Academic literature on the topic 'Emperors – Succession – Rome'

Abstract Growing generals: the military representation of the child-emperors Gratian and Honorius on coins and in panegyricBetween 367 and 455 the Roman empire witnessed a series of children being elevated to the imperial throne. Meaghan McEvoy (2010; 2013) has convincingly shown that in the successive reigns of these child-emperors the imperial office was transformed from being active and military to being far more passive and ceremonial. Powerful generals were to take over the emperor’s military functions, while the young ruler came to fulfil an increasingly religious and ceremonial role. This article looks into the early phase of this transformation by investigating how the need for military leadership was dealt with in the cases of the child-emperors Gratian (r. 367-383) and Honorius (r. 393-423). A substantial amount of contemporary source material has survived from their reigns in the form of panegyrics and coinage. A systematic analysis of these sources relating to the various stages of their reigns shows that these emperors still had to live up to traditional expectations, at least in terms of their self-representation, and thus play the part of strong military leaders.

AbstractThis paper will explore the significant role appropriated objects played in Ottonian artistic production through a close examination of the Ambo of Henry II. Created by the last Ottonian emperor for the Palace Chapel at Aachen between 1002 and 1014, the Ambo of Henry II abounds with spolia. I will argue that the spolia reused on the Ambo of Henry II presented an innovative statement of Henry II's political, economic, and cultural agenda. The spolia from ancient Rome and contemporary Byzantium portrayed Henry II as the political successor to an illustrious Roman past, and as an equal to the Byzantine emperors in the East. The luxury objects reused on the Ambo also served as commodities whose symbolic value increased dramatically when they were taken out of economic circulation and used on this precious artwork. Finally, the Islamic and Byzantine spolia on the Ambo allowed Henry II to define himself and his Western Roman Empire in terms of an Other, associating his rule with the power, prestige, and sophistication of contemporary and competitive foreign cultures.

According to Renan, the day of Marcus Aurelius’ death could be considered as the decisive moment in the downfall of the ancient civilization. He, thus, wonders: “If Marcus Aurelius, the unique emperor-philosopher, did not succeed in saving the world, who else, then, could have saved it?” He notes that the emperor’s death was followed by the succession to the throne of his corrupted son, Commodus, and his friends, who all were all ignorant. Renan observes that the emperor’s kindness could not have prevented the unfortunate fate that befell the Roman Empire after his death. What we have here is the perennial problem, already established in Plato, regarding the role of the philosopher-king in establishing a good state and educating good citizens. However, the case of Marcus Aurelius, as demonstrated by Renan in his book, shows the inability of philosophy to serve the real needs, which ultimately leads to disastrous and irreparable consequences. The present paper attempts to reconstruct the reasons for the unsuccessful application of philosophy, especially the philosophy of the Hellenistic era, to the administrative system of the Roman Empire. It is argued that the failure is mainly due to political, religious and cultural problems.

According to Renan, the day of Marcus Aurelius’ death could be considered as the decisive moment in the downfall of the ancient civilization. He, thus, wonders: “If Marcus Aurelius, the unique emperor-philosopher, did not succeed in saving the world, who else, then, could have saved it?” He notes that the emperor’s death was followed by the succession to the throne of his corrupted son, Commodus, and his friends, who all were all ignorant. Renan observes that the emperor’s kindness could not have prevented the unfortunate fate that befell the Roman Empire after his death. What we have here is the perennial problem, already established in Plato, regarding the role of the philosopher-king in establishing a good state and educating good citizens. However, the case of Marcus Aurelius, as demonstrated by Renan in his book, shows the inability of philosophy to serve the real needs, which ultimately leads to disastrous and irreparable consequences. The present paper attempts to reconstruct the reasons for the unsuccessful application of philosophy, especially the philosophy of the Hellenistic era, to the administrative system of the Roman Empire. It is argued that the failure is mainly due to political, religious and cultural problems.

In Greece, as in the E Mediterranean as a whole, the ruler-cult was well established during the Hellenistic period, but whereas in the Attalid, Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms the same dynasty had ruled for centuries and the cult of the living ruler and the dynastic cult were stable institutions, the ruler-cult in Greece, though at first part of the Macedonian kingdom, was affected by the series of rulers of different dynasties who followed one another in rapid succession. This led to a large number of dedications for and offerings by Hellenistic rulers in Greece. Roman Republican leaders and figures were also subject to specific honours in Greece from an early stage. Compared to the excesses of rulers such as Demetrios Poliorcetes, the well-organized and at first rather modest cult for the Roman emperors must have seemed a distinct improvement. After the behaviour of previous Roman leaders the Greeks were probably relieved at Augustus's attitude towards cultic honours, and it is no surprise that the imperial cult was widely diffused in Greece, as literary sources and inscriptions show. Almost every city must have had one or more places for the worship of the emperors and their families, but archaeological evidence for the cult has remained rather slim and the only two attested Sebasteia or Kaisareia (at Gytheion and Messene) are known only from inscriptions. The Metroon at Olympia is the only specific building in which an imperial cult is attested on good archaeological evidence. Statues of an emperor and perhaps a personification of Roma found at Thessaloniki point to a Sebasteion there. Athens must have had more than one building where the emperor was worshipped. At Beroia a provincial sanctuary for the imperial cult of Macedonia has been posited. Yet even at the Roman colony of Corinth, the location of the temple for the imperial cult is far from clear, all of which underlines the interest of a building at Eretria which we identify with the municipal temple for the imperial cult.

