Roman dictators

[eugene]

How where Roman dictators controlled? Where there any limitations (besides chronological) of their power?

[Epictetus]

I don’t think there was any legal check upon the dictator except the term of office.

For example:

On the creation of the dictator first at Rome, when they saw the axes carried before him, great awe struck the common people, so that they became more submissive to obey orders. For neither was there now, as under the consuls who possessed equal power, the assistance of one of the two, nor was there appeal, nor was there any resource any where but in attentive submission.

Livy, 2.18

For the extent of the power which the dictator possesses is by no means indicated by the title; for the dictatorship is in reality an elective tyranny.

Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 5.73

Now dictators were always appointed for a specific purpose. In the beginning the purpose was probably always military in nature – an alternative name for the dictator was magister populi, which Cornell says “probably” implied Commander of the Army. But dictators were also appointed for other reasons, even as mundane as to supervise elections.

I suspect that there was a strong tradition that the dictator would only exercise absolute power in regards to the issue for which he was appointed: a war, an election, or whatever. Dion says that dictators were chosen specifically for “the situations in which they found themselves” (5.74).

One reason I think this is that if the specific task was accomplished the dictator immediately resigned the office – there was no reason to wait till the end of his term.

Another reason: I can’t think of any case where a dictator did anything other than what he was charged with. For instance, no one that I’m aware of was appointed dictator for a war and then ended up changing legislation. Dion also mentions this, and says the only exception to this rule was Sulla (5.77).