Principate Or Dominate?

[Emperor Goblinus]

Which imperial system do you prefer? The Principate which started under Augustus and lasted until Diocletian, where the Senate still had some real power, if not in name only, and the emperor had to pay homage to republican traditions and theoretically, derived his power from the Senate and the People of Rome. Or do you prefer the no-nonsense rule of the Dominate, starting with Diocletian and Constantine and lasting through the Byzantine period, where the emperor was the absolute monarch in both real power and custom, and was surrounded by all of the trappings of royalty, with the Senate having little or no say whatsoever?

 

I for one am a fan of the Principate. Though the emperor was always the absolute ruler no matter what, the old republican traditions were what set Rome apart from other countries and empires back then. Though in some sense, the Dominate was more honest than the Principate in that it showed the imperial throne for what is really was and always had been, there was nothing setting it apart from Persian or other eastern kings, while the Principate was unique.

Edited January 2, 2006 by Emperor Goblinus

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I have to support my guy Constantine you know. Being able to rule without hindrince from others can sometimes be significant.

[M. Porcius Cato]

As a staunch Republican, I can't help but wonder if the next poll item will be "Arsenic or Mercury?--Which do you like to eat for breakfast?"

[Pertinax]

or perhaps some peach kernels?

 

we are talking Egyptian execution here

Edited January 2, 2006 by Pertinax

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

As a staunch Republican, I can't help but wonder if the next poll item will be "Arsenic or Mercury?--Which do you like to eat for breakfast?"

 

 

I believe that I would prefer Mercury. Slow ailing health isn't too bad.

[Pertinax]

As a staunch Republican, I can't help but wonder if the next poll item will be "Arsenic or Mercury?--Which do you like to eat for breakfast?"

 

 

I believe that I would prefer Mercury. Slow ailing health isn't too bad.

 

are you aware of the phrase "mad as a hatter" and its origin?

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

As a staunch Republican, I can't help but wonder if the next poll item will be "Arsenic or Mercury?--Which do you like to eat for breakfast?"

 

 

I believe that I would prefer Mercury. Slow ailing health isn't too bad.

 

are you aware of the phrase "mad as a hatter" and its origin?

 

I know the phrase, but not the origin. Do you mind explaining?

[Pertinax]

Hatters used mercury ( quicksilver) to form felt into various shapes, it is absorbed very easily through the skin and they became deranged by early middle age. Much alleged chronic fatigue syndrome is from mercury amalgam fillings, and a long drawn out chelation detox is needed to stop people falling into sloth and mental torpor.Googling will give you some scarey info.

 

off topic I admit -so please move if needs be.

[Ursus]

Principate.

[Emperor Goblinus]

It's interesting how, even through the 3rd century crisis, when the military propping up emperors left and right, most of them still sought the approval of the Senate. Even when it was clear that they lived under a monarchy, Romans loved their outward symbols of republicanism. I wonder how many newly-appointed emperors claimed that they were restoring "liberty?" I think even some of these symbols survived into the time of the Byzantines.

 

Im kind of torn as to how to view Diocletian. He was an emperor in a time when the Roman world was in tumult and needed a strong guiding hand, and he provided that, and allowed the united empire to go on for quite some time. His snubbing of the Senate was wrong and probably illegal, but what was the Senate going to do? The army and the provinces supported the throne (or thrones, if you think of Maximian and later, the Tetrarchy). Although it's somewhat sad, I don't think that the empire had the luxury of indulging in republicansim, given the times. As for the introduction of Persian court ceremony, sprinkling gold into the emperor's hair, the kissing of the imperial robe, and other outward signs of monarchy may have been necessary to centralize power, bu I think were pure vanity. I think that the Republic, Principate, and Dominate all were necessary and good for their own times, but only for their time periods. Again, I prefer the uniqueness of the Principate.

[Primus Pilus]

As a staunch Republican, I can't help but wonder if the next poll item will be "Arsenic or Mercury?--Which do you like to eat for breakfast?"

 

Feel free to arrange an elaborate poll regarding the Republican system

[phil25]

I'm not sure that i agree the question which is (IMHO) over-simplistic.

 

Political, economic, social and religious circumstances were quite different in C1st and C4th periods. Moreover, the principiate did not remain static - Augustus ran things differntly to Tiberius; Caligula tried despotism; the whole things changed both under the Flavians and then after the fall of Domitian.

 

Both Augustus and Diocletian (even more than Constatine) had to pick up the pieces after prolonged periods of civil war and to construct settlements (we might say, write constitutions today) which reflected the needs and conditions of their day.

 

One might equally ask do you prefer the Sullan or Augustan settlements. Again the prevailing circumstances (not to mention the political agenda of the ruler) influenced their approach.

 

I don't find questions like this of any particular value, or as taking an issue forward (individual replies may be interesting) and i see them as somewhat immature. They remind me of the TV polls one sees which ask a deliberately false question (with options unsubtley wide) and then ask for votes without any control over who contributes.

 

My interest is firmly in the evolution of the Augustan settlement from the republic, and in the early empire, partly because the situation is so fluid and changing. ut i don't "prefer" that system 9if so it could be characterised) because it is not static enough to define.

 

One could argue that what you call the "dominate" (horrible term which I have never heard before) was the more successful since as the governmental system of Byzantium it lasted over 1,000 years - a lot longer than the 300 or so of the "principiate". Indeed, one could argue - I usually do, that the principiate only lasted around 100 years, and that the "Antonine" system which replaced Domitian's altered principiate (Lord and God seems more appropriate to a "dominate") was something completely different.

 

So to conclude, I suppose I fall in the "Huh!" category - if that.

 

Phil

 

By the way (post edited to add this) where did the term "dominate" - in this context - arise? Anyone know?

Edited January 3, 2006 by phil25

[Virgil61]

...

By the way (post edited to add this) where did the term "dominate" - in this context - arise? Anyone know?

 

Dominate has been used to describe the imperial system as it developed under Diocletion which differed substantially from the system that occured prior to the civil wars of the mid-3d century. The more modern historical term is "late antiquity" with Dominate being used often prior to the '80s.

 

Whatever the differences between the emperors of the Principate there was more commonality between them than with those of the Dominate or Late Antiquity, or so the theory behind the terms suppose.

Edited January 3, 2006 by Virgil61

[Pantagathus]

As a staunch Republican, I can't help but wonder if the next poll item will be "Arsenic or Mercury?--Which do you like to eat for breakfast?"

 

Couldn't have said it better myself. I perfer the true Republic. Democracy over Tyranny any day...

[P.Clodius]

Democracy over Tyranny any day...

 

Democracy? We can't be talking of ancient Rome then can we...!