| Emperor ofthe Roman Empire | |
|---|---|
Imperial | |
 Imperialaquila | |
.jpg) Bust ofAugustus wearing thecorona civica | |
| Details | |
| Style | Imperator,Caesar,Augustus,Princeps, Dominus Noster,Autokrator orBasileus (depending on period) |
| First monarch | Augustus |
| Last monarch | |
| Formation | 16 January 27 BC |
| Abolition |
|
| Appointer | Senate (official),Roman military |
TheRoman emperor was the ruler and monarchicalhead of state of theRoman Empire, starting with the granting of the titleaugustus toOctavian in 27 BC.[2] The termemperor is a modern convention, and did not exist as such during the Empire. When a given Roman is described as becomingemperor in English, it generally reflects his accession asaugustus, and later asbasileus. Another title used wasimperator, originally a military honorific, andcaesar, originally acognomen. Early emperors also used the titleprinceps ("first one") alongside otherRepublican titles, notablyconsul andpontifex maximus.
The legitimacy of an emperor's rule depended on his control of theRoman army and recognition by theSenate; an emperor would normally be proclaimed by his troops, or by the Senate, or both. The first emperors reigned alone; later emperors would sometimes rule with co-emperors to secure the succession or to divide the administration of the empire between them. The office of emperor was thought to be distinct from that of arex ("king"). Augustus, the first emperor, resolutely refused recognition as a monarch.[3] For the first three hundred years of Roman emperors, efforts were made to portray the emperors as leaders of the Republic, fearing any association with the kings who ruled Rome prior to the Republic.
FromDiocletian, whose reformedtetrarchy divided the position into one emperor in theWest and one in theEast, emperors ruled in an openly monarchic style.[4] Although succession was generally hereditary, it was only hereditary if there was a suitable candidate acceptable to the army and the bureaucracy,[5] so the principle of automatic inheritance was not adopted, which often led to severalclaimants to the throne. Despite this, elements of the republican institutional framework (Senate, consuls, and magistrates) were preserved even after the end of the Western Empire.
Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor, moved the capital from Rome toConstantinople, formerly known asByzantium, in 330 AD. Roman emperors had always held high religious offices; under Constantine there arose the specifically Christian idea that the emperor was God's chosen ruler on earth, a special protector and leader of the Christian Church, a position later termedCaesaropapism. In practice, an emperor's authority on Church matters was frequently subject to challenge. TheWestern Roman Empire collapsed in the late 5th century after multiple invasions byGermanic barbarian tribes, with no recognised claimant to Emperor of the West remaining after the death ofJulius Nepos in 480. Instead, the Eastern emperorZeno proclaimed himself as the sole emperor of a theoretically undivided Roman Empire (although in practice he had no authority in the West). The subsequent Eastern emperors ruling from Constantinople styled themselves as "Basileus of the Romans" (Ancient Greek:βασιλεύς Ῥωμαίων,Basileus Romaíon) but are often referred to in modern scholarship asByzantine emperors.
Thepapacy andGermanic kingdoms of the West acknowledged the Eastern emperors until the accession ofEmpress Irene in 797. After this, the papacy created a rival lineage of Roman emperors in western Europe, theHoly Roman Emperors, which ruled theHoly Roman Empire for most of the period between 800 and 1806. These emperors were never recognized in Constantinople and their coronations resulted in the medievalproblem of two emperors. The last Eastern emperor wasConstantine XI Palaiologos, who died during theFall of Constantinople to theOttoman Empire in 1453. After conquering the city,Ottoman sultans adopted the title "Caesar of the Romans" (kayser-i Rûm). A Byzantine group of claimant emperors existed in theEmpire of Trebizond until its conquest by the Ottomans in 1461, although they had used a modified title since 1282.
.jpg)
Modern historians conventionally regardAugustus as the first emperor, whereasJulius Caesar is considered the lastdictator of theRoman Republic, a view that is shared by the Roman writersPlutarch,Tacitus, andCassius Dio.[6] Conversely, the majority of Roman writers, includingPliny the Younger,Suetonius andAppian, as well as most of the ordinary people of the Empire, thought of Julius Caesar as the first emperor.[7] Caesar did indeed rule the Roman state as anautocrat, but he failed to create a stable system to maintain himself in power.[8] His rise to power was the result of a long and gradual decline in which the Republic fell under the influence of powerful generals such asGaius Marius andSulla.[9]
At the end of the Republic no new, and certainly no single, title indicated the individual who held supreme power. Insofar asemperor could be seen as the English translation of the Latinimperator, then Julius Caesar had been an emperor, like several Roman generals before him. Instead, by the end of theCaesar's civil wars, it became clear that there was certainly no consensus to return tothe old-style monarchy, but that the period when several officials would fight one another had come to an end.
Julius Caesar, and then Augustus after him, accumulated offices and titles of the highest importance in the Republic, making the power attached to those offices permanent, and preventing anyone with similar aspirations from accumulating or maintaining power for themselves.Julius Caesar had beenpontifex maximus since 64 BC; held the offices ofconsul anddictator five times since 59 BC, and was appointeddictator in perpetuity in 44 BC, shortly beforehis assassination. He had also become thede facto sole ruler of Rome in 48 BC, when he defeated his last opposition at theBattle of Pharsalus. His killers proclaimed themselves as theliberatores ("liberators") and the restorers of the Republic, but their rule was cut short by Caesar's supporters, who almost immediately established a new dictatorship.
In his will, Caesar appointed his grandnephewOctavian as his heir and adopted son. He inherited his property and lineage, the loyalty of most of his allies, and – again through a formal process of senatorial consent – an increasing number of the titles and offices that had accrued to Caesar. In August 43 BC, following thedeath of both consuls of the year, Octavian marched to Rome and forced the Senate to elect him consul. He then formed theSecond Triumvirate alongsideMark Antony andLepidus, dividing the Roman world among them. Lepidus was sidelined in 36 BC, and relations between Octavian and Antony soon deteriorated. In September 31 BC, Octavian'svictory at Actium put an end to any effective opposition and confirmed his supremacy over Rome.
In January 27 BC, Octavian and the Senate concluded the so-called "First settlement". Until then Octavian had been ruling the state with his powers astriumvir, even though the Triumvirate itself disappeared years earlier. He announced that he would return the power to theSenate and People of Rome, but this was only an act. The Senate confirmed Octavian asprinceps, the "first among equals", and gave him control over almost all Roman provinces for a tenure of ten years. This limitation was only superficial, as he could renew his powers indefinitely. In addition, the Senate awarded him the appellation ofaugustus ("elevated"). The honorific itself held no legal meaning, but it denoted that Octavian (henceforthAugustus) now approached divinity, and its adoption by his successors made it thede facto main title of the emperor. He also received thecivic crown alongside several other insignias in his honor. Augustus now held supreme and indisputable power, and even though he still received subsequent grants of powers, such as the granting oftribunicia potestas in 23 BC, these were only ratifications of the powers he already possessed.[10]
Most modern historians use 27 BC as the start date of the Roman Empire. This is mostly a symbolic date, as the Republic had essentially disappeared many years earlier. Ancient writers often ignore the legal implications of Augustus' reforms and simply write that he "ruled" Rome following the murder of Caesar, or that he "ruled alone" after the death of Mark Antony.[11][12] Most Romans thus simply saw the "emperor" as the individual that ruled the state, with no specific title or office attached to him.
Augustus actively prepared his adopted sonTiberius to be his successor and pleaded his case to the Senate for inheritance on merit. After Augustus' death in AD 14, the Senate confirmed Tiberius asprinceps and proclaimed him as the newaugustus. Tiberius had already receivedimperium maius andtribunicia potestas in AD 4, becoming legally equal to Augustus but still subordinate to him in practice.[13] The "imperial office" was thus not truly defined until the accession ofCaligula, when all of Tiberius' powers were automatically transferred to him as a single, abstract position that was symbolized by his sacred title ofaugustus.[14]
 |
|---|
| Periods |
|
| Constitution |
| Political institutions |
| Assemblies |
| Ordinary magistrates |
| Extraordinary magistrates |
| Public law |
| Senatus consultum ultimum |
| Titles and honours |
The legal authority of the emperor derived from an extraordinary concentration of individual powers and offices that were extant in the Republic and developed under Augustus and later rulers, rather than from a new political office. Under the Republic, these powers would have been split between several people, who would each exercise them with the assistance of a colleague and for a specific period of time. Augustus held them all at once by himself, and with no time limits; even those that nominally had time limits were automatically renewed whenever they lapsed.[15] The Republican offices endured and emperors were regularly elected to the most prominent of them: theconsulship andcensorship.[16] This early period of the Empire is known as the "Principate", derived from the titleprinceps used by the early emperors.
The most important bases of the emperor's power were his supreme power of command (imperium maius) and tribunician power (tribunicia potestas) as personal qualities, separate from his public office.[17] Originally, the powers of command where divided in consularimperium for Rome and proconsularimperium for theprovinces. This division became obsolete in 19 BC when Augustus was given consularimperium – despite leaving the consulship in 23 BC – and thus control over all troops. This overwhelming power was referred to asimperium maius to indicate its superiority to other holders ofimperium, such as theproconsuls of the few senatorial provinces and allies such asAgrippa.[18] The governors appointed to the imperial provinces only answered to the emperor himself, who could maintain or replace them at will.[19]
.jpg)
The tribunician power (tribunicia potestas), first assumed by Augustus in 23 BC, gave him authority over thetribune of the plebs without having to actually hold the office – a tribune was by definition aplebeian, whereas Augustus, although born into a plebeian family, had become apatrician when he was adopted into thegens Julia.[19] By adopting the role of a tribune, Augustus was presenting himself as the representative of the common man and the protector of democracy.[20] As always, this was not a sudden grant of power; Augustus had been receiving several powers related to the tribunes, such assacrosanctity, since 36 BC.[21] With this powers, he couldveto any act or proposal of any magistrate, propose laws and convoke the Senate.[22] His sacrosanctity also made him untouchable, and any offence against him could be treated as a crime of treason.[23] The tribunician power was arguably the most stable and important of the emperor's powers.[24] Despite being a perpetual title, it was always renewed each year, which often coincided with the beginning of a new regnal year (although "regnal years" were not officially adopted untilJustinian I).[25][c]
The office ofcensor was not fully absorbed into the imperial office until the reign ofDomitian, who declared himself "perpetual censor" (censor perpetuus) in AD 85. Before this, the title had been only used byClaudius (47),Vespasian andTitus (both in 73).[26]
The emperor also had power over religious affairs, which led to the creation of aworship cult. Augustus becamepontifex maximus (the chief priest of theCollege of Pontiffs) in 12 BC, after the death of the formertriumvirLepidus.[27] Emperors from the reign ofGratian (r. 375–383) onward used the stylepontifex inclytus ("honorable pontiff"). The title ofpontifex maximus was eventually adopted by thebishops of Rome during theRenaissance.[28] The last known emperors to use the title wereValentinian III andMarcian, in the 5th century.[29]
The only surviving document to directly refer to the emperor's power is theLex de imperio Vespasiani, written shortly afterVespasian's formal accession in December 69. The text, of which only the second part survives, states that Vespasian is allowed to: make treaties; hold sessions and propose motions to the Senate; hold extraordinary sessions with legislative power; endorse candidates in elections; expand thepomerium; and usediscretionary power whenever necessary. The text further states that he is "not bound by laws", and that any previous act wasretroactively considered legitimate.[30] There is no mention ofimperium nortribunicia potestas, although these powers were probably given in the earlier clauses.[31] There is also no mention of any "imperial office", and the title of "emperor" is never used. The imperial titles are treated as inseparable of the person, which is reflected in the nameImperator CaesarVespasianus Augustus. ThisLex sometimes related to theLex regia ("royal law") mentioned in theCorpus Juris Civilis of Eastern emperorJustinian I (r. 527–565), who cites the early 3rd-century writerUlpian. This was probably a later construct, as its very name, which derives fromrex ("king"), would have been utterly rejected in the West.[32] The Eastern Greek-speaking half of the Empire had always regarded the emperors as open monarchs (basileis), and called them as such.[33][34]
The weakest point of the Augustan institution was its lack of a clear succession system.[35] Formally announcing a successor would have revealed Augustus as a monarch, so he and subsequent emperors opted to adopt their best candidates as their sons and heirs.Primogeniture was not relevant in the early Empire, although emperors still attempted to maintain a familiar connection between them;Tiberius, for example, marriedJulia the Elder, making himAugustus' son-in-law.
