by
Damien F. Mackey
“A congiarium of three gold coins was distributed in Rome … with Trajan’s portrait on the obverse, in military dress … and Hadrian’s portrait on the reverse, identical to Trajan’s in profile but with a beard and nude,
bearing the name Hadrianus Traianus Caesar”.
Amanda Claridge
As far as conventional history is concerned, Trajan and Hadrian are two most notable Roman emperors, with Hadrian being perhaps the adopted successor of Trajan.
Sometimes in ancient history, though, as I have found, two supposed sequential kings, each considered to be great in his own right, have turned out to be just the one king. My major example of this phenomenon, worked into a university thesis (2007), was the neo-Assyrian case of two of the greatest names, Sargon II and Sennacherib, generally considered to have been, respectively, a father and his son.
My first step, assisted by a colleague, was to see a significant overlap in the reigns, something not recognised by conventional scholars. Partial overlap began to merge into a total overlap, eventually leading me to conclude that Sargon II was Sennacherib:
Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap
(8) Sargon II and Sennacherib: More than just an overlap | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
After long consideration about Trajan, and where to fit him into a revised scheme of things, I have come to the same conclusion as with those neo-Assyrian names, that Trajan was his supposed successor and adopted heir, the look-alike Hadrian.
Why do coins frequently include the name Traianus (Trajan), or Traian, in Hadrian’s name? For example:
RIC II, Part 3 (second edition) Hadrian 57. Denarius. Struck AD 117. Rome mint.
Obv: IMP CAES TRAIAN HADRIANO AVG DIVI TRA, Bust of Hadrian, laureate, bare chest, traces of drapery on far shoulder usually visible, right
Rev: PARTH F DIVI NER NEP P M TR P COS // FORT RED (in exergue), Fortuna seated left, holding rudder and cornucopia
Could this presumed succession of Roman emperors, Trajan and Hadrian, have been, instead, just the one mighty ruler?
And was this ruler an ethnic Roman anyway?
While I have left Trajan virtually untouched so far, for want of ideas about him, I have written a lot about Hadrian, who, I have concluded, was not a Grecophile Roman at all, but a Seleucid Greek, the most notorious one of all: King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’.
Yet Hadrian was much more even than that.
In my article:
Hadrian was not ‘Nero Redivivus’ – but was close to it
(7) Hadrian was not ‘Nero Redivivus’ – but was close to it | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
I identify Hadrian all at once as – apart from Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’:
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus; and
Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus ‘Caligula’
with Constantine also under some serious consideration.
According to my revision, Hadrian belonged, not to the C2nd AD, but to the time of the Maccabees, when he, as King Antiochus ‘Epiphanes’, the “little horn” of Daniel 7:8, desecrated the Temple of Yahweh in Jerusalem.
In other words, Hadrian, the Philhellene emperor, was a Seleucid Greek, and not a Roman.
But I have also made a second major chronological move, collapsing the Maccabean era, in part, into the Infancy period of Jesus Christ – the Bar Kochba revolt against Hadrian pertaining to the Maccabees:
Judas the Galilean vitally links Maccabean era to Daniel 2’s “rock cut out of a mountain”
Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus
(7) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
Does Trajan shape up as Hadrian-like, through the latter’s alter ego (my opinion), Augustus?
We read this most favourable account of Trajan at:
https://edubirdie.com/examples/comparative-essay-on-roman-empire-rule-of-augustus-and-trajan/
Comparative Essay on Roman Empire: Rule of Augustus and Trajan
….
There are many debates as to which emperor was the better ruler, Trajan or Augustus? It can perhaps be considered an unfair question, as each ruled the empire in vastly different political climates. Trajan ruled for nineteen years between 98 AD to 117 AD and is considered to be one of the greatest emperors in the history of Rome. Known as ‘Optimus Princeps,’ which translates to ‘greatest of princes,’ Trajan’s rule is believed to be “the period in history during which the human race was most happy and prosperous.” So much so that subsequent emperors often attempted to elevate their own reign by association with Trajan.
