1 Introduction

There is no doubt that the age of Augustus was a time of major political and cultural changes for the Roman world, ultimately bringing about a new order which we now refer to as the Principate. However, it is difficult to assess to what extent Augustus adhered to Republican traditions, practices, and values in this transformational process. Some researchers argue that the princeps was fluid in this respect, such as A. Wallace-Hadrill who claims that Augustus’ ability to present “radical change as ‘return to tradition’ was enormous”¹ or F. Hickson, who interprets Augustus’ triumphal policy as a “manipulation” of this ancient ritual.² Against such conceptions, O. Hekster pointed out the limitations that inherited practices and norms imposed on Augustus’ policies and self-representation, for example concerning his cognomen for which the name Romulus seems to have been forbidden by Republican tradition.³ Similarly, K. Galinsky stresses that Republican tradition set a relatively narrow framework for the princeps, who transformed the old political system only gradually, as Augustus’ reorganization of Rome’s corn supply suggests.⁴

This paper aims to contribute to this ongoing discussion by analysing an aspect of Augustan culture that has been neglected in this context, so far: the public representation of Augustus’ family. During the Republic, Roman aristocratic families had developed several modes to emphasize their achievements for the res publica, especially their victories on the battlefield, across different media. On the one hand, such strategies of familial self-advertisement were one way to compete in the inner-aristocratic power struggle. On the other hand (and perhaps more importantly), they also helped to justify the Roman elite’s pre-eminence towards the wider public, thus contributing to the maintenance of the traditional Republican structure of power.⁵ Before and especially after Augustus’ victory at Actium in 31 BCE, his family’s military prowess was advertised across different media: a strategy that facilitated the continuation of the Principate within the domus Augusta.⁶ But did Augustus use the same means of representation as the Republican gentes to stabilize his power or did the fundamental change that Caesar’s heir brought to Rome also necessitate new strategies to present familial victory? In the following analysis, I aim to answer these questions arguing that while Octavian/Augustus predominantly followed Republican strategies to advertise his family’s military prowess, the later Augustan age from around 10 BCE on witnessed two important innovations in this field, which allow an interesting glimpse into the changing power structures of this period. The analysis of the sources is therefore divided into two sub-chapters, the first one taking into account Octavian’s self-representation during the civil wars and the first half of his Principate, the second one focusing solely on the late-Augustan age. To contextualize the public image of Augustus’ family, it is, however, first necessary to give an overview of the means employed by Republican gentes to celebrate their military glory.

2 Representing (Familial) Victory in the Republic

Recent scholarship has identified several modes through which the Republican gentes propagated their military exploits. One important strategy was edificial continuity. By this term, I refer to the phenomenon in which some Roman aristocrats conducted building projects in places that already commemorated the military success of one of their ancestors. In doing so, these descendants put themselves in the tradition of their victorious ancestors, implying that they inherited and continued their family’s military prowess.⁷ A good example of this phenomenon is the fornix Fabianus. Q. Fabius Maximus erected this arch on the Forum Romanum to commemorate his victory against the Allobroges, for which he had also celebrated a triumph in 120 BCE. Several decades later, in 57 BCE, his grandson and namesake Q. Fabius Maximus renovated the arch during his aedileship. Interestingly, Fabius Maximus did not only establish a link to his grandfather through this measure but also to P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus and L. Aemilius Paullus, two remote relatives of his, who received inscriptions mentioning their triumphs.⁸ Another example of edificial continuity is the temple of Honos and Virtus near the Porta Capena. Marcus Claudius Marcellus, the conqueror of Syracuse, renovated this monument and exhibited many works of art from the defeated city there. Later, his grandson of the same name put up statues of himself, his father, and his grandfather in the building. This younger Marcellus also left an inscription there which celebrated the fact that, cumulatively, the three relatives had held nine consulships. By erecting this statuary monument, Marcellus created the impression of a successful family tradition that manifested itself both in military deeds, such as his grandfather’s victory over Syracuse, and in important political achievements like the three men’s nine consulships.⁹