Vespasian, who took power after the collapse of theJulio-Claudian dynasty and the tumultuousYear of the Four Emperors, was the first emperor to openly declare his sons,Titus andDomitian, as his sole heirs, giving them the title ofcaesar.[36] TheSenate still exercised some power during this period, as evidenced by his decision to declareNero a "public enemy",[37] and did influence in the succession of emperors. Following the murder of Domitian in AD 96, the Senate declaredNerva, one of their own, as the new emperor.[38] His "dynasty", theAntonine, continued the adoptive system until the reign ofMarcus Aurelius (r. 161–180). Marcus was the first emperor to rule alongside other emperors, first with his adoptive brotherLucius Verus, who succeeded jointly with him, and later with his sonCommodus, who was proclaimed co-augustus in 177.[39][d]
Despite being the son of a previous emperor and having nominally shared government with him, Commodus' rule ended with his murder at the hands of his own soldiers. From his death in 192 until the 5th century, there was scarcely a single decade without succession conflicts and civil war. During this period, very few emperors died of natural causes.[41] Such problems persisted in the later Eastern Empire, where emperors had to often appoint co-emperors to secure the throne. Despite often working as a hereditary monarchy, there was no law or single principle of succession.[42]
Individuals who claimed imperial power "illegally" are referred to as "usurpers" in modern scholarship. Ancient historians refer to these rival emperors as "tyrants". In reality, there was no distinction between emperors and usurpers, as many emperors started as rebels and were retroactively recognized as legitimate. TheLex de imperio Vespasiani explicitly states that all of Vespasian's actions are considered legal even if they happened before his recognition by the Senate.[30] Ultimately, "legitimacy was apost factum phenomenon."[43]Theodor Mommsen famously argued that "here has probably never been a regime in which the notion of legitimacy is as absent as that of the Augustan principate".[44] Imperial propaganda was often used to legitimize or de-legitimize certain emperors. TheChronicon Paschale, for example, describesLicinius as having been killed like "those who had briefly been usurpers before him".[45] In reality, Licinius was the legitimate emperor of the West (having been appointed byGalerius), while Constantine was the real "usurper" (having been proclaimed by his troops).[46]
There were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by theRoman army, which was really the true basis of imperial power. Common methods used by emperors to assert claims of legitimacy, such as support of the army, blood connections (sometimes fictitious) to past emperors, distributing one's own coins or statues, and claims to pre-eminent virtue through propaganda, were pursued just as well by many usurpers as they were by legitimate emperors.[41]Septimius Severus notably declared himself as the adoptive son of the long-deceasedMarcus Aurelius, hence why he namedCaracalla after him.[47] Later Eastern imperial dynasties, such as theDoukai andPalaiologoi, claimed descent fromConstantine the Great.[48]
What turns a "usurper" into a "legitimate" emperor is typically that they managed to gain the recognition of a more senior, legitimate, emperor, or that they managed to defeat a more senior, legitimate emperor and seize power.[49][50] Modern historiography has not yet defined clear legitimacy criteria for emperors, resulting in some emperors being included or excluded from different lists. The year 193 has traditionally been called the "Year of the Five Emperors", but modern scholarship now identifiesClodius Albinus andPescennius Niger as usurpers because they were not recognized by theRoman Senate.[51] Recognition by the Senate is often used to determine the legitimacy of an emperor,[49] but this criterion is not always followed.Maxentius is sometimes called an usurper because he did not have the recognition ofTetrarchs,[52][53] but he held Rome for several years, and thus had the recognition of the Senate.[54] Other "usurpers" controlled, if briefly, the city of Rome, such asNepotianus andPriscus Attalus. In the East, the possession ofConstantinople was the essential element of legitimacy,[55] yet some figures such asProcopius are treated as usurpers. Rival emperors who later gained recognition are not always considered legitimate either;Vetranio had the formal recognition byConstantius II yet he is still often regarded as a usurper,[56][57] similarly toMagnus Maximus, who was briefly recognized byTheodosius I.[57] Western emperors such asMagnentius,Eugenius andMagnus Maximus are sometimes called usurpers,[52] butRomulus Augustulus is traditionally regarded as the last Western emperor, despite never receiving the recognition of the Eastern emperorZeno.
The period after thePrincipate is known as theDominate, derived from the titledominus ("lord") adopted byDiocletian. During his rule, the emperor became an absolute ruler and the regime became even more monarchical.[59] The emperors adopted thediadem crown as their supreme symbol of power, abandoning the subtleties of the early Empire.[60]
Beginning in the late 2nd century, the Empire began to suffer a series of political and economic crises, partially because it had overexpanded so much.[59] ThePax Romana ("Roman peace") is often said to have ended with the tyrannical reign of Commodus. His murder was followed by the accession ofSeptimius Severus, the victor of theYear of the Five Emperors. It was during his reign that the role of the army grew even more, and the emperors' power increasingly depended on it.[61][62] The murder of his last relative,Severus Alexander, led to theCrisis of the Third Century (235–285), a 50-year period that almost saw the end of the Roman Empire.[63] The last vestiges of Republicanism were lost in the ensuing anarchy. In 238, the Senate attempted to regain power by proclaimingPupienus andBalbinus as their own emperors (the first time sinceNerva).[64] They managed to usurp power fromMaximinus Thrax, but they were killed within two months. With the rise of the "soldier emperors", the city and Senate of Rome began to lose importance. Maximinus andCarus, for example, did not even set foot on the city.[62] Carus' successorsCarinus andNumerian, the last of the Crisis emperors, did not bother to assume thetribunicia potestas either.[65]
After reuniting the Roman Empire in 285,Diocletian began a series of reforms to restore stability. Reaching back to the oldest traditions of job-sharing in the Republic, Diocletian established at the top of this new structure theTetrarchy ("rule of four") in an attempt to provide for smoother succession and greater continuity of government. Under the Tetrarchy, Diocletian set in place a system of two emperors (augusti) and two subordinates that also served as heirs (caesares). When an emperor retired (as Diocletian andMaximian did in 305) or died, hiscaesar would succeed him and in turn appoint a newcaesar.[66] Each pair ruled over a half of the Empire, which led to the creation of aWestern andEastern Roman Empire, a division that eventually became permanent.[67] This division had already a precedent in the joint rule ofValerian/Gallienus andCarus/Carinus.[68]
Diocletian justified his rule not by military power, but by claimingdivine right.[67] He imitated Oriental divine kingship and encouraged the reverence of the emperor, making anything related to himsacer (sacred).[69] He declared himselfJovius, the son ofJupiter, and his partner Maximian was declaredHerculius, son ofHercules.[70] This divine claim was maintained after the rise of Christianity, as emperors regarded themselves as the chosen rulers of God.[59]
The emperor no longer needed the Senate to ratify his powers, so he became the sole source of law. These new laws were no longer shared publicly and were often given directly to thepraetorian prefects – originally the emperor's bodyguard, but now the head of the newpraetorian prefectures – or with private officials.[71] The emperor's personal court and administration traveled alongside him, which further made the Senate's role redundant. Consuls continued to be appointed each year, but by this point, it was an office often occupied by the emperor himself,[f] who now had complete control over the bureaucratic apparatus.[72] Diocletian did preserve some Republican traditions, such as thetribunicia potestas.[73] The last known emperor to have used it wasAnastasius I, at the start of the 6th century. Anastasius was also the last attested emperor to use the traditional titles ofproconsul andpater patriae.[74] The last attested emperor to use the title of consul wasConstans II, who was also the last Eastern emperor to visit Rome.[75] It's possible that later emperors also used it as an honorary title, as the office of consul was notabolished until 892, during the reign ofLeo VI.[76]
During the Dominate it became increasingly common for emperors to raise their children directly toaugustus (emperor) instead ofcaesar (heir), probably because of the failure of the Tetrarchy. This practice had first been applied bySeptimius Severus, who proclaimed his 10-year-old sonCaracalla asaugustus. He was followed byMacrinus, who did the same with his 9-year-old sonDiadumenian, and several other emperors during the Crisis. This became even more common from the 4th century onwards.Gratian was proclaimed emperor at the age of 8, and his co-ruler and successorValentinian II was proclaimed emperor at the age of 4.[77] Many child emperors such asPhilip II orDiadumenian never succeeded their fathers. These co-emperors all had the same honors as their senior counterpart, but they did not share the actual government, hence why junior co-emperors are usually not counted as real emperors by modern or ancient historians. There was no title to denote the "junior" emperor; writers used the vague terms of "second" or "little emperor".[78][g]
Despite having a successful reign himself, Diocletian's tetrarchic systemcollapsed as soon as he retired in 305.Constantine I, the son of tetrarchConstantius I, reunited the empire in 324 and imposed the principle of hereditary succession which Diocletian intended to avoid.[79] Constantine was also the first emperor to convert toChristianity, and emperors after him, especially after its officialization underTheodosius I, saw themselves as the protectors of the Church.[80] The territorial divisions of the Tetrarchy were maintained, and for most of the following century the Empire was ruled by two senior emperors, one in the West (withMilan and laterRavenna as capital) and another in the East (withConstantinople as capital).[h]
This division became permanent on the death ofTheodosius I in 395, when he was succeeded by his sonsHonorius andArcadius.[81] The two halves of the Empire, while later functioning asde facto separate entities, were always considered and seen, legally and politically, as separate administrative divisions of a single, insoluble state by the Romans of the time.[82]
In theWest, the office of emperor soon degenerated into being little more than a puppet of Germanicgenerals such asAetius andRicimer; the last emperors of the West being known as the "shadow emperor".[83] In 476, theHeruliOdoacer overthrew the child-emperorRomulus Augustulus, made himselfking of Italy and shipped the imperial regalia to theEmperor Zeno in Constantinople. Historians mark this date as the date of thefall of the Western Roman Empire, although by this time there was no longer any "Empire" left, as its territory had reduced to Italy.Julius Nepos, who was overthrown and expelled toDalmatia in favor of Romulus, continued to claim the title until his murder in 480. The Eastern court recognized this claim and Odoacer minted coins in his name, although he never managed to exercise real power.[84] The death of Nepos leftZeno as the sole emperor of a (technically) reunited Roman Empire.[1]
The Roman Empire survived in the East for another 1000 years, but the marginalization of the former heartland of Italy to the empire had a profound cultural impact on the empire and its emperor, which adopted a moreHellenistic character.[i]
The Eastern emperors continued to be recognized in theWestern kingdoms until the accession ofIrene (r. 797–802), the firstempress regnant. The Italian heartland was recovered during the reign ofJustinian I (r. 527–565), but this was reverted by the end of the century. Rome technically remainedunder imperial control, but was completely surrounded by theLombards. Africa waslost to the Arabs in the early 7th century, and Rome eventually fell to the Lombards in 751, during the reign ofConstantine V. The Frankish kingPepin the Short defeated them and received the favour ofPope Stephen II, who became the head of thePapal States. Pepin's son,Charlemagne, was crownedImperator Romanorum (the first timeImperator was used as an actual regnal title) byPope Leo III in Christmas AD 800, thus ending the recognition of the Eastern emperor.[88] Western rulers also began referring to the Empire as the "Greek Empire", regarding themselves as the true successors of Rome.[89]
The inhabitants of the Eastern half of the Empire always saw the emperor as an open monarch. Starting withHeraclius in 629, Roman emperors styled themselves "basileus", the traditional title for Greek monarchs used since the times ofAlexander the Great.[91] The title was used since the early days of the Empire and became the common imperial title by the 3rd century, but did not appear in official documents until the 7th century.[92]Michael I Rangabe (r. 811–813) was the first emperor to actually use the title of "Roman emperor" (βασιλεύς Ῥωμαίων,Basileus Romaíon). This was a response to the new line of emperors created by Charlemagne – although he was recognized asbasileus of theFranks.[93] By the 9th century the full imperial title became "basileus andautokrator of the Romans", usually translated as "Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans".[94][k] The titleautokrator was also used to distinguish a junior co-emperor (basileus) from his senior colleague (basileus autokrator).[94] By the times of thePalaiologos, there were two distinct ceremonies for the accession of an emperor: first an acclamation asbasileus, and later acoronation asautokrator (which also included being raised on a shield). These rites could happen years apart.[96]
The Eastern Empire became not only anabsolute monarchy but also atheocracy. According toGeorge Ostrogorsky, "the absolute power of the Roman emperor was further increased with the advent of Christian ideas".[97] This became more evident after theMuslim conquests of the 7th century, which gave Byzantine imperialism a new sense of purpose.[98] The emperor was the subject of a series of rites and ceremonies, including aformal coronation performed by thePatriarch of Constantinople.[97] The Byzantine state is often said to have followed a "Caesaropapist" model, where the emperor played the role of ruler and head of the Church, but there was often a clear distinction between political and secular power.[99]
The line of Eastern emperors continued uninterrupted until thesack of Constantinople and the establishment of theLatin Empire in 1204. This led to the creation of three lines of emperors in exile: theemperors of Nicaea, theemperors of Trebizond, and the short-livedemperors of Thessalonica. The Nicean rulers have been traditionally regarded as the "legitimate" emperors of this period, as they recovered Constantinople and restored the Empire in 1261.[l] TheEmpire of Trebizond continued to exist for another 200 years, but from 1282 onwards its rulers used the modified title of "Emperor and Autocrat of all the East,the Iberians, and thePerateia", accepting the Niceans as the sole Roman emperors.[100] However, the Byzantine Empire had been reduced mostly to Constantinople, and the rise of other powers such asSerbia andBulgaria forced the Byzantines to recognize their rulers asbasileus. Despite this, emperors continued to view themselves as the rulers of an "universal empire".[97] During the last decades of the Empire, power was once again shared between multiple emperors and colleagues, each ruling from their own capital, notably during the long reign ofJohn V.[101] Constantinople finallyfell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453; its last emperor,Constantine XI Palaiologos, dying in battle. The last vestiges of the empire,Morea andTrebizond, fell in 1461.[101]
The titleimperator – fromimperare, "to command" – dates back to theRoman Republic and was given to victorious commanders by their soldiers. They heldimperium, that is, military authority. The Senate could then award the extraordinary honor of atriumph; the commander then retained the title until the end of hismagistracy. In Roman tradition, the first triumph was that ofRomulus, the founder of Rome, but the first attested use ofimperator was in 189 BC, on the triumph ofAemilius Paulus. It was a title held with great pride:Pompey was hailedimperator more than once, as wasSulla andJulius Caesar.[102] However, as noted byCassius Dio, the meaning of the title changed under the new monarchy, and came to denote "the possession of the supreme power".[103] Both Dio andSuetonius refer to Caesar as the first one to assumeimperator as a proper name (apraenomen imperatoris), but this seems to be ananachronism.[104] The last ordinary general to be awarded the title wasJunius Blaesus in AD 22, after which it became a title reserved solely for the sovereign.[102]
Augustus usedImperator instead of his first name (praenomen), becomingImperator Caesar instead ofCaesar Imperator.[102] From this the title slowly became a synonym of the office, hence the word "emperor".Tiberius,Caligula andClaudius avoided using the title, but it is recorded that Caligula was hailedimperator by the Senate on his accession, indicating that it was already considered an integral part of the dignity.[105] It was not until the late reign ofNero, in AD 66, thatimperator became once more part of the emperor's nomenclature.[106] Virtually all emperors after him used thepraenomen imperatoris, with only a few variations under his successorsGalba andVitellius.[107] The original meaning of the title continued to be used for a time, with emperors registering the number of times they were hailedimperator.[103] The title became the main appellation of the ruler by the time ofVespasian.[102][108]
After theTetrarchy, emperors began to be addressed asdominus noster ("our Lord"), althoughimperator continued to be used. The appellation ofdominus was known and rejected by Augustus, but ordinary men of the Empire used it regularly. It began to used in official context starting withSeptimius Severus, and was first officially adopted in coinage byAurelian.[109]
In the East,imperator was translated asautokrator ("self-ruler"), a title that continued to be used until the end of the Empire. This is the modern Greek word for "emperor" (υτοκράτορας). There are still some instances ofimperator in official documents as late as the 9th century. Its last known use was on 866–867 coins ofMichael III and his co-emperorBasil I, who are addressed asimperator andrex respectively.[110] In the West,imperator was transformed into a monarchical title byCharlemagne, becoming the official Latin title of theHoly Roman Empire.
Originally thecognomen (third name) of the dictatorGaius Julius Caesar, which was then inherited by Augustus and his relatives. Augustus used it as a family name (nomen), styling himself asImp. Caesar instead ofImp. Julius Caesar.[104] However, the nomen was still inherited by women (such asJulia the Younger) and appear in some inscriptions.[111] After the death ofCaligula, Augustus' great-grandson, his uncleClaudius was proclaimed emperor. He was not an official member of theJulia gens,[112] but he was the grandson ofOctavia, Augustus' sister, and thus still part of the family.[113]
Following the suicide of Nero, the last descendant of Caesar, the new emperorGalba adopted the name ofServius Galba Caesar Augustus, thus making it part of the imperial title. Five days before his murder he adoptedPiso Licinianus as his son and heir, renaming him asServius Sulpicius Galba Caesar.[114] After thisCaesar came to denote the heir apparent, who would add the name to his own as heir and retain it upon accession asaugustus.[109] The only emperor not to assume it wasVitellius, who adopted the nameGermanicus instead. Most emperors used it as theirnomen – withImperator as theirpraenomen – until the reign ofAntoninus Pius, when it permanently became part of the formulaImperator Caesar [full name]Augustus.[107] In the 3rd century,caesars also received the honorific ofnobilissimus ("most noble"), which later evolved into a separate title.[115]
.png)
During theTetrarchy the powers of thecaesar increased considerably, but following the accession ofConstantine I it once more remained as a title for heirs with no significant power attached to it. The title slowly lost importance in the following decades, as emperors started to promote their sons directly toaugustus. In the East, the title finally lost its imperial character in 705, whenJustinian II awarded it toTervel of Bulgaria.[m] After this it became a court title bestowed to prominent figures of the government, and lost even more relevance after the creation of the titlesebastokrator byAlexios I Komnenos.[116] Despite this, its regular use by earlier emperors led to the name becoming synonym with "emperor" in certain regions. Several countries useCaesar as the origin of their word for "emperor", likeKaiser inGermany andTsar inBulgaria andRussia.
After theConstantinian dynasty, emperors followedImperator Caesar withFlavius, which also began as a family name but was later incorporated into the emperor's titles, thus becomingImperator Caesar Flavius.[117] The last use of the formula, rendered asAutokrator Kaisar Flabios... Augoustos (Αὐτοκράτωρ καῖσαρ Φλάβιος αὐγουστος) in Greek, is in theBasilika ofLeo VI the Wise (r. 886–912).[118]
Originally the main title of the emperor.[119] According toSuetonius, it was "not merely a new title but a more honorable one, inasmuch as sacred places too, and those in which anything is consecrated by augural rites are called "august" (augusta), from the increase (auctus) in dignity". It was also connected to the religious practice ofaugury, which was itself linked to Rome's founding byRomulus, and toauctoritas, the authority based on prestige.[120] The honorific was awarded as both a name and a title to Octavian in 27 BC and was inherited by all subsequent emperors, who placed it after their personal names. The only emperor to not immediately assume it wasVitellius, although he did use it after his recognition by the Senate.[121] Later emperors ruled alongside one or several junioraugusti who heldde jure (but notde facto) equal constitutional power.[n] Despite its use as the highest imperial title, it was generally not used to indicate the office ofEmperor itself, as ordinary people and writers had become accustomed toImperator.
