Did Romans recognise the fall of the republic?

[Epictetus]

Today we recognise the “Fall of the Republic” as a decisive event. Conventionally, we see a fundamental change in governance taking place. We also see a change in public policy and strategy, to some extent. We even use terms that reflect this, such as the “Republican period” or “Imperial period.”

So here’s my question: at the time, or shortly thereafter, did the Romans think that a decisive shift in the res publica had taken place?

[Jona Lendering]

at the time, or shortly thereafter, did the Romans think that a decisive shift in the res publica had taken place?

Good point! I think that the catchphrase "restoration of the Republic" suggests that at least Augustus' inner circle was aware that the traditional republic no longer existed.

I think there is a second piece of evidence: the "pornographic opposition". One of the tricks Augustus tried to play, was taking Rome in his patria potestas. He proclaimed himself "pater patriae", an adaptation of the more common "parens patriae", and so on. This was clearly a move to disguise the monarchy. The opposition recognized it. At least four men managed to seduce Julia, Augustus' daughter; her honor was destroyed, and so was Augustus'. By this trick, the people of Rome knew that they had to be careful if they wanted to be part of Augustus' patria potestas.

My reading of the events is not the only possibility, but I think that this is more than the envy of other nobiles. And I have often wondered what we must think of Julia. Was she a mere victim, or part of the opposition?

[Epictetus]

I have never thought of Julia as a victim. To me, she always seemed to be one of those powerful imperial women who influenced events behind the scenes but ran into trouble. I hesitate to label her as a member of the opposition, but perhaps she got carried away with trying to maintain an independent power base.

When reading Livy one gets the idea that the Romans realised a clear change had occurred with the expulsion of the kings. I don’t get that feeling when I read most authors writing later about the fall of the republic.

But here is one late exception I found:

Surely none could “march with more spirited step” than one who rose against Caesar and Pompey at the same time and, when some were supporting Caesar’s party and others that of Pompey, issued a challenge to both leaders, thus showing that the republic also had some backers. For it is not enough to say of Cato “without fear at its creakings.” Of course he is not afraid! He does not quail before real and imminent noises; in the face of ten legions, Gallic auxiliaries, and a motley host of citizens and foreigners, he utters words fraught with freedom, encouraging the Republic not to fail in the struggle for freedom, but to try all hazards; he declares that it is more honourable to fall into servitude than to fall in line with it.

Seneca, Epistles, 95

Here Seneca seems to realise that a change had taken place, but he was looking on almost 200 years later.

[Sean Manning]

Appian too, writing around the middle of the second century CE, states that the Roman state became a monarchy after the civil war between Augustus and Antony (Civil Wars, I.1-6).

From what I remember reading Cicero, he had a sense that something had started to go wrong around the time of the Gracchi, but he doesn't seem to have realized that the war between Caesar and Pompey would be especially serious. This brackets the target in time, but I can't think of any source from Augustus' day to fire at the problem.

[Timotheus]

Not sure how good a source I would consider Cicero. He was pretty biased, hell he invented a civil war just so he could save the Republic.

Overall by the time Cicero was in the Senate the Republic really existed in name only. Sure it was technically a Republic due to the laws, but the reality was that Rome had become an Oligarchy run by the Senate for the benefit of the Senate. Consider this, the Senate destroyed anyone who messed with the status quo, not to save the Republic but to maintain their own pampered position.

Once Augustus ends the Republic and started the Empire how many Senatorial revolts do we have? None? Where are their highstanding feelings for the Republic? They dont exist. Once they realized that they could maintain some of their power and all of their wealth under the Emperor any love for the Republic washed away. They didnt need the Republic anymore, now they had the Emperor to protect their gilded lives. They no longer needed to squash down anyone who risked their self benefiting status quo.

[Epictetus]

Once Augustus ends the Republic and started the Empire how many Senatorial revolts do we have? None?

Well, we do have at least one memorable Senatorial revolt, which was against Maximinus and raised the Gordians (or accepted the Gordians and then raised Balbinus, Pupienus and finally Gordian III.)

Where are their highstanding feelings for the Republic? They dont exist. Once they realized that they could maintain some of their power and all of their wealth under the Emperor any love for the Republic washed away. They didnt need the Republic anymore, now they had the Emperor to protect their gilded lives. They no longer needed to squash down anyone who risked their self benefiting status quo.