Another important way of advertising familial victory can be found in the numismatic evidence. Many young aristocrats held the office of tresvir monetalis. The tresviri monetales, the moneyers in Republican Rome, were responsible for the emission and design of Roman coins. In our context, the moneyers are interesting because they often used their office to advertise their family’s military achievements.¹⁰ The best-known examples of this phenomenon are the coins minted by several Caecilii Metelli in the second and first century BCE to commemorate their ancestor L. Caecilus Metellus. This man had celebrated a triumph over the Carthaginians in 250 BCE during which he had probably shown captured elephants. The elephants became a symbol of this victory, and Metellus’ descendants used them in numerous emissions. T. Itgenshorst even spoke of the elephant as a “family crest” of the Caecilii Metelli.¹¹

Furthermore, two important Roman rituals could also serve to advertise a family’s victories. The first one was the pompa funebris in which actors would wear face masks representing the deceased’s ancestors. If an ancestor had celebrated a triumph, the actor impersonating him could be dressed in triumphal garb which made him a visual reminder of the family’s military record.¹² Another possibility to represent a family’s victoriousness during funerals was offered by the laudationes which praised the achievements of the deceased’s ancestors.¹³ The importance of military glory in these speeches can be inferred from Cicero’s complaint in his Brutus that the laudationes often contained falsi triumphi which were likely intended to bolster a family’s prestige artificially.¹⁴

The triumph itself was also used for familial purposes. There are a few passages in Appian, Livy, and others that suggest that Roman triumphators could display their children or other young relatives during the procession.¹⁵ Livy is particularly illuminating here because he reports that Lucius Aemilius Paullus’ young sons could not take part in his triumph in 167 BCE and were therefore not able to set themselves the goal to celebrate a triumph on their own.¹⁶ According to Livy, the participation in their older relative’s triumph was supposed to spurn the younger aristocrats to accumulate comparable military glory.¹⁷

Despite this last example, we can conclude that Republican aristocrats mainly used their ancestors’ achievements to advertise their family’s prowess. They put themselves in the tradition of their victorious older relatives to indicate that comparable successes could be expected from themselves as well. In addition, triumphs offered a chance to propagate younger family members as prospective military leaders, but this aspect seems rather marginal compared to the clear emphasis on the ancestors in our sources.

3 The Representation of the Victories of Augustus’ Family until the Late Augustan Period (ca. 10 BC)

In the first half of Augustus’ political career, up to around 10 BCE, he mainly seems to have used conventional strategies to advertise his family’s prowess. For example, in the 30s and 20s BCE, Octavian contributed to two victory monuments that had been initiated by ancestors of his. The first monument, the Forum Iulium, commemorated the military prowess of Julius Caesar, Octavian/Augustus’ adoptive father.¹⁸ After the dictator’s death, Octavian continued building there¹⁹ and in connection with his triple triumph of 29 BCE, he dedicated a golden statue depicting Cleopatra from his Egyptian spoils in the temple, thus linking his own victory to his adoptive father’s military glory.²⁰ Caesar aside, Octavian also made use of a second ancestor, Cnaeus Octavius, who had achieved a naval victory against king Perseus in 168 BCE. In commemoration of this success, Cnaeus Octavius had the Porticus Octavia erected in the Circus Flaminius.²¹ Appian reports that in 33 BCE Octavian set up lost Roman military standards which he had recovered during his Illyrian campaigns (35/34 BCE) in his ancestor’s porticus.²² Similar to Claudius Marcellus and his dedication in the temple of Honos and Virtus, Octavian used the addition of the military standards to the Porticus Octavia to establish himself in the direct lineage of his victorious ancestor.

Compared to these monuments, the numismatic evidence is less clear. There seems to be no coin that makes a clear reference to a victory of one of Augustus’ ancestors, just as the coins of the Claudii Metelli advertised their ancestor’s victory. The only coin making a slight reference to the military prowess of Augustus’ family is a denarius, which dates to the time between circa 32 and 29 BCE.²³ On the reverse, the coin shows the goddess Venus with military equipment and the legend CAESAR DIVI F referring to Octavian’s descendance from Julius Caesar. The coin implies that Venus, the gens Iulia’s mythical ancestress, supported her descendant Octavian just as much as she had supported his deified adoptive father,²⁴ who had celebrated the goddess as a guarantor of his victories in the Forum Iulium.²⁵ Apart from Octavian’s claim to divine ancestry, the coin also evokes his adoptive uncle’s military prowess implying that his heir inherited the same quality and Venus’ divine support in his military undertakings.

Furthermore, Octavian also advertised his family in his triple triumph of the year 29 BCE. In his biography of Tiberius, Suetonius reports that Augustus’ triumphal quadriga was accompanied by his nephew Marcellus and his stepson Tiberius, the future princeps.²⁶ As we have seen earlier, the participation of younger family members in a triumph had already been practiced in Republican triumphs. During his triumphal procession, Octavian thus followed Republican precedents for advertising family members, which are also never perceived as transgressional in our sources.²⁷ Right after the parade, however, Octavian’s stepson Tiberius appeared in a new, unconventional role, as Suetonius continues to inform us:

Praesedit et asticis ludis et Troiam circensibus lusit ductor turmae puerorum maiorum.

He [Tiberius, F.G.] presided, too, at the city festival, and took part in the game of Troy during the performances in the circus, leading the band of older boys.²⁸

I am not aware of any source claiming that a triumphator’s relative took part in games and other performances in conjunction with the celebration, before Octavian’s triumph of 29 BCE. It appears that Tiberius’ participation in the city festival and especially his leading role in the game of Troy, which offered young Roman nobles an opportunity to demonstrate their equestrian skills,²⁹ were good possibilities to present Octavian’s stepson in a military setting, possibly for the first time in his life.

In this context, it is interesting to note that Cassius Dio mentions that around the time of his triple triumph, Octavian distributed money to the Roman children “because of his nephew Marcellus” (διὰ τὸν Μάρκελλον τὸν ἀδελφιδοῦν).³⁰ Again, while donations of money are frequently attested for Republican triumphators,³¹ the sources do not report a single occasion in which the coins were distributed in the name of a triumphator’s relative. Hence, two different sources, Suetonius and Cassius Dio, indicate that Tiberius and Marcellus played a role in connection with Octavian’s triple triumph of 29 BCE which went beyond Republican practice. Considering that Octavian was not necessarily obligated to integrate Tiberius and Marcellus, who were not even his biological sons, into his self-representation, it appears likely that he had the clear intention to give his victories a special familial quality. The public of Rome could see that Octavian had two promising relatives who might achieve successes like those of the new most powerful man of the Empire.

4 The Late Augustan Period

In comparison with the time before Actium and the early years of Augustus’ Principate, the first thing that stands out when looking at the last 20–30 years of the princeps’ life is that there is less evidence for references to Iulius Caesar and any other of Augustus’ ancestors.³² This does not necessarily mean that the princeps’ ancestors had ceased playing a role in the advertisement of his family’s prowess. For example, it is well known that Augustus set up statues of his ancestors and other nobles of the Roman past in the porticoes on the long sides of the Forum Augustum, some of which wore the triumphal garb, according to Suetonius.³³ Moreover, we can also assume that the ancestors of the domus Augusta were habitually commemorated during the funeral processions of Drusus maior, Lucius Caesar, and Gaius Caesar. The evidence for these occasions is scarce, but at least Tacitus explicitly mentions that imagines of Claudian and even Julian ancestors were displayed during Drusus maior’s funeral.³⁴

