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 doing 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.
Did Drusus’ conquests amount to anything? The answer is yes – at least in the short/medium term. In the years immediately after his death, Rome did hold on to his hard-won gains in Germania Magna. Augustus was still in charge and a succession of commanders was dispatched to advance the conquest. In contrast, Alexander left no instructions for what should happen when he died. Following the Macedonian’s death his empire immediately shattered among his generals like a krater striking a stone floor and resulted in fifty years of bloodshed, leading one author to recently dub him ‘Alexander the Great Failure’.17When Drusus died many of the allies in the region remained unquestioningly loyal to Rome – even supplying troops for her army for several years after. The conquered Germanic élites even began adjusting to the new Roman order of things. Significantly, the sixty nations of the Tres Galliae also stood firm and loyal to Rome, and mourned the loss of their governor. The commanders of the legions and auxiliaries he led also remained loyal. Had he lived to be as old as Alexander, could he have taken Roman arms beyond the Elbe River to the Oder or the Vistula? Probably, but again that is speculation.
And what of that title ‘the Great’? Romans were very careful about lauding their heroes. Greatness comes with a price attached, usually at the cost of both great deeds and equally great flaws.18Rome’s other high achiever, Gn. Pompeius, was actually accorded the honour of using Magnus after his name by L. Cornelius Sulla, not the Senate or Roman People. But it was a different age. There could only be one strong man during Drusus’ lifetime, and he was Augustus. He would not tolerate rivals and he carefully managed which honours his sons and deputies could garner. The Senate and Augustus did, however, recognise Drusus’ achievements by awarding him first an ovation and later a full triumph, and posthumously they voted a honorary name they had coined just for him – Germanicus. He joined an élite group of Roman generals proudly bearing their battle honours as part of their name, including P. Cornelius Scipio Africanus, L. Aemilius Paulus Macedonicus and Q. Caecilius Metellus Numidicus. Augustus might appear mean when he overruled the Rhine legions’ acclamation of Drusus as imperator and by taking the title for himself. It was a political calculation, and Augustus was a very shrewd politician. It could be said, of course, that in death Drusus could no longer be a threat to Augustus, so he could afford to be generous by approving the bespoke agnomen. On the contrary, Augustus had much more to gain from exploiting his stepson’s achievements while he was still alive. Drusus’ deeds reflected well on him. Augustus had affection for, and confidence in, both of his stepsons and he promoted the fact. The frieze on the Ara Pacis Augustae and the decoration on the exquisitely crafted Boscoreale Cups graphically “illustrate the strength of Augustan propaganda centered on his stepsons and testify to the real success that the grieving Augustus and Tiberius had in keeping alive the memory of Drusus’ exploits”.19Drusus was a popular Roman hero and both stepfather and brother stood to benefit from promulgating his legend. Drusus’ reputation in death, like Alexander’s, could still move men, especially those living who had served under him. When the men of the Rhine legions mutinied in 14 CE it was his son, Germanicus accompanied by his wife Agrippina, who went to face them down. The men were complaining about harsh conditions, poor pay and the long years of service they had to endure before being discharged. Germanicus appealed to their feelings of shame for betraying the memory of “father Drusus” as one of the factors to bring the mutineers to heel.20Thus, a great man does not need the title ‘Great’ after his name to be recognised as one. If the measure is charismatic leadership, heroic stature and martial brilliance, Drusus goes a long way to qualifying as a Roman Alexander the Great.
The noted historian Ronald Syme correctly observed that scholars have not properly estimated the contributions of Tiberius and Drusus in the years 12–9 BCE.21Some historians have even characterised the campaigns in Germania as little more than ‘punitive raids’.22This assessment is quite wrong. Considered together with the Alpine and Norican Wars, the German Wars shaped Rome’s northern frontier strategy and policy for the next quarter century. While Augustus assigned Tiberius the supposedly conquered Balkan provinces and used his talents to quell rebellions there, Drusus was granted the honour of conquering new and unchartered territories. The lands across the Rhine River would forever become the fields of honour on which Drusus and his male descendants would establish their place in Roman military history.23The vast investment in military infrastructure and the commitment of such a significant proportion of army resources to the project are eloquent witnesses to a desire at the highest levels for annexation and assimilation, not punishment. It was Drusus who opened up Germania for exploration and exploitation for the next generation. Directly resulting from Drusus’ campaigns the Romans had the best ever ground intelligence of the region. New topographical and ethnographical studies of Germania Magna were henceforth available for other commanders to build their war plans upon. Through his work, Drusus prepared the way for future missions, such as those of Domitius Ahenobarbus who actually crossed the Elbe River. He also built alliances with several nations that laid a path forward for assimilation in the years immediately following his death. By successfully leveraging a strategy, by parts diplomatic and military, he achieved much more than his relatively small fighting force could by violence alone.
