Republic, Principate, Or Dominate

Dominate anyone. I understand as a system, it seems inferior to the Republic because Emperors easily could have been corrupted. But the creation of the dominate along with tetrarchy did help put down the power of the army because killing one emperor would be useless since there would be 3 others with armies who can put down the rebellion.

Sometimes, you truly needed only one person to rule. Also the Republic doesn't offer equality among the provinces and its people, Rome was the center power. It was until Diocletian that Emperors did the right thing by being based in regions where they were needed of strategic importance, lest any incursion or rebellion started.

Yeah, my opinions are a bit messy.

 

I agree with you Flavius, though I wish the Tetrachy was an option all it's own though the Dominate is kinda combined with it.

 

Either arguement we each take, one side has more pros and cons and each is for given situations. Systems change and evolve to deal with current or contemporary issues and problems. The Republic used Dicatorship in cases of emergency, while the regional procons and governors dealth with civil and military matters in thier respective regions. The Principate was the evolution from using a dictatorship in emergencies to using it all the time to deal with any and all issues not just dire ones. The Tetrarchy was the transition to rivert back to a more spread out power-base. Two Augustii, (one Senior the other Junior), and two Caesars one for each Augustus. While there was a clear chain of command each had realitive free reign, (so to speak), in thier assigned areas and dealth with the thier own important issues. Instead of proconsul or praetorian prefect, (as we know the change in the office in the later empire), handling the tasks you had a man with an army to back him up and with strong Imperium. Perhaps the later empire needed more hands on, iron-fist administration and control given the times and conditions it was used. Though I am inclined to think the Tetrarchy would have been an excellent system had it not been for men in power wishing to see themselves and sole-ruler. The main problem with the Tetrarchy was that the place of Augustus and Caesar was not defined well enough, in the sense of succession I mean. The Tetrarchy was funcitioning quite well until Constantinus Chorlus passed away and Constantine was proclaimed to the purple by his father's army. IIRC the problem with Diocletian and Maximian's, (forced for him it would seem), abidication was that it led to other men proclaiming themselves Augustus thus started the civil war. Perhaps if a better system had been prepared or at least tinkered with we would have a lasting system that was not a one time deal.

To basically sum it up, you need real competent people in any form of a successful government, but in all three systems, they all failed because inevitably, there will always be people out there with opposing views that eventually incurs a new movement and so as we know, history repeats itself. There's no way to avoid it. Just look at all the examples of civil war outside of Roman history (even in democracies), we got the American civil war, we have the British civil war between the King and Parliament, the Korean War(basically North and South), Vietnam was another type of civil war, and constant many occuring today.

So really, each had its own flaws. We can be biased towards others the other systems and support our own favorite. In my opinion, each system did great for its current time and so they could be equal in terms of being the best system, but history wouldn't allow it.

To basically sum it up, you need real competent people in any form of a successful government, but in all three systems, they all failed because inevitably, there will always be people out there with opposing views that eventually incurs a new movement and so as we know, history repeats itself. There's no way to avoid it. Just look at all the examples of civil war outside of Roman history (even in democracies), we got the American civil war, we have the British civil war between the King and Parliament, the Korean War(basically North and South), Vietnam was another type of civil war, and constant many occuring today.

So really, each had its own flaws. We can be biased towards others the other systems and support our own favorite. In my opinion, each system did great for its current time and so they could be equal in terms of being the best system, but history wouldn't allow it.

Huh?

Just saying each system was perfect enough for its time for some time, yet they will eventually break down eventually, because history repeats itself.

Sorry for bunching things up.

Just saying each system was perfect enough for its time for some time, yet they will eventually break down eventually, because history repeats itself.

 

Sorry for bunching things up.

LoL, everytime my Prof hears that "History repeats itself." he snaps it's so funny. I agree with you because it is so much easier saying that than, throughout history, like situations are repeated due to the same set variables being applied.

Yeah I know... this was a nonesense post.

But I do agree with you Flavius, hence why I said each system was good for it's period and the particular situation they evolved from. But here we get to be armchair generals and pick favorites.

Flavius Valerius Constantinus:

I think you and I are both trying to say the same thing in different ways. I certainly think your analysis is a good one.

There is no RIGHT system - whatever is in place works until it fails when it is replaced by whatever is pragmatically possible; or desired by the strongest "party" of the day.

I would disagree though with the misleading phrase "history repeats itself". It doesn't and cannot, because no two sets of circumstances are exactly alike. They may appear similar on the surface, but any deeper analysis will reveal huge differences in detail - political, economic, social...

Neither is "history" a player... that is simply a term that avoids discussion of the real factors in play; the strengths and weaknesses, power blocks and aspirations prevailing at a particular time.

And, of course, the analysis changes over time because history is entirely subjective. We (today) make our judgements on the cause and effects of past events, which may differ from those of previous generations or our descendents.

What do exist are certain "principles" that may apply at various times - we might call them by different names, but powerful nations and/or individual leaders sometimes fall victim it seems to "hubris" - they assume they will win and are contemptuous of the opposition. the result? The "little guy" wins. One might see that in Xerxes and the invasion of Greece; Napoleon; Philip of Spain and the Armada and Hitler. But the circumstances as to how the "principle" might apply would be different in each case.

So, through the history of Rome, regimes and systems fell or evolved (gradually or dramatically) but they did so not because some were right or wrong, or some system intrinsically "better" than another. They did so

because there was probably little choice at the time. Alas, with Rome, we have very little evidence against which to seek to understand why the monarchy fell; why the republic tottered from the time of Marius on (yet produced some of its greatest individuals (Marius, Sulla, Pompeius, Caesar, Cicero, Augustus - one could also add other influential political and cultural names too) in a comparatively short space of time.

Or is that simply that we have comparatively full recorrds for this time, and see the period as dramatic - that if more material had survived from (say) the period of the Punic Wars, or of Tarquinius Superbus/Junius Brutus - we would be less focused on or impressed by the C1st BC? If we knew more about the detailed history of the "kings" would we be as inclined to classify that period as a monarchy - in any sense that we would understand that term today?

Phil

The Republic; this a system which gives all men a chance to be the best- or the worst. I feel it worked better for providing stable government, but it wasn't necessarily the best in facilitating the growth of power of the Romans; i.e. territorial expansion, the appearance of influential figures like Caesar, Sulla, Marius, the Gracchi, Cato etc, and could thus be manipulated by such figures because the people wanted things to happen.

The Principate; I loved the initial machinations of Augustus here; he effectively castrated the Senate, gave himself a lot of power and made it appear as if he was merely the First Man (Princeps) of Rome. However, this sort of system is only as good as the person who wields it. To maintain the Pax Romana, a person with great political and military skills, with a genius for hard work and organisation and the ability to hold together such a vast dominion is required. Unfortunately, such main aren't common; Augustus was extraordinary, but his sucessors weren't necessarily. Thus Rome experienced a lot of chaos in the first century A.D. until the time of Vespasian, when he again showed that all that was required to gain the ultimate power in Rome was strong military support. The question of succession was always there for the Emperors, and it was always difficult.

The Dominate; By this time, the empire has suffered much and recovered more. But again, with ultimate power comes many problems, namely maintaining power and peace at the same time and the old question of succession. Again, the system was only as good as the man who had control of it. If a weak man with good connections managed to gain the throne, the Empire would possibly suffer.

I just think that the Principate and Dominate wouldn't necessarily benefit the people of the Roman Empire. They say for every one great ruler there are many, many utter nonentities.This is the case. If the old problems of the Republic could have been overcome (i.e. jealousies, grudges, thirst for dignitas), then the system could have worked better.

That said, i voted for the republic, because it just didn't have that constant question of succession, and it was more than the toss of a coin's chance that you would get stable rule in the Republic.

I voted for the Principate on purely utilitarian grounds. By the time Caesar was assassinated Republican government was little better than outright anarchy and the Principate of Augustus at least gave Rome the peace it needed to recover. Admitedly, many of the succeeding Emperor's were a bit off but the Romans had a quick and sure way of retiring their least popular leaders. Men such as Vespasian, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius demonstrated what a good Emperor could achieve and compared to many of our leaders today (who shall go unnamed) even Caligula, Nero, Commodus and Caracalla were pretty harmless.

Harmless? Tell that to the people who suffered under them.

...but the Romans had a quick and sure way of retiring their least popular leaders.

Indeed, this is the same way that killed Emperors because they felt like it and who ransomed off the empire to the highest bidder. Not the best of systems if you ask me.

That said, i voted for the republic, because it just didn't have that constant question of succession, and it was more than the toss of a coin's chance that you would get stable rule in the Republic.

Absolutely! Judging by the success of consular successions, I think there was about a 92% chance of getting a peaceful transition to further constitutional rule during the republic. That's definitely better than 50% (coin flip), and also much better than the principate where the chances of even getting a lawful succession drop to roughly 40% (if my sources are right and i'm counting correctly).

I would suggest that we don't fall for the fallacy that the Emperor was so crucial to the empire for most of the time. It is only when we focus solely on Tacitus or Suetonius that we get this impression.

The empire itself largely prospered even under those often classed as "bad" emperors: Nero or Gaius are examples.

There are also long swathes of time when government was very stable - not least under the Antonines. Hadrian (usually perceived as a "good" emperor on the whole) was vindictive towards the Senate, but the ambit of his anger was strictly limited. The vast bulk of the population during his reign benefited.

Given the speed of communication in the first few centuries AD, the personailty of the emperor was never going to be able to affect directly more than a tiny percentage of his subjects. It was Senators and Knights (Equestrians) who suffered most, and even there the numbers affected were relatively small. but Tacitus wrote from a senatorial perspective and had a father-in-law (Agricola) who had suffered somewhat under Domitian; Suetonius had a personal gripe about Hadrian. if one looks at other sources, much of the Scriptores Historiae Augustae is suspect and may be wholly invented.

