Republic, or Empire?

[Julian the Faithful]

Thanks Cato, your replies are very helpful to me.

[Kosmo]

Sure, but isn't it silly to think that history is always as dramatic as sci-fi? That doesn't mean the overthrow of the old republic in Rome wasn't similarly abrupt. Within one man's lifetime, centuries of political tradition were overturned, including the ability of the people to elect magistrates, approve treaties, run for office, or seek the protection of their tribunes from arbitrary rule. A child born in a freer society--free of secret police like Sejanus, freedom for historians like Cremutius Cordus (murdered for his history), for poets like Ovid (exiled), and for women like Julia (also exiled)--woke up in a city of marble, but it was the marble of a political tomb.

 

Elegantly phrased.

But not entirely true. Freedom had been chocked before. Not even the oldest roman living during Augustus could remember a time when people did not got killed for their opinons.

[caldrail]

My question may be naive, but did those who lived under Rome's rule, even as late as Julian's reign, still believe they lived in the famed Republic? I saw mention of the word Republic even by Ammianus himself in the text, though I have not found that section, but soon will.

 

Was it truly ever called the Roman Empire? Or is this yet another historical designation like the "Byzantine" Empire. I would appreciate your educated thoughts, so I may understand this more clearly.

 

When Augustus came to power, he did not announce a change in society, rather that he was Princeps, the first citizen, a leader among equals. He was acutely aware of the fate of Julius Caesar. The conspirators who stabbed Caesar to death thought they were saving the republic from a tyrant, however popular or capable, and were cruelly disappointed. The rule of the Caesars did not supplant republican institutions, it sat on top of them, adding a layer above senatorial government. yet even then, Augustus did not have everything his own way. There were occaisions when this man was seriously heckled by senators and left the senate house fuming. Again and again we see the senate making decisions under the principate. Claudius and Nero both declared enemies of the state. We see Didius Julianus pleading with the senate to retain some semblance of power, and the senate having him executed in the face of Septimius Severus' arrival in Rome.

 

The phrases republic and empire carry two meanings each.

 

Republic was the name Rome gave its government, a rule of the people rather than that of monarchs, however biased it was toward the aristocracy. Its also a name we give the period between the roman monarchy and the principate.

 

Empire is the collection of foreign lands who are ruled by Rome. The romans did mention the phrase occaisionally, even during the republic, and there's a later quote about the gods granting Rome an empire without end. Empire is also a name we give the period from the principate onward until the fall of the west.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The rule of the Caesars did not supplant republican institutions, it sat on top of them, adding a layer above senatorial government.

 

I hate to keep nit-picking here, but this isn't strictly accurate, and the inaccuracy is quite telling.

 

First, if you take the republican constitution and add a layer above the senate, you get an office that can veto senatorial actions and can propose senatorial actions -- that is, you get a tribune of the plebs. Since this was indeed one of the powers of the Augustan princeps, Caldrail's statement is accurate to a point.

 

What's inaccurate, however, is that the rule of the Caesars DID supplant a critical republican institution--the plebiscite. That is, in the republican constitution, the senate itself did not legislate and could not enter into foreign treaties. In the republic, ALL legislation and treaties were passed by a DIRECT vote by the people, legally assembled in their tribes by their tribunes. Thus, if the princeps were merely a tribune-cum-consul-cum-censor, all he could do is bring bills before the people and veto the bills he didn't want passed. But that's not what happened. Rather, the rule of the Caesars supplanted the plebiscite and gave legislative powers to the senate itself.

 

This is absolutely key: the difference between the republic and the principate isn't about the power of the senate--it's about the power of the people. The senate had some real role to play in both the republic and principate; the people had NO role in government after Augustus. Thus, there should be nothing surprising about the fact that the senate made decisions during the principate--it wasn't the senate that lost its role in government; it was the people who lost their role in government.

[DecimusCaesar]

In the Dominate period the Emperors assumed full powers of legislation. They would occasionally make an 'oratio' to the Senate, but it was usually just to pass an edict - which covered constitutions, mandates and rescripts. The rulers from Diocletian's day onwards were the sole legislator's of the Empire, and they had the right to interpret the laws in their own way. Yet the late Roman emperors still considered themselves to be bound to these same laws.

 

The laws passed by these emperor's were still considered to be greater than the 'throne' or power of the emperor himself, as is displayed in an edict passed in AD 429:

 

"To acknowlege himself bound by laws is, for the sovran, an utterance befitting the majesty of a ruler. For the truth is that our authority depends on the authority of law. To submit our sovranty to the laws is verily a greater thing than Imperial Power."

 

The emperors of the Dominate might have held more power than their predecessors in the Principate, yet they still weren't "true" monarchs. As J.B Bury said "The ultimate check on any autocracy is the force of public opinion."

Julian and Constantine might have had more power than Augustus or Tiberius, yet the fear of being deposed would keep them in check. If they were considered too cruel or tyrannical, the army (or sometimes even the Senate) could declare a new emperor in their place - this new emperor beng considered the legitimate ruler.

 

Of course, this didn't work all the time. Honorius for example, managed to beat back several pretenders to the throne, the most notable being Constantine III.

Edited November 23, 2007 by DecimusCaesar

[caldrail]

First, if you take the republican constitution and add a layer above the senate, you get an office that can veto senatorial actions and can propose senatorial actions -- that is, you get a tribune of the plebs.

Thats not what I said. A layer above the senate does not necessairly have the power of veto - it depends on circumstance and political structure. As for being a tribune of the people, surely the tribune was a part of administration rather than a leader, and emperors achieved power without input from the plebs in most cases, and lets face it, most emperors only bothered themselves about plebs in case they revolted. My point was that the emperors considered themselves as rulers of Rome, therefore rulers over the senate, yet the power base of those senators was such that it often hindered emperors. True, there were some emperors who weren't concerned with senatorial sensibilities. Caligula seems to have had nothing but contempt for them. Nero wafts past them airily... (though one wonders if he wasn't buying them off individually with luxury). Commodus visibly warned them to behave when he played the venator in the arena. Severus of course simply turned up with an army to enforce his rulings.

 

What's inaccurate, however, is that the rule of the Caesars DID supplant a critical republican institution--the plebiscite. That is, in the republican constitution, the senate itself did not legislate and could not enter into foreign treaties. In the republic, ALL legislation and treaties were passed by a DIRECT vote by the people, legally assembled in their tribes by their tribunes. Thus, if the princeps were merely a tribune-cum-consul-cum-censor, all he could do is bring bills before the people and veto the bills he didn't want passed. But that's not what happened. Rather, the rule of the Caesars supplanted the plebiscite and gave legislative powers to the senate itself.

I think you're being a little inaccurate, and this view of the republic is idealistic. The roman monarchy was supplanted by an aristocracy. My point about SPQR indicating this is valid, it was a cornerstone of politics, that there was a senior class. Of course the plebian families wanted their slice of the action, and campaigned to be allowed into the ruling set. They achieved this by 342BC, and in the period following we have the most democratic era of republican life. Polybian states that roman government can be seen in three indivisible ways - rule by decree (the consuls), rule by aristocracy (the senate), and rule by the people (voting assemblies). The powers of a consul are clear - they are the roman prime ministers for a year. The senate of course ruled by virtue of privilege accorded to their wealth and status . The voting assemblies? Now here we part company, because although the poor had access to a vote it was not the modern one man, one vote concept. It was a block vote. All four voting assemblies offered a single block vote each much the same way trade unions used to do in british politics. Also, the voting procedure was not as inherently free as we might think. Patronage rears its head whether you like it or not, and one of the primary obligations a patron asked of his client was that he voted in the way desired. The popular vote was effectively biased, even rigged to some degree, and during the golden age of republican democracy we still see the corruption inherent in roman society.

 

By the late republic the upper classes had reasserted their superiority. We see people like Cicero working to safeguard upper class privilege. But - and this is an important point - the senate was no longer addressing serious issues affecting the poor, and had effectively lost their support, thus the individuals who fought each other for supremacy were able to call upon the support of the poor. It was the senate who had lost their grip by laziness and indifference, allowing those men who wanted power to seek a following amongst the roman people and thereby acquire a power base to rival that of the senate itself.

 

This is absolutely key: the difference between the republic and the principate isn't about the power of the senate--it's about the power of the people. The senate had some real role to play in both the republic and principate; the people had NO role in government after Augustus. Thus, there should be nothing surprising about the fact that the senate made decisions during the principate--it wasn't the senate that lost its role in government; it was the people who lost their role in government.

The people had no role in imperial roman government? Did the voting assemblies survive? A dimished role certainly, but then isn't it true that the senate were still asserting their privilege and continuing to disenfranchise the poor? Augustus may have allowed that to happen - it certainly didn't spoil his plans for autocratic power - but did he actively remove plebian rights? Or was the senate simply grabbing back whatever power it could get hold of? The augustan senate was not initially augustus-friendly, that took time and some effort.

[Kosmo]

What's a Republic? What's an Empire?

Remember that we coined this concepts starting from roman institutions, but we did not preserved their meaning. A change so radical was made that we should use new words for the institutions themselves.

Of course, Augustus brought a change in the distribution of power and it was a revolutionary change, visible for even the most uninvolved commmoner. But, from that moment, Rome was dominated by the army in a way that eliminated all other significant institutions. The army was the one power holder.

Even the country with the most rabid modern dictator has a decent constitution and decent laws. But they don't mean nothing because he can do what ever he pleases unchecked.

The same was true about Rome. It's irelevant what powers the Emperor had legally when he could simply kill his opponents. And everybody knew that and behaved accordingly.

[Julian the Faithful]

Here is an interesting coin. And Cato is right, the changes were not unnoticed by those who were learned and chronicled history, but would the common man truly know the extent of the changes? I think we hear words like Roman Empire, Principate, Dominate, Byzantine Empire, etc, and we assume that is the terminology used by those who lived in this age. The facts seem to indicate that even in this late age, the Emperors went to some trouble as to be seen as protectors of a Republic that had not in fact existed in some time. These men knew the value of spin.

 

Thank you all for your thoughts. Truly enlightening.

 

 

Obverse: Finely engraved bust of Julian wearing the royal diadem and robes, fastened by a large brooch at the shoulder; Latin legend DN FL CL IVLIANVS PF AVG, abbreviated form of Dominus Noster Flavius Claudius Julianus Pius Felix Augustus = "Our Lord Flavius Claudius Julianus Dutiful and Wise Augustus." Reverse: The Apis Bull standing right, two stars above; Latin legend SECVRITAS REIPVB = "The Security of the Republic," CONSPB (mint of Constantinople) below.