Hey, Kids! Who Wants to Be Roman Emperor?

Augustus I read rather a lot of classical history, especially first century Roman history. I don't know how many times I've been through Suetonius's Lives of the Twelve Caesars, and I was recently thrilled when I discovered audio versions of Tacitus's Annals and Josephus's The Jewish War.

Lately I've been boning up on this period for an upcoming set of projects, and a thought keeps striking me:

Why would anybody back then want to be the Roman emperor?

This was something people competed fiercely over. There were multiple civil wars fought over this. But why on earth would anyone want the job? Being Roman emperor had a frightening tendency to Not End Well.

Let's look at the track record:

  • Julius Caesar (reigned 49 BC-44 BC): Assassinated by senators (also not technically an emperor, but what the hey)
  • Augustus (44 BC-AD 14): Possibly died of natural causes, but at least two of the three major historians of this period report rumors that he was poisoned by his wife, Livia, in favor of her son, his successor Tiberius
  • Tiberius (14-37): Possibly died of natural causes, but widely reported to have been killed by his successor, Caligula, possibly in conjunction with the head of his own guard, Macro
  • Caligula (37-41): Assassinated by his own guards (yes, he was that bad)
  • Claudius (41-54): Widely thought to have been poisoned by his wife, Agrippina, in favor of her son, his successor Nero
  • Nero (54-68): Declared and enemy of the state by the senate and forced to commit suicide
  • Galba (68-69): Killed in civil war by the soldiers of his successor, Otho, after reigning only seven months
  • Otho (69): Committed suicide in civil war after his successor, Vitellius, achieved a decisive advantage; only reigned three months
  • Vitellius (69): Killed in civil war by the troops of his successor, Vespasian, after regining only eight months.

That takes us up through A.D. 68-69, the "Year of Four Emperors," which began with Nero on the throne and ended with Vespasian on it.

There were other, even worse years, such as the Year of Five Emperors (A.D. 193) and the Year of Six Emperors (A.D. 238).

So, see what I mean?

Being the Roman Emperor wasn't exactly a good path toward a happy death.

I know that vast numbers of people lived in absolutely horrific conditions back then (by today's standards), and one can't blame the first few emperors for not noticing the pattern of what tended to happen, but once the pattern was established, one would think everyone would shun the job like the plague.

It would certainly make sense to adopt a philosophy like that of Londo Mollari: "I prefer to work behind the scenes. The rewards are almost as great, and the risks far less."

That worked out well for him, right?

What are your thoughts?

Author: Jimmy Akin

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."

17 thoughts on “Hey, Kids! Who Wants to Be Roman Emperor?”

  1. They would want to be Emperor in spite of the risks, perhaps, because of the all-too-human tendency to say, “It won’t happen to me.”

  2. I’d do it if I could kill all the hippies my first day in office. I’m willing to take one for the team.

  3. Well, Caligula and Nero were pretty much insane, so that accounts for two of the first nine. I’m sure the rest were bonkers, just less obviously so.

  4. I actually just watched a movie called The Last Legion today which looks at the opposite end of the Emipire’s history with the fall of Rome and the last Emperor, Romulus Augustus. While the film tried to be much more than it was, it tried to give us a story about men of honor in both a civic and religious sense. There was both talk of being “keepers of the faith” along with remembering “that there was such a thing as a Roman soldier, with a Roman sword, and a Roman heart!” I think Rome was fallen man’s best attempt at an ideal polity and it shouldn’t be surprising that Imperial Rome lacked stability and that 313 AD was a little too late to give the Empire a new soul. I like to think, however, that there were some emperor’s who were willing to risk their necks in order to accomplish some good within the boarders of the Empire.

  5. The same thing is true of strong-man rulers in our own day (not to mention the very considerable intervening period). There simply isn’t a good retirement strategy from that position, and AFAIK there never has been. But there’s never been a shortage of folks who wanted the position, either.
    I can think of two reasons this might be: (1) If the law is largely the whim of the strong man, there are clear benefits to *being* the strong man, even if there’s no good exit. Was the life expectancy of a Caesar worse than the life expectancy of other high Roman officials? (2) Lust for power is easy to find in any era. Why should imperial Rome be different in that?
    Peace,
    –Peter

  6. Just think of what became of the potential (real and/or perceived) claimants to Caesar’s Throne! In a world structured by nothing but power, fear and brutality rule and motivate every action and relationship. Perversely, becoming Caesar was probably considered the only way to actually survive, even for only a short time.
    With the possible exception of Augustus – Rome’s greatest “insider” – the most successful (or at least, longest) imperial reigns came either from military men, who like Trajan, were outsiders to Rome’s incestuous violence, or were Roman patricians who increased their power and prominence outside of the capitol (Hadrian, Antonius Pius, Marcus Aurelius). Otherwise, it seems that it was kill or be killed.

  7. I think Peter Brown above is probably pretty close. Partly it’s a simple sense of arrogance combined with a lust for power, but there’s a more pragmatic justification too…
    Bill Hicks was apparently once heckled by someone who asked why, if he hated America so much, he didn’t leave. His response was along the lines of ‘what? and be a victim of our foreign policy?’
    Look at the carnage among the aristocracy in the early years of Augustus’ reign. Then look at the way possible challengers for the throne were treated under his successors, leaving aside the capricious reigns of terror unleashed by Caligula, Nero, Domitian, Heligobalus, etc. I’m sure there must have been those who thought that being an important Roman was dangerous enough, so you might as well be the one who has most control over danger.
    And if you have the army utterly loyal to you, as Vespasian, Titus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius did, well, there was a chance that it could work out.

  8. Who wants to be emperor? Ask Obama; his greatest similarity to the Romans would be his preference for infanticide.

  9. My recollection of the end of “I, Claudius” by Robert Graves is that he did not have a choice. He was selected by the soldiers. But having been chosen, he was pleased because as emperor he would be able to have his book published.

  10. I remember there’s a passage somewhere in Augustine’s Confessions (it’s been a long time) in which he meets a couple of highly placed Roman officials–sort of Senior Executive Service bureaucrats. His feeling is that anyone in even that level of power in the imperial court was not long for this world. Sort of like Boethius. But then other officials seem to be survivors, like Talleyrand in France, many years later. He was high up in Louis’s court, in the revolutionary government, and in Napolean’s court. Regards, Mark

  11. Mr. Akin,
    Given your love of that historical period, are you aware of Adrian Goldsworthy’s upcoming bio on Augustus?
    Should be out first quarter of 2012 I believe. (Sounds like that from his blog.)
    As far as why they did it…. Roman culture raised them that way. Most of these individuals were raised from birth to believe in their objective superiority to everyone else. Their military service and political careers were explicitly about their own ambition. (There were no political parties or factions back then.) If Roman culture was nothing else, it was insanely narcissistic.
    And I think that’s why the West still has such a fascination with it, myself included. Either because we admire that bravado, or we say with shock “how on earth did they get so cocky?”

  12. @Mark : Actually Talleyrand was “merely” Bishop of Autin under Louis XVI, first gained some political significance by being deputy to the “Etats Généraux” in 1789 and, then, betraying the Church by devising the “Civil Constitution of the Clergy” (a law allowing the State to steal the goods of the French Church to pay off its debts) in 1790. Then, he managed to survive the fall of the Monarchy, the proclamation of the Republic, the Terror, the fall of Robespierre, and finally became a Minister during the Directoire (1797). Then, he betrayed the Directoire and became a Minister of Napoleon (1799-1814). Then he betrayed Napoleon and became the Prime Minister of Louis XVIII, but was quickly fired (1815). So, 15 years later, he betrayed Charles X (brother and successor of Louis XVIII) and supported the “July Revolution” that brought Louis-Philippe to the throne. He died 8 years later, probably in the middle of a plot to betray Louis-Philippe. So your point is correct but he served (and betrayed) even more regimes than you thought.
    On his deathbed, Talleyrand sighed : Ah ! Je souffre comme un damné (“I suffer as much as a damned soul”, a French expression) !
    The priest assisting him answered : Already ?
    I think you understand why 😉

  13. If a fellow Catholic criticizes the opulent way the pope dresses, is it okay for me to call him “Judas?”
    Or would that be judgemental?

  14. “Well, Caligula and Nero were pretty much insane, so that accounts for two of the first nine.”
    They were not insane when they started the ‘job’ as emperors. Actually Caligula was quite a good emperor the first two years of his reign. Afterwards, for some reason, he descended into ‘madness’ (but I think that blaming it on mere mental health is unreasonable).
    ———————–
    The problem is tha beign Emperor meant to have POWER. Many people are really greedy for power and this blinds their common sense, even today.
    The fact that being emperor meant having power was also the reason why so many emperors got killed: other people desired such power!
    ———————————————————–
    “If a fellow Catholic criticizes the opulent way the pope dresses, is it okay for me to call him “Judas?”
    Or would that be judgemental?”
    If they are just ‘trolls’, yes, and that would ne charitable too: Trolls are biblically more like the roman guards who tortured Jesus and put the crown of thorns on his head… since they like to torment people for their own sick pleasure.
    Beside such ‘criticisms’ are often stupid and absurd and both Jimmy Akin as Patrick Madrid replied to this question, even using biblical passages.
    I recomend you listen to what Patrick Madrid had to say on his blog
    (Jimmy you do not mind right if I tell someone to listen to P.M. right? :P)

Comments are closed.