There he mounted the rostrum and delivered an exultant address to the people of Rome. Antony managed to salvage a sector of his legions. Octavian, instead of pursuing Antony, decided to claim the vacant consulship for himself. When the Senate refused, Octavian lost no time in crossing the Rubicon—as Julius Caesar had before him—and marched on Rome with his legions.
The senators were powerless to resist, and had to give in to his demands. Devastated that the republican cause was now lost, Cicero withdrew from Rome to spend time in his rural retreats in southern Italy. From there he looked on powerlessly as Octavian, reconciled with Antony, eventually formed the Second Triumvirate with him and Lepidus. Not only did Cicero feel this was a step backward politically, it also posed a serious personal threat to his life. But at one point, Quintus retraced his steps in order to pick up provisions for the journey.
Betrayed by his slaves, Quintus was killed a few days later along with his son. Cicero, by now in Astura, was wracked with fear and doubt as to what he should do. He set off by boat but after just a few miles he amazed everyone by disembarking and walking toward Rome in order to return to his Astura villa and from there be taken by sea to his villa at Formiae.
There, he planned to rest and gather his strength before the final push onward to Greece. Too hesitant. Too late. The soldiers, led by Herennius, a centurion, and Popilius, a tribune, who had once been prosecuted for parricide and defended by Cicero, found his villa already abandoned but a slave called Philologus showed them which way Cicero had gone. They had no trouble catching up with him and performing their murderous deed.
Antony ordered that the severed head and right hand be displayed as trophies on the rostrum in the Forum so that all Rome could contemplate them. The rostrum was the very platform from which Cicero had been acclaimed by the crowds for his oratory. The force of arms had prevailed over the power of words. Founding Fathers. In Benjamin Franklin published M. All rights reserved. History Magazine. Lawyer, Statesman, Philosopher Cicero is remembered for his strong defense of the values of the Roman Republic and rejection of the tyranny he believed Julius Caesar, and then Mark Antony, embodied.
Bust from the Uffizi Gallery, Florence. Dire Warnings. Attacking Antony. Please be respectful of copyright. Unauthorized use is prohibited. A Long Legacy. Share Tweet Email. Read This Next Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London. Animals Wild Cities Wild parakeets have taken a liking to London Love them or hate them, there's no denying their growing numbers have added an explosion of color to the city's streets.
India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big. Environment Planet Possible India bets its energy future on solar—in ways both small and big Grassroots efforts are bringing solar panels to rural villages without electricity, while massive solar arrays are being built across the country.
He would do so as a novus homo, new man, a term which signified that his family did not come from the ruling class. Cicero served briefly in the military before turning to a career in law. He tried his first case in 81 B. Marriage at age 27 into a wealthy family brought him the necessary funds to continue to rise. After he wed in 79 B. He was elected quaestor in 75, praetor in 66, and consul in 63, the highest political office in the republic.
Cicero was one of the youngest ever to reach that high office. Wielders of imperium, Roman authority, consuls held executive power in the republic. There were two consuls who each served a one-year term.
They held equal power as political and military heads of state. Consuls controlled the army, presided over the Senate, and proposed legislation. Legislative authority rested with assemblies, most notably the Comitia Centuriata. Plebeians could belong to this body, whose powers included electing officials, enacting laws, and declarations of war and peace.
In the same year Cicero clinched the consulship, he exposed and defeated a rebellion led by a political opponent, Catiline. The plot called for assassinations and burning the city itself. After the plot had been exposed, Catiline escaped. Five of his conspirators were caught, however, and Cicero advocated for their immediate execution, without trial. Most senators agreed with Cicero, with one major exception—Julius Caesar.
He advocated for imprisoning the men, but his recommendation was overturned. The conspirators were executed, and Catiline died later, fighting alongside his men while making one last stand. The defeat of the Catiline conspiracy was a high mark for Cicero, whom his supporters proudly called pater patriae, father of the fatherland.
Julius Caesar and his patron, Marcus Licinius Crassus, were both formidably rich, and had each used their wealth to gain popular support over the course of their political careers.
