10. Scale armour offered better protection than chain mail and was often worn by middle-ranking officers, musicans and standard bearers.
11. On the march, legionaries carried personal effects, tools and weapons over the shoulder, earning them the nickname ‘Marius’ mules’.
12. Entering into service during Drusus’ campaigns 13. High-ranking Roman officers was the new articulated plate armour, worn here could afford muscle cuirasses. Over with a Gallic inspired iron helmet. The rectangular his Drusus wore the paludamentum shield gradually replaced the older oval design. of a commander-in-chief.
13. High-ranking Roman officers could afford muscle cuirasses. Over his Drusus wore the paludamentum of a commander-in-chief.
14. Iron Age Celtic warriors’ protective equipment varied according to social class. One here wears a chain mail shirt, the other just a tunic.
15. Celtic armourers had considerable skill and crafted weapons of great beauty as well as practicality that often inspired Roman imitations.
16. Lightly armed Germanic warriors, often equipped only with framea and shield, could still inflict damage on heavily armoured Roman troops by using agility, surprise, terrain and numbers.
17. The quickest and safest route to Gallia Comata meant crossing over the Alps by way of Val di Susa controlled by King Cottius, a trusted ally of the Romans.
18. The Raeti engaged Drusus’ army in 15BCE at Tridentum (modern Trento), the citysurrounded by three mountains in the Adige River valley.
19. Drusus’ army marched out of the Alps along the Licus (Lech River) into the Voralpenland en route to the Danuvius (Danube River).
20. Virunum at Magdalensburg was the seat of the kings of Noricum who became wealthy from the natural resources of the region, including high quality iron (ferrum Noricum).
21. The Praetorium in Lugdunum provided accommodation for Drusus and his family while he was governor of Tres Galliae. The Odeon below staged live music, pantomime and drama.
22. Coin minted in 15BCE celebrates the victories of Drusus and Tiberius in Raetia, Vindelicia and Noricum. They offer laurel branches to Augustus seated on a curule chair.
23. The federal sanctuary and altar of Roma and Augustus was a key innovation of Drusus’ nation-building policy for the sixty tribes of Tres Galliae, and was depicted on widely circulated low-denomination coins.
24. Drusus’ amphibious invasion of Germania in 12BCE required a wide variety of sea-worthy vessels, similar to the ones used in Trajan’s Dacian Wars, to carry men and matériel.
25. Drusus navigated rivers to penetrate deep into Germania using fast, manoeuvrable troop transports such as this reconstruction based on remains found at Oberstimm.
26. According to Pliny the Elder, invading Roman troops feared the Frisian coast because they could not tell land from sea.
27. Roman propaganda on a coin minted in 12BCE in celebration of Drusus’ first campaign victories depicts a cowering Germanic warrior offering up a flag or standard.
28. The Lupia (Lippe River) carried Roman troops into central Germania during the second year of campaigning, 11BCE.
29. Reaching the Albis (Elbe River) in 9BCE marked the turning point for Drusus’ wars of conquest in Germania Magna
30. The Romans’ return from the Albis to Mogontiacum in the late summer of 9BCE was made difficult by Germania’s many rivers, forests and bogs.
To console Livia, the senate ordered statues be made of Drusus and displayed throughout the empire.
Drusus’ eldest son adopted his father’s honorary name, ‘Germanicus’, and followed closely in his footsteps.
Drusus’ youngest son Claudius unexpectedly became emperor in 41CE and honoured his father’s name and golden reputation to bolster his own poor public image.
34. The last man to win the spolia opima was M. Claudius Marcellus in 222BCE. His story of derring-do inspired Drusus the Elder in his own quest.
35. Claudius minted coins celebrating his filial connection to Drusus and his father’s victories in Germania Magna in the hope of raising his own public standing.
36. Portrait of Drusus on this sestertius shows the characteristic profile and hair-style of the man, along with his full name and titles. On the reverse his son Claudius sits on a curule chair among war spoils from Germania.
37. Drusus’ triumphal arch and the message DE GERMANIS was a recurring theme on Claudius’ early coinage minted 41–43CE.
38. The engraver of this denarius die reproduced different features in the arch of Drusus.
39. This dupondius of Claudius shows the most complete architectural detail of the Arch of Drusus.
40. The troops of Drusus’ Rhine army erected their own tribute to the man they acclaimed imperator, which still stands as the ‘Drussustein’ in Mainz.
41. The Deutsche Bundespost marked the 2,000 years from the foundation of Mainz with a stamp featuring a rustic-style woodcut inspired by Matthäus Merian the Elder’s ‘Aichelstein’.
42. Scene on the so-called ‘Augustus cup’ from Boscoreate depicting Drusus presenting barbarian people to the princeps. Sadly this side of the cup has been irretrievably damaged.
Chapter 8
Assessment
Nero Claudius Drusus lived an exemplary Roman life, the sort that boys of the time dreamed of living. He was a rôle model (exemplum) that even Augustus desired his adopted sons should emulate. Of the man, it may be said he lived by a set of principles that extolled the traditional Roman virtues of personal courage and hard work, fair dealing and respect for liberty. For this he was respected by his peers. He was affable, charming and good-natured and for this he was universally liked. He was a ‘man’s man’ and there is no evidence that he was bi- or homosexual. He married well and fathered at least three children, two of whom were destined to become high achievers in their own right. Drusus and Antonia Minor appear to have enjoyed a deep and loving relationship. Drusus’ sexual fidelity to Antonia during his life was only exceeded by his wife’s: she never married again after he died, preferring to remain a ‘one man woman’ (univira) and be known as “the wife of Drusus” for the next forty-six years of her life.1In a society where divorce and repeat marriages were common, Antonia’s devotion to his memory is striking and it says something of the unblemished reputation of the man.
Of his politics it might be said that Drusus aspired to see the restoration of the institutions of the old republic, but he was nevertheless loyal to the prevailing régime. Augustus was the autocratic head of state, but he was also his stepfather. It would have been difficult to dissent publicly when he was expected to show filial respect and official deference. Drusus was certainly in a privileged position and directly benefited from the princeps’ favour but even with the helping hand of Augustus, he still had to work his way up the cursus honorum and demonstrate his competence in public office, as was also true for Marcellus and Tiberius, before reaching the office of consul. Yet the letter written in Drusus’ own hand addressed to his brother urging the princeps to step down suggests he was exploring the possibility of confronting Augustus at some stage over the matter. The revelation of the letter’s contents does not appear to have damaged relations between the two men. Augustus never formally adopted him – Drusus was, after all, his wife Livia’s son – but he still regarded him sufficiently highly that he named him a joint heir with his sons, Gaius and Lucius. The Roman people, however, had seen in Drusus a person who, come the time Augustus passed away or abdicated, could one day restore the democracy of the res publica and with it their libertas. Even Seneca wrote he would make a “great future princeps”.2His tragically premature death meant that dream would never be realised. What if he had not died in that ‘accursed camp’ in Germany, but instead lived on, would Augustus have chosen him as his successor rather than Tiberius? That might have been a real possibility. But would Drusus as princeps have followed through in his belief of restoring the Republic? Having studied the man and his nature, my belief is that he would have. He was, after
all, a Claudian. And how would the course of Roman history, indeed world history, have changed had that been the case? This is the realm of alternative history, perhaps better left to writers of novels to speculate upon.
He was gifted in his range of talents – the phrase used in the Tabula Hebana is fecundi ingeni meaning ‘a genius bursting with ideas and deeds’.4In his rôle as governor he showed ability as an administrator. Drusus consolidated and built upon the fragile foundations of Roman civilisation laid down by Agrippa and Augustus in the Tres Galliae. His creation of the concilium Galliarum was a masterstroke of nation building. It was a demonstration of what could be achieved by engaging the local aristocracies in Augustus’ vision of a world of diverse peoples living together in a pax Romana. Unique among the western provinces, the council fostered a sense of regional identity that went beyond the purely tribal and which had the intended effect of stabilising the sixty Gallic tribes. Gallic aristocrats competed for the honour of being chief priest of the Imperial Cult in Lugdunum and only one attempted rebellion is recorded during the time Drusus was governor. On the whole, the relationship between Drusus and his Gallic subjects was a happy one. His descendants continued their association with the region and ultimately it was Drusus’ son Claudius, himself born in Lugdunum, when emperor who drove reform of the law to see Gauls finally able to take up seats in the curia in Rome.3The altar in Lugdunum continued in use for centuries.5On account of his careful administration the region would go on to become one of the Empire’s most prosperous and peaceful, and Lugdunum that had been his propraetorial base would continue as the leading city in it.
He was a talented military commander – “already a great leader” in Seneca’s words – often showing boldness and valour, and for it he was beloved by his men.6The early nineteenth century military historian and theorist General von Clausewitz identified among the qualities required for successful command the ability to carry out critical analysis and make decisions, and what he termed der kriegerische Genius – “the genius for war” – which includes the personality and character to show moral courage, determination, a balanced temperament and an understanding of humanity.7Drusus had each of these qualities in different measures. By the time of his death he had been on active campaign for five years, excluding the two he spent preparing for them, and apparently without defeat. Among his military achievements was the annexation of the Alps and the Voralpenland, which he secured during his first campaign season. The late nineteenth century German historian Theodor Mommsen dismissively described the Raetian/Norican War as a legate’s rather than a general’s war adding that it could not have been a particularly dangerous operation on account of its commander’s youth and inexperience – Augustus would not have put his young stepson in harm’s way if there was a chance he could be killed.8But this underestimates the opponent, mischaracterises the Roman mode of fighting and sells short Drusus’ leadership abilities and his personal courage – and Augustus’ judgement. The Raeti and Vindelici were fierce and skilled warriors who put up a stern fight. Like all commanders, Drusus had to rely on his legates to conduct the battle, but as Augustus’ deputy he set out the strategy and level of expectation – none more evidently than in the later German War, where meticulous planning preceded the series of annual offensives. In so doing he demonstrated the ability to conduct critical analysis. The Raetian/Norican War was a bloody affair and certainly no hike in the mountains, and during it Drusus showed moral courage and determination in leading his men. When they were finally beaten, the Raeti and Vindelici fared better under Drusus than the Eburones had under Iulius Caesar. Showing his humanity, Drusus did not butcher its population but used a crude form of social engineering to change the balance of power and remove the threat of rebellion by creating army units that leveraged their tactical skills. The region remained peaceful and productive for centuries with enduring benefits for Rome. While Tiberius played a role in that victory, the larger part of the credit goes to Drusus.
Was he a Roman equivalent of Alexander the Great? It is difficult to make an absolute comparison. Alexander was known, then as now, as a charismatic leader, a hero figure and a paragon of martial brilliance. Yet it might surprise the reader to known that there is not much direct evidence of his existence today except in the form of a few coins, fragmentary inscriptions, and citations in speeches of the period – the biographical accounts of his life actually date to three hundred and more years after he died.9So it is with Nero Claudius Drusus.
Yet, based on what is known there are certainly parallels between the two men. Like Alexander, Drusus had charisma, that compelling attractiveness of personality and spirit that inspired devotion in others. Like the young Macedonian, Drusus personally led his forces into battle from the front while in his twenties.10He proved as able in the tactical command rôle from his first campaign in Raetia and Vindelicia through to his final battles in Germania Magna. Whereas Alexander’s approach to the conquest of Asia was simply one of going ever further east, Drusus’ approach to the conquest of Germania Magna was strategic and systematic: first establishing secure supply lines, then exploring and securing the western shores, and finally moving the theatre of war progressively each year through central and eastern Germania, leaving forces in the regions to bring them under Roman control. As Alexander had paid particular attention to logistics and intelligence gathering, so too Drusus used rivers to ferry troops and supplies from the bases he had established along the Rhine and later the Lippe and Wetter, and leveraged alliances with friendly tribes familiar with the territory.11He had a force half the size of Alexander’s, but it was a professional army just the same, skilled in several modes of combat and he knew its officers could be trusted with delegated command authority to carry out his orders.12With it Drusus ventured out with this army going further beyond the borders of Roman territory than any before him and bagged victories along the way. It was under Drusus that Roman troops spent their first ever winter in hostile territory among the Chatti, Marsi and Sugambri. Whereas Alexander faced the organized and mighty forces of the Persian Empire and fought set piece battles at Granicus, Issus and Gaugamela that have been recorded and studied, the enemy Drusus faced was more diffuse, the engagements more akin to guerilla warfare – ambushes, such as at Arbalo, and continual hit-and-run skirmishes – the detailed records of which have been lost.13The symmetry of warfare Alexander encountered contrasts with the asymmetry faced by Drusus. Whereas having defeated Darius the Macedonians could traverse the breadth of the diverse but organised Persian Empire, the Romans faced a myriad of disparate, bickering tribes. Drusus used the entire range of fighting capabilities of his army to reduce his opponents and, like Alexander, he also inspired deep trust and great loyalty in those he commanded.14He had earned it by taking them audaciously to the edge of the known world by sea and far into unchartered territory on land, and brought them back home again. When he led his men to the end of a particularly difficult campaign season in 11 BCE they displayed their gratitude and admiration by spontaneously acclaiming him imperator. Like Alexander, Drusus was able to keep a level head in a crisis. Faced with rebellion in his Gallic provinces in 12 BCE, he acted swiftly, using guile to uncover its ringleaders and a firm hand to suppress the uprising. When his fleet ran aground off the Frisian coast he sought assistance from his allies and got his men back home. Clearly he was not a quitter. Both men made tactical errors. Though idolised, Alexander was fallible and capable of errors of judgement, such as at the Persian Gates. Similarly closer attention to ground intelligence would have enabled Drusus to anticipate the ambush at Arbalo, but like Alexander a combination of tactical judgment and luck (the change of heart by the Cherusci) enabled him to pull his troops out alive from a potentially disastrous situation.15Both men were demanding of those who reported to them, but their temperaments drove them to respond to criticism differently. Drusus certainly pushed the limits of his men, but was smart enough to listen to the counsel of his officers and pull back from the brink, and by do
ing so he retained the affection and loyalty of both. In contrast, Alexander relentlessly pushed his men and disregarded advice from his peers, as at Hyphasis River where his soldiers adamantly refused to cross and he sulked in his tent for days.16
Both men died young – Drusus at 29, Alexander at 33 – and unheroically from long, drawn out sickness. When Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BCE his empire broke apart as his generals squabbled over who should have the body, seeing it as a symbol of legitimacy to their claims – Ptolemy stole it and took it to Egypt where three hundred years later Pompeius, Caesar and Augustus visited it in Alexandria. In contrast when Drusus died his men thought they would bury it. Drusus was not, of course, the head of state and the Empire endured. As both princeps and his stepfather Augustus insisted the body should return to Rome. Nevertheless, acting out of a genuine sense of affection and seeking to establish a permanent memorial by which Drusus’ name and legacy would live on, the troops erected the tumulus at Mogontiacum and instigated an annual race and festival. That festival endured for more than three centuries, attended by people from all over the empire.
Eager for Glory Page 25