Roman emperor
Emperor of the Roman Empire | |
---|---|
Imperial | |
corona civica | |
Details | |
Style | |
First monarch | Augustus |
Last monarch | |
Formation | 16 January 27 BC |
Abolition |
|
Appointer | Roman Senate (officially) and/or Roman military |
The Roman emperor was the ruler and monarchical
The legitimacy of an emperor's rule depended on his control of the Roman army and recognition by the Senate; 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 a rex ("king"). Augustus, the first emperor, resolutely refused recognition as a monarch.[4] 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.
From
The
Background and beginning
Modern historians conventionally regard Augustus as the first emperor, whereas Julius Caesar is considered the last dictator of the Roman Republic, a view that is shared by the Roman writers Plutarch, Tacitus, and Cassius Dio.[7] Conversely, the majority of Roman writers, including Pliny the Younger, Suetonius and Appian, as well as most of the ordinary people of the Empire, thought of Julius Caesar as the first emperor.[8] Caesar did indeed rule the Roman state as an autocrat, but he failed to create a stable system to maintain himself in power.[9][10] 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 as Marius and Sulla.[11]
At the end of the Republic no new, and certainly no single, title indicated the individual who held supreme power. Insofar as emperor could be seen as the English translation of the Latin
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.
In his will, Caesar appointed his grandnephew
In January 27 BC, Octavian and the Senate concluded the so-called "
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.[14][15] 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 son Tiberius 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 as princeps and proclaimed him as the new augustus. Tiberius had already received imperium maius and tribunicia potestas in AD 4, becoming legally equal to Augustus but still subordinate to him in practice.[16] The "imperial office" was thus not truly defined until the accession of Caligula, when all of Tiberius' powers were automatically transferred to him as a single, abstract position that was symbolized by his sacred title of augustus.[17][13][18]
Powers under the Principate
Politics of ancient Rome |
---|
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.[19] The Republican offices endured and emperors were regularly elected to the most prominent of them: the consulship and censorship.[20] This early period of the Empire is known as the "Principate", derived from the title princeps used by the early emperors.
The most important bases of the emperor's power were his supreme power of command (
The tribunician power (tribunicia potestas), first assumed by Augustus in 23 BC, gave him authority over the
The office of censor was not fully absorbed into the imperial office until the reign of Domitian, who declared himself "perpetual censor" (censor perpetuus) in AD 85. Before this, the title had been only used by Claudius (47), Vespasian and Titus (both in 73).[27][28]
The emperor also had power over religious affairs, which led to the creation of a
The only surviving document to directly refer to the emperor's power is the
Succession and legitimacy
The weakest point of the Augustan institution was its lack of a clear succession system.[38][39] 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, married Julia the Elder, making him Augustus' son-in-law.
Vespasian, who took power after the collapse of the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the tumultuous Year of the Four Emperors, was the first emperor to openly declare his sons, Titus and Domitian, as his sole heirs, giving them the title of caesar.[38][40][41] The Senate still exercised some power during this period, as evidenced by his decision to declare Nero a "public enemy",[42] and did influence in the succession of emperors. Following the murder of Domitian in AD 96, the Senate declared Nerva, one of their own, as the new emperor.[40] His "dynasty", the Antonine, continued the adoptive system until the reign of Marcus Aurelius (r. 161–180). Marcus was the first emperor to rule alongside other emperors, first with his adoptive brother Lucius Verus, who succeeded jointly with him, and later with his son Commodus, who was proclaimed co-augustus in 177.[40][41][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.[44] 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.[45]
Individuals who claimed imperial power "illegally" are referred to as "usupers" 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. The Lex de imperio Vespasiani explicitly states that all of Vespasian's actions are considered legal even if they happened before his recognition by the Senate.[33] Ultimately, "legitimacy was a post factum phenomenon."[46] 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".[47] Imperial propaganda was often used to legitimize or de-legitimize certain emperors. The Chronicon Paschale, for example, describes Licinius as having been killed like "those who had briefly been usurpers before him".[48] In reality, Licinius was the legitimate emperor of the West (having been appointed by Galerius), while Constantine was the real "usurper" (having been proclaimed by his troops).[49]
There were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the
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.[53][54] 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 identifies Clodius Albinus and Pescennius Niger as usurpers because they were not recognized by the Roman Senate.[55] Recognition by the Senate is often used to determine the legitimacy of an emperor,[53] but this criterion is not always followed. Maxentius is sometimes called an usurper because he did not have the recognition of Tetrarchs,[56][57] but he held Rome for several years, and thus had the recognition of the Senate.[58] Other "usurpers" controlled, if briefly, the city of Rome, such as Nepotianus and Priscus Attalus. In the East, the possession of Constantinople was the essential element of legitimacy,[59] yet some figures such as Procopius are treated as usurpers. Rival emperors who later gained recognition are not always considered legitimate either; Vetranio had the formal recognition by Constantius II yet he is still often regarded as a usurper,[60][61] similarly to Magnus Maximus, who was briefly recognized by Theodosius I.[61] Western emperors such as Magnentius, Eugenius and Magnus Maximus are sometimes called usurpers,[56] but Romulus Augustulus is traditionally regarded as the last Western emperor, despite never receiving the recognition of the Eastern emperor Zeno.