In the chaos that followed the conspiracy, Julius Caesar and Crassus joined another general, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, also known as Pompey, to take control of the government in 60 B. Announced when Caesar began his first consulship, the First Triumvirate would rule the republic for six years until the death of Crassus in At first Cicero refused to support the triumvirate and fled from Rome.
Pompey refused. The death of Julius Caesar ultimately had the opposite impact of what his assassins hoped. Much of the Roman public hated the senators for the assassination, and a series of civil wars ensued. He renamed himself Augustus Caesar. The United States is a republic. The audio, illustrations, photos, and videos are credited beneath the media asset, except for promotional images, which generally link to another page that contains the media credit. The Rights Holder for media is the person or group credited.
Caryl-Sue, National Geographic Society. For information on user permissions, please read our Terms of Service. If you have questions about how to cite anything on our website in your project or classroom presentation, please contact your teacher. They will best know the preferred format. When you reach out to them, you will need the page title, URL, and the date you accessed the resource. If a media asset is downloadable, a download button appears in the corner of the media viewer.
If no button appears, you cannot download or save the media. The time to failure of the system is therefore the minimum time to failure of any one of its component. Statistical extreme value theory tells us that regardless of the underlying failure distribution of the components, when n is very large, the time to failure of the system approaches a Weibull distribution. Notice in this example the difference between component level and system level considerations, and how the result at the aggregate system level is independent of the failure distribution of any one component.
Extreme value theory is also applicable in another related context: consider a single monolithic item. There are no components in this item. But assume that there are n different competing failure processes of this item, whichever one occurs first breaks the item.
When n is very large, this will also result in a Weibull distribution of the time to failure of the item regardless of the distribution of each failure process. The extension of these observations to the violent death of Roman emperors has to be done cautiously.
But they offer nonetheless a fruitful venue for exploration. The fact that the time signature of the stochastic process of interest here is remarkably well captured by a Weibull distribution suggests that it is perhaps indeed the result of a very large number of underlying processes conspiring to violently eliminate the emperor.
The fact that there were many pathways to the violent death of an emperor, with large numbers of individuals and motivations for undertaking the grisly task, makes the Weibull, an extreme value distribution, theoretically plausible in this case. A closer inspection of Fig. A mixture Weibull distribution is therefore fitted to the data, and the maximum-likelihood estimates of its parameters are provided as follows:. This parametric result is shown in Fig.
Mixture Weibull survivor reliability function of Roman emperors, and the nonparametric results. The emperors who experienced infant mortality were not unlike engineering components that suffer early failures after they are put to use: weak by design or fundamentally incapable of meeting the demands of their environment and circumstances.
Examples from each century abound, for example Galba d. These were times of upheaval, and in the first two cases, these turned out to be times of transition to new dynasties the Flavian, and the Severan, respectively. The emperors who experienced wear-out mortality met their end through different failure mechanisms.
Consider first that some engineering components experience an uptake in failures wear-out failures after they have been in service for a long time. They may have been sturdy at first and benefitted from clement operational environments to start with. But through degradation, fatigue, or increased harshness in their operational environment, they begin to experience wear-out failures. The emperors who survived the first 8 years of their rule, as seen in Fig. Violent death came to them afterward wear-out mortality because, for instance, their old enemies had regrouped or new ones emerged, because they had alienated an increasing number of parties, or because new weaknesses in the imperial rule appeared or grew.
For example, the death of Domitian after a year rule d. The failure rate Eq. The result shows a remarkable bathtub-like curve, a model widely used, and empirically confirmed in reliability engineering for a host of mechanical and electronic components. Roman emperors, like these engineering items, therefore experienced a bathtub-like failure rate. The decreasing failure rate early on, the signature of infant mortality, reflects as noted previously a prevalence of weak emperors who were incapable at the onset of their rule to the handle the demands of their environment and circumstances.
The fact that the failure rate was decreasing though suggests a competition between antagonistic processes, on the one hand those that sought to violently eliminate emperors elimination , and on the other hand those that reflected the emperors learning curve to better protect themselves and perhaps eliminate their opponents preservation. Examples abound in Roman history of this competition. The increasing failure rate after 12 years of rule, the signature of wear-out failures, reflects as noted previously an uptake in failures through degradation with time, fatigue, or increased harshness in their circumstances.
A growing mismatch between capabilities and demands under changing geo- political circumstances. This can be due to a number of reasons discussed previously.
The fact that the failure rate was increasing after this year mark suggests again a competition between the same antagonistic processes noted in i , and this time the preservation ones were on the losing end of this competition.
Beyond these specific details, what does it mean to find a coherent structure within a stochastic process of historical nature as the one here examined? Roughly speaking, the result implies the existence of systemic factors and some level of determinism, in an average sense or expected value, superimposed on the underlying randomness of the phenomenon here examined.
In other words, the process is not completely aleatory; it has some deterministic factors overlaid on its randomness. While the individual man is an insoluble puzzle, in the aggregate he becomes a mathematical certainty. You can, for example, never foretell what any one man will do, but you can say with precision what an average number will be up to.
The results in this section suggest a similar idea underlies the violent death of Roman emperors. The previous subsections investigated the temporal signature of the phenomenon here examined, the violent death of emperors, a spectacle of brutality and violence not unlike the gladiatorial games, except it stretched over four centuries and affected the entire Roman world Millar, What has not been explored is the etiology or causal basis of this phenomenon, or why emperors repeatedly met violent deaths in the first place, not just temporally how.
The immediate causes of violent deaths of Roman emperors are frequently discussed in the literature. These explanations are of little interest, and they do not reflect the complex nature of causality in this context.
The causal basis of the phenomenon here examined intersects a number of fundamental issues in Roman history, the development and pathologies of the Roman monarchy for example, the problem of imperial succession, the role of the praetorian guard, the loyalties of the legions, and the geographic extent and resources of the empire, to mention a few.
These issues and the complex nature of their relations with the phenomenon here examined are left as a fruitful venue for Roman historians to examine.
It is worth noting that the the spectacle of regicide of Roman emperors is related a reciprocal way, as both a causal factor and a consequence, to the decline and fall of the Roman empire.
As such, it deserves careful attention in future work. On his deathbed, Augustus called for a mirror, examined himself, and had his hair combed. Then, as Suetonius recounts Footnote 9 :. He added: since well I have played my part, all clap your hand, and from the stage dismiss me with applause.
Marcus Aurelius closed his Meditations on a similar, albeit more somber note, of life as a theater and actors sometimes getting dismissed from the stage after fewer than the whole five acts Meditations, tr. Edward Gibbon offered a similar view for the entirety of the history of decline and fall of the Roman empire:.
By a philosophic observer, the system of Roman government might have been mistaken for a splendid theater, filled with players of every character and degree, who repeated the language and imitated the passion of their original model. This work began in jest by comparing Roman emperors with gladiators, and it noted that the odds of survival of the former were worse than those of the latter. There is perhaps more to this comparison than meets the eye.
There was a particular appeal to gladiatorial games in the Roman world Fagan, Whatever its reasons Footnote 10 , it is undeniable that these games offered a spectacle of extreme brutality, like an unscripted theatrical play with violence as the main protagonist, and gladiators the creative agents of its delivery. Roman emperors performed in similar games, except instead of delivering their role in single afternoon, they took several years, sometimes only a few months to complete it before they were dismissed from the stage.
They also faced more diverse hazards, and stealthier adversaries than those encountered by the gladiators in the arena. Incidentally, the emperor Commodus would blur the line of this analogy and go down into the arena and fight gladiators as well as wild beats. In examining their time-to-violent-death, this work found that of Roman emperors experienced infant mortality as well as wear-out failures.
Their failure rate displayed a bathtub curve, similar to that of a host of mechanical engineering items and electronic components.
More interestingly, it was found that a stochastic process as unconventional and haphazardous as the violent death of a Roman emperor has a definite underlying structure, and is remarkably well captured by a Weibull distribution.
The interpretation and possible reasons for this result were discussed. Some fruitful venues for future work were proposed to help understand the deeper etiology of the violent deaths of Roman emperors.
0コメント