Power Corrupts and Absolute Power?

Following on from some recent themes it might be worth taking a generic look at Roman political power. I mean, all that those Roman leaders had to do was click their fingers, right?

It's becoming apparent to me it really wasn't that simple. Even Dictator, the most powerful of offices the Republic could assign, was in theory subject to veto. The issue here is that we tend to make huge assumptions about the Romans without really understanding how their society actually worked. The worst of these tendencies is to assume a modernesque style. But Rome belonged to the ancient world and was a fairly unique version of civilisation on top of that.

Let's take an example to illustrate what I mean. When we read Gaius by Suretonius we find that Caligula is given absolute power in recognition that he was the son of Germanicus and therefore bound to be a brilliant leader. Later still we read that Caligula, a man who regarded the Senate as a bunch of time wasters and an obstruction to his greatness, is asking the Senate for permission to hold games. 

It seems absurd. Yet what we have here is an example of demarcation in Roman power. In military terms a man might be given imperium, the right to command an army, and so if he's allocated legions, he may command them. However what is usually overlooked is that the Romans don't give power without strings attached. That leader must also have provincia, a field of responsibility, which described why the leader may have legions at his beck and call, what he is expected to  use them for, and the geopgraphic limits of his command. In one region he may be entitled to lead armies. In another, he isn't. The Roman writers don't emphasise this aspect of military control because they assumed everyone understood it.

Political power was also demarcated. So in our example, Caligula has the top level right to make decisions, but unless he can change Roman law, he cannot brush aside the rights of others (which of course is exactly what he thought he could get away with).

Roman politics was an exercise in managing privilege. It was the erosion of the rights of the Roman people that led to the Dominate when Rome became a full autocracy. But if you notice, during the Principate, the Caesars who led Rome did not invest all their power in one title. Their power was the sum total of privileges and the respect others had for their virtus, auctoritas, and potestas. Virtue, authority, and power. You could have two men assigned the same privileges yet there would be differences in how lesser mortals perceived them as leaders.

So the question must be asked, was absolute power in Rome quite what we expect it to have been? 
 

On 5/18/2023 at 9:45 AM, caldrail said:

So the question must be asked, was absolute power in Rome quite what we expect it to have been? 

I'll frame your question differently: How did power in both the Roman Republic and Empire evolve over a thousand year span?

The dictatorship in Republican Rome was usually a short-lived position that had full authority to deal with a specific problem such as a war on internal dispute. Ultimate power still resided with the Senate and the plebeian tribunes, however. The two notable exceptions were Sulla and Julius Caesar.

The Principate (starting with Augustus in 27 BCE) at least created the illusion of deference to the Senate.. Of note, however, emperors during the Principate still had ultimate power at some level. They would continue to amass both power and authority. Septimius Severus (ruled AD 193-211), for example, had 53 senators repressed (49 sentenced to death and 4 convicted to other penalties). Aurelian (ruled AD 270-275) was able to impose worship of Sol Invictus on the Empire.

By the time of Diocletian (284) the Dominate became the form of imperial government. Older elites and the senate were supplanted by a more compliant equestrian order. This allowed the emperor to impose military reforms, impose religious uniformity, create a more entrenched and subservient bureaucracy, etc. without formal consent of the Senate. 

"Illusion of deference to the Senate" is a rationale for explaining the anomalies if you accept Augustus was an emperor. I simply don't accept that view. When Augustus described himself as Princeps Senatus he meant it. Yes, he was a very influential man to say the least, but power alone does not make you a monarch. He didn't impose - he utilised the rights and privileges awarded him by the Senate - and acceptance from the Senate was the hallmark of Roman leaders right through to the end in the West - which is why I contend the Republic actually lasted in official terms until 476.