The Principate

[sullafelix]

I have another question. I know that that the issue of succession was a major problem during the Principate, but did it show a weakness in it??

 

I'd say! Normally, the emperor named his own successor (invariably ratified by the hollow men in the Senate). But what if the emperor were killed before naming a successor? Who would be the emperor then?

 

At various times over Roman history, the successor was--a person of abiliity adopted by a good emperor (Hadrian), the idiot son of a good emperor (Caracalla), the victor in a civil war (too many to list), the first person found by the palace guard (Claudius), and the winner of an auction conducted by the palace guard (Didiamus Julianus).

 

In my view, the impotence of the principate to handle the succession undermines completely its reason for being.

 

I see your point on this but it is a bir a sweeping statement and makes all monarchies subject to the same kinds of instability does it not?. Besides which the Republic was far more unstable.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In my view, the impotence of the principate to handle the succession undermines completely its reason for being.

I see your point on this but it is a bir a sweeping statement and makes all monarchies subject to the same kinds of instability does it not?. Besides which the Republic was far more unstable.

 

Yes, assuming the monarch is an actual autocrat, I think all monarchical rule is subject to the same problems--you might have one great king but his son could be an imbecile and a sadist, which leads either to a civil war or to a reactionary surge in political murders and repression. In my opinion, all monarchs should have their power stripped from them and distributed among elected representatives. (Call me crazy.)

 

As for the Republic being less stable, count the civil wars, proscriptions, exiles, and confiscations in all the years before the forces of Pompey were destroyed and in all the years after, and you'll find that the promised stability of dictatorship simply didn't obtain. In supporting the power-grabs of Caesar and then Octavian, Romans gave up their essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety, but they found soon thereafter that they had neither liberty nor safety.

 

As far as I can tell, the illusion of the stability of dictatorship arises from (1) our disproportionate attention to the civil wars immediately preceding the principate and the relative calm during the reign of Augustus, and (2) our disproportionate attention to civil wars over domestic repression (e.g., a dictator's use of confiscation, exile, and proscription). In evaluating the stability of a type of political organization, however, we have to take a longer view of history and a broader view of stability.

[Primus Pilus]

Essentially, 7 centuries of unstable class related political conflict (plebe vs. patrician) was replaced by 5 centuries of monarchial instability. In either case, the political stability of the time was dependent upon the leading politicians of that era.

 

Romans gave up their essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety, but they found soon thereafter that they had neither liberty nor safety.

 

Without question this occurred among the aristocracy, but would the common man have lived under much different conditions between the two systems? The individual and tribal assembly votes unarguably had less import in the principate, but hadn't it been subjected to all manner of corruption and bribery for centuries anyway.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Romans gave up their essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety, but they found soon thereafter that they had neither liberty nor safety.

Without question this occurred among the aristocracy, but would the common man have lived under much different conditions between the two systems? The individual and tribal assembly votes unarguably had less import in the principate, but hadn't it been subjected to all manner of corruption and bribery for centuries anyway.

 

Sure, but even with the lower houses being bribed from time to time they still acted as a check on the power of the upper houses and consuls. Under the principate that vanished entirely.

 

Moreover, I don't think the political enfranchisement of the plebes (though terribly important) is the *only* consideration in judging the effects of the principate on non-aristocrats. For example, I'd bet that when Nero rounded up Christians to light the night sky of Rome after the conflagration of 64, the Christians weren't too worried about their say in selecting local magistrates! Similarly, if Nero had to face election, I'd bet he wouldn't have torched so many voters.

 

So, yes, voters were bribed under the Republic, but if a consul wanted to get re-elected, there was only so much he could spend to sway the vote, and this limited the extent of what consuls could do to the common man. After all, if Nero had been a consul when he torched your mom, could he have paid you enough to vote for him again? I don't think so.

[Germanicus]

So, yes, voters were bribed under the Republic, but if a consul wanted to get re-elected, there was only so much he could spend to sway the vote, and this limited the extent of what consuls could do to the common man

 

I don't know, on the one hand the lower classes were at the mercy of the ruling oligarchs. The republic was not a democracy. By oligarchs here I mean the aristocracy, which ever faction happened to be in power. Under the empire they were at the mercy of the Emperor. I guess the redeeming feature of the republic in a way was 1 year terms,.

[M. Porcius Cato]

the lower classes were at the mercy of the ruling oligarchs.

OK, but this was directly proportional to the political power of those oligarchs--their power to flood the streets of Rome with slaves from their foreign adventures (which the people loved, though it meant unemployment), their power to unleash the rapacious publicani to support extravagant spectacles (to which the people flocked, though it meant higher taxes), and their power to wipe out whole sectors of the economy via arbitrary edict (such as the lex frumentaria, which the people adored though it meant Italian farmers almost entirely lost their urban market). If the lower classes had booed at the triumphs, had punished the extravagance of the aediles, and had tossed the corn dole into the Tiber, the power of the oligarchs would have been much diminished.

 

Under the republic, such as it was, the lower classes at least had a portion of the political power (though not enough), but that portion was forever stripped of them once Caesar became dictator for life. Under the republic, the lower classes had freedoms which we do not today enjoy, and as the principate went on those freedoms diminished successively, until being finished off entirely by Diocletian, the lower classes had become abject serfs.

 

In our evaluation of hereditary dictatorship (an evil that took over a thousand years to marginalize), it seems irresponsible to so exaggerate the conditions of the lower classes under the last great republic that it is impossible to see how much worse their conditions became after that republic was destroyed. For my part, I would rather have been a landless Roman under Sulla than to have been a farm-bound serf under Diocletian or any of the subsequent generations of monarchs.

Edited December 10, 2005 by M. Porcius Cato

[Germanicus]

For my part, I would rather have been a landless Roman under Sulla than to have been a farm-bound serf under Diocletian or any of the subsequent generations of monarchs.

 

I totally agree, but then there's a big difference between living under Diocletian and living under many of the Emperors before him.

[M. Porcius Cato]

For my part, I would rather have been a landless Roman under Sulla than to have been a farm-bound serf under Diocletian or any of the subsequent generations of monarchs.

I totally agree, but then there's a big difference between living under Diocletian and living under many of the Emperors before him.

 

Sure, just as there are warm days in winter, there were good emperors in the Principate.