Later developments
The period after the Principate is known as the Dominate, derived from the title dominus ("lord") adopted by Diocletian. During his rule, the emperor became an absolute ruler and the regime became even more monarchical.[63] The emperors adopted the diadem crown as their supreme symbol of power, abandoning the subtleties of the early Empire.[64]
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.[63] The Pax Romana ("Roman peace") is often said to have ended with the tyrannical reign of Commodus. His murder was followed by the accession of Septimius Severus, the victor of the Year 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.[65][66][67] The murder of his last relative, Severus Alexander, led to the Crisis of the Third Century (235–285), a 50-year period that almost saw the end of the Roman Empire.[39] The last vestiges of Republicanism were lost in the ensuing anarchy. In 238, the Senate attempted to regain power by proclaiming Pupienus and Balbinus as their own emperors (the first time since Nerva).[68][69] They managed to usurp power from Maximinus 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 and Carus, for example, did not even set foot on the city.[66] Carus' successors Carinus and Numerian, the last of the Crisis emperors, did not bother to assume the tribunicia potestas either.[65]
After reuniting the Roman Empire in 285,
Diocletian justified his rule not by military power, but by claiming
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 the
During the Dominate it became increasingly common for emperors to raise their children directly to augustus (emperor) instead of caesar (heir), probably because of the failure of the Tetrarchy. This practice had first been applied by Septimius Severus, who proclaimed his 10-year-old son Caracalla as augustus. He was followed by Macrinus, who did the same with his 9-year-old son Diadumenian, 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 successor Valentinian II was proclaimed emperor at the age of 4.[79] Many child emperors such as Philip II or Diadumenian 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".[80][g]
Despite having a successful reign himself, Diocletian's tetrarchic system collapsed as soon as he retired in 305. Constantine I, the son of tetrarch Constantius I, reunited the empire in 324 and imposed the principle of hereditary succession which Diocletian intended to avoid.[81] Constantine was also the first emperor to convert to Christianity, and emperors after him, especially after its officialization under Theodosius I, saw themselves as the protectors of the Church.[82] 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 (with Milan and later Ravenna as capital) and another in the East (with Constantinople as capital).[h]
This division became permanent on the death of Theodosius I in 395, when he was succeeded by his sons Honorius and Arcadius.[83] The two halves of the Empire, while later functioning as de 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.[84][1]
In the
Byzantine period
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 more
The Eastern emperors continued to be recognized in the Western kingdoms until the accession of Irene (r. 797–802), the first empress regnant. The Italian heartland was recovered during the reign of Justinian I (r. 527–565), but this was reverted by the end of the century. Rome technically remained under imperial control, but was completely surrounded by the Lombards. Africa was lost to the Arabs in the early 7th century, and Rome eventually fell to the Lombards in 751, during the reign of Constantine V. The Frankish king Pepin the Short defeated them and received the favour of Pope Stephen II, who became the head of the Papal States. Pepin's son, Charlemagne, was crowned Imperator Romanorum (the first time Imperator was used as an actual regnal title) by Pope Leo III in Christmas AD 800, thus ending the recognition of the Eastern emperor.[90] Western rulers also began referring to the Empire as the "Greek Empire", regarding themselves as the true successors of Rome.[91]
The inhabitants of the Eastern half of the Empire always saw the emperor as an open monarch. Starting with Heraclius in 629, Roman emperors styled themselves "basileus", the traditional title for Greek monarchs used since the times of Alexander the Great.[93][94] 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.[36][94] 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 as basileus of the Franks.[94] By the 9th century the full imperial title became "basileus and autokrator of the Romans", usually translated as "Emperor and Autocrat of the Romans".[95][k] The title autokrator was also used to distinguish a junior co-emperor (basileus) from his senior colleague (basileus autokrator).[95] By the times of the Palaiologos, there were two distinct ceremonies for the accession of an emperor: first an acclamation as basileus, and later a coronation as autokrator (which also included being raised on a shield). These rites could happen years apart.[97]
The Eastern Empire became not only an
The line of Eastern emperors continued uninterrupted until the
Titles
Imperator
The title imperator – from imperare, "to command" – dates back to the Roman Republic and was given to victorious commanders by their soldiers. They held imperium, that is, military authority. The Senate could then award the extraordinary honor of a triumph; the commander then retained the title until the end of his magistracy. In Roman tradition, the first triumph was that of Romulus, the founder of Rome, but the first attested use of imperator was in 189 BC, on the triumph of Aemilius Paulus. It was a title held with great pride: Pompey was hailed imperator more than once, as was Sulla and Julius Caesar.[103] However, as noted by Cassius Dio, the meaning of the title changed under the new monarchy, and came to denote "the possession of the supreme power".[104] Both Dio and Suetonius refer to Caesar as the first one to assume imperator as a proper name (a praenomen imperatoris), but this seems to be an anachronism.[105] The last ordinary general to be awarded the title was Junius Blaesus in AD 22, after which it became a title reserved solely for the emperor.[103]
Augustus used Imperator instead of his first name (praenomen), becoming Imperator Caesar instead of Caesar Imperator.[103] From this the title slowly became a synonym of the office. Tiberius, Caligula and Claudius avoided using the title, but it is recorded that Caligula was hailed imperator by the Senate on his accession, indicating that it was already considered an integral part of the dignity.[106] It was not until the late reign of Nero, in AD 66, that imperator became once more part of the emperor's nomenclature.[107] Virtually all emperors after him used the praenomen imperatoris, with only a few variations under his successors Galba and Vitellius.[108] The original meaning of the title continued to be used for a time, with emperors registering the number of times they were hailed imperator.[104] The title became the main appellation of the ruler by the time of Vespasian.[103][109]
After the Tetrarchy, emperors began to be addressed as dominus noster ("our Lord"), although imperator continued to be used. The appellation of dominus was known and rejected by Augustus, but ordinary men of the Empire used it regularly. It began to used in official context starting with Septimius Severus, and was first officially adopted in coinage by Aurelian.[110]
In the East, imperator was translated as autokrator ("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 of imperator in official documents as late as the 9th century. Its last known use was on 866–867 coins of Michael III and his co-emperor Basil I, who are addressed as imperator and rex respectively.[111] In the West, imperator was transformed into a monarchical title by Charlemagne, becoming the official Latin title of the Holy Roman Empire.
Caesar
Originally the cognomen (third name) of the dictator Gaius Julius Caesar, which was then inherited by Augustus and his relatives. Augustus used it as a family name (nomen), styling himself as Imp. Caesar instead of Imp. Julius Caesar.[105] However, the nomen was still inherited by women (such as Julia the Younger) and appear in some inscriptions.[112] After the death of Caligula, Augustus' great-grandson, his uncle Claudius was proclaimed emperor. He was not an official member of the Julia gens,[113] but he was the grandson of Octavia, Augustus' sister, and thus still part of the family.[114]
Following the suicide of Nero, the last descendant of Caesar, the new emperor Galba adopted the name of Servius Galba Caesar Augustus, thus making it part of the imperial title. Five days before his murder he adopted Piso Licinianus as his son and heir, renaming him as Servius Sulpicius Galba Caesar.[115] After this it came to denote the heir apparent, who added the name to their own and retaining it upon his accession as augustus.[110] The only emperor not to assume was Vitellius, who adopted the name Germanicus instead. Most emperors used it as their nomen – as Imperator Caesar [cognomen] – until the reign of Antoninus Pius, when it permanently became part of the formula Imperator Caesar, which was then followed by the full personal name and then Augustus.[108] In the 3rd century, caesars also received the honorific of nobilissimus ("most noble"), which later evolved into a separate title.[116]
During the
After the
Augustus
Originally the main title of the emperor.[113][120] According to Suetonius, 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 of augury, which was itself linked to Rome's founding by Romulus, and to auctoritas, the authority based on prestige.[121][122] 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 was Vitellius, although he did use it after his recognition by the Senate.[123] Later emperors ruled alongside one or several junior augusti who held de jure (but not de facto) equal constitutional power.[n]
In the East the title was initially translated as Sebastos, but the form Augoustos eventually became more common. Emperors after Heraclius styled themselves as Basileus, but Augoustos 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 formula Imperator Augustus. Both Eastern and Western rulers also used the style semper augustus ("forever augustus").[124]
Princeps
The word princeps, 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.
In the era of Diocletian and beyond, princeps fell into disuse and was replaced with dominus ("lord");[128] the use of princeps and dominus broadly symbolizes the differences in the empire's government, giving rise to the era designations Principate and Dominate. The title is still found in some later sources, however. The poet Claudian, for example, describes Honorius as having been raised from "caesar" to "princeps" (instead of augustus).[76] The title survived the fall of the Western Roman Empire, as it was used by rulers such as Theodoric the Great.
Basileus / autokrator
The traditional Greek title for monarchs. It was first used by Alexander the Great (r. 336–323 BC) during his conquests.[129] The term was applied to emperors unofficially since the beginning of the Empire,[36] but in official records it was often used as the Greek translation of the title rex, with autokrator (the Greek equivalent to imperator) reserved for the emperor. As a result, Western writers often associated basileus with "king" as opposed to "emperor", despite this distinction not existing in Greek.[130]
Basileus was first officially used by Heraclius in 629, after his victory over the Persians, and it became the main title of the emperor afterward. After the 9th century, the full imperial title became "basileus and autokrator of the Romans" (βασιλεύς καὶ αὐτοκράτωρ Ῥωμαίων), with autokrator distinguishing the senior emperor of the junior basileus.[95] In later centuries, the title was shortened simply as "autokrator of the Romans", resulting in a revival of that title.[131] In later centuries, an emperor would typically be acclaimed as basileus as an infant and then crowned by the Patriarch as autokrator.[97] Foreign rulers were usually referred to as reges (a Greek rendition of rex), but the Eastern emperors were eventually forced to recognize other monarchs as basileus, mainly the Latin,[132] Holy Roman, Serbian and Bulgarian emperors.[95]
Later assertions to the title
Despite overthrowing Roman rule, Odoacer never claimed the imperial dignity. His successor Theodoric the Great is sometimes said to have been an emperor in all but name, despite using the title of rex and recognizing the emperor in Constantinople. He also used the ancient title of princeps (in full, princeps Romanus) and dominus noster, actively trying to imitate the old emperors.[o][133][134] He even requested and received the regalia sent to Constantinople by Odoacer, although it appears that he only requested the purple robes and not the imperial crown nor scepter.[135]
The rebels Burdunellus and Peter, both active shortly after the fall of the West, are referred to as "tyrants" in sources. This may imply that they claimed the imperial indignity, although there is almost no information available for these rebellions.[136] The last attempt to restore the office of emperor in the West was during the Siege of Ravenna (539–540), when the Goths offered Belisarius the throne, which he refused.[137]
Holy Roman Empire
The concept of the Roman Empire was renewed in the West with the coronation of the king of the Franks,
The immediate response of the Eastern Roman emperor was not welcoming. "At that time it was axiomatic that there could be only one Empire as there could be only one church", writes Ostrogorsky. "The coronation of Charles the Great violated all traditional ideas and struck a hard blow at Byzantine interests, for hitherto Byzantium, the new Rome, had unquestionably been regarded as the sole Empire which had taken over the inheritance of the old Roman imperium. Conscious of its imperial rights, Byzantium could only consider the elevation of Charles the Great to be an act of usurpation."[139]
Nikephoros I chose to ignore Charlemagne's claim to the imperial title, clearly recognizing the implications of this act. According to Ostrogorsky, "he even went so far as to refuse the Patriarch Nicephorus permission to dispatch the customary synodica to the Pope."[140] Meanwhile, Charlemagne's power steadily increased: he subdued Istria and several Dalmatian cities during the reign of Irene, and his son Pepin brought Venice under Western hegemony, despite a successful counter-attack by the Byzantine fleet. Unable to counter this encroachment on Byzantine territory, Nikephoros's successor Michael I Rangabe capitulated; in return for the restoration of the captured territories, Michael sent Byzantine delegates to Aachen in 812 who recognized Charlemagne as basileus, although not "of the Romans".[141][94]
This line of emperors was actually
This line of emperors lasted until 1806, when
Ottoman Empire
Under Sultan
Based on the concept of
Number of emperors
A few writers also attempted to make their own lists of emperors. The 4th-century calligrapher Filocalus, in his Chronographia, records 58 emperors from Augustus to Constantine.[158] His contemporary Epiphanius records 44 emperors in his work On Weights and Measures.[159] The 13th-century Chronicon Altinate records 46 emperors in the same time period.[160] These discrepancies arise from the fact that there was never a defining distinction between "legitimate emperors" and "usurpers".[161] Other emperors had such uneventful or brief reigns that they are unmentioned by literary sources, like Licinius's co-emperors Valerius Valens and Martinian.[162]
See also
- List of condemned Roman emperors
- List of Roman imperial victory titles
- List of Italian monarchs
- List of Roman usurpers
- Family tree of Roman emperors
- Roman imperial cult
- Roman usurper
Notes
- ^ Although Romulus Augustulus (r. 475–476) is often regarded as the last Western emperor, his predecessor Julius Nepos continued to be recognized in the Eastern court as the legitimate ruler of the West.[1]
- ^ The legend reads: spqr imp(erator) caesari aug(ustus) co(n)s(ul) xi tri(bunicia) pot(estas) vi; meaning "consul for the 11th time, [wielder of the] tribunician power for the 6th time".
