03-23-2016, 05:01 PM
Thank you. You are certainly a fountain of fantastic knowledge! This is exactly the reason I found my way to these forums! 
So it seems that titles and forms of address were more formalised in the later empire; would this be after Diocletian's move from Principate to Dominate? Would I be right in saying that earlier emperors would not have had such formality, especially since they liked to propagate the fallacy that Rome was still a Republic and they weren't really emperors? Depending on who was addressing them I assume then that it would be either Dominus, Imperator, or maybe just their name that would be used?
I often find the Imperial system of the early Empire hard to get my head round - there was an emperor, but no one thought of him as an emperor because they liked to think they were a Republic, even though the emperor had all the power. Or is that just the fanciful wishes of the Senate? Were Augustus's successors really recognised as what they were?
I think, perhaps, Imperator might be a good term to use as it sounds suitably Roman, but is also recognisable enough for a modern audience to associate with emperor. I know Dominus is probably the most accurate, but I have always associated this with the way a slave would address a master rather than a free citizen addressing another citizen. To me, it comes cross as a little subservient for a Roman. But again, however, this is my own personal prejudice rather than a historical fact.
Many thanks
So it seems that titles and forms of address were more formalised in the later empire; would this be after Diocletian's move from Principate to Dominate? Would I be right in saying that earlier emperors would not have had such formality, especially since they liked to propagate the fallacy that Rome was still a Republic and they weren't really emperors? Depending on who was addressing them I assume then that it would be either Dominus, Imperator, or maybe just their name that would be used?
I often find the Imperial system of the early Empire hard to get my head round - there was an emperor, but no one thought of him as an emperor because they liked to think they were a Republic, even though the emperor had all the power. Or is that just the fanciful wishes of the Senate? Were Augustus's successors really recognised as what they were?
I think, perhaps, Imperator might be a good term to use as it sounds suitably Roman, but is also recognisable enough for a modern audience to associate with emperor. I know Dominus is probably the most accurate, but I have always associated this with the way a slave would address a master rather than a free citizen addressing another citizen. To me, it comes cross as a little subservient for a Roman. But again, however, this is my own personal prejudice rather than a historical fact.
Many thanks
David Hobday
