Ruthless Methods Of Keeping Control.

[WotWotius]

No disagreement here. Given that the people lost their say in government, political unrest was unavoidable under the principate, so one or more of these measures were necessary. However, if the courts had ceased to operate effectively, commerce would have been annihilated and crime would have been so rampant that no number of Praetorians (let alone bread and circuses) would have been sufficient to keep control. That's why I said the essay was missing the most important variable in keeping control of things during the principate.

 

I was not disputing whether or not Roman society would collapse if the law court were removed, I just believe that using the law courts as a means of controlling the population is secondary at best, though I do see your view point. Domitian, to use an example, ruled in a more than tyrannical manner (asking to worshiped etc.), asserting his control via random acts of cruelty and draconian punishments, but also with luscious games:

 

'He constantly gave grand and costly entertainments, both in the amphitheatre [Arkenberg: The Colosseum], and in the Circus, where in addition to the usual races between two-horse and four-horse chariots, he also exhibited two battles, one between forces of infantry and the other by horsemen; and he even gave a naval battle in the amphitheatre.' Suetonius's life of Domitian

 

He did however make a fine juridicus:

 

'He administered justice scrupulously and conscientiously, frequently holding special sittings on the tribunal in the Forum. He rescinded such decisions of the Hundred Judges as were made from interested motives. He often warned the arbiters not to grant claims for freedom made under false pretences. He degraded jurors who accepted bribes, together with all their associates. He also induced the tribunes of the commons to prosecute a corrupt aedile for extortion, and to ask the Senate to appoint jurors in the case. He took such care to exercise restraint over the city officials and the governors of the provinces, that at no time were they more honest or just, whereas after his time we have seen many of them charged with all manner of offences. ' Suetonius' life of Domitian

 

So the fact that Domitian followed the 'carrot, stick and justice' model could have been the reason he stayed in power for so long, even though he had grave misgivings as person.

 

I never said 'social injustice'--just plain justice. At best, the "social" in "social justice" is superfluous; at worst, the term is a euphemism for injustice to the few for the gain of the many.

 

What I meant was that despite the apparent existence of legal justice, Rome's poor were still suffering form social injustices.

[P.Clodius]

To my mind, this essay misses one of the most significant sources of crowd control in ancient Rome--the justice of the government itself.

 

If you look at Rome during this time span (27 BC - 117 AD) you will probably find very few examples--with the exception of Trajan, and to a lesser extent Augustus--of justice within her governance.

 

You'll probably find no harsher critic of the principate than me, but even I find this charge absurd. Put down the Suetonius and pick up Ulpian and the other Roman jurists, and you'll find that for the majority of Romans, the Imperial government was functioning to deliver ordinary justice on an extraordinary scale. Roman law prevented a million petty tyrants from seizing the property of their neighbors with impunity, prevented thousands of petty magistrates from meting out punishments without trial, and thereby secured the countless commercial transactions that took place between parties that lived hundreds of miles away from one another. The fruits of these ordinary acts of justice--the manufacture and delivery of unprecedented material comforts-- surely did more to secure the contentment of the people than mere bread, murder, and circuses.

 

BTW, the distribution of free corn during the Imperial period was established by the legislation of Clodius in 58 not 55 BCE.

A commendable post that goes against the grain of someone who has allergic reactions and palpatations from the imperial period. Nice job!

[M. Porcius Cato]

A commendable post that goes against the grain of someone who has allergic reactions and palpatations from the imperial period. Nice job!

 

Thank you, I'm still recovering from the heebie-jeebies engendered by my defense of the principate, but I'm recuperating with a strong dose of Polybius. (I'll bet Pertinax didn't know about that ancient remedy!)

[Pertinax]

A commendable post that goes against the grain of someone who has allergic reactions and palpatations from the imperial period. Nice job!

 

Thank you, I'm still recovering from the heebie-jeebies engendered by my defense of the principate, but I'm recuperating with a strong dose of Polybius. (I'll bet Pertinax didn't know about that ancient remedy!)

 

If youd have said a dose of Polypody, I would have rushed to your mansio to help you expel some large and tenacious tapeworms. Polybius on the other hand I can only suggest an emetic of Peter Green:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0500277...8&s=gateway

 

Polypody:

"An oil is extracted from the rhizome of this Fern, which, as far back as the times of Theophrastus and Dioscorides, was known as a valuable vermifuge, and its use has in modern times been widely revived".

[WotWotius]

Phew, I'm glad this forum has stopped being so serious; I only wanted to post my essay, not get into a heated debate with M. Porcius Cato.

[Pertinax]

But seriously...I am intrigued by Domitian's immersion in the judiciary and his (apparently) favourable conduct. His personal behaviour seems to suggest elements of obssesive-compulsive disorder (as we now call it) , certainly his sexual escapades and the Cult of his person (for which Christians suffered most particularly) hint at this. I , most tentatively suggest , that this fastidiousness (and micro management) is the "positive" flip side of his destructive compulsions.

[P.Clodius]

One has to remember that throughout all the intrigues of Seutonius, et al. the day to day administration of Rome and the empire was relatively smooth and efficient.

[WotWotius]

But seriously...I am intrigued by Domitian's immersion in the judiciary and his (apparently) favourable conduct. His personal behaviour seems to suggest elements of obssesive-compulsive disorder (as we now call it) , certainly his sexual escapades and the Cult of his person (for which Christians suffered most particularly) hint at this. I , most tentatively suggest , that this fastidiousness (and micro management) is the "positive" flip side of his destructive compulsions.

 

That would seem fairly fitting. In addition, Domitian seemed to have a sense of social inadequacy, often disappearing half way through an imperial banquet to go sit alone on a boat. He also refused the title of Dacius for his reasonable military success on the Danube as he felt like he did not deserve it. So if you want to take an

[M. Porcius Cato]

One has to remember that throughout all the intrigues of Seutonius, et al. the day to day administration of Rome and the empire was relatively smooth and efficient.

 

Yes, as Tacitus would say, the empire rolled smoothly and efficiently over the men of conscience, ability, and decency. Since such men are always in the minority, the general public might be revolted by such behavior, but it seldom leads them to revolt if they're otherwise pacified by bread and circuses (as Wot Wotius correctly observes). The question, however, is whether the cumulative effect of these political murders is inexoribly the breakdown of all law and order (which the public is unlikely to tolerate) or whether this breakdown happens so slowly that the public finds it tolerable enough that they seek only reform but not revolution.

[WotWotius]

One has to remember that throughout all the intrigues of Seutonius, et al. the day to day administration of Rome and the empire was relatively smooth and efficient.

 

Yes, as Tacitus would say, the empire rolled smoothly and efficiently over the men of conscience, ability, and decency. Since such men are always in the minority, the general public might be revolted by such behavior, but it seldom leads them to revolt if they're otherwise pacified by bread and circuses (as Wot Wotius correctly observes). The question, however, is whether the cumulative effect of these political murders is inexoribly the breakdown of all law and order (which the public is unlikely to tolerate) or whether this breakdown happens so slowly that the public finds it tolerable enough that they seek only reform but not revolution.

 

Yes, during the time of Domitian when the Empire was relatively new, Rome's economy could afford to maintain such a decedent ruler. However, if we enter the time of Commodus and beyond, when the Imperial treasury have suffered near depletion (due to various wars etc.), a luxury-seeking tyrant could, and was ruinous for the Empire.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Gibbon puts some blame on Commodus' antics for the decline of Rome.

[ricus suavus]

During the first century AD the City of Rome was a neither safe nor healthy place to live in. If you were a common plebeian, your life would be in great contrast to that of a rich person; would involve living in squalid and overcrowded conditions, eating the same food every day and having no legal way of objecting to the government. Conditions were bad and life was short. Conflict within the city were also rife: for example, Rome

[Kosmo]

I don't believe that social unrest it's the direct result of social injustice. People sometimes revolt against good or reformist goverments. Usually revolutions occured during ages of prosperity. Ancient greeks were rarely able to have stability despite sometimes being prosperous.

Social peace it's more of a matter of the political organisation of a state, of legitimity of goverment and his military power.

Urban riots were a rare event maybe because of the different origins and status of the city inhabitants.

Annona and ludis replaced the random contributions that the plebs received form politicians during the Republic with a single donor, the only power holder of Rome.

So, this were gifts given to the plebs to replace their lost political power and a benefit for those who conquered the world and claimed some benfits from it.

[WotWotius]

I don't believe that social unrest it's the direct result of social injustice. People sometimes revolt against good or reformist goverments. Usually revolutions occured during ages of prosperity. Ancient greeks were rarely able to have stability despite sometimes being prosperous.

Social peace it's more of a matter of the political organisation of a state, of legitimity of goverment and his military power.

 

Yes but when a civilization prospers its wealth is only reflected upon the higher classes (e.g. senators, emperors and wealthy entrepreneurs); this was indeed apparent within Imperial Rome as her society was greatly divided monetarily. So the great economic divide between the rich and urban poor itself could be perceived as a great 'social injustice'.

 

Urban riots were a rare event maybe because of the different origins and status of the city inhabitants.

Annona and ludis replaced the random contributions that the plebs received form politicians during the Republic with a single donor, the only power holder of Rome.

So, this were gifts given to the plebs to replace their lost political power and a benefit for those who conquered the world and claimed some benfits from it.

 

That was the whole point of my essay! The various 'carrot and stick' methods employed by the Caesars was most probably the sole reason for the diminutive amount of unrest experience during the time of the principate.

 

NONE!! The only one who had the chance to spare the Empire the horrendous history that was its future was Tiberius, successor of Augustus. He claimed he wanted to restore the dignity of the Republic and he had the prime chance to do it in the circumstances of his succession and he greatly FAILED, thereby earning him the hated moniker of Tiberius Tyrannus. He, even more than his predecessor, set the style for the epitome of the emperor as bloodthirsty, brutul megalomaniac with his personal treason purges and luxuriosa grande scheme of lifestyle. It wasn't sufficient for him to reside in the mansion of Augustus on the Palatine with its solid marble temple of Apollo. He had to go build a palace looming over the Roman Forum on an estate occupying half the hill! And then he didn't even live out his entire reign in it but spent half his time in the hilltop villa on the island of Capri he had built and named for the chief Roman Olympian, Jove, in which according to the imperial biographer Suetonius, he had plently of debauched joviality. The site would have been better for a lighthouse anyway.

 

As if squandering precious tax money on these wastes wasn't too much (as even the emperor Vespasian thought it was by donating the palace for the residency of the Vestal Virgins) he decided to be generous to the Praetorian Guard by having a castle fortress built for them to consolidate their power over not only the city, but future emperors as well. Instead, he should have abolished them immediately to emphasize that they were nothing more than one man's overglorified bodyguard of no good use for the Roman citizens, and their prescence only went with the royal prestige of living in a palace. The arms and armor could have been used by the urban cohorts of vigiles or police to really protect the citizens from the dregs of their society, and these would have been answerable to the court magistrates; not one man who was an egomaniac. Tiberius could and should have rendered the senate the power to appoint the police prefect, with the consent of the concilium of the populace, so that there would not be the opportunity of biased jockeyeing for power in the friction of the Senatus and the Populusque Romanus as had been the cause of all the trouble during the Republican period.

 

...the use of the Praetorians, as well as random act of cruelty, were methods of Imperial control which I stated in my essay. I just did not really develop these points as much as I intended to (I was seduced by the prospect of sleep). So it hardly seems feasibly that you disagree with all my points.

 

Oh, and please do not spam your response to emphasis your point...I get it, you disagree with me!

Edited August 18, 2006 by WotWotius