I’m
still glutting myself feasting on a more focused and penetrating study of the late Republic and, admittedly, it would be hard to pull myself away from it at this point.
I need much to do the same with regard to the period extending from
Macrinus to Diocletion, to be sure – and to really feel comfortable enough to speak more to these questions & points of interest (and they are fascinating in the extreme) in any meaningful way.
From the relative shallows of my present grasp, saying: “
Maximin's assession to power should be considered as a revolution” – I have no problem with, as indeed that coincides with my present understanding.
I confess being a little perplexed then by the following statement: “
..the election of Maximin was a return to meritocracy rather than the beginning of the ‘military anarchy’ – as this seems to
unravel the former statement, as well as perhaps being somewhat specious.
Do we have any reason really to regard it as such over & beyond its having been an historical
accident? My impression as yet is not that
Alexander was removed in order to proclaim
Maximinus, but that
Maximinus was seized upon after the driving aim and
purpose - removing
Alexander – was
fait accomplis. On the other hand, reflecting further on this in conjunction with your thoughts regarding the omphaloskepsisian nature of the latter Severans, “meritocracy” makes sense as a relative-comparative.
Again, from my not-knowing well-enough, it could very easily be only a flaw in my perspective and grasp – but I cannot presently see the inherent agreement of these two evaluations.
Likewise in saying: “
The empire faced new challenges and the existing power structure was not able to meet them.”
Of course this hinges on what is meant by “power structure,” but one might infer from the following sentence that ‘power structure’ has been
reduced to the wearer of the Imperial mantle. I simply can’t accept such a view – not even in the mid-to late 3rd century.
It is perhaps a false inference tho’ and not at all what you have meant here.
The weakness of the Emperor need not be much if anything more than just that, does it? I’m hard-pressed (presently) to see or grasp in what ways the
power-structure had been ‘revolutionized’ for better or worse such as was operant from
Tiberius through the reigns of the Severans.
The Emperor was always clearly apical in the power structure, but not as suspended in aether – there was a firm foundation upon which he both stood and by which he was supported – one which in fact established
his power as an actuality and without which he was little more than just another
Patrician in
fine clothes.
“
The army became less and less combat-ready.”
It was the dominant
Roman muscle as subject to atrophy as any other wasn’t it? This again seems a condition to be laid at the feet of weak Emperors.
“
..he had no choice but to exterminate the Severan camarilla but, probably, he did not succeded.”
Good riddance to that miserable cabal – a purge that well-served the Empire even if only by their absence, but I don’t believe I follow what you mean in your saying this here. My apology for that – I just miss the point you mean to be making, unless implying that some surviving residue continued to undermine the alleged
Maximinus Revolution? I find that hard to imagine – but unfortunately, all I can do with regard to that point presently is
imagine. ( How many of
Elagabal’s ‘creatures’ survived the accession of
Alexander? – and how many of any which survived would have stuck around once
Alexander fell to be in the company of
Maximinus – or, indeed, where could they have fled for sanctuary among others who might think them yet ‘useful?’ )
“
Pupien and Balbinus were good guys when fighting Maximin but immediately afterwards happened to be hatred by Romans as well.”
Isn’t this again the same sort of problematic regarding the limitations & skewing of historical record?
Were they in fact “
good guys” – or rather more ‘ready-to-hand’ and useful (both
members elected to the
XX Viri Ex S.C. Rei Publicae Curandae)? Much the latter I think, as seems well attested by the events and conditions which brought them to power, and borne out in the unfolding of all the subsequent events.
After-all,
Gordian III was proclaimed
Caesar almost simultaneously with their own accession, while they were being pelted with sticks and stones – the imminent invasion of
Maximinus notwithstanding.
There is always some degree of guessing and gamble in advancing an individual to positions of ‘absolute power,’ since power more often than not changes the individual or at-least removes all inhibitors from expressions of
his true nature.
Pupienus and
Balbinus were not the first regarded as expendable in such light, and it was not-least their own contrariness which facilitated their being expended.
“
In April 238 these two proclaimed Damnatio Memoriae but in May they were assassinated and replaced by a marionette (Gordian III was 13 years old).”
Gordian was already in-standing for the Imperial title as
Caesar which antedated the assassinations of the Senate’s game-cocks.
Sorry, I know it’s a crude expression to use for two
men who did probably deserve much better than they got – but that’s how I see it in the ‘big picture view.’ The Senate plucked up its two fighting roosters from the
XX Viri and threw one in front of the unruly mob in
Rome, the other in the path of an infuriated
Maximinus. What are we
supposed to think – really?
Neither can we ascribe the
Damnatio of
Maximinus to the isolated Will or ‘politics’ of
Pupienus and
Balbinus –
Maximinus was in universal contempt before either of the latter were even thrust into power.
“
This indicates the existence of the party which was quite happy with such a political system.”
Which party?
I don’t see it.
Romans were generally politically astute in my view – and
had been for a very long time. It would be idiocy to be pleased with such conditions & circumstances as a ‘system,’ and I’m far more inclined to take it for what I think it was – the nebulous reality of the internal dynamics of a system which was far more solid and grounded than such events would describe to the eyes-alone.
Makes me think how apropos it might be just here to remember one of the truest things Kant ever said – “
appearances are not things in themselves.”
“
Could one expect its stability?”
That is a wonderful & far-reaching question to my thinking – and an important one.
I
hope to get to a study of this period at some point which might at-least afford me a view and understanding towards its answering…
That is a handsome Tet, Numerianus!
Here I share the only coin I have of
Maximinus – a very special one (to me personally) which I will perhaps share elsewhere here at
FORVM on another day …
[BROKEN IMAGE LINK REMOVED BY ADMIN]
Best, as always –
Tia