How the Emperors quieted the mob

[CiceroD]

We all know that it was Octavian's Magic name that allowed him to install himself as princeps. His connection to Julius comforted the mob. Later emperors did the same (if only symbolically). This though was not enough to keep the people quiet.

 

I was always taught that the institution of bread and circuses ended the struggle of the orders. Apparently though the corn dole was instituted by Clodius Pulcher before the end of the Republic! Circuses and gladiatorial games too had a long pre-Imperial legacy (I realize there were many more ludii in the later Empire than the Republic).

 

My question therefore is is the basic structure of bread and circuses were already in place, why wasn't there nearly so much plebian strife under the Emperors? (especially the bad ones)

 

was it the traditional vision of the distracted masses? as C.S. Forester put it, the lower class lack of logic.

if so why did they put up with their wretched state?

 

Was it simply that emperors controlled the appointment of Generals and Governors? (Therefore no one would be able to mount a rebellion)

If so why wasn't there a Plebian/Patrician divide in later Imperial civil wars?

 

Was it the institution of the Praetorians? Did having a crack squad right outside Rome quash plebian spirit?

 

what do you guys think

[caldrail]

Under the emperors the old style of factional politics had gone. Now you had this single man, hopefully a strong noble leader, perhaps even god-like, whose status was above anyone elses and from whom all political power was derived. There was less to rebel against. But that doesn't mean that mob violence never occurred. The riot at the pompeiian arena during nero's reign left them with a ten year ban on games. Claudius was pelted with stale bread because of impending corn shortages. From the flavian emperors onward we see less mob violence. Egypt was now part of the empire and grain arrived regularly. The institution of bread and circuses had changed the public mindset. Life was easier, there was little to be angry about, and in any case, your emperor has very kindly (at his own expense) put on games lasting months. For your entertainment. Emperors following the example of caligula had begun appearing in the arena themselves if they were of a mind to do that - and what a spectacle! Your emperor himself in the arena showing his roman virtue in the face of danger. This perculated down and we see people like didius julianus entering the arena as consul for the same purpose - personal aggrandisement. Of course romans of all status had volunteered for the arena but these were always a minority, and it was frowned upon for a roman of noble birth to take to the sands ever since the days of augustus. The entertainment industry of rome had become a political mouthpiece. A way of diverting the crowds, of keeping them happy, and enhancing your own reputation even if you don't wield a sword down there.

[M. Porcius Cato]

is the basic structure of bread and circuses were already in place, why wasn't there nearly so much plebian strife under the Emperors? (especially the bad ones)

The struggle of the orders during the Republic was largely due to the leadership of outstanding men (and sometimes demagogues) who held public office. During the principate and later, the independence of the lower magistracies was curbed, thereby preventing independent representation of popular causes. The sort of men like Licinius, who advocated civil rights for plebs, or Livius Drusus, who advocated civil rights for Italians, were viewed as threats by paranoid emperors, and since they lacked the traditional protections enjoyed during the Republic (such as the lex Porcia), they were frequently killed or driven to suicide.

 

was it the traditional vision of the distracted masses? as C.S. Forester put it, the lower class lack of logic.

if so why did they put up with their wretched state?

If you mean, why did poor Romans "put up" with poverty, I would guess that many did everything they could to get out of poverty. What makes you think they were indifferent to their circumstance?

 

If so why wasn't there a Plebian/Patrician divide in later Imperial civil wars?

Probably because the plebeian/patrician divide hadn't been a major political fault line for hundreds of years. Heck, even the civil wars of the Republican period did not divide along plebeian/patrician lines. Recall that political adversaries such as Caesar and Scipio were patricii while political adversaries such as Sallust and Cato were plebs. The patrician/pleb distinction wasn't a completely moot issue (e.g., in terms of who was eligible for certain religious offices), but it wasn't what divided the major camps that went to war. In fact, many of the same families were split into different camps. For example, there was another Cato who was as fierce a supporter of the triumvirate as Cato Uticensis was in opposing it.

[Horatius]

Heck, even the civil wars of the Republican period did not divide along plebeian/patrician lines. Recall that political adversaries such as Caesar and Scipio were patricii while political adversaries such as Sallust and Cato were plebs.

I know! I don't think I will ever understand the late Republic. The same veterans that fought for Sulla to ensure the dominance of the patricians join Catiline years later for some populist/plebeian agenda against the Senate. Just one example but every time I think I might understand something I find I am missing the point entirely, lol. I think Caldrail might have the right idea on the Empire though. Plus the rise of a large permanent professional army with a guaranteed pension and benefits perhaps? Where there any permanent standing legions during the Republic?

[Rameses the Great]

Wouldn't the Emperors have a leg up on the people with the army and patricians on his side? They were able to split up the mob and have them defect to their side.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Let's not forget old dear Theodora and Julian who tricked and slaughtered the mob of Constantinople inside the Hippodrome during the Nika riots.

Edited December 31, 2006 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[spittle]

The lack of popularity for Tiberius seems to be due to his lack of funding for public games. The fact that he was generous when it came to helping the masses with the little things such as famine, fire and disease didn't cut much mustard and his refusal to pay for entertainments ensured he was hated by the masses.

[caldrail]

His lack of support for public games didn't help, but his persona- his 'image' - was never going to endear himself to the plebs. They simply didn't see anything about him that they liked. He was a remote, slightly sociopathic guy. I would say he lacked an attractive personality and never had that charisma or manner that made friends.

[georgious]

We all know that it was Octavian's Magic name that allowed him to install himself as princeps. His connection to Julius comforted the mob. Later emperors did the same (if only symbolically). This though was not enough to keep the people quiet.

 

I was always taught that the institution of bread and circuses ended the struggle of the orders. Apparently though the corn dole was instituted by Clodius Pulcher before the end of the Republic! Circuses and gladiatorial games too had a long pre-Imperial legacy (I realize there were many more ludii in the later Empire than the Republic).

 

My question therefore is is the basic structure of bread and circuses were already in place, why wasn't there nearly so much plebian strife under the Emperors? (especially the bad ones)

 

was it the traditional vision of the distracted masses? as C.S. Forester put it, the lower class lack of logic.

if so why did they put up with their wretched state?

 

Was it simply that emperors controlled the appointment of Generals and Governors? (Therefore no one would be able to mount a rebellion)

If so why wasn't there a Plebian/Patrician divide in later Imperial civil wars?

 

Was it the institution of the Praetorians? Did having a crack squad right outside Rome quash plebian spirit?

 

what do you guys think

Plebs and Princeps by Yavetz may be useful on that respect since it elaborates on the emperor's public image and the way it was projected to the masses to legitimize his authority. It is true that roman civilization and society remained oligarchic throughout their history despite the transformations of the name used republic,empire etc. But do not forget that the European Union is also oligarchic nowdays since the Commision is singularily opaque and the supposedly democratically elected parliament is the organ with the less power.So do not blame the roman lower classes for apathy the modern ones are the same-they only watch TV and football instead of gladiatorial shows-which can be considered a progressive step.

[sonic]

Let's not forget old dear Theodora and Julian who tricked and slaughtered the mob of Constantinople inside the Hippodrome during the Nika riots.

 

Theodora and Justinian may have ordered the slaughter of the mob in the Nika riots, but it was the army that carried out the killing. The bread and circuses may have begun in the era of the Republic, but their breadth, scope and duration could only really be afforded by the Emperors. As long as the Emperors kept the mob happy, they didn't much care about other things.

 

By the way FLC, what do you mean by 'tricked'? J and T may have attempted to limit the power of the green and blue factions, but I am unsure what you mean by this. Am I being a bit dense?