Can someone explain Imperial era elections?

[LEB writer]

I'm trying to understand how senatorial elections for magistracies (aedile, praetor) worked in the empire. I believe the public no longer voted, but the candidates still vied for the posts. Who are the candidates trying to impress? How and when did the offices get awarded? On whose authority? 

Thanks in advance for your assistance. 

[caldrail]

The Principate began with traditional republican voting. Augustus had restored such procedures during his reforms. He passed a law in ad5, the Lex Valeria Cornelia, which set up a special advisory body of senators and decurial equites (senior plebs with civic responsibilities) to produce a list of favoured candidates called destinati before the Comitia. There's some debate over this especially because this body appears to have waned in importance by ad14. In any case, Tiberius transferred these elections to the Senate when he came to power.

There is a hint in a document called the Tabula Hebana which suggests that better control of voting was to offset the risk of public riots. Tiberius had a stricter control over voting than Augustus, though this was not the case after Tiberius set up semi-retirement in Capri. By then the Senate had much more freedom to control voting and no doubt the ideas to remove voting from the plebs completely starts from that moment, as the Senate begin to find ways to avoid setting issues for the popular assemblies to vote on. It was easier to seek guidance from the senior man among them, the Princeps Senatus, or Princeps, or if you really have to use the word, Emperor, who might in theory prove an excellent scapegoat. The Senate had never liked sharing their privileges in governmental business with lower classes or outsiders. Tacitus holds that Tiberius influenced the selection of candidates by speeches, not by decisions. None of the Roman writers say that the Princeps controlled the Comitia.

Dio tells us that the people continued to meet for elections. The Princeps appears in general to have intervened to prevent unsuitable candidates, such as those who canvassed or bribed their way into consideration, or perhaps for something as simple as personal dislike, but tended otherwise to let the Comitia vote as per tradition. There were exceptions such as Egnatius Rufus who got himself considered for consulship in 19BC and only the previous Consul managed to impede him. 

However, it is noted that Tiberius was only allowing enough candidates to fill the position, not to allow choice and this at a time when Tiberius was said to be refusing extra powers from the Senate, but this might not actually be the case as we know the Senate were asking for extra candidates and so Tiberius was simply acting to mediate the voting for the same reasons Augustus sought to.

There were some public disturbances over voting during the early Principate, Augustus had Agrippa keep order in Rome, and it seems the caution exercised by the Roman leaders was justified. In ad7 a riot was so bad that Augustus chose to appoint magistrates directly.

Although the Princeps made recommendations about candidates, the Senate continued to do business as they had in the late Republic, by filling posts by merit, agreement, or lot.

By the time Caligula comes to power, the period of riots has gone, replaced by considerable apathy which no doubt suited the Senate entirely. The mechanism existed, persisted, but was essentially pointless as too many decisions were being made outside of the Comitia's reach.

So intervention from the Princeps was a matter of expedience rather than the exercise of power, with the Senate taking advantage of change to assert their dominant role in government.

[Novosedoff]

The key words are "cursus honorum" because this is what determined the career paths in the Roman public politics. Although initially the magistrate posts were only available to the patricians, by the beginning of the current era the plebs could replace them almost at any position. It was all turned upside down when in 23BC Augustus, who was a patrician (thanks to Caesar's efforts), became the perpetual tribune with the authority to overrule any decision taken by other tribunes (initially in the republican era the tribunes would be always elected only among the plebs, although the story of Gracchus brought some wind of changes to that). In fact, by AD 12 the title of tribune had become so unpopular among the candidates of the senatorial rank, that Augustus had to introduce a new change and made the position available to the candidates of the equestrian rank too.

Voting wasn't cancelled, candidates would still have to compete. Some positions assumed a lot of responsibility over budgets distributed by Senate's decrees. For instance, it is estimated that each legion required over 600,000 denarii per annum just for wages. Plundering at war times was rather lucrative business too. The most successful politicians and statesmen are always the ones who can benefit their private pockets from their jobs in public offices. This is what drove Julius Caesar to start his public career too when he was deeply in debt.

Lets say you work as a quaestor. Your job duties assume the power to audit public spending. Lets say I am your good mate from childhood. I offer you a deal. My spending on some public construction works will be 40% higher than normal, but since I know that you'll be checking it, I offer you to split the benefits from overestimating my budgets.You'll get your kickback from me. Does this example convince you to run for elections at the quaestor's office? 🙂

https://youtu.be/TVtvBoELA-g

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

Augustus did NOT become a tribune at all. It was illegal for him to do so. He was granted the right to retain tribunician power and these powers were regularly renewed.

I notice people who see Augustus (or any other Princeps) as all-powerful point at his power of veto immediately. Remember that Augustus could not realistically veto everything. Why would he? What's the point of reforming republican government over the course of a lifetime just to prevent it from working? Why would Augustus claim to have created the best possible Roman government if he had no intention of allowing it to function? It's nonsensical.

Novosedoff - Whilst I'm not really going to argue about your view of corruption in high places, such behaviour, even in the ruthlessly greedy Roman Empire, was not universal. Why would the Romans write about corruption in the sense they do if the sort of corruption you point at was an ordinary part of life? Everyone would know it went on and it was pointless making an anecdote about it. Please realise that corruption in elections was the primary reason for public unrest and also the major motivation for Roman rulers to intervene.

[Novosedoff]

47 minutes ago, caldrail said:

was not universal

The corruption was absolutely widespread. It is still pretty much there.

People had to dip into their pockets to spend the very last money they had in order to sponsor the public games, which was the shortest way to seek popularity and win the elections. What did they do it for? For charity?

Your interpretation, caldrail, of Augustus deeds and his tribunician power changes very little to nothing, because effectively Augustus had the power to veto any decree he didn't like, including the power to veto the vetos issued by other tribunes.

Augustus was tyrant and merciless murderer who made his first fortune from proscriptions by eliminating his enemies. "The best possible Roman government" is something fictional that would be very natural to attribute to himself, given the fact that no opposition remained to challenge that.

[caldrail]

If Augustus was a tyrant he would have lasted months, not decades. His behaviour was not typical of tyrants or dictators in the modern sense. I know that's a popular conception but if you read the sources, he emerges as a more idealistic personality with genuine republican sentiments - we've been though this before.

But about proscriptions? Yes, he did, mentioned as being the most ruthless among the Second Triumvirate - and also the most reluctant. You can't ignore that to suit your preconception. But then he was hardly alone. The need for wealth provoked means to achieve it.

And if Augustus had such a power to obstruct government - why the piggin' hell did he not go down in history, even by the revisionist Cassius Dio, as doing exactly that? It's an accusation made to suit a preconception. it's imaginary. The Senate of the time remained in control of the greater part of the Empire, Augustus did not act against that and even when he had to change his military priorities, he merely swapped control of a province with the Senate. They lost nothing overall. Sure, he could get ugly if he felt the need, but that was Rome. It was a tough city.

Novosedoff- you cannot rule an empire by veto. Not possible. All you'd achieve is resentment, not only from the obstructed senators, but citizens who would see nothing was getting done. The Senate contained the most powerful and influential men in Rome. You would want them on your side surely? As for opposition, he had plenty. But Roman government was about litigation and debate. 

Now. Go ahead and impress me. You can do that by finding actual examples of veto. There must be some if he obstructed governmental business in favour of his own. If you don't accept the principles, then back your argument with evidence. A few theories in a book that agree with you won't cut it. Actual incidents please.

Edited February 21, 2022 by caldrail

[Novosedoff]

Well, I ain't a tamed tiger to jump the hoop, and I ain't in pursuit of extra popularity on this god forgotten forum with a few nerds to check in, including myself  😅 In legal studies there are such concepts as abstract right and abstract losses. Apparently, having the right to do something doesn't imply that someone has used the right yet. Noone said that veto is enough to rule, one's got to have some bollocks to demonstrate occasionally when peeing on someone's brand new shoes to mark the territory.  The point is that the elections at the time of the Roman empire are more than the vanity fair, it is "business as usual"

[caldrail]

If elections were not seen as properly convened, it wasn't acceptable. Egnatius Rufus found that out. I would poin out that the tribuncian power held by Augustus was to ensure that elections were indeed properly convened, as well as preventing legislation from acting against the interests of the plebs. I just read a website that says Augustus invented a new tribunicial form, well, Augustus assures us personally he invented nothing new. The same website consistently describes him as sneeky, covert, even machiaveliian. His reported behaviour does not suggest that, the idea of stage managed transition of power is merely a rationalisation to make the preconception of absolute rule make sense.

...Agrippa, whom the friendship of the emperor had raised to a third consulship
and soon afterwards to a share in the emperorʹs tribunician power.
Paterculus

Not the behaviour of a tyrant, is it?

[Novosedoff]

On 2/22/2022 at 2:19 AM, caldrail said:

Agrippa, whom the friendship of the emperor had raised to a third consulship
and soon afterwards to a share in the emperorʹs tribunician power.
Paterculus

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa2DW4aXVaw

🙂

[caldrail]

Erm... A video of a "Yes Minister" episode? Hardly relevant to the case in point.