Imperatores and Degrees of Power

[caldrail]

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.

Edited June 19, 2022 by caldrail

[Novosedoff]

Emperors were not the highest political status a person could achieve in ancient Rome.  Starting from the end of the 2nd century AD Romans would sometimes have 2 and even 3 emperors at the same time. Amongst them the highest political status would only have the person who also held the religious Pontifex Maximus' office. But eventually that had been changed too following the murder of emperor Maximinus Thrax. Both of his 2 successors, Pupienus and Balbinus, were raised to Pontifex at the same time.

Quote

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. 

It is for this very reason that Augustus also occasionally held the office of censor, which allowed him to filter out any disloyal names and by shortlisting only the senators he trusted he could ensure that there would be no opportunity for someone to raise an unpleasant issue which would gain the majority support and necessitate Augustus to use his veto power in order to prevent some undesirable political outcomes ☺️     In fact, at the time of Augustus the agenda for most senatorial meetings would be often decided with only a few senatorial participants in Augustus' house on the Palatine. 

Imagine a powerful bundit who lives in the centre of Rome in his newly built castle-like luxury house.
The same guy also placed the Praetorian guard within the boundary of Rome, which was the first occasion when
such troops were legally and permanently garrisoned in Rome. The house of senatorial meetings, Curia Julia, 
is situated not that far from his house, so should any trouble arise (such as, for instance, an emergency meeting
held by senators in order to depose the bundit) the guy would be quick to respond by sending his loyal troops
to break the meeting. Would anyone dare to even think of overthrowing the guy when his troops are sitted just next door? That's how "republic" under Augustus functioned.

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

Then please indicate where the Roman sources mention Augustus throwing his troops at the Senate when they got argumentative? Why was Augustus recorded as leaving the Senate meetings with his tail between his legs because senators wanted to know when they could make decisions? I could go on, but I'll leave your challenge at that. Good luck. 

[Novosedoff]

2 hours ago, caldrail said:

Then please indicate where the Roman sources mention Augustus throwing his troops at the Senate when they got argumentative? Why was Augustus recorded as leaving the Senate meetings with his tail between his legs because senators wanted to know when they could make decisions? I could go on, but I'll leave your challenge at that. Good luck. 

He never had to. We've gotta sift the wheat from the chaff, as you say in English. One thing is to be able to do something, the other is to have actually done it. The theory of "stationary bandit" I referred to was proposed by well known American political scientist Mancur Olson. You must have heard of the theory, I am sure, so no need to google.

I don't understand why you stubbornly keep insisting on Augustus deeply rooted republican views. They were nothing but the false modesty. It's like when you catch a fly, instead of killing it you tear its wings and watch it helplessly crawling because you don't want to be a murderer, so you pretend to be a good shepherd, may even start feeding the insect. That's how it worked between Augustus and the Senate. Just let's not forget what Sulla did to many senators when he had to. So both Augustus and the senators must have had fresh memories of the fate that their predecessors had to face.

Edited June 21, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

Why would I automatically adhere to some obscure socio-political idea spouted by an American I've never heard of? You're right, I don't have to google it, it's no more fundamentally relevant than your own wishy wishy fantasy based on analogy with modern style tyranny.  In order to be described as a tyrant, one needs to be described as seeking tyranny. Such people don't just happen, they are born and bred with such character, and act toward the goal they seek.

The reason I 'stubbornly'  continue to describe deeply rooted republican values in the reign of Augustus is because that is what the Romans describe as happening. Is Augustus described as a tyrant? Generally, no, despite some revisionist criticism from Cassius Dio who clearly disapproves of imperatorial power anyway.

In this way he had his supremacy ratified by the senate and by the people as well. But as he wished even so to be thought democratic, while he accepted all the care and oversight of the public business, on the ground that it required some attention on his part, yet he declared he would not personally govern all the provinces, and that in the case of such provinces as he should govern he would not do so indefinitely; and he did, in fact, restore to the senate the weaker provinces, on the ground that they were peaceful and free from war, while he retained the more powerful, alleging that they were insecure and precarious and either had enemies on their borders or were able on their own account to begin a serious revolt. Roman History (Cassius Dio)

But is Dio actually correct in his rather jaded view of Augustan power? I don't think he is. You see, he projects the opposite view  in a speech he reports as being given by Augustus...

From all this I have derived no gain for myself except that I have kept my country from perishing; but as for you, you are enjoying both safety and tranquillity. Speech of Augustus (Cassius Dio)

That speech could be read either way, yet Dio is making it up. He loved to write rambling speeches in his histories that nobody could possibly have recorded for posterity. As an objective critic therefore, Dio is somewhat lacking in authority. He's biased.

Do we ignore the testimony of other Roman writers? 

But when Gallus too was forced to undergo death through the declarations of his accusers and the decrees of the senate, though commending their loyalty and their indignation on his account, Augustus yet shed tears and bewailed his lot, because he alone could not set what limits he chose to his anger with his friends - Augustus (Suetonius)

So the Senate decides a man should die because of his actions, and Augustus is powerless to help him? Why does Augustus allow this crisis to go unchallenged? Because he can't - the decision of the Senate was reached by legal deliberation and resolution. As I already told you, the tribunician veto enjoyed by Augustus (though he doesn't seem to have used it much) is limited to the protection of the plebeians by provincia, the field of responsibility that govern his use of exceptional power. Augustus is not all-powerful. It's there, in black and white.

Or do we simply ignore Augustus himself?

The dictatorship offered me by the people and the Roman Senate, in my absence and later when present, in the consulship of Marcus Marcellus and Lucius Arruntius I did not accept. I refused to accept any power offered me which was contrary to the traditions of our ancestors. Those things which at that time the senate wished me to administer I carried out by virtue of my tribunician power. And even in this office I five times received from the senate a colleague at my own request.  For ten years in succession I was one of the triumvirs for the re-establishment of the constitution. To the day of writing this I have been princeps senatus for forty years. I have been pontifex maximus, augur, a member of the fifteen commissioners for performing sacred rites, one of the seven for sacred feasts, an arval brother, a sodalis Titius, a fetial priest. Res Gestae (Augustus)

Please understand this. As much as Augustus was something of a control freak as a personality, he does not seize power in Rome even when the opportunity is open to him. The public clamour to be ruled by him, they even force senators to barricade themselves inside the meeting house during a riot in which the public threaten to burn the place to the ground with the Senate inside it if Augustus is not given Dictator. We even have Suetonius telling us that Augustus thought about giving up active politics when Antony died. Why? That event made him the front runner in Roman politics. Surely that was a moment to seize power with no clear rival to stop him?

From early youth he devoted himself eagerly and with utmost diligence to oratory and liberal studies - Augustus (Suetonius)

Liberal studies? Really? If history generally is any guide, would-be tyrants have nothing but contempt for liberalism. The point is, people - you included - like the idea of 'Emperor'. It's colourful, dramatic, a traditional point of view, safe, following the herd. In fact, that concept was why I got into Roman history to begin with, that fantastic image of a monolithic empire teetering on the edge of collapse because of some nutter on the throne.

Except... There was no throne. Julius Caesar had set one up despite his claims he wasn't a monarch. As we know, his efforts to distance himself from monarchism failed and he was assassinated by a conspiracy that wished to avoid single person domination of Rome. But Augustus made no use of such symbolism.

So attractive is the idea of 'Emperor', which resonates deeply in the human psyche more than the pages of history especially among those who don't have this sort of power, is that many historians will even twist the motives and explanations to justify the labels they wish to see. But there were plenty of significant individuals who wanted power in Rome. Is it necessarily tyranny to desire safety from malice, or peace from revolution? 

After this he nipped in the bud at various times several outbreaks, attempts at revolution, and conspiracies, which were betrayed before they became formidable. The ringleaders were, first the young Lepidus, then Varro Murena and Fannius Caepio, later Marcus Egnatius, next Plautius Rufus and Lucius Paulus, husband of the emperor's granddaughter, and besides these Lucius Audasius, who had been charged with forgery, and was most old and feeble; also Asinius Epicadus, a half-breed descended from the Parthini,c and finally Telephus, slave and pageof a woman; for even men of the lowest condition conspired against him and imperilled his safety. Audasius and Epicadus had planned to take his daughter Julia and his grandson Agrippa by force to the armies from the islands where they were confined, Telephus to set upon both Augustus and the senate, under the delusion that he himself was destined for empire. Even a soldier's servant from the army in Illyricum, who had escaped the vigilance of the door-keepers, was caught at night near the emperor's bed-room, armed with a hunting knife; but whether the fellow was crazy or feigned madness is a question, since nothing could be wrung from him by torture. - Augustus (Suetonius)

Are these motives purely anti-Augustus? Celebrity status brings risk of violence, but clearly in Rome there were those who wanted to seize power for themselves, whereas, should I dare to repeat this, that Augustus was awarded his special status for the act of returning his emergency powers to the Senate and people of Rome, and his victory over Antony & Cleopatra. Stage managed? A political pantomime? Nobody who wanted to be a ruler would waste his time with malarkey like that. If you wish to rule absolutely, giving away absolute control is not a good start.

Edited June 21, 2022 by caldrail

[Novosedoff]

It seems that out of all Roman emperors the thread will be mostly devoted to Augustus.

The reason why many Roman historians, including the ones you cited, were rather positive in their writings about Augustus is because they were writing and they were published at the time when the political tradition of emperors power still existed, and Augustus was regarded as the one who started it. Undermining the whole idea of emperors pretensions to power would be suicidal for any writer. That's why in the quotes Dio, Suetonius and Augustus himself (in his own Res Gestae) emphasized the importance that the new establishment played in preventing the political turmoil of the earlier decades (esp. compared with the bloody time of Sulla when how many? 20-30% of senators? were ruthlessly murdered)

Unlike Sulla Caesar (the one who started the tradition of "crossing the Rubicon") established his power by increasing the number of his loyal supporters among the senators, thereby increasing the overall number of senators, which didn't help him to avoid the assassination in Rome. Augustus did what even Caesar didn't dare to complete: he permanently garrisoned the whole of army of his bodyguards in the very city. That's how much republican he was.

Quote

But when Gallus too was forced to undergo death through the declarations of his accusers and the decrees of the senate, though commending their loyalty and their indignation on his account, Augustus yet shed tears

It is quite easy to avoid accusations of meddling in someone's death if one uses others to do the dirty work while distancing himself from the whole performance, and Augustus could be a good actor too...

Quote

The public clamour to be ruled by him, they even force senators to barricade themselves inside the meeting house during a riot in which the public threaten to burn the place to the ground with the Senate inside it if Augustus is not given Dictator. We even have Suetonius telling us that Augustus thought about giving up active politics when Antony died. Why? That event made him the front runner in Roman politics. Surely that was a moment to seize power with no clear rival to stop him?

 

I always had a high opinion of British critical thinking because you would even publicly mock your own politicians on the TV, which may be unheard in some other countries. So why not to use your mind here again and assume that the crowd could be bribed and acted in someone's interests in order to achieve a political goal?

 

 

Edited June 21, 2022 by Novosedoff

[Novosedoff]

One more line of argument that came to my mind. Did you ever wonder why all statues devoted to Augustus show him young and almost divine? When Augustus died he was aged 75.

That's because Augustus ordered to do so. That's how powerful and republican he was in shaping the future for his own imperial image, the future where no other image of him would be possible. It's almost like Kim Jong-il or Fidel back then.  

Edited June 21, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

I notice you refer to 'emperor's power' and it seems you insist on defining emperor as a fixed quantity. That's where you go wrong. I have said there was no such thing as 'Emperor' in Roman society and Professor Greg Woolf has referred to being emperor as 'not a proper job' (so did I coincidentially). Remember that Augustus never stresses power and tells us he had no more than anyone else. On one occaision he when he was made Consul he asked the Senate to give him two colleagues instead of one, because he thought it would be better to balance his influence. The Senate refused.

These days we give celebrity status, authority, and presence on a sliding scale as it were and it seems you wish to apply that thinking to Roman leaders. However, they didn't do that. To them, a person had a range of qualities that resemble a role playing game personal attributes. Auctoritas, potestas, virtus, etc, were all separated qualities to measure a man by. Augustus claimed his advantage was auctoritas, his personal authority, representing the importance that people pinned upon him rather than any formal recognition of a job. After all, Didius Julianus became Imperator too didn't he? What power did he wield?

I do stress Augustus but then he defined what being the senior statesman in Rome should be, that was part of his Res Gestae besides his CV. It was those that followed him, starting with Caligula, who saw holding the reins as more than a political career. And don't forget, Augustus saw his position as an extension of republican civic duty. One Roman writer, I don't remember which off hand, mentions how Augustus realised that having gotten into a position to manage Roman government he could not let go of it without risking instability. I have no doubt you will dismiss that as an excuse for power, but I think that would be missing the point. Augustus thought about retiring twice, once during illness, the other because he found himself as the sole candidate for political domination after the death of Antony.

So Augustus had loads of statues erected. No big deal, that sort of propaganda wasn't unusual, even for people who weren't leading politicians. Cicero tells us that nothing pleased an elite Roman more than seeing a statue of himself in military guise. And bear in mind that many of these statues were designed with replaceable heads, or simply had a previous remodelled to suggest the current subject. 

It is quite easy to avoid accusations of meddling in someone's death if one uses others to do the dirty work while distancing himself from the whole performance, and Augustus could be a good actor too...

Yes but can you prove that idea? No, you can't, or you would have posted some quote or reference. Fact is, if all you have is snide dismissals and your own random accusations, I'll simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

Augustus did what even Caesar didn't dare to complete: he permanently garrisoned the whole of army of his bodyguards in the very city. That's how much republican he was.

Whoops. No he didn't. He never stationed more than three cohorts of praetorians inside Rome at any one time, and then during public events where the risks of crime were accentuated. Too canny to let power concentrate. It was Aelius Sejanus who amalgamated the Praetorian Cohorts in Rome and guess what, he did that to build a power base for his own rise to power, and I suspect strongly that Sejanus had rather less republican ideals than Augustus.

I always had a high opinion of British critical thinking because you would even publicly mock your own politicians on the TV, which may be unheard in some other countries. So why not to use your mind here again and assume that the crowd could be bribed and acted in someone's interests in order to achieve a political goal?

Good grief how arrogant is that? You're actually trying to tell me what to think? Well, I'm afraid I'm going to continue being British and remind you that analysis requires evidence. If you can point to some that illustrates your point in that context, fine, I can accept it, but otherwise you're just talking out of your sublagaria.

[Novosedoff]

On 6/22/2022 at 7:22 AM, caldrail said:

Yes but can you prove that idea? No, you can't, or you would have posted some quote or reference. Fact is, if all you have is snide dismissals and your own random accusations, I'll simply dismiss them as irrelevant.

Surely, the guy, who got the whole month named after him while he was still alive, would be able to play a little bit as Bill Murray did in this memorable scene

 🙂

Edited July 12, 2022 by Novosedoff

[caldrail]

With all due respect, Hollywood films are not evidence of Augustus' behaviour nor is the context historical. We already know Roman political debate was a theatrical exercise, but bear in mind Augustus was reported as using scripts to read from, and Roman writers do not report emotive behaviour of the sort you wish to assert.