Ruthless Methods Of Keeping Control.

During the first century AD the City of Rome was a neither safe nor healthy place to live in. If you were a common plebeian, your life would be in great contrast to that of a rich person; would involve living in squalid and overcrowded conditions, eating the same food every day and having no legal way of objecting to the government. Conditions were bad and life was short. Conflict within the city were also rife: for example, Rome

I'd vote for the annona, considering how it could be used both as a gift and a weapon should an Emperor choose to use it, and effected absolutely everyone (even the richest depend on the lowest). Free bread is fairly easy and inexpensive to accomplish, and should an emperor grow angry he could conceivably reduce the dole, and the people could do little even if riotously angry with the emperor's guard.

::claps:: excellent essay!

I think it was the rations also, happy people are more willing to submit than unhappy, hungry, desperate, paranoid people.

I would probably go for the Praetorian Guard: oppressed citizens are quiet ones...

Yes but fearful citizens eventually revolt.

Yes but fearful citizens eventually revolt.

Rome's populace rioted only many occasions, but the Praetorian Guard were always able to keep control. For instance, during a particularly bad famine in 22BC, the city's urban plebs were in a state of near revolt, and if it wasn't for Augustus swift deployment of Praetorians, the situation could have gotten much worse.

...though having said this, the situation was not completely quelled until Augustus provided relief grain taken from his own pocket, so maybe we are both right.

If Vespasian almost never provided any public entertainment and the urban mob still did not revolt, the games really weren't doing the job they were intended to do, were they? Also, is there any evidence that Vespasian made up for the lack of games through an extraordinary use of the secret police? I don't know of any, do you?

It seems to me that the poverty of the urban mob was no threat to security as such, but an injustice to them was like a firebrand. Hence, good emperors had much less need for the use of bread, murder, and circuses. To my mind, this essay misses one of the most significant sources of crowd control in ancient Rome--the justice of the government itself.

If Vespasian almost never provided any public entertainment and the urban mob still did not revolt, the games really weren't doing the job they were intended to do, were they? Also, is there any evidence that Vespasian made up for the lack of games through an extraordinary use of the secret police? I don't know of any, do you?

Though Vespasian's use of the Pratorians was not as notorius as Tiberius', he still used them to the full extent.

When Vespasian arrived in Rome in 70AD, the treachery of the Praetorians towards Galba was no doubt still on his mind. To avoid trouble from the guard in future, Vespasian appointed his trusted son, Titus, as their commander. However, it seems that Titus used this position to carry out his father's 'dirty work': he removed political opponents in a less than legal manner; had incriminating letter forged to cement arrests; and engaged in various other underhand activities. Suetonius mentions that '...in this office conducted himself in a somewhat arrogant and tyrannical fashion'. He then goes on to describe one of Titus' later antics as Commander of the Praetorians:

'Among these was Aulus Caecina, an ex-consul, whom he invited to dinner and then ordered to be stabbed almost before he left the dining-room; but in this case he was led by a pressing danger, having got possession of an autograph copy of an harangue which Caecina had prepared to deliver to the soldiers. Although by such conduct he provided for his safety in the future, he incurred such odium at the time that hardly anyone ever came to the throne with so evil a reputation or so much against the desires of all.'

As stated earlier Vespasian distributed mediocre amounts of largesse and paid for few games. He did however secure public support by launching a very ambitious building campaign. Most notable products of which were the Forum of Peace (containing the spoils from his Judean campaign), and the Flavian Amphitheatre--though not finished under Vespasian, the prospect of future games may have kept the urban plebs in line.

To my mind, this essay misses one of the most significant sources of crowd control in ancient Rome--the justice of the government itself.

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure I agree. Can you give some examples?

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure I agree. Can you give some examples?

Well the most general positive point is that the rule of law still operated under the republic and the good emperors (for the most part), and the rule of law alone does much to allow people a peaceful means for redressing wrongs and would thus prevent massive civil unrest.

The evidence for the point would be that the institution of civil rights for the people (such as the establishment of the tribunate) ended one of the most important eras of civil unrest (the so-called 'secession of the plebs') and granting similar rights to non-Roman Italians also put an end to a civil war (the so-called Social War).

BTW, Wot Wotius' response regarding Vespasian largely convinces me that the use of the secret police could (and did) serve to supplement the use of bread and circuses as a means for pacifying the people since their political rights had been effectively abolished.

I think that you are right in terms of the Republic, but it seems Wot is speaking more in terms of the Empire.

I think that you are right in terms of the Republic, but it seems Wot is speaking more in terms of the Empire.

Yes, when I wrote the orginal essay I was only refering to the years 27 BC - 117 AD.

To my mind, this essay misses one of the most significant sources of crowd control in ancient Rome--the justice of the government itself.

If you look at Rome during this time span (27 BC - 117 AD) you will probably find very few examples--with the exception of Trajan, and to a lesser extent Augustus--of justice within her governance.

Additionally, though 'good' emperors such as Trajan never really had a need for the Praetorians as such, the fact that they were still an institution of the emperor's government may well have be enough to deter urban plebs from actively complaining about the 'social injustice' that they had come to live in. In other words, the shadow of the emperor's guard was always there.

To my mind, this essay misses one of the most significant sources of crowd control in ancient Rome--the justice of the government itself.

 

If you look at Rome during this time span (27 BC - 117 AD) you will probably find very few examples--with the exception of Trajan, and to a lesser extent Augustus--of justice within her governance.

You'll probably find no harsher critic of the principate than me, but even I find this charge absurd. Put down the Suetonius and pick up Ulpian and the other Roman jurists, and you'll find that for the majority of Romans, the Imperial government was functioning to deliver ordinary justice on an extraordinary scale. Roman law prevented a million petty tyrants from seizing the property of their neighbors with impunity, prevented thousands of petty magistrates from meting out punishments without trial, and thereby secured the countless commercial transactions that took place between parties that lived hundreds of miles away from one another. The fruits of these ordinary acts of justice--the manufacture and delivery of unprecedented material comforts-- surely did more to secure the contentment of the people than mere bread, murder, and circuses.

BTW, the distribution of free corn during the Imperial period was established by the legislation of Clodius in 58 not 55 BCE.

You'll probably find no harsher critic of the principate than me, but even I find this charge absurd. Put down the Suetonius and pick up Ulpian and the other Roman jurists, and you'll find that for the majority of Romans, the Imperial government was functioning to deliver ordinary justice on an extraordinary scale. Roman law prevented a million petty tyrants from seizing the property of their neighbors with impunity, prevented thousands of petty magistrates from meting out punishments without trial, and thereby secured the countless commercial transactions that took place between parties that lived hundreds of miles away from one another. The fruits of these ordinary acts of justice--the manufacture and delivery of unprecedented material comforts-- surely did more to secure the contentment of the people than mere bread, murder, and circuses.

Ok, I may have exaggerated to emphasise my point, but you cannot say that if you took away the Praetorians, the annona ration and ludi days Rome under the principate would have functioned with little unrest. It is true that since Republican times Rome's law courts were unsurpassed by any other nation, but you said yourself that the urban poor of Rome faced great social injustice, and in my view a fully functioning judicial system was not enough to quell the discontent caused it. As mentioned earlier emperors had to resort to 'bread and circuses'in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the poor.

It wasn't just in Ancient Rome that alternate methods were used to distract people from 'social injustice'. I mean look at Britain during the 1930s depression: though the country had a near fully developed legal system unemployment had skyrocketed, the majority working class poor were actually living below the poverty line and according to George Orwell's The Road to Wiggin Pier it seemed to be a time for social 'revolution, not patching'. Yet despite this, Britain never really experienced social unrest on a large scale. What I would put down to is the fact that various industries were developing during this period, and as a result of this cinema tickets, basic food (e.g. fish and chips) and (due to the opening of Marks and Spencer's chain stores etc.) basic cloths were all affordable. So it could be argued that during this period, the 'bread and circuses' approach was more effective way of keeping the urban poor contented than the concept of 'justice'.

I know it is wrong to draw parallels with 1930s Britain and Rome under the principate--the cultures are nearly 2000 years apart--but what I was illustrating was the fact that distraction from social injustice occurred in modern, judicially developed societies, so why shouldn't it have occurred in Ancient Rome?

BTW, the distribution of free corn during the Imperial period was established by the legislation of Clodius in 58 not 55 BCE.

Sorry about that, all the dates on the original essay were from memory. I also noticed that I said Titus' reign started in 78 AD not 79 AD.

However, the dates regarding the annona ration from 58 BC to the time of the principate are few and far between: it seems that it wasn't until 22 BC, when Augustus provided corn as a means of famine relief, that the annona ration became a set right for ever male freeborn Roman.

Ok, I may have exaggerated to emphasise my point, but you cannot say that if you took away the Praetorians, the annona ration and ludi days Rome under the principate would have functioned with little unrest.

No disagreement here. Given that the people lost their say in government, political unrest was unavoidable under the principate, so one or more of these measures were necessary. However, if the courts had ceased to operate effectively, commerce would have been annihilated and crime would have been so rampant that no number of Praetorians (let alone bread and circuses) would have been sufficient to keep control. That's why I said the essay was missing the most important variable in keeping control of things during the principate.

It is true that since Republican times Rome's law courts were unsurpassed by any other nation, but you said yourself that the urban poor of Rome faced great social injustice

I never said 'social injustice'--just plain justice. At best, the "social" in "social justice" is superfluous; at worst, the term is a euphemism for injustice to the few for the gain of the many.