The Late Roman Mystique Of Divine Kingship

[Emperor Goblinus]

Starting in the late thrid century, the emperors furthered distanced themselves from the notion of the "first citizen," and developed all of the trappings of the Persian royal court. Do you think that such a change helped the beleagured later empire, or hastened its decline?

Edited April 7, 2006 by Emperor Goblinus

[PerfectimusPrime]

It reduced assassinations of Emperors, and their regal influence. I think.

[Emperor Goblinus]

It did indeed give them added protection against assassination. As for their influence, it all depended on the emperor. Soldier emperors like Diocletian, Constantine, Constantius II, Julian, the Valentinian brothers, and Theodosius I all fought on the front lines and earned the respect of their troops and were very active in shaping the policy of the state. It was only when emperors, especially in the West, did little more than sit on their throne, did their power slip into the hands of others.

[caldrail]

Starting in the late thrid century, the emperors furthered distanced themselves from the notion of the "first citizen," and developed all of the trappings of the Persian royal court. Do you think that such a change helped the beleagured later empire, or hastened its decline?

 

I would see it a sympton of decline, not a cause.

[PerfectimusPrime]

Oh, my grammar failed me, I meant ADDED regal influence.

Soldier emperors like Diocletian, Constantine, Constantius II, Julian, the Valentinian brothers, and Theodosius I all fought on the front lines and earned the respect of their troops and were very active in shaping the policy of the state. It was only when emperors, especially in the West, did little more than sit on their throne, did their power slip into the hands of others.

 

I meant that divine kingship, majestetic ceremonies, and that kind of culture, gave the emperor respect since the common soldiers and citizens were awed by the Emperor's glory and wealth.

Edited April 8, 2006 by PerfectimusPrime

[Ursus]

Augustus had tried to rule as "Princeps" from his sense of auctoritas, a nebulous social and spiritual authority. It was always a fiction ... how to hold the powers of the king without the actual title. Augustus was smooth enough to pull it off, though I don't think many of his successors were.

 

The title of Dominus with its pomp and ceremony seems more than anything a simple break from the facade of the Augustan system. It acknowledged the head of state now had more than token spiritual authority, and was an attempt to remedy the vague limits implied by the title of Princeps.

 

Recent research by such people as Prof. Heather indicates the late empire was as robust and healthy as any other time in Roman history. Whether or not we like the touch of Oriental authority of the Dominate is a matter of taste, but it may not be fair to paint it as a "decline." It's a system that worked adequately until the Goths came pouring through - and even then the East did quite well. In my own personal opinion, the Dominate was more logically and rationally organized than the Principate.

[Emperor Goblinus]

Good points. The dominate was much more honest about the monarchy, rather than the principate which was hampered by republican illusions. I for one do think that the dominate or something like it was necessary in the wake of the third century. In the happy sunshine days of the Pax Romana, the Romans could have the luxury of leaving their emperor's powers vague and pretend that it was still a republic. But this vagueness probably prolonged the third century crisis. Everyone knew that the emperor was the real authority, yet there was not set method of choosing him. Thus, this led to troops proclaiming their officers left and right, numerous civil wars, and an inability to keep the borders. Diocletian and the emperors that came after him solidified the position and power of the emperor (though the issue of succession was never definitively solved). It is sad to see the last vestiges of republicanism go out the window, but the changed empire could not indulge in them any longer.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Emperor Goblinus

[Ursus]

But you know, the Dominate was a time when someone of parvenu background could work their way through the ranks of the military and become Primus Pilus, and from there quite possibly become a governor or regional military commander. Under the Principate with it's quasi-aristocratic values, the top posts were always reserved for the leading Senators and Equestrians. The military of the Dominate afforded a certain social mobility to the common man, which I believe largely offsets the increased regality of the imperial court.

[Emperor Goblinus]

There is alot of truth to that. Diolcetian may have been born a slave, and many of the founders of the great imperial houses were military men of modest background. Diocletian did not want his system to be based on blood but on merit, and that is probably why Constantine originally did not succeed his father as the western Caesar. However, the Dominate saw some of the first dynasties that looked like royal dynasties. Up until that time, with the exception of Claudius II, you never saw seconds, thirds or fourths in a dynasty. The idea of setting up a fixed dynasty, though accepted long before, now seemed to be the rule, with houses like the Constantines and the Theodosians setting up ruling families that could only be matched in previous generations with the Julio-Claudians. Thus in a way, though the old senatorial class was definitely pushed aside, it just seemed to be replacing one elite with another. Was it for the better? I think so. Though it did destroy whatever was left of the republican system (though the Valentinians repeatedly used the propaganda of "restoring the republic"), in the harsh military times, it was better for a hard Pannonian soldier to be in charge than a spoiled senator.

The major pitfall of the Dominate was the fact that children could now become emperor, which led to things like the disaster that was Honorius. In the times of the Principate, the Senate would never have stood for giving the imperial powers to a five-year old.