The most Republican Emperor

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

I think that you completely misunderstand the issue, the pseudo-republicanism was a result of the Roman natural conservatism (to simply put it changes were viewed in a negative way) that why the more tactful emperor put this act and this all that it's was, an act. the senate stop to function by the end of republic and became nothing more than an honorary council of the emperor's favorites.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I think that you completely misunderstand the issue, the pseudo-republicanism was a result of the Roman natural conservatism (to simply put it changes were viewed in a negative way) that why the more tactful emperor put this act and this all that it's was, an act. the senate stop to function by the end of republic and became nothing more than an honorary council of the emperor's favorites.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Ingsoc]

No doubt that the emperors give Senators a part in the government, however (and it's a big however) they were always appointed only on a personal base (i.e according to how the emperor trusted them) and not beacause they were members of the senate.

 

And let's not forget that the emperor court house a great amount of freedmen that serve as bureaucrats and some time gain greater power than most senators and consuls.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The historian Publius Cornelius Tacitus and Caius Plinius Caecilius Secundus Minor were good examples.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

I think that you completely misunderstand the issue, the pseudo-republicanism was a result of the Roman natural conservatism (to simply put it changes were viewed in a negative way) that why the more tactful emperor put this act and this all that it's was, an act. the senate stop to function by the end of republic and became nothing more than an honorary council of the emperor's favorites.

 

The psuedo-republicanism was also a survival tactic. Although the roman public had come to accept autocratic rule in spite of tradition, it was necessary for those rulers to remain popular or face possible removal from office - which was likely to hurt somewhat. True, it was with the legions rather than the plebs that popularity was more important, but lets not forget the senate contained men who were wealthy and influential. These were the power brokers of Rome, whom the emperors ruled in front of. There would always be men amongst the senators who thought they deserved to rule and could do a better job that that arrogant idiot standing before them. The senate still had considerable influence by the end of the republic however badly they wielded it. Augustus was careful not to upset them and more than once left the senate house with his tale between his legs in the early half of his reign. They declared Nero an enemy of the state, and refused point blank to accept the credibility of Didius Julianus. There was of course in that instance the pending arrival of Severus and his army that ensured the senate would not accept Julianus nor attempt to replace him with one of their own, something that had happened more than once before, never mind the innumerable plots to do so. It was the power of the legions to replace an emperor that pushed the senate into the background, for they couldn't compete with a popular legate with six thousand men at his back.

[Primus Pilus]

I think that you completely misunderstand the issue, the pseudo-republicanism was a result of the Roman natural conservatism (to simply put it changes were viewed in a negative way) that why the more tactful emperor put this act and this all that it's was, an act. the senate stop to function by the end of republic and became nothing more than an honorary council of the emperor's favorites.

 

The psuedo-republicanism was also a survival tactic...

 

Agreed. While the public perception of Domitian's traditional office holding policy may have been to establish the Senate as a partner in the imperial administration, his actions were the opposite. He was among the most anti-Senatorial/Republican princeps of the early imperial era and his usurpation of the titles and offices is an indication of his open contempt.

 

I understand completely what ASC is suggesting on the perception aspect, though. The indirect and unintended consequence is an interesting angle. Additionally, the man who followed Domitian, Nerva, may have truly been the most "republican" of all the princeps. The methodology of his accession (presuming he was not a leading participant in the plot against Domitian) seems to have been at least a partial deliberative/electoral process within the forum. Of course, he needed to adopt Trajan to appease the legions, but his reign (while short-lived and bereft of continuing evidence over time) was perhaps the friendliest towards the Senate as an institution.

[Kosmo]

Senators were a part of the roman oligarchy during the principate as was the imperial court. The functions of the Senate in that period were much less important then the power of the senators. Rather then a deliberative body it was a pool of wealthy, influential and skilled administrators.

By establishing almost a monopoly on the consulate the Flavians and especially Domitian seriously hampered the evolution of the career for many senators. Being a consul was very prestigious and made the person eligible to lead a pro-consular province. That was one of the reasons why Domitian was hated by many senators. The other reasons also tend to make him despotic and not republican.

[ASCLEPIADES]

The other reasons also tend to make him despotic and not republican.

Well, you could be both despotic and republican at the same time.

 

Just ask LC Sulla Felix.

Edited July 24, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Additionally, the man who followed Domitian, Nerva, may have truly been the most "republican" of all the princeps. The methodology of his accession (presuming he was not a leading participant in the plot against Domitian) seems to have been at least a partial deliberative/electoral process within the forum. Of course, he needed to adopt Trajan to appease the legions, but his reign (while short-lived and bereft of continuing evidence over time) was perhaps the friendliest towards the Senate as an institution.

Exactly my point; we agree.

 

Not having real ascendance over the Imperial soldiers, Domitianus' Senate wouldn't have been able to select and preserve Nerva if the last Flavian Emperor had not given them enough power and influence in the first place.

[Primus Pilus]

Additionally, the man who followed Domitian, Nerva, may have truly been the most "republican" of all the princeps. The methodology of his accession (presuming he was not a leading participant in the plot against Domitian) seems to have been at least a partial deliberative/electoral process within the forum. Of course, he needed to adopt Trajan to appease the legions, but his reign (while short-lived and bereft of continuing evidence over time) was perhaps the friendliest towards the Senate as an institution.

Exactly my point; we agree.

 

Not having real ascendance over the Imperial soldiers, Domitianus' Senate wouldn't have been able to select and preserve Nerva if the last Flavian Emperor had not given them enough power and influence in the first place.

 

Here, I disagree. The Senate attempted to select/promote candidates several times and they always maintained at least a minimal status as a pool of administrators, governors, influencers, generals, etc. even if the combined body carried no weight or authority. Ultimately it was the legions (or Praetorians) who really closed the deal. Nerva was no different really. Without the adoption of Trajan, it's quite possible (probable) that someone would've marched to Rome. The Senate's influence after Domitian was not greater than it had been before, and Nerva didn't stick simply because the Senate carried an air of greater influence and/or authority, but rather because of the adoption. The senate was relatively unified in their selection of Nerva, which clearly would've helped to ward off resistance from outside sources, but on this occasion, it seems to truly have been a right guy, right time, right circumstance and right decision making moment.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Here, I disagree. The Senate attempted to select/promote candidates several times and they always maintained at least a minimal status as a pool of administrators, governors, influencers, generals, etc. even if the combined body carried no weight or authority. Ultimately it was the legions (or Praetorians) who really closed the deal. Nerva was no different really. Without the adoption of Trajan, it's quite possible (probable) that someone would've marched to Rome. The Senate's influence after Domitian was not greater than it had been before, and Nerva didn't stick simply because the Senate carried an air of greater influence and/or authority, but rather because of the adoption. The senate was relatively unified in their selection of Nerva, which clearly would've helped to ward off resistance from outside sources, but on this occasion, it seems to truly have been a right guy, right time, right circumstance and right decision making moment.

The Senate killed an Emperor, put in the throne one of them, prevented a civil war, preserved a relative unity among themselves and peacefully selected the general that would became the next Emperor, without the recorded execution of even one of them; there's where I find the difference.

 

No one can participate and even less succeed in such kind of negotiations without some real power on their own; otherwise, Legions and Praetorians wouldn't have had any incentive to close any deal with the Senate.

Edited July 25, 2008 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

Here, I disagree. The Senate attempted to select/promote candidates several times and they always maintained at least a minimal status as a pool of administrators, governors, influencers, generals, etc. even if the combined body carried no weight or authority. Ultimately it was the legions (or Praetorians) who really closed the deal. Nerva was no different really. Without the adoption of Trajan, it's quite possible (probable) that someone would've marched to Rome. The Senate's influence after Domitian was not greater than it had been before, and Nerva didn't stick simply because the Senate carried an air of greater influence and/or authority, but rather because of the adoption. The senate was relatively unified in their selection of Nerva, which clearly would've helped to ward off resistance from outside sources, but on this occasion, it seems to truly have been a right guy, right time, right circumstance and right decision making moment.

The Senate killed an Emperor, put in the throne one of them, prevented a civil war, preserved a relative unity among themselves and peacefully selected the general that would became the next Emperor, without the recorded execution of even one of them; there's where I find the difference.

 

No one can participate and even less succeed in such kind of negotiations without some real power on their own; otherwise, Legions and Praetorians wouldn't have had any incentive to close any deal with the Senate.

 

My intention isn't really to argue that the Senate itself didn't have a measure of influence as a collection of the societal and political elite, but rather more simply that Domitian wasn't a Republican based on the idea that he preserved some Republican institutional traditions. He was a tyrant who despised the senate and any true notion of the Republic. While the institutions themselves may have been preserved and even propped up publicly by Domitian's monopolization/exposure of the magistracies there was no constitutional authority for the body itself nor any great role in Domitian's government. I don't want to come across as if suggesting that the senate was not a collection of ambitious, influential and high standing individuals, it's just that the existence of such a collection alone without constitutional authority and without the tribunes, etc. does not make a Republic. The key counter point for me is really just the presentation of Domitian as a Republican emperor. I think it may be more appropriate to suggest that his anti-Republican position actually unified the senate against him and motivated them to act as a body.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Technically.

Edited March 11, 2009 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

What exactly makes Domitianus any more anti-Republican than other Emperors? There's a record of some 11 senators executed under his Government. Claudius executed at least 35 senators, a fact that didn't prevent him from being deified by the same senate.

 

I'm by no means suggesting that Claudius was some great bastion of Republican idealism either. Ultimately you are right in simply saying that none of them really were. Whatever the criteria we use to establish such a list, I would still personally have trouble putting Domitian anywhere near the top of it based on the perception of Senatorial influence due in part to Domitian's ego in accumulating and monopolizing magistracies.