Here’s something I’ve allways been curious about. Going back to ancient Rome, when it had a Emperor and Senate, what were: (A)The Emperor’s powers, (B)The Senate’s powers, and ©Which powers overlapped?
For example, I know one of the answers to C would be to deify people.
The senate had no real power during the Empire; it was primarily a rubber-stamp body. During the last 50 years or so of the Republic, as senatorial corruption increased, it repeatedly lost or gave away many of its traditional powers to various generals, consuls, and dictators (particularly Marius, Sulla, Pompey, and Julius Caesar). A good overview of the function of the Senate in the time of Augustus can be seen at this article from Encyclopedia Britannica
I don’t have a ton to add to what bibliophage said, except to note that the Senate was a prestigious body the whole time. I mean, a Senator would be a member of the social elite whether or not the Senate was actually making decisions. So during periods of strong imperial rule, you could expect the Senate to be mostly a rich man’s cheerleading squad for the Emperor; weak Emperors would usually be manipulated by somebody - it could be a powerful Senate faction (although more likely, it would be the Praetorian Guard, the only military unit allowed in or near Rome).
So basically, lacking a basic law or Constitution, the actual power held by the various Roman institutions would fluctuate a lot with the personalities of the people in them.
Okay, so there was no Roman Constitution per se. Is that right? Was there anything approaching a basic law? The only thing I can think of like that, is the Republican rule that dictators could only serve for six months at a time. However, this might have never been written down - it might have been a convention only. Anything else?
There was a constitution, but not a written constitution (as far as I know). Part of the analysis by Polybius of the constitution of the republic can be seen (in English translation) at http://www.usask.ca/antharch/cnea/DeptTransls/Polybius.html
It’s also important to note that the emperors (for example, Julius Caesar and Augustus) modified the eligibility requirements of Senators. Other emperors increased or decreased the number of the senators as they saw fit.
Boris B. is quite right about the power of the Pratorian Guard. After the emperor Pertinax was murdered, a Senator named Didius Julianus became emperor by winning an auction. He paid 25,000 sestertii, not to each member of the Senate, but to each Pratorian Guardsman:
While it’s true that the Senate had no (or little) power in reality, it was important that the APPEARANCE of the Senate’s power be kept up. Thus, various administrative and bureaucratic functions were performed by the Senate, and at different times, various Emperors would go through all the pomp and outward form of being subservient to Senate (although reality was just the reverse.)
Strictly speaking, the Senate had no statutory power. It was, in theory, a wholly advisory body from the late 4[sup]th[/sup] century BCE on. Since senators were almost always ex-magistrates, and magistrates were almost always senators, however, a combination of class conscious and prestige (the latter persisting to the latter part of the 2[sup]nd[/sup] century BCE) meant that when a senatus consultum (senatorial decree) was issued, the appropriate magistrate almost always said, “Yo!” (or the Latin translation thereof). It should be remembered that, in the comitiae (popular assemblies, using “popular” somwhat loosely), the initiative was in the hands of the presiding magistrate.
As for the Emperor, that office didn’t exist in statute until…gosh, it’s hard to say. When Augustus (a/k/a Octavian) finally defeated M. Antonius and took full power, he set up a political regime (“the Principate”) in which he wasn’t dictator or anything (uh-huh), just this incredibly talented guy who the Republic couldn’t afford to do without. The Senate agreed (the senators didn’t dare do otherwise).
Augustus’ accumulated powers were conferred (by senatorial decree) on his successor-but-one, Caligula (yes, that Caligula) and, until late in the period of the “barracks emperors” the emperor theoretically ruled as the agent of the senate. Election of magistrates was transferred to the senate by Tiberius I, but the comitiae continued to meet almost the end of the first century CE, and consuls were approved into the sixth.
Harrrumph…point of order: Julius was not an Emperor. He was an elected Dictator which was a traditional, if rarely held, office under the Republic. His nephew and heir Octavian, the self proclaimed Augustus, was the first to assume the title “Imperator” which had previously been an honorary title awarded to commanders in the field by their troops. It became the preferred euphemism for supreme ruler because Kings (Rex) were anathema in Roman culture.
The Senate as an effective political force had been going down the cloaca for the better part of a century before Caesar finally trashed it and Octavian turned it into his personal cheering section.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JBENZ *
**
Re Julius Caesar not being emperor: true enough, and I knew this, but was a bit sloppy in my post above. Thanks to JBENZ for catching the error.
-NA-
He was elected Dictator Perpetuus, dictator for life. The Republican office of dictator only lasted six months. He was emperor in all but name.
Also not true. Octavian maintained the title Princeps, or first citizen. Hence his reign is called the Principate. Tiberius was the first Roman ruler to be proclaimed Imperator.
As for the Roman constitution, Polybius is an excellent source. But do not forget the foundation of Roman law, the Twelve Tables.
As far as the power of the Senate, it is necessary to remember just how conservative most Romans really were. Following the precedents of their ancestors was considered a great virtue. This in part explains the unusual tolerance the Romans had for the Jews (except when they rebelled). So even if by our cynical calculations we decide that the Senate wielded no power, it is hard to believe that the Romans, even the emperors themselves, would have shared our beliefs. Some of the most consolidating emperors, namely Augustus and Diocletian, actually increased the power/prestige of the Senate. Whether this was merely for appearances or not is impossible to reckon.
MR
Part of the problem is the whole “constitution” issue. Until quite recently, constitution meant precisely what it sounds like-- what makes up the nation. What constitutes it, if you will. Therefore referring to the “Roman Constitution” and how it delegated powers is self-defeating. The constitution was what it was. That said, the emperor’s powers varied wildly. If I remember my Seutonius, there were a bunch of emperors who didn’t last more than a couple months. They were senators themselves and were overthrown by other senators. The heads of armies had to be senators and, as representatives of the patricians, could do a good deal of harrumphing when the emperor opposed them (though this wouldn’t neccesarily make much difference.) As far as that is concerned, Octavian had himself declared Imperator later in life, though he initially only held title of princeps.
Cheers,
Josh
Don’t trust him. He is self-consciously not a historian. His interests are in the torrid secrets of the rich and powerful. His information on the lives of the early Caesars is especially unreliable, given that he was a personal aide to Hadrian, much later.
MR
IIRC most historians look at Suetonius as a propaganda writer for Hadrian. As Julius Caesar (and his supporters after his death) found it necessary to explain his dictatorship in the work “The Civil Wars”, Suetonius sought to justify essentially the army’s coup d’etat against the Julian and Flavian hereditary lines.
Suetonius’ salacious comments mark more the times (not that far from J.C.'s) than the truth.
His comments about Augustus’ wife Livia are possibly nonsense, but Robert Graves’ “I Claudius” in which Livia is modeled both on Suetonius and Graves’ wife endure in my memory. As Sian Phillips (playing Livia in the BBC teleplay) noted:
“You’re all scum and you know it!”
The comments about Suetonius not being objective and/or an accurate historian are certainly legitimate. However, some of the other historians aren’t objective, either–I believe it was Tacitus that is notoriously hostile towards Tiberius, and did much to cement his bad reputation for future generations.
I believe that Suetonius’s comments about Livia are certainly nonsense. As for “I, Claudius”, while it’s the greatest miniseries of all time (in my humble opinion), it’s historical accuracy is right up there with Braveheart and 1941.
There is no real evidence that Livia murdered Augustus, Gaius (totally impossible–he was wounded in military action), Lucius or Augustus. I don’t believe there’s any evidence that Gaius Caligula (or Macro in his stead) had anything to do with Tiberius’s death, either. Finally, I don’t believe there was any reason to suspect foul play in the death of Germanicus.
Great, great entertainment, however. (Though I personally agree with whoever said that the teleplay should have been renamed “I, Livia”.)