This seems to be true. This revolt I mentioned didn't seem to have any goal of restoring Republican offices or modus operandi. It was simply a revolt against one emperor and placed others in his stead. Even though the Senate as a body acted with surprising boldness, it seems their main aim was solely an emperor more to their liking.

It appears to me that at the "Fall of the Republic" the Romans were willing to ignore the fundamental change in governance that we now recognise. Augustus was a subtle ruler. People will accept a fiction of liberty if it gives peace and security.

[SigniferOne]

Once Augustus ends the Republic and started the Empire how many Senatorial revolts do we have? None? Where are their highstanding feelings for the Republic? They dont exist.

I think your information is misplaced. There were at least three: in 41 AD, in 65 AD, and in 175 AD.

Once they realized that they could maintain some of their power and all of their wealth under the Emperor any love for the Republic washed away.

Then what of the Senators who talked down to emperors, like Curiatus Maternus, Helvidius Priscus, and Musonius Rufus, or historians who championed the republicans in preference to the monarchical party, like Cornutus who said that Caesar's assassin Cassius was "the last of the Romans"?

[AureliusFalco]

I think that there were always men who considered Emperors as social inferiors because they weren't descended from the "great" families of the Republic. These men would not hesitate to speak down to an Emperor or champion the Republic of old because,after all, it was when THEIR families were in power. But even when these men might revolt, like Avidius Cassius, it wasn't to restore the republic. It would only have led them to the throne. The twenty or so years of civil war at the end of the republic destroyed many of the ideals of the old Republic and it also destroyed many of the senatorial families. Those that replaced them were newcomers,and with an increasing amount of them coming from the provinces and not Italy, they owed there loyalty not to the Republic or even the idea of Rome, but to the Emperors who raised them to prominence and gave them patronage. They still had power and respect and money and that's what mattered the most to the majority of them.

[SigniferOne]

I think that there were always men who considered Emperors as social inferiors because they weren't descended from the "great" families of the Republic.

Can you provide anything other than conjecture?

These men would not hesitate to speak down to an Emperor or champion the Republic of old because,after all, it was when THEIR families were in power.

Of course they weren't "in power", they were freely elected or disgraced and taken from the rostrum. How is that being 'in power'? How did the Senatorial privileges under the Principate, including governorship of provinces, vast incomes, consulships with the Emperor and many such things, constitute not being in power?

Additionally let's take that statement closely: are you saying that the Helvidii (of Helvidius Priscus) during the Republic were in power? Or the Musonii (of Musonius Rufus)?

Why did Cornutus call Cassius "the last of the Romans" if there was no ideological identification of those who struggled for republican principles?

But even when these men might revolt, like Avidius Cassius, it wasn't to restore the republic.

The Historia Augusta would have us believe differently:

Cassius, sprung from the family of the Cassii who conspired against Caesar, secretly hated the principate and could not brook even the title of emperor, saying that the name of empire was all the more onerous because an emperor could not be removed from the state except by another emperor.

Hist.Aug. Vita Cassii.4.

In another source which escapes me at the moment his contemporaries egged him on saying that he was unworthy of his ancestor Cassius.

[AureliusFalco]

SiginiferOne wrote:
Can you provide anything other than conjecture?

Unfortunately I cannot find a quote or source that mentions a member of one of the great families of the Republic speaking down to an Emperor. However the fact that a few such men(such as Faustus Cornelius Sulla or Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna Magnus) did try to overthrow or kill Augustus would seem to me that they didn't consider him worthy of rule i.e. a social inferior.

