Trajan: Biography, Roman Emperor

In exploring Trajan’s biography, we uncover the life story of one of Rome’s most esteemed emperors, known for his military conquests and civic development. He was the second of the Five Good Emperors of the Nerva–Antonine dynasty. Born on September 18, AD 53, in Italica, Spain, Trajan rose through the ranks of the Roman military to ultimately hold the mantle of emperor from AD 98 until he died in 117. This biography showcases how his leadership expanded the Roman Empire to its maximum territorial extent and initiated public works that transformed the urban landscape of Rome and its provinces. Trajan’s reign, marked by a blend of benevolence and authority, offers a compelling chapter in the history of ancient Rome.

Filling Historical Gaps

Trajan is celebrated as a model ruler whose legacy has remarkably persisted for nearly two millennia. Following his reign, new emperors were greeted by the Senate with hopes that they would be “luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan.” Esteemed in political history and cultural memory, Trajan was praised by medieval Christian theologians as Machiavelli cited a virtuous pagan and his governance during the Renaissance as a prime example of the benefits of adoptive succession over hereditary rule. This set the stage for the 18th-century historian Edward Gibbon to introduce the concept of the Five Good Emperors, with Trajan as a pivotal figure.

Although direct accounts of his military campaigns are scarce, Trajan’s Commentarii de bellis Dacicis survives only in fragments, as does much of the Getica, written by his physician Titus Statilius Criton. Similarly, Arrian’s extensive Parthica is mainly lost. The principal source of Trajan’s political history comes from Book 68 of Cassius Dio’s Roman History, which is principally preserved through Byzantine summaries. While overwhelmingly positive, contemporary praises like Pliny the Younger’s Panegyricus and Dio Chrysostom’s orations focus more on portraying an ideal ruler than discussing factual events.

Pliny’s tenth volume of letters, which includes exchanges with Trajan, offers insights into the administrative mechanisms of the Roman Empire. These letters are the only surviving direct communication between an emperor and a governor from that era, providing a unique perspective on imperial governance. Despite this, it is often debated whether these correspondences are genuine dialogues or merely formal exchanges, potentially edited by imperial secretaries. Without comprehensive literary records, understanding Trajan’s era relies heavily on archaeological, epigraphic, and numismatic evidence to fill historical gaps.

Early Life

Marcus Ulpius Traianus was born on September 18, AD 53, in Italica, a Roman colony within the province of Hispania Baetica, present-day Andalusia in Spain. Founded in 206 BC by Scipio Africanus, Italica was a modest settlement at the time of Trajan’s birth, lacking grand public amenities like baths, theatres, and amphitheaters and administering a rather limited territory. While most records mark Trajan’s birth year as AD 53, some sources suggest it might have been as late as AD 56.

Trajan’s familial background is rooted in the Italic traditions of central Italy. Despite some claims suggesting his Iberian origin, the consensus among scholars, supported by archaeological and linguistic evidence, places his family, the Ulpii and the Traii, in Umbria, particularly in the town of Tuder (now Todi). This link is further established by names and origins that trace back to the Osco-Umbrian linguistic group.

The citizenship status of Trajan’s ancestors in Spain is not clear-cut. If they arrived in Spain post the Social War (91-87 BC), they were likely Roman citizens, as Tuder had been granted municipium status, conferring citizenship to its inhabitants. It’s possible they might have intermarried with locals, which could have affected their citizenship. Still, by the time Italica was granted municipium status with Latin rights in the mid-1st century BC, their status as Roman citizens would have been solidified.

Trajan’s paternal grandfather, Ulpius, married into the Traia family, and their son—Trajan’s father, also named Marcus Ulpius Traianus—achieved prominence as a senator and a general, commanding Legio X Fretensis during the First Jewish-Roman War under Emperor Vespasian. Trajan’s mother, Marcia, came from the noble Marcia family and was related by marriage to the Flavian emperors. The Marcia family’s roots were in Ameria, near Tuder and Reate, emphasizing the family’s Umbrian connections.

