Diplomatic Responses To Augustus Ceremony

TRAJANIC RESPONSES TO AUGUSTAN DIPLOMACY: THE DENIGRATION OF DIPLOMATIC HOSTAGES IN THE EARLY SECOND CENTURY, CE

Joel Allen

Assistant Professor of History and Classics

Ohio University

Students of Augustan culture have long noted the emperor’s interest in portraying his accomplishments in international relations in as positive a light as possible, regardless of the truth. As the modern arguments go, the Roman writers and artists who were working in the sorts of media that had a public audience – sculptors, minters, geographers, poets, historians – magnified Augustus’ generally illusory gains in geopolitics by deploying images of Augustus as being, at one time, both a military conqueror on the world stage and a benign, avuncular kind of

Critical historians such as Tacitus and Dio – and Suetonius, if he may be included in that category – provide evidence to today’s historians that the picture may not have been so rosy. In his record of Augustus’ funeral, Tacitus writes of the debate concerning the merits of empire and of a single ruler; those opposed said that Augustus had stolen the consulship from the Senate, killed off citizens and redistributed their lands (Ann. 1.10). Ultimately it is these Roman writers, coming a century after Augustus, who are responsible for setting in motion our task of retrieving Augustus’ true nature. The purpose of this paper is not to re-tell the story of Augustus and the power of his images (to use Zanker’s now classic phrase), although some review and, possibly, new angles come in the arguments below. Instead, its ultimate objective is to visit a later period in Rome’s history – the early second century CE – and to examine how the Romans of that time viewed Augustus’ policy and public image. What did the later Romans themselves think of Augustus and his foreign policy, long before we in the 21st century had a crack at filling in the blanks and applying our own theoretical

The taking of hostages in a diplomatic context – treaty negotiations, embassies, etc. – was common in the international relations of the ancient Mediterranean. As is well-known, it lacked the coercive connotation of blackmail and an unfair fight, which characterizes modern conceptions of the practice. Hostages (in Greek, Ómhroi; in Latin, obsides) typically were treated well and with respect; they were practically sacrosanct among their hosts in much the same way as ambassadors. There was a pattern of hostage-taking that was evident in the Republic (as well as in the Hellenistic East) by the time of Augustus’ accession. Following a treaty or other kind of diplomatic agreement, a group of male adolescents of the weaker state’s aristocracy would be transferred to the possession of the victors. The treaty would usually spell out the length of their stay abroad and sometimes link their detention to the regular payment of tribute on the part of the defeated. The hostages would usually be housed with senatorial families and would be free to move about the city and participate in banquets, hunting excursions, religious festivals, and other public activities. Even when the relationship between the states deteriorated, the hostages continued to