THE PISO WHO BECAME EMPEROR (LICINIANUS PISO)
(Writen 12/23/99, updated 07/15/00)
Another interesting fact in the study of ancient history is that of persons who know about
the ‘conspiracy’ against Nero by the Piso family (as the historian Tacitus tells us), many
still do not realize that one member of the Piso family actually became emperor of Rome
shortly after Nero’s death. And this person was NOT formally acknowledged as having
been emperor by the contemporary historians! Which indicates that those authors were
deliberately trying to keep that fact a secret from those would might get close to finding
out the truth about what was really going on.
In any case, this Piso was Licinianus Piso, who had the addition of the name ‘Frugi’ to
his name. Some conjecture that there were two or more branches of the Piso family; the
Calpurnii and the Frugii. But all Pisos were Calpurnii, as they all had the same common
ancestor - Calpus. So, that the name ‘Frugi’ is added to the name (especially as the end!)
is only another way of the authors of the time to confuse and mislead the reader. We have
seen many examples of very distinguishable persons in ancient history as having their
names ‘chopped’ up and switched around in various ways. So, this was actually a common
way of hiding a person’s true identity.
Licinianus Piso was emperor of Rome for 5 days total; one day as co-emperor with Galba
and four days on his own. Some may think that being emperor for only a matter of a few
days does not count, and they may use that as a justification in saying something like; "no
wonder he was not listed as emperor." But the length of time that one was emperor was of
no excuse for not listing him and publicly announcing that fact, because we have other
examples of emperors who were such for only a few days as well - including at least one
who was emperor for an even shorter time than Licinianus Piso. That other emperor was
was one for a shorter time was Marius. Marius was emperor in 268 CE for only 2 or 3
days. Yet, he is fully and publicly acknowledged.
The historian Suetonius, writing about the year 140 CE, wrote his book called "The
Twelve Caesars." In it, he does not officially include Licinianus Piso as emperor. He lists
Galba and even mentions Licinianus Piso, but did not acknowledge him fully by giving
a chapter on him as he did the rest of the emperors, even though he could have easily
done that. But there again, is the deliberate action of a historian to downplay the "Piso"
name in history and to hide facts about that family. Anyone who reads ancient history
will encounter the uniqueness of it in that it is written in such a way as to ALWAYS
leave out critical information about those who are being written about. Though on the
surface ancient history in general appears to be written earnestly and in a form that shows
it to the reader as if to purposefully convey information to the reader, at the same time, it
deliberately omits crucial information! One will find this time and time again.
One has to ask, "why is this?" Why is it that ancient history was not written in a manner
in which one may easily find the information that they would need in order to find family
connections for example? Why is the reader taken to task and left with few options for
obtaining important information? It is because this was done this way on purpose and for
very specific reasons. That was to keep the reader from finding out certain things. And
what this means is that history itself was not done in the way in which we had been made
to think that it was done. Which is the reason for the need for a new type of scholarship
in this area.
But, yet, while the ancient historians did not write history in a honest and forthright
manner, they nonetheless did include the true facts of the matter - they just did so in a
way that most persons who were reading those histories would not be aware of that fact.
According to Tacitus; "Galba spoke further to the same effect, as if he were making an
emperor, but everyone else conversed with Piso (Licinianus) as if he had been already
made one." And we will see shortly just why that is.
Tacitus says that Licinianus Piso "was Caesar for four days." Meaning four "full" days
on his own without Galba. He was in fact Caesar for five days. Tacitus reveals this to us
when he says; "Piso, standing on the steps of the palace, called the soldiers together and
spoke as follows: It is now five days, my comrades, since, in ignorance of the future, I
was adopted as Caesar,…"
Licinianus Piso must have been given the titles of both Augustus and Caesar publicly
upon his adoption by Galba for the very brief time between his adoption and the death
of Galba. Though as we will see, he very probably already was in reality an Augustii
and a Caesar. He did, we know, have the same common ancestors as some of those in
both of these royal houses. What is meant here in what is being said is that in more
than one sense, Licinianus Piso was already a "Caesar" before having been made one
publicly by Galba. When we speak of inherited "name/titles" in our studies, as you will
learn, these things (such as ancestry) determine who was entitled to use what names and
titles in public works and they also determined what alias names may be used by the
authors themselves.
At this point in time, you will find very little information in any one place about this
particular Caesar. However, this article will give you what you need to find out more.
There probably has never been any article written about Licinianus Piso that gives as
much information about him as does this one. So, keep a copy of if for your own
personal reference.
Suetonius, as well as Tacitus, gives the figure of five days for the length of time from
Piso’s adoption till his end; "(Galba) calling him (Piso) ‘my son’, he led Piso into the
Guard’s Camp, and there formally and publicly adopted him - without, however,
mentioning the word ‘bounty’, thus giving Otho an excellent opportunity for his coup
d’ e’tat five days later." (Ref. Suetonius, "The Twelve Caesars," under "Galba")
So, by reconstruction of the facts given in the public works left to us by both Tacitus
and Suetonius, we find that Galba and Piso must have co-ruled for that first day of
adoption (and perhaps a part of the next day), and Licinianus Piso then ruled out of the
public eye for four days without Galba.
Now, just for the edification of the public, we will state here that though Licinianus
Piso was indeed the ‘Piso’ who became emperor; that is not to say that other members
of the Piso family did not become emperors as well. They just did not do so using the
‘Piso’ name. They did this in similar manner to the Julian Caesars who also had other
names before becoming known to the public as ‘Caesars’. As we will point out below,
one of the other names that the Julian Caesars had before they started to use the name
‘Caesar’ was that of ‘Libo’. So, what we are saying is that Licinianus Piso was the
one member of the Piso family who became emperor using the ‘Piso’ name.
Licinianus Piso had at least one well-known and quite verifiable family link to the
Caesars and others are certain to be discovered as more research is done on his family.
Licinianus Piso’s great, great, grand Aunt, Scribonia 1, was married to Augustus Caesar.
(Ref. "Nero, End of a Dynasty," by Griffen, in the form of a fairly detailed stemma
chart)
Also worth mentioning is that Licinianus Piso’s great, great, great Grandfather Gnaeus
(Cn.) Pompeius (Pompey), ‘the Great’ was married to Julia (Julius Caesar’s daughter),
who died in 54 BCE. Pompey the Great then married his third wife Mucia - which
Griffen lists as the mother of Sextus Pompeius (Magnus).
Furthermore, it should be noted that Licinianus Piso could also claim (direct?) descent
from the Pharaohs by way of Dynanis, the mother of Scribonia 1 (and her brother L.
Scribonius Libo?). It also appears that the ancestry of both L. Scribonius Libo and his
sister Scribonia 1 through their father C. Scribonius Curio (Libo) shared the same
common ancestors as the Julian Caesars as one of the former names that the Julian
Caesars had before they came to be called ‘Caesars’ was that of ‘Libo’. It may be in
fact that that common ancestor was Lucius Julius Libo.
Note too, that Cn. Pompeius Magnus Piso (a brother of Licinianus Piso), was married
to Claudia Antonia - daughter of Claudius Caesar. (Ref. "Nero, End of a Dynasty,"
by Griffen)
-----------
End Notes:
There were two other emperors in the year 69 who were emperors for a very short duration.
Those were Otho and Vitellius. Just because Piso was emperor for a shorter length of time
was no valid reason to exclude him from the official (public) list of emperors. He was
excluded for reason only: to hide the fact that a Piso indeed became emperor. So, we call
for the addition of Piso to be added to all future lists of emperors by those who list the
Roman emperors from now on.
There are many other emperors who have very short reigns and others of uncertain duration,
yet, they are still listed officially as emperors. We know the specific length of time that
Licinianus Piso was emperor. It is just because he was not given full recognition as emperor
by Suetonius in his ‘The Twelve Caesars’ that we do not have him listed as an emperor by
scholars until now - when we have been the first to do it.
Here is a list of some other emperors who had held office for a very short length of time;
Silbannacus, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=========
Pacatian, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Jotapian, circa 248 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Saloninus, 259 CE (short reign). Duration?
========
Regalianus, circa 260 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=========
Marius, 268 CE (for only 2 or 3 days).
=====
Domitianus, circa 268 CE, very short reign. Duration?
=========
Laelianus, 268 CE, a very short reign. Duration?
=======
Quintillus, 270 CE, a short reign. Duration?
=======
Saturninus, circa 280 CE, unknown duration.
========
Neopotianus, 350 CE, for 28 days.
=========
One argument that some persons have regarding Licinianus Piso actually truly having
been emperor is that they think that he never received the "Austustus" name. That may
be something that may bother and perplex those of the "Old Classical Scholarship" but
not those who understand that ancient history did not happen in the way that we are used
to thinking it had (i.e., the New Classical Scholarship). There are other ways in which
Licinianus Frugi Piso could have attained the "Augustus" name without that having been
put into the public record and known to all.
One of those ways is this. His wife is now seen as a key factor, because it has been revealed
that she was not just anyone, but the daughter of Galba himself. Her name in history is
Verania. But in knowing how letters in names were switched around and changed in order
to hide identities (we call this ‘royal language’), we find that Verania was actually "Ferentia"
and that name reveals here as daughter of Galba. So, not only was Licinianus Piso Galba’s
adopted son and intended successor, but he was also his son-in-law. And this means a lot.
Being the emperor’s daughter, she would have received the "Augusta" (feminine form) name
and therefore her husband would also share that name. If she had married him BEFORE he
was adopted by Galba and given the "Caesar" name by Galba, the "Augustus" name would
not be "activated" or recognized as ligitimate in terms of his being emperor. But as soon as
he received the "Caesar" name, his "Augustus" name would also become ligitimized and
"activated". This means that he could in this instance have become emperor right in front
of the public (without their even knowing it!) just by receiving the "Caesar" name. And this
is what we contend is exactly what had happened or else they would not have had to have
hid this as they had. This is the true way that Licinianus Frugi Piso became Roman emperor!
There are many things such as this that need to be examined. And ‘history’ is in need of a great
deal of clarification regarding all of the various details of it.
And that, is how Licinianus Piso would have been able to attain the "Augustus" name and
have been a true Roman emperor.
Recognized as such by those who knew this, but not by the general public after that time
because of the efforts of Suetonius and the other ‘historians’ just after that time. Though
the public would not be privy to all of this, those who were in rule did know it. And, now
the rest of us are beginning to see and understand all of this.
See the genealogical charts regarding this on The Roman Piso Homepage.
https://www.angelfire.com/biz5/piso/main-gen.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: "Verania" is seen as "Ferentia" because of the particulars of the ‘royal language’.
Seeing Verania as Ferentia is possible because of the fact that the letter "V" is interchangeable
with "P, and "P" is used interchangeably with "PH", which is the same phonetically as "F".
This renders Verania as "Ferania." Vowels are always interchangeable in the royal language
and certain letters may be dropped or added in some names, so now "Ferenia" becomes
"Feren(t)ia". More information about ‘royal language’ will be available to the public in
upcoming books on the subject.
Copyright 2000 The Roman Piso Homepage. All Rights Reserved.
( =)=