He conquered many lands and grew the Roman Empire to its largest expanse in history which resulted in his rule being a time of great prosperity for Rome. Similarly to Augustus, Trajan embraced his role as emperor by showing his support for adhering to traditional hierarchies and senatorial morals. He did this by openly shunning many of Domitian’s policies, such as his preference for equestrian officers. Many political writers of the Imperial Roman Age considered this to be one of the many reasons Trajan was such a well-received emperor, as he ruled less by fear such as Domitian and Titus, and more by acting as a role model and setting a good example, “men learn better from examples.” Aligning himself with Augustus’ autocratic way of ruling, Trajan “wielded autocratic power through moderatio instead of contumacia – moderation instead of insolence.” It was this approach to autocracy, his deferential behaviour towards his peers, that garnered him the respect and regard as a virtuous monarch.
Trajan is acknowledged to have created the best model of ruling an empire than any emperor before or after him. Domitian only strived to please the military and paid little attention to the Senate and Nerva concentrated his efforts on the Senate and disregarded the army whereas Trajan proved that actions could be taken to satisfy both the Senate’s and the army’s needs. However, in direct contrast with Augustus’ way of ruling, Trajan transformed the role of the emperor as he encroached on the senate’s authority, turning several senatorial provinces into imperial provinces in order to quell out-of-control spending on the local magnates part. Trajan essentially absolved the role of the senate as, according to Pliny, Trajan was a good emperor due to him approving and blaming the same things that the Senate would have approved or blamed.
Trajan garnered widespread support from his subjects as he presented himself very differently than previous emperors. Upon Trajan’s arrival in Rome he displayed a refreshing and grounding humble personality, as instead of arriving in a litter or chariot, he walked amongst the streets, greeting his subjects, senators and knights with equal warmth. Trajan did what no emperor had done before him, when referring to his subjects and in particular the army, Trajan uses the term ‘we’ instead of ‘them,’ showing solidarity and fellowship with those others considered to be below them. Trajan even went as far as becoming a ‘regular’ soldier himself; eating in the military mess, marching on foot, fording rivers, campaigning in person and honouring his fellow fallen soldiers with an annual ceremony. It is a measure of a great leader when one can inspire bravery and action in so many, and it is because of the way Trajan presented himself as ‘one of them’ that his troops were willing to risk all and display great prowess on his behalf, as he would do for them. This is further exaggerated when we look at documents written regarding Trajan’s death,
“After his death, it was said that no other emperor excelled or even equalled him in popularity with the people and his memory remained green for centuries. It was said that he displayed the utmost integrity and virtue in affairs of state and arms. The forum of Trajan, no matter how often we see it, is always wonderful.”
In conclusion, the conception of the role of the emperor across the years, particularly between the rule of Augustus and Trajan, experienced many changes. Augustus established the empire after his victory at the Battle of Actium and therefore began his rule as a strong and respected leader. He transformed the crumbling ruins of the Republic into a thriving and successful empire.
Augustus’s role as emperor consisted of heavy intervention into both private and public affairs, undertaking the role as ‘pater’ for all Roman households and sculpting the ‘perfect’ Roman family. He delegated much of his power to the senate and the people of Rome, whilst simultaneously establishing himself as an autocratic ruler. Additionally, Augustus believed that one’s family also played a part in the role of an emperor. Augustus was well-received and liked by his subjects, especially after his revival of traditional Roman morals and many popular policies of the idealised Republic. Although Trajan and Augustus shared many similarities in the role they performed as emperors, the main difference in the conception of the role of the emperor was Trajan’s decision to effectively absolve the power of the Senate and rule on their behalf. Trajan is considered to be the most loved of all the Roman Emperors as he presented himself as a humble, well-meaning and hard-working man. From walking on foot with his fellow soldiers to walking the streets and greeting his subjects, Trajan appeared to align himself as a fellow subject and soldier. If one is to attempt to answer the question of who was the better emperor, one can consider the quote, “May he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan,” which suggests that Augustus was a good emperor establishing the empire at a terrible time of turmoil and that Trajan was a good emperor because he began his rule at a time when Rome was already stable and flourishing. However, both emperors presented themselves as one who wanted to rule with the intent to improve the political, legal and social systems of Rome and did so without the use of fear or intimidation.
[End of quote]
Here Trajan and Hadrian are compared: https://www.quora.com/Can-you-compare-and-contrast-Hadrian-with-Trajan-as-Roman-Emperors
Similarities:
1. Spanish heritage: Both Trajan and Hadrian were of Hispanic origin.
2. Military achievements: Both emperors had successful military campaigns, with Trajan conquering new territories and Hadrian consolidating existing ones.
3. Administrative reforms: Both Trajan and Hadrian implemented administrative reforms to improve the functioning of the Roman Empire.
4. Attention to infrastructure: Both emperors invested in public works and infrastructure projects to improve cities and provinces.
5. Civic projects: Trajan and Hadrian sponsored numerous civic projects, such as the construction of public buildings, roads, and bridges.
6. Favorable public opinion: Both emperors were generally well-regarded by the public, being known for their fair and just rule.
7. Interest in architecture: Both Trajan and Hadrian demonstrated a strong interest in architecture and left a lasting architectural legacy.
8. Patronage of the arts: Both emperors supported and patronized the arts, particularly literature and poetry.
9. Honoring the military: Both Trajan and Hadrian showed great respect and appreciation for the Roman military.
10. Longevity of reigns: Both emperors had relatively long reigns, with Trajan ruling for 19 years and Hadrian for 21 years.
Where has Trajan’s Forum gone?
Where has Trajan’s Forum gone
Long time passing
Where has Trajan’s Forum gone
Long time ago ….
Trajan’s Forum has seemingly all but disappeared.
According to a typical explanation for this:
….
“If the Forum of Trajan remained relatively intact until the late Antiquity, it virtually disappeared in the Middle Ages. Many of the forum’s buildings were destroyed in an earthquake in 801.
Subsequently, the Forum’s materials were looted and new buildings were gradually built above the ruins of the ancient monuments”.
The main culprit is given here as an earthquake, followed by looting, and new buildings over built on the site.
I discussed a similar problem for ancient Egypt, with Sun Temples unable to be found:
Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples
(3) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey – Academia.edu
A similar problem arises with the so-called Fifth Dynasty,
with four of its supposed six sun temples undiscovered.
A different approach is obviously needed when, after decades or more of searching, a famous ancient capital city such as Akkad (Agade) cannot be found; nor can the tombs of virtually an entire dynasty (Egyptian Second); nor can four whole sun temples (Egyptian Fifth Dynasty).
The Second Dynasty of Egypt, however – whose beginning I would re-date to about a millennium later than does the conventional model – appears to overlap, in great part, with (according to what I have already tentatively determined) the very beginnings of Egyptian dynastic history.
That the Second Dynasty may be, to a great extent at least, a duplication of the First Dynasty, may be supported by the disturbing (for Egyptologists) non-existence of Second Dynasty burials (Miroslav Verner, Abusir, p. 16. My emphasis): “The tombs of the rulers of the Second Dynasty, which for the most part have not yet been discovered, represent one of the greatest problems of Egyptian archaeology”.
A similar problem arises with the so-called Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, with four of its supposed six sun temples undiscovered.
Thus Jeff Burzacott, “The missing sun temples of Abusir”:
https://www.nilemagazine.com.au/2015-5-june-archive/2015/6/9/the-missing-sun-temples-of-abu-sir
There are some sun temples out there somewhere.
Abusir is one of the large cemeteries of the Old Kingdom kings, around 16 kilometres south of the famous Great Pyramids of Giza.
Although the history of the Abusir necropolis began in the 2nd Dynasty, it wasn’t until King Userkaf, the first ruler of the Fifth Dynasty, chose to build here that the Abusir skyline changed forever.
What Userkaf built here wasn’t a pyramid; he nestled his final resting place close to the world’s first pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. What Userkaf raised at Abusir was something new – a sun temple.
The sun temple was a large, squat obelisk, raised on a grand pedestal, and connected with the worship of the setting sun. Each day the sun sank below the western horizon into the Underworld where it faced a dangerous journey before rising triumphantly, reborn at dawn. It was a powerful symbol of cyclical resurrection.
