question for historians - germanicus and roman names

hi all of you historians
here is a question with no answer in ancient books
as you know the roman name is divided - private name (publius) , clan name (cornelius) , family name (scipio) and sometimes nickname (africanus)
there were only several private names in rome - gaius , publius , marcus , decimus , manius , sextus , servius , mamercus , lucius , kaeso , geneus/gnaeius , titus , tiberius and maybe 1 or 2 more
in 42 bce there was a roman praetor called tiberius claudius nero , he had 2 sons - tiberius claudius nero (the future emperor) and ... anomaly .. nero claudius drusus where the hell his private name gone ???
drusus's son was the famous germanicus , he to did not have a private name
this is the first time in roman history
so , what was the private name of germanicus (not drusus , not claudius , not nero , not caesar and certainly not germanicus !!!)

:book: ~:confused: :book: ~:confused: :book: ~:confused: :furious3:

Germanicus was given the name Nero Claudius Drusus at birth, the same as his father. The honorific "Germanicus" was added at his father's death to commemorate the father's victories in Germany.

They were a branch of the Claudii family, thus Germanicus's private name was Nero.

Carinus

but nero was a family name for centuries , as i explained
nero was not a private name , there were no nero's before drusus as a private name
the claudii nerones were only a tiberius or appius , check it in the books
:book:

Might the guy be adopted? IIRC the names were shuffled about a bit if you were adopted.

Perhaps the private name wasn't written down? If someone is famous enough his contemporaries don't need all his names, they know who you're talking about anyway.

Or the records have been damaged? It's been a few centuries since.

No, he wasn't adopted. What's the problem? Just think Nero Wolfe.

Carinus

My knowledge is very rusty, but what's wrong with Drusus as a private name?

As for Germanicus, I thought we didn't know what his real name was, I thought Tactius and Suetonius always referred to him by the honorific.

Don't forget that Augustus took that name, eventhough it was more of a title, he even named himself Imperator. That is equal to be given the name of General now. So when we talk about the imperial families the traditional nameconventions are not always useable.

As caesar44 said, Roman names could include honorifics and nicknames (eg, Augustus, Germanicus, Britannicus and Caligula).

And Augustus didn't name himself Imperator, he was awarded it by the Senate on several occasions (in the same way as many romans before him). But it would have been just like a title or a rank, it wouldn't affect his actual name.

so i think drusus and germanicus had a first name (possibly tiberius) but because everybody knew them as drusus and germanicus these first names sliped away from suetonius , tacitus and dio cassius books
:book:

i think so, i'll check my books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epistolary Richard

As caesar44 said, Roman names could include honorifics and nicknames (eg, Augustus, Germanicus, Britannicus and Caligula).

And Augustus didn't name himself Imperator, he was awarded it by the Senate on several occasions (in the same way as many romans before him). But it would have been just like a title or a rank, it wouldn't affect his actual name.

---

Actually, differently from all else, he gained it as a name. All others had it as a title.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Actually, differently from all else, he gained it as a name. All others had it as a title.

---

Yep, you're quite right. I found the following progress of Augustus' name on this website:

Quote:

---

23 September 63 BCE: Caius Octavius
8 May 44: Caius Julius Caesar
(Historians often call him Octavianus, a title he never used.)
November 40: Imperator Caesar Divi filius
16 January 27: Imperator Caesar Divi filius Augustus

---

Name or title? I thought the rest of the emperors claimed they were adopted into the imperial family? If so they'd have a right to the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

Name or title? I thought the rest of the emperors claimed they were adopted into the imperial family? If so they'd have a right to the name.

---

Not all were part of the family directly. Some were even far from it. Especially in the first century not many were related.

Claudius was 'merely' Caligula's father in law, Vespasian was a general, so was Ortho and I think the two others from 'the year of the four emperors', or they were governors. Septimius Severus was a gorvernor in Brittannia.
Of course when they entered Rome and took the power they needed something to claim the power as rightful heirs, so a number of good and bad excuses were put forth. Mostly the excuses were only there for show as the men were backed because they promised either a lot of things for the public and/or bribed the Praetorians and army heavily.

I think the name probably got dropped... Like Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus was often referred to as plain "Scipio Africanus". Publius Rutilius Rufus was usually called Rutilius Rufus. Not expunged or anything, but everyone probably just referred to him as that until it stuck.

i agree
so the question has no answer

by the way claudius was germanicus's brother and drusus's son
his mother was antonia the daughter of antonius and octavia the sister of augustus
:book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

Not all were part of the family directly. Some were even far from it. Especially in the first century not many were related.

---

Indeed, of all the emperors of the first century, there was only one occasion where an emperor passed on the title to his biological son, Vespasian to Titus.

After all, there was no precedent why the title should be hereditary. The Julio-Claudians tended to be from just a couple of families who were intermarrying, so there was normally some familial connection there.

Galba, Otho, Vitellius and Vespasian were just generals. Titus passed it on to his brother, Domitian. His successor, Nerva, was a senator and Trajan was another general.

the fact is that when an emperor had a son , the son inherited the father
augustus had no sons
tiberius had no sons when he died
caligula had no sons
claudius had no sons when he died
nero had no sons
galba had no sons when he died
otho had no sons
vitelius had a son but he himself lost the empire
vespasian had a son - the emperor titus
titus had no sons
domitian had no sons when he died
nerva had no sons
trajan had no sons when he died
hadrian had no sons
pius had no sons when he died
eurelius had a son - the emperor comodus
comodus han no sons
and so on
so if the emperor had a son he(the son) became emperor - simple as that
:book:

They could always adopt. A lot of the Emperors had no biological connection Augustus or eachother. A lot of them were adopted.

correct
but again just if there was no biolo' son

I'm not sure I agree with this at all.

I mean Otho had Galba lynched in the middle of Rome, you're not seriously saying that one of Galba's sons (if he had any) could have marched from Spain and asked Otho for his inheritance?

And off the top of my head didn't Tiberius have Gemellus and Claudius have Britannicus? Or did they not survive their fathers?

there was a simple formula
the emperor want his son to succeed him , so
if the emperor died naturally and he had a son , the son took the empire like vespasian-titus , eurelius-comudus , severus-caracala and so on
if the emperor died with out a son there were 2 ways - an adoptive son took the empire (claudius-nero , nerva-trajan , trajan hadrianus and so on) or the senate proclaimed an emperor (caligula-claudius , nero-galba , domitian-nerva)
now if the emperor was killed , certainly his son was 0 , nada , o*1'000 , noting , no one ................................dead !!
so if galba had a son , o he was very likely caput
thats it
:book:

When Tiberius died a natural death, he named his biological grandson Gemellus as his co-heir (with Caligula). Caligula shortly after had Gemellus killed.

When Claudius died a 'natural' death (though we believe him to be poisoned) he had a biological son Britannicus, however it was his adopted son Nero who had been marked out as his successor. Nero shortly after had Britannicus killed.

So emperors could die quietly with biological sons or grandsons and still be succeeded by adopted sons.

I think you're ignoring the very real situation that in ancient Rome that the imperial throne would pass to whomever had the strength, position and the influence to take it. There were only three examples of the biological son inheriting in the first 250 years and 20 transfers of power and at least two examples in the first 100 years and 4 transfers of power where the biological offspring were ignored in favour of other candidates.

as i wrote
90 % of the emperors did not have a son when they died
so naturally most of the emperors were not sons of the previous emperor
the tiberius caligula is not a case because as you said he was a grandson
claudius wrote a will naming nero and britanicus as co emperors and that proves my point that a natural sons were to succussed the empire , yes , exactly as a simple kingdom
eurelius , the best of the 5 good emperors choose his son a the heir and did not adopt one
why do you think a childless emperor adopted a son ? because of the practice of father-son
several kings in england were not the sons of their pre' , that makes the english system not a father-son system ??
:book:

*sigh*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

as i wrote
90 % of the emperors did not have a son when they died

---

So perhaps the more interesting question is how come all these staggeringly powerful men didn't manage to have a son to survive them? ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

the tiberius caligula is not a case because as you said he was a grandson

---

If you're trying to argue that the principate was inheritable going down the male line then it is irrelevant that Gemellus was a grandson rather than a son because he was still the 'proper' biological heir under this argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

claudius wrote a will naming nero and britanicus as co emperors

---

I know of no record saying that he did so. Where do you know this from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

and that proves my point that a natural sons were to succussed the empire , yes , exactly as a simple kingdom

---

Even if it did, it doesn't prove your point. Of the first twenty emperors, you have given two examples of emperors who were the biological sons of their predecessors, I have given two examples - that I can recall off the top of my head - where the biological son (or grandson) was ignored in favour of another candidate.

In another example, one of the reasons Nerva was chosen to be emperor was because he had no children, because the principate was not intended to be a hereditary possession.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

why do you think a childless emperor adopted a son ?

---

Because that was the means by which an emperor designated his heir to the throne, it does not mean that if you are already the emperor's son you automatically are the heir to the throne.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

several kings in england were not the sons of their pre' , that makes the english system not a father-son system ??

---

Well, do a compare and contrast shall we?

After William I, of the subsequent ten kings, nine of them were the biological son of a former king (and the one who wasn't, Stephen, was Henry I's biological nephew).

In Rome after Augustus, of the subsequent ten emperors, two of them were the biological sons of a former emperor, of the twenty emperors after augustus, four of them were the biological sons of former emperors.

suetonius - claudius 54
the historian suggest that agripina killed claudius because his will
now , many modern historians argue (with common cense) that agripina had to kill claudius because he wrote in the will that britanicus was his heir
further , tacitus annales 13 14 - agripina herself claimed that britanicus was the true heir !!!!!!
and again and again , when there was a bio' son the senate proclaimed him as emperor , by the way britanicus was under age in 54 - don't forget that (gemelus to in 37)
give me one example of a son that was removed by the father
the case of nerva proves my point - the senate knew that if it choose an emperor with a son , this son will be the next emperor
why do you think that galba took the name caesar ? because he wanted to create a line with the julio claudians !!
there was a rule in rome - an emperor without a son was a lame duck he did not have the ability to create a dynasty , so he adopted a son
even galba adopted a son in 69 - piso ! why he did that ? because everyone knew that his reign was temporary , piso was killed to cut the new dynasty !
hadrian ordered antoninus to adopt a son , why ? because antoninus did not have sons and he (hadrian) wanted to established a dynasty
there are many moro examples
:book:

it is strange that i named my saves germanicus,without knowing or hearing this name ever. :book:
but i think there are far too litle names.

Sorry if this was off-topic. :embarassed:

As someone who actually studied Roman history, i must disagree with some of the statements of caesar44.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

as i wrote
90 % of the emperors did not have a son when they died
so naturally most of the emperors were not sons of the previous emperor
the tiberius caligula is not a case because as you said he was a grandson
claudius wrote a will naming nero and britanicus as co emperors and that proves my point that a natural sons were to succussed the empire , yes , exactly as a simple kingdom
eurelius , the best of the 5 good emperors choose his son a the heir and did not adopt one
why do you think a childless emperor adopted a son ? because of the practice of father-son
several kings in england were not the sons of their pre' , that makes the english system not a father-son system ??
:book:

---

How many times must historians point out that Rome DID NOT have a consitution, Rome DID NOT and COULD NOT have the practice of father-son succession for the Emperors because there was NO POSITION FOR THE HEIR TO SUCCEED TO. In Rome, there was NO position of Emperor until much much later. The fact is, the SUCCESSOR inherited the wealth of the Emperor, and thus gained huge auctoritas through the Patron-client system. BUT, there was NO DIRECT LINE OF SUCCESSION. Whoever became the next emperor was the person who inherited the FORTUNE of the old emperor, since POWER in rome could not be passed down in a will, it could only be conferred by the Senate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

suetonius - claudius 54
the historian suggest that agripina killed claudius because his will
now , many modern historians argue (with common cense) that agripina had to kill claudius because he wrote in the will that britanicus was his heir
further , tacitus annales 13 14 - agripina herself claimed that britanicus was the true heir !!!!!!
and again and again , when there was a bio' son the senate proclaimed him as emperor , by the way britanicus was under age in 54 - don't forget that (gemelus to in 37)
give me one example of a son that was removed by the father
the case of nerva proves my point - the senate knew that if it choose an emperor with a son , this son will be the next emperor
why do you think that galba took the name caesar ? because he wanted to create a line with the julio claudians !!
there was a rule in rome - an emperor without a son was a lame duck he did not have the ability to create a dynasty , so he adopted a son
even galba adopted a son in 69 - piso ! why he did that ? because everyone knew that his reign was temporary , piso was killed to cut the new dynasty !
hadrian ordered antoninus to adopt a son , why ? because antoninus did not have sons and he (hadrian) wanted to established a dynasty
there are many moro examples
:book:

---

Galba's reign was NOT temporary, but he originally had the support of the PG, the Senate and a few of the Governors within the Empire. However, HIS POLICIES condemned him him to die. Galba took the name Caesar because the name of Caesar STILL HAD PRESTIGE (the name was the main factor which had kept the Julio-Claduain emperors in power so long) especially with the army (who were the real power in the Empire). However, this eventuated to nothing because he did several HUGE political blunders. His choice of adoption was stupid for one thing (since it alienated one of his biggest supporters, Otho), since he had chosen Piso on blood (piso had breeding - was descended from some of the great Republican families, as was Galba. However, he had NO standing whatsoever with the army or the Senate, he was literally a nobody with great ancestors). What Galba had intended to try and secure his reign simply condemned him to death (Galba had adopted Piso in response to the Vitellius Revolt in Upper/Lower Germany. However, Otho led the Praetorians to revolt against Galba not long after, and both Piso and Galba perished). Piso was NOT "cut" for the new dynasty at all, but rather he was removed to allow Otho to take power for himself, NOT A DYNASTY.


The case of Nerva was simple. At that stage, after the death of Domitian, there was NO successor since Domitian was the last of the Flavian family. Thus, the Senate proclaimed Nerva emperor as he was the last member of one of the great Republican families. However, Nerva's reign was complicated by a revolt of the Praetorian Guard (who loved Domitian. you would too if someone gave you a pay rise) and was forced to obey the Praetorians (he lost auctoritas). Trajan was adopted because he was from a relatively unknown family BUT he had auctoritas from his military achievements (and so was popular with the army) as well as his temperment (popular with Senate), which cemented Nerva's reign in place until he died. This was a POLITICAL maneuvre, since Nerva did not have enough standing to hold the empire under his control without either the Army revolting (who had loved Domitian) or the Senate revolting (who had hated Domitian, but Nerva was forced to obey the Praetorians and punish those who killed the tyrant Domitian). Simply, Nerva did not ADOPT Trajan to form a dynasty. Trajan was adopted in order to cement the rule of Nerva into position.

I think there's no one answer to the question of succession. At least 3 factors influenced the choice of emperor.

The first was the old emperor. Being emperor of Rome was a very tough job, and emperors generally selected their prefered candidate early and groomed him for the role.

Because of this, biological sons tended to be first in line, not because it was set out as law, but because the emperor would have time and opportunity to groom him.

Beside, Rome still placed a great amount of emphasis on bloodline (stiff necked patricians and all).

However, all too often the guy who had been groomed to become emperor died, so then the emperor had to scramble for a replacement.

A couple of emperors down the line, another force entered the picture - the army. So now there was the added question of who the army favoured, rather than the old question of who the outgoing emperor favoured.