While the evidence for traditional references to ancestors remains meagre in the second half of Augustus’ Principate, there were two interesting innovations in three of his family’s victory celebrations in this period. In what follows, I analyse these new elements and show how they might be related to the special political circumstances of the later Augustan age. Before this, it is, however, important to point out that each of the three late Augustan victory celebrations to be analysed here is preserved in only one account. Two of them – Tiberius’ ovatio of 9 BCE and his triumph of 7 BCE – are recounted by Cassius Dio,³⁵ whereas Suetonius is our sole source for the events at Tiberius’ triumph of 12 CE.³⁶ Since there are no parallel sources for these three celebrations, it is very difficult to assess the accuracy of the accounts Cassius Dio and Suetonius wrote many years later.³⁷ Nonetheless, it seems likely for two reasons that both authors give us reliable reflections of true events and developments in the last years of Augustus’ Principate. First, none of the accounts by Suetonius and Dio contradicts anything in their own works or any other source on the Augustan age I am aware of. Second, and more importantly, there is other source material, some of it contemporary, which points to the same innovations in the representation of Augustus’ family as Suetonius and Dio, thus adding to the credibility of their reconstructions of events.

Cassius Dio provides the earliest evidence for one of the two innovations in the domus Augusta’s representation to be discussed here. In his account of an ovatio Tiberius celebrated in 9 BCE, he reports:

Ὁ δὲ δὴ Τιβέριος τῶν τε Δελµατῶν καὶ τῶν Παννονίων ὑποκινησάντων τι αὖθις ζῶντος ἔτι αὐτοῦ κρατήσας, τά τε ἐπὶ τοῦ κέλητος ἐπινίκια ἔπεµψε, καὶ τοῦ δήµου τοὺς µὲν ἐν τῷ Καπιτωλίῳ τοὺς δ᾽ ἄλλοθι πολλαχόθι ἐδείπνισε. κἀν τούτῳ καὶ ἡ Λιουία µετὰ τῆς Ἰουλίας τὰς γυναῖκας εἱστίασε.

Tiberius, while Drusus was yet alive, had overcome the Dalmatians and Pannonians, who had once more begun a rebellion, and he had celebrated the equestrian triumph, and had feasted the people, some on the Capitol and the rest in many other places. At the same time Livia, also, with Julia, had given a dinner to the women.³⁸

The women’s dinner is an entirely new element in Roman victory celebrations. There is no evidence that would suggest that Roman generals’ female family members were actively involved in triumphs (or ovationes) in the Republic.³⁹ Here, in Tiberius’ ovatio on the other hand, the women are responsible for a banquet, thus demonstrating their liberalitas.

Of course one much later passage is a fragile basis for an argument, but this passage in Dio’s narrative is not the only evidence of the involvement of Augustus’ female family members in a victory celebration. Only two years later, Tiberius paraded through Rome in his first triumph. Once again, Cassius Dio provides the most comprehensive account of this event:

Τιβέριος δὲ ἐν τῇ νουµηνίᾳ ἐν ᾗ ὑπατεύειν µετὰ Γναίου Πίσωνος ἤρξατο ἔς τε τὸ Ὀκταουίειον τὴν βουλὴν ἤθροισε διὰ τὸ ἔξω τοῦ πωµηρίου αὐτὸ εἶναι, καὶ τὸ Ὁµονόειον αὐτὸς ἑαυτῷ ἐπισκευάσαι προστάξας, ὅπως τό τε ἴδιον καὶ τὸ τοῦ Δρούσου ὄνοµα αὐτῷ ἐπιγράψῃ, τά τε νικητήρια ἤγαγε καὶ τὸ τεµένισµα τὸ Λίουιον ὠνοµασµένον καθιέρωσε µετὰ τῆς µητρός· καὶ αὐτὸς µὲν τὴν γερουσίαν ἐν τῷ Καπιτωλίῳ, ἐκείνη δὲ τὰς γυναῖκας ἰδίᾳ που εἱστίασε.

Tiberius on the first day of the year in which he was consul with Gnaeus Piso convened the senate in the Curia Octaviae, because it was outside the pomerium. After assigning to himself the duty of repairing the temple of Concord, in order that he might inscribe upon it his own name and that of Drusus, he celebrated his triumph, and in company with his mother dedicated the precinct called the precinct of Livia. He gave a banquet to the senate on the Capitol, and she gave one on her own account to the women somewhere or other.⁴⁰

Although it seems unlikely that all the events mentioned in this passage, took place on the very same day,⁴¹ Dio’s narrative still suggests that they were at least closely linked to Tiberius’ triumph. Once again, Livia organized a dinner for the Roman women demonstrating her munificence. Moreover, she and her son even dedicated a precinct named after her, possibly the porticus Liviae on the Oppius Mons attested elsewhere.⁴² Livia’s dedication of a monument in the context of her son’s triumph is significant because it must have called to mind the victory monuments which had been erected by successful Republican generals.⁴³ Thus, Tiberius’ military glory offered a possibility for Livia to emphasize her own status towards the Roman public.

Dio’s historical work is not alone in suggesting that imperial women were closely aligned to the triumphal sphere in the late Augustan period. Ovid’s exile poetry also does so. In three poems of this corpus, the author imagines victory celebrations of the domus Augusta in which the family’s women took part as well.⁴⁴ Although Ovid as a relegated poet cannot be regarded as a reliable source for a reconstruction of the real triumphs that were celebrated in Rome, the fact that he refers to the women’s role in these events three times suggests that it was nothing unusual for him to see the women of the domus Augusta on these occasions. In one text, he even mentions Livia’s task of decorating the triumphal quadriga,⁴⁵ thus giving us a further clue on how Augustus’ wife might have been involved in her relatives’ victory celebrations.⁴⁶

These examples suggest that the women of the imperial family, especially Livia, played a certain role in Roman triumphal culture towards the end of the Augustan age. The sources do not offer a clear reason for this unprecedented phenomenon. Nevertheless, we can assume that the effect of the women’s triumphal engagement (and probably its purpose) was that it demonstrated that the military undertakings of the domus Augusta were not only a task of the (male) family members who served as active generals but also and especially a collective responsibility of the entire domus Augusta. Considering the princeps’ advanced age at the time the events discussed here took place, it is likely that the emphasis on the collective military responsibility of the domus Augusta was a way to point out that even after Augustus’ passing his successor and his entire domus would still be able to conduct successful campaigns and guarantee the future and security of the Empire.

Whereas the women’s presence was a recurring element in the representation of the domus Augusta’s victories, the second innovation in late-Augustan triumphal culture to be analysed here is only a single action by Tiberius, which does not seem to have inspired any followers. However, this action reveals at least as much about the Principate and its new unique character as the previously discussed examples of a stronger female involvement in Augustan triumphal culture. Our only source for this action is Suetonius’ account of Tiberius’ second triumph on 23rd October 12 CE:

A Germania in urbem post biennium regressus triumphum (…). Ac prius quam in Capitolium flecteret, descendit e curru seque praesidenti patri ad genua summisit.

After two years he [Tiberius, F.G.] returned to the city from Germany and celebrated the triumph (…). And before turning to enter the Capitol, he dismounted from his chariot and fell at the knees of his father, who was presiding over the ceremonies.⁴⁷

Suetonius preserves the memory of a remarkable act here: while celebrating his second triumph, the designated princeps Tiberius kneeled down in front of his adoptive father Augustus. This was a radical and unprecedented breach of Republican tradition, according to which other officeholders had to rise from their seats for the triumphator.⁴⁸ A genuflection, however, was a clear sign of submission and nothing that would seem fitting for a triumphator,⁴⁹ who was traditionally regarded as the highest-ranking man of Rome on the day of the parade.⁵⁰

Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Tiberius’ genuflection of the year 12 CE has found widespread scholarly attention and led to different interpretations. For example, the action has been interpreted as an act of pietas for Augustus,⁵¹ a recognition of the princeps’ superiority,⁵² and as a “gesture of reconciliation”.⁵³ Although all these interpretations describe correctly what Tiberius’ genuflection, if true, expressed on a symbolic level, it is remarkable that they mainly only focus on the advantages Augustus would have from his stepson’s move. However, it remains unclear in these approaches, why Tiberius – after all, the highest-ranking general of the Empire and Augustus’ presumptive heir – was ready for such a radical sign of subordination. Or was the genuflection maybe simply a way for Augustus to humiliate his stepson, as E. Künzl suggested?⁵⁴

