius Antistius and Marcus Suilius (AD 50), the adoption of Domitius was brought forward through the efforts of Pallas. Pallas was first obligated to Agrippina, because he had supported her marriage, and then bound to her by their adultery. He still urged Claudius to consider the interests of the State, and to provide some protection for the young Britannicus. He reminded Claudius that Augustus had had the support of his grandsons, but he still gave power to his step-sons; Tiberius too, though he had his own son, had adopted Germanicus. He urged Claudius to take on a young man to share part of his work. Claudius was won over by these arguments which he repeated in a speech before the senators. So he put Domitius, who was 3 years older, before his own son Britannicus.
Tacitus Annals 12.25
However, once Claudius was dead and Nero emperor, they very quickly lost power and positions. In fact even before Claudius’ death Narcissus lost his influence:
Lepida was charged with trying to end the life of the Emperor’s wife by magic and with disturbing the peace of Italy by too little control of her bands of slaves in Calabria. She was sentenced to death, despite the strong opposition of Narcissus. He had become more suspicious of Agrippina’s intentions. Rumour was that he said to his closest friends, “My own ruin is inevitable whether Britannicus or Nero becomes emperor; … But the plans of the stepmother aim at overthrowing the whole imperial house, resulting in a much greater disaster than if I had kept silent about the immorality of Messalina, his previous wife. As things stand, disgrace is not difficult to find with Pallas as her lover; so no one can have any doubts that she considers her reputation, her decency and even her own body, everything, cheaper than power.”
With so much worry and concern, Narcissus became ill; he went to Sinuessa to recover his strength with its gentle climate and healing waters. Then, Agrippina who had for a while decided on murder, seized on the opportunity this offered.
Tacitus Annals 12.65-6
Task 2B
What does this passage tell us about the freedmen and Agrippina?
In fact, Narcissus committed suicide at the very beginning of Nero’s reign in AD 54 (Tacitus Annals 13.1). Pallas lost influence also but his death came much later. He still had the support of Agrippina (Annals 13. 2) but we are told in that passage that Nero hated Pallas because of his arrogant nature. Once Agrippina began to lose favour with Nero, Pallas lost his post and was removed from the palace. (Annals 13.14)

You can find out more about Claudius and his freedmen from these sites.
http://www.roman-empire.net/emperors/claudius.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/7094/claudius.html
http://www.roman-emperors.org/claudius.htm
Are the ancient sources fair to describe Claudius as controlled by his freedmen and wives?
2.3 The Senate during the reign of Claudius and Nero
Because of the centralization of administration in the palace relations with the Senate were often difficult. It was not helped by the way in which Claudius had become emperor in AD 41. He had been imposed on the Senate by the praetorian guard who had discovered him hiding after the murder of Gaius. The guard insisted on him becoming emperor as the brother of Germanicus, whose memory was still very popular and the only surviving Julio-Claudian. In any case he paid them each 150 gold pieces!
Claudius tried hard to please the Senate. He gave them back the provinces of Achaea and Macedonia. He was respectful and always made an effort to join in debates and provide opportunities for the Senate to be involved. He did try to improve its image; as censor he removed some who were not eligible or suitable and added senators. However, his decision to allow Gauls to enter the Senate probably angered some traditional senators.
There were plots against his life (see Suetonius Claudius 13). The dislike of Claudius among senators led him to give posts and tasks to others such as freedmen. His great project of draining the Fucine lake was eventually given to Narcissus to oversee. This led to problems with the senators and a number were executed in his reign: Appius Silanus, Vinicianus, Scrbonianus, Asinius gallus, Valerius Asiaticus and others. Some of these are blamed on his wives and freedmen, but Suetonius (Claudius 29) says that 35 senators and 300 equestrians were killed by Claudius.
Nero began his reign with a claim that he would restore the Senate.
Once the pretence of sadness was done with, he entered the Senate, and spoke of the authority of the senators and the support of the soldiers; he mentioned the advice and examples of good government which were there to help him. …He then described the shape of his future government, especially avoiding those things which had caused recent unpopularity. He claimed he would not judge every case, or keep accuser and accused locked in the same house, letting the power of few people control everything. In his house, he said, nothing would be for sale and there would be no opportunity for corruption; his private affairs and the affairs of the State would be kept separate. The Senate would keep its ancient duties; Italy and the public provinces should present their cases before the consuls, who would provide then with audience before the senators. He himself would see to the armies allotted to him.
He kept his promise and many matters were decided by the senate.
Tacitus Annals 13.4-5
There is a lot of evidence in Tacitus and Suetonius that Nero did perform well during his first few years. Trajan is said to have referred to them as five good years. The Senate were consulted on a number of matters and their views were treated with respect. It is often thought that this was due to the influence of Seneca and Burrus, because Nero took little interest in administration, spending more time having fun, getting drunk and causing trouble at night in Rome (Suetonius Nero 26). This changed after the death of his mother in AD 59, and the death of Burrus in AD 62, when Seneca also retired. He became less inclined to ask the Senate and after the plot of Piso in AD 65, tended to remove opposition violently.

Theme: The lives and characters of Agrippina, Claudius and Nero
Theme: The influence of Agrippina on Roman politics
Because these two themes (the lives and characters of Agrippina, Claudius and Nero, and the influence of Agrippina on politics during their reigns) are so bound up together, with one providing evidence of the other, they have been treated together for this section of the textbook.
3.1 Claudius and Agrippina
This argument won over Claudius, supported by the attractions of Agrippina herself. Under the excuse of their close family relationship, she frequently visited her uncle, and gained his affection so that she was preferred to the others, and, although she was not yet his wife, she could already use the power as if she was married to him. When she was certain he would marry her, she started still greater schemes; she wanted a marriage between Domitius, her son by Cn. Ahenobarbus, and Octavia, the emperor's daughter. However, this marriage could not be achieved without a crime, because Claudius had engaged Octavia to L. Silanus. …But nothing is difficult, it seems, in the mind of an emperor, who has no judgements and no hatreds unless they are suggested and ordered by others.
Tacitus Annals 12.3
This view of Agrippina using her sexual charms to trap Claudius is repeated by Suetonius (Claudius 26). It is a fairly stereotypical approach by Roman historians towards the portrayal of any powerful woman in Roman politics.
3.2 Agrippina’s character
Agrippina was undoubtedly ambitious and ruthless and very clever – all of which she had learnt to be living through the reigns of Tiberius and Gaius. She had seen her brothers and mother (possibly even her father) murdered by Tiberius and his agents. She had been married off to the lazy Domitius Ahenobarbus at the early age of 13 to keep her out of the way. She was probably never sure that Tiberius would not decide to make it permanent. The start of her brother’s reign had suggested that she was safe. However, whatever the truth of the plot and her involvement with Aemilius Lepidus she was exiled to the same island as her mother and sisters by Gaius, and they had never left the islands alive. Then she had to live for nearly seven years under the shadow of the increasing power of Messalina, protecting her son from all sorts of threats (including snakes if the story is believed!). She used every weapon she had to stay alive and build up support.
The sources are rarely sympathetic to her, but they do recognize she was no ordinary woman.
From this point on, the state was changed completely, and everything was subject to the control of a woman; however, this was a woman who was not motivated like Messalina; she did not play with the affairs of Rome like some toy for her personal pleasure. Rome was now enslaved by an almost masculine dominance. In public Agrippina showed a serious, often arrogant face; in private, there was no sign of immorality, unless it helped her in her search for power; she had an enormous desire for money which was excused with the reason that money was a means to power.
Tacitus Annals 12.7
There is very little information on how far she was involved in administration or financial policy of the Empire. This is because our sources are largely not interested in such subjects. However, it seems likely that an intelligent and well-educated woman such as Agrippina would be useful to Claudius and would certainly be able to offer advice and help. She had seen enough mis-management of affairs with Gaius to know what not to do. Claudius’ reign is generally thought to have been well managed and well organized. There were no financial crises and the provinces were well governed. It seems fair to assume that Agrippina had taken some credit for this state of affairs. Regardless of her skill in administration and policy, her aim was still to gain and keep power.
She was certainly ruthless towards anything which got in her way.
She intended Domitius, her son, to marry Octavia, Claudius’ daughter. However she was betrothed to L. Silanus. Tacitus (Annals 12.4) tells how she arranged, with the help of Vitellius, for him to be accused of incest with his sister, Junia Calvina. He was removed from the Senate and forced to give up his post as praetor. On the day of the marriage Silanus committed suicide, and Tacitus makes a point of the irony that the accusation of incest was found amusing when Claudius had just married his niece (Annals 12.8).
Almost immediately after this the marriage is arranged between Domitius and Octavia.
This was sensible in view of their ages, and was likely to lead to greater things. Pollio spoke to the proposal in almost the same words as Vitellius had used shortly before. So Octavia was engaged to be married, and Domitius, on top of his previous family relationship, became the emperor's prospective son-in-law, and an equal of Britannicus, through the efforts of his mother. She was helped by the cleverness of those who had accused Messalina, and who feared the vengeance of her son.
Tacitus Annals 12.9
In addition:
However, Agrippina, to be known for acts other than evil ones, got Annaeus Seneca recalled from exile; she also arranged that he had the praetorship. She thought this would please the general public, because of his fame as a writer; she also wanted him to be Domitius’ tutor and to use his advice in her efforts to win power. For Seneca was believed to be loyal to Agrippina because of her kindnesses to him, but equally he hated Claudius because he felt he had been unfairly treated by the emperor.
Tacitus Annals 12.8
Task 3A
• What do these passages tell us about Tacitus’ view of Agrippina?
• What motives does she have for her actions?
• Read the whole of Tacitus Annals 12. 1-9: how is Claudius characterised?
Images of Agrippina and Claudius on coins
Claudius and Agrippina Minor. AD 50/54. Roman Aureus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agrippina_Minor_with_Claudius.jpg
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s1886.html: for examples of presentations of Agrippina and Claudius
A.A.Barrett ill. 12: tetradrachma of Agrippina and Claudius
3.3 The Adoption of Domitius by Claudius: the succession to Claudius arranged
In AD 50 (Tacitus Annals 12.25) Claudius adopted Domitius into his family. As Tacitus says this strengthened his claim to be the successor over Britannicus who was three years younger. He was now given the name Nero (Tacitus Annals 12.26) and Agrippina was given the title of Augusta. Britannicus is slowly sidelined. Agrippina is now working for the succession of Nero as emperor, and she is ruthless in her ambitions. She takes a number of actions to strengthen her power or improve her standing in Rome and the Empire:
• Lollia Paulina was accused of plans damaging to the Roman state; (Tacitus Annals 12. 22);
• Calpurnia, a noble lady, was condemned;
• a colony of veteran soldiers is established at Cologne (Tacitus Annals 12. 27);
• she is seated near Claudius at the British triumph and receives honours equal to the emperor (Tacitus Annals 12. 37); ‘This indeed was an innovation, totally against Roman usual practice – that a woman should preside before the Roman standards. But Agrippina was displaying her position as an equal partner in the power gained by her ancestors.’
• In AD 51 Nero took on the toga of adulthood early, and was designated consul at the age of 19. He was declared ‘leader of the youth’ (princeps iuventutis) (Tacitus Annals 12.41); there was a deliberate contrast between the adult Nero and child Britannicus;
• gifts were given to the praetorians and games held in Nero’s name for the people.
• guards and officers supportive of Britannicus were removed, as were his tutors and advisors who appeared hostile to Nero (Tacitus Annals 12. 41);
Even so Agrippina did not dare to make a play for supreme power, if Lusius Geta and Rufius Crispinus were not removed from the command of the praetorian cohorts; she believed that they still remembered Messalina and were loyal to her children’s cause. Agrippina, therefore, constantly argued that the cohorts were split by the rivalry between the two, and that, if there was one commander, their discipline would be all the stricter,; so Burrus Afranius was given the command. He had a fine reputation as a soldier, but he was fully aware as to whom he owed his position.
Tacitus Annals 12.42
• Agrippina now had control of the Praetorian Guard and its commander. This passage also tells us that she entered the Capitol in a chariot ‘to add to her own importance and status’.
• In AD 53 Nero married Octavia.
The scheming of Agrippina, however, was pushing Claudius into acts of the most cruel kind. Artifices of the same Agrippina. She destroyed Statilius Taurus, who was famous for his wealth, because she wanted his gardens. She had Tarquinius Priscus bring a charge against him. …he accused him of extortion, but added charges dealing in magic and superstitious practices. Taurus, not wanting to put up with an undeserved dishonour from a lying accuser, committed suicide before the Senate brought in a verdict. Tarquitius was however expelled from the Senate, which the senators did, despite the efforts of Agrippina, because of their hatred of the accuser.
Tacitus Annals 12.59
Agrippina, according to the sources, had manipulated Claudius to achieve her own ambitions; she had removed, one way or another, those she felt were either rivals or threats, or were people she simply disliked. She had gained wealth and property in whatever way she could. With Claudius apparently in agreement, she had removed his own son from the succession and replaced him with Nero.
One of her most serious rivals was Domitia Lepida because:
The bitterest struggle was over who should have the most influence with Nero - his aunt or his mother. Lepida was winning over his young mind by flattery and extravagant gifts; on the other hand, Agrippina, who could give her son an empire but could not tolerate him being emperor, was harsh and menacing.
Tacitus Annals 12.64
Domitia is condemned to death, and Narcissus leaves Rome ill, leaving Agrippina a clear field for her final action to ensure her power and influence.
Task 3B
We are told by Tacitus that Agrippina’s panic was obvious to everyone: why would she panic?
• read the parts of Tacitus which lead up to the murder (Annals 12. 59,64-66).
• compare what Tacitus says with the account in Suetonius Claudius 43-45: what do they tell you about Agrippina’s motives?
• His wives could always keep him under their control. Do you think this statement from Tacitus is true of Claudius?
Research some of the representations of Agrippina on coins and statues: what do they tell you about her status and importance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agrippina_Minor_with_Claudius.jpg
http://www.wildwinds.com/coins/sear5/s1886.html: for examples of presentations of Agrippina and Claudius
3.4 The death of Claudius
The sources tell us clearly that Agrippina murdered Claudius. Although there is some confusion about who poisoned him and when in the sources, they do not doubt that he was murdered and that Agrippina planned it. Both Tacitus and Suetonius tell basically the same story. Tacitus gives more detail about Agrippina’s planning and helpers. He also gives us some insights into her thoughts and feeling. He tells us that she was worried about the type of poison to use incase it was too quick or too slow. Then he describes her terror when the poison does not work at once, and how she reacts quickly and decisively. Suetonius gives us the events but tells us very little about Agrippina’s role other than to suggest she administered the poison herself. They do both agree on the mushroom as the food which contained the poison.
Claudius was the first member of his family to be murdered; he may not have been the one to arrange it, but he certainly knew about it. He did not hide the fact because later he used to praise mushrooms [the poison was administered to Claudius in a dish of mushroom], as "the food of the gods," in the words of the Greek proverb.
Suetonius Nero 33
Here Suetonius implies that Nero was in on the plot – something neither Tacitus nor Suetonius himself suggest in their accounts. This is typical of the inconsistency in Suetonius’ biographies – he does sometimes change his version depending on which character he is writing about.
There is always the possibility that Claudius died a natural death. By October 13th AD 54 Claudius was 64 years old. He was known for his excessive eating and drinking, especially the latter. He was not physically strong; he suffered from some disability. The sources suggest that he was probably under stress from the task of being emperor and the pressures being put on him by Agrippina. They may well have argued about Nero and Britannicus, as the sources suggest he was coming round to the idea of replacing Nero with his own son.
However, not just Tacitus and Suetonius, but Josephus, Dio Cassius and Pliny the Elder all tell the same story. This implies a general acceptance of the poisoning version and that Agrippina was to blame.
Task 3C
Read the accounts in Tacitus and Suetonius: list the similarities and differences.
3.5 The Accession of Nero and Agrippina’s role: the struggle for power
Whatever the truth about Claudius’ death, the accession of Nero was clearly the work of Agrippina. She kept the information about Claudius’ death secret until she was sure of the situation. She kept Britannicus out of the public eye and away from the Praetorian Guard. She pretended that Claudius was still alive as long as she could in order to arrange a smooth hand over of power. (Suetonius Claudius 45 and Tacitus Annals 12. 68)
Then Nero was presented to the soldiers and despite some mutterings about Britannicus, there was no real opposition from the Guard or the Senate. Nero promises gifts to the soldiers and everything went as smoothly as possible, thanks to Agrippina. Nero made this clear at once in a number of ways.
Note : The Praetorian Guard
Originally, a group of soldiers called the cohors praetoria, named after the commander’s headquarters (praetorium) would protect the general. The praetorian guard became a personal bodyguard for the generals during the Civil Wars.

In 27 BC, Augustus made them a bodyguard army at Rome and in Italy, consisting of 9 cohorts of 1,000 (or 500) men. Augustus had 9 cohorts of praetorians and three urban cohorts for the Senate. The praetorian troops had better pay and shorter length of service. Augustus actually did not station these troops in Rome proper, but outside. Most of the men in the Guard were of Italian origin.
The main function was to be the protection of the princeps. It was hoped that they would mean that people who thought of plotting against the emperor would be prevented or deterred. Part of the Guard would also follow the emperor on campaigns.
it was Sejanus who moved the Praetorian Guard to a camp just outside Rome, giving the command of the Guard considerable power and influence. The Guard, therefore, was in apposition to decide on the succession of the emperor, as they do in force with Claudius. They are also essential to Agrippina’s plan to gain Nero the succession. This is why she places Burrus in control of them once she is married to Claudius. It was essential for an emperor to have their support – Claudius gives them 150 gold pieces on his accession and he continues to reward them throughout his reign. Nero’s end is signaled when they deserted him in AD 68 (bribed by Galba).
Even so, publicly every honour was piled on Agrippina. When a tribune, whose customary job it was, asked for the password, he was given “The Best of Mothers”. The Senate also decreed her two lictors, and the office of priestess to Claudius; at the same meeting they decreed a public funeral and deification for Claudius.
Tacitus Annals 13.2
He let his mother manage everything, public and private. On the first day of his reign, he even gave to the tribune on guard-duty the password "The Best of Mothers," and afterwards he often rode with her through the streets in her litter.
Suetonius Nero 9
Task 3D
How is Agrippina’s importance to Nero and her status emphasized in these sources?
Nero & Agrippina II Aureus. Struck 54 AD, Lugdunum mint.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nero_Agrippina_aureus_54.png
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Coins_of_Nero: examples of coins of Nero and Agrippina.
However, Agrippina did not appear to think that she was now to take a back seat to her son. Rather she appeared to think that she was now the co-ruler of the empire. The reign had barely got underway when a crime was committed which Tacitus claims was her doing (Annals 13.1) – that was the murder of Junius Silanus, proconsul of Asia. The motive is said to be fear that he might avenge the death of his brother Lucius Silanus. Tacitus also adds that he had a claim to the throne as good as Nero’s. Agrippina appears to be working to ensure Nero is safe as emperor. A freedman was used to do the deed. Narcissus followed soon after, against Nero’s wishes according to Tacitus.
There would have been more murders, if Burrus and Seneca had not opposed them. These men were the emperor’s advisors while he was young. They were in agreement (a rare thing for those in power) and, in different ways, they were both effective with Nero. These two men guided the emperor's youth with a unity of purpose seldom found where authority is shared, and though their accomplishments were wholly different, they had equal influence. Burrus had a soldier's interests and serious character; Seneca tutored Nero in public speaking and had a friendly disposition and decency. They helped each other so that they could more easily direct the young emperor towards acceptable pleasures, if he rejected decency and goodness. For both of them there was the struggle against Agrippina; she was burning with all the desire of her criminally-gained power.
Tacitus Annals 13.2
It seems there was something of a power struggle going on within the palace for control of Nero. She had arranged that meetings were held in the palace so that she could listen in from behind a curtain. Tacitus tells us she opposed an attempt by Nero to change a law of Claudius. Her desire to share power is shown also by an incident early in the reign.
When envoys from Armenia were having an audience with Nero, she was getting ready to walk up onto the raised area and sit next to him. She would have done so, if Seneca, while everyone stood there amazed, had not told Nero to go down and greet his mother as she came up. This display of a son’s concern prevented the scandal.
Tacitus Annals 13.5
3.6 Seneca and Burrus: Nero’s watchers
Agrippina had seen to the appointment of Lucius Annaeus Seneca as Nero’s tutor soon after her marriage to Claudius. He had been exiled by Claudius early in his reign but she arranged his recall. It has already been suggested that she and he were lovers.
He was a major literary figure and philosopher, writing tragedies and Moral Letters, as well as satire in the form of a parody of the deification of Claudius. He wrote one treatise, on Clemency, specifically to Nero urging the virtue of mercy as one of the key qualities of an emperor.
It is assumed that he wrote Nero’s speeches. Tacitus (Annals 12.58) tells of two occasions when Nero delivered speeches, once for Ilium and once for Bononia at the age of 16 (also recorded in Suetonius Nero 7). One of Seneca’s duties was to train him in the writing and delivering of speeches in public (rhetoric). His speech at the funeral of Claudius was written by Seneca according to Tacitus (Annals 13.3) although Nero was probably not incapable since he had some ambitions as a writer. Suetonius (Nero 52) gives us some evidence of this and of Seneca’s influence.
Until at least AD 59 and probably AD 62 he remained Nero’s principal advisor, although his influence lessened. Along with Burrus, he helped Nero to step clear of his mother’s influence. he controlled her early efforts to remove rivals and threats and he prevented the scandal of the Armenian envoys. In addition he introduced to Nero the freedwoman Acte as a means of lessening Nero’s interest in his mother (Tacitus Annals 13.12-13).
Seneca retired in AD 62 shortly after the death of Burrus, although he was still advising Nero as late as AD 64. In AD 65 he was caught up in the plot of Piso. Whether he was involved in this plot to overthrow Nero is not known for certain. According to Tacitus, Nero took the opportunity to get rid of Seneca at this time, and so he was forced to commit suicide. (Tacitus Annals 15. 60-66).
Sextus Afranius Burrus Praetorian prefect. His appointment had been arranged by Agrippina (Tacitus Annals 12.42) in AD 51. He showed his worth to Agrippina in AD 54 when he ensured that the guard was loyal to Nero on his accession. He was clearly important to Nero’s security and to the stable nature of his government in the early years. Seneca too tried to lessen Nero’s mother’s influence and power.
In AD 55 he came under suspicion of plotting with Agrippina to overthrow Nero, although Tacitus makes it clear that the whole accusation was probably false, made up by Silana who had fallen out with Agrippina over a man called Titus Sextus Africanus. (Tacitus Annals 13.19). Tacitus says that there was one story that Seneca saved Burrus, but that other authors say that Burrus was not suspected. However, Burrus was given the job of interrogating Agrippina.who defended herself well enough to get her accusers punished. (Tacitus Annals 13.21)
Tacitus and Suetonius both suggest that Nero poisoned him in AD 62.
Neither of them appear to have been party to the plan to kill Agrippina. Suetonius does not mention them at all in connection with the plan nor when she is killed. They only appear in Tacitus’ version once the plan has failed and Nero is terrified about what Agrippina would do.
He asked what defence he had against this, if Burrus and Seneca did not have any suggestion. He had summoned both of them at once, although it is uncertain whether they knew about it beforehand. Both were silent for along time to avoid dissuading him without success, or they believed that matters had reached the point that Nero was bound to die if Agrippina were not dealt with first. Seneca was quick enough to respond first and looked back at Burrus, as though asking if the soldiers ought to be ordered to murder her. Burrus replied that the praetorians were attached to the household of the Caesars, and, in memory of Germanicus, would not dare do anything so terrible against his daughter.
Tacitus Annals 14.7
In this account they do nothing, leaving Nero to solve the problem himself! Seneca does write a speech in defence of his action for which Tacitus condemns him in these words:
‘So people did not criticise Nero, who had passed all criticism by this savage crime, but Seneca because he wrote such a confession in this speech.’ (Annals 14.11)
Nero became emperor within two months of his seventeenth birthday with little experience of government and the use of power. It is not surprising that he relied heavily on two experienced and intelligent men, and allowed them to weaken his mother’s control of him. As a seventeen year old he might well prefer to enjoy the pleasures of his role than the burdens. He might also want to get away from the controlling influence of his mother as he became older. Seneca and Burrus were only too willing to encourage him in this.
Task 3E
How important were Seneca and Burrus in Agrippina’s decline in power? Look at what Tacitus and Suetonius say about them:
These men were the emperor’s advisors while he was young. They were in agreement (a rare thing for those in power) and, in different ways, they were both effective with Nero. These two men guided the emperor's youth with a unity of purpose seldom found where authority is shared, and though their accomplishments were wholly different, they had equal influence. Burrus had a soldier's interests and serious character; Seneca tutored Nero in public speaking and had a friendly disposition and decency. They helped each other so that they could more easily direct the young emperor towards acceptable pleasures, if he rejected decency and goodness.
Tacitus Annals 13.2
He forced his tutor Seneca to commit suicide. Seneca had often asked to be allowed to retire and offered to give up his property but Nero had sworn on oath that he had no reason to suspect him and that he would rather die than harm him. He sent poison to Burrus, the Praetorian Prefect, having promised to send a medicine for his throat. He used poison, either in their food or their drink, to get rid of the old, rich freedmen who supported his adoption and his accession, and given their guidance when he was emperor.
Suetonius Nero 35
3.7 Nero as Emperor
Tacitus in Annals 13. 4-5 gives the impression that the opening of Nero’s reign was good, and that he said all the right things.
Task 3F
Read this section and list the things he intends to do and what he says he will not do.
He is intending to avoid some of the unpopular aspects of Claudius’ reign. It is fair to say that for some time he did maintain this, which even Tacitus has to admit. There were serious problems. The threat from Parthia was getting worse but he sent the best general, Corbulo, to deal with it. Eventually a lasting peace was secured. He kept a good relationship with the Senate, allowing it to make decisions. He avoided the trials and executions which had been occurring in other reigns. He was popular with the people and the soldiers, although he had not yet gained a military triumph which even Claudius had managed.
However, he was not totally safe. One problem which he could not avoid and was potentially damaging for him was what to do with Britannicus who was gradually approaching adulthood and had as good a claim to be emperor as Nero did.
At the same time he needed to avoid the impression or image that he was controlled by a woman, which in Roman terms was worse than anything.
Gradually his mother’s control over him was weakening. Tacitus Annals 13. 12
He removed Pallas who was Agrippina’s lover and supporter from his role in the government (Tacitus Annals 13. 14). He also tried to avoid her company, preferring to spend time with Acte.
Agrippina, however, became angry as women do and raged that she had a freedwoman for a rival, a slave girl for a daughter-in-law, and other things of the same sort. She could not wait until Nero regretted his action or had had enough of Acte. The worse her complaints got, the more intense became his passion, until overwhelmed by his love he stopped obeying his mother and turned to Seneca. Tacitus Annals 13. 13
This simply made her more angry it seems and she turned to Britannicus. So the two problems seemed to be one and the same.
The result of Agrippina’s anger and complaints was to make him decide to remove Britannicus from the scene before he became a real threat, and a means for Agrippina to regain power.
In his treatment of his family and others the sources are generally very critical. Read the following from Suetonius Nero 35
After Octavia he married two other women: first Poppaea Sabina who was the daughter of an ex-quaestor and previously married to a Roman eques; second Statilia Messalina, daughter of the great-granddaughter of Taurus, who had been consul twice and had held a triumph. He killed Statilia’s husband, Atticus Vestinus, while he was still consul, in order to marry her. He quickly began to despise Octavia and grew tired of living with her; when his friends complained about his attiude, he replied that she should be happy being his wife. He tried and failed to strangle her a number of times. He divorced her claiming she was infertile. However, the people were not pleased with this and rioted against it, so he banished her instead; and finally he executed her for the crime of adultery. This was so obviously shameful and false, that all denied it even when tortured. Therefore he bribed his former tutor Anicetus to be a witness and confess that he had seduced her by some trick. He married Poppaea twelve days after his divorce from Octavia and he truly loved her; but he also killed her by kicking her when she loudly complained that he had returned home late from the chariot races while she was unwell with her pregnancy. Poppaea and Nero had a daughter, Claudia Augusta, but he lost her when she was still a baby.
Suetonius Nero 35
Octavia was exiled and killed in AD 62; Poppaea died in AD 66. Tacitus tells us that it was in order to marry Poppaea that he got rid of Octavia despite the political advantages a marriage with Claudius’ daughter brought. It was also very unpopular. Tacitus also says the people rioted when he divorced her.
This section in Suetonius continues with more deaths – Antonia, daughter of Claudius, Aulus Plautius, Rufrius Crispinus, his step-son, Seneca and Burrus. These deaths all take place late in the reign when he no longer had the advice of Burrus and Seneca and was acting in a more independent manner. He was also becoming less popular especially with the Senate as he developed his own style of government. His early promises were not kept especially after the great Fire of Rome in AD 64. But all of this occurs well after the death of his mother in AD 59.
3.8 Agrippina loses power
It is clear from the coins issued in the first year of the reign how Agrippina slowly loses her position beside the emperor. At first she is on the same side of the coin facing Nero, then she is pictured behind Nero, her face just visible; finally she is on the reverse and then disappears altogether.
Agrippina became alarmed and began to threaten action and she did not care if the emperor heard what she said: that Britannicus had now grown up, and was the true and deserving successor to his father's power, which Nero, introduced by adoption, was now using to wrong his mother. She did not care about revealing all the terrible acts of this unlucky family: first her own marriage; her history as a poisoner; the fact that her stepson was alive was a success for herself and the gods. She said she would go with him to the praetorian camp; they would listen to the daughter of Germanicus; against her would be the crippled Burrus and the exiled Seneca, demanding their right to rule the world, one with a mutilated hand, the other with an educator’s language.
Tacitus Annals 13.14
Nero now becomes alarmed, and knowing his mothers ‘tendency to violence’ (Annals 13.15) he decides to act first. Tacitus says that he has already been made aware that there is some sympathy for Britannicus. But in any case: ‘Agrippina’s threats were worrying him’ (Annals 13.15). Suetonius (Nero 33) adds that Nero was jealous of his singing voice, which may be just repeating Tacitus’ story in a way that makes Nero look bad.
Both authors give a detailed account of how Nero got the poison (using the same Locusta whom his mother had used to poison Claudius). Tacitus is more detailed about the actual poisoning describing the scene dramatically including the horror of those present. He stresses that Agrippina knew nothing of what was planned and she is as shocked as anyone. The funeral is held straight away in a violent storm (a suitably dramatic context). He then adds:
However, many men forgave Nero for this, considering past feuds between brothers and empires cannot be ruled by a partnership. Several writers at the time report that, for quite a while before his death, Britannicus had been abused by Nero. In this case you can see his death as neither too early nor savage; even though the hurried death of the last of the Claudians had occurred among the sacred symbols of the table, with no time even to embrace his sister, before the eyes of his enemy, Britannicus had been corrupted by abuse before he was destroyed by poison.
Tacitus Annals 13.17
Tacitus is careful to stress that these are comments by other writers and he does not say whether he believes them or not but simply speculates about it. He leaves the reader to decide but on the basis of how corrupt Nero would become, the reader is probably expected to believe this. He does criticise Nero for the context in which the poisoning took place. However, it is also pointed out that the two were very likely to become serious rivals and Romans had enough experience of civil war to want to avoid it.
Nero then handed out gifts to make sure he was not criticized. In fact it did not affect his position or his popularity as far as we can tell. It could even be that, apart from authors who sought to blame Nero for every crime, people accepted that Britannicus had died of some epileptic attack as Nero suggested.
One thing Britannicus’ death did do was make Agrippina’s position worse.
The Silana Accusations
But his mother’s anger could not be softened by any extravagant presents; she embraced Octavia; she had secret meetings with her friends; she seized on money everywhere in addition to her natural greed; she welcomed centurions and tribunes in her home; she showed respect for the title and qualities of those nobles who still survived; all of which gave the impression that she was looking for a faction and some one to lead it. Nero knew of all this. He ordered her guard to be removed, which was there to protect first the emperor’s wife and then the emperor’s mother, along with some German troops, recently added for the same honour. He also moved her to a separate house which had once been Antonia’s, to stop her holding frequent gatherings of supporters; whenever he visited, he was surrounded by a crowd of centurions, and used to leave after a brief kiss.
Tacitus Annals 13.18
Task 3G
What actions does Agrippina now take? What are her reasons? What does this tell you about her character?
What does Nero do to weaken her power?
Left with few supporters and being watched by Nero, it was now obvious to all that Agrippina was seriously weakened. Few people came to visit her. One was Junia Silana but they had quarreled and Silana sought revenge. Involved in this plot to blacken Agrippina was Domitia, Nero’s aunt who was an enemy of Agrippina also. They were to accuse her of plotting with Rubellius Plautus, another potential rival to Nero. The idea was to tell Nero of this plot just when he was most likely to believe it. The story is told in Tacitus (Annals 13. 19-21).
This is Nero’s reaction when told:
It was late at night and Nero was still drinking when Paris entered, as he usually did at this time to add to the emperor’s pleasures. This time, however, he appeared upset and sad. Nero listened to Paris go through the story and was so panic-stricken that he was determined to kill not only his mother but also Plautus, and remove Burrus from his praetorian command, on the grounds that he was promoted by Agrippina and was now repaying her. … Nero, now in terror and eager to kill his mother, could not be put off until Burrus had promised that she would be killed if the crime was proved. However, he added that anyone, especially a parent, should be given the chance to defend themselves; there were no accusers present, only the word of one man from the house of an enemy. He urged Nero to consider the dark night, the fact that he had spent the night awake at a banquet and the whole situation likely to lead to a thoughtless and ill-considered action.
Tacitus Annals 13.20
Task 3H
What does this passage tell us about Nero’s attitude towards his mother?
What happens when Burrus investigates?
Agrippina speaks in her defence: how strong is her argument? how is she characterised? (Annals 13. 21)
What does this incident as a whole tell us about Agrippina’s position at this time?
Incest
The question of whether or not Nero and Agrippina were involved in an incestuous relationship has been debated a great deal. The ancient sources generally take it as a fact, but they tend to accept any rumour or story which reflects badly on their characters, especially Nero and Agrippina, both of whom receive little support from later historians and biographers. Dio Cassius (Book 61.11.4) questions whether there was any truth in the story, and says that Nero had a mistress who looked very like Agrippina. He also says that Nero liked to claim he had intercourse with his mother as a result of his relationship with this mistress.
Tacitus introduces the story only after he has told us that Nero has decided on murder.
The author Cluvius writes that Agrippina took her desire to keep power so far as to offer herself more often to a drunken Nero, all dressed up and ready for incest. She did this at midday when Nero was already warmed up with wine and food. Those close to both had seen passionate kisses and sensual caresses, which seemed to imply wrongdoing it was then that Seneca who looked for a woman’s help against this woman’s charms, introduced Acte to Nero. This freedwoman who was anxious because of the danger to herself and the damage to Nero’s reputation, told Nero that the incest was well known since Agrippina boasted about it. She added that the soldiers would not tolerate the rule of such a wicked emperor. Fabius Rusticus writes that it was not Agrippina, but Nero, who was eager for incest, and that the clever action of the same freedwoman prevented it. A number of other authors agree with Cluvius and general opinion follows this view. Possibly Agrippina really planned such a great wickedness, perhaps because the consideration of a new act of lust seemed more believable in a woman who as a girl had allowed herself to be seduced by Lepidus in the hope of gaining power; this same desire had led her to lower herself so far as to become the lover of Pallas, and had trained herself for any evil act by her marriage to her uncle.
Tacitus Annals 14.2
Tacitus had mentioned Acte much earlier (Annals 13.12-13) and Agrippina’s reaction to Nero’s relationship, which had been encouraged by Seneca to weaken Agrippina’s hold on Nero. However, he did not mention incest at that point (AD 55).
Suetonius (Nero 28) has a slightly different version:
No one doubted that he wanted sexual relations with his own mother, and was prevented by her enemies, afraid that this ruthless and powerful woman would become too strong with this sort of special favour. What added to this opinion was that he included among his mistresses a certain prostitute who they said looked very like Agrippina. They also say that, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, the stains on his clothes afterwards proved that he had indulged in incest with her.
Suetonius Nero 28
This is part of a section in which he is giving details of Nero’s sexual immorality; he adds this as a likely happening in keeping with the other actions of Nero.
There had been similar rumours about Agrippina and Gaius. It is importan to note that two authors have doubts about the truth of the story. Tacitus suggests how it had been attached to Agrippina’s character because of her behaviour in general. In addition, the stereotype of the ambitious and powerful woman in Roman politics, such as Livia, Agrippina the Elder, Messalin and others allows these writers to believe such actions were committed.
Nero certainly, once he realised the rumour was around when warned by Acte, started to avoid her company and be more careful.
3.9 Agrippina’s death
Suetonius Nero 34 and Tacitus Annals 14. 1-9
The two authors give accounts which differ in some details, but essentially they agree on most of the important aspects. Tacitus tells us more of the preparations and motives for the murder and also gives a more vivid and dramatic recreation of the event, along with the words of those involved in some cases. Suetonius is briefer, but does have some extra information, for example about which method of murder to use.
Dio Cassius (book 61.12-14) does mention some details which neither Suetonius nor Tacitus mention. He is certain that it was Poppaea who, worried about Agrippina’s influence (even in AD 59) persuades Nero that Agrippina is plotting against him. He also adds that Seneca was part of the planning and also in urging Nero to commit the crime.
Translation of Dio: http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/62*.html
Nero no longer delayed the crime he had thought about for a long time. His daring increased with the length of his reign; he was also daily becoming more passionate in his love for Poppaea. She had no hope of Nero marrying her and divorcing Octavia while Agrippina remained alive. So she frequently complained to Nero, sometimes making fun of him, calling him a child controlled by another, with no power over the empire let alone his own freedom to act.
Tacitus Annals 14.1
He was annoyed by the way his mother questioned and criticised his every word and action but he only went so far at first as to make her disliked by giving the impression that that he would give up being emperor and go and live on the island of Rhodes. Next he took away all her privileges and her power, as well as her guard of Roman and German soldiers. He refused to let her live with him in the Palace. Then he tried everything possible to annoy her: he bribed men to bring law suits against her while she stayed in the city of Rome; then, when she went to live in the country by the sea, he got others to go past her house and interrupt her peace and quiet with noisy partying and insulting jokes. Therefore terrified by her violence and threats, he decided to get rid of her.
Suetonius Nero 43
Task 3I
What are Nero’s reasons for the murder according to these two passages?
What other reasons might Nero have had?
Read Tacitus Annals 14.11: What reasons does Nero give for his actions? Do they seem believable?

Both Tacitus and Suetonius suggest that poison was considered but the idea abandoned, although Suetonius says Nero tried it three times first. Tacitus says they even considered violence but decided against it. Suetonius mentions a false ceiling in her bedroom to fall on her but someone betrayed the plot. Finally they come up with the collapsible boat idea – or rather Anicetus, the freedman, and admiral of the fleet, does in Tacitus (Annals. 14.3). Dio (book 61 12-13) adds that Nero and Poppaea had seen the collapsible boat in a play at the theatre. The whole plot is set up for the festival of Minerva at Baiae on the Bay of Naples.
It is generally agreed that there was an informer, and Agrippina, hearing of the trap, uncertain whether to believe it, journeyed to Baiae by litter. Her fears were lessened by his attention to her; she received a friendly welcome and was seated above Nero himself. They talked a lot together – Nero was youthfully familiar or apparently discussing some serious matter. The meal lasted quite a while; as she was going he walked with her, staring into her eyes and clinging on to her breast, either to complete his pretence or the final sight of his mother about to die affected even his cruel heart.
Tacitus Annals 14.4
Despite the anxious moment the plot appears to be going perfectly, and Tacitus gives us a detailed scene of the happy couple. Suetonius follows the same story although he does not mention an informer. The next two sections described the failed attempt to drown Agrippina. There seemed to have been some confusion on the ship, and in the darkness the assassins succeed only in killing Acerronia, her maid while Agrippina had the presence of mind, despite her wound, to swim silently away. She eventually reaches her villa and assesses the situation.
Nero, on the other hand, reacts as follows:
So out of his mind with fear, he claimed she soon would be there seeking revenge; she might arm her slaves or raise troops or make her way to the senate and the people, and charge him with a shipwreck, wounding her and killing her friends; he asked what defence he had against this, if Burrus and Seneca did not have any suggestion. He had summoned both of them at once, although it is uncertain whether they knew about it beforehand. Both were silent for along time to avoid dissuading him without success, or they believed that matters had reached the point that Nero was bound to die if Agrippina were not dealt with first. Seneca was quick enough to respond first and looked back at Burrus, as though asking if the soldiers ought to be ordered to murder her. Burrus replied that the praetorians were attached to the household of the Caesars, and, in memory of Germanicus, would not dare anything so terrible against his daughter; he suggested Anicetus should fulfil his promise
Next he heard that Agerinus had arrived from Agrippina with a message; he himself then arranged for a little piece of play-acting for the accusation against Agrippina; while Agerinus was reporting his message, Nero threw a sword at the freedman’s feet, and then ordered him to be taken to prison as if caught in the act of assassination; this was so that he could pretend that his mother had plotted to kill the emperor, but in the shame of being caught had chosen to commit suicide.
Tacitus Annals 14.7
Task 3J
How is Nero portrayed in this passage? What does this passage suggest about Agrippina?
How does Suetonius describe his reaction to the news of her escape?
Tacitus tells us that people gathered when they heard of the accident and were rejoicing that Agrippina was saved until the soldiers arrived with Anicetus to complete the murder. Tacitus offers a dramatic account of the final moments of Agrippina, appropriately defiant and courageous for a woman who had for a brief moment been co-ruler of the Roman world.
There is some disagreement about what followed. Suetonius prefers to report the horrible facts:
Credible writers provide horrible facts: he could not wait to see the dead body; he held her limbs; he criticised some and praised others; being thirsty during all this he had drinks. However, he could never, not at the time nor afterwards, bear the knowledge of his crime, although the soldiers, the Senate and the people supported him with their congratulations; he often confessed that he was hunted by his mother's ghost and harrassed by the whips and burning torches of the Furies.
Suetonius Nero 34
Tacitus says ‘Everyone agrees on the facts so far. There is some disagreement over whether he inspected his mother’s dead body and praised her beauty’. (Annals 14.9)
Task 3K
What was the reaction of the soldiers, the Senate and the people to this event? Read Annals 14.10 and 14.12, and compare it with this passage.
What does this reaction tell us about how these groups felt about Agrippina?

Sources: Suetonius and Tacitus’ aims and interests
4.1 Tacitus and Suetonius: their methods
Tacitus and Suetonius had a number of sources available to them which are lost to us now. They could use:
• the daily record of Senate meetings (Acta Senatus) 003B
• letters and memoirs of fellow senators such as Pliny the Younger and Seneca
• earlier Historians: Fabius Rusticus, Cluvius, Aufidius Bassus, the Elder Seneca;
• Suetonius had access to archive material as Hadrian’s Secretary/Librarian.
They occasionally mention them by name, but most of the time they record what they think was the truth. They do not have the attitude to recording the source of their information as modern historians.
Task 4A
Read the following three passages and consider how they use their sources:
Fabius Rusticus writes that the orders were written to Caecina Tuscus, giving him command of the praetorian cohorts but that because of Seneca's influence Burrus kept the post. Pliny the Elder and Cluvius say there was no doubt about the commander’s loyalty. Fabius certainly tends to praise Seneca; Seneca’s friendship was influential in the success of Fabius’ career. Where historians agree, I will follow their views; when they differ, I will name them and record their views.
Tacitus Annals 13.20
The author Cluvius writes that Agrippina took her desire to keep power so far as to offer herself more often to a drunken Nero, all dressed up and ready for incest. She did this at midday when Nero was already warmed up with wine and food. Those close to both had seen passionate kisses and sensual caresses, which seemed to imply wrongdoing it was then that Seneca who looked for a woman’s help against this woman’s charms, introduced Acte to Nero. This freed-woman who was anxious because of the danger to herself and the damage to Nero’s reputation, told Nero that the incest was well known since Agrippina boasted about it. She added that the soldiers would not tolerate the rule of such a wicked emperor. Fabius Rusticus writes that it was not Agrippina, but Nero, who was eager for incest, and that the clever action of the same freedwoman prevented it. A number of other authors agree with Cluvius and general opinion follows this view. Possibly Agrippina really planned such a great wickedness, perhaps because the consideration of a new act of lust seemed more believable in a woman who as a girl had allowed herself to be seduced by Lepidus in the hope of gaining power; this same desire had led her to lower herself so far as to become the lover of Pallas, and had trained herself for any evil act by her marriage to her uncle.
Tacitus Annals 14.2
No one doubted that he wanted sexual relations with his own mother, and was prevented by her enemies, afraid that this ruthless and powerful woman would become too strong with this sort of special favour. What added to this opinion was that he included among his mistresses a certain prostitute who they said looked very like Agrippina. They also say that, whenever he rode in a litter with his mother, the stains on his clothes afterwards proved that he had indulged in incest with her.
Suetonius Nero 28
How do the two authors differ in their approach?
Which of the two seems more reliable and why?

Sometimes they do not name the source but they say that there is some disagreement over what happened. Most of the time they do not give us their view but leave the readers to make up their own minds. Sometimes they say there are different versions simply to suggest that the story is not believable, for example Tacitus (4.19) says:
Everyone agrees on the facts so far. There is some disagreement over whether he inspected his mother’s dead body and praised her beauty – some say he did, others say he didn’t.
At another point he says:
Several writers at the time report that, for quite a while before his death, Britannicus and been abused by Nero. (Tacitus Annals 13.7)
Task 4B
What impression do you have about Tacitus’ own view of these events?
Credible writers provide horrible facts: he could not wait to see the dead body; he held her limbs; he criticised some and praised others; being thirsty during all this he had drinks.
Suetonius Nero 34
Tacitus and Suetonius do not always give us the same version of events, or one has details which the other does not include. They were probably working from the same sources. Suetonius was also likely to be using Tacitus’ works and deliberately differing by using another source of information. Tacitus is sometimes more skeptical about a story than Suetonius. At other times even Suetonius, who likes to include all the rumours and gossip, cannot believe what he has heard.
There was a well-known story that there had been snakes acting as guards during his childhood, a fantastic story probably modelled on stories from other lands. Nero, never one to be modest about himself, used to claim that only one snake was ever seen in his room.
Tacitus Annals 11.11
There is also the story that the men sent to kill Nero fled, frightened by a snake which shot out from his pillow. This story arose because a snake’s skin was found in his bed by his pillow.
Suetonius Nero 6
Surely it is too much to believe that he himself signed the contract for the dowry in the marriage of Messalina and Silius just because the freedmen persuaded him that the marriage was really a fake,arranged so that they could transfer to another a certain danger which the omens said was threatening the emperor himself.
Suetonius Claudius 29
Suetonius does, like Tacitus, include different versions where he thinks it matters, although he does not tell us who the different authors were.
There is general agreement that Claudius was poisoned, but a lot of argument about when it happened and who poisoned him. One version is that it was his food-taster, the eunuch Halotus, during a feast with the priests in the Citadel. Another view is that Agrippina herself did it at a family dinner when she gave him poisoned mushrooms, his favourite food. There are differences in the stories of what happened afterwards.
Suetonius Claudius 44
4.2 Tacitus and Suetonius: their aims
Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus b. AD 70
Suetonius was writing biographies not histories. He never wrote a biography of Agrippina and includes information about her only where it helps his portrayal of the emperors. He includes stories and rumours which reflect upon his subjects. His information about Agrippina is selective and at times he contradicts himself. His portrayal, like Tacitus’, isstereotypical. She uses her woman’s charms to hook Claudius (Claudius 26); there is very limited detail about her actions in Claudius’ death (44). She is presented as having some power over Nero early in the biography (Nero 6/9). In section 28, however, it is Nero who insitgates the incest. In 34 she is described as annoying, or violent or threatening.
Suetonius does clearly do research, and his inclusion of letters from the archives is evidence of this. But a lot of time his material is not his own, but gathered from previous writers. He is interested in character not political or historical issues. He and Tacitus used the same sources and much of what he says is the same as Tacitus but not always.
Cornelius Tacitus AD 55-117
It is important to remember that Tacitus was writing a chronological history (the word Annals is from the Latin Annus meaning a year). He wrote about events year by year only occasionally for the sake of clarity avoiding the simple arrangement. For example he describes the events in Parthia which cover more than one year before going back to events in Rome in the 60s AD. He is also concerned not to put every trivial event into his work but to concentrate on what he sees as important ones. He is therefore selective about what he includes and his judgement about that may lead him to exclude information which may have been useful. He concentrates on the internal politics of the empire, focusing upon events in the Senate and the palace, and the personalities involved. He tells us very little about ordinary people’s lives, economic affairs or social issues.
He was a Senator himself and a Governor of provinces. There is an inscription which names him as governor of Asia in AD 112. He had a successful career under the Emperors Domitian and Trajan. He was married to the daughter of Agricola, the governor of Britain from AD 77-84. His experiences with Domitian, who, like Nero, is seen as a cruel tyrant, may have affected how he judged the earlier emperors and the process by which the Senate lost more and more power during the 1st century AD.
He claimed to write without prejudice or bias (Annals 1.1) and he is careful not to accept every story he finds in his sources. He also records good qualities in his characters as well as bad ones.
His comment about about Agrippina the Elder (Annals 1.33) that she is too easily provoked to anger is balanced by the statement about her love and loyalty to Germanicus and her family. When she dies, Tacitus calls the charges brought against her by Tiberius as ‘disgraceful slanders’ (Annals 6.25). He admits she was greedy for power but comments upon her masculine ambition against her feminine defects. Germanicus is said to have warned Agrippina about her anger.
He told her, when she returned to the city of Rome, not to anger those in stronger positions by competing for power. (Annals 2.72).
But Tacitus makes it clear that she acts to preserve and enhance her family.
4.3 Attitudes towards women in the sources
The portrayal of women as stereotypes rather than individuals is a feature of Tacitus’ presentation of women in his histories. His view about the role of the women of the imperial family was probably not very different from the commonly held view about women and power. He dislikes the way the women plot against each other in the efforts to manoeuvre their children as successors to the emperor. So he portrays the women as rivals and writes of them as hostile to each other.
She had always fiercely hated Lollia and had become even more of an enemy over the rivalry for the marriage with Claudius.
Tacitus Annals 12.22
First she ruined Domitia Lepida for purely feminine reasons. Lepida was the daughter of the younger Antonia, as the grandniece of Augustus, the second cousin of Agrippina, and sister of her husband Domitius Ahenobarbus, and so believed herself to be the equal of Agrippina in status. They were virtually equal in beauty, youth and wealth. Both were immoral, notorious and vicious; they rivalled each other in crime as much as in the prosperity provided for them by fortune. The bitterest struggle was over who should have the most influence with Nero.
Tacitus Annals 12.64
Similarly Junia Silana (Annals 13.19) attempts to undermine Agrippina because of a personal issue. Tacitus does not present them in detail: there is a general description of them as ‘equal in beauty, youth and wealth’ but no description of them as individuals.
Agrippina’s ambition is dominatio (power, control, domination). Seneca is recalled to help her win power (Annals 12.8). But he differentiates her from other women like Messalina:
However, this was a woman who was not motivated like Messalina; she did not play with the affairs of Rome like some toy for her personal pleasure. Rome was now enslaved by an almost masculine dominance. In public Agrippina showed a serious, often arrogant face; in private, there was no sign of immorality, unless it helped her in her search for power; she had an enormous desire for money which was excused with the reason that money was a means to power.
Tacitus Annals 12.7
However, Tacitus cannot get rid of his stereotyping of women - her reaction to Acte:
‘Agrippina, however, became angry as women do and raged… ‘(Annals 13.13)
Again when explaining how Agrippina is taken in by Nero’s pretence of friendliness before his attempt to kill her he says:
‘…because women easily believe what is enjoyable. ‘(Annals 14.4).
He makes a comparison between Agrippina and Livia, who had also made sure that her son, Tiberius, succeeded Augustus, and who had also tried to rule through her son.
‘Claudius was decreed to be a god and his funeral was conducted exactly as Augustus’ funeral. Agrippina equalled her great-grandmother Livia in the magnificence of her dress. ‘ (Annals 12.69)
Tacitus at the start of the Annals had suggested that there were rumours about Livia’s involvement in the deaths of Tiberius’ rivals. Like Agrippina, Livia had kept Augustus’ death secret until the arrangements for Tiberius’ accession were complete. There is even a murder to start the reign, that of Agrippa Postumus. This parallels Agrippina’s murder of Silanus (Annals 13.1).
For more information about women in Rome and attitudes towards women see:
http://web.mac.com/heraklia/Dominae/