Is Hadrian More Appropriately Described As A Man Of Arms Or A Man Of Culture?

An examination of the character of Hadrian is problematic, due to the fact that we are presented with a certain degree of dualism in his person. As princeps, we can see that he was presented with a crisis in foreign policy immediately upon his accession, one which required extensive military expertise in order to resolve. Similarly, as an individual, we are told in the literary sources that he had a strong affection for Hellenic culture, an affection which expressed itself in the form of private architecture in his villa at Tivoli, as well as countless benefactions in the East. For the purposes of this essay, I intend to attempt to reconcile these separate entities, stressing the fact that the two were able to harmoniously co-exist, and that both descri ptions can be seen as appropriate, given a specific context in which to utilise them. This reconciliation will be achieved with an examination of his foreign policy and involvement in military affairs in the provinces. This should be followed with an investigation into his activities in the Greek East, with special attention being paid to his relationship with Athens. Having done so, I intend to proceed briefly to examine the extent to which Hadrian has been misrepresented in the material record, looking at recent discoveries in portrait statuary and the counter argument of Opper. Initially, I feel that it would be beneficial to elucidate the precarious position in which the Empire found itself in the wake of the death of Trajan in August of AD 117. Having employed a policy of ruthless imperialism, it appears that the Empire had become overstretched, and as a consequence we see widespread unrest in the provinces. Such a situation is exemplified in the Historia Augusta: 'For the nations which Trajan had conquered began to revolt; the Moors, moreover, began to make attacks, and the Sarmatians to wage war, the Britons could not be kept under Roman sway, Egypt was thrown into disorder by riots, and finally Libya and Palestine showed the spirit of rebellion.' Clearly, we can see that Hadrian, as princeps, needed to act with celerity and authority, and his reaction to this situation showed just such qualities. The newly claimed provinces of Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia were relinquished and elsewhere, at Creta et Cyrene, Aegyptus and Judaea rebellions were crushed. Hadrian appears to have decided that a policy of containing the empire within these limits was the most expedient solution to the pressing issue of provincial unrest and external threat. I would argue that such a solution appears to show a great deal of military competence and awareness of the realities of life on the frontiers. Such an awareness should be of no surprise, as Hadrian is known to have held a number of military posts prior to his accession: he had seen military service in Spain (90), Pannonia (95), Moesia (96), Germany (97), and with Trajan in Dacia, as well as holding governorships in Lower Pannonia and Syria. Whilst I would argue that his actions upon his accession show acute military competence, Salmon provides stern criticism of the policy, arguing that empires may 'hardly remain static' , with Opper similarly arguing that this policy marked a departure from that of the Augustan principate and the concept of 'imperium sine fine'. I feel, however, that Opper appears to be overlooking the precedent of Tiberius, who was reputedly instructed in the will of Augustus to confine the empire within its present limits: 'consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii.' A certain degree of criticism appears to be leveled against the defensive foreign policy of Hadrian, especially in light of the view of Augustus and Trajan as the greatest principes, and most militarily successful rulers, yet we should not forget that by employing such a defensive policy, Hadrian was merely perpetuating the advice proposed by Augustus himself. Having seen that Hadrian was effectively compelled to display military competence upon his accession, I intend to stress that this characteristic was, whilst a necessary feature of a princeps, also a personal merit. The Historia Augusta describes Hadrian as 'armorum peritissimus et rei militaris scientissimus' Similarly, Cassius Dio remarks that 'Both by his example and by his precepts he so trained and disciplined the whole military force throughout the entire empire that even today the methods then introduced by him are the soldiers' law of campaigning.' Clearly the literary sources are able to attest to the competence of Hadrian as a 'man of arms', and indeed, we even have epigraphic evidence to corroborate this view. In AD 128, whilst on his travels, Hadrian visited Lambaesis in N. Africa and inspected local military units. Text of Hadrian's speech to the cavalry units is preserved and was inscribed on a large monument in the centre of the local parade ground to commemorate Hadrian's visit. The inscri ption shows, amongst other things, Hadrian expressing his praise for the troops, boosting morale: 'You performed the most difficult of difficult exercises, throwing the javelin whilst wearing the cuirass. I also approve of your spirit.' This inscri ption shows that Hadrian was both characteristically adept in the military sphere, as well as performing his duties as leader adequately, touring the provinces in order, amongst other things, to maintain discipline amongst inactive troops. Finally, with regard to Hadrian's military character, I feel that it is important to note that the date on which he celebrated his dies imperii was not on the 9th of August AD 117, when he learned of his adoption by Trajan, but on 11th August, the date of his acclamation by the troops. As princeps, Hadrian was almost continuously occupied with military affairs during his rule, touring the provinces in order to inspect the troops, celebrating his accession on its military justification, and even being hailed in the literary sources as competent in martial affairs. Hadrian, at least with regard to his public role, can most certainly be described as a 'man of arms'...