Of course, it is impossible to reach definitive certainty about Tiberius’ thinking and all the reasons that might have provoked his genuflection. Nonetheless, a look at the political circumstances of 12 CE and the way the relationship between princeps and Roman generals would be represented during the first years of Tiberius’ own reign provide arguments for what might have reasonably motivated Tiberius to kneel down in front of his adoptive father. One crucial aspect to understand this gesture is time. Augustus was already at a very old age in 12 CE, and one of his biggest concerns must have been to secure the new order he created beyond his impending death. Therefore, it seems highly likely that the princeps (just like Tiberius himself) could have had no reasonable interest in humiliating his presumptive heir and successor. In this context, the fact that the genuflection demonstrated according to some researchers Tiberius’ pietas – a virtue that had always been important in Augustus’ own self-representation – underlined his aptitude for his future role as princeps.⁵⁵

However, as mentioned above, the genuflection did not only visualize pietas but also the real hierarchy between the princeps and his subordinate general Tiberius. In the longer run, this aspect was presumably much more important for Tiberius than appearing as a pious filius. As future princeps, it would be essential for his survival that all his commanders – and especially those from his own family like the very popular Germanicus – would unconditionally recognize his pre-eminence.⁵⁶ Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Tiberius’ superiority over all his generals was frequently highlighted during his own Principate, for example in the famous ‘Sword of Tiberius’, an inscription on a victory memorial in Germany erected by Germanicus, and the arch for Tiberius and Germanicus on the Forum Romanum.⁵⁷ Considering these examples, all of which were created only a few years after the triumph of 12 CE, it seems likely that Tiberius’ genuflection was also intended to exemplify what the relationship between a princeps and his generals should look like both in the present and – perhaps even more importantly – in the time after Augustus’ death. From this perspective, the triumph of 12 with Tiberius’ genuflection was not only the successful end of Augustan triumphal history⁵⁸ but also an important step to secure the coming Tiberian Principate. Thus, it was the unique character of the Principate and the special challenges it posed to its leaders that motivated and maybe even necessitated Tiberius’ unconventional and tradition-breaking act during his second triumph.

5 Conclusion

This paper has investigated the role Republican traditions and practices played in the presentation of the victories of Augustus’ family. The analysis has shown that Augustus followed Republican paradigms, especially in the first half of his political career when he dedicated artifacts to his adoptive father Julius Caesar’s temple and his ancestor Cnaeus Octavius’ porticus. The participation of his younger family members Tiberius and Marcellus in the triple triumph of 29 also followed Republican practice. Nevertheless, the two young men seem to have played a more active role than usual in Augustus’ triumphal self-representation around that time, since a donativum was distributed in the name of Marcellus while Tiberius took a leading role in the Game of Troy. As for the late Augustan period, it seems likely that the Republican focus on the ancestors lived on in the Forum Augustum and the funeral processions for several members of the domus Augusta.

However, the second half of Augustus’ Principate also saw two remarkable innovations. The first one, the involvement of women, especially Livia, in the victory celebrations organized for the family’s generals can be interpreted as a way to illustrate the collective military responsibility of Rome’s new first family which would guarantee the security of the Empire even beyond Augustus’ lifespan. Tiberius’ genuflection in the triumph of 12 CE, stood in stark contrast to the traditional elevated status of Roman triumphators. I have argued that this transgressional move should not only be seen from Augustus’ perspective or even be regarded as some form of humiliation of the princeps’ stepson. Instead, a stronger focus on Tiberius’ situation at that time as well as later Tiberian sources suggests that he intended to demonstrate how the hierarchy between a princeps and his generals ought to function – not only for the time being but most of all in his own Principate. Therefore, the two innovations analysed here can be linked to two major characteristic aspects of the late Augustan Principate: firstly, the emergence of a ruling family and, secondly, the hierarchy between the princeps and his generals which had to be propagated and reinforced again and again to ensure a princeps’ or (as Tiberius’ genuflection shows) a future princeps’ survival.