Compare and contrast the ways in which later Roman Emperors sought to define their own role and image

Résumé du document

The Roman Empire can be considered to have begun with the end of the Severan dynasty in 235 AD and following the third century crisis. This period produced great strains and stresses on the imperial position. Indeed, with the exception of Macrinus, Roman Emperors up to Severus Alexander (AD 222-35) were all senatorial aristocrats, from high-ranking families with recognized administrative and military careers. The fact that Maximinus Thrax (AD 235-38) was made Emperor by his troops marked a turning point in Roman history (Southern 2001: 246-7). Imperial instability and permanent warfare climate entailed some substantial modifications of the role exerted by the Emperor on the Roman world. The creation of the Tetrarchy by Diocletian in AD 293 provides the brightest example of the kind of changes that occurred. In that context, it is worth comparing and contrasting the ways in which later Roman Emperors sought to adapt these challenges and therefore define their roles and images better.

Extraits

[...] Diocletian can in that respect appear to represent a watershed in the way later Roman Emperor sought to define their own role and image, for he broke with the traditional Augustan Emperor[1]. Whereas Augustus established the Principate, where the Empire was only ruled by the first citizen, Diocletian created thereby the Dominate, where the Empire was head by the dominus, the Lord. Whatever their insistence on religious deference, being seen as living gods allowed Emperors to give a divine authority to their acts, therefore increasing the docility of the population. [...]

[...] He represents indeed probably the most typical case of a soldier Emperor, but he was also the last, forerunning Diocletian in many ways[4]. Thus, no one knew where he was born, and his elevation from obscurity to supreme power testifies the extent to which the army was a dramatic mean of social mobility. It shows also that the third century was a time where kindness and mercy were not the qualities that mattered. Indeed, Aurelian was nicknamed manu ad ferrum, namely hand on hilt, and his reputation for cruelty was well established (Southern 2001: 110-1). [...]

[...] To conclude, later Roman Emperors reflect the diversity and the complexity of their times. Indeed, in a climate of permanent warfare, plunged as they were into huge financial and administrative problems, they looked for new ways of imposing themselves. If general features of concerns can be distinguish, such as the role of religion or the place of the army, each individual seized issues in a particular fashion. Nevertheless, however important a single Emperor could appear, he was always neither a complete innovator, nor a mere heir of his predecessors. [...]

[...] In that context, it is worth comparing and contrasting the ways in which later Roman Emperors sought to adapt these challenges and therefore to define on new basis their own role and image. Three main areas can be distinguished in order to do so: the religious realm, the military power and the political ceremonial along with the relationship to the people. However artificial and overlapping these separations might be, they help to grasp in a few words an idea of the broad kind of behaviours adopted by the various Emperors of the somewhat rather long period contemplated. [...]

[...] This is our last example, both for the chronological order and for the fact that this Emperor illustrates quite well the extent to which Emperors could be prisoners of their own image. Indeed, the way Julian wished to lead his own life was rendered quite difficult by the actual expectations of the people. This was particularly clear when he came to Antioch in AD 363, with the aim to invade, once again, the Persian Empire (Potter 2004: 515-6): Julian relationship with the people of Antioch was not helped by the fact that he disliked public spectacles, and made it clear he did so. [...]