Trajan’s early years were likely split between Italica and Rome, with a probable return to Italica around the age of eight or nine during his father’s governorship of Baetica around AD 64-65. Given the modest size of Italica, the Ulpii family, like their allies, the Aelii, needed to establish solid local and external alliances to support their political and social standing. These connections extended across various regions and were crucial in Rome, where the family owned a residence on the Aventine Hill. Excavations in this area have uncovered what is believed to be the family’s villa, showcasing the high level of decoration that was typical of a prominent senatorial family’s

Military Career

As a young man, Trajan rapidly advanced within the Roman military, serving in the most challenging territories along the empire’s frontier. From 76 to 77 AD, while his father governed Syria as Legatus pro praetore Syriae, Trajan held the position of Tribunus legionis. Following his father’s tenure, he was reassigned to a Rhine province where, according to Pliny, he actively engaged in combat.¹

In approximately 86 AD, the death of Trajan’s cousin Aelius Afer left his children, Hadrian and Paulina, orphaned. Trajan and his colleague Publius Acilius Attianus assumed guardianship of the two. By his late thirties, Trajan was appointed ordinary consul for the year 91, perhaps a nod to his father’s notable career, influence under the Flavian dynasty, and recent patrician status. Around this time, Trajan also brought the esteemed architect and engineer Apollodorus of Damascus to Rome and married Pompeia Plotina, a noblewoman from Nîmes. Their marriage did not produce any children.

Historian Cassius Dio remarked on Trajan’s personal life, noting his preference for young men, contrasting the bisexual norms among the elite Roman men of that era. Emperor Julian humorously commented that even Zeus would have had to guard Ganymede from Trajan. This shift in social mores, which continued with the Severan dynasty, saw Trajan romantically linked with figures including the future emperor Hadrian, household pages, actor Pylades, dancer Apolaustus, Lucius Licinius Sura, and even the previous emperor, Nerva. Dio also noted that Trajan allied with Abgar VII, influenced by the allure of Abgar’s son, Arbandes, who performed at Trajan’s banquets.

The early stages of Trajan’s military career remain somewhat vague. Yet, it is documented that in 89 AD, as legate of Legio VII Gemina in Hispania Tarraconensis, he supported Domitian against a coup attempt by Lucius Antonius Saturninus, governor of Germania Superior. Following the suppression of the rebellion, Trajan likely stayed to confront the Chatti, allies of Saturninus, before returning the VII Gemina to Hispania Tarraconensis. In 91 AD, he shared the consulate with Acilius Glabrio, a notable arrangement since neither was from the ruling dynasty. During this time, he also possibly governed either Pannonia or Germania Superior, where Pliny credits him with various military achievements, albeit without delving into specifics to avoid emphasizing any personal loyalty to the then-disfavored Domitian.

Rise to Power

After Domitian’s death, his successor, Nerva, became unpopular with the army and vulnerable to threats. To solidify his position in the summer of 97, Nerva named Trajan his successor, citing Trajan’s exceptional military achievements. However, contemporary sources suggest that Trajan’s adoption may have been forced upon Nerva. Pliny hinted that such coercion might have been necessary and beneficial for Rome’s stability, a sentiment echoed by later writers like Tacitus and Pliny, who portrayed the transition between Nerva and Trajan as seamless.

The Historia Augusta reveals that Hadrian, who would later become emperor himself, delivered the news of his adoption to Trajan. Trajan’s inner circle included influential figures like Lucius Licinius Sura, a senator and governor who played a crucial advisory role. Despite Sura’s significant influence and repeated consulships, his manipulative political style drew criticism from contemporaries such as Tacitus.

When Nerva passed away on January 28, 98, Trajan assumed power smoothly, choosing not to rush to Rome but instead conducted a thorough inspection of the Rhine and Danube frontiers. This strategic move, aimed at reinforcing Rome’s military positions, indicated Trajan’s focus on the empire’s security and his future military aspirations. The abrupt execution of his Prefect Aelianus, followed by Attius Suburanus taking over, hints at the complex and potentially forceful nature of Trajan’s rise to power, resembling more a calculated takeover than a peaceful succession.

Roman Emperor

Upon his arrival in Rome, Emperor Trajan bestowed a direct monetary gift upon the common people, though he opted to halve the customary donative given to the soldiers. The relationship between the emperor and the Senate was tense, especially in the aftermath of the perceived harshness of Domitian’s reign. Trajan fostered goodwill by projecting a reluctance to wield power, thus cultivating support within the Senate. His entry into Rome in 99 was deliberately modest, a point emphasized by Pliny the Younger, illustrating Trajan’s preference for subtlety over grandeur.

During his third consulship inauguration on January 1, 100, Trajan urged the Senate to join him in governing the empire, a sentiment commemorated on a coin. However, in practice, Trajan maintained tight control over imperial affairs, extending his influence over traditionally senatorial domains. This included converting the senatorial provinces of Achaea and Bithynia to imperial provinces to curb local overspending on public works and to address the poor management by Senate-appointed proconsuls. Pliny the Younger openly acknowledged that, despite public appearances, real power resided solely in Trajan’s hands, reflecting a governance style that subtly but firmly shifted responsibilities from the Senate to the emperor.

Optimus Princeps

In Rome, Trajan was celebrated for his governance style, which was deemed “good” by the standards set by Pliny. He harmonized his actions with those traditionally approved by the Senate, presenting himself as a ruler who preferred moderation over insolence. According to the political ethos of the Imperial Roman Age, Trajan exemplified the ideal ruler: he inspired more through example than through fear, earning him a reputation as a role model. His popularity soared to such an extent that he was honored with the title optimus, meaning “the best,” which began appearing on coins in 105.

Pliny described Trajan’s ideal governance approach as conservative, supported by Dio Chrysostom’s orations on kingship early in Trajan’s reign. Dio, a well-connected Greek intellectual and an informal friend to the emperor, depicted Trajan as a preserver of the status quo, ruling through a network of local notables who served as intermediaries between the emperor and the people. Despite this, Dio and other Greek notables weren’t formally part of the administration, reflecting Trajan’s policy of keeping intellectual elites as administrative tools rather than partners.

Trajan’s approach to governance extended to managing Greek intellectuals and notables primarily as administrative aids, not as peers. This was evident in his dealings with local disputes and governance issues, such as his decision to forbid the formation of a fire brigade in Nicomedia, fearing it could lead to unsanctioned political assemblies. Such policies were underscored by his and Pliny’s concerns over the potential political influence of Greek civic elites, which they viewed as a threat to Roman authority.

Pliny’s letters reveal a mix of amusement and concern at the political claims made by Greek notables like Dio of Prusa, who placed a statue of Trajan near his family’s gravesite, an act initially considered treasonous but later dismissed by Trajan. The role of corrector, a high-ranking position created to monitor and manage local notables, often served as both a check on their influence and a prestigious appointment for loyal senators, illustrating a strategic balance of control and reward.

Trajan’s Senate appointments included prominent Eastern figures, marking a shift in the traditional Roman composition of this body, including figures like Gaius Julius Severus, a Galatian notable of Hellenistic descent, and others who were descendants of powerful regional dynasties. Trajan appointed at least fourteen new senators from the Eastern half of the empire, reflecting a broader approach that, while bringing in influential and wealthy individuals, also challenged the traditional Roman character of the Senate. This inclusivity extended to figures such as the Athenian Gaius Julius Antiochus Epiphanes Philopappos, a member of the Royal House of Commagene, whose prominent funeral monument on the Mouseion Hill was later noted by Pausanias as a marker of his foreign origin, highlighting the ongoing complexities of Roman-Greek relations.

Approach to Greek-Roman Relations

As a senatorial emperor, Trajan strategically aligned his political support with the ruling urban oligarchies. In the West, this meant local senatorial families; in the East, it included families of Greek notables. However, the Greeks maintained a strong sense of cultural superiority and a lingering memory of independence, often leading them to view Roman rule with disdain. Predominantly, Greek oligarchies sought peace and autonomy, desiring the freedom to govern themselves much like the Italian provinces, away from the meddling of Roman provincial governance.

The Romans perceived this autonomy as negligence on the Greeks’ part to manage local affairs effectively, often necessitating Roman intervention. A notable example of this complex relationship was Trajan’s interaction with Dio of Prusa, whom Philostratus describes as a close confidant of the emperor, engaging in public dialogues with him. However, despite such personal connections, Dio was scrutinized for his ambitious local building projects and his role within his community. Trajan imposed checks such as appointing imperial correctores to oversee the financial activities of free Greek cities.

These correctores aimed to temper the competitive nature among Greek cities, which manifested in lavish building projects designed to outdo each other and secure Roman favor through titles and recognitions—this competition often left public utilities unfinished or poorly maintained. In his correspondence with Trajan, Pliny the Younger expressed concerns over these practices, discouraging less affluent members of local oligarchies from taking up magisterial positions due to the high personal costs involved.

The rivalry between cities for Roman recognition often played into the hands of Roman governors who manipulated these competitions to ensure cities remained engaged with the empire while keeping them financially solvent for tax purposes. Additionally, extravagant spending by Greek elites was seen as a way to affirm their cultural identity, especially during the rise of the Second Sophistic movement, which the Romans viewed cautiously.

Trajan’s responses to Greek assertions of independence were firm. He valued Greek contributions to the empire but remained wary of their political ambitions. For instance, when Dio’s city of Prusa petitioned to be recognized as a free city, Trajan granted them judicial autonomy by making them the head of the assize district, yet denied them full political autonomy.

By 110 AD, the situation had escalated to the point that Pliny, as the imperial governor of Bithynia, had to address the financial disarray caused by excessive and unnecessary construction projects. Pliny proposed increasing the number of council members in these cities by lowering the council age requirement, thereby expanding the financial base for civic expenditures. This approach preferred bolstering traditional family participation over incorporating wealthy newcomers.

This strategy was implemented in places like Claudiopolis, where the construction of a public bath was funded by fees from new council members authorized by Trajan. Furthermore, Trajan decreed that city magistrates, or their heirs, were responsible for completing the public works they promised, ensuring accountability and continuity in civic projects.

Building an Empire

Trajan was a prolific builder whose architectural contributions were often designed by the talented Apollodorus of Damascus. Among these was a monumental bridge over the Danube, engineered to support the Roman army and its operations under any weather condition, as the Danube was unreliable for freezing solid during winter. Additionally, Trajan enhanced the infrastructure in the Iron Gates region of the Danube by creating or expanding a boardwalk road cut into the cliff face and constructing a canal between the Danube’s Kasajna tributary and Ducis Pratum to bypass rapids and cataracts.

The Forum Traiani, the largest forum in Rome, was another of Trajan’s grand projects, built to celebrate his victories in Dacia and primarily funded by the spoils of that campaign. Initiated in 107 AD and completed in 112 AD, this architectural marvel required modifications to the landscape, including alterations to the Capitoline and Quirinal Hills. The forum featured a triumphal arch at its entrance, extensive peristyles, a massive basilica, and eventually, Trajan’s Column and accompanying libraries. This complex, which included Trajan’s Market and an adjacent brick market, remained a center of activity and admiration for at least 500 years, impressing even Emperor Constantius II during his fourth-century visit to Rome.

Trajan also dedicated efforts to building triumphal arches across the empire and developing key roads such as the Via Traiana, which extended the Via Appia from Beneventum to Brundisium. He constructed the Via Traiana Nova, primarily a military road from Damascus to Aila, facilitating Rome’s annexation of Nabataea and the establishment of the Arabia Province.

In Egypt, Trajan’s architectural endeavors were significant. He was actively involved in constructing and enhancing structures. His efforts are immortalized in the Roman Mammisi at the Dendera Temple complex, where he is depicted making offerings to Egyptian gods. His influence extended to Old Cairo, where he is credited with constructing or reconstructing the Roman fortress, Babylon Fort, and a canal linking the Nile to the Red Sea. His contributions are also recognized in the Temple of Hathor at Dendera and the Temple of Khnum at Esna, where his cartouche is displayed.

Outside of Rome, Trajan’s legacy includes palatial villas at Arcinazzo, Centumcellae, and Talamone, highlighting his penchant for grand and functional constructions that spanned the empire’s heart and its distant provinces.

Games and Public Entertainment

Trajan was a patron of public entertainment, investing in enhancing the Circus Maximus, Rome’s premier venue for the exceedingly popular chariot races. The Circus also served as a stage for religious spectacles, theatrical performances, and large public processions. By 103, Trajan had completed a substantial reconstruction of the venue, which he modestly termed “adequate” for the Roman people. His renovations replaced the previous wooden seating with more durable stone, expanding its capacity by approximately 5,000 seats. The imperial viewing box was also redesigned and elevated within the seating tiers, allowing the emperor to be seen by the public enjoying the games with his family and among images of the deities.

In either 108 or 109, Trajan commemorated his victory in Dacia by hosting 123 days of games featuring about 10,000 gladiators and extensive hunts that resulted in the deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of animals. These games were for celebration and served a civic purpose, managing public satisfaction and demonstrating imperial generosity. The renowned orator Fronto praised Trajan’s balanced attention to public amusements and governance, highlighting the importance of leisure in maintaining public contentment alongside more pragmatic policies like the corn dole, which addressed basic needs.

Addressing Christianity in Pontus

During a peaceful period following the Dacian war, Emperor Trajan corresponded with Pliny the Younger about the treatment of Christians in Pontus. Trajan instructed Pliny not to pursue anonymous or baseless accusations against Christians, advocating for justice in line with the era’s values. Non-citizens who confessed to being Christians and refused to renounce their faith were to be executed for their stubbornness. Conversely, citizens claiming to be Christians were to be sent to Rome for trial.

The challenges Christians face in Pontus are further detailed in Pliny the Younger’s letters to Emperor Trajan. Writing around 112 C.E., Pliny described Christianity as a widespread “contagion” affecting individuals of all genders, ages, and social statuses. He offered those accused of Christianity a chance to renounce their faith, executing those who refused. Pliny allowed the release of individuals who cursed Christ or offered prayers to the Roman gods or a statue of Trajan, noting such acts were impossible for true believers of Christianity to perform.

Economic Reforms and Social Welfare Initiatives

In 107 AD, Emperor Trajan implemented a devaluation of the Roman currency. He reduced the silver content of the denarius from 93.5% to 89.0%, with the actual weight of silver per coin decreasing from 3.04 grams to 2.88 grams. This reduction was facilitated by the substantial influx of gold and silver from the Dacian wars, enabling the minting of a higher number of denarii than his predecessors had been able to produce. Additionally, Trajan removed older silver denarii from circulation that had been minted before Nero’s earlier devaluation. This strategy likely served a political purpose, allowing for increased governmental spending on civil and military initiatives.

Trajan also formalized the alimenta, a comprehensive welfare program to support orphans and impoverished children across Italy. This initiative provided monetary assistance, food, and subsidized education, funded by the spoils of the Dacian wars, estate taxes, and contributions from wealthy patrons. The alimenta was partially financed through a unique system involving mortgages on Italian farms. Landowners who registered received an upfront payment from the imperial treasury and, in return, were obligated to make annual payments back into the fund to sustain this social welfare program.

Military Campaigns: Expanding Rome’s Borders

Conquest of Dacia

Trajan’s reign saw the Roman Empire reach its greatest territorial extent, highlighted by his aggressive campaigns against Dacia. The region had been a source of instability for Roman politics due to the precarious peace terms previously established under Emperor Domitian with the formidable Dacian king, Decebalus. Trajan first transformed Dacia into a client kingdom during the initial war from 101 to 102, followed by complete incorporation of the territory across the Danube into the Empire after a subsequent conflict. Decebalus was initially recognized as a client king under terms that benefited both parties: Dacia received a stipend and technical expertise from Rome, which secured passage rights through Dacia to engage other tribal adversaries. However, the arrangement was criticized within the Senate as a form of appeasement to a barbarian ruler.

In 101, Trajan commenced his military operations by crossing the Danube and engaging the Dacians at the Battle of Tapae near Transylvania’s Iron Gates. Although the battle was not decisively won and Roman forces suffered losses, it began a series of conflicts that would eventually secure Roman superiority in the region. Trajan halted his campaign temporarily to reinforce his legions yet maintained the offensive stance, which led to further battles, including the capture of Decebalus’ sister, an event depicted in Trajan’s Column.²

The winter following, Decebalus launched a counter-offensive, supported by Sarmatian cavalry, which forced Trajan to defend his positions in Moesia. The Roman counterattacks repelled the Dacians and their allies, compelling Decebalus to capitulate. He was forced to relinquish control over certain territories, return Roman fugitives, and surrender his military capabilities.

Trajan’s triumph was celebrated in Rome, and he received the honorary title Dacicus. Despite being reinstated as a client king, Decebalus soon resumed his defiance by rearming, harboring Roman deserters, and seeking alliances with neighboring tribes. This prompted further Roman military responses. In 104, an assassination attempt on Trajan orchestrated by Decebalus failed, and the conflict continued until 105, when Decebalus invaded Roman-held territory, prompting another Roman campaign.

Trajan’s final campaign against Dacia in 105 was characterized by intensive siege warfare, targeting Dacian strongholds, including Sarmizegetusa Regia. Upon its capture and destruction, Decebalus fled but eventually took his own life to avoid capture. His head was displayed in Rome as a symbol of Roman victory. The Dacian treasure, hidden beneath a diverted river, was discovered following the capture of a Dacian noble, leading to Roman gains in gold and silver.

Following his military success, Trajan founded Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegetusa in a new location as a civilian administrative center. This new capital had a complete Roman administrative system. Still, it was populated primarily by Roman colonists, as native Dacians continued their rural lifestyles. The Roman military presence was adjusted to maintain control and prepare for potential expansions, which never fully materialized. Dacia’s strategic importance, which was rich in gold mines, was significant to the Empire, though the region’s agricultural potential was less developed.

The triumph of Trajan and the subsequent developments in Dacia, both in urban and military aspects, were commemorated through monuments like the Tropaeum Traiani and Trajan’s Column. The latter vividly portrays the Dacian Wars and is a lasting tribute to Trajan’s military skill.

Nabataean Annexation

In 106 AD, following the death of Rabbel II Soter, a client king under Roman patronage, the Roman Empire annexed the Nabataean Kingdom. The specific reasons and manner of this annexation remain somewhat ambiguous.

However, some epigraphic evidence points to a military operation involving Roman forces from Syria and Egypt. By 107 AD, Roman legions had established their presence in regions around Petra and Bosra, indicating effective military control. A strategic outpost was established at Hegra, located over 300 kilometers southwest of Petra, as part of a strategic initiative to station garrisons at critical points throughout the desert.

This expansion led to the creation of the province of Arabia Petraea, encompassing modern southern Jordan and northwest Saudi Arabia. Concurrently, the construction of the Via Traiana Nova commenced, linking Aila (present-day Aqaba) in Limes Arabicus to Bosrah, further integrating the newly annexed territory into the Roman infrastructure.

The absorption of Nabataea marked a major shift. It was the last client kingdom in Asia west of the Euphrates to be provincialized. This annexation completed a broader trend toward direct Roman rule across the Eastern provinces, which had started under the Flavian dynasty.³

Parthian Campaign

In 113 AD, Emperor Trajan launched his final military campaign, triggered by Parthia’s installation of a king in Armenia deemed unacceptable by Rome. Armenia had been a point of contention and shared influence between Rome and Parthia since Nero’s era, about fifty years prior. Positioned in Syria at the start of the year, Trajan dismissed all diplomatic overtures from Parthia that sought a peaceful resolution to the dispute over Armenia.

The historical accounts of Trajan’s Parthian War are limited and disjointed, making it challenging to fully understand the sequence of events or the campaign’s overarching goals. This lack of a straightforward historical narrative has fueled ongoing debates regarding the specifics and motivations behind Trajan’s actions in this conflict.

Cause of the War

In 106 AD, the death of Rabbel II Soter, a Roman client king, might have catalyzed the annexation of the Nabataean Kingdom. While the reasons and methods for the annexation are not fully documented, some evidence indicates a military initiative involving Roman forces from Syria and Egypt. By 107, Roman legions were established around Petra and Bosra, as confirmed by a papyrus in Egypt, showing a Roman presence far into the region.

The southernmost part of Roman occupation during this period was Hegra, over 300 kilometers southwest of Petra. This expansion into Nabataea secured what became the province of Arabia Petraea, encompassing modern southern Jordan and northwest Saudi Arabia. In conjunction with this military expansion, Trajan constructed the Via Traiana Nova, a road stretching from Bostra to Aila on the Red Sea. This strategic infrastructure project enhanced Roman control over the lucrative trade routes.

Nabataea’s strategic location at Charax, the remaining western endpoint of the Indian trade route not under direct Roman control, was especially important. Controlling Charax would allow Rome to decrease import costs and manage the flow of precious metals, a crucial economic factor given the ongoing deficit in trade with the Far East. Inscriptions documenting interactions between its rulers and Palmyrene merchants underscore the importance of Charax, indicating a vibrant trade that even extended to the Bahrain islands.

The incorporation of Nabataea into the Roman Empire marked the full provincialization of all Roman territories east of the Euphrates, completing a shift towards direct Roman rule that had started under the Flavians. This strategic annexation thus not only secured a critical point along the trade routes but solidified Roman administrative control across the Eastern provinces.

The Course of the War

In 116 AD, an inscription from the Legio IV Scythica near Artaxata, Armenia, hinted at the military presence led by Emperor Trajan. The campaign was intricately planned: from as early as 111, the administration in Bithynia, documented in letters from Pliny the Younger, was tasked with provisioning passing troops, an operation that placed a financial burden on local cities and their councils.

Trajan’s strategic moves began with Armenia, where he ousted the Parthian-appointed king, Parthamasiris. They annexed the region as a Roman province by the end of 114. This act not only asserted Roman hegemony over various tribes in the Caucasus and along the Black Sea but also displayed Roman power through a clear message to surrounding nations.

Simultaneously, a Roman force led by Lucius Quietus, a distinguished cavalry general noted for his service in the Dacian Wars, crossed from Armenia into Media Atropatene and the territory of the Martians. His campaign likely aimed to push the Roman frontier eastwards towards the Caspian Sea and northwards to the Caucasus, establishing a more defendable border that necessitated a sustained Roman military presence.

The strategic implications of these maneuvers became evident as Trajan secured Armenia and parts of Mesopotamia. By early 115, he had launched a campaign into Mesopotamia, advancing towards the Tigris and Euphrates rivers and securing the territories with permanent garrisons. His efforts were mirrored by Quietus, who advanced westward from the Caspian, effectively pinching the Parthian forces in a coordinated pincer movement.

This military strategy led to the Roman capture of key Mesopotamian cities like Nisibis and Batnae. By 116, the new province of Mesopotamia was declared, signifying the subjugation of the Kingdom of Osrhoene. Celebratory coins were minted to proclaim the Roman victory, marking Armenia and Mesopotamia under Roman control.

After wintering in Antioch, where he survived a major earthquake, Trajan resumed his campaign in 116 with ambitions to conquer all of Mesopotamia. However, despite initial successes, the extensive military campaign stretched Roman resources thinly across vast and hostile territories.

As Trajan pressed on, his army captured Babylon and made progress towards the Persian Gulf. They reached the capital, Ctesiphon, and Trajan personally led a bold maneuver to transfer his fleet overland to the Tigris, capturing the city. Pushing further, he reached the shores of the Persian Gulf, where he declared Babylon a new Roman province and contemplated the next moves which could mirror those of Alexander the Great.

The campaign, however, faced logistical challenges and resistance, notably from the fortified city of Hatra. Despite repeated assaults, Hatra remained unconquered. As the year progressed, the limitations of an overstretched army became apparent, and Trajan’s health began to deteriorate. This culminated in a strategic reconsideration. Trajan eventually pulled back to consolidate the gains rather than pushing further into Parthian territory.

The campaign ended with Trajan’s death in 117 AD, leaving a legacy of military ambition and expansionist policies that shaped the eastern boundaries of the Roman Empire. His efforts not only secured Roman military supremacy in the region but also left a lasting impact on the geopolitical landscape of the Near East.

Kitos War

Following his campaigns, Trajan faced another challenge: the Kitos War, named after the corruption of Lusius Quietus’s name, who played a pivotal role in its suppression. This conflict erupted as a series of uprisings by Jewish communities within the Eastern Roman Empire—particularly in Egypt, Cyprus, and Cyrene, with Cyrene speculated as the initial epicenter. Religious tensions between the Jews and the local pagan populations largely drove the revolts.

Additional unrest flared in Northern Mesopotamia, likely fueled by a broader resistance to Roman rule. These uprisings compelled Trajan to redirect his forces from broader military campaigns to quell the internal disturbances. Although he viewed this redeployment as a temporary measure, it marked the end of his direct military leadership, as he soon passed command to Lusius Quietus, who had just been appointed governor of Judaea around early 117 AD.

Quietus effectively managed the Jewish rebellions, solidifying his reputation. His success in these campaigns led to his being promised a consulship for the following year, 118 AD. However, his ascendancy was cut short by his execution during the initial purges of Hadrian’s reign. Along with three other former consuls, Quietus was tried and executed under vague accusations of conspiracy by the secret court of the Praetorian Prefect Attianus. It is believed that Hadrian ordered these executions due to fears over their popularity with the military and their close ties to Trajan.

In contrast, Quintus Marcius Turbo, another key figure in suppressing the Jewish revolts, managed to retain Hadrian’s trust after dealing with the rebel leader Loukuas from Cyrene. Turbo’s loyalty and effectiveness led to his later appointment as Hadrian’s Praetorian Prefect.

The precise scope of the Kitos War, whether it included Judea proper or was confined to the Jewish diaspora in the Eastern provinces, remains uncertain due to a lack of definitive epigraphic and archaeological evidence.⁴ Nonetheless, the conflict undoubtedly increased Roman military presence in Judea during this turbulent period.

Death and Succession

Early in 117, Emperor Trajan’s health deteriorated, prompting his return to Italy. Throughout the spring and summer of that year, his condition worsened, a fact publicly hinted at by a bronze portrait bust displayed in the baths of Ancyra. This bust depicted an aged and frail figure rumored to be Trajan, though its identification remains uncertain. He reached Selinus, and there, around 11 August 117, he passed away under circumstances that led to much speculation.

The succession of Hadrian, Trajan’s successor, is shrouded in intrigue and disputed historical accounts. According to the historian Dio, Trajan’s wife, Pompeia Plotina, played a crucial role in ensuring Hadrian’s ascension. She allegedly kept the emperor’s death a secret long enough to forge a document that confirmed Hadrian’s adoption and succession. This narrative, possibly based on contemporary rumors, highlights the contentious role of women in Roman political dynamics.

Hadrian’s relationship with Trajan had been complex. Despite serving as a legate in the Dacian Wars and governing Pannonia Inferior, his career lacked notable distinctions, and Trajan did not officially adopt him.

However, he received various honors that positioned him as a potential successor. By the time of Trajan’s death, Hadrian was governor of Syria, further aligning him as the heir apparent due to his familial connections and marriage to Trajan’s grandniece.

After becoming emperor, Hadrian’s initial decisions signaled a shift away from Trajan’s policies. He abandoned Mesopotamia, deeming it too remote and costly to maintain, and returned Armenia and Osrhoene to Parthian influence, though under Roman oversight. This retreat from Trajan’s expansionist agenda was seen as an acknowledgment that Rome had reached its logistical limits under Trajan’s rule.

Hadrian’s actions reflected a pragmatic approach to governance, contrasting with Trajan’s more aggressive expansionism. His reign is often characterized by his efforts to consolidate rather than expand the empire’s territories. According to later historical accounts, Trajan’s remains were entombed within a cella at the base of his commemorative column in Rome, although some modern scholars suggest they were likely placed in a nearby mausoleum or temple dedicated to his deified spirit.

Legacy

A bust from 108 AD in Vienna’s Museum of Art History captures the visage of Emperor Trajan, a ruler praised unanimously by ancient sources. Pliny the Younger lauded him as a wise and just emperor, and Cassius Dio commended his constant dignity and fairness. In the third century, the Senate admired Emperor Decius so much that he was awarded the name Trajan. Centuries later, Trajan and Augustus were celebrated as the epitome of the imperial virtues during the Later Roman Empire. New emperors were often greeted with the hope that they would be “more fortunate than Augustus and better than Trajan.”

Iconography

Roman emperors before Trajan were typically depicted as clean-shaven, a style dating back to Scipio Africanus. This changed with Trajan’s successor, Hadrian, who popularized bearded depictions of emperors.

Post-Rome Influence

During the Middle Ages, theologians like Thomas Aquinas discussed Trajan as an example of a virtuous pagan. In Dante’s Divine Comedy, Trajan is portrayed in the Heaven of Jupiter and is referenced in a moral tale on Purgatory’s first terrace, emphasizing justice and humility.

In the 18th century, Trajan’s military campaigns were immortalized in Anton Raphael Mengs’s painting The Triumph of Trajan in Madrid’s Royal Palace, celebrated as one of the artist’s finest works. However, during the Enlightenment, Edward Gibbon critiqued Trajan’s militaristic approach, contrasting it with the moderation of his successors. The historian Theodor Mommsen was critical of what he saw as Trajan’s “vainglory” and “insatiable lust for conquest,” though he recognized the pragmatic retreats made by Hadrian.

In the 20th century, historians reassessed Trajan’s reign. Italian historian Roberto Paribeni praised him in his biography Optimus Princeps, and German historian Alfred Heuss admired Trajan as the ideal representation of an emperor. Julian Bennett’s biography viewed Trajan as an engaged administrator, a view considered anachronistic by some reviewers.

The Romanian historian Eugen Cizek noted a shift towards a more autocratic and militarized ideology in Trajan’s later years, particularly during the Parthian War. Karl Strobel argued for continuity between Domitian’s and Trajan’s reigns, suggesting that both pursued similar autocratic tendencies. French historiography, including scholars like Paul Petit and Paul Veyne, has been more critical. Veyne notes that Trajan’s view of the empire was the last to emphasize a Roman-centric conquest model.

Cultural Significance in Romania

In Romania, Trajan is revered as a pivotal figure in the nation’s history, credited with the foundation of the Daco-Roman culture and the Romanian language following the Dacian Wars.

In Jewish Tradition

In Jewish homiletical texts, Trajan is sometimes mentioned critically, a sentiment that reflects the complex interactions between Roman authority and Jewish communities during his reign.

Final Reflections

Trajan’s biography highlights the life story of an emperor who greatly influenced the Roman Empire through his military successes and extensive civic improvements. His death in AD 117 ended a remarkable period of expansion and prosperity. Trajan’s legacy is celebrated for impacting Rome’s territorial growth and infrastructure development. This biography shows his lasting influence on Roman history, securing his place as one of the empire’s most influential and admired leaders.

Reference List for Trajan’s Biography

1. Bennett, Julian. Trajan. Optimus Princeps. Indiana University Press, 2001. ↩︎
2. Jackson, Nicholas. “First Dacian War.” Trajan: Rome’s Last Conqueror, 1st ed., GreenHill Books, 2022. ↩︎
3. Sartre, Maurice. El Oriente Romano, Parte 3. AKAL, 1994. ↩︎
4. Bruun, Christer. “The Spurious ‘Expeditio Ivdaeae’ under Trajan.” Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, vol. 93, 1992, pp. 99–106. ↩︎

Similar Posts:

• Top 7 Greatest Roman Emperors in History
• Antoninus Pius: Biography, Roman Emperor
• Vespasian: Biography, Facts, Roman Emperor
• Hadrian: Biography, Roman Emperor
• Marcus Aurelius: Biography, Roman Emperor