The written accounts suggest Drusus was respected even by those he fought and had defeated. As he lay dying even “his very foes had reverently honoured his sick-bed by maintaining peace along with us; nor did they dare to desire what their interests demanded”, wrote Seneca.24Shortly after his death, the subjugation of Germania was deemed sufficiently effective in places that plans were already in hand when Tiberius assumed command of the Rhine legions to begin urban development of the acquired territories. As early as four years after Drusus’ death the timber foundations of a fortified market town were being established at Lahnau-Waldgirmes in what had only a decade before been considered hostile territory. When news of Drusus’ death spread, several of the Rhineland Germanic peoples saw a chance to oust their invader – but not all and it was sufficient deterrent for Tiberius to return with an armed force and to merely raise the threat of violence for the rebel tribes to sue for peace. They had seen enough evidence under Drusus to know the Romans were serious about bringing them under their control. Any further than that goes beyond Drusus’ own life story. His successors lacked his deftness of touch, personal charm and charisma. To wit, the failure by men sent to govern the region after his death to understand the fierce streak of independence in the Germanic character led to errors of judgment which fanned the smouldering embers of resentment that would lead to disaster for the Romans at Teutoburg. When the time came to reclaim lost Roman conquests it was again to Drusus that the new commander of the Rhine army looked for guidance. The son and the heir to his hereditary title, Germanicus, followed almost exactly in his father’s footsteps, replicating the invasion plans by both land and sea almost to the last detail. His fleet of ships even became the nucleus of the future classis Germanica that patrolled the Rhine as part of the limes frontier.25
For hundreds of years, Roman ships sailed down the Rhine into the North Sea by way of the fossa Drusiana. Built to carry Drusus’ men and arms to a far away battlefield, it now carried trade goods that brought Roman influence to barbarian peoples beyond Rome’s sway. Yet Rome’s obsession with its northern frontier never waned. Her ambition for absolute control of the right bank of the Rhine was only crimped – in another irony – by his own brother Tiberius. A succession of late first and second century emperors tried their hands at emulating Drusus, including the Flavian Emperor Domitian. Even into the third and fourth centuries Roman troops traipsed deep into Germania Magna in the hope of taming the land and its unruly peoples, but without success. In the end the Germanic peoples came to the Romans – and stayed.
When Tiberius decided to limit and consolidate the frontiers of his imperium on the left bank of the Rhine, it was in the centres founded by Drusus that Roman power was invested. He had chosen their locations wisely and as any visitor to the places today will attest “it is surprising what a good eye the Romans had for strategic positions”.26In time, the civilian vici around the military encampments Drusus built along the Rhine from which to launch his invasion routes quickly became the trading and cultural centres of the northern edge of the Empire, surviving into the Middle Ages right down to the present day. The Rhine cities of Nijmegen, Xanten, Neuss, Bonn, Mainz and Strasbourg have become his enduring legacy in bricks and mortar. Tantalisingly in other towns in France, the Rhineland and southern Germany perhaps the imprint of the unit of measurement named after him and used by Roman surveyors, the pes Drusianus, can still be traced in the ancient street plans.
It is deeply ironic that the man who would have wanted to see Rome restored to a democratic res publica unintentionally established a dynasty that actually continued the autocratic principate. Strictly speaking, it was not the bloodline of the Iulii which succeeded Augustus (he was adopted into the Julian clan) but that of the Claudii Nerones. After his brother’s death, first Caligula, his grandson by Germanicus and then Claudius, his youngest son, ascended the throne of the imperial monarchy. Through marriage to the great-granddaughter of Augustus, Claudius adopted an older boy, Nero, who he made joint heir with his own son Britannicus (just as Augustus had done years before with Gaius and Lucius). When Claudius died in 54 CE, Nero succeeded him, not Britannicus and his ensuing reign brought the rule of the Julio-Claudians to an end. The imperial autocracy, however, continued.
Drusus’ greatest weaknesses were a deeply ingrained drive to win and an unshakeable belief in his own abilities – traits he shared with Alexander and Caesar. It expressed itself in his need to overachieve that sometimes bordered on the reckless, none more so than in his quest for the spolia opima. In 12 and 11 BCE he almost led his men to disaster in Germania and he took unnecessary risks with his own life in his pursuit of these prized spoils. That quality, perhaps, even killed him in the end. Yet it would be unfair to say Drusus was vainglorious. He did not have an inordinate pride in his own self-importance or achievements, nor did he display excessive vanity. In Suetonius’ phrase, “it is the general belief that he was no less eager for glory than he was for civilian government”.27Like many who carried the Claudian genetic code, he could certainly be stubborn and headstrong. He seems, rather, to have been acutely aware of his place in – perhaps even in awe of – the great family of the Claudians from which he was descended and of his civic duty. If it was a failing at all, he was motivated by a desire to be counted among the best of his lineage and to have enhanced, not diminished, its reputation by his deeds. Drusus eagerly sought out glory and was greedy for praise. For a Roman, regardless of class, it was the approval of one’s fellow citizens that was the only measure of value that counted. In that regard, Drusus was remarkably traditional.
As long as a Claudian was in power, the legacy of Drusus lent prestige, even glamour, to the incumbent. Claudius fully exploited his filial connection with Drusus and his right to inherit the honorary title Germanicus to bolster his own weak image in the early part of his reign by using specially minted coins to get the message out to all levels of society. It was only after he had invaded Britain, and received the accolade Britannicus for his victories in that remote island, that he felt he had gained the confidence of his people and could be his own man. Thereafter, Drusus’ fame waned. When Flavius Vespasianus beat the last of Nero’s successors and installed a new clan on the Palatine in 69 CE Drusus’ name was too closely associated with the old regime. Politically the new rulers needed to establish their own credentials that were independent of what went before. They needed their own Flavian heroes. There was little to be gained for them and subsequent rulers by promoting the name of Drusus and in any case they were not related. He belonged to a different family and to a different age. Add to which, the passing of time has not been kind to Drusus’ memory. The biography written by Augustus and the twenty volumes of The German Wars composed by Pliny the Elder, which fully told his story, have all since been lost. Even the monuments of brick and marble – the triumphal arch in Rome, the tumulus in Mogontiacum, the Drusion tower in Caesarea – have crumbled away. As they turned to dust, memory of Drusus’ life and exploits faded under the shadow of men whose life stories and exploits have largely by chance survived more completely in books and edifices down to our own time. Drusus was gradually lost in the footnotes of a bigger story of the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Thus Ann L. Kuttner observed,
the frequent neglect of the brothers’ [Drusus and Tiberius] role in the first part of Augustus’ reign seems due to the nature of the extant historical sources, and to fashions in modern scholarship. These factors in turn seem conditioned by two historical catastrophes, the untimely death of Drusus in 9 B.C. while campaigning in Germany and Tiberius’ self-exile to Rhodes in 4 B.C., an action for which modern and ancient observers alike have no unambiguous explanation, only the record of its primary effects. The result has often been to leave Drusus out of any comprehensive analysis of Augustan dynastic policy, as if his death canceled any prior significance, and to regard Tiberius’ ultimate elevation to the throne as an unwelcome act forced on Augustus by the lack of any alternative due to the deaths of his grandsons and adopted sons Gaius and Lucius. This gap in scholarship is just beginning to be filled by a series of recent German investigations interested primarily in Drusus but also in the linked roles of the brothers as a pair; it has yet to be redressed in the English scholarly literature.28
With good reason the ghost of Drusus appeared before Pliny and expressed his fear that the story of his life and achievements would fade into oblivion!
In the ancient accounts, there is a sub-plot to Drusus’ life, a narrative of ongoing interactions between the world of the living and that of the gods and spirits of place. The mystical dimension to Drusus’ story strikes modern readers as strange. To Roman readers this would be completely normal. His is the story of the man who embodies the traditional mores and respects the mos maiorum. For most of his young life, Drusus is lucky. Fortune seems to be his protector. He chases the spolia opima at great personal risk, but he is never harmed. He erects the altar of Roma and Augustus in Lugdunum and instigates an annual festival. He inaugurates a temple to the cult at Andemantunnum. He is forewarned of trouble before the battle at Arbalo, to which he shows the appropriate humility: the Cherusci have a change of heart and, turning near defeat into victory, he goes on to lead his men safely to camp. However, he becomes increasingly arrogant. It is the trait of all heroes, who come to believe in their own invincibility. Omens and portents foretell of catastrophe and the priests advise Drusus to be careful; but he grows impatient, disregards the warnings, departs anyway and drives deep into Germania. By reaching the Albis, the Roman achieves his mission but he has offended the genius loci, the spirit of the place who appears to him as a superhuman Germanic woman. He heeds the warning and decides to abort his quest, but, alas, it is too late. His luck has run out. A price must be paid for hubris. His fate is sealed. Strange sights and sounds presage an end to his life. His last act, a demonstration of pietas, is to ensure his brother is treated with the dignity due him on his arrival at the ‘Accursed Camp’. Drusus’ spirit passes into the next world with a record as a courageous, honourable and decent man. In an ironic twist, he himself appears as a ghost or a dreamworld figure to Pliny the Elder to plead with him to tell his story. These unusual events may appear to be dramatic devices to good story telling, but the respectful Roman reader knew better than to dismiss them.
Nero Claudius Drusus, acclaimed in life by his troops as ‘commander’ and honoured in death as ‘conqueror of the Germani’, lived a truly glorious life. In Eager for Glory, I hope his story, so often confined to footnotes, has now been restored to prominence and his legacy, for so long overlooked, has been revealed anew. In the words attributed to Pliny the Elder,
True glory consists in doing what deserves to be written, in writing what deserves to be read, and in so living as to make the world happier and better for our living in it.29