Did Romans recognise the fall of the republic?

[AureliusFalco]

SigniferOne wrote
And as pertains to the OP, Romans clearly did recognize the fall of the Republic and the ideological nature thereof.

I will certainly agree with that. The fact that men could compare a Nero or even a Vespasian to Republican heroes suggests that they knew that a shift had occurred and that the Republic in its traditional form was dead. I do wonder though why in 69 CE an attempt wasn't made then? Was it because there was always a Emperor on the throne,and so the Senate was never given the chance?

[Nathan Ross]

I do wonder though why in 69 CE an attempt wasn't made then? Was it because there was always a Emperor on the throne,and so the Senate was never given the chance?

Interestingly, there does seem to have been a brief outbreak of republican insurrection in 69, but it didn't come from the senate. We only have Tacitus to go on, with the usual caveats about translations and the historian's own partisan appraisal, but it does appear that the concept of the republic was not entirely dead amongst the soldiers of the Rhine army at Mainz:

...the Fourth and Twenty-second legions... on the very first of January smashed their statues of Galba... and they called in their oath on the obselete names of the Senate and People of Rome that they might not seem to give up allegiance to the empire. (Tacitus, Histories, I.55)

Tacitus finds the phrase 'obselete' (at the time he was writing, perhaps, under Trajan?), but clearly the citizen soldiers of the IV and XXII found it quite comprehensible, and worthy of their oath. We're inclined, I think, looking through the eyes of historians like Tacitus, to regard the Roman army as a mob of unprincipled mercenaries: I don't think it impossible, though, that at least some of the legionaries at Mainz had a political consciousness. Their 'allegiance to the empire' is perhaps a bit misleading: surely what they were demonstrating was their allegiance to the Roman state, and to a conception of that state as existing without the figure of an emperor at its head.

This possible idealism doesn't last long, though:

On the night of January first, an eagle-bearer of the Fourth legion came to Cologne and reported to Vitellius at his dinner that the Fourth and Twenty-second legions had thrown down Galba's statues and taken the oath of allegiance to the Senate and People of Rome. As such an oath seemed meaningless, it seemed best to seize the critical moment and offer an emperor to the soldiery. Vitellius sent men to the legions and legates to announce that the Upper army had mutinied anything Galba: therefore they must either fight against the mutineers or, if they preferred harmony and peace, make an emperor for themselves. There was less danger, he added, in chosing an emperor than in looking for one.(Tacitus, Histories 1.57)

That last note probably explains why any attempt at republican restoration would be doomed - once the idea of sole imperial rule takes hold, it cannot be abolished! Sure enough, the soldiers' sentiments are quickly swayed: Vitellius' commander Fabius Valens enters Cologne and salutes Vitellius emperor.

The legions of the same province showed the greatest rivalry in following this example; and the army of Upper Germany, dropping the fine-sounding titles of the Senate and People of Rome, came over to Vitellius on the third of January, which clearly showed that on the two previous days they were not really at the disposal of a republican government..." (Tacitus, Histories 1.55-57)

That last phrase in bold is tricky - "speciosis senatus populique Romani nominibus relictis, tertium nonas Ianuarias Vitellio accessit: scires illum priore biduo non penes rem publicam fuisse" - the older translation by Church and Brodribb states that the soldiers "had not really been the army of the State". Don't know if anyone could suggest whether Tacitus is actually invoking 'republican government' here or not... But if he is, might the soldiers have indeed claimed to be loyal to such an entity?

- Nathan

[Epictetus]

Laudes, Nathan. I think I've read practically all of Tacitus' histories and annals, but I didn't remember those passages. Thanks!

[Jona Lendering]

I think that Velleius Paterculus, Roman history 2.89, is pretty strong evidence that the Romans did not realize what had happened.

nothing that the gods can grant to a man, nothing that wish can conceive or good fortune bring to pass, which Augustus on his return to the city did not bestow upon the republic, the Roman people, and the world. The civil wars were ended after twenty years, foreign wars suppressed, peace restored, the frenzy of arms everywhere lulled to rest; validity was restored to the laws, authority to the courts, and dignity to the senate; the power of the magistrates was reduced to its former limits, with the sole exception that two were added to the eight existing praetors. The old traditional form of the republic was restored.

Velleius is one of the view authors who actually lived in this age; he is a key witness, I'd say.

[M. Demetrius]

Not speaking as a historian, I would posit that for the majority of people, the lower classes at least, there would be less interest in the "Central Government" than in whether they were issued their bread ration and whether there was relative peace and protection from invaders and brigands. Life was hard for them under the Republic, and life was hard for them under the Principate/Empire. Life was just hard, no matter who was in the Senate House or seated on the curule chair.

[Epictetus]

Great find, Jona. I've never read him.

[Lindsay_Powell]

I do believe the Romans did recognise the fact - and as early as 12-9BCE. The Romans saw Nero Claudius Drusus (Drusus the Elder) as a man who would restore the res publica. There is a report that Drusus sent a letter to his brother Tiberius in which he urged they approach their stepfather to stand down and restore the old form of rule. The story is that Tiberius revealed it to Augustus, yet he did not react badly to it. It was probably not much of a surprise to the princeps as his 'republican' leanings were well known. Twenty-nine years later there was great fury among the public in Rome at the death of Drusus' son Germanicus - widely presumed murdered - as he was also seen as the one man then alive who could restore the republic. There seems to have been a recognition that with the rule of Tiberius as Augustus' successor (abetted by Seianus) the democratic republic was effectively snuffed out.
I cover the matter in my book Eager for Glory on the life of Drusus the Elder due to be published in spring 2011.

[Jona Lendering]

There is a report that Drusus sent a letter to his brother Tiberius in which he urged they approach their stepfather to stand down and restore the old form of rule. The story is that Tiberius revealed it to Augustus, yet he did not react badly to it.

I miss something. The closest I can get is Suetonius, Claudius 1.4, which supports the first part, that Drusus was a republican. But it does not contain to a letter revealed to Augustus. Which source have I overlooked?

[Lindsay_Powell]

Jona, for the letter see Suetonius, Tiberius, 50.1:

"[L] Odium aduersus necessitudines in Druso primum fratre detexit, prodita eius epistula, qua secum de cogendo ad restituendam libertatem Augusto agebat, deinde et in reliquis."

"50. He first manifested hatred towards his own relations in the case of his brother Drusus, betraying him by the production of a letter to himself, in which Drusus proposed that Augustus should be forced to restore the public liberty."

On the popular view that Drusus would have restored the republic see Tacitus, Annales, 1.33:

“[I.XXXIII] quippe Drusi magna apud populum Romanum memoria, credebaturque, si rerum potitus foret, libertatem redditurus; unde in Germanicum favor et spes eadem”.

"1.33 for, dear and adored was the memory of his father Drusus amongst the Roman People, and from him was firmly expected that had he succeeded to the Empire, he would have restored public liberty: hence their zeal for Germanicus, and of him the same hopes conceived".

[Jona Lendering]

Thanks!!