- ISBN 978-0-472-11230-2.
- ^ There was, however, much precedent. The consulate of the Republic was a twin magistracy, and earlier emperors had often had a subordinate lieutenant with many imperial offices. Many emperors had planned a joint succession in the past – Augustus planned to leave Gaius and Lucius Caesar as joint emperors on his death; Tiberius wished to have Caligula and Tiberius Gemellus do so as well; as Claudius with Nero and Britannicus. All of these arrangements had ended in failure, either through premature death (Gaius and Lucius) or murder (Gemellus and Britannicus).[43]
- tribunician power for the fourth time, imperator for the eighth time, consul for the second time, and Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Caesar."
- ^ Consuls still maintained some privileges during the later Empire, but at times it was only an honorary office. Some emperors gave the title to their children. For instance; Valentinian II assumed the consulate of 376 at the age of 5 and Honorius did the same in 386 at the age of 2.
- ^ A mosaic in Italy shows Constantine IV (r. 668–686) alongside his co-emperors Heralius and Tiberius. Constantine is called maior imperator, Heraclius and Tiberius being only imperator.
- ^ Starting with Diocletian, almost every other emperor ruled alongside an equal or junior co-emperor. The only two emperors of this period to rule over the entire Roman Empire for their entire reign were Julian II and Jovian, both of which only ruled about a year. Valentinian I, who succeeded Jovian, immediately divided the empire between himself and his brother Valens. After this the empire was again reunited by Theodosius I, but he died only a few months later.
- Eastern Orthodoxfaiths.
- despotes.[92]
- ^ A variation of the title was later adopted by the Russian emperors, who styled themselves as "Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias".[96] In Russian, the title employs the title imperator (император) instead of the traditional tsar (царь), which had the same meaning.
- John III Vatatzes and John IV Laskaris, both emperors of Nicaea, but the other rival emperors are treated as entirely new lines of succession.
- ^ Kaisar was originally a common way of referring to the emperor in the East. By the 6th-century, however, writers considered it to be a lower title than basileus.[37]
- Romanos IV, who only reigned for three years, ruled alongside 5 junior co-emperors, although only one of them succeeded him as senior emperor.
- ^ There is one inscription (erected by a senator and not Theoderic himself) that calls him augustus, which may indicate that some of his subjects regarded him as an emperor. Procopius refers to him as a "genuine emperor" (basileus) despite being "in name an usurper" (tyrannos).[133]
References
Citations
- ^ a b c Bury 2012, p. 408.
- ^ This date is generally agreed upon, however there were claimants to the title of Roman emperor after the abolition.
- ^ Watkin 2017, p. 37.
- ^ Galinsky 2005, pp. 13–14
- ^ Williams 1997, p. 147
- ^ Heather 2005, p. 28
- ^ Barnes 2009, pp. 278–279
- ^ Barnes 2009, pp. 279–282
- ^ Sandys 1921, p. 285. "To describe him as the founder of the Empire is an error, for he bequeathed to Augustus rather warnings than examples".
- ^ Craven, Maxwell (2019). The Imperial Families of Ancient Rome. Fonthill Media. p. 27.
- ^ Watkin 2017, pp. 33–37.
- ^ Bowman, Champlin & Lintott 1996, pp. 76–87.
- ^ a b Eck & Takács 2007, pp. 50–58.
- ^ Eutropius, Breviarium 7.8 "From that period he held the government as sole ruler for forty-four years, for during the twelve previous years he had held it in conjunction with Antony and Lepidus. Thus from the beginning of his reign to the end were fifty-six years."
- ^ Jerome, Chronichon, 184th Olympiad. "2nd [ruler] of the Romans, Octavianus Caesar Augustus reigned for 56 years and 6 months; from whom the kings [basileus] of the Romans are called Augusti."
- ^ Bowman, Champlin & Lintott 1996, p. 201.
- ^ Bowman, Champlin & Lintott 1996, p. 119.
- ^ Rich, John (2012). "Making the emergency permanent: auctoritas, potestas and the evolution of the principate of Augustus". Des réformes augustéennes: 80–82.
- Encyclopedia Britannica
- ^ Murray, John (1875). A Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. University of Chicago. pp. 260–266.
- ^ Bowman, Champlin & Lintott 1996, pp. 117–118.
- ^ a b c d Petit 2022, pp. 46–47.
- ^ a b c d Sandys 1921, pp. 287–288.
- ISBN 978-1-107-10700-7.
- ^ a b c d e Mousourakis 2017, pp. 238–239.
- ^ a b c Mousourakis 2014, p. 18.
- ^ a b c d Sandys 1921, p. 231.
- ^ a b Petit 2022, p. 145.
- ^ Mousourakis 2017, p. 242.
- ISBN 978-90-04-13654-0.
- ISBN 978-90-04-42568-2
- ^ Hekster 2022, p. 36.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-938113-5
- ^ Sandys 1921, p. 280.
- ISBN 978-1-136-62342-4.
- ^ a b c Bury 2012, pp. 15–16.
- ^ ISBN 978-3-16-148627-2.
- ^ a b Petit 2022, pp. 52–54.
- ^ a b Mousourakis 2014, p. 20.
- ^ a b c Tellegen-Couperus 2002, p. 76.
- ^ a b Kelly & Hug 2022, pp. 60–62.
- ^ Overmeire, Sam Van (2012). "Nero, the Senate and People of Rome: Reactions to an Emperor's Image". In Deroux, Carl (ed.). Studies in latin Literature and Roman History. Vol. XVI. pp. 472–491.
- ^ Birley, Anthony (2000). Marcus Aurelius. Routledge. pp. 117, 153 n. 157.
- ^ .
- ISBN 978-0-88402-103-2.
- ^ McEvoy 2013, pp. 36–41.
- ^ Omissi 2018, pp. 33–34.
- ^ a b Chronicon Paschale Olympiads 266–276
- S2CID 154368576.
- ISBN 978-1-351-97039-6.
- ^ Krsmanović, Bojana (11 September 2003). "Doukas family". Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World, Asia Minor. Athens: Foundation of the Hellenic World. Retrieved 17 April 2012.
- ^ "Palaeologan Dynasty (1259–1453)". Encyclopaedia of the Hellenic World. Asia Minor: Foundation of the Hellenic World. 2008. Retrieved 2020-06-17.
- ^ OCLC 948592865.
- ^ Omissi 2018, pp. 17ff.
- ISBN 978-1-134-70914-4.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-139-45809-2.
- ^ "Collections Online | British Museum". britishmuseum.org. Retrieved 2023-08-09.
- ^ Omissi 2018, p. 131.
- ISBN 978-90-04-20323-5.
- ^ Omissi 2018, pp. 185–186.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-521-89931-4.
- ISBN 978-90-04-44692-2.
- ^ a b c Aguilera-Barchet 2014, p. 54.
- ^ Bury 2012, p. 10.
- ^ a b Tellegen-Couperus 2002, p. 77.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-134-55381-5.
- ^ Digeser 2000, pp. 20–24.
- ^ Hekster 2022, p. 189.
- ^ a b Digeser 2000, p. 25.
- ^ Watkin 2017, p. 53.
- ^ a b Digeser 2000, p. 26.
- ^ a b Watkin 2017, p. 56.
- ^ Bury 2012, p. 12.
- ^ Digeser 2000, pp. 27–30.
- ^ Aguilera-Barchet 2014, p. 55.
- ^ a b Hekster 2022, p. 42.
- ^ Cameron, A., & Schauer, D. (1982). The Last Consul: Basilius and His Diptych. The Journal of Roman Studies 72: 126–145.
- ISBN 9781107053076.
- ^ McEvoy 2013, pp. 1–8.
- ^ Bury 2012, p. 5-6.
- ISBN 978-1-108-42774-6.
- ^ Watkin 2017, p. 62.
- ^ Watkin 2017, p. 61.
- ISSN 0570-734X.
- ISSN 1250-7334.
- ^ Demo, Željko (1988). "The Mint in Salona: Nepos and Ovida (474–481/2)". In Kos, Peter; Demo, Željko (eds.). Studia Numismatica Labacensia Alexandro Jeločnik Oblata. Ljubljana: Narodni muzej.
- ISBN 0198140983.
- ISBN 978-0932885302.
- ISBN 978-0631232032.
- ^ Kazhdan 1991, p. 413.
- ISBN 978-0719047916.
- ISBN 978-1-107-03330-6.
- ISBN 978-0521814591.
- ^ a b c d Kazhdan 1991, p. 264.
- ^ a b c d Kazhdan 1991, p. 235.
- ^ "Chapter Six On the Title of His Imperial Majesty and the State Coat of Arms". The Fundamental State Laws of the Russian Empire. Russian Imperial House. Archived from the original on Oct 22, 2023.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-317-07395-6.
- ^ JSTOR 4204790.
- ISBN 978-1-107-04181-3.
- ^ "Caesaropapism | Byzantine Empire, Autocracy & Ecclesiastical Power". Encyclopædia Britannica.
- ^ Kazhdan 1991, p. 1047.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-925246-6.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-954556-8.
- ^ ISBN 978-1-317-59307-2.
- ^ a b Syme 1958.
- ISBN 978-1-134-60988-8.
- ISBN 978-1-912667-36-9.
- ^ a b Hammond 1957.
- ^ ).
- ^ a b c d Greenidge 1901, pp. 352–355.
- ISBN 0-88402-012-6.
- ^ CIL 2, 1660; 6, 930. Tiberius is sometimes called Tiberius Julius Caesar instead of the more common Tiberius Caesar.
- ^ a b Loewenstein 1973, p. 349.
- ISBN 978-1-78673-132-6.
- ISBN 978-0-8078-3063-5.
- ISBN 978-1-108-08150-4.
- ^ Kazhdan 1991, p. 363.
- ISBN 978-3-7001-0260-1.
- ^ Novela 1, in Jus Graeco-Romanum III, p. 67.
- ^ Strothmann, Meret (Bochum) (2006-10-01). "Augustus [2]". Brill's New Pauly.
- ^ Suetonius, Augustus 7.
- ISBN 978-1-134-58949-4.
- ^ Tacitus. Annals, Book II, 62, 90.
- ISBN 978-90-04-49924-9.
- ISBN 978-0-415-04504-9.
- ^ Res Gestae I.7, "For ten years in succession I was one of the triumvirs for the re-establishment of the constitution. To the day of writing this [June/July AD 14] I have been princeps senatus for forty years." Augustus thus dates his tenure as princeps from 27 BC. He also only counts his de jure tenure as triumvir.
- ISBN 978-0-19-924918-3.
- ^ Goldsworthy 2010, p. 443
- ISBN 978-1-4051-7936-2.
- ISBN 978-1-317-88190-2.
- ISBN 978-0-88402-261-9.
- ISBN 978-90-04-20392-1.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-521-52635-7.
- ISBN 978-0-521-36291-7.
- ISBN 978-1-107-05440-0.
- ISBN 978-0-470-75456-6.
- ISBN 978-1-317-89879-5.
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1957, p. 164
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1957, pp. 164ff
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1957, p. 175
- ^ Ostrogorsky 1957, p. 176
- ^ Setton 1978, p. 463.
- ^ Enepekides 1960, pp. 138–143.
- ^ Freiberg 2014, p. 152.
- ISBN 978-1-78238-805-0.
- ^ Nicol 1992, p. ix.
- ^ Üre 2020, p. 46.
- ^ Moustakas 2011, p. 215.
- ^ ISBN 978-6257999120.
- ^ Nicolle, Haldon & Turnbull 2007, p. 174.
- ^ Kumar 2017, p. 90.
- ^ Nicol 1967, p. 334.
- ^ Ágoston 2021, p. 80.
- ^ Çolak 2014, p. 20.
- ISBN 978-1139136952.
- ^ Kumar 2017, p. 89.
- ^ Breviarum in De Imperatoribus Romanis.
- ^ Chronography of 354 AD. Part 16: Chronicle of the City of Rome. Tertullian.org.
- OCLC 912074.
- OCLC 1067434891
- ^ Omissi 2018, pp. 3–33.
- ISBN 978-0674280663.
Literary sources explicitly style him Caesar, the coins Augustus
Sources
- Ágoston, Gábor (2021). The Last Muslim Conquest. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691159324.
- Aguilera-Barchet, Bruno (2014). A History of Western Public Law: Between Nation and State. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-11803-1.
- Barnes, Timothy (2009). "The first Emperor: the view of late antiquity". In Griffin, Miriam (ed.). A Companion to Julius Caesar. ISBN 978-1444308457.
- ISBN 9780521264303.
- ISBN 978-0-486-14338-5.
- Çolak, Hasan (2014). "Tekfur, fasiliyus and kayser: Disdain, Negligence and Appropriation of Byzantine Imperial Titulature in the Ottoman World". In Hadjianastasis, Marios (ed.). Frontiers of the Ottoman Imagination: Studies in Honour of Rhoads Murphey. Leiden: Brill. ISBN 978-9004283510.
- Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma (2000). The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius & Rome. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-3594-2.
- ISBN 978-1-4051-5149-8
- Enepekides, P. K. (1960). "Das Wiener Testament des Andreas Palaiologos vom 7. April 1502" [The Vienna Testament of Andreas Palaiologos from 7 April 1502]. Akten des 11. Internat. Byzantinisten-Kongresses 1958 (in German). Munich: C.H. Beck. pp. 138–143. OCLC 761003148.
- Freiberg, Jack (2014). Bramante's Tempietto, the Roman Renaissance, and the Spanish Crown. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1107042971.
- Galinsky, Karl (2005). The Cambridge companion to the Age of Augustus. ISBN 978-0521807968. Retrieved 2011-08-03.
- Goldsworthy, Adrian (2010). How Rome Fell: Death of a Superpower. ISBN 978-0300164268.
- Macmillan & Co.
- JSTOR 4238646.
- Heather, Peter (2005). The Fall of the Roman Empire. ISBN 978-0330491365. Retrieved 2011-08-03.
- Hekster, Olivier (2022). Caesar rules : the Emperor in the changing Roman world (c. 50 BC – AD 565). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1009226790.
- Kazhdan, Alexander, ed. (1991), ISBN 978-0195046526
- Kelly, Benjamin; Hug, Angela, eds. (2022). The Roman Emperor and his Court c. 30 BC–c. AD 300. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1009081511.
- Kumar, Krishan (2017). Visions of Empire: How Five Imperial Regimes Shaped the World. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0691192802.
- McEvoy, Meaghan (2013). Child Emperor Rule in the Late Roman West, AD 367–455. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-966481-8.
- Mousourakis, George (2014). Roman Law and the Origins of the Civil Law Tradition. Springer. ISBN 978-3-319-12268-7.
- Mousourakis, George (2017). The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-88841-7.
- Moustakas, Konstantinos (2011). "Byzantine 'Visions' of the Ottoman Empire: Theories of Ottoman Legitimacy by Byzantine Scholars after the Fall of Constantinople". In Lymberopoulou, Angeliki (ed.). Images of the Byzantine World: Visions, Messages and Meanings : Studies Presented to Leslie Brubaker. Farnham: Ashgate. ISBN 978-1409407768.
- ISBN 978-9024714582.
- Nicol, Donald M. (1967). "The Byzantine View of Western Europe". Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies. 8 (4): 315–339.
- ISBN 978-0511583698.
- Nicolle, David; Haldon, John; Turnbull, Stephen (2007). The Fall of Constantinople: The Ottoman Conquest of Byzantium. Osprey Publishing. OCLC 78989635.
- Omissi, Adrastos (2018). Emperors and Usurpers in the Later Roman Empire. Oxford University Press. pp. 3–33. ISBN 978-0198824824.
- Ostrogorsky, George (1957). History of the Byzantine State. Translated by Hussey, Joan. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
- Petit, Paul (2022). Pax Romana. University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-37110-1.
- Sandys, John (1921). A Companion to Latin Studies (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
- ISBN 0-87169-127-2.
- JSTOR 4434568
- Tellegen-Couperus, Olga (2002). A Short History of Roman Law. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-90801-1.
- Üre, Pinar (2020). Reclaiming Byzantium: Russia, Turkey and the Archaeological Claim to the Middle East in the 19th Century. London: I. B. Tauris. ISBN 978-1788310123.
- Watkin, Thomas Glyn (2017). An Historical Introduction to Modern Civil Law. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-1-351-95891-2.
- Williams, Stephen (1997) [1985]. Diocletian and the Roman recovery. New York: ISBN 978-0415918275. Retrieved 2011-08-03.
Further reading
- Christoforou, Panayiotis (2023). Imagining the Roman Emperor: perceptions of rulers in the high empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1009362498.
- Millar, Fergus (1977). The Emperor in the Roman World, 31 BC–AD 337. Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0801410581.
- Scarre, Chris. Chronicle of the Roman Emperors: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers of Imperial Rome. London: Thames & Hudson, 1995. ISBN 0500050775
- Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew (1982). "Civilis Princeps: Between Citizen and King". The Journal of Roman Studies. 72: 32–48. S2CID 162347650.
External links
- Website of De Imperatoribus Romanis
- Decadence, Rome and Romania, and the Emperors Who Weren't, and Other Reflections on Roman History, by Kelley L. Ross, Ph.D.
- Chronology of Roman emperors and other rulers (30 BC–1461) by Ian Mladjov, B.A.