That history is written by the victors is a quote attributed variously to Churchill, Machiavelli and Hitler, and is often considered a truism. Yet there are many examples in which history was written by the losing side, such as the Athenian Thucydides’ account of the Peloponnesian War, which Athens lost; the Greek scholars who fled to the west after the fall of Byzantium; or even, controversially, American depictions of the Vietnam War (although of course many Americans such as Otto in A Fish Called Wanda claim that was a draw).
Whether or not Caracalla should be counted as a victor after the death of his brother, he certainly was the survivor of that year of conflict, yet the contemporaneous, near contemporaneous and more recent historiography is almost universally hostile. I have explored Caracalla’s reputation further in the essay below, but for this historical note, I will concentrate on a few contentious points that are found in this novel.
The most important, of course, is whether Caracalla planned to kill his brother at the peace meeting in Domna’s chambers, or whether it was Geta who attempted to murder Caracalla, and Caracalla was merely defending himself. The two main sources, Herodian and Dio Cassius, were markedly hostile to Caracalla. Dio Cassius was a senator during Caracalla’s reign, and no doubt resented the Emperor’s dismissive treatment of the Senate. However, both historians acknowledge that the two brothers were plotting against each other, or at least believed this was the case. Both historians also record that Caracalla claimed he had been saved from a plot against his life by Geta. So it is equally plausible that Geta really did instigate a murder plot against his brother at the peace meeting as that Caracalla may have been the guilty party. We will never know for sure, but fortunately, as I have said before, as a historical novelist I can choose the possible version of events that suits my narrative best.
Another area of doubt in the history is whether Plautilla, Caracalla’s estranged wife, had offspring. This is not recorded in the contemporary records, but numismatic evidence from before the downfall of Plautilla and her father in AD 205 shows a coin of Plautilla holding a child. If this is a representation of her own child, and it is illustrated on a coin, then officially at least the child must have been Caracalla’s. But Caracalla hated Plautilla, whom his father had required him to marry to cement his ties with the Praetorian prefect Plautianus. When Plautianus was executed after a failed plot against Severus, Caracalla was able to have her exiled with her brother and presumably, if it existed, her child.
Herodian says that Caracalla refused to eat or sleep with his wife, and Dio called her a most shameless creature, so it is reasonable to assume that it is at least possible that the girl was not Caracalla’s. He may not have been sure himself, but would likely want the whole family disposed of to avoid any future threats to his rule, including ones claiming a hereditary right to rule by someone marrying his supposed child. If he is not the monster that history makes him out to be, then he no doubt felt remorse at this act, but equally felt it was necessary.
Silus and Atius are fictional characters, but many of their actions are attested in the sources. I have mentioned the murder of Plautilla and her family. Also, the murder of Euprepes, the famous charioteer, is noted in Dio Cassius – killed, so it was said, for supporting a faction opposing his own. If by faction Dio is referring to the teams of Circus supporters, then it seems a bit arbitrary to kill off a famous old man, even if he was a fan of the other side, notwithstanding the passion with which the Circus fans supported their teams. (The Blues, Greens, Reds and Whites moved with the capital of the Empire to the Hippodrome in Byzantium/Constantinople, and a riot between fans in AD 532 led to nearly half the city being burnt and tens of thousands dead.) However, Geta and Caracalla supported opposing Circus factions, as they did the opposite in most things, and so if Euprepes had been vocal in his praise for Geta, the most prestigious of the Green fans, then Caracalla might have taken that as a personal slight.
The attack on Cilo is also historical, with Caracalla intervening to save him. I have therefore represented this as a sort of St Thomas of Canterbury/Henry II moment, with frustration being misinterpreted as an execution order.
Galen is another fascinating historical figure, as he was the most prominent doctor of his time. He was the personal physician to several Emperors, and his theories of disease and the workings of the human body were hugely influential until well into the sixteenth century. He was present in Rome when the Antonine plague, named after Marcus Aurelius, struck, and it is sometimes called the plague of Galen due to his attempts to understand and treat it. His descriptions have allowed modern researchers to identify this lethal pandemic as smallpox. He was a member of Julia Domna’s circle of intellectuals, and was Severus’ personal physician until his death.
I have mentioned one or two other historical figures who were to become important players on the Imperial stage. Macrinus became increasingly influential under Severus and Caracalla. Julia Soaemias was one of the Syrian women related to Julia Domna who had an unusually large influence and power in Severan Rome. And we have also now briefly met Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus, who later became the controversial Emperor Elagabalus. And he is to play an important part in the story of Silus yet to come…