What happened to the "democratic" institutions of the Roman republic during the emperium?

[griffin1977]

Without getting into GD territory as to how, small “d”, democratic (or otherwise) the Roman republic really was. I think it safe to say there were some aspects of the roman republic that genuinely gave the population (at least, the male, non-enslaved population) a say in the running of society.

What happened to those institutions after the fall of the republic? At least at first, a lot of effort was expended to preserve illusion that the republican government was still around. But a century or two later even the pretense had been abandoned, until we have the later emperors ruling as unambiguous god-like supreme leaders.

Yet we know the senate as an institution survived until the fall of Constantinople over a millennium later. And the cursus honorum, that was meant to produce leaders in the republic definitely had a place under the empire. What did these institutions actually do in that time? What about the other “democratic” institutions like the popular assemblies? Did they continue to happen at least during the early empire? When did they stop?

[Hari_Seldon]

Just the other night, I started reading a book called The Storm Before The Storm by Mike Duncan that will answer all such questions. The basic idea is that there was no written constitution, but basic understandings and customary ways of doing things and things went to hell when people began to ignore these understandings. In the intro the author explains that this was written before the current situation, but feel free to draw comparisons.

[Pantastic]

I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that the Senate hung around as sort of a hobby/country club for rich families. AFAIK there aren’t a lot of surviving records of what it actually did, but it seems to have hung around for a long time without doing a whole lot but without vanishing either.

[griffin1977]

@Hari_Seldon

Just the other night, I started reading a book called The Storm Before The Storm by Mike Duncan that will answer all such questions. The basic idea is that there was no written constitution, but basic understandings and customary ways of doing things and things went to hell when people began to ignore these understandings. In the intro the author explains that this was written before the current situation, but feel free to draw comparisons.

I also read that recently its a great book (and listened to Mike Duncan’s awesome podcast on the History of Rome). It does an awesome job IMO of explaining how it was the collapse of the unwritten rules that defined the republican institutions that led to their collapse.

My question was more about what happened after that. The institutions themselves continued for centuries after they lost their power (as Augustus and his successors wanted to keep up the sharade of business as usual), what did they do? While the senate is mentioned a lot in imperial histories, what about the other institutions?

[Chronos]

I know that at least some of the traditional safeguards got absorbed into the power of the Emperor. Julius Caesar was, among his various offices, Tribune of the Plebs, and so all of his successors assumed that title for themselves, too.

[smiling_bandit]

@Hari_Seldon

Just the other night, I started reading a book called The Storm Before The Storm by Mike Duncan that will answer all such questions.

Mike Duncan is indeed great, but that’s not really the scope of The Storm Before the Storm. I’ve read it twice, in fact, and the purpose is to show the decline of the Roman government, and especially the internal conflicts that caused said decline, that led to the collapse of the Republic.

To answer your question, griffin1977, we need to distinguish between the oligarchic Senate and the democratic Assemblies. Well, the Assemblies were partly democratic; the Romans never had bodies to represent the abstract “People” but rather different groupings, each with its own history. These all overlapped but didn’t share power, nor was there any concept of “embodying the sovereignty of the nation” like, say, Parliament or Congress. But they could be potentially very powerful; even the Senate couldn’t override them which is why the Gracchi caused such fear.

When Augustus took over, he was very careful to make clear that no one was allowed to rival him, but also to act as a kind of “super-Chancellor” over many of these groups and bodies, or have them controlled in some other way. So he became a permanent Tribune while also wielding official powers as Consul and (effectively) Censor.

The Senate was slowly turned into a tool of the Emperors, but it remained a tool with two edges. By the end of the civil wars, the Senate had been devastated with many deaths, and Augustus, along with some later Emperors, filled it by promoting more reliable Equestrians. This made the body more loyal, at least temporarily, but it seems like every so often a random group of Senators would start some plotting. This could be well-intentioned (we must rid ourselves of this wicked/crazy/incompetent Emperor!) or very ill-intentioned (we must rid ourselves of this obstacle to our ambition). Usually there were elements of both, but the constant scheming made almost every Emperor very leery of trusting the Senate with anything at all.

However, while the Senate became almost irrelevant following the end of the Julio-Claudians, the pretense was kept up for another century. Eventually, however, the fact that the rulers of Rome rarely entered Rome itself sort of made any claim to importance obsolete. Senators didn’t hold important positions, weren’t trusted more than any random provincials, and due to never holding or even wanting military positions were never going to be Emperor. But, there were Senators even though there was no longer a Senate. It remained a kind of cheap way for Emperors to reward important and loyal supporters - with a title.

[Little_Nemo]

Augustus Caesar was given the position of Consul and Tribune for life (I believe there were technically term limits but the Senate rubber stamped his reappointment every time his term expired). The office of Censor wasn’t formally abolished but they stopped electing anyone into the position so it remained vacant.

The Plebian Council had always been controlled by the Tribunes and the Emperors now held that power. The powers of the Centuriate and Curiate assemblies were transferred to the Senate by Augustus Caesar. Tiberius Caesar transferred the powers of the Tribal assembly to the Senate as well. After this, the Senate was the only organized political assembly.

The Senate then struggled along as an increasingly powerless body for centuries. It still existed and could make pronouncements but it had no power to enforce its wishes. And the Emperor had the power to retaliate against any Senators who annoyed him. So the Senate basically said what the Emperor wanted it to say while both sides pretended the Senate’s opinions mattered.

A real sign of how little the Senate actually mattered was seen when Constantine relocated the capital to Constantinople; he left the Senate behind in Rome. After that it lost even its symbolic role as part of the imperial government and just functioned as a sort of city council. Its irrelevance is shown by the fact that nobody is sure when it last met. Its last recorded official act was authorizing a statue in 603.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Little_Nemo

Its irrelevance is shown by the fact that nobody is sure when it last met. Its last recorded official act was authorizing a statue in 603.

It might still be meeting today! I sense a Dan Brown novel to be written…

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@smiling_bandit

However, while the Senate became almost irrelevant following the end of the Julio-Claudians, the pretense was kept up for another century. Eventually, however, the fact that the rulers of Rome rarely entered Rome itself sort of made any claim to importance obsolete. Senators didn’t hold important positions, weren’t trusted more than any random provincials, and due to never holding or even wanting military positions were never going to be Emperor. But, there were Senators even though there was no longer a Senate. It remained a kind of cheap way for Emperors to reward important and loyal supporters - with a title.

The pretense was maintained considerably longer than that. If the references in the linked Wiki article are to be trusted, the last known mention of the Senate was in 603 CE, noting that it had “acclaimed” some new statues. Twenty-seven years after that, the remarkably well preserved Curia Julia, a highlight of any visit to the Forum, was repurposed as a church (which is undoubtedly why it is so well preserved). The post Imperial senate didn’t have much power, but it did wield considerable influence at first, because early barbaran kings wished to preserve it.

It is probably impossible to know who the last person was who used the classical trinomial full name, like Gaius Julius Caesar, but I’m willing to guess that it was a member of the Senate, perhaps the last ones to hold high the torch of classical tradition.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@Little_Nemo

Its irrelevance is shown by the fact that nobody is sure when it last met. Its last recorded official act was authorizing a statue in 603.

We do know that the remarkably well preserved Curia Julia, today a highlight of any tourist’s visit to the Forum, was rededicated as a church in 630, so sometime before then, perhaps?

[Quartz]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

It is probably impossible to know who the last person was who used the classical trinomial full name, like Gaius Julius Caesar, but I’m willing to guess that it was a member of the Senate, perhaps the last ones to hold high the torch of classical tradition.

There was a Fabia Eudokia, who died in 612.

[smiling_bandit]

@Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus

The pretense was maintained considerably longer than that

I didn’t catch your response earlier but you misunderstood me. I apologize if I didn’t make it clear enough, but the pretense wasn’t that there were some old dudes debating “Rome” but the illusion that they mattered one whit. Nobody really cared if some rich dudes put on togas and make long, irrelevant speeches to each other. But excepting the early Empire, the Senators were of very little importance. Successions were decided by the men of the military and bureaucracy - and the Senatorial class very rarely any positions there.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@smiling_bandit

I didn’t catch your response earlier but you misunderstood me. I apologize if I didn’t make it clear enough, but the pretense wasn’t that there were some old dudes debating “Rome” but the illusion that they mattered one whit. Nobody really cared if some rich dudes put on togas and make long, irrelevant speeches to each other. But excepting the early Empire, the Senators were of very little importance. Successions were decided by the men of the military and bureaucracy - and the Senatorial class very rarely any positions there.

I was going to delete the first post I made since it had mostly been already said–in fact I did go through the motions of deleting it, but for some reason it didn’t work.

The Senate did have some influence in the early post-Imperial period. The barbarians still stood somewhat in awe of the Roman civilization and legacy, even if it had not stood up to them militarily, and this was why for a time the Senate was protected and respected. The fact that members of the old aristocracy continued to fill high bureaucratic and Church positions suggests that as a class they were not cast down into peasanthood or exile as the Normans did with the old English aristocracy. According to the Wiki article, relations between Gothic royalty and the Roman Senate turned south in the mid-sixth century, when Totila suspected some senators of aiding and abetting Emperor Justinian.

Now if you mean, when was the last time the Roman Senate did something really important like authorizing a war or raising an army, then the period under discussion here is already hundreds of years too late.