However, even that wasn't enough, because the Praetorian Guard of Rome tended to have their own favourite candidate for emperor as well.

So I don't think there was one single policy that governed succession.

i have never said that rome had a constitution but as you know england has no cont' , so england ia an anarchy ? no it is democracy by consent !
in rome there was a very strong idea of inheritance , why do you think the senate accepted gaius julius caesar germanicus as the new emperor in 37 , not because his age (only 25) , not because his political experience (he had none) , not because his military expe' (he had none) - just because he was a member of the julio claudian dynasty !! yes a dynasty
in republican rome men were chosen as consuls just because they had the name , this is aristocracy , nobility
until now in this thread there was no example of a biolo' son that was removed from taking the empire by his father or that the senate did not recognized him as the successor
i have pointed to the facts , not to the consti' situation
the simple thing to say is that imperial rome was not a father-son system , you should read the books and see - the father-son system was there ! and every time that a son (biol' or adopted) was not the successor it was because the dynasty fall
nero was the last of the julio claudians and when he killed himself the dynasty fall - what is the julio claudians concept if not a dynasty ?
that is the case in 96 , 192 , 235 and so on
in 217 died caracala and he had no sons , did the dynasty fall ? no !! in 218 came heliogabalus to succeed macrinus just because he had the name severus
and the severians recognized by all (senate people and army) as the rightful emperors since 193
again , we all know that rome was not a kingdom but to say this is the simple thing to say
look in the facts
heil caesar !!!
:book:

This thread has gone way off its original topic and as I see the point of contention as being a matter of opinion rather than one of fact that can be resolved I’m going to draw a line under my involvement and make my last post in this thread.

I’m first going to answer some of the points raised in the previous posts, and then I’m going to conclude my position.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

so england ia an anarchy ? no it is democracy by consent !

---

England is not a democracy, Britain is a constitutional monarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

as you know england has no cont'

---

Britain _does_ have a constitution (that’s why we have Constitutional Law), it’s just not a written constitution like that of the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

you should read the books and see

---

I’ve studied ancient history, I’ve read Suetonius (tabloid journalist), I’ve read Tacitus (too full of himself), I’ve even read some Dio Cassius. I think, and this goes out to Shadar as well, that it’s quite clear from this discussion that we have all studied Roman history.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

by the way britanicus was under age in 54

---

Britannicus was thirteen when Claudius died, exactly the same age as Nero had been when he achieved his seniority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

(gemelus to in 37)

---

Gemellus was eighteen when Tiberius died, the supposed only reason he had not been granted his toga virilis (normally granted at fourteen) is that he was deliberately being held back in order for Caligula to succeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

now , many modern historians argue (with common cense) that agripina had to kill claudius because he wrote in the will that britanicus was his heir
further , tacitus annales 13 14 - agripina herself claimed that britanicus was the true heir !!!!!!

---

And yet Britannicus did _not_ become the emperor, this is therefore an example against your hypothesis that if the emperor died peacefully his biological heir became the new emperor.

To conclude:
caesar44 you are of the opinion, and it is obviously an well-read opinion, that the Imperial throne was hereditary in a similar manner to a monarchy, in that it was passed down through the male line. It is my opinion that it was not, rather it was taken by the individual with the greatest prestige, influence and power at the time of transition.

There are numerous references that indicate that the Principate was never intended to be hereditary, it was _not_ supposed to be like a monarchy (the Romans having a famous hatred for kings).

This does not mean that the emperor was powerless in the choice of his successor. Quite the contrary, as the ‘First Citizen’ of Rome and had immense influence and could ‘nominate’ the individual that he wished to succeed him. This nomination would normally be done by means of adoption.

This does not mean that the future emperor _had_ to be the emperor’s son to succeed him, rather it was a practical measure to pass on the emperor’s estates and wealth that were at the root of his power.

There was no system of biological inheritance in the Roman principate, rather it was one of nomination or usurpation.
:bow:

ok
:book: ~:cheers: