The Roman Imperial Period (31 B.C. - 284 A.D.) and the Role of the Emperors: Need for Acceptance, Patterns of Communication and Governmental Practice (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaften)

• Applicant: Professor Dr. Hartwin Brandt
• Subject Area: Ancient History
• Term: from 2019 to 2021
• Project identifier: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) - Project number 423860684

The Roman imperial period and the function of the Roman emperors can be described adequately only if concentrating on two main aspects: the need for acceptance and the patterns of communication. On the one hand it was impossible to rule the whole empire effectively by intentional management, on the other hand the emperor was what the emperor did. But he also was, what he wanted to be and how he wanted to be seen – what means, that archaeological monuments, coins and inscriptions have to be taken and interpreted as integral elements of empire-wide communication. This communication was the main task of an emperor – not only an “aristocratic communication” between emperor and senatorial elite, but an empire-wide communication. These activities were not only meant to solve practical problems, in fact they should cope with a crucial prerequisite of the imperial role: the creation of acceptance. The Roman principate was not a “system of acceptance”, but a ‘system of need for acceptance’, that means the leading protagonists in the fragile system called ‘principate’ permanently had to make the case for acceptance, in order to consolidate their position and the conditions on which this position was based (or only in order to keep alive). Every ruler who did ignore that (as C. Iulius Caesar) lost his positition and his life; but who successfully created acceptance could keep his position and have a natural death (as Augustus, the first “princeps”). Communication partners of the emperor and his close cooperators were not only senators but the whole, empire-wide élites, members of the court, soldiers and common people (not only in “urbs Roma”) – non-homogenous groups with particular interests. They all formulated and articulated their specific expectations and needs, and likewise they received and reacted on imperial intentions and messages. Under these determinants individual emperors were able to develop an individual profile and to create an individual imperial “imago” – only in this respect intentional activities were effective and necessary. Consequently, the imperial need for acceptance and the permanent pressure to communicate are basic categories of a new overall view of the Roman imperial period. It is necessary to analyze the attempts of the emperors and their intimates to create acceptance, but also to realize the contingency of their impact. This contingency became obvious all day when imperial activities turned out to be successful, inefficacious or only tentative. Aspects of this contingency are, for example, the following ones: military campaigns, rebellions, usurpations, invasions, family dramas or misfortunes. Hence, narratives of such events will also be part of the book, but only to a limited extent.

• DFG Programme: Research Grants