Politics In The Early Principiate

[phil25]

This thread seems to me to follow logically from, and develop themes raised in my two recent threads on looking again at the C1st&2nd AD and the what i have called the "extrovert emperors".

 

Reading popular histories of the period, I sometimes gain the impression that authors believe that somehow "politics" disappeared (at least for lengthy periods) during the period from Augustus onwards. Events are explained in Suetonian terms of pervert (or to cite a recent debater with me) emperors with enormous egos); individual whims and little coherence or rational explanation.

 

To give examples, Gaius and Claudius are both stated to have sought to invade Britain. Gaius is written off as a madman's attempt to seek glory from which he bottled out; Claudius as a desire to acquire military glory to back up his ascension to the purple.

 

Yet the two events took place in a shorter period than the gap between the two US and alliance invasions of Iraq in the last two decades, and would anyone really question that there is some link between the two? major players remain the same or related. The US President in the 1990s version is the father of that in the later; Cheney, Rumsfeld, Pearl and others were actors in both dramas and clearly retained agendas.

 

Even though we cannot always detect the detail or the players, it seems to me to be foolish not to seek similar continuity and equally pragmatic explanations is ancient Rome. We know such things were true in the late republic from one triumvirate apeing its predecessor; to Augustus clearly seeking to avoid his adopted father's mistakes.

 

But what are politics? In my youth someone defined economics to me as the study of the allocation of scarce resources. Politics, it followed was the study of how it was decided WHO did the allocating.

 

I would argue that politics very clearly continued after the creation of the principiate, with very little difference to what had gone on before, but with the playing field and some points of reference altered. Key families still vied for power - how else do we understand the persistent Julio/Claudian rivalry in the succession to Augustus?

 

Families like the Domitii Ahenobarbi still played a role; the tragedy of the Junii Silani (a suitable topic for its own thread) stands out; the Calpurnii Pisii last until Nero; the Aemilii Lepidi remain prominent.

 

It is also clear that Augustus was not so cleared sighted nor omnipotent as some seem to think in creating his new constitution. At the very least he had to have two goes to get it right. Syme detected internal coups within the ruling clique - pressure from Agrippa; dismissal for Maecenas. I would go further, and argue that there was no certainty that Augustus' constitution would last a day longer than he lived if that.

 

Do we really believe that the banishment of his daughter and grand-daughter (the two Julias) and of his grandson Posthumus Agrippa, was down entirely to defects of their characters? When the elder julia's disowning is linked to the untimely death of Iullus Antonius, the triumvirs son, there is surely more going on that sex on the rostra and petting on the Palatine!! Dynastic politics must at least be a theme here, if not the whole story.

 

As I have said in another recent post, I do not think one can ignore those who (though we often cannot identify them by name) surrounded the principes - the secretaries, councillors, captains, advisers, specialists... Does one expect that George Bush or Tony Blair write their own speeches; determine the arguments they will employ in debate; work out the options for action; or weigh the impact of their decisions, ALONE. Nonsense - they have retinues of people who aid them - so must Augustus, Tiberius, Gaius and the rest. We see it clearly under Claudius as the freedmen emerge. Otherwise we note Agrippa and Maecenas, Sejanus, Macro etc.

 

Such advisers and more were needed, because human nature has not changed that much. Sentors must still have nursed ambitions; soldiers a thirst for glory; idealists a new idea of government; the greedy a taste for wealth; the power hungry a desire for aggrandisement. these men surrounded Caesars= so how can we believe that a Gaius did not have to work hard to maintain the loyalty of the Guard (just as Agrippina Minor had to win it before proclaiming the accession of her son) on a daily basis? The Guard may have had a particular loyalty to the son of Germanicus, but do we believe that others did not constantly seek to undermine that loyalty - including its prefects?

 

Did Caesar just say - do this - and it was done? I doubt it. Even autocrats have to define and describe what they want, at least in outline. They will be told of other priorities and have to "negotiate" or make a definite order. those who wanted their favour or agreed with what they were doing, would support them, and provide ideas - but others would seek to alter those plans, if only to ensure some of the profits or funds came their way.

 

Close attention was needed to choosing governors and legates, prefects and procurators. A wrong choice, as to Britannia under Nero could cause rebellion. Did the emperor bear the names and records of every careerist, military and civil in his head? I doubt it, frankly. And how did he follow-up whether all his choices were in fact made good; all his decisions obeyed. we must, I believe, even where the record does not state it, assume a powerful, influential and sensible bureaucracy around the ruler.

 

And that bureaucracy, in earlier times (as diversely as ancient Egypt and Tudor England) was demonstrably hereditary with son following father. Hence, I argue a continuity in policy, both from princeps to princeps; through lines of descent (hence, I believe an Antonian line of policy to be discernable from the 40s BC to the death of Nero, Antonius' direct heir) and among the senatorial opposition.

 

Let us, therefore, discard the Suetonian emphasis on eccentric individualism and enormous egos acting through whim, and start to hunt for the traces of continuity; failed policies and recurring themes in C1st AD Rome.

 

This thread can be read in parallel with my earlier ones, as all inter-connect to some degree.

 

All are for argument's sake, as argument allows us to explore and delve deeper and test our hypotheses in honest discussion with our peers.

 

Please come back to me.

 

Phil

[Kosmo]

I agree with what you say. The personalty of the leader was exagerated by ancient historians.All goverments are oligarhies.

 

It's difficult to point from the informations we have who made the groups of interest in ancient Rome.

I see it something like the piramidal structures in soviet politics. Each high placed person has a following of clients and when he advances he helps his clients. The first clients have clients of their own and so on.

The fact that the birocracy was made of freedman does not change anything.

We can see politics in a group of cimpanzee, so it's everywere.

The problem it's we can not document this because this groups were informal.

 

In roman politics we don't see the parties of modern Europe with different, conflicting views about major issues. All it was just a fight for personal advance to a higher position. This is why there were no more civil wars, but short conflicts between leaders. For everybody except the clients it's irrelevant who is the emperor.

[georgious]

I agree with what you say. The personalty of the leader was exagerated by ancient historians.All goverments are oligarhies.

 

It's difficult to point from the informations we have who made the groups of interest in ancient Rome.

I see it something like the piramidal structures in soviet politics. Each high placed person has a following of clients and when he advances he helps his clients. The first clients have clients of their own and so on.

The fact that the birocracy was made of freedman does not change anything.

We can see politics in a group of cimpanzee, so it's everywere.

The problem it's we can not document this because this groups were informal.

 

In roman politics we don't see the parties of modern Europe with different, conflicting views about major issues. All it was just a fight for personal advance to a higher position. This is why there were no more civil wars, but short conflicts between leaders. For everybody except the clients it's irrelevant who is the emperor.

It is true that there has been a personality cult among ancient historians who blamed everything bad on the person of the emperor as if he was all powerfull. That has to do with the class bias of roman historians who belonged to the governing class and considered it's head to be of outmost importance for the society they inhabited. Powerfull clans dominated the politics of the republic and the empire.It is true that roman political groupings were aggregates of people around a powerfull leader who expected benefits from his accession to power. The same structure applies to modern Greek and Italian politics among others.One must not moralize a lot against roman political morals-I do not think that modern meditterean politics are any better- patriarchal structures, clientelism, servility, gerontocracy, pre-eminence of the military and the priesthood.

[The Augusta]

It has to do with the class bias of roman historians who belonged to the governing class and considered it's head to be of utmost importance for the society they inhabited.

 

This brings me to one of my pet theories, Georgious. From Gibbon through to the late 20th century, many of the 'most renowned' ancient historians were from Britain and Europe where generations had grown up under monarchies. Therefore, I don't just think it is a class thing: these historians were the inheritors of the monarchical system, in which the personality of the monarch was under scrutiny. As for the British, they also were the inheritors of the British Empire in which the aristocracy and 'better people' became sahibs in India purely due to their British blood. Well, even those who were not exactly 'top drawer' became sahibs. You make a very valid point here which informs the way the last generation of historians viewed the emperors - i.e. when there was a decent one: Augustus, Trajan etc. they were revered; a poor one: Nero, Commodus etc. were reviled. And it is true that many of these historians regarded the emperors as existing in some form of vacuum, when really, they had a body of close advisers about them who were not only functional but crucial to the governmental process.

 

This is why, I believe IMHO, that the view is changing nowadays, when the USA has become the superpower: a nation that has inherited a purely Republican system. It's just a thought, but I for one think its valid.

[Ursus]

I think the modern intellectual movement as a whole eschews individuals in favor of various identity groups and how those groups relate to the overall culture. Usually it is from the standpoint of which group is allegedly oppressed by which other group, but once we leave oppression behind as a focus, the dynamics among various demographic groups is actually quite interesting.

 

In modern American politics, much is made of various "lobbying groups" and how these groups influence Congress and the White House.

 

Not sure if it is a direct influence, but this level of analysis does find its way into recent studies. David Potter in The Roman Empire at Bay does seem to see the Princeps as a referee between competing power groups: The Senate and Equestrians, freedman and slaves, the army and the Praetorians, the Roman mob and the provinces. The cult of personality is important as it pertains to what kind of referee the Princeps shall serve among these competing groups.

[caldrail]

Its an interesting point. Obviously the hordes of lesser functionaries still went about their business even during the principate, so in that sense, yes, politics carried on. Those 'extrovert' emperors however demanded and got their fair share of attention didn't they? Being colourful characters, plus the source of considerable speculation and gossip given their celebrity status, they are infinitely more interesting to write about than a bunch of faceless bureaucrats.

 

Class? Well.. possibly, it is true that the lower classes rarely get any more than a passing mention and as we know Rome was fiercely class-concious.

 

Individual ambition? Oh yes, but that ignores the temporary factions that sprang up over issues, and some of those bumped off an emperor or two in their time. In politics, you cannot act alone. Its all about popularity with the masses and support of your peers.

 

Do we really believe that the banishment of his daughter and grand-daughter (the two Julias) and of his grandson Posthumus Agrippa, was down entirely to defects of their characters?

Given augustus anger over his public humiliation then yes, it was. Was there any politics in the background? None that was directly connected I think. It was purely embarrasement at these youngsters behaviour that got them exiled. Augustus was performing a balancing act during his reign - his own personal power vs the dislike of tyrants/kings/dictators. His detractors would pounce on his families wayward behaviour (as the media does now to our own royal family) and given the murderous qualities of roman politics, then it was essential that such scandalous behaviour was seen to be punished. Augustus was keenly aware that he must show an example as much as preach his moral stance. We regard him as a hypocrite for that reason, but lets not forget that his womanising wasn't unusual for male romans and not considered scandalous. At least he was relatively discrete compared to the arrogant antics of his successors.

[The Augusta]

Do we really believe that the banishment of his daughter and grand-daughter (the two Julias) and of his grandson Posthumus Agrippa, was down entirely to defects of their characters?

Given augustus anger over his public humiliation then yes, it was. Was there any politics in the background? None that was directly connected I think. It was purely embarrasement at these youngsters behaviour that got them exiled. Augustus was performing a balancing act during his reign - his own personal power vs the dislike of tyrants/kings/dictators. His detractors would pounce on his families wayward behaviour (as the media does now to our own royal family) and given the murderous qualities of roman politics, then it was essential that such scandalous behaviour was seen to be punished. Augustus was keenly aware that he must show an example as much as preach his moral stance. We regard him as a hypocrite for that reason, but lets not forget that his womanising wasn't unusual for male romans and not considered scandalous. At least he was relatively discrete compared to the arrogant antics of his successors.

 

Sorry, Caldrail - I have to disagree with you here 100%. Even the most cursory glance through the names of the elder Julia's lovers suggests an attempted coup. I do not doubt that Julia's scandalous sexual behaviour offered Augustus the perfect front for her banishment. Far better to bemoan an errant daughter who fornicated in public than to admit before the Senate and People that his own flesh and blood were conspiring against him. This would have undermined the whole constitution he was trying to create and establish on a firm footing. The younger Julia's adherents were also highly political men. All the elder Julia's lovers were either executed or took their own lives. I really cannot accept that such a punishment - or such a reaction from them - would have been necessary had they simply been guilty of adultery. Why were they so publicly 'named and shamed'?

 

Above all, Augustus needed to create at least the illusion of a united front within his own family. Factional in-fighting was not to be countenanced - let alone admitted to openly. He had learned that through the crucial events of 23BC. And it was a particular thorn in his successor's side, as we know. Agrippina's support not only sprang from her being the widow of Germanicus, but also as the daughter of the late, exiled Julia, who was a popular lady with the People. Let us not forget that Augustus was often screamed at in the street by common folk wanting his daughter brought back to Rome. So much so that he eventually did relent late in his life, allowing her to return providing that she stayed in Rhegium. There is no record of the Senate's officially complaining to Augustus about either of the Julias' behaviour - only that of Postumus. Had the Senate been ready to complain, why then did Augustus remain in ignorance of her 'wild lifestyle' for so long? Nor did Augustus ever bother too much about what was said about him and his family. Suetonius himself quotes the emperor's famous saying of 'Let us be content that they stop at angry words.' Scandal alone would not have made him act in so harsh a manner, I am convinced of it.

Edited July 3, 2007 by The Augusta

[ASCLEPIADES]

Do we really believe that the banishment of his daughter and grand-daughter (the two Julias) and of his grandson Posthumus Agrippa, was down entirely to defects of their characters?

Given augustus anger over his public humiliation then yes, it was. Was there any politics in the background? None that was directly connected I think. It was purely embarrasement at these youngsters behaviour that got them exiled. Augustus was performing a balancing act during his reign - his own personal power vs the dislike of tyrants/kings/dictators. His detractors would pounce on his families wayward behaviour (as the media does now to our own royal family) and given the murderous qualities of roman politics, then it was essential that such scandalous behaviour was seen to be punished. Augustus was keenly aware that he must show an example as much as preach his moral stance. We regard him as a hypocrite for that reason, but lets not forget that his womanising wasn't unusual for male romans and not considered scandalous. At least he was relatively discrete compared to the arrogant antics of his successors.

 

Sorry, Caldrail - I have to disagree with you here 100%. Even the most cursory glance through the names of the elder Julia's lovers suggests an attempted coup. I do not doubt that Julia's scandalous sexual behaviour offered Augustus the perfect front for her banishment. Far better to bemoan an errant daughter who fornicated in public than to admit before the Senate and People that his own flesh and blood were conspiring against him. This would have undermined the whole constitution he was trying to create and establish on a firm footing. The younger Julia's adherents were also highly political men. All the elder Julia's lovers were either executed or took their own lives. I really cannot accept that such a punishment - or such a reaction from them - would have been necessary had they simply been guilty of adultery. Why were they so publicly 'named and shamed'?

 

Above all, Augustus needed to create at least the illusion of a united front within his own family. Factional in-fighting was not to be countenanced - let alone admitted to openly. He had learned that through the crucial events of 23BC. And it was a particular thorn in his successor's side, as we know. Agrippina's support not only sprang from her being the widow of Germanicus, but also as the daughter of the late, exiled Julia, who was a popular lady with the People. Let us not forget that Augustus was often screamed at in the street by common folk wanting his daughter brought back to Rome. So much so that he eventually did relent late in his life, allowing her to return providing that she stayed in Rhegium. There is no record of the Senate's officially complaining to Augustus about either of the Julias' behaviour - only that of Postumus. Had the Senate been ready to complain, why then did Augustus remain in ignorance of her 'wild lifestyle' for so long? Nor did Augustus ever bother too much about what was said about him and his family. Suetonius himself quotes the emperor's famous saying of 'Let us be content that they stop at angry words.' Scandal alone would not have made him act in so harsh a manner, I am convinced of it.

In fact, one of the executed nobles was L. Aemilius Paullus, husband of the young Julia, on a charge of conspiracy, since that of adultery was clearly inappropiate.

[The Augusta]

In fact, one of the executed nobles was L. Aemilius Paullus, husband of the young Julia, on a charge of conspiracy, since that of adultery was clearly inappropiate.

 

Thank you indeed, Asclepiades - you are quite right. In fact the whole affair of the younger Julia's banishment is even more transparent a case of a covered-up conspiracy. And let's face it, folks - adultery and scandalous sexual encounters have been used throughout history by many a monarch to rid himself/herself of political nuisances. Ovid's veiled references to his part in the scandal of the younger Julia's banishment have been argued over by scholars ad nauseum - but all seem to be agreed that she wasn't simply banished for wayward ways alone. The timing of her banishment and that of her brother Postumus (within a year of each other) is enough to set alarm bells ringing. The speedy dispatching of Postumus upon Tiberius' accession at least suggests that the young man - in exile as he was - could still be seen as a political rival and a rallying point for the discontented. No matter how the Senate viewed Postumus, it must have been obvious to Tiberius and Livia that he had supporters somewhere and could be a possible danger.

[caldrail]

Okeedokee the consensus is that politics was definitely in the air when Julia got sent into exile. I usually spot things like that but hey, I'm only human. No honestly

 

My previous uneducated viewpoint was that Julia was a partygirl who embarrased her father so much that he felt it necessary to keep her out of the limelight. The other view is that she was part and parcel of a political faction which may have had the demise of augustus as its aim. What I think is important is to look closer at why Julia was exiled because there's something not quite right about either picture presented.

 

Julia was thirty six when her lifestyle was brought to a halt. She comes across as a fun loving person and actually quite dutiful considering the political marriages she had to endure. I have no doubt that Julia slept around a bit. She was was probably desperate for fun and games after all this public service and family nonsense. Now, if a plot against augustus was actually going on, was she involved? I think not, at least not directly. Julia IMHO wasn't politically motivated at all. In modern terms, she was something of an office girl who stayed up late in nightclubs getting drunk. The important question then is whether her partners were politically motivated, and yes, of course they were, being important men around the city. Now I doubt Julia was quite as fecund as the Robert Graves suggests, but she was probably a little less than fussy when a powerful man gave her attention, something I feel she lacked within her marriages. Does this mean that she was targeted as a way of inheriting power? Its possible. By ensuring Julia was emotionally or sexually attached meant it was more likely this gentleman would inherit augustus's power. Was there a plot against the old man? Actually, no, I don't. I think it more likely that a few ambitious men were preparing the way for their own accession sometime in the future, but then augustus wasn't princeps for nothing and as soon as he smelled a rat, he squashed it. Julia is therefore a somewhat tragic victim of circumstance though one wonders if she'd adopted a more mature mode of life then she wouldn't have suffered the indignity of exile. Especially since augustus told her guards to make sure she drank no wine.