Was Domitian right all along?

[Garetor]

So imperial-era Rome has long been a gap in my knowledge, and I've been listening to Mike Duncan's fantastic History of Rome podcast to acquaint myself with the era in broad strokes. Having reached the era of Diocletian, though, I can't help but think that a great deal of bloodshed might have been saved if Domitian had been able to live and have a long, active reign. He was establishing a bureaucracy independent of the senate, carrying the government with him as he moved, and working hard to create a myth of imperial divinity that could dissuade ambitious generals from reaching for the throne.

From his actions, it seems like he knew from early on that the senate no longer served any purpose, that the centrality of Rome and the power of the mob and praetorians therein were toxic to the overall well-being of the empire. Yes, he was an arrogant autocrat who styled himself "lord and god", but was appealing to a nonexistent civic spirit or legionary realpolitik any better?

Interested to hear your thoughts.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Right about what?

The regime (re-)established by Nerva and the Senate in 96 lasted almost a century. Compare that to Domitian's 15 years.

 

[Garetor]

Right about what?

The regime (re-)established by Nerva and the Senate in 96 lasted almost a century. Compare that to Domitian's 15 years.

Essentially, that Domitian's focus on a semi-divine imperial monarchy with a supporting might have provided a more durable and stable empire. He de-emphasized the importance of Rome itself, stripped power from the useless senatorial appendage, stabilized the coinage, pursued no religious persecution, and fought corruption. Frankly, if he made a wrong move, it seems to have been in not entirely moving the seat of government permanently from Rome, to avoid the kind of consequences that fell on him personally eventually. That could have been the beginning of a more broad-based imperial identity, centered on a godlike emperor and that could provide a framework to support things even when someone like Commodus came along. As long as the emperor's authority derives, even ostensibly, from a body that rolls over for every army that marches in, the kind of revolving door emperors that characterize the 3rd century crisis seem more likely to occur.

Take for comparison the Byzantines, whose emperors clutched tightly to the cross and lasted near a thousand years longer than the western empire, or the Ottomans after them, who may well have lasted up to the present day if better decisions were made around WW1. They had good emperors and bad emperors, but the edifice of imperial power was durable enough to survive and provide a stable base for the country's renewal at times.

 

[Skallagrim]

The thing is, having a go at Puttin' On The Dominate a few centuries early isn't a viable strategy. For starters, there are too many people who don't like it. This kind of thing is accepted when there are no other options left, when the Principate is dead and the crisis has come and order must be had no matter the cost. But that time had not yet come. If Domitian had been Emperor 200 years later, he'd have been remembered as one the greatest. A (much) better Diocletian, essentially.

But he wasn't. He attempted to govern the Principate by the rules of the Dominate: rules the only became accepted because the preceding crisis necessitated it. Most everything you mention (the stripping away of traditional structures and privileges, the centralisation of authority in the person of the Emperor, the abandonment of most pretenses regarding any civic spirit) is exactly what we see in the Dominate.

 

[Sertorius126]

Considering his successors applied most of his policies for themselves, that during his rule the empire’s currency was particularly strong, that the empire was also probably the least corrupt it ever was and ever would be, and that, although censorship was strict, most of the best works of the silver age of latin flourished under his patronage, I’d say yes, he was right.

Was it too early though to strip the Senate of its power and elevate the Emperor’s dignity far above it? If done correctly, I don’t think so. Domitian was actually being careful with it at first, going cautiously step by step, then his popularity fell a little because of his generals’ failures in Dacia, the Senate saw an opportunity, Saturninus’ rebellion happened and he snapped, killing senators and hounding them with his informers day after day. Domitian likely knew that the emperor’s role in the Roman world needed to be given a more regal and autocratic aura to make successions more stable, so making the empire more stable, he wasn’t wrong in attempting to do so, he was wrong in losing control of himself and carelessly rushing through it. Although we should remember that Domitian was still a human being, and a particularly conflicted one at that, much like Hadrian, another emperor we’d remember as one of the bad ones if he’d stuck at Rome more often.

Also, he never officially styled himself “lord and god”, someone else did, and he said nothing about it. What he did style himself as was “censor perpetuus”, which made the emperor censor for life. The senate was pretty pissed off about it, so what did his successors do? They acted like censors without styling themselves as such. At the end, it was always about appearances.

 

[Sertorius126]

Right about what?

The regime (re-)established by Nerva and the Senate in 96 lasted almost a century. Compare that to Domitian's 15 years.

Trajan and Hadrian did the same stuff he did, they were just better at hiding it, or at least Trajan was.

 

[daveg1967]

What you are describing is the Byzantine model. That model lasted a millennium.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I'm not sure that having the Senate play a major role in imperial governance was such a bad thing -- it ensured that the career structure of important officials involved lots of time at Rome, where the emperor could monitor them for loyalty, build up good relations, etc.

What the Empire really needed was a proper succession law -- "When the emperor dies, his nearest surviving male relative automatically becomes emperor instead," or something like that. (With more detail for what to do if there were two equally-closely-related relatives, or whatever.) As long as emperors could be made just by having the army proclaim them, sidelining the Senate wouldn't do much good (and indeed the Senate was pretty sidelined early on in the Third-Century Crisis, not that this helped much). Conversely, if there was such a succession mechanism, having an important role for the Senate wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing (most medieval kings acted in conjunction with their parliaments or estates general, and they didn't generally suffer the sort of pretender whack-a-mole the Romans did). Of course, whether such a law could plausibly be established in Domitian's Rome is another matter...

 

[piratedude]

The problem is that successful autocracies need a large and effective bureaucracy whoes inertia can handle a few bad/mediocre emperors in a, the likes of which the Principate didn't have. even under the Dominate it wasn't as expansive as what china developed.

The best thing to do to accomplish centralizing imperial authority, imo, lies in simultaneously weakening the senate while seeming to empower them.

Break up the provences into smaller pieces so that there are more govenorships that you can appoint senators to, and tie them down with long terms (ten years minimum lets say). Maybe set up some sort of pro-aedileships to go along with the governors too to help manage the provincial mints and such. And of course have them all under the supervision of an imperial appointee, like the later praetorian prefectures.

If the senators are all spread out and busy managing a little province then there's fewer of them with the time, resources, and proximity to the imperor to plot against him. And as others have said, stay in Rome itself as little as you can get away with.

 

[Sertorius126]

The problem is that successful autocracies need a large and effective bureaucracy whoes inertia can handle a few bad/mediocre emperors in a, the likes of which the Principate didn't have. even under the Dominate it wasn't as expansive as what china developed.

The best thing to do to accomplish centralizing imperial authority, imo, lies in simultaneously weakening the senate while seeming to empower them.

Break up the provences into smaller pieces so that there are more govenorships that you can appoint senators to, and tie them down with long terms (ten years minimum lets say). Maybe set up some sort of pro-aedileships to go along with the governors too to help manage the provincial mints and such. And of course have them all under the supervision of an imperial appointee, like the later praetorian prefectures.

If the senators are all spread out and busy managing a little province then there's fewer of them with the time, resources, and proximity to the imperor to plot against him. And as others have said, stay in Rome itself as little as you can get away with.

That’s basically the Dominate dressed up as the Principate.

 

[piratedude]

That’s basically the Dominate dressed up as the Principate.

Well yeah, minus the separation of civil and military powers. Which is actually a big deal here because that seperation was aways off from Domitian's time, so the provincial govenors can still be a threat if they can manage to work together.

And isn't that basically the point of OP's question? It all boils down to creating the Dominate in the guise of the Principate, not unlike how Octavian established a monarchy in the guise of restoring/preserving the republic.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Break up the provences into smaller pieces so that there are more govenorships that you can appoint senators to, and tie them down with long terms (ten years minimum lets say).

If anything, longer terms would tend towards instability, since a governor would have more time to build up a powerbase in preparation for rebellion.

 

[Sertorius126]

Well yeah, minus the separation of civil and military powers. Which is actually a big deal here because that seperation was aways off from Domitian's time, so the provincial govenors can still be a threat if they can manage to work together.

And isn't that basically the point of OP's question? It all boils down to creating the Dominate in the guise of the Principate, not unlike how Octavian established a monarchy in the guise of restoring/preserving the republic.

Oh, I thought the Aediles you mentioned meant separating civilian from military power, by keeping away money from the governors.

Im any case, i think that by Domitian’s time a blend of the two things would be the best possible solution, kind of what Septimius Severus did, he split off some provinces, created extreme dynastic attachment within the army, stayed often away from Rome making the emperor a more unreachable entity while letting his subordinates handle the day to day business of governement and put the equestrians on equal footing with the senators. Domitian had already raised the soldier’s salary to 300 denarii, more succesful campaigns could have seen him succeeding in establishing something Severan like.

 

[piratedude]

Oh, I thought the Aediles you mentioned meant separating civilian from military power, by keeping away money from the governors.

That sounds like a good idea.

As for being more successful militarily, is there anything in particular in terms of strategy that he can do to help or is it just down to better luck/commanders

 

[Garetor]

That sounds like a good idea.

As for being more successful militarily, is there anything in particular in terms of strategy that he can do to help or is it just down to better luck/commanders

Perhaps establishing a proper military academy, rather than relying on men rising through the ranks? I always thought that a formal military education system seemed like a gap in the Roman toolset, as from what I can tell, even people who entered the military as officers from the aristocracy more more or less learning on an apprenticeship basis.

Though Mike Duncan spends a lot of one whole episode talking about the Roman education system and how terrible it was, relying largely on rote memorization and corporal punishment. I was considering doing a thread about a Roman education revolution, but this seemed a less murky and complicated issue.

 

[piratedude]

Perhaps establishing a proper military academy, rather than relying on men rising through the ranks? I always thought that a formal military education system seemed like a gap in the Roman toolset, as from what I can tell, even people who entered the military as officers from the aristocracy more more or less learning on an apprenticeship basis.

Though Mike Duncan spends a lot of one whole episode talking about the Roman education system and how terrible it was, relying largely on rote memorization and corporal punishment. I was considering doing a thread about a Roman education revolution, but this seemed a less murky and complicated issue.

A proper military academy is an interesting idea, not sure it could be pulled off.

As for educational revolution, i think there's a TL for that though i dont remember its name

 

[Sertorius126]

That sounds like a good idea.

As for being more successful militarily, is there anything in particular in terms of strategy that he can do to help or is it just down to better luck/commanders

Well, Domitian himself had no military experience, nor did he have any propensity for it, but his overall strategy was sound, he just had to rely on the right people. Agricola did a sterling job, Cornelius Fuscus, who was his pretorian prefect, on the other hand was caught in an ambush somewhere in Dacia of a magnitude to rival Teutoburg. I get what Domitian tried to do, sending an equestrian to deal with a major new conquest for the empire since he couldn’t do it himself, but he should have picked someone more competent for that.

 

[Sertorius126]

Perhaps establishing a proper military academy, rather than relying on men rising through the ranks? I always thought that a formal military education system seemed like a gap in the Roman toolset, as from what I can tell, even people who entered the military as officers from the aristocracy more more or less learning on an apprenticeship basis.

Though Mike Duncan spends a lot of one whole episode talking about the Roman education system and how terrible it was, relying largely on rote memorization and corporal punishment. I was considering doing a thread about a Roman education revolution, but this seemed a less murky and complicated issue.

In theory, giving young senators the rank of tribune and putting them in charge of things within a legion was supposed to be the Roman military academy for “junior officers”, except only a few of them, like Trajan or Hadrian, took it seriously, the rest just lazed about for a year and then went back home. Unfortunately, the Roman world put patronage over competence more often then not. An official academy would have probably been a corrupt mess of senators buying off their ranks anyway.

 

[Garetor]

In theory, giving young senators the rank of tribune and putting them in charge of things within a legion was supposed to be the Roman military academy for “junior officers”, except only a few of them, like Trajan or Hadrian, took it seriously, the rest just lazed about for a year and then went back home. Unfortunately, the Roman world put patronage over competence more often then not. An official academy would have probably been a corrupt mess of senators buying off their ranks anyway.

It seems like the only way to overcome that, then, would have been some kind of religious motivation or powerful philosophy. Something like Platonic self-cultivation, or how monasteries in medieval europe turned out many very intelligent, competent administrators to help royal regimes.