SiginiferOne wrote

Of course they weren't "in power", they were freely elected or disgraced and taken from the rostrum. How is that being 'in power'? How did the Senatorial privileges under the Principate, including governorship of provinces, vast incomes, consulships with the Emperor and many such things, constitute not being in power

How is being an elected magistrate of Rome not power? Consuls, proconsuls, praetors and other positions like those could control vast amounts of men, deal with foreign rulers on equal terms and even interfere in foreign wars. And even when there terms were up they were still regarded as great and powerful men,able to influence the Senate and Assembly.
Under the the Principate, all that power(which I admitted was still great) was still owed to the Emperor. If he didn't want you to advance,it was unlikely that you would. You owed your power and prestige to the ruler.
I admit that the neither Helvidius Priscus or Musonius Rufus came from great Senatorial families (although Priscus' father-in-law,Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus did). And couldn't Cornuntus simply be echoing Brutus,who also called Cassius "the Last of the Romans"?
And finally I don't know how much I trust the Historia Augusta, and even then the quote doesn't prove Avidius Cassius wanted to restore the republic.

[SigniferOne]

SiginiferOne wrote:
Can you provide anything other than conjecture?

Unfortunately I cannot find a quote or source that mentions a member of one of the great families of the Republic speaking down to an Emperor. However the fact that a few such men(such as Faustus Cornelius Sulla or Gnaeus Cornelius Cinna Magnus) did try to overthrow or kill Augustus would seem to me that they didn't consider him worthy of rule i.e. a social inferior.

I think it's utterly untenable to say that Augustus was a social inferior, being as he was the adopted son of Julius Caesar. Caesar was called a tyrant and a king, but he was never viewed as a worthless upstart. Really you portray class distinction with stronger colors than I think they existed in reality. Cicero, the most prominent self-made man of the Late Republic, was made fun of for his name, experienced a few jabs, but nobody called him a worthless upstart either. A class consciousness of the kind you say belongs more properly to the knight nobles of the medieval era, or to Southern slave-owners; in Roman times it was far more egalitarian.

But in any case, more to the point, I don't deny that some people may have wanted to overthrow emperors for non-republican reasons; I don't say that every overthrow was intrinsically motivated by republican principles. Of all the innumerable upstarts and barrack emperors I single out only Avidius Cassius. I don't point to the long year of 69 AD as in any way republican. But to say that many revolts weren't republican-motivated doesn't extend so far as to say that no revolts were, which I think is what you were trying to say.

How is being an elected magistrate of Rome not power? Consuls, proconsuls, praetors and other positions like those could control vast amounts of men, deal with foreign rulers on equal terms and even interfere in foreign wars.

Yes and men who were rulers (rather than elected temporary leaders) of whole provinces could do that and more. Men who were elected consul in collegium with the emperor had privileges and powers that old republican consuls hadn't dreamed of. To say that imperial Senators didn't have power, and to say that they did have lots of power under the Republic when in truth they were only temporary and much restricted magistrates, is I think to paint the situation incorrectly.

I admit that the neither Helvidius Priscus or Musonius Rufus came from great Senatorial families (although Priscus' father-in-law,Publius Clodius Thrasea Paetus did). And couldn't Cornuntus simply be echoing Brutus,who also called Cassius "the Last of the Romans"?

Alright then, but why did he echo Brutus? Did he have some sort of a familial, senatorial privilege to gain out of it, or was there an ideological identification of those who were heroes for republicanism? And if Brutus did call Cassius that, why did he do it? Was there any kind of familial privilege there either?

[AureliusFalco]

I don't believe Julius Caesar was a worthless upstart, nor do I think that Augustus was. But the Julii were not considered one of the great families,although undeniably patrician. And Augustus' biological father had been the first man in his family to join the Senate. So I don't say that these men were worthless upstarts;only that they may not have been considered on par with the Junii or the Cornelii or families of that nature. Perhaps I do draw class lines too clear-cut(at least among patricians) but I still feel the great families were very aware of their ancestry and importance to the Republic and may have resented being in second place behind the Emperor(though perhaps less so once Tiberius came to power,he being descended from the Claudii).
I also don't argue with the fact that a few revolts may have been inspired by republican ideals. When Caligula was murdered(by another Cassius), the Senate did indeed debate over restoring the Republic, but then argued amongst itself over who would rule and so lost any chance it did have(and they never had support of the Praetorians or army for that matter). So I can't deny that some amount of Republicanism survived. But the fact that the entire senate never did support such a move suggests to me that most of the senate wasn't particularly interested in restoring the Republic,or at least was more interested in self-preservation.
I also didn't say that Imperial Senators had no power, only that it was depended on the Emperor. Men who could command armies and provinces were of course powerful and important men. But they had more freedom under the Republic and though the power may only been temporary(as on a year-by-year basis) they still had no one above them, though they could be forced to submit the the Roman populace(as at the beginning of the Second Punic War).
Finally, Cornutus probably did identify heroes of republicanism, but I believe he was also comparing people to Nero. Who better to offset the terror and excess of Nero than a man who died for his republican beliefs? And Brutus calling Cassius "the Last of the Romans" may have had many reasons;to eulogize a fellow defender of republican ideals, to commemorate a brave man, to contrast him with his enemies(Octavian and Antony) or maybe just because Cassius was Brutus' brother-in-law and out of familial respect called him by that epithet. I can never deny that those two were fighting for the Republic. But I still think that all those men who followed their example were individuals,and that on the whole the Senate was not that concerned with the Republic after the establishment of the Principate.

