6 ms·

The thing I find interesting is that to the Romans, Augustus (Octavian) was not the first emperor[0] at all, it’s only in hind sight that we call him that. Let

The thing I find interesting is that to the Romans, Augustus (Octavian) was not the first emperor[0] at all, it’s only in hind sight that we call him that. Let me explain. The Roman people has a very strong aversion to kings for centuries, it was legal for any citizen to kill a man who was trying to make himself king. This is part of what got Julius Caesar killed in fact, and while he was typically very popular his moves towards kingship were not received well at all. Knowing this, the first series of emperors cloaked their imperial power in republican forms, even though they’d already killed the republic. They typically went by the title “Princeps” (first citizen), and wielded massive back room influence to accomplish their goals. Oh, and they also owned Egypt personally, and probably commanded around 20% of the empire’s wealth. It’s arguably not until Claudius, who was selected as emperor despite of his perceived idiocy specifically because of his relation to the prior emperor can we say that the political classes knew they lived in a monarchy of some sort. (Claudius turned out to be a competent emperor by the way, he and a very bad stutter that the Romans took for him being stupid). What’s the point of this? The point is that republics don’t have to die in sudden and dramatic fashion. Sometimes they go in a Reichstag Fire, but they are also likely to rot from the inside while maintaining the old forms for a few generations. 0: They actually did use the title imperator, the root word for emperor, but this was originally a military term closely related to “commander”. This slowly merged into its modern imperial meaning roughly co-incident with the emperors slowly dropping republican forms and ruling in their own right.

rgrieselhuber 8y ago
Julius Caesar was a populist threat to the Senate aristocracy and his social / monetary reforms put him at further odds.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Indeed, and his military successes were also a threat. But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a populist, and was both ambitious and wildly popular with the common people of Rome. But there were a few incidents where Caesar was offered to be crowned king, and the people of Rome hated it. It would be a few more generations before the idea of being ruled by a guy in purple whose dad had done the same would be okay to Romans.
  - rgrieselhuber 8y ago
    The Romans had a history of distrusting kings, for good reason. It's worth noting that the latter kings before the Republic were Etruscan, foreigners, ruling over the Roman people. Given the reaction of the people after Caesar's assassination, it was not a popular move by the Senate, regardless of the distrust the people had toward kingship in general. I understand the point you're making but personally find it to be a bit of a stretch.
  - eropple 8y ago
    As you say, "ruled" is a squishy term here. And it's important, in an age where power is felt to be very bluntly wielded, to realize that subtler ways do exist and "soft power" has always been a thing! Rome was largely accepting of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops) and even the transition to Caligula (further oops). Caligula's assassination was part of an attempt to restore the pre-Principate Republic, but it failed and Claudius ruled without too much trouble. But, again as you note, all of that was the first-among-equals set dressing of the Principate where the Republic's centering institutions were given lip service, and it would be hundreds of years before the outright Dominate of Diocletian would be generally accepted by Rome--and getting there required the transcendental shitshow that was the Roman third century, itself worth perturbing a lot of electrons. In conclusions, land of contrasts, etcetera etcetera.
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Total tangent: I’m actually not convinced that Caligula was as bad as the ancient sources claimed. We have very few first hand sources from his reign, and the historians (all senatorial class in this case iirc) would have ample ability and cause to slander him. Accusations of sexual impropriety are the standard in ancient sources, especially Roman. I wouldn’t go as far as saying he could have been a good ruler, he sure did manage to piss off the senate in the way a better ruler wouldn’t have, but he might not be anywhere as bad as the sources portray.
      - eropple 8y ago
        Could be. The most damning accusations aren't just that he was all murdery or sexually improper, though, it's that he spent all the money. Tiberius has a lot of rumors spread about him for being a sexual deviant and handing Sejanus the keys to the 29AD Fiat Purgero, but I'm not aware of sources that allege that he didn't govern tolerably and with some level of restraint until he disappeared to his villa for the rest of his life. Caligula gets roasted for being a weird sex pest and for being a profligate spender who trashed the economy (the most sympathetic interpretation thereof being that he didn't want to say no, because saying yes made people like him, and making people like him might keep him alive longer/make him more beloved as emperor. IIRC the purges and the rumors about Caligula mostly started after a serious illness in 37AD, where he might have just literally gone around the bend? But I'm definitely not ruling out the possibility that Caligula was played up after his death, though. If you look back at pre-Republican mythology (it ain't quite history), the seven kings of Rome are all caricatures. Caligula could definitely just be The Crazy One. In any case, Rome put up with some real wacky characters as emperor so long as they didn't bankrupt the empire.
neuronic 8y ago
I disagree with the notion that Germany's Weimar Republic only went because of the Reichstag Fire (you used it as an example of a more sudden demise). The Republic was actively sabotaged and dismantled beginning the very day it was formed. It was doomed the day the treaty of Versailles put all the blame of WWI on Germany. And it was people like Stresemann who prevented an earlier "official" demise and it took Hindenburg to position Hitler in a state where he just had to deliver the final blow. The span here is over a decade - short still, but far from sudden.
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Within a lifespan though. It took a lot longer for the Romans to go from a functioning republic to being a true empire with an autocratic and often hereditary ruler. The span from the Gracchi brothers to Augustus was about 180 years, longer still until all pretensions of republican rule were tossed aside. Of course, the Weimar Republic was much weaker than the Roman one, or even the American one at that point in time, meaning it was easier to kill.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I don't think that's right. The Gracchi started at 133 BC. Augustus died in 14 AD. And he became emperor... well, that's a bit fuzzy, but he was the man after Actium, which was 31 BC. That's only 102 years (or 147 if you date it from Augustus' death).
    - village-idiot 8y ago
      Oops, I measured from Tiberius’ birth in 169BCE, not from the start of his political career.

rgrieselhuber 8y ago

Julius Caesar was a populist threat to the Senate aristocracy and his social / monetary reforms put him at further odds.

village-idiot 8y ago
Indeed, and his military successes were also a threat. But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a populist, and was both ambitious and wildly popular with the common people of Rome. But there were a few incidents where Caesar was offered to be crowned king, and the people of Rome hated it. It would be a few more generations before the idea of being ruled by a guy in purple whose dad had done the same would be okay to Romans.
- rgrieselhuber 8y ago
  The Romans had a history of distrusting kings, for good reason. It's worth noting that the latter kings before the Republic were Etruscan, foreigners, ruling over the Roman people. Given the reaction of the people after Caesar's assassination, it was not a popular move by the Senate, regardless of the distrust the people had toward kingship in general. I understand the point you're making but personally find it to be a bit of a stretch.
- eropple 8y ago
  As you say, "ruled" is a squishy term here. And it's important, in an age where power is felt to be very bluntly wielded, to realize that subtler ways do exist and "soft power" has always been a thing! Rome was largely accepting of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops) and even the transition to Caligula (further oops). Caligula's assassination was part of an attempt to restore the pre-Principate Republic, but it failed and Claudius ruled without too much trouble. But, again as you note, all of that was the first-among-equals set dressing of the Principate where the Republic's centering institutions were given lip service, and it would be hundreds of years before the outright Dominate of Diocletian would be generally accepted by Rome--and getting there required the transcendental shitshow that was the Roman third century, itself worth perturbing a lot of electrons. In conclusions, land of contrasts, etcetera etcetera.
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Total tangent: I’m actually not convinced that Caligula was as bad as the ancient sources claimed. We have very few first hand sources from his reign, and the historians (all senatorial class in this case iirc) would have ample ability and cause to slander him. Accusations of sexual impropriety are the standard in ancient sources, especially Roman. I wouldn’t go as far as saying he could have been a good ruler, he sure did manage to piss off the senate in the way a better ruler wouldn’t have, but he might not be anywhere as bad as the sources portray.
    - eropple 8y ago
      Could be. The most damning accusations aren't just that he was all murdery or sexually improper, though, it's that he spent all the money. Tiberius has a lot of rumors spread about him for being a sexual deviant and handing Sejanus the keys to the 29AD Fiat Purgero, but I'm not aware of sources that allege that he didn't govern tolerably and with some level of restraint until he disappeared to his villa for the rest of his life. Caligula gets roasted for being a weird sex pest and for being a profligate spender who trashed the economy (the most sympathetic interpretation thereof being that he didn't want to say no, because saying yes made people like him, and making people like him might keep him alive longer/make him more beloved as emperor. IIRC the purges and the rumors about Caligula mostly started after a serious illness in 37AD, where he might have just literally gone around the bend? But I'm definitely not ruling out the possibility that Caligula was played up after his death, though. If you look back at pre-Republican mythology (it ain't quite history), the seven kings of Rome are all caricatures. Caligula could definitely just be The Crazy One. In any case, Rome put up with some real wacky characters as emperor so long as they didn't bankrupt the empire.

neuronic 8y ago

I disagree with the notion that Germany's Weimar Republic only went because of the Reichstag Fire (you used it as an example of a more sudden demise). The Republic was actively sabotaged and dismantled beginning the very day it was formed. It was doomed the day the treaty of Versailles put all the blame of WWI on Germany. And it was people like Stresemann who prevented an earlier "official" demise and it took Hindenburg to position Hitler in a state where he just had to deliver the final blow. The span here is over a decade - short still, but far from sudden.

village-idiot 8y ago
Within a lifespan though. It took a lot longer for the Romans to go from a functioning republic to being a true empire with an autocratic and often hereditary ruler. The span from the Gracchi brothers to Augustus was about 180 years, longer still until all pretensions of republican rule were tossed aside. Of course, the Weimar Republic was much weaker than the Roman one, or even the American one at that point in time, meaning it was easier to kill.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I don't think that's right. The Gracchi started at 133 BC. Augustus died in 14 AD. And he became emperor... well, that's a bit fuzzy, but he was the man after Actium, which was 31 BC. That's only 102 years (or 147 if you date it from Augustus' death).
  - village-idiot 8y ago
    Oops, I measured from Tiberius’ birth in 169BCE, not from the start of his political career.