The Role of Pertinax in the Coup of Commodus in the Antonine Dynasty

The Antonine dynasty ended with the death of Commodus in the last day of the year 192 AD. He was succeeded by Publius Helvius Pertinax. The sources uniformly present the plot that killed Commodus as the sole responsibility of its prime movers and Pertinax always maintained that he was ignorant of the assassination. In similar circumstances to the coup that brought Nerva to power it seems much more likely that Pertinax was the intended replacement for Commodus right from the start, but the extent to which his active involvement in the plot is still up for debate. In the accounts of both Dio and Herodian for the year 193 AD, the praetorians are ridiculed for being disruptive and egotistical: for example, Herodian tells us that they longed for a return to the debauchery and looting that they enjoyed under Commodus while Dio tells us of their pampered lifestyles and delicacy of character from having so long lived in the capital.[1] Such descriptions, while helpful in evaluating the character of the praetorians, are not helpful when trying to outline the precise role that the guard played in the tumultuous events of 193 AD, and these characterisations must be kept at arms length in the discussion that follows.

The praetorians were involved in both confirming Pertinax as Commodus' successor and in his murder with the praetorian prefect Laetus being crucial in both.[2] Having murdered Commodus, two of the main conspirators, the Praetorian Prefect Laetus and the chamberlain Eclectus went off to Pertinax's house, explained what had happened and then offered him the thrown. The party then went directly to the Praetorian camp where the soldiers' loyalty was shored up by the promise of 12,000 sesterce per man and only then was the senate approached. Indeed, all three of our sources agree that although the praetorians dually accepted their donatives and proclaimed Pertinax as emperor, there was a sense of unease among the soldiers as with Pertinax's promise to right the wrongs of his predecessor there was now the possibility that he might withdraw the existing privileges granted to them by Commodus.[3] At a meeting held at night with one of our sources Cassius Dio present, Pertinax was presented to the senate. Dio asserts that Pertinax was a fine upstanding man and well respected by his peers.[4] Pertinax already had a son almost grown to adulthood as well as a daughter, but he sent his children away from Rome and transferred ownership of the family's ancestral estates to them. He did this, Dio tells us, to prevent the boy from being spoiled by imperial power and the title of Caesar.[5] This was most likely a reference to Commodus' privileged upbringing that had produced such undesirable results. By doing so, Pertinax might also have been trying to point towards a return to the adoptive principle of succession that was so successful in finding suitable emperors such as Trajan and Hadrian, but if so, he wasn't to be given the chance to realise it.

Pertinax found the empire's treasury greatly depleted and despite selling off Commodus' personal belongings he could not raise enough money to pay the full amount that he promised to the praetorians. This and his insistence to restoring discipline, caused his stock to decline rapidly to the extent that the guard made two attempts to replace him, the second of which involved the prefect Laetus, one of his staunchest supporters. There is an inconsistency among the sources for the exact reason for Pertinax's murder. Dio and Herodian cite Pertinax's reluctance to permit the guard to run wild and do as they pleased - a vice they enjoyed under Commodus.[6] Dio also tells us that the guard scoffed at Pertinax's claims that he had paid them the same donatives as Gaius and Lucius, Commodus' predecessors. Dio backs this point by giving us exact figures with Gaius and Lucius giving 20,000 sesterce and Pertinax only 12,000 sesterce.[7] The evidence provided here by Dio, that Pertinax was killed because he limitations on the avarice and income of the guard is backed by the Historia Augusta as both claim the conspiracy against the emperor was orcastrated by Laetus, the praetorian prefect.[8] Herodian, however, does not cite a leader in the conspiracy and describes the guards as a leaderless and unruly mob longing to return to their favoured, disorderly ways.[9] The reasons provided for why Laetus would incite a rebellion are vague in the sources with both Dio and the Historia Augusta illustrating a sense of general displeasure and regret in the mind of the praetorian prefect.[10]

Alan Appelbaum argues that the reason for Laetus' actions were right in front of Dio, even if he did not recognize them. Appelbaum's theory is that when Pertinax sent his father-in-law to the praetorian camp "to set matters in order there"[11], he was not sending to calm the mutinous troops, but to usurp the praetorian prefect's authority either by sidelining him by appointing a second prefect or by putting the guard under the command of the prefect of the city who was, in fact, his father-in-law Titus Flavius Sulpicianus.[12]

The regime was clearly hanging by a thread and when Laetus and Pertinax fell to public squabbling, the troops lost confidence entirely and a band of two hundred men burst into the palace. Against the advice of his advisors, Pertinax tried to talk them down, but as he addressed the soldiers one of them rushed forward and struck him with his sword. The rest then crowded around and finished him off. Pertinax's head was cut off, stuck on a spear and paraded around. It was the 28th of March 193 AD and Pertinax had ruled for just 87 days. The instability of the times undermined his attempts to return to a civil form of the emperorship. Modern scholars liken Pertinax to Nerva - a stop gap civilian ruler who paved the way for a prominent general, in this case Septimius Severus. This comparison only goes so far however as Nerva had chosen Trajan where as Pertinax, so far as we can tell, didn't get a chance to choose anyone.

The political vacuum left by the assassination led to one of the most disgraceful incidents in the annals of Roman history. With no clear successor paralysis ensued with many senators staying at home to wait out the crisis out and the praetorians searching for a suitable replacement. Two candidates then presented themselves, Titus Flavius Sulpicianus, the father-in-law of the murdered Pertinax who had initially been sent to the praetorian camp to quell the mutiny of the troops and Marcus Didius Julianus. Sulpicianus' attempts to win the favour of the guard was met with apathy and Julianus was barred from even entering the camp. standing outside the ramparts Julianus began offering the praetorians money if they would back his candidacy which was reported to Sulpicianus inside, who then upped the offer which in turn was topped by Julianus again and so the empire was essentially auctioned off to the highest bidder and when the offer of Sulpicianus reached 20,000 sesterce per man, Julianus, apparently tired of the whole process, offered a further 5,000 per head and the soldiers backed him on the spot. The new emperor surrounded by his troops came down to the senate, again with Dio present and who writes as an eye witness. The senators were terrified by the intimidating posture of the soldiers, not least Dio who had been a friend to Pertinax and who had previously prosecuted Julianus in the courts.[13] Nevertheless he had no choice, but to back the motion to confirm Julianus as Rome's new emperor.

[1] Dio 74.16.3; Dio 74.16.3

[2] Succession: Dio 74.1.2; Herodian 2.1-5. Murder: Dio 74.9.1-10.3; Herodian 2.5.1-9

[3] Dio 74.1; Herodian 2.2.9; Historia Augusta, Pertinax 5.7-8

[4] Dio 74.1

[5] Dio 74.7

[6] Dio 74.8.1; Herodian 2.5.1

[7] Dio 74.8.

[8] Dio 74.9; Historia Augusta, Pertinax 10.8-10

[9] Herodian 2.5.1

[10] Dio 74.9; Historia Augusta, Pertinax 10.8-10

[11] Dio 79.11.1

[12] Alan Appelbaum, "Another Look at the Assination of Pertinax and the Accession of Julianus", Classical Philology, Vol. 102, No. 2 (April 2007), p.204

[13] Dio 74.1.2