Salah

Julius Bassianus was born the son of Septimius Severus in 186 AD, and, under the name of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, became emperor with his brother Geta in 211. He and his brother intensely hated each other, and "Caracalla" (so named for the Celtic cloak he wore during his wars in Germany) ended up killing Geta and his supporters.

Geta was the first of many victims - other prominent Romans were executed, bloody wars were waged in Parthia and Germania, and worst of all, all the men of Alexandria were executed on account of a few immature jokes they had made about the Emperor.

Caracalla was bloodthirsty and supposedly psychotic, and has been listed alongside Caligula, Nero, and Domitian as one of Rome's worst emperors.

Personally, I beg to differ.

Looking at him from a different angle, we see a deeply religious and sensitive man, intelligent, inventive, and skilled as both a leader and a soldier. I think Caracalla was more chauvanistic, egotistical, and perhaps even insecure than he was a psychopathic monster.

Caracalla gave soldiers and increase in pay and more legal rights. Now some cynically view this as an attempt to buy their loyalty, but IMO he already had it. The army had won the throne for his father, and had shown great loyalty to the whole Severan family. A year after Caracalla's death, the army of Syria revolted against his successor just so they could put a young boy (Elagabalus) who was related to Caracalla on the throne.

Caracalla marched on foot with his soldiers. He wore his hair long and wore a Gaulish cloak (caracallus), and at the same rations they did. He enjoyed their loyalty and devotion, and apparently formed several new military units. He conducted a unique experiment in Greece, forming a Roman version of the ancient Makedonian phalanx. He also raised a unit of crack soldiers - probably cavalrymen - that he called his "Scythians".

Caracalla also initiated a big change in civilian society - with his Constituio Antoniniana in 212, he granted full rights of Roman citizenship to every free person living in the Empire. Cassius Dio cynically remarks that he did this to make it seem he was honoring his people, but his motive was in fact to gain more taxpayers. Be this as it may, his Edict undoubtedly won him a lot of public support.

Caracalla was a deeply religious man. He consulted the priests of Grannus when he was campaigning in Germania, he spent the night at the Temple of Asceplius in Pergamum, and after his bloody entry into Alexandria he indulged in its intellectual culture. In Rome he owned an extensive library - not exactly a common trait in brutish madmen, I must point out.

Another great acheivement of Caracalla's reign was the construction of the largest bath-house in Rome. Construction on Caracalla's Baths actually outlived Caracalla himself, finally being finished in the 220s under Severus Alexander. It was and remains Caracalla's huge physical mark on Rome.

Let us also remember that our best and most intimate source on Caracalla - Cassius Dio - was extremely hostile towards him. Dio, writing during the reign of Severus Alexander, may have been demonizing Caracalla to make the current ruler look better. Undoubtedly, he had his own agenda (as all historians do). Since we have no contemporary sources on Caracalla that are favorable toward him, it is impossible to form a balanced view.

I'm not suggesting that Caracalla was a great emperor, or even a good one. I'm just saying that - as a competent military man, a man of culture, and a man who made a deliberate attempt to improve the lot in life of the commoners in his Empire - I think he gets a partially undeserved bad rap.

Discuss.

sylla1

Dio was a great historian, but this remark (aside from being utterly biased) simply makes no sense; at the risk of overstating the obvious, not just the Roman citizens paid taxes; besides, any mighty autocratic Roman emperor could have taken as much money as he liked from any of his subjects (particularly those not protected [at least partially] by the rights of the full Roman citizenship).

Salah

"This was the reason why he made all the people in his empire Roman citizens; nominally he was honouring them, but his real purpose was to increase his revenues by this means, inasmuch as aliens did not have to pay most of these taxes"

These are Dio's own words (emphasis mine).

sylla1

Book LXXIX, Cp 9; I know. This text was quoted and commented in a recent related thread.

As you surely know, there was no balance of power that could have prevented Bassianus or any other Roman Emperor from taxing any of his subjects as much and in any way he liked, naturally without granting them the citizenship nor any other benefit.

That said, there is scarcely any hard evidence that the Roman non-citizens (freedmen or peregrini) may have lived in any fiscal paradise.

For one, just remember the fiscus judaicus, among many other.

Last but not least, it was probably also a particularly personal issue for Dio; his family (Greek) had been granted full Roman citizenship for more than two generations; the Constitutio Antoniniana essentially made worthless such privileges, in all likelihood earned by the family merits and a lot of hard work.

Salah

What then, do you think was Caracalla's motive with the Edict? If it did not stand to give him more revenue, I don't understand what else could have come from it. Was it just for the sake of propoganda, to earn the love of the lower classes?

sylla1

Propaganda was in all likelihood a quite relevant factor here (as overtly suggested by Dio himself); however, I'm not entirely satisfied by any of the explanations that I have read so far on this issue.

My main point is that the tax revenue is a nonsensical rationale here; it's clear that Dio wasn't able to imagine any better evil explanation for this edict.

Salah

I see your point

That said, what is your opinion of Caracalla? Do you agree with me that he has received more hostility from historians than warranted? And that perhaps he did some worthwhile things with his reign?

sylla1

Absolutely.

The guy had been an apt co-ruler of his father for some years.
In spite of his short age, he seems to have been an active and successful general on his own, and was seemingly mostly loved by his soldiers.
His fratricide was essentially Darwinian; eat or being eaten.
He was in all likelihood rather cruel, but there was hardly any other option for any military despot of the time.

The man clearly had ambitious projects; aside form the Constitutio Antoniniana and his building activities (like the famous Baths), he was reportedly planning to make a marriage link with the declining Arsacid dynasty, and he tried to intimately identify himself with the legendary Alexandros III of Macedon.

DIVUS IVLIVS

Excellent thread Salah.

I'll agree with the basic thrust of the thread thus far - the Constituio Antoniniana was far and away probably the most important part of Caracalla's legacy as Emperor.

Personally the question that I would ask about this action of his does not concern his motives in instituting such a reform were (though we seem to be fairly in agreeance thus far that they were based on more than tax revenue), but rather what sort of social effect it had on the Empire. Prior to Caracalla's issuing of the new law, exactly what was the ratio of citizens to non-citizens amongst the free population? It is my understanding that the number of citizens had been increasing at a varying rate of steadiness ever since the Late Republic period, as one of the results of the process of Romanization, helped along by the practice of planting colonies of citizens in the provinces. In other words, did Caracalla's law simply bring to its inevitable conclusion a long-standing trend in the Empire's population? Or did it bring about results that might not have occurred otherwise?

Salah

Sylla1, I would fully agree with your appraisal of Caracalla.

DIVUS IVLIVS, that is a fascinating question you raise! I am going to guess - admittedly, on the basis of just one piece of evidence - that the majority of people in the early 3rd Century still didn't have citizenship.

The reason why is, starting in the Severan period, we find a vast number of individuals - from emperors all the way down to soldiers and even slaves mentioned on inscriptions - who had the cognomens "Marcus Aurelius" or "Lucius Septimius". Both of these indicate that the individual's family received citizenship under an Antonine or Severan emperor. Considering Caracalla and possibly other Severan emperors adopted "Marcus Aurelius" as part of their imperial name, it's possible that all of these sudden 3rd Century Marci Aurelii also date to the Constitutio Antoniniana. It's a thought I guess.