Now I am not dismissing these sources, I enjoy reading them, but IMHO they do provide a very biased viewpoint, and create a false impression of the way in which emperors impacted on the lives of those around them.

One could go further and say that, for instance, those condemned and executed after the Piso conspiracy against Nero were guilty of treason. They had sought violently to overthrow the legal head of state. In the short time I have been contributing to this site I have seen Cicero strongly defended against charges that he was not the saviour of his country for supressing the cataline rebellion. HE killed senators without trial - where, I ask, is the difference between him and Nero?

The republic produced many examples of purges that the empire would be hard-pressed to emulate - Marius, Sulla, the second triumvirate.

Even outside those periods, the life of a senator was fraught with danger and the possibility that one's rivals would force one into exile or destroy one's career. It nearly happened to Cicero - so beloved of some of you.

Come away from personality - stop seeing the empire in terms of personal rule and see it as a system of government, and the empire was more peaceful, more stable, more propserous, better and more consistently governed (less rapacious governors) than under the republic.

I rest my case,

Phil

The case that has been made against the principate has not depended on the desire to avoid the evil character of the Emperors themselves. This isn't an illegitimate goal, but it's not the central reason for preserving the republic. The central problem of the principate is that it has no supervening mechanism of accession, leading to violent conflict during the interregna. And the point isn't even that civil wars were necessary to resolve issues of succession but that the LIKELIHOOD of these wars was made necessary by one-man rule. Therefore, the point that there were large swaths of time without civil war is a red herring: there were still many, many MORE years of civil war during the principate than during the republic.

But Cato, the republic was failing and the number of civil wars and periods of violent internal instability increased proportionately as time went on. The latter years of a republic which could not reform the res publicae were at least equally violent to the principiate if not worse - not many heads and hands on the rostra under the emperors!!

Moreover the empire was better and more consistently governed under imperial rule.

Phil

But Cato, the republic was failing

 

Moreover the empire was better and more consistently governed under imperial rule.

If ever there was a Big Lie in Roman history, it was the self-serving notion put forward by the Julio-Claudians that they saved the world from an unstable system.

Fortunately for us, we have Broughton's "Magistracies of the Roman Republic." Now we can evaluate the claim for ourselves. Try it home: Count the number of peaceful transitions of consuls under the republic and divide by the total number of consuls; then count the number of peaceful transitions under the principate and divide by the total number of emperors.

When you do this, you will see that it simply was not the case that the principate brought stability to an unstable system. It is obviously true that the republic was replaced. But it was replaced by a less stable system.

This surely can't be news to you--modern historians have been advocating this view at least since Erich Gruen's masterpiece, "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic".

I certainly don't wish to argue that the Republic needed no change as it acquired more territory. But almost all of the necessary changes simply amounted to expanding their already extant policies in Italy to newly acquired territories. This is a very far cry from requiring one-man rule.

I realise Phil that you despise representative government and yearn for dictatorship (unless you've changed your mind since your last post expressing this opinion); however, it's best to keep these proclivities from interfering with your ability to do the math.

Once I again I have returned after a nice vacation in Flordia. I had to go with the Principate, as im sure many know comes from the Latin princeps which is translated in this instance as first citizen, it was established by Augustus who did not think of himself as an Emperor, but as the first citizen of Rome. What sets this form of Government apart from the Republic, established by a Brutus and ended by a Brutus, and the Dominate, established for the most part as a reaction to the tyrannic 3rd century, are not only military reasons. Yes it is true that during the republic the empire was for the most part set, with some changed in boundaries during the Principate and Dominate, but the most important thing that the Principate stood for was relative peace throughout the Roman Realm. Augustus was able to close the gate of Janus, which signified peace when closed, war when opened. The most important part of the Principate was the literary explosion. Yes you have Catallus in the Republic, but the literary achievements during Augustus' reign and after far overshadow the republican poets. You have the work of Livy, the writings of Ovid, and the brillance of Virgil and Horace. The one thing lost in the principate were the magnificant retorical works, those such as Cicero and others.

Augustus may have closed the gates to the temple of Janus, but the Principate did not close the doors to civil war.

During the long reign of the republic (509 - 49 bce), there were nearly 950 legal and peaceful transfers of executive power, with only a few, brief periods of anarchy (375 -370), civil war (21 years, all in the last century of the republic), or dictatorship (only 8 years including Sulla). These brief interruptions to the peaceful norm comprised less than 8% of the total history of the republic.

In contrast, the brief and despotic regime of the princeps tottered continually between totalitarian repression and complete chaos. During the era of the principate (about 300 years, 27 bce - 284 ce), the number of princeps (including claimants and usurpers) totalled 78. Of these, nearly 50% were assassinated, executed, committed suicide, or were otherwise deposed violently. Further, roughly 40% of the years during the principate were passed in civil war, anarchy, or divided rule.

To compare the republican system to the system of the principate by looking only at the last 80 years of the Republic and the first 80 years of the principate is simply cherry-picking the data. To judge the two systems, you have to look at the average year in both, not the worst years in one and the best years in the other. The last years of the Principate were far worse than the last years of the Republic.