The preserved presentations of the Byzantine basileis of the XIII, XIV and XV centuries show that the creators of the late Byzantine monarchical portraits adhered to certain traditional rules when selecting the personages from the ruling house, which they were to portray. Defining which figures were to be depicted in the portrayal of power depended to a large extent on the changing circumstances and events in the imperial house. However, at the same time this was also based on a significantly more profound conception that rested on principles that had evolved in the course of a long history. The understanding of who could personify power was refracted through the prism of ideology and reflected in carefully shaped iconographic matrices. The omission of the images of certain members of the ruler's house, just as much as their inclusion, carried a certain meaning, as did the hierarchical arrangement of those who were portrayed. Generally speaking, this depended on the degree of their kinship with the sovereign, their sex, titles or dignities, and the connection of the members of the dynasty with the emperor's particular marriage. Therefore, one can rather clearly distinguish certain constants, if not rules, according to which some figures were omitted and others included, and, the specific changes that occurred from the end of the Middle Byzantine period till the fall of the Empire. The development of a unique kind of feudalism played a particular role in the specific characteristics in determining who was to appear in the monarchical portraits of the Palaiologan epoch in Byzantium and the states in its neighbourhood. As the preserved portrait ensembles and known written testimonies indicate, we find the images of the rulers' daughters did not feature in presentations of the 'emperors of the Romans' from the Late Byzantine period. In the Palaiologan epoch, they did not participate in the governing of the state nor were they taken into consideration in plans for succession to the throne. In the earlier period of Byzantine history, slightly different circumstances and views prevailed. That is why, owing to some specific circumstances, the emperor's daughters were sometimes depicted in the portraits of the imperial family. However, from the time of the Komnenoi when the medieval dynastic awareness finally asserted itself in Byzantium, the images of the emperor's female progeny practically vanished from the pictures of those who wielded supreme authority. The custom of omitting the figures of the emperors' daughters from the presentations of the ruling houses was also accepted and rather strictly obeyed for a long time in the portraiture of the neighbouring Orthodox Christian countries. In Serbia, this was disregarded only till just before the state collapsed, while in Bulgaria, exceptions to this rule were observed a little earlier. This was the result of accepting the ideological and iconographic models that were distinctive for the nobility, at the height of the feudal period. The images of daughters-in-law had always been omitted even more consistently than in the case of the figures of daughters in the monarchical presentations of the Byzantine and other Orthodox Christian rulers. As a rule, they were not depicted close to the image of the sovereign, even when they were the wives of the proclaimed and even crowned co-rulers, and successors to the throne. It is very probable that this custom survived into the Palaiologan era even though there are some signs that in Byzantium, this rule may have been disregarded in some cases. The figures of sovereigns' wives and sons had a significantly different status from the images of daughters and daughters-in-law. As a rule, they played an essential and customary role in the monarchical presentation because the rulers' wives and male successors had a stake in authority, in its transfer and succession. Still, it often happened that even wives and sons were omitted from such a presentation - all or some of them. The principle of presenting the individual portraits of emperors was inaugurated in early Byzantium and later, was continually applied even when depicting rulers who were married and had numerous offspring. Different factors could have influenced the decision to depict the monarch alone, even trivial factors. Nonetheless, when insisting on the individual image of the emperor, the ideology upon which this image was based was crucial. The separate portrait of the supreme ruler best explained the iconic essence of monarchical power as a reflection of the King of Heaven and brought to the forefront the exclusivity of the emperor's mimetic collusion with the divine source of power. That is why such a presentation was able to represent the idea and the authority of all earthly majesty through the image of one anointed man. The introduction in the monarchical portrait of the ruler's sons, who were not crowned or proclaimed co-emperors, is a very interesting phenomenon that was characteristic of monumental and miniature painting in the Palaiologan epoch. In the Middle Byzantine period, only those male descendents, who had the status of co-rulers and were crowned, were depicted next to the imperial sovereign. The custom of including uncrowned sons and ruler's sons who had not been initiated in the affairs of state in the presentation of the ruler's house can also be observed from the second half of the XIII to the middle of the XV century in Serbia. It appears that this custom also left traces even in Bulgarian art. On the other hand, the images of the ruler's sons, who had not received the imperial crown, were omitted in the presentations on coins dating from the Palaiologan epoch. Such action was fully in keeping with ancient Byzantine customs in defining the monetary image of authority. An exception could be only one type of coin that many believe to have been produced in the time of Andronikos III, which bore the image of the very young emperor's son, John. Nevertheless, it is more probable that this coin came into being during the regency period, after Andronikos' death in 1341 and the coronation of John V. A little later in the Palaiologan era, however the image of the co-ruler was omitted in the Byzantine monetary image of authority even when he was crowned and bore the title of autokrator. Apparently, the joint presentations of the rulers and co-rulers disappeared completely from Byzantine coins, after the final rupture between John V Palaiologos and John VI Kantakouzenos. In fact, not one of the types of coins bearing the joint images of the ruler and co-ruler has been reliably attributed and classified in this period. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the suppression of the joint presentation of the emperor and co-emperor on Byzantine coins occurred parallel to the unusual appearance of separate co-ruler coins. Separate coins were produced simultaneously by John V and Matthew Kantakouzenos, John V and Andronikos IV, Manuel II and John VII. The production of such coins reflected the complicated political circumstances in the Empire. The situation was affected not only by clashes between the rulers and the co-rulers but also by the periodical assumption of supreme power by the co-rulers, as well as by the later development of Byzantine feudalism. Circumstances characteristic of the later period in Byzantium, which was caught up in a particular process of feudalisation, changed the customs and led to unusual iconographic solutions even in other media. An illustrative example of this is the well-known ivory pixis, which is kept in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection in Washington. Displayed on it, despite the customs of long ago, are the two separate imperial families of John VII, and Manuel II, one beside the other. In iconographic terms, this looks less like a presentation of co-rulership and more like a presentation of almost parallel rules. In the Late Byzantine epoch, another peculiarity is that the image of the augusta is only encountered in exceptional circumstances on coins of the Byzantine Empire. Among the numerous empresses from the Palaiologan dynasty, only Anne of Savoy was depicted on coins and this seems to be just from the moment when she became the regent. Meanwhile, on the presentations of the rulers of the Serbian and Bulgarian states, one can follow the iconographic consequences of the dynastic complications caused by the remarriages of the rulers. The monarchical presentations from the period of the kings Milutin and Stefan Decanski, or the emperor John Alexander, show that it was quite hard to assemble the figures of the new wives of the said rulers and the sons of those same rulers from their earlier marriages, who were heirs to the throne near the figure of the state's sovereign ruler. If one desired to present a clear dynastic situation, those persons ruled each other out. Sometimes, the ruler's son from a previous marriage took precedence, while in another case the emphasis was on the new queen and her offspring.

AbstractAlexander the Great and his legacy suffuse The Prince, a fact that has received little attention. Machiavelli uses Alexander to illustrate the form of rule in which one is lord and all others are slaves. In recounting the Roman Republic's conquest of Greece, Machiavelli treats Alexander's vanquished successors. Alexander's legacy enters Rome itself, igniting in Romans the desire to subject the world to sole preeminence. According to Machiavelli, Caesar imitated Alexander, and Caesar overturned the republic, initiating the rule of one in Rome. Caesar had his own Roman successors, the emperors who ruled under his name. Rome succeeded in imposing the rule of one on Europe. That form of rule exists in Machiavelli's times with the states of the Turk and the Sultan as well as with the papacy in a limited respect. Something of the old Rome and its Alexandrian aspirations persists in Christian Rome.

The article focuses on the principles and mechanisms of the supreme power transition from one ruler of the Roman Empire to another one and on Theodosius’ the Great accession to power. Hereditary monarchy principle was not always basic in the history of imperial Rome in spite of dynasties. Actually, throughout the era of the Empire, the army proclaimed each new emperor; also, the recognition of the legal heir required the soldiers’ approval. An attempt to create an artificial mechanism, presented by the system of tetrarchy, failed, therefore after Constantine the supreme power transition by hereditary principle seemed to be affirmed. However, the sudden death of Julian, who had no heirs, made the Empire return to the choice of emperor by the army. It led to the establishment of the Valentinian dynasty. After the Battle of Adrianople and the death of the eastern emperor Valens, the power succession problem was resolved in an unexpected way: Spaniard Theodosius, retired military commander was proclaimed the new emperor and he was the third one, because two Augusti from the Valentinian dynasty had already existed. The circumstances of his rise and accession to power are differently covered in the sources and do not allow researches to make firm conclusions about how it actually happened. As is often the case in history, not the only one factor could play a role, but their combination and intermingle. Theodosius had founded a dynasty, which remained in power for almost a century and which could be considered the last dynasty of the Roman Empire that reigned both in western and eastern parts of the Roman Empire.

This article explores the degree to which the rule and style of the bishops of Rome after the deposition of the last Roman emperor in the West in 476 had any imperial elements, in the light of the evidence contained within the Liber pontificalis. Papal rule in Rome was cast as a replacement of imperial rule in religious matters, an opportunity for the bishop to assume political responsibility and also a deliberate emulation of imperial behaviour. This is manifest above all in the textual record in the Liber pontificalis of the papal embellishment of Rome, and in the physical evidence of the extant basilicas of the city. The deliberately imperial elements of papal self-presentation and the importance of Rome's primacy, apostolic succession and orthodoxy, all articulated so emphatically within the Liber pontificalis, indicate the multitude of strands by which the papacy wove the fabric of its own imperium or power.

Elector Maximilian II Emanuel of Bavaria’s marriage to Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria gave him a central role in the complex context of Charles II of Spain’s succession. To achieve his main goals and, ultimately, the Spanish succession for his son Joseph Ferdinand, the elector needed to have a strong diplomatic network at Madrid’s court that could defend his interests. But Bavaria had not had an important presence in the court of the Spanish Monarchy before, so the elector and his main collaborators needed to build a powerful network in the court of Madrid, unconnected to Emperor Leopold I, practically from the ground up. To do it, the elector sent to Madrid in 1695 one of his most treasured diplomats, Pierre, baron of Bertier. In the following pages, we will analyze the background of the diplomatic relationship between Bavaria and the Spanish Monarchy before Charles II’s reign, how the elector’s envoys communicated with the members of a court where there were almost no precedents whatsoever of a steady presence of Bavarian ambassadors and how they built a very important network for their master with the help of the queen mother, Mariana of Austria.

La succession des empereurs romains a toujours été étudiée d'un point de vue strictement dynastique : par réaction aux thèses du siècle dernier, qui voulaient que la norme de transmission du principal eut été l'adoption, on a juste titre souligné que les princes pourvus de fils biologiques ont toujours cherché à leur assurer l'Empire. Mais on a expliqué la facilité avec laquelle les romains, habités pourtant par l'horror de la royauté, ont accepté d'être gouvernés par les fils de leurs précédents empereurs, par des motifs religieux ou par la loi du plus fort. Or nous croyons que la transmission de l'Empire de père en fils était pour les romains naturelle car leurs lois et leur culture instauraient une parfaite réflexivité entre ceux-ci. Le second était le prolongement du premier : les romains, aspirant avant tout à la continuité, s'attendaient, lorsque le père avait bien régné, à voir le fils faire de même. Auguste a ainsi à dessein insisté sur les aspects patriarcaux de son régime et, toute sa vie, s'est cherché des fils, moins pour créer une dynastie que parce que leur présence à ses côtés et après lui était consubstantielle à la nature du principat. Voilà pourquoi Tibère, seulement adopté, a été d'emblée, malgré toutes ses qualités, considéré comme un usurpateur. Caligula, en revanche, fut le premier prince dont le pouvoir ait paru légitime aux romains, non à cause de sa filiation officielle, mais à cause d'une filiation plus immédiate et officieuse (Germanicus, Drusus l'ancien, Marc Antoine). Tacite s'est fait dans les histoires le héraut de la fiction littéraire de l'adoption du meilleur. Pourtant, nous voyons que, pour lui, le seul remède aux guerres civiles, fléau de Rome, est la collaboration et la succession harmonieuses au pouvoir d'un père et d'un fils biologiques. Le principal de Vespasien, auquel participa activement Titus, sans répugner aux tâches les plus ingrates et les plus impopulaires du gouvernement, en fut d'ailleurs la meilleure preuve.

