Lecture #1 — A General Introduction and Overview.
(This post is based on a lecture held by Jan Frode Hatlen at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, August 21 2008. However, any factual errors in the text is strictly my responsibility.)
It is hard to be precise about what Rome was like before approximately 500 BCE, as there exist few written sources from before this time. They become slightly less rare from about 480 BCE; for example, the Law of the Twelve Tables, Rome’s first law code, which regulated the relationship between patricians and plebeians, was established in 451-449 BCE.
What is known is that Rome was little more than a village society, and only one of many in Italy. It soon developed into a polis, a city state, though, with a couple thousand inhabitants who had relatively exclusive rights as citizens. At least, the free men of the polis did. During this period Rome was quite similar to other cities in the Mediterranean area, and especially those in areas of Greek cultural dominance; areas which had expanded from the sixth century BCE as Greek city states had established colonies along the coasts of the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
In the period between 400 and 200 BCE, Rome changes, until it in 150 BCE no longer is a small polis but rather a substantial city with a ditto empire. By this time, Rome had conquered areas in Greece, Africa and other places, and a stream of wealth started flowing to Rome. A large portion of this wealth was made up of slaves, who in time became citizens when they were freed and thus boosted the size of Rome. It has been estimated that around 1 CE, Rome had one million inhabitants, most of them descendents of or currently slaves.
When it comes to the political system of Rome, the city started out with a republican ruling principle after the abolition of the monarchy in 509. However, competition between the ruling magnates leads to the century between 130 BCE to 31 BCE — in other words, from the days of the Gracchi to the battle of Actium — being characterized by an almost perpetual state of civil war. This culminated with the establishment of the Principate, where the Caesar in theory was a princeps inter pares, first among equals.
The Principate lasted until the third century CE, although it gradually weakened throughout the period. The third century is characterized by chaos and anarchy. Emperors come and go, usually raised and overthrown by the Legions, while the Empire is attacked by outside forces; from Gaul in the west, to Dacia in the north, to Syria in the east. However, the Empire survives, perhaps primarily because of the reforms of Diocletian (284 CE), which divided the empire into four parts in a system of an eastern and a western emperor, both of whom had co-rulers. This system is referred to as the Tetrarchy or the Dominate, and in it the powers of the Emperor(s) were much greater than during the Principate.
The idea was that each Emperor should rule for 20 years and appoint his successor, but when Diocletian retires in 305 the Empire is thrown into chaos again. Constantine’s ascendance to the post of Emperor restores order, but with great changes. Christianity is made the state religion, and the capital is moved to Constantinople (not that Rome had really mattered much lately, anyway; Milan, Trier, Constantinople and other cities had been more conveniently situated for emperors whose main concern was the defense of the Empire). With the introduction of Christianity the declining provincial capitals are given a boost when they become episcopal residences. The Church becomes reservations for Roman culture, both in terms of administration, law, organization and mentality — a role they keep up till the ninth and tenth centuries CE. This was more or less the beginning of the Roman Empire as a basis of legitimacy in European politics.

Posts
I’m not 100% sure, but I think “princeps” is used in the term “princeps senatus”, first in the Senate, whereas the term “primus inter pares” literally means first among equals on a more general level, though it is also used of the same position. I don’t think you can combine the words from the two like you did, though. Just a brief point. (Also, so that you know, the title had existed for centuries before Augustus, and as so many of his titles it, too, was on paper merely honourific, not holding any actual power beyond the prestige that came with it.)
This was a nice freshing-up on the things I should know but don’t necessarily, by the way, as well as an orderly glimpse into the things following the Julio-Claudians. Thankee!
2. September 2008 @ 13:29 ( Permalink )
“I’m not 100% sure, but I think “princeps” is used in the term “princeps senatus”, first in the Senate, whereas the term “primus inter pares” literally means first among equals on a more general level, though it is also used of the same position. I don’t think you can combine the words from the two like you did, though.”
I read up on the subject, and it seems you are right.
“(Also, so that you know, the title had existed for centuries before Augustus, and as so many of his titles it, too, was on paper merely honourific, not holding any actual power beyond the prestige that came with it.)”
I think I was at least semi-aware of this (except from the antiquity (hehehe) of the title), and I don’t think I wrote anything that overtly said that the title brought any non-soft power with it. After all, there have been very few societies in which titles brought with them anything but prestige, which could then be “cashed in” for more substantial forms of power.
Thanks for clearifying, anyway.
2. September 2008 @ 15:26 ( Permalink )
Well, in Rome, many titles DID bring you “non-soft power”, as you say. The magistrates of the people - most important and powerful among which were the people’s tribunes, the praetores, and the consuls, as well as special offices such as the proconsuls, the propraetors, the censors and the dictators - all had several explicit responsibilities and powers. Octavian, however, gathered up a lot of the largely ceremonical but prestige-heavy ones in one individual, elevating himself socially far above anyone else whilst cleverly never making up any single new poisition. The magistrates were formerly still the people with the “non-soft-power” in Rome throughout his reign. (It was somewhat different in most of the provinces, but that’s a little too complex to get into, as Augustus was basically named governor of almost all of the militarily important ones and thus technically was such a magistrate himself, just on a very large scale) Augustus was in fact only consul, the formal head of state, a handful of times after the initial years, and was quite happy with having acquired tribunal powers of vetoing anything he wanted to. A powerful right to have, yes, but one that all the people’s tribunes in Rome had already had for decades and decades.
“Augustus” is by the way pretty much the only of his many honorourifics without any actual power beyond the immense prestige that was made up for him in particular. Everything else that was bundled up with prestige without actual power he just hogged for life, like the title of Father of the Country (which amongst others Cicero had had before him) and Primus Inter Pares. (The tiles with actual power, on the other hand - those he tended to tweak a bit before doing so to seem less of an usurper and retain all the regular magistrates.)
2. September 2008 @ 15:50 ( Permalink )
Man, you are SO going to get me an A!
2. September 2008 @ 15:56 ( Permalink )
You mean I actually made sense? Yay!
(And I’ll have you know, if I say something that I’ve misunderstood myself or am remembering a tiny bit wrong, I’m not to be held accountable if you put it in an exam!
)
For instance I just looked up pater patriae (father of the country) on wikipedia now on a whim, and it turns out that while I didn’t write anything outright wrong about it, my parantheses implied that a ton of people had had it before Augustus, Cicero merely being one of them, while according to Wiki, Cicero was the first we know of to recieve the title, and the only other to recieve it before it became a Roman Emperor special honour was Caesar for having restored Pax Romana after the civil wars. (Of course, the morons then went on to ruin that with killing him and fighting for another twenty-some years…)
So, good example on how writing this stuff for you from memory might keep out the blatant errors but still hold implicit wrongs.
I talked about it as though this was an example of a title that held long traditions along the lines of primus inter pares, and in fact we only know of two people who held it before Octavian…
2. September 2008 @ 16:45 ( Permalink )
We all win, then!
But now I’ve got to go; I’ve spent too much time on typing out that second lecture, as well as a couple of other frivolities, so now I gotta go read some British Politics. (And possibly also some Roman stuff; I suddenly discovered that we have something like eighty pages to read to prepare for Thursday’s lecture.)
2. September 2008 @ 21:53 ( Permalink )
Wow, you read relevant curriculum in advance of classes? You, sir, are a better student than I’ve ever been.
2. September 2008 @ 22:23 ( Permalink )
I’m actually quite proud that I’ve been able to do so for two and an half week now, which is, like, fifteen or sixteen days longer than ever before.
Not sure if I’ll continue, though; I often find that reading after having had a lecture on something is more enlightening, as I then come better prepared to the text. And it is, despite everything, the texts that are the primary thing in a university education. (To the extent that the relation between the forms of learning isn’t sybiotic, of course.)
2. September 2008 @ 23:30 ( Permalink )
I agree about rather wanting the lecture before the text. Text before lecture makes everything the lecturer’s saying seem boring and old news, lecture before text makes it easier to grasp what’s the main points and gives you an overview that makes it smoother to read.
3. September 2008 @ 01:41 ( Permalink )
My experiences exactly. It’s even harder to take notes when you come prepared, as that makes averything the lecturer has to say seem self-evident, and why would I want to write *that* down?
Still, having lectures as a kind of deadline for when something has to be read is, I’ve found, effective for, you know, actually getting around to reading it… :\
3. September 2008 @ 11:53 ( Permalink )
Yup. So I try measuring by lectures, but not necessarily reading the thing the lecture will be about. If, for instance, last week’s lecture was chapters 1 and 3 in a book, but next week’s is chapters 5 through 7 in another, I’ll read chapters one through five in the five in the first book between them. By the time the lectures actually get to those chapters, then, it’ll be old enough in my head that I can make use of the lecture as handy repetition.
3. September 2008 @ 13:13 ( Permalink )