The obelisk shape is likely symbolic of the sacred benben stone of Heliopolis, which represented the primeval mound, the first land to rise from the waters of Nun at the dawn of time, and where creation began. This was the centre of the cosmos.
For the next 70 years, Abusir was a hive of activity as the pyramids of Userkaf’s sons, Sahure (rightmost pyramid) and Neferirkare, (leftmost pyramid), as well as his grandson, Niuserre (centre) raised their own step pyramids and sun temples there.
Buried in the Abusir sand are also the barely-started pyramids of Fifth Dynasty pharaohs whose short-lived reigns saw their grand monuments hastily sealed, just a few courses of stone above the desert.
Six sun temples are mentioned in inscriptions, although only the ruins of Userkaf’s and Niuserre’s have been discovered. Hopefully, buried out there somewhere lay four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra’s rays once again.
[End of quote]
Massimiliano Nuzzolo and Patrizia Zanfagna have sensibly turned to high tech for the purpose of detecting any lost Egyptian monuments:
The Search for the Lost Sun Temples: A Glimpse from the Satellite
(PDF) The Search for the Lost Sun Temples: A Glimpse from the Satellite | Massimiliano Nuzzolo and Patrizia Zanfagna – Academia.edu
But, just as I would not hold much hope for Jeff Burzacott’s “four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra’s rays once again”, I would not expect satellite technology to find those four, supposedly missing, sun temples. For it is my belief that the rulers of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt, just like those of the Second, have been duplicated – {a duplication of dynasties occurring at various stages of Egyptian history as well} – meaning that there were not six rulers who built six sun temples.
Most likely, then, all (two) of the sun temples that were built have already been discovered.
[End of article]
Could the same be the case for Trajan’s Forum?
That we already have more of it, but under the name of a duplicated ruler (rulers)?
Boys and wine
Trajan:
I know, of course, that he was devoted to boys and to wine, but if he had ever committed or endured any base or wicked deed as the result of this, he would have incurred censure; as it was, however, he drank all the wine he wanted ….
Cassius Dio
Hadrian:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/hadrian-the-gay-emperor-769442.html
Although it was not uncommon for his predecessors to have taken gay lovers alongside a female spouse, Hadrian was unique in making his love “official” in a way that no other emperor had before him.
https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/hadrians-rome/content-section-5.1
… [Hadrian] followed Trajan to the Dacian Wars in a position of fairly close intimacy; at this time, indeed, he states that he indulged in wine too, so as to fall in with Trajan’s habits, and that he was very richly rewarded for this by Trajan.
Gymnasia (the beginning of woe)
https://www.worldhistory.org/image/10204/gymnasium-of-salamis-cyprus/
The gymnasium of Salamis in Cyprus, with its colonnaded palaestra, was built over the ruins of an earlier Hellenistic gymnasium in the 2nd century CE [sic] during the reigns of Trajan and Hadrian after Salamis had been greatly damaged during the Jewish revolt in 116 CE.
I Maccabees 1:14-15
So they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, according to Gentile custom, and removed the marks of circumcision, and abandoned the holy covenant. They joined with the Gentiles and sold themselves to do evil.
Anti-Semitic
According to Yosef Elsen at Chabad.org:
https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2713657/jewish/Roman-Rulers.htm
Trajan
The emperor Trajan … was a vicious anti-Semite, and the Jews suffered terribly through his long reign. Dreaming of extending the Roman Empire beyond the countries Alexander the Great had conquered, even to fabled India, Trajan knew that Babylon, heavily populated by Jews, lay in his path. The Babylonian Jews found themselves in a terrible dilemma: Should they resist the Romans, thereby endangering all the Jews in the Roman Empire, or should they not fight alongside their Babylonian countrymen to repulse Trajan, and thereby being accused of treason? Alarmed at the prospect of all the world’s Jews falling under Roman domination, the Jews of Babylon chose the former. As such, the Romans conquered Babylon, but held it only a short time.
Infuriated by the Jewish role in Trajan’s defeat, the anti-Semitic Greeks of Alexandria, Egypt, assisted by Roman troops, instigated pogroms against the Alexandrian Jews, the largest Jewish population of any city in the Roman Empire. Many Jews had assembled for prayer at the Great Synagogue, which was so vast that sextons standing with flags indicated the time to respond Amento the blessings.
At prayer, the Jews were massacred to the last person.
When the Jews of Cyprus and Libya discovered what had happened to the empire’s largest and wealthiest Jewish community, they readied themselves to resist the inevitable attacks. Taking their preparations as a sign of incipient revolt, Trajan sent Roman legions to assist the Greeks in wiping out the Jews. To this day, church historians, full of malice toward Jews, have distorted these events, stating that the Jews both attempted a general uprising against Rome and engaged in wholesale massacres of Greeks and Romans. However, papyrus writings of that period indicate that the Greeks were the instigators.
During Trajan’s rule, the sages had to leave Yavneh and met secretly. Convening surreptitiously in the town of Lod, in the attic of the Nitzah family, their meetings are recorded in the Talmud as B’Aliyas Beit Nitzah B’Lud. At this time, Trajan appointed a special governor for Eretz Israel, Quietus, who caused so much anguish that to commemorate the intense suffering the sages forbade brides to wear crowns. He was so hated that the date of Quietus’ removal from office was celebrated annually.
Hadrian
If Trajan was horrible, he was benign compared to his successor Hadrian, who of all the Roman emperors was the single worst ruler of the Jewish people. Remarkably, though, Hadrian began his reign favorably inclined to the Jews. Roman oppression of Jews throughout the empire ceased, and the Sanhedrin was permitted to reconvene openly, this time in the town of Usha in the Galilee. Hadrian even gave permission to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash.
Understandably, excitement in the Jewish world reached a fever pitch. Vast sums of money were gathered, and multitudes of Jews streamed toward Eretz Israel. However, the Samaritan inhabitants of the land, long-time foes of the Jews, were terrified by the possibility of a Jewish rejuvenation. Convincing Hadrian that a Jewish rejuvenation would spark a revolt, the Samaritans advised Hadrian to retract his magnanimous gesture. Not willing to change his mind openly, Hadrian allowed the Jews to rebuild the Beit Hamikdash, but stipulated that it could not be in its original place. Since Jewish law precisely fixes the site of the Temple, this decree was tantamount to a revocation of the promise.
Greatly dismayed at having their hopes so cruelly dashed, many Jews began talking openly of revolt, and it took the valiant efforts of the great sage Rabbi Joshua to ameliorate the people’s anger. The turning point was his parable of a bird that removes a bone stuck in a lion’s throat, then demands a reward. The lion replies that the ability to boast of sticking one’s neck into a lion’s mouth and escaping unscathed is itself the greatest reward. Likewise, Rabbi Joshua continued, Jews should be grateful that they are not being persecuted, and therefore not demand too much from the Romans. Mollified, the people accepted Rabbi Joshua’s logic, and calm was temporarily restored.
Over time, however, Hadrian realized that the mitzvahsof the Torah, rather than national independence, were the backbone of the Jewish people – and he set out to break it. Indeed, Hadrian took several steps that convinced the Jewish people that there was no alternative to rising up against an oppressor bent on destroying them spiritually.
First, Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter on the site of the Beit Hamikdash, and then began constructing a new Roman city, naming it Aelia Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem. To accomplish his aims, Hadrian completely ploughed over the remnants of Jerusalem, thereby removing all traces of the former Jewish presence. As the destruction of the Holy Temple itself, this tragedy also occurred on Tisha B’Av, and is one of the reasons for the fast. In a departure from previous Roman policy, Hadrian also decreed against the observance of key mitzvahs: bris milah, the Sabbath, and taharas mishpacha, family purity. As in the times of Antiochus, this blow against the Torah sparked the second great Jewish revolt against Rome.
[End of quote]
“As in the times of Antiochus … the … great Jewish revolt …”.
Hadrian’s era was “… the times of Antiochus … the … great Jewish revolt …”.
Parallel Lives, Also BC Afterglows In AD 
