these configurations will be saved for each time you visit this page using this browser
Often, in a more limited and precise chronological sense, the term is applied either to the empire (in the sense of the post-Republican Roman state) or specifically the earlier of the two phases of 'imperial' government in the ancient Roman Empire, extending from when Augustus claimed auctoritas for himself as princeps until Rome's military collapse in the West (fall of Rome) in 476, leaving the Byzantine empire sole heir, or, depending on the source, up to the rule of either Commodus, Maximinus Thrax or of Diocletian. Afterwards, imperial rule in the Empire is designated as the Dominate, which is subjectively more like an (absolute) monarchy while the earlier Principate is still more 'Republican'.
Under this 'Principate stricto sensu', the political reality of autocratic rule by the Emperor was still scrupulously masked by forms and conventions of oligarchic self-rule inherited from the political period of the 'uncrowned' Roman Republic (509 BC-27 BC) under the motto Senatus Populusque Romanus or SPQR. Initially, the theory implied the 'first citizen' had to earn his extraordinary position (de facto evolving to nearly absolute monarchy) by merit in the style that Augustus himself had gained the position of auctoritas. Imperial propaganda developed a 'paternalistic' ideology, presenting the Princeps as the very incarnation of all virtues attributed to the ideal ruler (much like a Greek tyrannos earlier), such as clemency and justice, and in turn placing the impetus upon the Princeps to play this designated role within Roman society, as his political insurance as well as a moral duty. What specifically was expected of the Princeps seems to have varied according to the times; Tiberius, who amassed a huge surplus for the city of Rome, was criticized as a miser, while Caligula was criticized for his lavish spending on games and spectacles. Generally speaking it was the duty of the emperor to be seen as generous, not just as a good ruler but also from his personal fortune (as in the proverbial "bread and circuses" – panem et circenses – meaning various public games, not just gladiators and horse races, but also artistic, as well as distributions of food), charitable institutions, de facto public works, et cetera, as popularity boosters, in the way of the Greek leitourgia (called munera in Latin) and the republican election campaigns.
With the fall of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, the Principate was redefined in formal terms under the Emperor Vespasian. The position of Princeps became a distinct entity within the broader - formally still republican - Roman constitution. While many of the cultural and political expectations remained, the Princeps was no longer a position extended on the basis of merit, or auctoritas, but on a firmer basis, allowing Vespasian and future emperors to designate their own heir without those heirs having to earn the position through years of success and public favor. Under the Antonine dynasty, it was the norm for the emperor to appoint a successful and politically promising general as his successor. In modern historical analysis this is treated by many authors as an "ideal" situation; the individual who was most capable was promoted to the position of Princeps. Of the Antonine dynasty, Edward Gibbon famously wrote that this was the happiest and most productive period in human history, and credited the system of succession as the key factor. Other historians have pointed out that the generals appointed to the Principate during the Antonine dynasty were largely made heirs because they would have constituted the greatest threat to the emperor as well as his eventual heir, had he chosen someone different. Additionally, the promotion of individuals to the position of Princeps based mainly on their military prowess is seen by many as contributing directly to the downfall of the Principate, the chaos of the third century and the rise of the militaristic Dominate.
This first phase was to be followed by, or rather evolved into, the so-called Dominate. Starting with the Emperor Diocletian, oriental type of styles like dominus ('Lord, Master', suggesting the citizens became servi, servants or slaves) became current, though not legal, but there could by definition never be a clear, constitutional turning point, so this appreciation remains subjective. The reality is gradual development. This process is also said to be established by the Emperor Septimus Severus; while the Severan dynasty initially began the terminology of the Dominate in reference to the emperor, the various emperors and their usurpers throughout the third century appealed to the people as both military dominus and political princeps.
After the Crisis of the Third Century almost resulted in the Roman Empire's political collapse, the Emperor Diocletian replaced the one-headed Principate with the tetrarchy (circa 300 AD, two Augusti ranking above two Caesares), in which the remaining pretence of the old Republican forms was largely abandoned. The title of princeps was abandoned - like the territorial unity of the Empire -, in favor of dominus, and the position of the emperor(s), especially in the Western Roman Empire, was entirely dependent on his control of the armed forces. The Dominate developed more and more, especially in the Byzantine Empire, along the lines of an oriental absolute monarchy, where the subjects, and even diplomatic allies, could be termed servus or doulos 'servant/slave' to express the exalted position of the emperor as second only to God, and on earth to none (except when reality took over, e.g. a victorious Persian ruler Chosroes was addressed with much more respect).This text is licensed under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA License. This text was originally published on Wikipedia and was developed by the Wikipedia community.
