4 However, the comparisons that could be drawn between the new ruling family and the Julio-Claudians were undeniably striking, with the example of Augustus providing the political model at which the Flavians might aim: both imperial families arose from civil conflict, established dynasties and were charged with the political, social and moral consolidation of the state. 2 The question mark over their name was compounded by the fact that the new imperial family had emerged out of the chaos of the civil war, which served to emphasise their military, rather than political, connections. Their lack of prestigious family heritage and fortune meant that Vespasian and his sons were initially characterised rather by who they were not, rather than who they were 3 their dynasty was created in the military camps of the East and their consolidation of power was based upon their popularity with the soldiers that inhabited them, rather than with the senatorial elite in Rome. 1 The Flavians represented a break away from the traditional ruling order, which had endured for almost a century by the year 69, leading to questions of plausibility and legitimacy. For the extent of Vespasian’s imitatio Augusti, see Rosso 2009, p. 209-242.ġWhen Vespasian was acclaimed emperor by his troops on 1 st July 69 CE it marked the beginning of a new era in imperial Rome. Vespasian and his sons could not claim descent from the Julio-Claudian line and the humble origins of the Sabine gens Flavia revealed a certain ignobilitas that was at odds with the aristocratic ancestry that linked – socially and politically – many of the leading families of Rome. However, the inscription from the lost Arch of Titus in the Circus Maximus arguably contributes more to our understanding of how the Flavian dynasty themselves perceived their victory, and how they used it to advertise their military might and establish their rule as the rightful heirs to the Augustan legacy of conquest and dominion. This article considers the lost Arch of Titus and its inscription, and its role in the establishment of the Flavian legacy in Rome. It argues that the text must be read in conjunction with the other triumphal monuments of Vespasian and Titus – the Colosseum, Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum and the Temple of Peace – whose reality, visibility and prominence collectively gave strength to the claim that the lost Arch commemorated: the exceptional nature of the Roman victory in Jerusalem. The Arch of Titus in the Roman Forum has long been held as the definitive illustration of Rome’s conquest of Judaea and the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. The relief decoration of the plundering of the Temple, Titus’s triumphal journey into Rome and his eventual apotheosis have become synonymous with our knowledge of events and the devastation wrought upon the city.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |