What do you think?
Rate this book
AD69 - Emperors, Armies and Anarchy
With the death of Nero by his own shaky hand, the ill-sorted, ill-starred Iulio-Claudian dynasty came to an ignominious end, and Rome was up for the taking. This was 9 June, AD 68. The following year, commonly known as the ‘Year of the Four Emperors’, was probably one of Rome’s worst.
Nero's death threw up a critical question for the Empire. How could a new man occupy the vacant throne in Rome and establish a new dynasty? This situation had never arisen before, since in all previous successions the new emperor had some relation to his predecessor, but the psychotic and paranoid Nero had done away with any eligible relatives. And how might a new emperor secure his legal position and authority with regards to the Senate and to the army, as well as to those who had a vested interest in the system, the Praetorian Guard? The result was that ambitious and unscrupulous generals of the empire fell into a bloody power struggle to decide who had the right to wear the imperial purple.
Tacitus, in his acid way, remarks that 'one of the secrets of ruling had been an emperor could be created outside Rome'. This was because imperial authority was ultimately based on control of the military. Thus, to retain power a player in the game of thrones had to gain an unshakable control over the legions, which were dotted along the fringes of the empire. Of course, this in turn meant that the soldiers themselves could impose their own choice. Indeed, it turned out that even if an emperor gained recognition in Rome, this counted for nothing in the face of opposition from the armies out in the frontier provinces. It was to take a tumultuous year of civil war and the death of three imperial candidates before a fourth candidate could come out on top, remain there, and establish for himself a new dynasty. Nic Fields narrates the twists and turns and the military events of this short but bloody period of Roman history.
Nero's death threw up a critical question for the Empire. How could a new man occupy the vacant throne in Rome and establish a new dynasty? This situation had never arisen before, since in all previous successions the new emperor had some relation to his predecessor, but the psychotic and paranoid Nero had done away with any eligible relatives. And how might a new emperor secure his legal position and authority with regards to the Senate and to the army, as well as to those who had a vested interest in the system, the Praetorian Guard? The result was that ambitious and unscrupulous generals of the empire fell into a bloody power struggle to decide who had the right to wear the imperial purple.
Tacitus, in his acid way, remarks that 'one of the secrets of ruling had been an emperor could be created outside Rome'. This was because imperial authority was ultimately based on control of the military. Thus, to retain power a player in the game of thrones had to gain an unshakable control over the legions, which were dotted along the fringes of the empire. Of course, this in turn meant that the soldiers themselves could impose their own choice. Indeed, it turned out that even if an emperor gained recognition in Rome, this counted for nothing in the face of opposition from the armies out in the frontier provinces. It was to take a tumultuous year of civil war and the death of three imperial candidates before a fourth candidate could come out on top, remain there, and establish for himself a new dynasty. Nic Fields narrates the twists and turns and the military events of this short but bloody period of Roman history.
- GenresHistoryMilitary History
256 pages, Hardcover
First published March 31, 2014
About the author
Nic Fields
72 books18 followersDr Nic Fields started his career as a biochemist before joining the Royal Marines. Having left the Navy, he went back to University and completed a BA and PhD in Ancient History at the University of Newcastle. He was Assistant Director at the British School of Archaeology, Athens, and is now a lecturer in Ancient History and Archaeology at the University of Edinburgh.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
February 23, 2016
"Historians generally like to encourage us to remember Rome as a glorious font of western civilization. I find it difficult to agree with this proposal. Rather than be dazzled by its so-called glory, Rome is better seen as 'that immense monument of human arrogance'. So from here on abandon any notions about the glory that was Rome or the noble legacy it ostensibly left us." - Nic Fields, AD69: Emperors, Army and Anarchy
After reading the above paragraph along with others disparaging academia and claiming much of what is written about Rome has been composed by "dewey-eyed Western romantics" culpable of "Eurocentric cultural imperialism", I wondered why this former Royal Marine turned classicist even bothered to write the book.
I never thought of myself as a "dewey-eyed Western romantic", although I do feel there is much to admire in Roman civilization. On the other hand I am well aware of the brutal nature of ancient warfare and some of the less savory aspects of life under Roman rule. So I hope I examine Roman history through a relatively unbiased lens and it is from this viewpoint that I continued to read Fields' account of this tumultuous year.
Fields recounts the events of the Year of the Four Emperors as viewed by Tacitus, one of our most reliable ancient sources, but, unfortunately, couples his research with condescending asides about the Romans as a people.
"As a race they were passionately unpretentious, enormously addicted to pattern, with a faculty beyond all other people of ignoring their neighbours, their surroundings, or in the last resort, themselves. Because the Romans were the worst kind of liberty takers, violence was acceptable, the unwilling cajoled and the openly hostile duly crushed, harshness and hatred for 'the Other' was actively encouraged, moderation and magnanimity was for the weak." - Nic Fields, AD69: Emperors, Army and Anarchy
Fortunately, I was already familiar with most of the main events of this period after reading Douglas Jackson's excellent novel "Sword of Rome." I even got a glimpse of life in Rome itself during the Year of the Four Emperors in Kate Quinn's "Daughters of Rome". But I have continued to be puzzled why Vespasian did not make his move to grasp the purple until Vitellius wrested the throne from the blood-stained hands of Otho. Vespasian supported Galba as Nero's successor and, even though Otho ultimately ordered the assassination of Galba, Vespasian appeared to make no protest about that either. So what was it about Vitellius that was so repugnant to Vespasian? I hoped Fields might share some light on this.
Fields points out that, according to Tacitus, there were rumors Galba intended to adopt Titus.
"Titus Vespasian had been sent from Judaea by his father while Galba still lived, and alleged as a reason for his journey the homage due to the Emperor, and his age, which now qualified him to compete for office. But the vulgar, ever eager to invent, had spread the report that he was sent for to be adopted. The advanced years and childless condition of the Emperor furnished matter for such gossip, and the country never can refrain from naming many persons until one be chosen. The report gained the more credit from the genius of Titus himself, equal as it was to the most exalted fortune, from the mingled beauty and majesty of his countenance, from the prosperous fortunes of Vespasian, from the prophetic responses of oracles, and even from accidental occurrences which, in the general disposition to belief, were accepted as omens." - Tacitus, The Histories, Book II.1
But Tacitus tells us Titus only made it as far as Corinth where he received the news of Galba's assassination.
"At Corinth, the capital of Achaia, he received positive information of the death of Galba, and found men who spoke confidently of the revolt of Vitellius and of the fact of war. In the anxiety of his mind, he sent a few of his friends, and carefully surveyed his position from both points of view. He considered that if he should proceed to Rome, he should get no thanks for a civility intended for another, while his person would be a hostage in the hands either of Vitellius or of Otho..." - Tacitus, The Histories, Book II.1
Fields points out that that Titus decides to return to his father and stops off in Cyprus to visit the temple of Aphrodite at Paphos. There Titus consults the oracle and the omens were pronounced as favorable. Even the high priest, Sostratos, assured Titus of his great destiny in a private interview. So Fields thinks this was the beginning of Flavian aspirations for the throne.
However, if we examine Tacitus a little more closely, we find Tacitus describes Titus' ruminations about the consequences of failing to offer support to whomever would end up on top in Rome while he is still in Corinth and speculates about "father joining the party". This would lead me to conclude that Vespasian was already considering entering the fray before Titus even left Judea and may not have felt any loyalty to Otho or Vitellius even though the eastern legions had sworn loyalty to Otho by the time Titus got back.
So, why Vespasian and not Caius Lucius Mucianus, legate governor of Syria, or Tiberius Julius Alexander, prefect of Egypt?
Fields tells us the childless senator Mucianus despised Vespasian but was a close friend of Titus, finding the young man easy-going and congenial (much as Galba had). Furthermore, although Mucianus had leadership gifts, he lacked the will to reach for the throne himself. Apparently, Alexander didn't either as he quickly switched sides as well and hailed Vespasian emperor. Whether this was from lack of will or lack of courage, Fields does not speculate, but points out even Vespasian realized he was being offered an opportunity that may look like a compliment but was, in reality, a possible death sentence. Still Vespasian agreed to undertake the task and the three conspired to starve Rome of grain while Mucianus marched towards Italy with components of many of his Syrian legions via Asia Minor and Thrace. They even arranged for a mock revolt of the Batavi at the mouth of the Rhine.
As it turns out, though, Rome didn't get an opportunity to starve because Fields tells us Marcus, Antonius Primus, a gifted commander and tough fighting legate of the recently formed Legio VII Galbiana, took the initiative with the Danube legions, attacking and routing the Vitellians near Cremona, the original site of the victory of the Vitellians over the Othonians.
This is the part of the book I found most fascinating as I was unaware of the exploits of Antonius Primus who ended up recapturing Rome for the Flavians yet was not rewarded with any prestigious position by Vespasian or any of the other Flavian emperors.
"In an impressive display of rapid marching, his [Antonius Primus] rush down Italy echoed the approach of his Olympian namesake, Marcus Antonius, by relying on speed and decisiveness to surprise the enemy. Despite the dark depths of winter fast approaching, he took advantage of the flight of the Vitellians to cross the snows of the Apennines, for it was now the month of December." - Nic Fields, AD69: Emperors, Army and Anarchy
Rather than the Olympian namesake, I thought Antonius Primus' valiant dash sounded more like Julius Caesar!
But, despite the execution of Vitellius and many of his followers and the power vacuum that created, the patrician class would probably not accept someone with the obscure origins of Antonius Primus, a native of Tolosa, in any permanent imperial position.
"Like Achilles, he was a man who fitted uneasily, if at all, into a chain of command. The embodiment of ferocity, a fierce restless warrior, he could not, or would not, march in step. There are many ways to lead an army. Being a warrior is one way and not necessarily the best." - Nic Fields, AD69: Emperors, Army and Anarchy
Although Antonius Primus was granted the rank of consul by the Senate, when the high born Mucianus finally arrived, Antonius Primus left Rome forever and retired to his estates in Tolosa.
Fields goes on to critique the battle of second Cremona and the ultimate victor of the struggles of AD69, Vespasian, and provides black and white images of sculpture, coins, grave reliefs and the modern day countryside around Cremona. He also adds eleven appendices covering everything from legionary weapons and food to the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus. These provide interesting information although only obliquely related to the events told in the books' nine chapters.
Fields scholarship is solid. I just found some of his opinions somewhat abrasive. But then, maybe I'm just a closet romantic after all!
After reading the above paragraph along with others disparaging academia and claiming much of what is written about Rome has been composed by "dewey-eyed Western romantics" culpable of "Eurocentric cultural imperialism", I wondered why this former Royal Marine turned classicist even bothered to write the book.
I never thought of myself as a "dewey-eyed Western romantic", although I do feel there is much to admire in Roman civilization. On the other hand I am well aware of the brutal nature of ancient warfare and some of the less savory aspects of life under Roman rule. So I hope I examine Roman history through a relatively unbiased lens and it is from this viewpoint that I continued to read Fields' account of this tumultuous year.
Fields recounts the events of the Year of the Four Emperors as viewed by Tacitus, one of our most reliable ancient sources, but, unfortunately, couples his research with condescending asides about the Romans as a people.
"As a race they were passionately unpretentious, enormously addicted to pattern, with a faculty beyond all other people of ignoring their neighbours, their surroundings, or in the last resort, themselves. Because the Romans were the worst kind of liberty takers, violence was acceptable, the unwilling cajoled and the openly hostile duly crushed, harshness and hatred for 'the Other' was actively encouraged, moderation and magnanimity was for the weak." - Nic Fields, AD69: Emperors, Army and Anarchy
Fortunately, I was already familiar with most of the main events of this period after reading Douglas Jackson's excellent novel "Sword of Rome." I even got a glimpse of life in Rome itself during the Year of the Four Emperors in Kate Quinn's "Daughters of Rome". But I have continued to be puzzled why Vespasian did not make his move to grasp the purple until Vitellius wrested the throne from the blood-stained hands of Otho. Vespasian supported Galba as Nero's successor and, even though Otho ultimately ordered the assassination of Galba, Vespasian appeared to make no protest about that either. So what was it about Vitellius that was so repugnant to Vespasian? I hoped Fields might share some light on this.
Fields points out that, according to Tacitus, there were rumors Galba intended to adopt Titus.
"Titus Vespasian had been sent from Judaea by his father while Galba still lived, and alleged as a reason for his journey the homage due to the Emperor, and his age, which now qualified him to compete for office. But the vulgar, ever eager to invent, had spread the report that he was sent for to be adopted. The advanced years and childless condition of the Emperor furnished matter for such gossip, and the country never can refrain from naming many persons until one be chosen. The report gained the more credit from the genius of Titus himself, equal as it was to the most exalted fortune, from the mingled beauty and majesty of his countenance, from the prosperous fortunes of Vespasian, from the prophetic responses of oracles, and even from accidental occurrences which, in the general disposition to belief, were accepted as omens." - Tacitus, The Histories, Book II.1
But Tacitus tells us Titus only made it as far as Corinth where he received the news of Galba's assassination.
"At Corinth, the capital of Achaia, he received positive information of the death of Galba, and found men who spoke confidently of the revolt of Vitellius and of the fact of war. In the anxiety of his mind, he sent a few of his friends, and carefully surveyed his position from both points of view. He considered that if he should proceed to Rome, he should get no thanks for a civility intended for another, while his person would be a hostage in the hands either of Vitellius or of Otho..." - Tacitus, The Histories, Book II.1
Fields points out that that Titus decides to return to his father and stops off in Cyprus to visit the temple of Aphrodite at Paphos. There Titus consults the oracle and the omens were pronounced as favorable. Even the high priest, Sostratos, assured Titus of his great destiny in a private interview. So Fields thinks this was the beginning of Flavian aspirations for the throne.
However, if we examine Tacitus a little more closely, we find Tacitus describes Titus' ruminations about the consequences of failing to offer support to whomever would end up on top in Rome while he is still in Corinth and speculates about "father joining the party". This would lead me to conclude that Vespasian was already considering entering the fray before Titus even left Judea and may not have felt any loyalty to Otho or Vitellius even though the eastern legions had sworn loyalty to Otho by the time Titus got back.
So, why Vespasian and not Caius Lucius Mucianus, legate governor of Syria, or Tiberius Julius Alexander, prefect of Egypt?
Fields tells us the childless senator Mucianus despised Vespasian but was a close friend of Titus, finding the young man easy-going and congenial (much as Galba had). Furthermore, although Mucianus had leadership gifts, he lacked the will to reach for the throne himself. Apparently, Alexander didn't either as he quickly switched sides as well and hailed Vespasian emperor. Whether this was from lack of will or lack of courage, Fields does not speculate, but points out even Vespasian realized he was being offered an opportunity that may look like a compliment but was, in reality, a possible death sentence. Still Vespasian agreed to undertake the task and the three conspired to starve Rome of grain while Mucianus marched towards Italy with components of many of his Syrian legions via Asia Minor and Thrace. They even arranged for a mock revolt of the Batavi at the mouth of the Rhine.
As it turns out, though, Rome didn't get an opportunity to starve because Fields tells us Marcus, Antonius Primus, a gifted commander and tough fighting legate of the recently formed Legio VII Galbiana, took the initiative with the Danube legions, attacking and routing the Vitellians near Cremona, the original site of the victory of the Vitellians over the Othonians.
This is the part of the book I found most fascinating as I was unaware of the exploits of Antonius Primus who ended up recapturing Rome for the Flavians yet was not rewarded with any prestigious position by Vespasian or any of the other Flavian emperors.
"In an impressive display of rapid marching, his [Antonius Primus] rush down Italy echoed the approach of his Olympian namesake, Marcus Antonius, by relying on speed and decisiveness to surprise the enemy. Despite the dark depths of winter fast approaching, he took advantage of the flight of the Vitellians to cross the snows of the Apennines, for it was now the month of December." - Nic Fields, AD69: Emperors, Army and Anarchy
Rather than the Olympian namesake, I thought Antonius Primus' valiant dash sounded more like Julius Caesar!
But, despite the execution of Vitellius and many of his followers and the power vacuum that created, the patrician class would probably not accept someone with the obscure origins of Antonius Primus, a native of Tolosa, in any permanent imperial position.
"Like Achilles, he was a man who fitted uneasily, if at all, into a chain of command. The embodiment of ferocity, a fierce restless warrior, he could not, or would not, march in step. There are many ways to lead an army. Being a warrior is one way and not necessarily the best." - Nic Fields, AD69: Emperors, Army and Anarchy
Although Antonius Primus was granted the rank of consul by the Senate, when the high born Mucianus finally arrived, Antonius Primus left Rome forever and retired to his estates in Tolosa.
Fields goes on to critique the battle of second Cremona and the ultimate victor of the struggles of AD69, Vespasian, and provides black and white images of sculpture, coins, grave reliefs and the modern day countryside around Cremona. He also adds eleven appendices covering everything from legionary weapons and food to the cult of Jupiter Dolichenus. These provide interesting information although only obliquely related to the events told in the books' nine chapters.
Fields scholarship is solid. I just found some of his opinions somewhat abrasive. But then, maybe I'm just a closet romantic after all!
September 13, 2014
A fascinating book about one of the more turbulent times during the Roman Empire. Nero committed suicide (under extreme circumstances) in 68 AD. In 69 AD, four different emperors ruled--all from the provinces and the army. Who sat in power had nothing to do with being a descendant of Augustus. It was who could use his legions best in securing the throne.
The four who (mostly) served for a short period of time--Galba, Otho, Vetelluis, and--finally--Vespasianus. The latter served for ten years, reintroducing some degree of stability "at the top." The book depicts the breakdown of stability and the power of leading legions. Legitimacy was an issue.
Vespasianus, as noted, introduced stability. After him, rulers included his sons Titus and Domitianus (a pretty bad ruler), and--then--Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius.
But this book is about the chaos of 69 AD. The story is told pretty well, but the actual narrative is only 99 pages long, rather brief. Sometimes, the litany of different names becomes a bit confusing to the reader.
But there are some very nice add ons--such as the roster of all legions on pages xiii-xiv, the location of the legions (page xvi), maps of the battles at Cremona (pages xvii-xviii). The book concludes with 11 appendices, featuring discussions of the Roman army, imperial succession, and so on. Given the importance of the legions as king makers in this volume, it might have been useful to incorporate some/much of this material into the actual narrative rather than relegating the information to appendices.
At any rate, a useful volume on a turbulent time for Rome.
The four who (mostly) served for a short period of time--Galba, Otho, Vetelluis, and--finally--Vespasianus. The latter served for ten years, reintroducing some degree of stability "at the top." The book depicts the breakdown of stability and the power of leading legions. Legitimacy was an issue.
Vespasianus, as noted, introduced stability. After him, rulers included his sons Titus and Domitianus (a pretty bad ruler), and--then--Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, and Antoninus Pius.
But this book is about the chaos of 69 AD. The story is told pretty well, but the actual narrative is only 99 pages long, rather brief. Sometimes, the litany of different names becomes a bit confusing to the reader.
But there are some very nice add ons--such as the roster of all legions on pages xiii-xiv, the location of the legions (page xvi), maps of the battles at Cremona (pages xvii-xviii). The book concludes with 11 appendices, featuring discussions of the Roman army, imperial succession, and so on. Given the importance of the legions as king makers in this volume, it might have been useful to incorporate some/much of this material into the actual narrative rather than relegating the information to appendices.
At any rate, a useful volume on a turbulent time for Rome.
January 20, 2024
A deep dive into the Year of Four Emperors, examining the background that lead to the start of the year of civil wars, the lives of all the men who claimed the title of emperor, their mistakes, the legions that helped them in - and out - of power, as well as a look at the sources, and a reminder from the narrator throughout that its easy with hindsight to see patterns and inevitability that very much would not have been seen by those living through it.
February 1, 2019
A book packed with information. Full of detail all the way from the end of Nero (June 68) to the accession of Vespasian (October 69) and loads of other stuff too.
Then a series of really informative appendices about military life and equipment and other topics.
The author is rather opinionated and is happy to pass on his thoughts about politicians and military tactics as well as the facts.
Then a series of really informative appendices about military life and equipment and other topics.
The author is rather opinionated and is happy to pass on his thoughts about politicians and military tactics as well as the facts.
Read
December 20, 2022Nic Fields has a lively writing style, and certainly infuses his views throughout the book. I would like to read more of his well-researched books, but they need not be on the top of my to-read stack.
August 4, 2021
A very good overview of the year of the four emperors. Fields does an excellent job of providing details!
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews