Significance of the Citizen

[Divi Filius]

One of the things that struck me in the movie Gladiator(just saw it again recently) was a comment by one of the senators (the one Derek Jacobi). I don't remember the exact line so to paraphrase he said something in along the lines of Commodus getting so much power based on the favor of the people of Rome. My reply was a snicker and the mental comment: "nobody really gives a hoots about what the citizen likes". I reconsidered the comment since then and now think that it was a little out of line.

 

But nevertheless, I still cannot picture the emperor really having much power based on the favor of the populous of Rome. If it were so then the fate of Vitellius might have been different, since the citizen body clearly favored him over Vespasian.

 

Also, when we look at Tacitus' account*, we find that the people's "favor" was really one of the weakest things of all, since it swayed with the favor of fortune.

 

So this then begs the question: To what extent was the favor of the people helpful, if at all, in holding the throne?

 

*"The acclamations and cries which habitual flattery prompted in the people were at once extravagant and false" (TH.1.90)

[Lost_Warrior]

It was helpful so long as it went in favor of what the Imperator wanted. A lot of an Imperator's funds went towards keeping the people pacified ("bread and circuses") so that they wouldn't object too much to whatever it was that he wanted to do. If the Imperator wanted to do something, and the people didn't want it, he did it anyway and made the people pay the price for their dissent with secret police and the like.

[caldrail]

One of the things that struck me in the movie Gladiator(just saw it again recently) was a comment by one of the senators (the one Derek Jacobi). I don't remember the exact line so to paraphrase he said something in along the lines of Commodus getting so much power based on the favor of the people of Rome. My reply was a snicker and the mental comment: "nobody really gives a hoots about what the citizen likes". I reconsidered the comment since then and now think that it was a little out of line.

 

But nevertheless, I still cannot picture the emperor really having much power based on the favor of the populous of Rome. If it were so then the fate of Vitellius might have been different, since the citizen body clearly favored him over Vespasian.

 

Also, when we look at Tacitus' account*, we find that the people's "favor" was really one of the weakest things of all, since it swayed with the favor of fortune.

 

So this then begs the question: To what extent was the favor of the people helpful, if at all, in holding the throne?

 

*"The acclamations and cries which habitual flattery prompted in the people were at once extravagant and false" (TH.1.90)

 

Popularity as a ruler was a very important thing, although not all emperors worried about it as much as others. Augustus worried about his popularity almost to the point of paranoia, whereas caligula seems indifferent and at times contemptuous. Thing is, if you're not popular, then a plot by rival senators to oust you is far more likely to succeed. Take poor old Didius Julianus. He bought the throne from the praetorians and was absolutely loathed by the public despite every effort he made to become popular. The senate in fact ordered an officer to kill him to ensure the arrival of Septimius Severus would not result in a purge. Didius had no public support hence no-one worried whether he died or not. Elagabulus similarly met a sticky end because the bloke was a complete embarrasement and in any case, what use was he? His mum held all the strings. Without public support, he never stood a chance. Now a better example might be Titus. When he came to power he was viewed as a disreputable character, and most romans expected another nero. To his credit, Titus reinvented his image and made great strides to be known as a good ruler. His inaugral games at the colosseum swung it for him. After that triumph of public entertainment, he was remembered as the great ruler he had wanted to be.

[Kosmo]

The favor of the public counted for something, but the army, the pretorians, the people of the palace and the Senate were more important.

Probably there is a gradual change from Augustus to Diocletian.

[caldrail]

The favor of the public counted for something, but the army, the pretorians, the people of the palace and the Senate were more important.

Probably there is a gradual change from Augustus to Diocletian.

Well lets be a little precise about this. The legions, praetorians, and the senate didn't usually act as a group any more than the roman mob. It always devolved to individual initiative from their leaders rather than popular uprisings.

 

In the case of the legions, we don't the army revolting as a whole. Instead, the charisma and popularity of a single commander has reached the point where the soldiers dissatisfaction with the current emperor has resulted in them persuading or demanding that officer accepts the throne on their behalf. This is done away from Rome regardless of how anybody else feels. It is a mutiny by any other name, one in which the legions commander decides to lead his men both to satisfy his soldiers demands and to further his own career. If the remaining legions were pulled in a short civil war would result. The interesting thing is how often legions did not prevent these uprisings. Its as if the commanders of the legions decided that it was safer to sit on the fence and see who won. Otherwise it portrays the average emperor as a very poor general.

 

With the praetorians, we see a group of privileged men who nonetheless are still typically greedy. Their closeness to the ruling caste bred a certain contempt I think, as they were witness to all the shenanigans that went on. The praetorians seem on the one hand to ignore public mood but I don't think they did. They were very mindful that without the emperor their cushy number was at risk. That said, a praetorian revolt was still usually the work of a handful of individuals, not the praetorians as a whole. The reasons were usually personal, not political. Caligulas murder for instance, after Cassius Chaerea had become angered at the insults andmickey taking aimed at him. Or when caracalla was marching east on campaign, he was murdered by a single officer while he went to the toilet by the road. The assassin was chased by praetorian horsemen and killed with spears. The point is that one person acted, the others retaliated.

 

The senate was always a breeding ground for ambition. Whereas in the past there was always public office and the consulship to strive for, in the empire the top job was reserved. The senate only acted together for mutual interest, usually survival, and the case of ordering an officer to bump off Didius Julianus is an example. When a coup detat was in the air, it would again be the work of a handful of men, again working on personal motives rather than political. Senators who acted without regard to popularity often came off worse - again the case of Didius Julianus comes to mind.

 

The situation in the roman crisis of the 3rd century is that popularity was becoming less important, and individual motive the entire point in securing the throne. There wasn't time to gain popularity, because if the individual didn't act quickly, the current emperor would become popular and that would make the murderous coup far more risky.

 

So - always in the background is the consideration of public mood in one way or another. Without it, your survival after a coup was very much at risk.