Roman Emperor: Encyclopedia II - Roman Emperor - Overview

Roman Emperor - Overview

There was no constitutional office of "Roman Emperor" (the first person actually to bear that title was Michael I Rhangabes in the early 9th Century, who was styled Basileys Rhomaiôn, "Emperor of the Romans"—if appreciating that by that time the meaning of "Basileys" had moved from "King" to "Emperor"), nor any title or rank directly analogous to the title of "Emperor"; all the titles traditionally associated with the Emperor had pre-existing, Republican meanings. "Roman Emperor" is a convenient shorthand used by historians to express the much more complicated nature of being the "First Man" in the Roman state, and as a result there are many differing opinions as to precisely who was Emperor when, and how many Emperors there were.

The emperor's legal authority derived from the extraordinary concentration of individual powers and offices extant in the Republic rather than from a new political office (emperors regularly had themselves elected to the consulship and the censorate); the emperor actually held the non-"imperial" offices of princeps senatus (parliamentary leader of the Senate) and pontifex maximus (chief priest of the Roman state religion; lit. "greatest bridge-maker"), both of which had existed for hundreds of years before the Empire. (Gratian was the last emperor to be pontifex maximus; he surrendered the pontificate maximus in 382 to Siricius and it permanently became an auxiliary honour of the Bishop of Rome.)

However, these offices only provided great dignitas (personal prestige) and auctoritas (influence or clout); the emperor's powers derived from the fact that he held ad personam (i.e. without holding office) both imperium maius (greater power or command) and tribunicia potestas (tribunician power). As a result, he formally outranked the provincial governors and the ordinary magistrates (magistratus ordinarii), had the right to enact capital punishment, could command obedience of private citizens (privati), enjoyed personal inviolability (sacrosanctitas), could rescue any plebeian from the hands of any patrician magistrate (ius auxiliandi), and interpose his veto on any act or proposal of any magistrate, including the tribunes of the people (ius intercessio).

"Emperor" was not a magistracy or office of state (note that there was no formally prescribed "uniform" such as those of curule magistrates, senators, and knights; later emperors were distinguished by wearing togae purpurae, purple togas — hence the phrase "to don the purple" for the assumption of imperial dignity), nor was there even a regular title until the 3rd century. The titles customarily associated with the imperial dignity are imperator ("commander", lit. "one who prepares against"), which emphasises the emperor's military supremacy, caesar, which was originally a name but came to be used to refer to the designated heir (as Nobilissimus Caesar, "Most Noble Caesar") and was retained upon accession, and augustus ("majestic" or "venerable"), which was adopted upon accession (the three titles were rendered in Greek as autokratôr, kaisar, and augustos or sebastos respectively). After Diocletian established the Tetrarchy, caesar designated the two junior sub-emperors and augustus the two senior emperors.

The Emperors of the first lineages are rather to be considered as quasi-head of state. As princeps senatus (lit., "first man of the senate"), the Emperor could receive foreign embassages to Rome (but for example Tiberius saw that as a typical task for any group of senators not including himself). All in all, by analogy, in modern terms these early Emperors would tend to be identified as chiefs of state. The office of princeps senatus, however, was not a magistracy and did not own imperium; in terms of the modern Westminster system, this is approximately comparable to diplomatic agents being accredited to the Leader of the House (the consuls functioned as a sort of hybrid between the Speaker of the House and the Prime Minister). At some points in the Empire's history, the Emperor's power was only nominal; powerful praetorian prefects and masters of the soldiers (and even at one point Imperial mothers and grandmothers) occasionally acted as the true source of power (also called "emperors who weren't").

The word princeps (plu. Principes), meaning "first citizen", was a republican term used to denote the leading citizen(s) of the state. It was a purely honorific title with no attached duties or powers. It was the title most preferred by Caesar Augustus as its use implies only primacy, as opposed to imperator which implies dominance. Princeps, because of its republican connotation, was most commonly used to refer to the emperor in Latin (although the emperor's actual constitutional position was essentially "pontifex maximus with tribunician power and imperium superceding all others") as it was in keeping with the facade of the restored republic; the Greek word basileus ("king") was modified to be synonymous with emperor (and primarily came into favour after the reign of Heraclius) as the Greek had no republican sensibility and openly viewed the emperor as a monarch. In the era of Diocletian and beyond, princeps fell into disuse and was replaced with dominus ("lord"); later emperors used the formula Imperator Caesar NN. Pius Felix (Invictus) Augustus. NN representing the individual's personal name, Pius Felix, meaning "Pious and Blest", and Invictus meaning "Unconquered". The use of princeps and dominus broadly symbolise the differences in the Empire's government, giving rise to the era designations "Principate" and "Dominate".

Roman Emperor - The first Roman Emperor

In the discussion of who was the first Roman Emperor one has to understand that at the end of the Roman Republic there was no new, and certainly not a single, title created with which to indicate the individual who had the supreme power as a monarch. In so far as Emperor could be seen as the English translation of imperator, then yes, Julius Caesar had been an emperor, like several Roman generals before him. Instead, by the end of the civil wars in which Julius Caesar had led his armies, it became clear on the one hand that there was certainly no consensus to return to the Kingdom, and that on the other hand the situation where several officials, bestowed with equal power by the senate, fought one another had to come to an end.

In order to realise that monarchy-without-naming-it Julius Caesar, and a few years later Octavian in an even more subtle and gradual way, worked towards (1) accumulating offices and titles that were of the highest importance in the Republic, (2) making the power attached to these offices permanent, and (3) preventing anyone with similar aspirations from accumulating or maintaining power for themselves.

In that way Julius Caesar had gone a considerable part of the road: he held the Republican offices of consul (four times) and dictator (five times), was appointed perpetual dictator (dictator perpetuus) in 45 BC, had been "pontifex maximus" for several decades and had handsomely prepared for his deification (see Imperial cult). While he was the last dictator of the Republic, he died several years before the final collapse of the traditional Republican system, to be replaced by the system modern historians call the Principate.

By the time of his assassination in 44 BC Julius Caesar was the most powerful man in Rome. But if being "princeps" is seen as the determinating office he should have held for modern historians to call him Emperor, then no, he was not Emperor. Still, he realised something that only a monarch could achieve, but what would only become evident many decades after his death: he had made his high power in the republic hereditary, by his will, in which he had appointed Octavian as his only heir. But not until over a decade after Caesar's death did Octavian achieve supreme power, after the civil wars first avenging Caesar's murder, then the step-by-step process of neutralising his fellow triumvirs, culminating in his victory over Mark Antony and Cleopatra.

When then did Octavian become Emperor? In fact there was no single instant at which he did. Was it when he became Pontifex Maximus? Was it when he was acclaimed Augustus (more a solemn and official nickname than a "title" when he got it)? Was it when he became "princeps"? Was it when the Senate ordained that he held the "tribunicia potestas" ("power of a tribune") without needing to be one of the tribunes? Was it when he started to use Imperator as a praenomen? Note that all this time the organisation of the state remained the same as during the res publica. Even at Augustus' death, some later historians like Tacitus would say, it might have been possible to return to the republic properly, without even needing to change anything, if there had been a real will to accomplish that (that is, by not allowing Tiberius to accumulate the same powers, which he did, however, very quickly). Even Tiberius continued to go to great lengths to keep the "republican" government system untouched.

The historians of the first centuries saw the continuity in the first place: if a hereditary monarchy-not-by-kings existed after the republic, it had started with Julius Caesar. In this sense Suetonius wrote of The Twelve Caesars, meaning the emperors from Julius Caesar to the Flavians included (where after Nero the inherited name had turned into a title). Most more recent history books, however, noting that immediately after the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Roman State had in all respects returned to the republic and that the second Triumvirate could hardly be called a monarchy, see Augustus as the first "emperor" in the proper sense and (somewhat arbitrarily) say he became emperor when he "restored" power to the senate and people and was given the name Augustus in 27 BC.

Roman Emperor - The Fall of the West

By the end of the Third century, taking a few steps, the Roman Empire was split in a Western and an Eastern part, each with their own Emperors (and/or Caesars). In the West, which included Rome, the succession of Emperors had stopped by the end of the Fifth century, beginning the period known as the Middle Ages.

Roman Emperor - Eastern lineage

The line of Roman emperors in the East continues unbroken until the fall of Constantinople in 1453 under Constantine XI Palaeologos. These emperors eventually normalised the imperial dignity into the modern conception of an emperor, incorporated it into the constitutions of the state, and adopted the aforementioned title Basileys Rhomaiôn ("Emperor of the Romans"; these Emperors ceased to use Latin as the language of state after Heraclius). Historians have customarily treated the state of these later Eastern Emperors under the name "Byzantine Empire", though Byzantine is not a term that the Byzantines ever used to describe themselves.

Roman Emperor - New Western lineage

The concept of the Roman Empire was renewed in the West with the coronation of the king of the Franks, Charlemagne, as Roman emperor by the Pope on Christmas Day, 800. This line of Roman emperors was actually generally German rather than Roman, but maintained their Romanness as a matter of principle; it lasted until 1806 when Francis II dissolved the Empire during the Napoleonic Wars. These emperors used a variety of titles (most frequently "Imperator Augustus") before finally settling on Imperator Romanus Electus ("Elected Roman Emperor"). Historians customarily assign them the title "Holy Roman Emperor", which has a basis in actual historical usage, and treat their "Holy Roman Empire" as a separate institution.

Adapted from the Wikipedia article "Overview", under the G.N U Free Docmentation License. Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki