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.

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.

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.

I just published a book on the Catiline Conspiracy, entitled "The Fall of the Republic." While it is fictional, it adheres closely to the accounts of Sallust and other historical sources. Here is a summary: In 63 B.C., Catilina—an angry, corrupt politician—conspired with foreign powers and criminal elements to overthrow the Roman Republic. Exploiting those who suffered from inequality, he sought to destroy the republic in the name of the people. In the end, he nearly achieved through violence what he could not attain by inciting the masses with lies. This true story of the near-destruction of a great republic contains poignant lessons for the ages. "The Fall of the Republic" is available on Amazon, in both paperback and Kindle editions. Use the link below or search for my name. I hope that you enjoy it! https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Republic-Scott-Savitz-ebook/dp/B08HZBNYS5/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1600453425&sr=8-1