Search the Community

The other day I sat down to watch a YouTube video about how Constantine the Great impacted history. Might be interesting. The academic started with a broad description of the Roman Empire, basically claiming that Augustus was an undeclared emperor and pretended that Rome was still a Republic. This is the foundation of the 'Standard Model' of Roman imperial government. I have never heard anything sound so false in all my life. Does that academic seriously expect anyone to believe that Augustus was able to fool the Romans into thinking the Republic was still in place for fifty years? In a society based on tradition and obsessed with politics and debate? Is he seriously suggesting nobody noticed? It may seem suprising that in spite of their vigilant Republicanism many members of the Italian governing class were satisfied by what seems to us a fiction. Yet the Romans, although their intense anxiety to preserve everything good in the past made them instinctively averse to open changes, had a fairly impressive record for modifying their institutions when this was necessary. The World Of Rome (Michael Grant) Okay, so why does the Republic seem like a fiction? There was no actual 'fall of the Republic', it doesn't exist in the Roman sources. It's because people like the idea Rome was ruled by emperors. It's been imposed on education since the Middle Ages based on the revisionist later writings of Roman authors and the experience of dealing with the Graeco-Roman Byzantines. Take Augustus himself. Paterculus gushes in praise and reminds us that Augusts was the saviour of the Republic. Yet five hundred years later Zosimus dismisses Augustus as an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. This reflects changes in Roman culture during the imperial era, not the career of Augustus. But not everyone is so blinded by the Standard Model. The overwhelming importance of tradition in Roman society is a warning for the historian tempted to consider Roman history in terms of turning points and separate periods. Persistent obsession with tradition fosters continuity even within a broad framework of change. In other words, while the terms 'Republic' and 'Principate' suggest separation and change, we should expect continuity, mitigating and to an extent denying this change. It is not only that the Republic conditioned the Principate: it also continued into the Principate - The Legacy of the Republic (David C Braund) from The Roman World (Ed. John Wacher) Also, rather than using the word 'birth', we should perhaps speak of emergence, since the features of the Augustan monarchy that were adopted by its successors took shape gradually, bit by bit, within the Republican institutional edifice. For the Principate was not created ex nihilo, but put slowly into position using existing forms, and following no preconceived plan but, rather, added to and modified according to circumstance... - A History of Rome (Le Glay, Voisin, & Le Bohec) I actually go further. It hasn't escaped my attention that the Romans still referred to their state as SPQR, Senatus Populous Que Romans (Senate and People of Rome) right to the end in the west in 476, which is an arbitrary date based on the takeover launched by Odoacer as he became King of Italy. The Senate may have been functionally powerless in the Dominate (the later Roman imperial period) but they still represented traditional authority, and rather than the imperatores (Victorious Generals) simply admit they had become monarchs, they required senatorial acceptance, awards of privilege, and legitimisation. Why would they need to if Rome was the Empire rather than the Republic? Exactly who were they trying to kid? The facts are startlingly obvious if you set aside the much loved but medieval 'Emperor of Rome'. Rome remained a Republic with evolving leadership. The Polybian hybrid government of aristocratic Senate, democratic people, and executive Magistracy had changed to Dominatal Magistracy with Senatorial acceptance - but it was the same nation state. When Augustus stated in his Res Gestae that he was Princeps Senatus he meant it. That was his day job. Yes, he was particularly powerful, but never absolute, and in any case power alone does not make you a monarch. His powers were based on a series of privileges, titles, and honours, not any existing position in Roman society, these powers given him by the Senate, and as an ambitious man of course he used them. However if you notice young Octavian had been invited into the Senate on the promise he would protect the Republic. He did exactly that. Yes, he profitted personally from doing so - he was an elite Roman, of course he did. Augustus even refers to this success as a statesman as the 'fruit of his labours'. If power wasn't his primary objective, as indeed Aurelius Victor claimed it was, then what was it? A prosperous Republic. There is no other answer that fits.

I have a thought experiment for you. What would it take to have the Roman Empire (or Republic) make a comeback? What bare minimums would recreate a recognizable Roman Empire? Here are a few I brainstormed: 1. Must contain city of Rome 2. Latin official language of government 3. Roman Senate active 4. Army using Roman terms. Legion = division, Cohort = battalion, century = company. Dux = 3-star general, etc Further questions: 1. Would there be an official religion? I don’t think there would have to be. Maybe nominally Catholic in the west. Tolerance for all faiths would probably be the law. 2. Who would be considered a citizen? Everyone? 3. Would slavery exist? It’s hard to imagine Rome without it but the point of this experiment, after all, is a modern Rome.

Go into any library or bookstore and pick up a book about Roman history. Chances are it'll tell you that the Republic came to an end in 27BC as Octavian becomes Augustus and opens the Roman Empire as it's first Emperor. It's standard Roman history. I've done a lot a writing about Augustus in one way or another and it's dawned on me that we're guilty of seeing things the wrong way. It's the later empire writers that label Augustus as a king by another name and indeed by 500ad Zosimus writes him off as an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. This phenomenon was caused by Roman historians describing the past in terms their contemporary readers would readily recognise, rather than analyse the politics of previous centuries - which would bore their readers stiff. Was Augustus actually an emperor? I say no, he never used ay such title, nor even allowed people to call him 'lord' or 'master'. Nor did he have any legal right to command citizens - he had refused a dictatorship. Nor did he command the entire empire, he kept Egypt as his own personal province and via superior right to military command held sway over about two thirds of the empire. The Senate remained in charge of the rest, and was reformed for efficient government. Under the guidance of Augustus, it must be said, and that caused him some criticism (and still does). He did not rid the Empire of democracy either, he managed vacancies in public offices to avoid public disorder since that was a major issue in the late republic era. It would be the Senate who eventually ignored democracy in favour of asking the guy in charge. Nor did imperator mean Emperor in his day - it meant 'Victorious General' and it wasn't until ad69 that it started to accrue a wider meaning as Rome's boss. So what exactly was Augustus? Of late I've stressed his day job as Princeps Senatus, a lapsed republican position he revived as manager of Roman government. Now I begin to think I missed the point along with everyone else. Augustus remained a Triumvir. He wanted to restore Rome as a prosperous successful state, and indeed, when he was first awarded the right to lead an army by a reluctant Senate he was also made to promise that he would protect the Republic. I think that was what he wanted to do and indeed maintained until he died. it was Antony who got in the way, an uncomfortable rivalry that ended with the defeat of Antony & Cleopatra for which Augustus was well honoured. Okay, you may well ask, but why was that not obvious? Because Augustus had struck a deal, negotiated with the Senate over his privileges. Note that Augustus maintained he was still a triumvir after the Second Triumvirate had finished yet that title vanishes. By the rules, he could not be triumvir alone - it was a council of three reformers, but freed without colleagues obstructing his reforms like Antony did, he could achieve his ambitions - if the state allowed him the privileges to do so. That was the ruse that Augustus pulled off. Not to rule the empire, he didn't, but to reform it with the status and privileges to achieve it. So, I put it to you that Emperor is the wrong title, a medieval conversion of the full autocracy of the Dominate that Rome evolved toward. Augustus instead remained a Triumvir by another name.

Imperator - Originally meaning 'general' or 'commander-in-chief' but it evolved under the Principate into being synonymous with ruling, leading to our word emperor. Praetorian (Guy De La Beyodere) The name of "imperator" is held by them all for life, not only by those who have won victories in battle, but also by those who have not, in token of their independent authority, and this has displaced the titles of "King" and "Dictator". These last titles they have never assumed since the time they first fell out of use in the conduct of the government, but the functions of these offices are secured to them under the appellation of "imperator." Roman History Book 53 (Cassius Dio) Imperial Rome was still the Roman Republic, just the same old SPQR but with single person leadership accepted. There was no actual change of regime and indeed, Augustus had promised as a young man to the Senate that he would protect the Republic when Cicero persuaded them to make his army of Caesar's veterans legal. A more radical change perhaps, but as historian Michael Grant pointed out, Rome had always had an impressive record of change when it suited them. In any case, 'republic' means a form of government to us. Not to the Romans, it meant res publica, For The People, or the obligation of privilege to care for those without. It was the loss of that civic duty that Roman writers would later bemoan, not the loss of a particular regime. People make a big deal of the so-called emperors, but no Roman ever called himself that. Here’s the thing - the latin word imperator meant ‘victorious general’. It was originally used as a salute from the soldiers to generals who won battles and campaigns, a spontaneous military honour. After Augustus won the civil war against Antony & Cleopatra, he made ‘Imperator’ part of his name, to acknowledge his war hero status. Because he wanted to retain that military honour as well as owning the highest level licence to lead armies (imperium maia), he had the name Imperator renewed legally at regular intervals, something like twenty times over his lifetime. It did not confer any power or authority itself, although the word was derived from the latin verb imperare “to command” as was appropriate to Roman legions. Roman leaders preferred this title above all others for two reasons, firstly because Romans loved military glory and stressed its importance, and secondly, because Augustus had used it and so they felt as stepping into his leadership role they too had every right, even those without military victories to qualify (though some imperators later went on campaign to justify the title). But there’s a problem. Rome was a society based on ideas of free will and self determination, and if you command a civilian, then you enslave him - Cassius Dio especially underlines that theme in his writing. The ability to make your own decisions was fundamental to your humanity, and being unable to make your own decisions meant you were a slave, equal to an animal in status. So it was tyranny if you commanded ordinary citizens. That was why Roman leaders did not issue personal directives to society at large but made laws in republican fashion to control the public. Now, if we fast forward to the medieval world and beyond, we find that surviving Roman texts name the Roman leaders of the imperial period as ‘imperator’ and knowing what that word meant, it surely described a monarch? This was after all an era that began with actual experience of the eastern Roman Empire in its last days. That was why the modern word Emperor evolved. So our popular concept today of the ‘Roman Emperor’ is in fact based on a form that rulers of the Roman world had finally developed into, not as they began. Augustus had absolute control in Egypt, reserved as his personal province where the Senate could not legally go. He had control by proxy over regions with military garrisons. The rest of the Empire remained under Senatorial oversight, using self rule in loyal tribute, but with Augustus in the position of Princeps Senatus “First Senator” which made him more manager than monarch. The Senate began ignoring the democratic side of Roman politics - why ask the plebs questions to vote on when we can ask our leader? In fact Augustus went to some effort to reform the Senate for efficient government, which turned out to be a lifetime mission. So Augustus was in a senior position, hugely powerful thanks to his collection of privileges, but not a direct ruler. Nor did he want to be. As tradition demanded he returned his emergency power to the Senate and People of Rome after Antony died. He thought of giving up active politics at that point, so Suetonius records, because he recognised he was in a position to seize control of Rome, and he was more republican minded than that. It was fine to be powerful if you were a Triumvir, a council of three reformers, but as the only remaining triumvir, he was on less secure ground. He refused demands from the public to become Dictator. He refused proposed senatorial law to make him Dictator. He would later deny that he was ever Dictator at all. Yes, but critics claim, he had tribunician veto. He could stop any law if he wanted surely? Actually, no. One of the limitations of the Republic was that power was limited by provincia. No, not provinces, it meant areas of responsibility. Had Augustus vetoed everything in the Senate, not only would government have been impossible, he would be labelled as a tyrant and dealt with. His tribunician veto applied to preventing the aristocracy from abusing the common people. No other reason was legal, although Augustus felt obliged to veto Senate debate for seven years toward the end of his reign - but that wasn’t for his own power, it was a last all out attempt to get the Senate to behave and stop knifing each other in petty squabbles. An irresponsible government could hardly govern the plebeians responsibly. He relented just before he died when the Senate settled down after seven years of thwarted argument. And sole absolute ruler? Well, having learned his powers were wide ranging and respectable but not absolute, we also discover that Augustus shared his power as any good republican might. Marcus Agrippa received the very same powers that Augustus enjoyed, running Rome for a total of nine years in the absence of his friend. And his nominated successor, Tiberius, also received the same powers in order that precedent would be both observed and peacefully passed on. Augustus knew full well the risks of civil war if he did not ensure some sort of arrangement was made. So Augustus was Princeps Senatus (First Senator), Princeps (First Citizen), Pater Patriae (Father of the Nation), Imperator (Victorious General), and a few other titles, but never Emperor. However, when Caligula ascended to power, he had other ideas, and notably it was usually the younger Imperatores who thought the stuffy old Senate was an impediment to their personal rule. Those who cooperated with the Senate usually did better. But the power of the Senate did decline, either by their own compliance with military power, imperial influence and inheritance, or their own unwillingness to stand as a united body, until Diocletian declared his word was law, at which point he was legally commanding citizens and the Senate was no longer the de facto Roman government (though it was hardly that anyway by that time). Nonetheless, whilst those later Roman rulers were as close to monarchs as they would ever get, they still observed the Senate, still accepted republican style powers, and still preserved SPQR to the very end in the west. And the Senate survived them by at least a century.

The other day I was browsing a back issue of a BBC history magazine when I stumbled upon an article supporting the release of Guy De La Bedoyere's recent book on life in the Roman legions. In it was a statement that the Roman Empire relied almost entirely upon the legions for the assertion of imperial power. Now, as a younger man, I would have accepted that without a hint of doubt - it's a common theme when discussing the Romans, and they said of themselves that they loved the portrayal of military culture rather more than having to endure it. But was that statement correct? Granted, Guy De La Bedoyere is a successful writer and television expert, but the idea that the empire had only the legions to extend power doesn't work so well if one is critical. Firstly, the legions weren't everywhere. They were stationed in areas requiring a higher security presence. Secondly, despite a reputation for efficiency and effectiveness that would make elite armies envious, the legions were neither. They were corrupt, rarely close to anything like full strength, senior officers politically motivated, and their soldiers relentlessly bolshie. For all their supposed invincibility, they left an impressive list of defeats. The sources contain many instances of intervention by the legions, sometimes ordered, sometimes just rebellious or motivated troops throwing their weight about. It's that very drama that made the Romans record such anecdotes, and therefore we might well suspect our understanding is being distorted accordingly. Of course the Romans had other means of establishing power, but isn't that entire concept misleading? We're used to the rather more coherent empires of the last 150 years, the colonial powers, the communist bloc, or the fascist supremacists. Little wonder we see parallels with such constructs. I'll say this up front. The Roman Empire was not a totalitarian state. Nothing like it. In fact, as a political entity it was suprisingly benign, but then Roman culture was based on ideas of free will and self determination. Rome did not as a rule control peoples lives in the manner of more recent empires, and indeed, it would have been extremely difficult for them to have done that. It demanded loyalty and tribute, but free people were free to pursue their lives as they saw fit, with the proviso that if you got dangerous to ordinary peaceful existence, the result would be heavy handed. Note the rebellion of Spartacus. The first response to his escape to Vesuvius and ensuing banditry was not the military might of Rome, but local people getting their act together and trying to arrest him, albeit unsuccessfully. Note the occupation of Germania during the administration of Quintus Publius Varus, who considered (wrongly as it turned out) that the natives were beginning to see Roman law as superior and accepting Roman oversight as a result. Note the factional nature of Roman society, with chariot racing teams presenting a political influence all of their own. Note the use of commerce to influence regions. Note the existence of the client/patron relationship, the very beating heart of ordinary everyday Roman life. So we can see a large number of means by which the empire manipulated rather than controlled. It ought to be realised also that the empire was not a single unified state under the Caesars as is normally portrayed. It was Rome, a city state, that held influence over provinces of varying status that had local government derived from their native peoples and remodelled to Roman style. But of course, as Roman monarchy re-asserted itself after Augustus, so these rulers obtained personal control of provincial areas formerly administered by the Senate. So the situation was a long process of change instead of a stable and conformal ideal. So, the empire didn't need the sort of central control we normally think of nor was that practicable, as indeed the decay of the empire would prove as emperors became dominant lords of all they surveyed. Law, commerce, and the unseen machinations of patricians in their own atriums are not often found in Roman sources as such, being somewhat invisible or dull, thus they didn't write about them. Does that mean these methods of influence didn't exist? I think the Roman Empire needs a different image than the one the Romans bequeathed to us at their own cognizance.