Essay On Military Dictatorship

In this essay it will discuss the extent to which the principate is a history of military dictatorships. Meaning to what extent did the military hold authoritarian control. In fact, the principate was not a history of military dictatorships, but an Oligarchy, where the Emperor, the Senate and the Army all came together to rule the Empire. Although, some had more power than others. The essay will divide into two main parts one explaining how it was not a military dictatorship but showing examples of how the army helped and were important to the emperor, in the way that the Army can make you Emperor and also resign you of that Title by planning an attack. I will give examples of a select few of Emperors, it will not cover them all. To which they did prove of massive importance to the Emperor. If someone wanted to become Emperor and stay in power, then he needed the help of the Army. However, there is an exception when it comes to Judea. On the other hand, it will discuss the importance of others and give examples as to why it was not a history of military dictatorships as it is clear the army was never solely in control. For instance the senate’s input and the rule of the mob, for example in AD 32 at the games where Tiberius was absent, the people were demonstrating aggressive behaviour (Tac. A6.13.). There was always someone else with power and is clearly evidenced by the Emperor himself

as he was in charge of the distribution of power, and the struggle of getting this right

Firstly, when looking at the Emperor and his relationship with the Army, it is clear to see that it was a strong relationship, and they both relied on each other in different ways, but the principate was not a history of military dictatorships.

The Emperor did depend on the Army to keep Rome safe from enemies. Although, more importantly was the role of the Praetorian Guard, which will be discussed further on in this essay, who protected the emperor from any harm on a daily basis. For the Army, they got praise, money, ability to be promoted in military or senatorial rank and

honour.

It appears that to want to become Emperor you need the support of the army. In any case, if you wanted political power you had to have loyal troops. For example, after Sulla marched on Rome in 88bc, he proposed a personal oath between him and the troops explains Plutarch (sull. 27.4). Therefore, although it wasn't a military dictatorship, it was not a dictatorship either as the Emperor needed the help from the troops to even become Emperor, as will be discussed below.

Augustus came to power after the civil war where the army stood at 60 legions, however Augustus reduced it to 28, as Keppie explains “In Rome…the chief military force was the Praetorian Guard, which Augustus had set at nine cohorts, each of 500 men. Its duties were the protection of the Emperor…” (Keppie, 1998: 187). Augustus scattered them about the colonies, mainly stationing them on the outer frontiers to stop foreign attacks. By doing so, he was able to distract the legions from causing a mutiny as they are focused on protecting Rome from the foreign enemy. Although, Augustus seemed to be in control and “he brought peace and order, he found it impossible to distance himself entirely from the army" (Campbell, 1984: 18). Therefore, for any Emperor it was near impossible to rule without the army and it was the Emperors job to keep them happy.

Similarly, Vitellius realised the importance of the army and had to take action to make them happier as the legions on the frontiers were getting jealous of the high pay of the praetorian. Therefore "By transferring selected legionaries to the guard Vitellius satisfied their craving." (Keppie, 1998:188)

In Caligula’s reign we see more of the actions of the Army taking control as although in the beginning he was very popular with the army as he had grown up with them and it was they who gave him the name Caligula aka ‘little boots.’ However, as he went power mad and his wicked character started to show he was actually killed by his own Praetorian guard as Suetonius tells us (Suet. Cal. 58).

We also have examples from Tiberius reign where we see the Praetorian Guard, Sejanus, almost take over when Tiberius retires to Capri. For example, “Sejanus in AD 23 had persuaded Tiberius to authorise the concentration of the cohorts in a new camp on the eastern suburbs of the city... It may also have been Sejanus who secured an increase in the size of the Guard, probably to 12 cohorts.” (Keppie, 1998: 187).

Didius Iulianus became emperor after the death of Commodus, whom was also killed by conspirators for the fear he would one day attack the senators. Iulianus is a good example of those who ‘buy’ there way into office. For example, Dio tells us that Iulianus “buys” the empire from the Praetorian Guard at 25,000 sesterces per soldier (Dio 73.11). The point to make here is that the Army chose the emperor through bribery, which you could say was leaning more towards a military dictatorship as they got to choose. However, when the Emperor was elected, the empire was back in the hands of his. Iulianus was similar to Claudius as Suetonius tells us that he let the army swear allegiance to him and promised them fifteen thousand sesterces to each man. Suetonius also tells us he was the first Caesar to have won the loyalty of the soldiers with bribary (Suet. Claudius. 10)

Similarly, Septimius Severus was declared emperor by his troops at Carnuntum (on Danube) 9 April 193 and accepted by the senate on 1 June 193. The interesting factor here, is his oath to the senate, where he promised not to execute senators (Dio, 75.2). Obviously, he thought the senate as a threat and so had to please them but also he raised the army pay so to keep them happy aswell. Again reemphasising that to have peace you had to keep the Army and the Senate happy, therefore an Oligarchic rule.

The extent to which the Principate was a history of military dictatorships is not a true statement. Here will discuss the role of the Emperor and the power he obtains. Campbell mentions that as Emperor it is tough to “combine the role of an impressive imperator...with a close association with the ordinary soldiers" (Campbell, 1984: 18). Thus, suggesting that certainly not a military dictatorship but nor is it a dictatorship. It seems one can’t work without the other making it more of an Oligarchy. Campbell also continues to tell us that he did make an attempt to win their affection by praising them with speeches and honours (Campbell, 1948: 18). Therefore by keeping the Army happy, it kept Rome peaceful on the frontiers side. This is backed up by Campbell where he mentions "not only did they preserve peace and stability in the capital, but also were instrumental in the Emperors political survival.” (Campbell, 1984: 111). Again reemphasising my point that although it was not a military dictatorship it did not mean that the Emperor didn't need their support, they were probably the key element in keeping him alive and in power. Millar also tells us that “The latas clavus can only have been offered by the emperor…” (Millar, 1992: 299). Therefore, we know that the emperor has control over, not only the army, but the senate too as he chose the people he wanted to be of senatorial rank, therefore choosing the people he thought were not going to challenge him. E.g. Nero on becoming emperor restored a man demoted for adultery with Messalina... (Tacitus, Ann. XIII, II, 2; XIV, 48, 1.)

Moreover, on the same point that it was not a military dictatorship nor was it a dictatorship you have to look for the role of others. For example, the Senate. The overall view is that Emperor, the Army and the Senate all had roles in ruling the Empire and one wouldn’t work without the other. However, in some Emperors reigns it seems the Senates importance fluctuates. As in the reign of Augustus divided the territory up into senators provinces and ‘Caesars’ provinces, and also stopped them from visiting a frontier province without his permission. This is a prime example of Augustus taking control so that the senate don’t overthrow him as he must have seen these as the biggest threat, therefore it can’t have been a military dictatorship if it’s not the Army he was scared of. Furthermore, in the reign of Domitian “senators conspired against him…because Domitian strove to a certain extent to rule out the senate as a governing body” (Pleket, 1961: 299). This gives us great insight to how the Emperors dealt with the Senate, Augustus controlled the senate so they had no reason to conspire. Whereas, Domitian was a Tyrant and wanted to be a one man rule and obviously by doing so caused to Senate to conspire. What we can draw from this is that, one) the Army aren’t even mentioned thus not a military dictatorship and two) that the Emperor also had to keep the senate happy in order to not be conspired against. It is clear to see the Senate were important in the ruling of the Empire as Livy informs us of a formal oath that is taken by the soldiers (Livy 22.38.) One example of the oath is that the soldiers had to swear that they would gather should the consul order, and not leave their service without instruction. Therefore exemplifying it was not a military dictatorship as they were controlled and answered to a consul or commander, thus the army answering to the Senate (Consul). It is also clear that in Commodus reign the Senate and the army prove important as he was strangled by the Senate along with the Army. This was due to him neglecting the Senate and executing them. (Dio. 73.21). Here we see the Senate and the Army working together to overrule the Emperor.

In conclusion, the principate was not a history of military dictatorships as I have proven above. There is no definitive answer as to who ruled as throughout the Caesars it is clear that there was a mix of control shared by the Emperor, the Army and the Senate. To become Emperor it was more or less standard to have a military background e.g. Tiberius reclaiming the standards with Augustus. Therefore you can say that military accomplishments are very much a necessity to become involved in politics, with Claudius being the exception. The Emperor has a tough job trying to balance being a good emperor, keeping the troops happy and keeping the Senate happy. An Emperor must do this well if he wishes to stay in power, for example Augustus gets it right and suspected to be killed off by Livia? Whereas, Domitian gets it completely wrong and ends up killed by the Senate and the Army. The point to make here is that you can never be safe without the support from both sides. Thus making the Roman Empire more like an oligarchy. To sum up, it was not a history of military dictatorships but that of maintaining a close relationship with the Army and the Senate so to not get yourself killed or to get yourself elected as Emperor.