The Late roman Republic and dictatorship

Hi everybody.

I had three questions :

1) why the dictatorship was not used during the Late roman Republic (post second Punic War) in order to face emergencies ?

Why did they use instead of the dictatorship special commanding powers, granted to Marius (6 times consul) , Pompey (against Sertorius and the pirates) or Caesar (super proconsul of 3 provinces with 4 legions), to face emergency situationslike the Cimbres and Teutons invasion or the Pirates ?

This questions was raised by a book from Marianne Coudry Le Sénat de la République romaine, pratique délibérative, where she says that before the Punic Wars, censors and ancient dictators were the senators who talked and influenced most, whereas after the Punic Wars, there was no longer enough ancient dictators because nobody was named dictator anymore, so that the real power was passed to consulars and perhaps ancient praetors.

To me, dictatorship seems easier to control than special super-commanding powers.

2) Why Sylla did not try to be claimed as dictator by the Senate in order to be able to legally use his army into Rome ? He would have gained the legitimacy he lacked when he came back to Rome. He would have avoided proscriptions and the like. Without proscriptions, no shock to the Roman population, no Crassus, and without shock and without Crassus, no Caesar, who was first used as a link between Pompey and Crassus who did not like each other.

3) And finally, why did the censor lose their prestige after the second Punic war (cf Marianne Coudry) so that the ancient censor lost their super influence on the Senate ?  They were able to maintain their function prestigious during centuries before, why did they fall precisely at this moment ?

Were they corrupt ? But why at this precise moment ? Why not before ?

Does anyone here knows more about it ? As I mainly read french or french-translated books, perhaps english-speakers could have other references ...

Thanks in advance

There is an interesting theory that dictatorship as a form of social control emerges purely as a result of the territorial expansion of small states. The logic behind it is as follows: the larger the territory of a state gets, the more likely the state to face a new threat from its neighbours. Neighbors would certainly become more cautious and suspicious of any movements  and therefore more likely to challenge. Such threats would be dealt with by giving extraordinary powers to individuals who seem capable of ensuring protection for everyone. This  explains why Roman republic couldn't get out of the vicious circle of dictatorships and return to republican governorship once it reached a certain territorial size: it was just unable to sacrifice anything from what was considered to constitute a part of its imperial pride and history. The limit to such expansions is pre-determined by the lack of material, demographic resources as well as technological breakthroughs i.e. innovations (ability to adapt quickly to changing environment)

Certainly the theory seems to be derived from a rather simplistic world view, but nonetheless it often arises in discussions 🙂

By the way, the same theory also explains why Roman empire couldn't keep up its integrity and had to introduce tetrarchy in order to deal with constant challenges along its borders. The speed of information transmission was very low back then, so in order to respond quickly to new threats it became necessary to have a few individuals with extraordinary powers placed in different corners of the empire

The role of Dictator was specific. The Senate knew there were times when a large committee weren't going to be decisive and given how internally factious the Senate was, emergency decisions needed a channel to overcome this particular Roman problem. So you put a man in charge, full emergency power, for six months or until the emergency was over.

So why was it not used more often? One could speculate that the Romans could not always agree that a Dictator was necessary at any given time

However, the Romans were conspicuously conscious of the risks of giving power to individuals. Their republican system never gave anyone the right to become a tyrant. Power was shared, power was temporary, power was by consent. How many men could be given full emergency power and go back to ordinary life afterward like Cincinnatus did? With increasing wealth and power as Rome prospered on back of successful campaigning, the temptations only got worse. Gaius Marius using warfare to persuade the Senate to give him yet one more Consulship. Or the various characters who started to see one man rule as a distinct and possible ambition, the sources mention more than the obvious famous ones.

At that stage, the acquisition of dictatorial power was a means to an end. But bear in mind that Rome had moved from since the days when the two Consuls led a legion each to defend Rome's interests. War had increased in scale dramatically requiring much larger forces, and the old method of countered one man with another simply could not work any more.

Not for nothing did Caesar take extended dictatorial power when he seized Rome. Not for nothing did Marc Antony have the office abolished entirely after Caesar's death. Not for nothing did the public clamour to have Octavian made Dictator to replace Caesar. Not for nothing did Octavian, as Augustus, refuse completely.

Quote

So why was it not used more often? One could speculate that the Romans could not always agree that a Dictator was necessary at any given time 

-> The post punic wars Senate did not even vest a dictator once, the issue was a structuralone and not a coincidence.

Quote

At that stage, the acquisition of dictatorial power was a means to an end. But bear in mind that Rome had moved from since the days when the two Consuls led a legion each to defend Rome's interests. War had increased in scale dramatically requiring much larger forces, and the old method of countered one man with another simply could not work any more.

-> Was a special super-commanding like Pompey's one against the Pirates (absolute power in a huge area, 150 k soldiers and 1000 ships) better ? I mean : why special commanding with no limit and not the traditional dictatorship ? They were too means to ends.

Quote

Not for nothing did Caesar take extended dictatorial power when he seized Rome. Not for nothing did Marc Antony have the office abolished entirely after Caesar's death. Not for nothing did the public clamour to have Octavian made Dictator to replace Caesar. Not for nothing did Octavian, as Augustus, refuse completely. 

This resurgence of the dictatorship is interesting. Perhaps Caesar wanted to be a "patria savior" like the dictators of the past used to be, in order to legitimate his power. Octave used this kind of idea but without the function.