When was the Roman Empire considered...the Roman Empire?

When Augustus took power in Rome, he was careful not to make himself looking like a monarch to the eyes of Roman citizens. So pretty much to the eyes of the common Romans, it was still the Roman Republic.

So my question is, when did the the people of Rome realize that the Republic was really a thing of the past and that their leader was a monarch?

 

That's a tricky question, for the entirety of the Principate period of Roman History, Rome was still considered to be based on the same principles as the Republic, with the Emperor (who was never referred to as such) called "Princeps" roughly translated as "first among equals", and his power being derived from the simultaneous acquisition of positions that had previously been assigned to multiple persons. This was all really an elaborate illusion, as the "Princeps" was really a monarch in all but name (with a few quirks, like succession through adoption rather than any real direct blood succession).

The last vestiges of the illusion of the Republic were cast aside when Diocletian took power following the Crisis of the Third Century, and transformed the Principate into the Dominate. I think you can figure out what that implies about the period.

 

So my question is, when did the the people of Rome realize that the Republic was really a thing of the past and that their leader was a monarch?

Not having studied the notion, my gut would tell me it happened around the time they had thier first taste of a bad ruler, or at least one they thought was bad. So probably sometime in Tiberius's reign.

For the record, even after Augustus was gone it wasn't taken for granted for some time that the station of Empire was going to stick around, was it? I think there were plans around Claudius's 'ascent' (much as supposedly hiding for your life can be considered an ascent to power), when Caligula was murdered, for the Senate to finally have control again? And then the Praetorians just sort of said "No, we like this guy instead"?

Was it you who had been saying though, something along the lines that if they didn't think they were a Republic by this time, they SHOULD have in some respects seen it coming since at least as far back as Sulla if not before?

 

They definitely should have seen it coming as far back at least that far if not farther, although the rules of dictators like Sulla and Julius Caesar may have made the Principate of Augustus more tolerable. Hell, the Triumvirate was kind of like having an Emperor split over three people.

The thing is, most of the common people were likely fine with the idea of an Emperor, as the attacks on Emperors almost uniformly come from the Senate. To the people the choice between the Emperor and the Senate was one of "do I want one rich arrogant man in control, or hundreds of rich arrogant men in control and unable to take decisive action". Really, the tools and steps that allowed the creation of an Emperor were really flaws inherent in the Republican system that had existed since it was first devised.

 

They definitely should have seen it coming as far back at least that far if not farther, although the rules of dictators like Sulla and Julius Caesar may have made the Principate of Augustus more tolerable. Hell, the Triumvirate was kind of like having an Emperor split over three people.

The thing is, most of the common people were likely fine with the idea of an Emperor, as the attacks on Emperors almost uniformly come from the Senate. To the people the choice between the Emperor and the Senate was one of "do I want one rich arrogant man in control, or hundreds of rich arrogant men in control and unable to take decisive action". Really, the tools and steps that allowed the creation of an Emperor were really flaws inherent in the Republican system that had existed since it was first devised.

Yeah -- and not to make this about the US or anything, but I think the Parliamentry system is the only one that on some level has improved upon that problem by trying to effectively merge the two concepts. Not that Parliament is a utopian garden or anything.

Not to take the thread away from vader's original question, but when would you suppose that the notion the Republic was founded on... no kings and representative government... began to no longer be actively valued? I presume when they threw out the Etruscan Kings many of the people had political notions and passions not unlike America's founding fathers towards what they overthrew. Did that sort of wane and effectively die as a poltical force only a few generations in, or was it take longer and was still around in the Punic Wars? Or maybe am I reading too much into the Roman experience here?

 

It was probably building for a while, but I think it became clear that the Senatorial class didn't hold the plebe's interests at heart sometime around the time that Senate killed Tiberius Gracchus for trying to reform land laws in favor of the general citizenry.

EDIT: Although there is the argument to be made the Gracchi set precedents that allowed the rise of dictators like Caesar by standing for election for more than one term.

 

Was the Empire and the Republic truly different for the average citizen?

 

don't forget the Roman Empire splitted in two while the Greek Empire splitted into many different city/states.

 

Was the Empire and the Republic truly different for the average citizen?

That's the question, isn't it?

IT might be that the question of the Roman Republic and Empire became a key point of interest in the era of enlightenment and in the Americna and French Revolutions because it theory it relates directly to the struggle of democracy versus the dictator (king).

But as I understand it the more I read the governments eventually set up to replace the very monarchies they overthrew (with the exception of the extreme Jacobins) would tend to be more similar to them than the Roman Republic. And in a way it's probably just so: by this point the Western monarchies were, on the whole, more humane institutions than thier Roman counterparts. Caesar and Augustus in particular would probably not have been able to remain in control without some measure of popular support, and I'm not sure there's any indication that they were particularly any more oppressive than the Senate could be.

The Roman mob could be very persuasive: means of public control in the Ancient World were not as far reaching since this is an era long before the advent of the machine gun. While they were able to keep control to a certain extent, had the people been so utterly displeased with Emperors from the getgo, the whole thing would have ended with Caligula and it would have returned, for a time at least, to Senate control.

 

So it was Oligarchy VS Dictatorship?

 

The Romans were big into the caste system, so that citizenship was quite restricted.

 

What Greek empire?

 

I was wondering about that as well. There never was a Greek Empire, though the Greek city-states did attempt to create a hegemony, and they had a couple of leagues. It's possible that he's referring the splitting up of Alexander's Empire (which was Hellenistic as opposed to Hellenic) following Alexander's death and the resulting Wars of the Diodochi, but I think what he wrote is too vague to make that interpretation, and would still be incorrect as to the technical details.

 

It was divided into three parts after Alexander's death, as I recall. Egypt was in one part, so that Cleopatra was actually Greek, though by that time, they had adopted numerous Egyptian customs, including royal incest.

 

Is there a name for Alaxanders short- lived empire?
Could we call it Macedonian Empire?
I dont remember anything specific.

 

The First Pub Crawl


Sorry, that's more the act of constructing that Empire...

 

So my question is, when did the the people of Rome realize that the Republic was really a thing of the past and that their leader was a monarch?

Well you have to think that to them, Julius Caesar and Augustus were going to brign about a restoration of the republic. So it would seem some at least suspected the republic had lost its way, though, as you suggested, they still considered it a republic.

Did they think it ended when Caesar crossed the Rubicon? I'm not sure as the senate was also in disfavor among the lower class(plebians).

 

And let's not forget that The Senate feared Caesar because he was an Optimate who nevertheless had the love of the plebeians.

 

The Roman Empire died when the Praetorian guard began influencing the succession. The Empire was no longer in the hands of the Republic, or the Imperators of the Julio-Claudians, But fell to the whims of Legions.
This led to the downfall of Rome. A good source on this is the famous history of Edward Gibbons, "The decline and fall of the Roman Empire".
-Darth Turambar

 

The Republic died when Tiberius succeeded Augustus. Up until then, you could argue that the dictators were not kings.

 

agreed
-Darth Turambar

 

I think the fact that Rome had become an Empire instead of a Republic came when the last of Caesar's family died out. Because after Nero died, The Republic didn't return, instead Civil war broke out until Vespasian became Emperor.

 

This thread, with its varied opinions, is perhaps an example of what makes republic to empire so insidious.

There is no one single big event.

It was a gradual, almost imperceptible, event.

It's not like in Revenge of the Sith when Palpatine pulls a Ric Olie and declares: "Look, this was the republic, now it's an empire, and I'm going to be its emperor".

 

The Roman people, the plebians didn't care much about anything except bread and water. The only thing the would not tolerate was the Title "king".
Then the invention or the imperator Or first Consul. Supposedly the first among equals. But in Reality "Emperor". When Augustus died the republic died. Itcould be argued that the Republic died when Julies crossed the Rubicon.
-Darth Turambar

 

To label Alexander's empire, short lived as it was, Greek is possibly something of a misnomer, at least in terms of the ethnicity of Alexander's people (as much as the modern Greeks vehemently denies this). It was Greek insofar as it became the channel through which Greek culture (and architecture) became truly widespread and dominant in the Mediterrean, and it marked the start of the Hellenistic age. But in terms of administration and other matters, there was, iirc, considerable blending. Anyway, it's more of an era than a single empire, and the splinter states that formed had many names of their own right, like the Seleucid empire and so forth.

Now back to topic...;P