Rome: Total War Heaven

Rome: Total War Heaven » History » Civilizations » Romans » 2005 » 04 » Roman Senate

Roman Senate

By Archdruid

The Roman aristocracy was a complex and privileged organism throughout the history of the Roman state. The Senate was created in the early years of Rome, and established itself as such a mainstay of Roman society that even under the Emperors the Senate was nominally a very influential body, in appearance if not always in fact. The practical power of the Senate, however, was hotly contested even prior to the Empire’s establishment. The equestrians, more numerous and only marginally less wealthy than the Senatorial families, eagerly sought advancement and on several occasions were used by powerful men to bolster the ranks of the Senate itself without having completed the required terms in office and without being elected by the people. As time went on, Roman aristocrats, especially the Optimates, would look upon the past as a sort of ‘Golden Age’ to be returned to. Golden Age or not, the second century BC finds the Roman nobility at its most powerful; the successful prosecution of foreign wars against powers such as Carthage and Macedon led to the expansion of Roman influence, of which the most obvious beneficiaries would be the nobility. In addition to the booty awarded to the soldiers and officers, new territories necessitated the expansion of the administration itself - positions traditionally held by the nobles. Even as these new positions became available, the flow of slaves into Roman hands increased, allowing almost exponential profit for those who replaced their free workers with inexpensive slave labor. That being the case, it comes as no surprise that the second century saw the height of the nobility’s power, as well as the early consequences of such power, both political and social. The first century BC was one of war and attempted reform, beginning and ending with major changes in the way the Roman state functioned even while the state itself continued to expand into both Europe and the Middle East. By the first century AD, the nobility’s role had changed drastically - once the unrivalled power in Rome, it was now almost completely subservient to a single man. This essay will examine in detail the series of events which led to such reversal, and the direct impact these events had on the Roman nobility itself. By chronologically examining the Roman state’s expansion and the resulting social reforms, it will be demonstrated that from the second century BC to the first century AD the Roman nobility was gradually disempowered, eventually to be replaced by the Emperor as the voice of authority within the state. Since Senatorial positions were the goal of any aristocratic family in Rome, the loss of Senatorial power will be focused upon as representative of the declining power of the aristocracy as a whole.

The second century BC can quite rightly be described as the time where the Roman nobility enjoyed the most power. While the holders of office were determined by the people in elections, and the provinces held by said office-holders were decided by lot, it was the Senate which decided precisely what each provincial office-holder’s sphere of activity was as well as the forces and finances made available to them. This remained essentially the case until the end of the Republic, as the extensive authority granted to Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus would seem to indicate, however Plutarch’s account makes clear that such appointments were made only with the crowd’s approval. In addition to their direct authority over the activities of commanders and other officials in the provinces, the Senate also maintained complete control over foreign relations. In 189 BC Aemilius Paullus demonstrates the Senate’s control over foreign affairs by making a treaty with a Spanish tribe, conditional on the approval of the Senate and People of Rome. Another perfect example of Senatorial control comes from the Life of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, where Plutarch tells us that Tiberius negotiated a truce with the Numantians, saving the lives of many Roman soldiers, but upon returning to Rome the treaty was not ratified by the Senate and Tiberius’ commander Mancinus was given over to the Numantians in chains. The Senate’s power in foreign affairs was still technically subject to the people; declarations of war and peace were subject to vote, however in most cases the people merely accepted the Senate’s ‘recommendations’. One of the most significant powers of the Senate was also one of the first to be taken away, however. Until Gaius Gracchus’ reforms, the Senate had complete control over the law courts. Gaius, the younger brother of Tiberius Gracchus, expanded the court of three hundred Senators to include three hundred equestrians. Since the major defendants in these courts were Senators, or at the very least from Senatorial families, this reform helped curb the power of the Senate to acquit or condemn its own members while keeping the authority within the aristocracy.

The second century BC ended with a series of reforms which would have a number of drastic effects on the entire Roman Republic, and the aristocracy was no exception. These reforms came at the hands of Gaius Marius, and dealt not with the aristocracy directly, but rather with the Roman army. Marius instituted several reforms to the army, but for the purposes of this essay only the relaxation of property requirements is relevant. Prior to Marius, there were certain wealth and property requirements in order to enroll in the Roman legion; Marius relaxed these and enlisted large numbers of slaves and paupers. In doing so, Marius acted ‘contrary to law and custom... since it was believed that a person’s wealth was a token of his commitment’. While this action solved Marius’ immediate need for an army to command, it set a precedent for individual aristocrats raising armies out of their own funds and estates, which as will be seen would enhance the power of the individual, but weaken the Senate as a whole. With his reforms, Marius unknowingly established what was to become an intrinsic part of the Roman world: Conflict between soldiers and politicians, with the most successful men being those who could balance the two roles.

The first century BC was the last of the Roman Republic, and in many ways was little more than the culmination of the increased power and ambition of the aristocracy. As would be expected from any crucial period in the history of a state, there are a number of important names and events concerned, among them Gaius Marius, Lucius Cornelius Sulla, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, and Gaius Julius Caesar, as well as a host of their opponents, allies, and family members. Entire essays could be written on the lives and achievements of any of these great figures, and on the myriad of ways in which each of them affected the state they were pledged to serve. The century began with a smoldering competition between Gaius Marius and his former quaestor, Lucius Cornelius Sulla. The victory in the Jugurthine War had been shared between them, with Marius defeating Jugurtha’s armies and Sulla capturing Jugurtha himself, and disagreement over who deserved the credit was coming to a head when it was interrupted by the Social War. This was a war between Rome and the Italian allies thereof, who were angered by Rome’s failure to grant them full citizenship. During the war, Marius was almost entirely eclipsed by Sulla due to health problems, which only served to heighten the competition between them.

Almost immediately after the surrender of the Italians to Rome, Sulla and Marius came into direct conflict. With the help of the tribune Sulpicius, Marius was put in command of a war against Mithridates VI of Pontus - a command already held by Sulla. It was here that Marius’ own reforms to the army backfired; since the soldiers had more reason to be loyal to their generals than to the state (in which they had little or no part otherwise, as opposed to the landowners who made up the pre-Marian armies), Sulla was able to march on Rome itself. Such an event - the takeover of the city by one man without the approval of the Senate - would not have been possible prior to the first century; Marius’ army reforms had the unintended effect of putting the Senate at the mercy of the army commanders, even while nominally retaining the ability to appoint them. After firmly establishing his command of the Mithridatic War, Sulla left Rome and finished his business in Asia. Marius and his allies Cinna and Sertorius took control of Rome, but Marius died shortly afterwards, Sertorius withdrew to Spain, and Cinna was killed by mutineers, this left only Carbo in power. Upon Sulla’s victorious return he fought with Carbo and the son of Marius, defeated them, and appointed himself dictator. Plutarch tells us this office had not been used in 120 years, and Sulla was not the only dictator in the first century BC. Notably, Sulla’s return to Rome was aided substantially by Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, then only twenty-three years old. Pompey had raised three complete legions with his own resources and marched to Sulla’s aid, another event which would have been entirely impossible prior to Marius’ setting the precedent of enlisting slaves and paupers into his legions.

Upon regaining power, Sulla immediately set about a series of reforms to the state. Plutarch gives us an account of a tyrannical despot, murdering his rivals and the innocent alike, and Appian seems to support this but provides more precise numbers - Sulla was responsible for the deaths of one hundred thousand young men, ninety senators, fifteen consuls, and two thousand six hundred equestrians. Sulla also promoted approximately three hundred new Senators from the ranks of the equestrians and severely weakened the power of the tribune, a position from which troublemakers like the Gracchi, Saturninus, and Sulpicius had caused innumerable problems for the Senate and the aristocracy on the whole. Sulla’s final acts as dictator included placing tighter age restrictions on the various governorship positions, and making it illegal to hold them in the improper order. After this Sulla retired, leaving the aristocracy in a situation where it was theoretically even more powerful than it had been before; unfortunately his own example proved just how political an army could be, and it is certain that the Senators he promoted would be well aware that something similar could happen again at their expense. Sulla had certainly changed the face of Roman politics, but not in the way he intended; where once the aristocracy reigned virtually supreme, now it had ample precedent to fear even its own appointees.

Following Sulla’s death, the Senate’s primary concern consisted of militarily powerful individuals who might follow his example. Foremost among these men was Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, the same who had raised three legions with his own resources to aid Sulla. Much to the Senate’s relief, Pompey ended up fighting on their side against the likes of Lepidus and Sertorius, however he still wielded an amount of influence in Rome which, prior to Sulla, would have been unheard of for anybody except a consul. Once again this was due strictly to Pompey’s personal command over the army, which allowed him to remain armed within marching distance of Rome until he was given the command against Sertorius, in defiance of a direct consular order to disband his forces. Another example of Pompey’s overwhelming control over the Senate comes during a setback in his campaigns against Sertorius; Plutarch tells us that Pompey ‘...asked the senate for money, with the implied threat that they would see him and his army in Italy if they did not send it’. Simultaneous with Pompey’s return to Italy, one of Sulla’s other lieutenants was making himself known. Marcus Licinius Crassus was one of the wealthiest men in Rome, and when Spartacus’ slave revolt took place it was Crassus who defeated the slave army in open combat. Pompey returned to Italy just in time to finish off the fleeing remnants of Spartacus’ army; both men were elected consul, promising to restore the powers of the tribunes which Sulla had limited so severely. After this the interests of Pompey and the Senate were largely similar, and while other men like Catiline continued to attempt to seize power, the Republic saw relative peace until the rise to prominence of Gaius Julius Caesar.

The events following Caesar’s rise to prominence can essentially be summed up as a struggle between himself and Pompeius for dominance over the Senate and state. The major effect this had upon the Senate was to diminish its numbers, as inevitably Senators took one side or another and were killed. Pompey and Caesar each held the dictatorship in this period – after over one hundred years without a dictator, Rome had three in a matter of decades. Once Caesar had secured himself in power, he took an act which would significantly alter the makeup of the Senate - instead of Roman aristocracy, Caesar promoted a number of Gauls who had been granted Roman citizenship. Such an act would guarantee the full incorporation of Gaul into the Roman Republic while simultaneously establishing a group within the Senate who owed their power to Caesar alone. In addition, Caesar increased the number of quaestors, effectively doubling the annual positions elected and increasing the size of the Senate in the process. Caesar’s other accomplishments, while substantial, are not relevant to the topic of this essay, sufficed to say that after his assassination several Senators attempted to exercise power only to find themselves once again checked by the army. What followed was lengthy civil war as Caesar’s appointed successor, Octavian, Caesar’s general Marcus Antonius, and Lepidus established a legal triumvirate. It would appear that the triumvirs were each granted the power of a consul for a five year period, and the provinces were at some point divided between them for governorship. The end result was that the triumvirate was very much like a threefold equivalent of Sulla’s regime, complete with proscriptions and civil wars.

After Antony was defeated, Octavian ruled alone, and this is the period in which the Roman Republic transitions to the Roman Empire. Octavian took the name of Augustus and was granted a number of lifelong positions and powers - Suetonius tells us that he held censor and tribunician power, at the very least. Augustus’ early Empire was the establishment of an entirely new government while attempting to maintain some of the appearance and respect garnered by the old. By this time, the constant competition for power and influence within the Senate had led to there being over one thousand members of the Senatorial Order, and Augustus took measures to curtail the size of the body. In addition, he lowered the number of quaestorships back to the traditional 20, raised the financial requirements to become a Senator, and censored a number of Senators for immorality; the overall result of Augustus’ changes was a reduction in size of the Senate to approximately 600 individuals - there was no longer any reason for it to be so large, since the Emperor did not need to curry the Senate’s favor to remain in power. Augustus continued to make changes, weakening the Senate on the whole while maintaining enough of a pretence to keep chroniclers happy. His successors would not have the same success; those who allowed some leeway to the Senate were invariably recorded as ‘good’ Emperors, while those who did not were considered ‘bad’ Emperors, despite the actual effects of their reigns.

The case of the Roman Emperors is perhaps one of the only examples in which history was not written by the victor - chroniclers and biographers in later years were invariably of the aristocratic class, and any record of an Emperor’s accomplishments is inevitably and severely tainted by the opinions and biases of those writing about them. While this could be said of any history, in the case of the Emperors it seems particularly applicable; almost every author had some vested interest in making past Emperors look ‘good’ or ‘bad’. That being said, the Senate remained an important figurehead and administrative body, even in its rather weak condition. Early Emperors generally kept up the pretense of consulting the Senate and allowing them to chime in on most decisions, but as time went on even this courtesy gradually declined in regularity. The army, rather than the Senate, had become the dominant force in Roman politics - following Nero’s death there was a violent conflict over the Imperial throne, and the contenders were invariably generals of varying degrees of talent. From the beginning of the second century BC and the extensive Roman expansion onwards, the Senate’s power was in decline until it was effectively subject to the whims of whomever raised the largest army, and the establishment of the Roman Empire was the logical conclusion.

Bibliography