Search the Community

On the face of it, Roman history seems, if you'll excuse the pun, cast in concrete. The Republic falls, Augustus claims the empire as ruler, and Imperial history begins. Is it really that obvious? I ask because I'm increasingly drawn to different conclusions that the somewhat flawed accepted story. Time then to outline where I am in this accentuated period in history. What was the Roman Republic? You only have to watch the successful film Gladiator to see how fixated with modern concepts we are. I refer to that hilarious scene where Derek Jacobi attempts to point out to Joachim Pheonix that the Senate was chosen from among the people to represent the people. Really? Someone thought 'republic' meant more or less the same thing as modern America. And no, it most certainly did not, the Senate was a group of senior politicians who had to be wealthy enough to qualify. Representation had very little to with it and historically there many Senators who had little intention of making decisions to benefit the common people. The word 'republic' to modern readers means a type of government. To the Romans, it did not. The word is derived from res publica, or 'for the people'. It was therefore the obligation of privilege to take of the common public, though in fairness many senators would pay lip service to that. The actual regime was neither here nor there, and given that Rome tinkered with its format in small or mighty steps over the course of their history whenever it suited them, then the fact their state remained SPQR .Senate and People of Rome' to the very end in the west rather points to a different interpretation of empire than ours. So what was this 'Fall of the Republic'? It wasn't a change in regime. All the apparatus of government survived the accession of Augustus. Indeed, he set about reforming the Senate, removing the riff-raff, encouraging participation, and making it difficult for Senators to hide in the crowd. Tiberius would later pass on powers from the Popular Assemblies to the Senate so they could govern in his absence. Hardly the powerless gang of elites many dismiss airily. No, it was the loss of of civic duty. Under the Principate, pandering to the public was less important compared to the immediate feel-good factor of panem et circuses 'Bread and Circuses'. The public would be bribed rather than appeased. I have to say, it sort of worked. Yes, you argue, but Augustus was made Emperor? No, he was not. There was no such title in Roman society and anyone attempting it was not going to last long. Monarchy was considered a tyranny by Roman elites in a society that favoured free will and self determination as the mark of civilisation. The public wanted a popular leader, like Julius Caesar, and demanded that the Senate make Augustus a Dictator. He always refused the title, even though the public rioted and threatened the lives of the Senate over it. He endured accusations of being a dictator already. He denied it. With good reason. The Senate had awarded him his far reaching powers and privileges and the title itself had been legally abolished by Marc Antony. Having won a civil war to keep the empire together and prevent a new powerful empire forged from Egypt and the Eastern Roman provinces, to have then sneakily claimed a kingly title would have breathtakingly hypocritical, never mind dangerous. Augustus instead becomes patron to his Roman client. Hardly radical, but it offered a convenient step to managing the empire rather than actually ruling it. This idea that Augustus planned a sinister and clever covert takeover doesn't work for me. Perfect and saintly he was not, but reading accounts of him I get the impression he preferred to do business up front and vehemently disliked subterfuge. Taxing the Germanic tribes occupied by Roman forces was hardly covert was it? Sure, it was greedy and opportunistic, but that was normal for Rome. In any case, Augustus needed effective government and boasts in his Res Gestae that he tried to create the best government possible. So the Republic in fact continues, but now, under single person leadership. The Senate still governs the bulk of the Empire, although Augustus now has the right to intervene if he thought it was necessary. He sends representatives to make sure he isn't needed, and unfortunately, in doing so created a mechanism for appropriating provincial oversight from the Senate, which develops over the next century mostly at the behest of those successors who saw themselves as more absolute than those who preferred to work with the Senate (and who generally did better). This would account for the naming convention and the reason why future leaders would always receive authorisation of their power from the Senate in republican style packages rather than autocratic rights, long after the Senate had dwindled to ritual significance. That brings us to the Dominate, following Diocletian's assertion of absolute power. At that point, senatorial government is effectively over. The Republic still continues, now ruled by men who liked to call themselves Imperator 'Victorious General'. Civic duty has gone. Hence Roman writers say the 'republic is dead'. But an imperial monarchy? I'm sorry, that stretches the point a lot. There are too many anomalies to simply rationalise as a convenient ruse to gaining power. Rome was more complex beast than that.