Whether Germanicus died of an illness or was poisoned is still a topic of debate today, but the fact remains that he died in 19 CE in ambiguous circumstances.
But what if he had survived?
But what if he had survived?
WI: Germanicus survives
- Thread starter Mort the Reaper
- Start date
Then we get a decent Julio-Claudian emperor post-Augustus, assuming he gains the position.
He was mildly incompetent at best, though I'll admit that he was a decent administrator and his architectural projects weren't bad either. He wasn't good by any means IMO, but compared to the other emperors (which isn't a very high bar), he's chill by comparison.
This can be simply put as what about Claudius. Yes he was the older brother but he would have carried on the family name of Claudia Drusii and Claudia Germanica and lets just butterfly in his eldest son Drusus because the boy died of choking.
Germanicus was the chosen Hier of Tiberius by Augustus, he wouldnt have become Emperor till about his 50s i think. But he would most likely have been Romes most famous General ever, also we likely would have seen one of his eldest boys become Emperor Nero (not our Nero) or Drusus how they would have been no one could tell as they were descended of both Germanicus and his father Drusus one could only have their hopes of them being great as well, we most likely wouldnt have seen the madness of Caligula or Nero(this one is our crazy one) and wr would have likely seen a dynasty greater than the trajan -antonine dynasty. Now one possible route Germanicus could follow in succession is finally having a son follow his father into the Throne, or having his nephew Our Britannicus if his Alive or his older brother who i butterflied in. He could also chose the son of Drusus son of Tiberius, so what im getting at their are several dynastiv routes he could chose his sons or nephews or cousins.
After that it would be to much to be able to tell because of so many butterflies, for the first generation after Germanicus you may have a stable dynasty, but unless a law is put in on who can become Emperor or the process to it is made, you might end up with a Julio Claudian civil war.
I personally would like have had an Emperor namer Julius Drusus
More people would know about Germanicus, that’s for sure, but most famous general ever? Nah
We can’t really tell how stable the dynasty would have been with Germanicus and his likely heir, Nero. Maybe this Nero would have been an utter incompetent, maybe Agrippina the Elder’s meddling would have made things worse for the dynasty’s survival, after all, she provoked Tiberius at every possible chance, basically dooming both herself and her two children out of chagring towards the Claudian branch, and it was mostly by her agency if Germanicus’ death was ruled by some as poisoning.
Most importantly, it is possible that Germanicus could prove a terrible emperor. Without any hindisght, if Claudius had died in the early 30’s, none of us would have said he’d have been a good emperor, nor would we think he would have ever become one. At the same time, if Caligula had died alongside his brothers, none of us would have said that he’d have made an autocratic and despotic emperor, at least by senatorial standards. Thus, we can’t genuinely tell what kind of emperor Germanicus would have been, we don’t know enough to tell, and the popularity he enjoyed both in his times and afterwards is not a good meter to judge him.
It all depends on what he did he was extremly famous already for his campaigns into Germanica, i believe he wanted to even conqour it but i cant be sure as i cant remember the source.
True it all depends, now i never said he would be a good Emperor but i assume he would be at least competent if not better than some such as the crazys in the dynasty. As for his sons its a guessing game we dont know enough about any of then to be able to tell how they would act. I do agree tho i did forget to take his wife into account after all, ive heard it said thag Livia basically lead the Empire by guidijg some if not many of Augustuss moves, and by possibly killing Lucius and Gaius
Livia killing Lucius, and especially Gaius, is all slander, as well as Nero, the son of Ahenobarbus, being “crazy”. As for Caligula, maybe it was more about the experiences he faced in his childhood and the opinions he had on how the empire should work than any real madness.
Germanicus could never conquer Germania, it was out of the question. But, it’s not impossible, if not even probable, that he could have been one of those emperors who would lead campaigns in person.
Personally, I think all of the Julio-Claudian emperors were at least "decent", and that their modern reputation is due more to historiographic bias in hindsight due to the political loyalties and motivations of the historians themselves. For example, Tacitus' view of Tiberius is strongly colored by his own firsthand experience of the reign of Domitianus, and he draws strong parallels between the two men. The contemporary Vellius Paterculus paints a glowing portrait of Tiberius. Unfortunately, Livy's accounts of this period do not survive, as he would have likely been the dominant source for this period and was likely a major source for the later writings of Suetonius. Caligula and Nero were likewise portrayed only by post-Flavian historians who had their interests tied to those of the Antonine regime they served under, which had a considerable interest in portraying their own regime as the height of Rome's history and downplaying the parts played by their predecessors in creating their position.
I agree. His most detailed portrayal by any historian was by Tacitus, whom was using his own historical account of the period to draw comparisons between Domitianus and Tiberius. In this analogy, Germanicus is the "Titus" of this narrative. A youth with a lot of potential who died prematurely due to the treachery of a family member. Historiographic context is everything, especially with regard to Roman history since so few of the original sources survive, and the political context in which many of these works were written is important. Tacitus is more-or-less our most reliable source for the latter Julio-Claudians and the early Flavian period, but even historians of his stature are subject to the same political biases that modern authors exhibit. This is especially pronounced when most of the other sources have been lost, which makes it next to impossible to develop a model that is both accurate and believable with all the accompanying nuances.
The whole narrative arc of the Julio-Claudians is one of vengeful women using (or abusing) their indirect power through their husbands, brothers, etc, to plunge Rome into crisis. From Cleopatra to Livia to Julia to Agrippina the Elder and Younger to Livilla and her affair with Sejanus to Drusilla and her alleged incest with Caligula to Messalina to Poppaea, any woman of substantial influence during this period is portrayed as treacherous, unreliable, and manipulative. This may have been true to an extent, but it would be absolutely absurd if Livia had arranged for the deaths of Gaius and Lucius without Augustus finding out about it. Of all the Julio-Claudian women, only Claudia Octavia comes off in a positive light, and that was purely to exacerbate the depravity of Nero. If Nero and Octavia had remained married, I have no doubt that Octavia would have been portrayed in the same way as all the other "power-hungry" imperial women. Even later women - Trajan's wife Pompeia was credited with manipulating Hadrian into succeeding her husband, the multitude of Severan women were blamed for the depravities of their sons and grandsons - and Constantine's wife Faustina was blamed for the fall of Crispus. This was such a consistent theme in Roman history that I'm frankly surprised that anyone still believes it.
Going back to the POD in question, I personally do not believe that Tiberius had Germanicus killed, not least because he was given maius imperium over the East just before his death, which would have been an extreme risk to Tiberius if Germanicus had uncovered the plot while he wielded such powerful authority. It makes no sense for Tiberius to have given his adopted son an extremely powerful and prestigious command and then kill him. This would jeopardize not only his own position but also the security of the East. Furthermore, Tiberius in the end, remained faithful to the dynastic plans of Augustus, and had the son of Germanicus succeed him, even though he had a biological grandson of his own and numerous other prospects for adoption upon which he could have capitalized. This indicates to me that if Germanicus had lived, he would have had no trouble in securing the succession for himself, even if he had been forced to share it with his cousin Drusus. By all accounts, the two men had an amicable relationship, and they both appeared to be fiercely loyal to Tiberius (see their actions during the legionary mutinies of 14-15 CE). Germanicus may very well have been poisoned by Piso or another subordinate, who miscalculated thinking that they would be given favor by removing an heir who provided an alternative to Tiberius' biological son Drusus, but I cannot reasonably believe that Tiberius would knowingly order Germanicus' death given the circumstances that led up to it.
However, one crucial thing that I think is important to recognize for this scenario is that, for much of his reign, Tiberius did not appear to be very engaged or interested in being the emperor. In Tacitus' depiction of Sejanus' brief "reign", he remarks that Sejanus allegedly killed Drusus because he feared Tiberius might abdicate to his son. How much of this is actually true versus a facade deliberately played by Tiberius is uncertain, but with two competent heirs in place with the loyalty of the legions already secured and living heirs of their own, it would be entirely possible for Tiberius to abdicate at some point in the early 20s CE and arrange for a comfortable retirement while his sons, Germanicus and Drusus, take the reigns of power from Tiberius. Alternatively, Tiberius may remain the reluctant princeps for his entire natural life, and the existence of two competent and experienced heirs would make it almost impossible for a man like Sejanus to infiltrate the highest levels of the government. As long as Germanicus was alive, Agrippina would be no threat to Tiberius, as she would be firmly within the imperial family rather than the outcast that she was ITTL. Also, I don't think it should be overlooked that Livia and Germanicus' mother Antonia were both still alive at the time, and with such a powerful dynastic presence, I think it's likely that the succession would be much more secure, at least for the duration of Tiberius' reign. The relationship between Drusus and Germanicus would obviously develop into a much more complex relationship than ITTL, and after the death or abdication of Tiberius, I'm uncertain how their relationship might unravel.
@Atamolos
I do agree with most of what you say, i also disagree with Tiberius being behind Germanicus's death, though i do think Lucius was a murder as from what i have said his death seemed sudden mysterious so i thinj he was murderee possibly.
Anyways back to the situation at hand. Its very hard to aee what would happen in this tineline as it would have many butterflies, Sejanus would most likely not be around or would not gain much power i think.
And with 2 strong hiers, as if i remember right Drusus was constantly drunk because of Germanicuss death, if i remember right that is. But anyways with Drusus and Germanicus a stable succession would most likely be there. Drusus would have been the spare and Germanicus the hier obviosuly. But who would be the next Emperor us the only thing. It all depends on if Tiberius chooses like Augustus to set a hier for the next emperor. We could see either Nero or Drusus son as Emperor its an interesting situation. As for Drusus and Germanicus relationship after Germanicuss succession i think it would have been at least amicable. Even though Drusus was the son of the last Emperor Germanicus was the chosen hier. I think Drusus would most likely be something like tye Agrippa to the Augustus
I do agree with most of what you say, i also disagree with Tiberius being behind Germanicus's death, though i do think Lucius was a murder as from what i have said his death seemed sudden mysterious so i thinj he was murderee possibly.
Anyways back to the situation at hand. Its very hard to aee what would happen in this tineline as it would have many butterflies, Sejanus would most likely not be around or would not gain much power i think.
And with 2 strong hiers, as if i remember right Drusus was constantly drunk because of Germanicuss death, if i remember right that is. But anyways with Drusus and Germanicus a stable succession would most likely be there. Drusus would have been the spare and Germanicus the hier obviosuly. But who would be the next Emperor us the only thing. It all depends on if Tiberius chooses like Augustus to set a hier for the next emperor. We could see either Nero or Drusus son as Emperor its an interesting situation. As for Drusus and Germanicus relationship after Germanicuss succession i think it would have been at least amicable. Even though Drusus was the son of the last Emperor Germanicus was the chosen hier. I think Drusus would most likely be something like tye Agrippa to the Augustus
But keep in mind also that this was long before the rise of modern medicine. Simple diseases that we think of today as relatively minor and non-critical (like influenza, pneumonia, and even food poisoning) could have been lethal to people in antiquity who had no proper understanding on how to treat these. People dying young and suddenly was how life was for the bulk of human history, and so it's no surprise that this would happen even among the ruling members of society.
I tend to think people underestimate Agrippa when talking about this period. He is generally portrayed as being very unambitious and fiercely loyal to Augustus with no ambition of his own, but I tend to believe that this is simply as a product of later historians, who were idealizing an era where multiple elder statesmen could coexist without being at each others' throats. Why else would Augustus have arranged for Agrippa to marry Julia? Surely any powerful ex-consul would have sufficed? Why one of such low birth as Agrippa? I generally believe that its because Augustus came to fear the power that Agrippa had accumulated during *their* rise to power (Augustus' rise was not accomplished singlehandedly after all). By binding Agrippa to his own family and making him the father of Augustus' only descendants, he effectively eliminated Agrippa as a threat to his succession plans. I tend to believe Germanicus will try a similar tactic with Drusus. Germanicus had plenty of daughters to marry off, and it would make good sense for him or Tiberius to arrange their marriage to Drusus, or to Drusus' son (or alternatively for one of his sons to marry Drusus' daughter). It gets more complicated when considering the role of Livilla, the sister of Germanicus and the wife of Drusus. She would certainly be the central figure in any power-sharing arrangement between the two princes, but whether or not this would be sufficient to secure peaceful coexistence remains uncertain. A similar situation existed between Augustus and Antonius after Fulvia's death allowed Antonius to marry Octavia, the sister of Augustus. This secured the peace for several years, but it was also ultimately a central factor leading to the deterioration of relations between the triumvirs. Augustus was able to win considerable political support by contrasting the loyal Octavia with the debauched and treacherous Antonius. Whether or not Livilla would play a role analogous to this or more analogous to Augustus' daughter Julia (as a means of strengthening, rather than straining ties) remains to be seen. It certainly seems nice on paper that the two men would cooperate, but as the old adage goes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. With four sons and four daughters between them, the succession would be a much more messy affair than it had been with Augustus, who had only one available heir, or even Tiberius, since the succession up to that point had already been decided by Augustus. It also remains to be seen as to whether or not a third party would emerge as a power-broker between the two heir (i.e. a "third triumvirate"). This could come in the form of a senatorial relative - possibly Claudius or one of the sons-in-law of Julia the Elder - or in the form of a man like Sejanus, with no implicit promise of the throne apart from his own ruthless ambition. The unraveling of this complex set of familial relations would be very complicated and messy. One could take an approach like Augustus, with multiple heirs-apparent at once, or an approach like Nero, viciously eliminating any and all possible rivals.
U are right in that, it does seem nice on paper, but as a quote of history, thier can only be 1 caesar.
I think that initially it would work ok, but afyer your point i could see possible murder or civil war happening, well more murder if anything seeing how Germanicus was so populat with the army. If Drusus was in any way became a political opponent or threat he would probably be eliminated, which woild cause repercussions for Germanicus if he was implicated. This would prove very dangerous for Rome
Augustus had already decided who his immediate successor would be Tiberius and Germanicus after him so Tiberius had little to none space of movement in that matter.
Still Germanicus was Tiberius’ nephew and Drusus was married to his sister (and unlike his cousin was unrelated to the Julii) so is likely who he will not contest the superior claim of his adoptive brother who was related to Augustus’ in blood and marriage (great nephew by birth as grandson of Octavia and Mark Antony, step-grandson as grandson of his wife Livia and grandson-in-law as husband of Agrippina, daughter of Julia Augusti and Agrippa)...
Drusus Caesar had already received a bride higher than he was able to hope earlier marrying the widowed Livilla after Gaius Caesar’s death.
Wedding between the children of Drusus and a Germanicus are pretty likely so with Germanicus’ survival a wedding between one of his girls and Gemellus had great chances to happen while his two elder boys will most likely marry their OTL brides
Still Germanicus was Tiberius’ nephew and Drusus was married to his sister (and unlike his cousin was unrelated to the Julii) so is likely who he will not contest the superior claim of his adoptive brother who was related to Augustus’ in blood and marriage (great nephew by birth as grandson of Octavia and Mark Antony, step-grandson as grandson of his wife Livia and grandson-in-law as husband of Agrippina, daughter of Julia Augusti and Agrippa)...
Drusus Caesar had already received a bride higher than he was able to hope earlier marrying the widowed Livilla after Gaius Caesar’s death.
Wedding between the children of Drusus and a Germanicus are pretty likely so with Germanicus’ survival a wedding between one of his girls and Gemellus had great chances to happen while his two elder boys will most likely marry their OTL brides
Last edited:
I don’t think Augustus had anything to fear from Agrippa. The Senate loathed him so much few senators bothered to attend his funeral, despite who he was, and Vipsanius was such a lowly name Agrippa had it omitted from inscriptions. Agrippa didn’t have the right name or attitude to pose a threat to Augustus, he could have easily relegated Agrippa in the background if he had wanted, he’d never give any sort of power to someone he could have feared, any who challenged his power, either brazenly or surreptitiously, either faded into obscurity, or was executed. Why would it be any different for Agrippa?
I do agree Agrippa’s marriage to Julia was meant to secure the succession, but for a different reason. No random ex-consul would suffice for Julia, she was, by all means, the royal princess, it had to be someone he could either blindly trust, or from within his family. Marcellus was the closest thing Augustus had to a son in the 20’s, and his likely heir, so he had him marry Julia, while Agrippa, who had already married one of Marcellus’ sister, was, in the role of a regent, meant to secure him in his position had anything happened to Augustus, and with his frail health, nobody expected Augustus to die old. For him to make such a decision, Augustus knew he could trust Agrippa with doing things as he wished. Once Marcellus died, Augustus went for the other option, have Julia marry someone he could blindly trust, cue in Agrippa himself. So not only Agrippa could keep Augustus’ heir secure, but he’d also have a further incentive in that since Augustus’ heir would be his own child.
I think the "closeness" of collateral relatives is over-emphasized when talking about this period because of the hindsight we have. During this period, there was no such thing as the "Julio-Claudian dynasty". It was the Julian dynasty, and the Claudians were only made a part of it retroactively with the accessions of Claudius and Nero. If being related to Augustus through Octavia (who was not a Julian herself) was enough to secure the succession, then Augustus would have had no need to arrange for Germanicus' adoption (or Tiberius' for that matter). But for the Romans, patrilineal ancestry was everything, which is why political adoptions were so common throughout Roman history. In this light, Drusus and Germanicus were both equally qualified; they were both members of the Julian gens, but neither of them were direct descendants of Augustus, with both having been adopted from the Claudii. Of course, Germanicus' marriage to Agrippina gives him a greater "closeness" to Augustus in this regard, but if Drusus really wanted to undermine Germanicus, he would have had plenty of readily available Julian brides to choose from (a daughter of Julia the younger or one of Germanicus' own daughters). This would make him the effective guardian of whomever Germanicus' chosen heir would be, and thus make it more simple to remove him from the picture without causing too much upheaval in the structure of the regime. I'm not saying that Drusus would do that, but simply that the ambiguity of both of their claims would make the situation vastly more complicated. Of course, Tiberius would simply circumvent this by selecting Germanicus' heir for him, just as Augustus had done for him, but there's no way of knowing whether or not he would select a man of his own choosing or simply allow Germanicus' natural sons (who would be the only male-line Julians with direct ancestry from Augustus) to succeed him as happened IOTL. Honestly, I think this would be an incredible TL, and I may write it some day, since I don't think Tiberius and Drusus the Younger get enough love in alternate history compared to Germanicus. I'd have to do a lot more research before making any more concrete guesses, but I feel comfortable saying that this situation would put the strength of Augustus' regime to the test. IOTL, a situation with multiple legal successors didn't arise until the time of Claudius, when both Nero and Brittanicus had a legitimate claim to inheritance, and by that time the question of prominence within the Julian gens had been mooted by the death of Caligula, so we really have very little from IOTL to compare this too and guess how it might play out. The next time this question arose was after the death of Vespasianus, but Titus' premature death made it irrelevant. After that, Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus reached the "divide the empire" solution that would be used for the rest of Roman history, but I have my doubts as to whether or not such a solution would be devised (or even succeed) in the timeframe of Germanicus' reign. It was certainly not out of the question. Agrippa and Augustus had similarly shared power geographically when Agrippa was given maius imperium over the East just before his untimely death, so it's not impossible. But in that instance, Agrippa was the clear junior partner in ancestry, seniority, and prestige, and such a gap did not exist between Drusus and Germanicus. But at this point I'm just pontificating. Food for thought is all.
I think that is true for the triumviral period, when the alternative to Augustus was an equally aristocratic Antonius, but after his fall and Augustus remained, Agrippa was one of the only men who commanded popularity in the legions. You'll notice that all of the men who attempted to usurp the power of Augustus did so by more traditional Roman means. Egnatius Rufus attempted to leverage control of the urban mob to seize greater powers. Varro Murena and Aemilius Paullus engaged in the time-honored senatorial tradition of conspiracy, and if rumors are to be believed, Jullus Antonius attempted to usurp Augustus by adultery with his daughter. None of these men had the support of legions, and as later imperial history shows, control of the legions was *the* deciding factor in determining the succession at the end of the day. Augustus was clearly conscious of this (as that was how he rose to power in the first place) and thus he took great care to marginalize any general who became too popular. He denied Crassus the spolia optima, he restricted Egypt to being governed only by equites and even then kept a close eye on those who may have stepped out of line, he took great care to promote men of low birth whom he believed would be less likely to seek out independent support (i.e. Agrippa, Statilius Taurus, Varus, Sentius Saturninus, Cornelius Balbus, and others). However, he could not simply marginalize every single general on his staff because concerns about his health and succession made such an arrangement likely to provoke civil war. Therefore, he selected Agrippa as his right-hand man, and enabled him to take more autonomous command of the legions when he went on campaign. However, the consequence of this was that Agrippa was able to develop a legionary backing of his own, independently of his patronage from Augustus. Whether or not Agrippa was actually ambitious enough to make good on this leverage is lost to us, but since most of the leading figures of Roman history (especially the late Republic) were cutthroat backstabbers at heart, I tend to believe Agrippa was not an exception. Of course, our sources for this period (Dio, Suetonius, Appian, etc) tend to obscure the power of Agrippa or anyone else because the legacy of Augustus overshadowed them in the long-run, but I think this reflects the lack of nuance in our sources more than anything else. No man rules alone, and Augustus learned that from watching his uncle be butchered by his own officers. In hindsight, we know that Augustus had nothing to fear from Agrippa, but in the period from 29-23 BCE, this is less clear. This was a period where low birth was meaning less and less and command of legions was meaning more and more, so even if the senate hated Agrippa, there would be little they could do at the outset if he had decided to depose Augustus. Of course, maybe you're right and maybe Agrippa really was a loyal right-hand-man to Augustus his entire life with no independent ambitions of his own, but there's no way Augustus himself could have known that for sure, which is why I believe he kept Agrippa so close to his own biological family.
Thing is, Agrippa, no matter how popular with the legions, still didn’t have the right name to pose a threat. Maybe you’re right, his loyalty had limits and he only accepted second place because it was the best possible thing available to him, but I don’t know, he and Augustus knew each other since they were at least 16, young Octavius even saved Agrippa’s brother from execution around that time. Could Augustus really not know Agrippa well enough after more than 20 years to have reason to fear him or doubt him? Romans were all backstabbers and cutthroats at that age, you’re right, but there was still place for real friendship and love, there must have been. Is it really so naive to think Agrippa was simply being a good friend?
Definitely not, I'm far to cynical to believe that.
In all reality, you may be right, and there's really no way to know for sure. I'm just out here playing devil's advocate because Roman history is so full of these tropes and assumptions that irritate me to the core. Livia being a murderer, Pompeius being an idiot, Trajanus being the best thing to happen to anyone ever, and Agrippa being a loyal stooge are just a few examples of things we, as amateur historians, all seem to take for granted, and my goal is just to give people food for thought.
Livia was over ambitious but likely killing her step-grandsons and adoptive sons (Gaius and Lucius Caesar) or being indirectly associated to the murder of her own grandson (Germanicus) is too much. Pompeius was in no way am idiot but was surely an insecure who needed social acceptance without a real strong will so in one of the most decisive situation of his life was unable to impose his will and ended following the will of men formally under his command (his father-in-law Meteello Scipio and the other leaders of the Optimates in his camp)Definitely not, I'm far to cynical to believe that.
In all reality, you may be right, and there's really no way to know for sure. I'm just out here playing devil's advocate because Roman history is so full of these tropes and assumptions that irritate me to the core. Livia being a murderer, Pompeius being an idiot, Trajanus being the best thing to happen to anyone ever, and Agrippa being a loyal stooge are just a few examples of things we, as amateur historians, all seem to take for granted, and my goal is just to give people food for thought.
Definitely not, I'm far to cynical to believe that.
In all reality, you may be right, and there's really no way to know for sure. I'm just out here playing devil's advocate because Roman history is so full of these tropes and assumptions that irritate me to the core. Livia being a murderer, Pompeius being an idiot, Trajanus being the best thing to happen to anyone ever, and Agrippa being a loyal stooge are just a few examples of things we, as amateur historians, all seem to take for granted, and my goal is just to give people food for thought.
Oh I’m of the same mindset, don’t get me started on the “Livia’s murdered everyone” trope. I’ve been fighting it since high school.
Antonius being a great but doomed general is honestly another one for me. But about Agrippa, I guess I simply want to believe what I like to believe, since there’s no proof to the contrary.
Definitely not, I'm far to cynical to believe that.
In all reality, you may be right, and there's really no way to know for sure. I'm just out here playing devil's advocate because Roman history is so full of these tropes and assumptions that irritate me to the core. Livia being a murderer, Pompeius being an idiot, Trajanus being the best thing to happen to anyone ever, and Agrippa being a loyal stooge are just a few examples of things we, as amateur historians, all seem to take for granted, and my goal is just to give people food for thought.
Haha when looking at history sometimes cynical is a good way of looking at it and as naige as it sounds i honestly think that Agrippa was just an extremely loyal and good freind theres really nothing to say otherwise that i know about.
Germanicuss desth is just as history states was because of Calpurnius Piso, seems that he and Germanicus were at odds and to get back at the prince he had him killed and i think hoped that it would not be discovered.