Declaration of war

[Novosedoff]

Hi all,

I am curious about the legal aspects of the Roman politics at war times. As we know in the modern world the war customs are varying across countries despite their international commitments (Geneva conventions etc). For instance, in Russia the decision on starting a new war can only be authorised by the Federation Council (the Russian parliament is bicameral, so this is the higher chamber akin to the US Senate), the lower Duma (in the US that would be the House of the Representatives) takes no vote on this occasion in accordance with the Russian Constitution. In the US things work a little differently, so we all remember the famous painting of Woodrow Wilson addressing both chambers of the US Congress to declare a war on Germany (WW1). Since then things have been subject to some changes as President Truman seemingly sent his troops to Korea without seeking first an approval from the Congress.

I wonder what the mechanics of waging wars was back at the time of the Roman empire. Did the Senate (unicameral) have any say before starting a new war? Or was it solely at emperor's discretion?

Thanks.

[caldrail]

The Senate had no authority to declare war at their own initiative, that decision was a privilege assigned to the Comitia Centuriata, one of the popular voting assemblies, and a ritual of throwing a spear across the border would follow a vote in favour of war. However, one example of when they did was Octavian using the priviliges he held to tell the Senate to do so against Cleopatra of Egypt.

So right there you have an encapsulation of the change from democratic confirmation of aggression to military directive. As Princeps Senatus, Augustus as First Senator had the ability to suggest a war should be undertaken pretty much when he wanted, and given his overwhelming presence on the Roman political scene, he was likely to be listened to. He also had the right to intervene where-ever he wanted in defence of Rome's security, which given their policy of offence being the best defence, and holding the highest right to command (imperium maia), he could assume command of Rome's military whenever he wanted. Since the Comitia Centuriata were essentially by-passed, that requirement lapsed into history, which the SEnate were perfectly happy about.

Later Imperators - the name meant 'Victorious General', not 'emperor, though did not confer any official power whatsoever) were emulating Caesar and Augustus hence followed similar prerogatives.

[Novosedoff]

I suspected so. Since Caligula was to introduce his horse to the Senate as a new consul, I thought that the role of the Senate must have been diminishing, so its opinion had become negligeable for the emperors   .. 🙂

[caldrail]

Caligula threatened to make his horse Incitatus a senator on the grounds that he though they were a bunch of useless timewasters and even his horse could do a better job. Bear in mind however that after he was assassinated the magistrates and urban cohorts seized power in Rome, for a day or two until the Praetorians got their way and had Claudius installed as Princeps. Younger Imperators had a habit of being less respectful toward the Senate, but those who cooperated (Antoninus Pius is a good example) tended to live longer. But no matter what level of influence a Roman ruler possessed, he still needed acceptance from the Senate as the traditional source of authority. No such thing as 'emperor', and the privileges needed to rule Rome were awarded by Senators. not by making grandiose declarations.

Remember that the only office in Roman culture that conferred the right to command citizens was Dictator, abolished  by Marc Antony and refused by Augustus who set the template for future leaders. Diocletian declared his word was law, thus instituting the Dominate period in which ignoring the Imperator made you a criminal instead of a free man.

Edited September 1, 2022 by caldrail