The Real Severans VII: Challengers to Elagabalus

While hindsight is 20/20, Sextus Varius Avitus Bassianus did not appear to be the best candidate for the imperial throne in 218.  He was only 14 years old, reliant on his mother and grandmother for political guidance and with his only dynastic link being that his grandmother was the sister of an empress, i.e. it was not a good one (hence the need to claim that Caracalla was his father - indeed, so weak was Elagabalus’ claim that his mother, Julia Soaemias, had to ‘admit’ to an  incestuous liaison with her cousin to find a better one... a trick that would be repeated by Julia Mamaea with regard to Severus Alexander).

With such a weak ‘Severan’ candidate to challenge Macrinus and then that same candidate, having been successful in attaining the throne, proving to be a behavioural nightmare, it would not be surprising to find challenges to Elagabalus. And while none were successful or at all widespread, the historical sources do record several instances of revolt against Elagabalus, with many of them coming from surprising origins.

The first of these revolts recorded by name was from a certain senator Verus. What is surprising about his revolt is not that he had been “enrolled in the Senate from the ranks of the centurions” (Dio 80.7.2), but the position he held at the time - he was commander of the III Gallica legion. This was the legion, under their previous commander, Publius Valerius Comazon, and from its base at that had championed the accession of Elagabalus in opposition to Macrinus, forming the core of the army that won the Battle of Antioch on 8 June 218.

Why III Gallica turned so drastically against Elagabalus is not specifically recorded beyond a general dislike of the outrageous behaviour of the emperor, although as Elagabalus had moved west to Rome, III Gallica was hardly as exposed to his behaviour as other legions were.

Could they have been annoyed about Elagabalus’ murder of Gannys (Dio 80.6.3), the man who had led the pro-Severan forces, including III Gallica, at Antioch? Might III Gallica have been annoyed at their lack of reward for being the backbone of the revolt that brought Elagabalus to the throne? Might they have expected to take on more of a prestigious bodyguard role like the Praetorians or II Parthica, who just so happen to have been the other named units at Antioch?

The revolt may have been solely about the ambition of Verus himself, who was not just revolting against Elagabalus, he “ventured to seek the throne” (Dio 80.7.1). The accession of Elagabalus had shown that military revolt on the eastern frontier could result in the ultimate imperial promotion.

While an argument from silence, the lack of detail in the record about Verus’ revolt could reflect how quickly it was put down and also its lack of support, perhaps even within III Gallica itself. However, this event may have been enough for Elagabalus to punish the legion by breaking it up, dispersing its men to other units, such as III Augusta in Africa Province. It would be reconstituted under Severus Alexander and sent back to the eastern frontier, although not to Raphanaea near Emesa, but to near Damascus, protecting the road to Palmyra.

That military revolt on the eastern frontier could provide the basis for an imperial accession may also have influenced another of the named revolts against Elagabalus. In 219, Gellius Maximus, tribune (second-in-command) of IV Scythica stationed at Zeugma, rebelled against Elagabalus (Dio 80.7.1). He was the son of Lucius Gellius Maximus, who had served as a doctor of Caracalla, for which he had been promoted to procurator. This was another legion of recent good service to the Severans - Septimius Severus had been its commander from 181 to 183, while some of its soldiers had been responsible for the capture of the fleeing Diadumenianus, son of Macrinus.

However, it could be in part due to the latter of these acts that Gellius was pushed to rebellion. It was an unnamed centurion who was rewarded by Elagabalus for this imperial interception, but Gellius himself was ignored. The tribune may have expected more than to just be sent back to the legionary base at Zeugma.

Like Verus, Gellius looked to claim the imperial title for himself, but unlike with Verus, we have suggestion of how Gellius failed. His rebellion seems to have been quashed by the rapid, loyal response of XVI Flavia Firma, which was stationed about 70 miles north-east of Zeugma at Samosata.

That another legion was needed to quash Gellius’ revolt may suggest that he had the support of much of IV Scythica; conversely, it could be said that the lack of a record of a legion vs legion battle near Zeugma suggests that the support of IV Scythica for their usurper did not long survive the approach of XVI Flavia Firma and the latter making clear their continued allegiance to Elagabalus.

Had XVI Flavia Firma joined IV Scythia and united behind Gellius, with the rebellious tendencies of the nearby III Gallica if it had not already been dispersed), these three legions and their attached auxiliaries could have posed a major threat to Elagabalus, who had won the throne with less... Despite the potential importance of his loyalty to the Severans, the name of legate of XVI Flavia Firma is only partially preserved as the suffix “atus” (McHugh (2017) 55).

Dio 80.7.2-3 mentions that there were other attempts at usurping supreme power under Elagabalus. Two of these instances were among the same two legions we have already seen usurpation from. “The son of a centurion undertook to stir up” III Gallica - this would make it a third revolt involving that legion in a period of perhaps only 3-4 years. This would make its dispersal by Elagabalus, even if he had benefitted from one of those revolts, more understandable. Furthermore, a “worker in wool” tried to raise revolt amongst IV Scythica, but was thwarted. Elsewhere, a private citizen tried to lead the fleet of Cyzicus in revolt while Elagabalus was in Nicomedia, “and there were many others elsewhere” (Dio 80.7.3).

The revolt (and then behaviour) of Elagabalus seems to have sparked the kind of instability, at least on a regional level, more commonly associated with the breakdown of military discipline and imperial authority after the murder of Severus Alexander characterised as the Third Century Crisis.

There are several other named men who were executed under Elagabalus for reasons that might have involved some form of revolt or usurping of imperial prerogatives. A certain Castinus was killed “because he was energetic and known to many soldiers in consequence of the commands he had held and for his intimate association with [Caracalla]” (Dio 80.4.3). Macrinus had in 217 deprived Castinus of his governorship of Dacia because he “feared [his] proud spirit and [his] friendship for Caracalla” (Dio 79.13). Indeed, Elagabalus had just restored Castinus after he had been exiled by Macrinus. In such uncertain times, it seems not to have paid to be well known to the soldiery or friends with their favourite emperor...

Another Elagabalan target, a former consul and governor of Noricum (CIL III.11743), Marcus Munatius Sulla Cerialis, had been appointed governor of Cappadocia by Macrinus in 217. These Macrinan links may have led to his being targeted by Elagabalus in 219, although if the official account mentioned by Dio 80.4.5 contains any truth, Sulla’s actions were certainly conducive to bringing down imperial suspicion on his head.

At some point, Sulla had left his province, without permission or cause, after being found meddling in affairs that he had no busy with. And when summoned to Rome to defend himself against such charges, “he had contrived to meet the German troops returning home after their winter in Bithynia, a period during which they had created some little disturbance”.

Again, if any of this is true, a provincial governor, particularly in the east which had just seen the upheaval of Parthian War, the death of Caracalla, and then the conflict between Macrinus and Elagabalus, sticking his nose where it did not belong, crossing into another province (under arms?) and then when called to answer for these transgressions met with a rebellious cohort of men was asking for trouble from a newly established imperial regime.

We might wonder if Sulla had backed the wrong horse in civil conflict of 218, possibly looking to drum up support for Macrinus across provincial lines or even began to march to his aid. But then, surely the official account in Dio would reflect such almost insurrectionist action... As it is, the indiscretions Sulla is accused of seem just vague enough to be invented to explain the removal of a man appointed by Macrinus.

Another senator, Seius Carus, was accused by Elagabalus of stirring up mutiny amongst troops stationed near the Alban Mount - almost certainly II Parthica. This would certainly have been a brazen move to close to the centre of power, so brazen in fact that Cassius Dio did not believe it, suggesting instead that Carus was innocent of this charge and was instead targeted by Elagabalus due to being “rich, influential, and prudent” (Dio 80.4.6)

The suspicion in the air at the outset of Elagabalus was also seen in the execution of Valerianus Paetus. He was found to have stamped his likeness on ornaments and gilded them gold. And as he was due to depart for Cappadocia, which bordered his Galatian homeland, it was claimed that he intended to use these ornaments “for the purpose of starting a rebellion” (Dio 80.4.7). Instead, the ornaments were for his mistress, but this did not prevent his execution.

The executions of Silius Messalla and Pomponius Bassus were also presented as being because they had displeased the emperor with their plotting against him. In reality, Messalla was merely critical of Elagabalus’ actions and lifestyle, while Bassus was removed because Elagabalus had taken a liking to his wife, Annia Faustina, who subsequently became the young emperor’s third wife... for less than a year (Dio 80.5.1-4).

There were seemingly many other victims of Elagabalan suspicion, but Dio does not record even meagre details. And it could well be that Verus and Gellius Maximus were the only actual plots against Elagabalus, with the others being imperial inventions to explain the execution of so many high-ranking individuals. It would seem understandable why the Senate, on top of Elagabalus’ excessive and outrageous behaviour, did not take kindly to him.

Bibliography

Icks, M. The Crimes of Elagabalus: The Life and Legacy of Rome’s Decadent Boy Emperor. London (2011). 

McHugh, J.S. Emperor Alexander Severus: Rome’s Age of Insurrection, AD222-235. Barnsley (2017).