In the East the title was initially translated asSebastos, but the formAugoustos eventually became more common. Emperors afterHeraclius styled themselves asBasileus, butAugoustos still remained in use in a lesser form up until the end of the Empire. In the West, the title was also used by Charlemagne and the subsequent Holy Roman Emperors as part of the formulaImperator Augustus. Both Eastern and Western rulers also used the stylesemper augustus ("forever augustus").[122]
The wordprinceps, meaning "first", was a republican term used to denote the leading member of the Senate, and it was used by the early emperors to emphasize the continuance of the Republic.[109] The title had already been used byPompey andJulius Caesar, among others. It was a purely honorific title with no attached duties or powers, hence why it was never used in official titulature.[123] The title was the most preferred by Augustus as its use implies only "primacy" (is in the "first among equals"), as opposed todominus, which implies dominance. It was the title used by early writers before the termimperator became popular.[108] In hisRes Gestae, Augustus explicitly refers to himself as theprinceps senatus.[124] The title was also sometimes given to heirs, in the form ofprinceps iuventutis ("first of the youth"), a term that continued to be used during theTetrarchy.[125]
In the era of Diocletian and beyond,princeps fell into disuse and was replaced withdominus ("lord");[126] the use ofprinceps anddominus broadly symbolizes the differences in the empire's government, giving rise to the era designationsPrincipate andDominate. The title is still found in some later sources, however. The poetClaudian, for example, describesHonorius as having been raised from "caesar" to "princeps" (instead ofaugustus).[74] The title survived thefall of the Western Roman Empire, as it was used by rulers such asTheodoric the Great.
.jpg)
Basileus was the traditional Greek title for monarchs. It was first used byAlexander the Great (r. 336–323 BC) during his conquests.[127] The term was applied to emperors unofficially since the beginning of the Empire,[33] but in official records it was often used as the Greek translation of the titlerex, withautokrator (the Greek equivalent toimperator) reserved for the emperor. As a result, Western writers often associatedbasileus with "king" as opposed to "emperor", despite this distinction not existing in Greek.[128]
Basileus was first officially used byHeraclius in 629, after hisvictory over the Persians, and it became the main title of the emperor afterward. After the 9th century, the full imperial title became "basileus andautokrator of the Romans" (βασιλεύς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων), withautokrator distinguishing the senior emperor of the juniorbasileus.[94] In later centuries, the title was shortened simply as "autokrator of the Romans", resulting in a revival of that title.[129] In later centuries, an emperor would typically be acclaimed asbasileus as an infant and thencrowned by the Patriarch asautokrator.[96] Foreign rulers were usually referred to asreges (a Greek rendition ofrex), but the Eastern emperors were eventually forced to recognize other monarchs asbasileus, mainly theLatin,[130]Holy Roman,Serbian andBulgarian emperors.[94]
Despite overthrowing Roman rule,Odoacer never claimed the imperial dignity. His successorTheodoric the Great is sometimes said to have been an emperor in all but name, despite using the title ofrex and recognizing the emperor in Constantinople. He also used the ancient title ofprinceps (in full,princeps Romanus) anddominus noster, actively trying to imitate the old emperors.[o][131][132] He even requested and received theregalia sent to Constantinople by Odoacer, although it appears that he only requested the purple robes and not the imperial crown nor scepter.[133]
The rebelsBurdunellus andPeter, both active shortly after the fall of the West, are referred to as "tyrants" in sources. This may imply that they claimed the imperial dignity, although there is almost no information available for these rebellions.[134] TheBerber governorMasties assumed the title ofimperator shortly after 476, claiming to rule over the "Romans and Maurians."[135] The last attempt to restore the office of emperor in the West was during theSiege of Ravenna (539–540), when the Goths offeredBelisarius the throne, which he refused.[136]
Several ancient writers tried to count the number of Roman emperors through history, but each of them gives a different count. The 4th-century historianFestus states that "FromOctavian Caesar Augustus toJovian, there wereimperatores, 43 in number, through 407 years [reckoning from43 BC]".[137] The 6th-centuryChronicon Paschale callsDiocletian the "33rd Roman emperor". Adding the eight other emperors mentioned in the work would give a total of 41 emperors up untilConstantine I.[45]
A few writers also attempted to make their own lists of emperors. The 4th-century calligrapherFilocalus, in hisChronographia, records 58 emperors from Augustus to Constantine.[138] His contemporaryEpiphanius records 44 emperors in his workOn Weights and Measures.[139] The 13th-centuryChronicon Altinate records 46 emperors in the same time period.[140] These discrepancies arise from the fact that there was never a defining distinction between "legitimate emperors" and "usurpers".[141] Other emperors had such uneventful or brief reigns that they are unmentioned by literary sources, like Licinius's co-emperorsValerius Valens andMartinian.[142]
Literary sources explicitly style him Caesar, the coins Augustus
.png)
