Republic, or Empire?

[Julian the Faithful]

According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Julian the Apostate is credited with speaking the following.

 

"The difficulty of my situation, O brave and faithful champions of myself and of the republic, who have often with me exposed your lives for the welfare of the provinces, requires that, since you have now by your resolute decision raised me, your Caesar, to the highest of all dignities, I should briefly set before you the state of affairs, in order that safe and prudent remedies for their new condition may be devised"

 

Even Constantius is credited with saying the following at Julians investment as Caesar. "We stand here before you, most excellent defenders of the republic, to avenge with one unanimous spirit the common dangers of the state. And how I propose to provide for it I will briefly explain to yon, as impartial judges".

 

My question may be naive, but did those who lived under Rome's rule, even as late as Julian's reign, still believe they lived in the famed Republic? I saw mention of the word Republic even by Ammianus himself in the text, though I have not found that section, but soon will.

 

Was it truly ever called the Roman Empire? Or is this yet another historical designation like the "Byzantine" Empire. I would appreciate your educated thoughts, so I may understand this more clearly.

[Ingsoc]

Augustus, the first emperor understand that the people will never stand a monarchist rule so in 27 BC he "restore" the republic. in theory the republic continue to exist but in practise it's was the emperor (let's remember that "emperor" is a modern term) which was the "princeps" (first citizen) who rule Rome via the army.

 

Perhaps some did believe the republic was restored in the early days of the princeps system, however by later date Roman authors admits that the emperor is actually a king. the use of the word "republic" was nothing then an empty official name.

[Julian the Faithful]

Something to appease the common man and soldier then eh? Clever. Constantius had absolute power, but they still persisted, superfically, at least, that nothing had changed.

 

I wonder if other Historians refer to it as Republic as well? Thanks for the information my friend.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd also add that the claim to have restored the republic wasn't just a careless use of language. After the death of Nero (the last Julio-Claudian), Galba issued a coin that not only proclaimed the restoration of the republic, its use of iconography was positively anti-Caesarian. Compare (1) Brutus' famous coin to (2) Galba's.

 

(1) Brutus's coin

 

(2) Galba's coin ("Libertas Restituta")

[Northern Neil]

I wonder if Rome of the Imperial and Dominate period can actually be viewed as a republic, in the modern sense, and that there was maybe some substance in the use of the term by Imperial and even Dominate period rulers? Modern states (Syria springs to mind, off the cuff..) in some instances have 'Presidents' who preside over a republic, but are in fact in office due to the fact their fathers preceded them. Again, going back to the Roman Empire, sometimes the office of emperor passed from father to son, at other times to a delegated 'heir' and at other times to someone who had staged a military coup. Emperors such as Galerius and Maximian appear to have been appointed due to merit and loyalty to the state, rather than because of any dynastic claim. Unless I am mistaken, even in the dominate period 'Emperor' was still considered a political office rather than a hereditory title.

 

So, given that the senates of Rome (and later, Constantinople ) continued to function and exercise some power, much as councils and representative bodies have limited power in modern republics run by hereditory dictators, is there perhaps a degree of truth in Julian's words?

[Ursus]

What is the exact Latin that Julian is using? "Res publica" means "public thing" or that which is common to the public. It's often translated as Republic, although a more generic translation would be "Commonwealth" which doesn't imply a specific form of government.

 

Likewise, "Imperium Romanorum" means the zone of power and authority that belongs to the Roman People, but which has come down in English as Roman Empire.

[Julian the Faithful]

The passages were translated by Wagner and Erfurdt's edition, published at Leipzig in 1808. Thats all I know. I got the link to the translation in another topic here at this site.

 

But as I mentioned, it was not just Julian, but Constantius, and even Ammianus himself who use the word Republic. It just struck me odd because this is about 400 years after Augustus.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Julian the Faithful

[Julian the Faithful]

Ammianus writes "Silvanus expressed his indignation that, while unworthy persons had been raised to the consulship and to other high dignities, he and Ursicinus alone, after the frequent and great toils which they had endured for the sake of the republic, had been so despised that he himself had been accused of treason in consequence of the examination of some slaves, and had been exposed to an ignoble trial"

 

and later "In this memorable war, which deserves to be compared with those against the Carthaginians or the Gauls, yet was accompanied, with very little loss to the republic, Julian triumphed as a fortunate and successful leader".

 

There are many more examples, but it does not seem to be a slip of the tongue. Perhaps to them it was still the Republic in name.

 

This makes me wonder. Is it ever called the "Roman Empire" by contemporary historians or writers?

Edited November 20, 2007 by Julian the Faithful

[Ingsoc]

I'd also add that the claim to have restored the republic wasn't just a careless use of language. After the death of Nero (the last Julio-Claudian), Galba issued a coin that not only proclaimed the restoration of the republic, its use of iconography was positively anti-Caesarian. Compare (1) Brutus' famous coin to (2) Galba's.

 

Not really, in this coin Galba attach the names "Caesar" and "Augustus" to his own.

 

 

Galba want to inhert Nero as princeps not restore the republic and this coin was probably another propoganda trick.

[Kosmo]

Poland for some centuries elected kings, but called herself Republic.

Napoleon was for some years emperor of the French Republic.

This are justr words.

[Julian the Faithful]

It is easy, with the hindsight of so many years, to say the Republic died, and an Empire rose from the ashes. However, I keep asking myself, was Augustus' aim to create Empire, or only to create a Republic that fit his aims and goals.

 

Like today, do the Democrats, or Republicans truly wish to destroy this Constitutional Republic? They do things that definitely alter and change our country, but it is still America.

 

We now know, through study that these early men did destroy the values of the Old Republic, yet if Julian stated he was defending the Republic, then perhaps they thought they were.

 

What would a citizen say? I live in the Republic, or I live in the Empire? As mentioned earlier, Roman's loathed Kings, and while the balance of power had shifted, it may be within reason that these men saw themselves as caretakers of this Republic which had stood for so many years.

 

I wonder now, if the Roman Empire is nothing more than a designation, just as the Byzantine Empire was, afterall, we know that people considered themselves Romans, not Byzantines. And it seems, even though this was monarchy, it still grasped the image of the Republic.

 

I just dont see proof of one of those Star Wars moment where the Emperor announces the reformation of a new Empire.

 

Yet, there are smarter men and women here, which is why I brought this up, so that we might consider it more in depth.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Julian the Faithful

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'd also add that the claim to have restored the republic wasn't just a careless use of language. After the death of Nero (the last Julio-Claudian), Galba issued a coin that not only proclaimed the restoration of the republic, its use of iconography was positively anti-Caesarian. Compare (1) Brutus' famous coin to (2) Galba's.

 

Not really, in this coin Galba attach the names "Caesar" and "Augustus" to his own.

 

Not really what? Galba didn't actually issue the coin above? The use of the Liberators' daggers was actually pro-Caesarian? I'm not arguing that Galba actually took any steps to restore the republic (he didn't last long enough to do much o anything at all), but it's clear that he was playing to a sympathy that existed in Rome, showing that the term "res publica" (the people's thing) still meant more than just "the commonwealth".

 

You can see the same point in Tacitus as well.

1. (I.7) Nam Tiberius cuncta per consules incipiebat, tamquam vetere re publica et ambiguus imperandi: ne edictum quidem, quo patres in curiam vocabat, nisi tribuniciae potestatis praescriptione posuit sub Augusto acceptae.
    
   For Tiberius would inaugurate everything with the consuls, as though the ancient constitution remained, and he hesitated about being emperor. Even the proclamation by which he summoned the senators to their chamber, he issued merely with the title of Tribune, which he had received under Augustus.
    
   
2. (I.3-4) quotus quisque reliquus qui rem publicam vidisset?
   Igitur verso civitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris: omnes exuta aequalitate iussa principis aspectare...
    
   How few were left who had seen the republic!
   Thus the State had been revolutionised, and there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality. Stript of equality, all looked up to the commands of a sovereign...
   

In both cases, it's clear that Tacitus uses res publica to mean more than just an ordinary term for the state. It's clearly something that contrasts with the state of affairs under a princeps, where men were "stript of equality' and "looked up to the commands of a sovereign".

 

The dual use of res publica as both a generic term for the state and as a specific form of a good state is in no way unique to the Romans. The Greek term politeia works exactly the same way.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I just dont see proof of one of those Star Wars moment where the Emperor announces the reformation of a new Empire.

 

Sure, but isn't it silly to think that history is always as dramatic as sci-fi? That doesn't mean the overthrow of the old republic in Rome wasn't similarly abrupt. Within one man's lifetime, centuries of political tradition were overturned, including the ability of the people to elect magistrates, approve treaties, run for office, or seek the protection of their tribunes from arbitrary rule. A child born in a freer society--free of secret police like Sejanus, freedom for historians like Cremutius Cordus (murdered for his history), for poets like Ovid (exiled), and for women like Julia (also exiled)--woke up in a city of marble, but it was the marble of a political tomb.

[Julian the Faithful]

The analogy was not meant to be dramatic, but for this reason only. We know that Augustus altered the Republic forever, and while no formal announcement was made, it was no longer the government that had been before, but then again, what government truly is. Are we the same as the United States of the beginning? I am sure you would get the same responses from certain sects pertaining to secret police, murders, exiles, loss of freedoms and what not, but we are still that Constitutional Republic, not an Empire. We have just evolved, for better or worse.

 

Was it an abrupt change, yes, but the Julio-Claudians were not solely responsible. Did not Sulla alter the Republics way of doing things during his Dictatorship?. Did not Caesar? However, despite these changes, later leaders made an effort to restore Republic values, and as I initially stated, Julian seemed to believe he served the Republic.

 

My point is that it does not seem, and I use the word seem, because I do not know anything for certain, to be a conscious effort by Octavian, or later "Emperors" to create an Empire. If someone has knowledge contrary, please let me know, for that is my aim here.

 

I think the way I see it, and I may be wrong, is that yes things were different, more restricting for some, and now an Emperor was the true power, but the Government itself was still the Roman Republic, but as we now know, it was just not the Republic from long ago, but what we would equate to an Empire.

 

I have learned much these past few days here from comments by Cato, Kosmo and the other participants. That is why I came here, because you are intelligent, and offer not just opinion, but facts and resources to back your ideas up.

Edited November 20, 2007 by Julian the Faithful

[M. Porcius Cato]

Was it an abrupt change, yes, but the Julio-Claudians were not solely responsible. Did not Sulla alter the Republics way of doing things during his Dictatorship?. Did not Caesar? However, despite these changes, later leaders made an effort to restore Republic values, and as I initially stated, Julian seemed to believe he served the Republic.

 

Yes, Sulla and Caesar both sponsored laws that changed the republican constitution, but--aside from their personal role as tyrants--their constitutional changes involved democratic elements (e.g., Sulla's codifying open entry to the senate, Caesar's expansion of the franchise to Cisalpine Gaul) as well as non-democratic ones (e.g., nullifying the vetoes of tribunes). These constitutional reforms were clearly far less sweeping than Octavian's consolidation of all powers into one office and Tiberius' elimination of popular elections.

 

My point is that it does not seem, and I use the word seem, because I do not know anything for certain, to be a conscious effort by Octavian, or later "Emperors" to create an Empire.

I think Augustus intended to centralize domestic and foreign policy under a single central executive. This principate wasn't an accident, but a deliberate policy for establishing permanent order by means of eliminating competition for the highest office. These changes didn't go unnoticed, either, as the excerpts from Tacitus (see above) show.