The Principate (27 bc-ad 284)

(1) The Emergence of Augustus

One of the most important figures of all Roman history is Caesar's great-nephew and heir, born Gaius Octavius Thurinus, but better known as Octavian (Octavianus, in Latin) or Augustus.

To strengthen his position, Octavian formed a pact with two allies of Caesar, Marcus Antonius and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus (the Second Triumvirate). Over time, however, tensions grew between Octavian and Marcus Antonius,^[51] which ended in another civil war. Octavian's victory over Marcus Antonius at Actium, in Greece, in 31 BC, left Octavian as the dominant figure in Roman politics. Here we move to a new phase in Roman history. From this point, the Roman state no longer operates as a republic. Instead, there is rule by a single man, an emperor. In 27 BC, the Senate awarded Octavian a new name, Augustus (‘Venerable'), and he will be referred to by this name from here on.

(2) The Nature and Operation of the Principate

The nature of Augustus' rule is ambiguous, because it was never openly pro­claimed. This is understandable, given what happened when Julius Caesar made too obvious a grab for personal power. Evidently, for the change Augustus repre­sented to work at all, it had to be dressed up in republican forms. All of Augustus' formal powers^[52] existed within the Republican constitutional framework — as we have seen, it was possible to grant special legal powers to an individual — although it was unprecedented for such broad powers to be gathered together in one pair of hands, or to be lifelong.

The first narrative tradition, which appealed to Republican traditionalism, depicted Augustus as merely a Roman magistrate who proposed laws that were then approved by the people, while the second viewed Augustus as a quasi-divine monarch with sovereign powers over the law.^[54]

The first of these traditions is more characteristic of Augustus himself. In his own account of his reign, the Res Gestae, he boasted that, when offered the status of overseer of laws and morals, with full power and without any colleague, he rejected this as contrary to ancestral custom. His characteristic approach was to govern through established Republican institutions.

One consequence of the central role of the emperor was a shift of political power away from the traditional aristocratic elites. Now a ‘court culture’ devel­oped, in which political influence depended on proximity to the emperor and the ability to get his ear. While the political connections of members of traditional elites would no doubt help with this, it would be no guarantee. Many emperors relied heavily on non-elite advisers, including even freedmen (former slaves).

In this situation, it might have been expected that the traditional institutions of Republican government would simply wither away. However, the need to pre­serve the appearance of continuity with the Republic complicated matters. As we have seen, Augustus sought to preserve the outward appearance of Republican government, however much the reality was that ultimate power was in his hands, and his successors continued this policy.^[55] Accordingly, there continued to be annual elections to the traditional magistracies, but only candidates approved by the emperor would have any chance of being elected, and the political influence of office-holders arose from the emperor’s patronage.

The major weakness of the imperial system was the absence of clear rules governing succession to the position of emperor. This was a legacy of the way the Principate arose: while the principle of one-man rule was generally accepted by the end of Augustus’ reign, it was politically impossible to formalise the posi­tion of emperor in such a way as to allow this. Who, then, succeeded to this role when an emperor died? Nominally, the Senate would make the appointment, but the political reality was somewhat different. It helped to be a relative of the previous emperor: all things being equal, a member of the emperor’s family had a better chance of succeeding him than did someone outside the family. Thus, for example, the first five emperors were all related through birth or marriage.^[56] It helped even more to be the emperor’s nominated successor, and this became common practice.

(3) Territorial Expansion

Despite these problems, though, for a time the Empire continued to thrive. It was during this period that the Empire reached its maximum territorial extent, stretching from the Middle East to the island of Great Britain. Roman presence in Great Britain began with an invasion in AD 43, under the emperor Claudius. The southern two-thirds (i.e. largely modern England and Wales) became subject to Roman authority fairly quickly and, despite some early resistance,^[57] remained that way until the early 400s. In the north, though, what is now Scotland, matters were different. Although the Romans inflicted a heavy defeat on the Caledonians in AD 83 or 84, at Mons Graupius,^[58] they failed to consolidate this. The boundary of the Roman Empire came to be fixed at the line of Hadrian's Wall, begun in AD 122 in the reign of Hadrian.^[59] Under Antoninus Pius,^[60] the boundary moved north to Antonine's Wall, which was begun in AD 142 and stretched^[61] between the Firths of Forth and Clyde. However, this was abandoned only twenty years later, and the boundary reverted to Hadrian's Wall. Thus, aside from this short period, no part of what is now Scotland ever formed part of the Roman Empire.^[62]

(4) Emergence of Christianity

During the Principate an event occurred, which was later to lead to fundamental social and religious change in the Roman world and beyond, but which would not at the time have been widely seen as being of any great significance.

During the whole period of the Principate, Christianity was very much a minority, although by AD 64 Christians were a big enough group in Rome to be scapegoated by the emperor, Nero, for a major fire that destroyed much of the city.^[65] For the rest of the Principate, there were recurrent persecutions of Christians — sometimes with great savagery — though at other times legal pro­hibitions against Christianity were inconsistently applied.^[66]

(5) The Late Principate

The tendency has already been mentioned for the Romans to leave existing power structures in place when a territory was added to the Empire, although, as might be expected, this varied greatly from place to place. Even where Roman rule touched most lightly, however, there was a process of Romanisation, as Roman cultural practices became increasingly assimilated by provincials. In part, this was a tool of empire, but it was also something that provincials often actively sought. After all, Roman culture was the prestige culture, and its assimilation would readily have been seen as representing the acquisition of higher status. Writing at the end of the first century AD, the Roman historian Tacitus shows both of these aspects of the trend:

our national dress came into favour and the toga was everywhere to be seen.

In the law, too, study of legal documents surviving from the provinces shows a readiness to adopt Roman forms.

A new phase in Roman-provincial relations began in the early third cen­tury, however. Until this time, the inhabitants of most communities in the Empire were citizens of their own community. Roman citizenship was held only by a minority outside Italy. In AD 212, though, an imperial pronounce­ment (the Constitutio Antoniniana) extended Roman citizenship to almost all of the free inhabitants of the Empire. This naturally meant that more people now had their affairs governed by Roman law, although in practice the picture on the ground is likely to have involved some continuity with previous practice as well.^[68]

The rationale for the Constitutio Antoniniana is debatable. It may, though, have been an attempt to make more people liable for Roman taxation. If the Consti­tutio Antoniniana was motivated by a desire to broaden the tax base, that would be understandable, because public finance was one of the major problems in the third century. In an effort to maintain the loyalty of the army, successive emperors had substantially increased army pay. As the army itself had increased significantly in size as well, this was difficult to sustain, and placed unsustainable demands on a corrupt and inefficient tax system. Nor was the situation helped by the occasional debasement of the coinage, which led to high inflation during the period.

Economic difficulties were, however, only part of the difficulties faced by the Roman state in the third century. It was also a period of major political instability, known as the Crisis of the Third Century, mentioned above.

The Crisis of the Third Century arose from longer-running trends, and in particular the role of the army in proclaiming emperors. However, the difficul­ties this brought became particularly acute in the third century. The beginning of the Crisis can be conveniently dated to AD 235 when, for the first time, a man was declared emperor who was not of senatorial or equestrian^[69] background. Maximinus Thrax was a man of humble origins, who had entered the army and risen through the ranks to military command. When the previous emperor, Severus Alexander, was assassinated by his own troops, Maximinus Thrax was declared emperor by the Praetorian Guard.^[70] This appointment was then confirmed by the Senate, but only reluctantly. It can have been no surprise, then, when in AD 238 (the Year of Six Emperors) the Senate endorsed a rival claimant. This was Gordian,^[71] the governor of Africa, who was declared co-emperor along with his son, also Gordian. They are known as Gordian I and Gordian II respectively. The Gordians, however, lasted less than three weeks. Gordian II was killed in battle,^[72] and Gordian I subsequently committed suicide. The Senate then proclaimed two elderly senators, Pupienus and Balbinus, as co-emperors, with the grandson of Gordian I their designated heir. They were not up to the challenge, being unable to co-operate with each other, and their reign was cut short when they were killed by the Praetorian Guard after only ninety-nine days. In the meantime, Maximinus Thrax himself had been murdered by his own troops. The deaths of these three men left the thirteen-year-old Gordian III as undisputed sole emperor.

Gordian III, however, only lasted six years until his own death, either in battle or at the hands of his troops. A succession of mostly incompetent and often short-lived emperors followed. Over the fifty or so years from the reign of Maximinus Thrax to the accession of Diocletian in AD 284, there were some twenty-six emperors (including co-emperors), and even more claimants. Around half lasted no more than a year, and at least ten of the twenty-six were killed by their own soldiers.

G.