[SigniferOne]

Perhaps I do draw class lines too clear-cut(at least among patricians) but I still feel the great families were very aware of their ancestry and importance to the Republic and may have resented being in second place behind the Emperor

There's no question that the great families were aware of their ancestry and importance to the Republic; but what you had originally painted them as were non-ideological, class-conscious power-mongers. Plus even their aristocratic ancestry derived from service to the Republic, so all of their claims to nobility could be subsumed under that one ideological thing. They weren't after power, they were after dignitas, when in fact only a few, the corrupt people like Verres or Catiline, were after power as such.

I also don't argue with the fact that a few revolts may have been inspired by republican ideals. When Caligula was murdered(by another Cassius), the Senate did indeed debate over restoring the Republic, but then argued amongst itself over who would rule and so lost any chance it did have(and they never had support of the Praetorians or army for that matter).

This is actually one of the revolts I cited as well. They didn't have the support of the Praetorians but they did take over the Capitoline Hill, and established the republic until Claudius' legions battered down the gates.

So I can't deny that some amount of Republicanism survived. But the fact that the entire senate never did support such a move suggests to me that most of the senate wasn't particularly interested in restoring the Republic,or at least was more interested in self-preservation.

Yes but this has always been the case. Remember the blind Appius Claudius being carried into the Senate, to protest the cowardly Senators from signing a peace treaty with Pyrrhus. It was never up to the generality of the Senate, but up to its leaders, to make or break Senatorial policy. And I say that while at some times the leaders of the Senate were clearly focused on self-preservation, at other times those leaders were tremendously pro-Republican and swayed the whole Senate towards that way. Helvidius Priscus was one such example, snubbing Vespasian, and a generation earlier his father-in-law Thrasea Paetus led the Senate against Nero, in much the same way as Cato Uticensis marshalled the (somewhat unwilling) Senate against Caesar a century before.

-Epictetus I.2:
"When Vespasian sent for Helvidius Priscus and commanded him not to go into the Senate, he replied, "It is in your power not to allow me to be a member of the Senate, but so long as I am, I must go in." "Well, go in then," says the emperor, "but say nothing." "Do not ask my opinion, and I will be silent." "But I must ask your opinion." "And I must say what I think right." "But if you do, I shall put you to death." "When then did I say that I was immortal?"

[AureliusFalco]

SigniferOne wrote
There's no question that the great families were aware of their ancestry and importance to the Republic; but what you had originally painted them as were non-ideological, class-conscious power-mongers. Plus even their aristocratic ancestry derived from service to the Republic, so all of their claims to nobility could be subsumed under that one ideological thing. They weren't after power, they were after dignitas, when in fact only a few, the corrupt people like Verres or Catiline, were after power as such

I don't believe I said that the great Senatorial families of the Republic were non-ideological power-mongers. I believe the opposite:most(if not all) Senators of the early to mid-Republic were extremely dedicated to the Republic and her ideals. However I did say that they had more power than under the Principate. Now if,as you say, it was dignitas they were after,how is that different than power? If a man was respected, honored and had such a great personal reputation that he could advance as high as he wanted in the Res Publica, how does that not translate to power. Why else did Romans view their dignitas with such importance? Because the more dignitas one could claim to have, the higher one could clime in the Res Publica. However,under the Principate, not only did you need to have great dignitas, but you also needed an Emperors favor. If you received an Emperors favor, there is no doubt you could raise higher(and have more power) than the most important Consul during the republic. But it still depended on how much the Emperor favored you; If he didn't want you to have a certain position, you were unlikely to get it.And as for being class-conscious, the Romans were concerned with the mixing of classes: why else did they pass laws forbidding patricians to marry plebians? Now within the patrician class there weren't different classes but there were different levels of patrician. Why was Octavian's marriage to Livia Drusilla so important? Because she was descended from the Claudii and that family had greater dignitas than either the Octavii or the Julii.

SigniferOne wrote
This is actually one of the revolts I cited as well. They didn't have the support of the Praetorians but they did take over the Capitoline Hill, and established the republic until Claudius' legions battered down the gates.

I believe you quoted the years 41,65,and 175 as years the senate rose in revolt. I was not aware the Senate revolted in 41; Cassius Chaerea assassinated Caligula(with the knowledge of some senators) and the senate took advantage of the situation and debated restoring the republic(Btw, where did you hear about legions battering down the gates of the Capitoline? I can honestly say I can find no reference to it). In 65 the conspiracy of Gaius Calpurnius Piso wasn't aimed at restoring the Republic or a senatorial revolt. Indeed it had members from both(i.e. imperialist and republican) parties and ostensibly aimed at putting Piso on the throne. In 175 when Avidius Cassius revolted,it was on a rumor that Marcus Aurelius had died. And even then,when Cassius rose in revolt, the Senate denounced him and ordered his death! The senate as a body obviously didn't support him. Also, if Cassius was such a die-hard republican,why did he proclaim himself Emperor?(On a side note, I recently read that the part of the Historia Augusta that covers the revolt of Avidius Cassius may be more reliable than other parts. I apologize for doubting the quote from that source,but I had never heard anything good about it)

[SigniferOne]

I was not aware the Senate revolted in 41; Cassius Chaerea assassinated Caligula(with the knowledge of some senators) and the senate took advantage of the situation and debated restoring the republic

Oh it was much more than that.

Suetonius, Vita Divi Claudii.10.2:

As Claudius cowered there, a common soldier, who was prowling about at random, saw his feet, intending to ask who he was, pulled him out and recognized him; and when Claudius fell at his feet in terror, he hailed him as emperor. ... Received within the rampart, Claudius spent the night among the sentries with much less hope than confidence; for the consuls with the senate and the city cohorts had taken possession of the Forum and the Capitol, resolved on maintaining the public liberty.

Also there is this, 11.1:

He made a decree that all that had been done and said during that period should be pardoned and forever forgotten; he kept his word too, save only that a few of the tribunes and centurions who had conspired against Gaius were put to death, both to make an example of them and because he knew that they had also demanded his own death.

Clearly the assassins of Caligula weren't after installing a new monarch.

And there's this, 13.2:

Asinius Gallus and Statilius Corvinus, grandsons of the orators Pollio and Messala, conspired to overthrow him, aided by a number of his own freedmen and slaves

I guess I'm making a larger point than just about the Senate, of republican sentiment in Romans at large.

In 65 the conspiracy of Gaius Calpurnius Piso wasn't aimed at restoring the Republic or a senatorial revolt. Indeed it had members from both(i.e. imperialist and republican) parties and ostensibly aimed at putting Piso on the throne. In 175 when Avidius Cassius revolted,it was on a rumor that Marcus Aurelius had died. And even then,when Cassius rose in revolt, the Senate denounced him and ordered his death! The senate as a body obviously didn't support him.

Right, the Senate did not support Avidius Cassius. All I was saying was that there were several attempts by Romans to restore the Republic; for instance in reference to Avidius the plot of Gladiator is much closer to reality than most people realize.

As to why call himself emperor, it is unclear what Avidius's strategy was, whether to take power to himself or to restore republic via one-man rule in the manner of old dictators. He only had power for a month or two until he was assassinated and his head brought to Marcus Aurelius. The same motive can be said for the conspiracy of Piso. The monarchical part of his supporters undoubtedly hoped for a better emperor, but the republican part wanted a dictator to restore the republic. My only point was that such people existed. And as pertains to the OP, Romans clearly did recognize the fall of the Republic and the ideological nature thereof.