Poll: Was the fall of the Roman Principate inevitable?

Do you believe the transition from Principate to Dominate was inevitable?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 45.2%
  • No

    Votes: 34 54.8%

  • Total voters
    62
The Roman Empire of OTL is generally considered to have passed through two phases: the Principate and the Dominate.
The former was (with a few exceptions) marked by a system of cooperation between the emperor and the senatorial elites. The emperor was mostly relegeated to military duties, and the empire was kind of informally divided between imperial and senatorial provinces.
The latter, meanwhile, was more absolutist in nature. The emperor's duties began to encompass not only the leadership of the armies, but also control over practically every aspect of political, bureaucratic, and religious life. The senate had its influence heavily curtailed, to be overshadowed by the consistorium of the emperor.
The period of transition between both "phases" tends to not have a defined consensus, with most putting the beginning of the Dominate to during or after the Third Century Crisis, others putting it all the way back to Septimius Severus' reign, etc.
So, my question is: had the Roman Empire not suffered its "midlife crisis" (reign of Commodus, Year of The Five Emperors, Rise of the Sassanian Empire and Germanic barbarians, Third Century Crisis), do you believe the old structures that defined the Principate (emperor-senate cooperation, traditional Roman-Hellenistic religious systems, etc.) could have survived?
Or are you more skeptical, and believe the empire was getting too cumbersome to not be governed in a centralized, autocratic manner?
 
Last edited:
I'd say that the popular conception of the principate vs. dominate is a little bit misleading. The principate was just as authoritarian as the dominate, which can be clearly seen as early as Augustus' constitutional settlements, when the senate acquiesced to Augustus controlling the provinces with 27 out of the 28 legions that the empire had mustered by that point. By the time of the dominate, the only real transition that took place was the centralization of the military (with the creation of the duces, praetorian prefectures, magister militia, etc.) and the source of legitimacy changing from the legions to the divinity of the emperor. However, this transition was gradual, as many emperors discarded the Augustan model of "princeps" during their reign (in particular Domitian, Commodus, basically all of the Severans, and Gallienus). Even traditionally "good" emperors began to discard the traditional authority of the senate as early as the reign of Claudius. Even Hadrian, who is more or less agreed to be one of the 5 or 10 best emperors of all time, did everything he could to mobilize the center of imperial power to his own entourage, which spent less time in Rome than any emperor preceding him.

But, assuming that the traditional transformation is correct in its popular conception, I'd say that it was inevitable for the same reasons that the transformation from the Republic to the principate was inevitable. The senate was a corrupt, self-interested body, that did everything it could to undermine the wealth and stability of the provinces for their own aggrandizement, and the empire had grown too large to be effectively governed by the institutions that were in place at the time. The later empire had to deal with much greater threats (Goths, Huns, Sassanids, etc) and the institutions of the principate were not versatile enough to address all of these threats simultaneously, as the traditional principate was overly focused on the interests of Italian nobility and the role of the emperor was too limited in scope to function as an effective executive with the changing nature of the foreign and domestic threats to the empire.

Not that the dominate was perfect, there were certainly institutional failings of the later empire. The main one being that almost all tax revenue came from the poor while the rich received exemptions which made the poor view the government as a predatory institution and destroyed public trust in the government, which made it impossible to recruit legions by the 5th century. Furthermore, the choice to allow foederati to settle in the empire without disbanding their native kings was definitely a poor choice in hindsight as well.

Then again, I'm just an armchair historian, so take that with a grain of salt.
 
Nothing in history is inevitable. Many people will claim that such and such is inevitable, however, this is intellectually lazy. There are a lot of factors and variables that play into the development of societies and consequently history.
 
Last edited:

Toraach

Banned
The end of principate was inevitable, because nothing is eternal. But outcome as the Dominate wasn't determited.

And please tell me Gaucho. To what extent power of L. Septimius Severus was bigger than this of Augustus? You said about putting the end of the Principate to his reign. So I want to ask that. Augustus for his contemporaries was also a tyrant, a military dicator, to even more extenct than emperors 200 years later, when for all people the imperial system was obvious. Augustus created a new thing, at the beggining of his time elites remembered what had been before, that it wasn't an existing system. It take many decades to making the Principate into a norm. I think that after his death the Principate was for all the one and only possible system.
 
And please tell me Gaucho. To what extent power of L. Septimius Severus was bigger than this of Augustus?
I did not say that i, personally, believe the Principate ended with the Severans. What i’m implying is that some believe the first precedents of the Dominate, including the large increase in the army’s power and the breaking of compromise between emperor and senate, were created during the reign of this dynasty.
 

Toraach

Banned
I did not say that i, personally, believe the Principate ended with the Severans. What i’m implying is that some believe the first precedents of the Dominate, including the large increase in the army’s power and the breaking of compromise between emperor and senate, were created during the reign of this dynasty.
What was that compromise during the Severans and to what extanct it was diffrent than during the Julio-Claudians? Was there any important difference between cruelty and deviations of Caligula, Nero and Caracalla and Heliogabal from the other side?

How did the increasing army power look and how diffrent that was than the army power during the year of four Emperors?

And the most important. What were those "precedents of the Dominate"?
 
Whilst I don't think anything in history is strictly speaking "inevitable", I do think it was highly likely. The Roman empire was, to all practical purposes, an absolute monarchy from the get-go -- the Senate was totally impotent to rein in the actions of people like Caligula or Nero, for example -- and, barring something extremely unexpected, I think it almost certain that the emperors would gradually drop the charade of republicanism which Augustus had set up to keep the nobility on-side.

The former was (with a few exceptions) marked by a system of cooperation between the emperor and the senatorial elites. The emperor was mostly relegeated to military duties, and the empire was kind of informally divided between imperial and senatorial provinces.

"Relegated" is the wrong term, I think. The reason Augustus wanted responsibility for the army was precisely that this would make his position unchallengeable. And of course, even in Augustus' time the emperor used to issue decrees to provincial communities, even to those in provinces which weren't technically his.

The later empire had to deal with much greater threats (Goths, Huns, Sassanids, etc) and the institutions of the principate were not versatile enough to address all of these threats simultaneously, as the traditional principate was overly focused on the interests of Italian nobility and the role of the emperor was too limited in scope to function as an effective executive with the changing nature of the foreign and domestic threats to the empire.

I don't know, I think that civil wars were ultimately a bigger cause of Rome's fall than barbarian invasion, and in this regard the old Augustan system was superior. Only a few Senators would have the talent and connections to make a plausible bid for the throne, and their career structure meant that they'd frequently return to Rome, making it relatively easy for the emperor to keep an eye on them. Later you got more professionalised commanders, who might spend their entire careers in the provinces without once meeting the emperor in person. This process was already well underway by the late 2nd century, when emperors increasingly appointed equestrians to important posts, on the grounds that no mere equestrian could possibly hope to become emperor. Then one did, and suddenly you had a much larger pool of potential emperors whose career patterns made it much harder for the emperor to monitor them for disloyalty.
 
I don't know, I think that civil wars were ultimately a bigger cause of Rome's fall than barbarian invasion, and in this regard the old Augustan system was superior. Only a few Senators would have the talent and connections to make a plausible bid for the throne, and their career structure meant that they'd frequently return to Rome, making it relatively easy for the emperor to keep an eye on them. Later you got more professionalised commanders, who might spend their entire careers in the provinces without once meeting the emperor in person. This process was already well underway by the late 2nd century, when emperors increasingly appointed equestrians to important posts, on the grounds that no mere equestrian could possibly hope to become emperor. Then one did, and suddenly you had a much larger pool of potential emperors whose career patterns made it much harder for the emperor to monitor them for disloyalty.

It's hard to pin the fall of Rome onto one single cause, but I have a hard time believing that civil wars by themselves were the death blow. Because there were civil wars from get-go. Even the rise of Augustus (the very first emperor) was precipitated by more than 50 years of civil conflict (the Social War, the Marian-Sullan Wars, Caitline conspiracy, servile wars, Caesar's civil war, and the wars of the 2nd triumvirate). If civil wars were the defining flaw, then the empire would have fallen during or before the 3rd century crisis (there were at least 3 civil wars in 69, 193, and 218 before the 3rd century crisis). I'd say that civil wars were certainly a factor that destabilized the situation, but it took until the sort of mass population movement that came with the migration period (plus a much more competent and centralized Persian empire), coupled with the total breakdown of the tax and legionary recruitment systems for the empire to finally break
 
I wanted to flesh out the anti-pro Severus arguments a bit more. I think it will help us better answer the op.

The anti Severus narrative largely stems from Gibbon and Alfred von Domaszewski. Gibbon called him "principal author of the decline of the empire" and Domaszewski said he "planted the despotism of the east in the soil of the west". They effectviely viewed Severus as a Punic barbarian, in love with Hannibal, who wanted to destroy Greco-Roman world. They hold him responsible for the decline of the empire, move towards a more Diocletian style rule and the "barbarization" the army.

These views have been countered by Maurice Platnauer and Anthony Birley in their works on Severus. To summarize Severus did not hate Rome and in fact fought numerous successful campaigns in defense of the empire. His reign was progressive in nature and sponsored the legal work of Papinian among others. Severus was also not responsible for the quote "barbarization" of the army as the policy of recruiting from the borderlands began under Hadrian. Severus wasn't of the Italian elite and thus overly criticized as un-Roman . Similarly later Emperor Galerius has been accused of trying to reestablish a Dacian empire and destroy Rome....

I would like to note one thing Severus did that was out of the ordinary was stationing Legio II Parthica a few miles from Rome. The anti Severus group would take this as a sign of his more authoritarian nature, when compared to previous previous emperors, and that he viewed Italy as any old province. Platnauer dismisses this and takes the view that Severus stationed the legion there for strategic reasons. That Severus was against having legions only guarding the frontiers and favored a defense in depth, a precursor to Diocletian's later deployment of the legions.

Thoughts?
 
The senate was a corrupt, self-interested body, that did everything it could to undermine the wealth and stability of the provinces for their own aggrandizement.

Ronald Syme in The Roman Revolution: "In all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the façade"
 
I wanted to flesh out the anti-pro Severus arguments a bit more. I think it will help us better answer the op.

The anti Severus narrative largely stems from Gibbon and Alfred von Domaszewski. Gibbon called him "principal author of the decline of the empire" and Domaszewski said he "planted the despotism of the east in the soil of the west". They effectviely viewed Severus as a Punic barbarian, in love with Hannibal, who wanted to destroy Greco-Roman world. They hold him responsible for the decline of the empire, move towards a more Diocletian style rule and the "barbarization" the army.

These views have been countered by Maurice Platnauer and Anthony Birley in their works on Severus. To summarize Severus did not hate Rome and in fact fought numerous successful campaigns in defense of the empire. His reign was progressive in nature and sponsored the legal work of Papinian among others. Severus was also not responsible for the quote "barbarization" of the army as the policy of recruiting from the borderlands began under Hadrian. Severus wasn't of the Italian elite and thus overly criticized as un-Roman . Similarly later Emperor Galerius has been accused of trying to reestablish a Dacian empire and destroy Rome....

I would like to note one thing Severus did that was out of the ordinary was stationing Legio II Parthica a few miles from Rome. The anti Severus group would take this as a sign of his more authoritarian nature, when compared to previous previous emperors, and that he viewed Italy as any old province. Platnauer dismisses this and takes the view that Severus stationed the legion there for strategic reasons. That Severus was against having legions only guarding the frontiers and favored a defense in depth, a precursor to Diocletian's later deployment of the legions.

Thoughts?

I'd say the most uniquely revolutionary factor in Severus' reign was the idea that he was the first emperor to codify into law the idea that the emperor was above the law, which he himself did not abide by as he wished for the public to view him as a law-abiding leader, but this laid some of the first important groundwork for the transfer of legitimacy that would mark the reign of Diocletian and the rise of the dominate. Severus was a competent administrator, a skilled general, and a savvy politician, he was simply despised by the senate for his failure to "show them the proper amount of respect and deference" which is the same criticism they levied against Domitian, Hadrian, and so many other emperors. Domitian in particular is an example of the senate's fickleness with respect to the emperors. During his reign, Domitian fortified the Limes Germanicus and the Danube border, paid for a number of infrastructure projects out of the imperial treasury, and even sat as a judge in a number of civil court cases during his reign (and by all accounts delivered just and fair verdicts where most were concerned). But in the end, the senate assassinated him, damned his memory, and had all statues of him demolished because he openly despised them, which broke with the precedent set by Augustus and later by his father Vespasian.

In my view, the crucial institutional change that came with the transition from republic to principate to dominate was the gradual erosion in the power of the senate. They height of the senate's power came during the middle Republic, at the time of the Punic Wars. They had absolute control of the army and the government as a whole, they had broad public support, yet they deferred to the needs of the state as a whole and would not produce the sort of corruption that would be seen in the 1st century BCE. By the late republic, any charismatic general could strong-arm the chamber into backing whatever agenda they wanted (see: Marius, Sulla, Pompey, Caesar, Mark Antony, et al.). By the time of the principate, emperors like Claudius, Domitian, and Hadrian demonstrated that they could spend years on end administering the provinces without even returning to Rome or considering the senate, and by the time of the dominate, the capital had been moved away from Rome, so the senate could not even raise a finger to interfere with the emperor's administration.

I believe that this institutional evolution reflects the changing needs of the empire as a whole. The republic, as it was originally conceived, was designed to govern *one city*, and they stuck to that governing framework (with only small changes) for 500 years before it ultimately imploded in the fall of the republic. The transfer of power to the executive was a necessary transfer because the threats the empire was facing changed fundamentally after the end of the Punic and Macedonian Wars. Existential crises gave way to frontier defense, and the unwieldy and unstable senate gave way to the more stabilizing guiding hand of the emperors. When you're governing a small republic with a citizen-soldier army, you can afford to keep the kinds of inefficiencies that democracy necessarily creates, but when you're governing a massive empire with a huge tax base and a large, professionalized army guarding the frontiers, you need to have the sort of strategic long-term vision that the fleeting, one-year-terms of the consuls and shifting loyalties of the senate can't provide.

Got a little off the rails there so, in summary, I agree, Severus was one of the more competent emperors of the pre-3rd century lot, and I agree that it's unfair he takes so much of the blame for institutional problems that he didn't create. The fall of the principate was inevitable because Augustus didn't adequately address all the governing needs of the empire when he created the principate. That said, Augustus' constitutional framework did last an impressive 250-300 years (depending on where you mark the line dividing the principate from the dominate), which is still longer than all of US history so far, so we shouldn't be too hard on him.
 
Ronald Syme in The Roman Revolution: "In all ages, whatever the form and name of government, be it monarchy, republic, or democracy, an oligarchy lurks behind the façade"

Thats fair, but I view it this way. You can have corrupt emperors just as easily as corrupt senators, but once corruption is introduced to the senate as a body, a few bad apples can ruin the barrel. Good emperors can undo a lot of the damage of bad emperors, but it's much harder to root out the scale of corruption that a 300-800 person senate is capable of producing and perpetuating. A corrupt emperor can die and be replaced, but a corrupt senate will raise more corrupt senators, as can be plainly seen in the fall of the republic. Once corruption, bribery, and election-buying are introduced to the system, those taboos can never be un-broken.
 
OK, let's suppose Nero beats Galba's coup, forestalls the dissent of the Rhine legions, and uses this as an opportunity to reform himself. Given that Nero cared more about the arts than governing, this can easily butterfly the pincipitate into continuation. We have decades for downstream affects to happen and the Year of the Four Emperors must have changed Rome very subtly, so much so that even an alternate timeline where Nero stays in power and adopts Titus (Vespasian's son) and therefore getting the same line of continuity as OTL, the no successful deposition of a sitting Emperor has ripple effects.

Ironically before the Senate turned on Nero, he had sent orders for Vespasian to send 3/4 of his manpower back to Italia and Gaul to deal with the impending civil war.

Vespasian not only because Emperor in OTL, he was out of favor at this time. He fell asleep during one of Nero's performances, something that at least 30 people on separate occupation were executed for. Instead Vespasian was merely banished from court and put on unpaid leave. Then when the Jewish Revolt was going on, he got the command at random. To recap, when Nero realized he couldn't raise enough forces in Italia alone to confront the rebels, he recalled a disgraced man he banished from his court to save him.
 
Top