Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle
Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle
Roman Republican Triumph: Beyond the Spectacle A workshop funded by The Carlsberg Foundation, hosted by The Danish Institute in Rome, Monday the 28 th till Wednesday the 30 th of January 2013 This workshop will explore the Roman triumph, focusing mainly on the ways in which it evolved during the Republican period (including Augustus) in response to changing circumstances in Roman society, a society almost constantly engaged in warfare. As is often the case in ancient history, continuity and change and the problematic nature of sources are at the centre of these investigations. The aim is to look at the triumph and its relation to Roman warfare, bringing together various approaches and specialisms. Notwithstanding the current tendency to see Sparta, Rome and Athens as typical rather than exceptional, even when it comes to military matters (Eckstein on Rome, Hodkinson on Sparta and Pritchard on Athens), the triumph remains a specific Roman war ritual, seemingly confirming a Republican culture obsessed with war (what might be described as a militaristic culture). The workshop wishes to revisit the emerging orthodoxy of asking questions about the ritual in its contemporary context, while at the same time being sceptical about the value of searching for 'origins'. This has led to a focus on procession and spectacles, and on the ideology of the Roman triumph (‘cultural history’). This approach has added much valuable knowledge, but the tendency to ask questions about the war ritual mainly in its contemporary context, which naturally tends to focus almost exclusively on periods for which we have contemporary evidence, has unintentionally narrowed the scope of the subject. As a result, a study of the context and development of the Roman Republican triumph is still missing. Imperial writers certainly used republican sources in their writing about the past, and thus rather than simply deconstructing the sources by thorough analysis, we should determine how the evidence can be used, not if it can be used. Even though resent trends have been most visible perhaps in the study of the Roman triumph, this workshop does not wish to ignore other aspects of war rituals, especially in their relation with the 1
- Page 2 and 3: triumph. In view of the huge promin
- Page 4: Dr Matteo Cadario, Università degl
<strong>Roman</strong> <strong>Republican</strong> <strong>Triumph</strong>: <strong>Beyond</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Spectacle</strong><br />
A workshop funded by The Carlsberg Foundation,<br />
hosted by The Danish Institute in Rome,<br />
Monday <strong>the</strong> 28 th till Wednesday <strong>the</strong> 30 th of January 2013<br />
This workshop will explore <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong> triumph, focusing mainly on <strong>the</strong> ways in which it evolved<br />
during <strong>the</strong> <strong>Republican</strong> period (including Augustus) in response to changing circumstances in<br />
<strong>Roman</strong> society, a society almost constantly engaged in warfare. As is often <strong>the</strong> case in ancient<br />
history, continuity and change and <strong>the</strong> problematic nature of sources are at <strong>the</strong> centre of <strong>the</strong>se<br />
investigations. The aim is to look at <strong>the</strong> triumph and its relation to <strong>Roman</strong> warfare, bringing<br />
toge<strong>the</strong>r various approaches and specialisms. Notwithstanding <strong>the</strong> current tendency to see Sparta,<br />
Rome and A<strong>the</strong>ns as typical ra<strong>the</strong>r than exceptional, even when it comes to military matters<br />
(Eckstein on Rome, Hodkinson on Sparta and Pritchard on A<strong>the</strong>ns), <strong>the</strong> triumph remains a specific<br />
<strong>Roman</strong> war ritual, seemingly confirming a <strong>Republican</strong> culture obsessed with war (what might be<br />
described as a militaristic culture).<br />
The workshop wishes to revisit <strong>the</strong> emerging orthodoxy of asking questions about <strong>the</strong> ritual in its<br />
contemporary context, while at <strong>the</strong> same time being sceptical about <strong>the</strong> value of searching for<br />
'origins'. This has led to a focus on procession and spectacles, and on <strong>the</strong> ideology of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong><br />
triumph (‘cultural history’). This approach has added much valuable knowledge, but <strong>the</strong> tendency<br />
to ask questions about <strong>the</strong> war ritual mainly in its contemporary context, which naturally tends to<br />
focus almost exclusively on periods for which we have contemporary evidence, has unintentionally<br />
narrowed <strong>the</strong> scope of <strong>the</strong> subject. As a result, a study of <strong>the</strong> context and development of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Roman</strong> <strong>Republican</strong> triumph is still missing. Imperial writers certainly used republican sources in<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir writing about <strong>the</strong> past, and thus ra<strong>the</strong>r than simply deconstructing <strong>the</strong> sources by thorough<br />
analysis, we should determine how <strong>the</strong> evidence can be used, not if it can be used.<br />
Even though resent trends have been most visible perhaps in <strong>the</strong> study of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong> triumph, this<br />
workshop does not wish to ignore o<strong>the</strong>r aspects of war rituals, especially in <strong>the</strong>ir relation with <strong>the</strong><br />
1
triumph. In view of <strong>the</strong> huge prominence of warfare in Rome, it is hardly a surprise that rituals<br />
related to warfare should play an important part in <strong>the</strong> religious and political life at Rome.<br />
Due to <strong>the</strong> prominence of warfare in <strong>Roman</strong> life, it would be promising to ask how <strong>the</strong> triumph<br />
related to practical conditions of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong> state and its continuous state of warfare, and how<br />
this imposed on <strong>the</strong> interactions between <strong>the</strong> Res Publica and <strong>the</strong> commanders in <strong>the</strong> field. This<br />
may help to shed new light on and reconstruct <strong>Roman</strong> attitudes to war. One central aim of <strong>the</strong><br />
workshop is thus to bring back <strong>Roman</strong> military history to <strong>the</strong> forefront of <strong>the</strong> study of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong><br />
triumph.<br />
A question that has attracted much recent attention is whe<strong>the</strong>r <strong>the</strong>re were any rules for obtaining<br />
a triumph. Some scholars have been overly sceptical about <strong>the</strong> possibility of reconstructing<br />
customary practises. There is no doubt that <strong>the</strong>re was a fair amount of flexibility and changes over<br />
time. In <strong>the</strong> Middle Republic it was not uncommon for a victory/triumph not to bring an end to <strong>the</strong><br />
war, which can be observed in <strong>the</strong> Samnite Wars and <strong>the</strong> First Punic War. The question remains<br />
whe<strong>the</strong>r this is true for later periods. Of similar interest is <strong>the</strong> question as to when <strong>the</strong> pacification<br />
of conquered areas became relevant for <strong>the</strong> obtaining of a triumph. <strong>Roman</strong> perceptions of victory<br />
should not be isolated from <strong>the</strong> peace following on from it. Even <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong> triumph, at least in<br />
principle, marked <strong>the</strong> end of a military conflict and <strong>the</strong> soldiers were brought back to Rome as a<br />
symbol of this <strong>Roman</strong> peace/victory, albeit a <strong>Roman</strong> peace: peace through war (cf. Res Gestae 13).<br />
The emergence of requirements o<strong>the</strong>r than winning a victory, however, remains a much neglected<br />
part of <strong>the</strong> study of <strong>the</strong> development of <strong>the</strong> <strong>Republican</strong> triumph.<br />
This issue of rules for obtaining a triumph should also be related to <strong>the</strong> issue of how a victory, and<br />
indeed a defeat (defeated commanders do not seem to have had particular disadvantages<br />
compared to <strong>the</strong>ir victorious peers. Cf. M. Waller, Latomus 70, 2011), was accounted for; how was<br />
<strong>the</strong> number of casualties on <strong>the</strong> battlefield calculated and by whom. Rome’s relative carelessness<br />
towards its own dead certainly suggests that this may often have been impossible to judge. It does<br />
seem unfeasible to suggest that a commander underestimated his own victory, or it may just be<br />
that usually a significant victory, with substantial enemy losses, was required to obtain a triumph.<br />
Many triumphs led to <strong>the</strong> erection of monuments of one kind or ano<strong>the</strong>r, first and foremost in<br />
Rome. Most commonly <strong>the</strong>se were temples, formally dedicated following battle vows, and with<br />
2
perhaps just one exception (Ap. Claudius Caecus' temple of Bellona) all <strong>the</strong> vowing generals also<br />
celebrated triumphs. There were of course also o<strong>the</strong>r monuments, like columnae rostratae,<br />
triumphal arches (and later triumphal columns). Some triumphators held post-triumphal games,<br />
ei<strong>the</strong>r instead of or in addition to <strong>the</strong> monuments. But some did none of <strong>the</strong>se things (and indeed<br />
votive temples became less common after ordinary triumphs by <strong>the</strong> First Century BC). The<br />
question remains why some felt it necessary to monumentalize <strong>the</strong>ir successes when o<strong>the</strong>rs did<br />
not, seen in <strong>the</strong> light of a current emphasis on monuments and memory. This is hardly only a<br />
question of surpassing <strong>the</strong> glory of earlier triumphators.<br />
Trends are manifold, but it is <strong>the</strong> aim of this workshop to collate papers on a variety of different<br />
periods of <strong>Roman</strong> history and by using an interdisciplinary approach, to stress <strong>the</strong> necessity of<br />
using both material culture and written evidence in order to answer <strong>the</strong> questions we pose.<br />
The workshop wishes to address <strong>the</strong> following and similar questions related to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong><br />
triumph:<br />
• continuity and change<br />
• problematic evidence<br />
• <strong>the</strong> search for ‘origins’<br />
• rules for obtaining a triumph/Conventions<br />
• requirements o<strong>the</strong>r than winning a victory<br />
• relation to victories in <strong>the</strong> field and to <strong>the</strong> victorious and defeated commanders<br />
• <strong>Roman</strong> attitudes to war<br />
• battle vows and commemorations in Rome<br />
• triumph in relation to o<strong>the</strong>r war rituals<br />
Speakers and titles:<br />
Keynote speaker: Professor John W. Rich, University of Nottingham: 'Towards a History of <strong>the</strong><br />
<strong>Triumph</strong>'<br />
Head of Department Jesper Carlsen, University of Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Denmark, Odense: ‘De perfidia Gn.<br />
Domitius Ahenobarbus' Victory and <strong>Triumph</strong> over <strong>the</strong> Alloborges’<br />
3
Dr Matteo Cadario, Università degli Studi di Milano: ‘Preparing for <strong>Triumph</strong>: Graecae artes as<br />
<strong>Roman</strong> Booty’<br />
Professor Timothy J. Cornell, University of Manchester: 'The Fasti <strong>Triumph</strong>ales and <strong>the</strong> Historical<br />
Tradition'<br />
Director Patrick Kragelund, Danmarks Kunstbibliotek: ‘<strong>Triumph</strong> in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Roman</strong> Praetextae, from<br />
Naevius to <strong>the</strong> Octavia’<br />
Assistant Professor Troels Myrup Kristensen, University of Aarhus: ‘<strong>Triumph</strong>, Trophy Heads, and<br />
<strong>the</strong> Semantics of Violence’<br />
Carlsberg Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow Carsten H. Lange, The Danish Institute in<br />
Rome: ‘The <strong>Triumph</strong> Outside <strong>the</strong> City: Voices of Protest in <strong>the</strong> Middle Republic’<br />
Akademischer Assistent Christoph Lundgreen, TU Dresden: ‘Rules for Obtaining a <strong>Triumph</strong>’<br />
Associate Professor Jesper M. Madsen, University of Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Denmark, Odense: 'The Losers<br />
Prize: <strong>Triumph</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> Mithridatic Wars'<br />
Dr Ian Macgregor Morris: ‘The <strong>Roman</strong> <strong>Triumph</strong> in <strong>the</strong> Long Eighteenth Century’<br />
Professor Josiah Osgood, Georgetown University: ‘Julius Caesar and Spanish "triumph-hunting”’<br />
Associate Professor Ida Östenberg, University of Go<strong>the</strong>nburg: ‘<strong>Triumph</strong> and <strong>Spectacle</strong>. Victory<br />
Celebrations in <strong>the</strong> Late <strong>Republican</strong> Civil Wars’<br />
Professor Marianne Pade, Director, The Danish Institute in Rome: ‘The Neapolitan <strong>Triumph</strong> of<br />
Alfonso d’Aragona’<br />
Professor Christopher J. Smith, Director, The British School at Rome: ‘falsi triumphi’<br />
Lecturer Frederik J. Vervaet, University of Melbourne: ‘<strong>Beyond</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Spectacle</strong>: The Dubious<br />
<strong>Triumph</strong>s of Pompeius Magnus’<br />
Assistant Professor Richard Westall, Pontificia Università Gregoriana, Rome: ‘<strong>Triumph</strong> and Closure:<br />
Between History and Literature’<br />
Organiser: Carlsberg Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow Carsten H. Lange, The Danish<br />
Institute in Rome: hjort.lange@acdan.it<br />
4