Malgré l’existence d’une vaste bibliographie consacrée au problème de la transmission du pouvoir impérial, seulement un nombre réduit d’études a été consacré à l’épineux problème du choix d’un successeur, sa désignation et son investiture impériale. En considérant tous les points controversés qui restent toujours en suspens concernant le processus de transmission du pouvoir impérial, nous avons décidé d’aborder, à notre tour, ce sujet complexe pour tenter de proposer autant que possible, une nouvelle analyse de cet aspect bien particulier de l’histoire du Principat. Le point de départ de notre étude est la prise en considération de toutes les données fournies par les sources : littéraires, épigraphiques, numismatiques et iconographiques. En effet, en dépit de leur nature différente, ces sources nous permettent de recueillir des renseignements concernant le choix et la « mise en piste » par l’empereur régnant d’un successeur au pouvoir impérial. Concernant l’étude proprement dite, nous l’avons divisée en trois parties différentes. Ainsi, la première partie a été consacrée à une analyse globale des sources historiques autres que les textes écrits, qui ont été réunies et présentées dans trois catalogues thématiques en annexe de ce mémoire. Deux objectifs ont été poursuivis dans la deuxième partie : déterminer qui effectuait le choix de la personne en vue de la succession impériale et quelles étaient les étapes de la désignation du successeur présomptif. Enfin, la troisième partie a été consacrée à l’étude de la nature du pouvoir impérial, ainsi qu’au ‘cursus honorum’ réservé aux princes de la famille impériale et aux membres marquants du milieu politique. En guise de conclusion générale à notre étude, nous tenons à souligner que la démarche que nous proposons est un effort de synthèse qui essaye de prendre en considération toutes les données dont nous disposons, en les analysant de plusieurs points de vue. C’est notamment dans cette approche de synthèse que réside, nous l’espérons, l’originalité de la thèse que nous soumettons à l’attention de la communauté scientifique
Despite the existence of an important bibliography dedicated to Roman imperial power, only an insignificant part of it takes into consideration the moment of the transmission of imperial power from one emperor to the other. We decided to initiate a complex research on this topic, combining the analytical methods (synchronic and diachronic) in order to discover the elements of continuity, and of discontinuity in the transmission of the imperial power. In our opinion, in understanding how the process of designation of the new emperor works, we could have an accurate image of the mechanisms of imperial power, in order to understand who had the power of decision in designating a new emperor: the Senate or the emperor. We had also dedicated special attention to the relationships among the main Roman institutions – the emperor, the Senate, and the army – in order to find out the main changing comparison with the Republican regime, as long as their evolution during the first century of the Principate. After a critical survey of the historiographical literature dedicated to the study of the nature of imperial power, we divided our research topic into three main parts. Part one is dedicated to critically analyzing neglected historical sources (numismatics, glyptique, monuments, and statuary groups) and to constituting a thematic catalogue. The second part deals with the study of the first phase of the process of the transmission of imperial power, in other words, with the designation of the successor of the emperor. The third part is reserved to the ‘cursus honorum’ of the members belonging to the imperial family, before, and after their designation as the successor. Finally, we took into consideration the investiture of the new emperor, due to a ‘lex de imperio curiata’, and his discourse of legitimacy. In our conclusions, we emphasize the decisive role of the emperor in the designation of his successor, and also the political involvement of the army in protecting the interests of the imperial family against the authoritative tendencies of the Senate, who tried hard to recuperate its republican status

Le corpus de ce qui fut considere comme des "signes" en rapport avec les princes, d'auguste a domitien, est ici l'objet d'une etude strictement historique, et non philologique, bien que les sources soient litterairs. Dans une premiere partie, la symbolique des presages est "dechiffree". Des phenomenes qui ne differaient pas fondamental ement de ceux qui etaient repertories dans les siecles precedents etaient porteurs de nouveaux messages : l'empire devai t exister, "quelqu'un" devait le conduire; et la place etait perilleuse, tant pour celui qui l'occupait indument que pou r celui qui ne savait pas s'y comporter dignement. Dans une seconde partie, sont etudies les presages dans leurs rapports avec les individus qui les recevaient, les racontaient, ou les entendaient: indispensables, petris de religiosite, ils intervenaient comme indices de la coherence du monde et de l'histoire, ils etaient au service d'une verite. La troisieme partie evoque les affrontements par les presages. Ces derniers jouerent un role dans le debat sur la nature de la puissance du prince; ils furent utilises lors de conflits opposant des individus a une collectivite, ou des individus entre eux. Ce que nous avons n'est pas une "simple propagande", mais ce sur quoi s'est etabli un consensus
Although the sources for this study are essentially literary, this is strictly an historical analysis of the portents that were related to princes, from augustus to domitian, and not a philological one. In the first part, the symbolic meaning of omens is deciphered. These phenomenons, which were not so very different from those in the past, had acquired a new significance : empire must exist, someone must lead it; the seat was dangerou s for him who occupied it wrongfully as for him who did not know how to behave with dignity. In the second part, these omens are studied in relation to those people who received them, who heard them, and those who passed them on : indispensable and full of religious significance, they acted as tokens towards an understanding of the consistency of the cosmos and of history. They were in the service of a truth. The third part deals with the confrontational nature of the portents : between individuals, and between individuals and groups. What we possess is not basic "propaganda", but the elements of a consensus

Ce travail basé sur l'étude des sources littéraires, épigraphiques, numismatiques et archéologiques cherche à donner une meilleure compréhension du régime impérial. L'étude débute par un rapide historique des deux notions sous la République ainsi qu'une étude plus particulière dans les oeuvres de Cicéron. Puis, nous analysons la mise en place du principat. L'évolution institutionnelle proposée par Auguste n'était envisageable qu'à la condition qu'elle soit acceptée par le plus grand nombre. Ce changement de régime n'était justifié que s'il permettait la fin des guerres civiles et le maintien de la concordia ciuilis. Le principat ne pouvait se maintenir qu'en conservant ces deux aspects. Nous avons donc étudié cet équilibre à travers l'investiture impériale, la cérémonie de l'aduentus et le temps de la mort jusqu'à la mort d'Alexandre Sévère. Cette analyse sur une longue période nous permet d'analyser le pouvoir impérial. Les différents principes cherchaient toujours à se rattacher à Auguste tout en apportant des innovations qui répondaient aux attentes du populus Romanus de leur temps
This research based on the study of literary sources, epigraphic texts, numismatic and archaeological searches to provide a better understanding of the imperial regime. The study begins with a brief history of the two concepts in the Republic and a study particularly in the works of Cicero. Then we analyze the establishment of the principate. The institutional change proposed by Augustus was possible only if it was accepted by all citizens. This change of regime was justified only if there were not the civil ward and if the concordia ciuilis existed. The principate could not maintain only if these two aspects can be keeping. We therefore examined this balance through the imperial investiture, the ceremony of the aduentus and time of death until the death of Alexander Severus. This analysis over a long period allows us to analyze the imperial power. The principes try always to follow the Augustan policy while introducing innovations that respond to claims of the populus Romanus of their time

Né en 188 alors que son père était gouverneur de la Gaule Lyonnaise, Caracalla est un empereur de la dynastie sévérienne régnant entre 211 et 217. Fils aîné de Septime Sévère et de Julia Domna, L. Septimius Bassianus prend le nom de Marcus Aurelius Antoninus en hommage à l’empereur Marc Aurèle et est très tôt associé au pouvoir. Perçu par les sources littéraires anciennes comme un tyran et un soudard (Cassius Dion, Hérodien par exemple), ce porphyrogénète accomplit des réformes militaires, administratives et financières, telles que le fameux édit de Caracalla de 212. D’autres sources, épigraphiques, numismatiques et archéologiques, accordent à cet empereur une image souvent plus positive. L’objet de l’étude est de montrer l’existence de ruptures et de continuités entre Caracalla et la figure paternelle, entre sa politique et l’œuvre de son prédécesseur. Il s’agit également de se demander si le fait d’être porphyrogénète est un handicap ou un atout dans l’œuvre politique, religieuse, culturelle et économique d’Antonin Caracalla
Born in 188 when his father was governor of the Gaul Lyonnaise, Caracalla is an emperor of the Severe dynasty ruling between 211 and 217. Eldest son of Septimius Severe and Julia Domna, L. Septimius Bassianus takes the name of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus in tribute to the emperor Marc Aurele and is very early associated with power. Perceived by ancient literary sources such as a tyrant and a soldier (Cassius Dio, Herodian, for example), this purple-born carries out military, administrative and financial reforms, such as Caracalla's famous 212 edition. Other sources, epigraphic, numismatic and archaeological, give this emperor an often more positive image. The purpose of the study is to show the existence of breaks and continuities between Caracalla and the paternal figure, between his politics and the work of his predecessor. It is also a question of whether being a purple-born is a handicap or an asset in the political, religious, cultural and economic work of Antonin Caracalla

The analysis of the two versions of the life of Pope Sergius II (844-847) published by Louis Duchesne in his edition of the Liber pontificalis aims at identifying and discussing the tools developed by the Lateran to illustrate the relationship between the Apostolic See and Carolingian power at the time of the Emperor Lothair. I will first present the two versions of the life of Sergius and their circulation, then highlight the rhetorical strategies employed by the author to diminish the political significance of Louis II’s journey to Rome (844). Secondly, I will refer to the second part of the so-called Farnesianus version of the life of Sergius II. In this particular section, the author, before the incomplete report of the Saracen raid on the mouth of the Tiber and the sack of St. Peter's Basilica (846), critically describes the pontificate of Sergius II, dominated by the negative figure of the pontiff's brother, Benedict, who imposed his tyranny over Rome and its territory on behalf of the emperor (most likely as a missus on the imperial side). In this regard, it is interesting to evaluate which are the concealed arguments introduced here to represent the alleged effects of the application of the Constitutio Romana (824) on the socio-political structures of the city and on the history of the Roman Church, to offer a hypothesis on the context of the composition of this version of the life of Sergius II. In particular, I will dwell on the denouncing of the simoniacal heresy, shown to be have been triumphant during the pontificate of Sergius II, as sign of the re-emergence in Rome of a theme particularly strongly felt among the Carolingian reformers, and one which can perhaps be most associated with the pontificate of Sergius’ successor Leo IV (847-855).

From Augustus’ death to Hadrian a succession of emperors in three dynasties came to rule Rome. Chapter 13 begins by thematically covering the relations of the dynasties toward Greece. Then it considers the relations of the emperors toward Athens, and the state of the city (economically, politically) during this period. The chapter also discusses St Paul’s visit to Athens and his sermon to the Areopagus, recounted in Acts. Finally, there is an examination of what is known about individual emperors’ relations with the city, and what they did to it, including cultural life, up to Trajan, and introducing Hadrian, with whom the book will end.

After a brief recall of Italian history from late antiquity to 750, this chapter provides a city-by-city history from the end of the Exarchate to 1000. The history of Rome follows the Lombard crises and the end of Byzantine rule, Frankish/Carolingian domination, the events of the Kingdom of Italy, aristocratic rule, and the attempted Ottonian control over the city. Ravenna’s three narrative strands are the aftermath of the autocephaly conflict, the anti-papal policies of most archbishops throughout the Byzantine then Carolingian period, and lastly the renewed prestige of the city under the Ottonian emperors. For Venice, the narrative follows the origins (imagined and probable) of the city, its succession of ducal families, and its attempt always to create a balance between its official Byzantine dependence and its grounding in the north Adriatic space

The paper analyses how the category of age is used in the literary discourses that surround Nero and his Flavian successors. Focusing on the young principes Nero and Domitian, it analyses how their youth is depicted positively in the panegyrics of their lifetime and recoded negatively in the posthumous critical texts. Regarding the depiction of the emperor’s age, we need to differentiate between earlier and later Flavian responses to the Neronian representation. While Vespasian uses his old age as a counterpoint, Domitianic poetry creates a contrast by encoding his youth differently from its Julio-Claudian anti-model. These different depictions concern not only the individual emperor, but also touch upon general questions relating to the political system of the early principate, in particular the topic of dynasty and succession.

The chapter discusses how Manuel Palaiologos’ texts reveal not only the emperor’s standpoints in his attempts to answer political challenges, but also a long-term imperial project that sought to establish a system of effective political communication by exhibiting his fatherly concern for his son and co-emperor. This project involved two stages with changing approaches. In the first stage, the emperor strengthened his connections with the literati and frequently chaired theatra. The letters and the dialogic mode of his text on marriage point to the fact that during the last decade of the fourteenth century, the emperor did not have at his disposal too many possibilities of circulating his political messages except for the rather informal meetings in the framework of theatra. In a second stage, which chronologically coincided with the years following the emperor’s return from the West, Manuel attempted to consolidate his ruling position by highlighting in the Foundations and the Orations that he appointed his son, John, as successor. In the absence of a more substantial body of court rhetoricians, the emperor undertook the role of a social-political commentator and accordingly put forward a personal discourse on imperial authority.

This chapter explores the tumultuous succession to power of the Yongzheng emperor, and the role eunuchs played in it as foot soldiers and rumormongers. Eunuchs in the princely households of Yūnreng, Yūntang, and Yūnsy worked on behalf of the princes they served, sometimes luring them into further wrongdoing. Several of these eunuchs became notorious for corruption, bribery, and the kidnapping of children.

Chapter 2 introduces Song ritual institutions, ritual officials, and early Song ritual controversies over fraternal succession and the discourse of filial piety. It emphasizes the key position of the Commission of Ritual Affairs in making Song court rituals. It also reveals the growing interest of Northern Song emperors in the arrangements of the Imperial Temple and the active role they performed in ritual debates and reforms, as well as their political concerns on the Imperial Temple.

Constantine’s son Constantius II particularly worked to encourage the emergence of a new, Christian Roman Empire by restricting pagan practices and transferring pagan temples to the ownership of the church. Christian authors like Firmicus Maternus framed actions like these as a form of progress that moved the empire closer to a better, Christian condition—a dramatic break from the traditional cycle of decline and renewal. Constantius also elevated the new city of Constantinople to parity with Rome, an action described to the Roman senate by his propagandist Themistius. The pagan emperor Julian, Constantius’s successor, set about undoing many of the steps Constantine and his sons had taken. Julian framed these actions as a restoration of Roman power and religious traditions, but, in some ways, his initiatives departed from past practices as well.

Abstract This chapter examines the shifting nature of Mughal succession politics between the sixteenth and early eighteenth centuries. It argues that generations of Mughal princes played a central role in extending and deepening Mughal control across the Indian subcontinent. Particularly after the 1580s, princes accomplished this by constructing alliances and formidable households, engaging in acts of disobedience and violence against the emperor and one another, and participating in wars of succession. During the latter half of ‘Alamgir’s reign, however, diminishing access to money, the rise of a powerful coterie of nobles who did not feel beholden to ‘Alamgir’s sons, and intergenerational competition among ‘Alamgir’s many heirs weakened the princely institution. Ultimately, the decline of princely power matched that of the Mughal Empire.

A serious uprising in Britain around the time of the death of Trajan in 117 threatened the security of the province, and Trajan’s successor, Hadrian, decided to restore order on the frontier provinces, including Britain. This significant setback may have resulted in the defeat and disbanding of the Ninth Legion. The restoration of the frontier in Britain required the allocation of additional military forces, and Hadrian instructed the building of a great wall just to the north of the Stanegate. This major building operation disrupted friendly relations with local people along the line of the wall and served as a measure to divide the people of the province from those to the north. Hadrian became the second Roman emperor to visit Britain in 122, when he inspected the building operations under way along the wall, and he may personally have commanded the strengthening of it with the construction of regular forts and a second substantial earthwork, the Vallum. A dedication ceremony on a victory monument at the east end of the wall that bore the emperor’s name commemorated his control of land and sea, drawing attention once again to the close association Roman commanders made between the conquest of Britain and the subduing of Ocean. The building of the wall confirmed the abandonment of Roman ambition to conquer the far north, although a number of forts positioned on the roads running to the north of the wall indicate that Rome continued to exercise control over the neighbouring peoples of northern Britain.