Conference on Roman political initiative, Bielefeld (Germany), July 15–16, 2019 (programme and abstracts) (original) (raw)
Related papers
Introduction to the volume "Leadership and Initiative in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome"
Frolov, R.M. (2022) "Introduction", in Roman M. Frolov & C. Burden-Strevens (eds.,) Leadership and Initiative in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome (Leiden & Boston): 1–35., 2022
Political initiative may be seen as an essential aspect of leadership. Initiative can be defined, in the round, as the ability to begin a political action rather than simply to respond to it. This introduction describes the notion "political initiative" and its cognates, charts the ways in which modern scholarship has discussed formal and informal initiative in ancient Rome, presents the approaches used in the volume "Leadership and Initiative in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome", and summarizes some of its findings.
Petition and response, order and obey: contemporary models of Roman government -- OLD VERSION
The paper addresses a problem of method and one of substance. Methodologically, it considers the necessity of modeling in the study of ancient institutions. Substantively, it critiques minimalist interpretations of Roman government: those that depict Roman government as passive or reactive, for whom response to petitions is emblematic of ancient government. I then focus on the vocabulary of command, not least as its usage spans both general edicts and ad hominem rescripts, and suggests that its use helps to explain why provincials received rescripts as having general force. I then close with some general considerations on the study of government as an historical enterprise.
Omnia deinde arbitrio militum acta Political initiative and the agency
Leadership and Initiative in Late Republican and Early Imperial Rome / Edited by Roman M. Frolov, Christopher Burden-Strevens. – Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2022, 2022
Abstract This chapter assesses the political agency of the Roman army “from below” and explores the forms of initiative that could be adopted by the rank and file, including their participation in military mutinies, unrest, and coups d’ état. Who were the auctores seditionis mentioned in ancient literary sources? When, why, and in what ways did they act as a particular initiative group leading the mass of mutinous soldiers? What was the part of junior- and middle-ranking officers as a counter-force and, in some cases, as initiators, speakers, or organizers of political actions, including in the overthrow of emperors? And what were the mechanics of the troops’ collective activity and decision-making when the military acted in defense of their particular interests or as “king-makers”? To define the situation under the principate, this paper turns to a comparative analysis of the army’s political involvement in the late-republican civil wars and after the Augustan settlement. This comparison demonstrates that Augustus and later emperors failed to depoliticize the army within which the former republican traditions of military community continued to exist, and soldiers often behaved not as mere mercenaries but as a “citizenry in arms.”
1998
Giving thanks is a pleasure. This book had its origin in issues raised in my dissertation, "Sors et Provincia: Praetors and Quaestors in Republican Rome" (Duke University, 1987). Like the dissertation, it could not have been written without A.K. Michels, who gave patiently and kindly of her immense learning both when I formally studied Roman religion with her and subsequently as a mentor. Kent Rigsby first taught me to ask whether modem conceptual categories reflect ancient definitions and continues to insist that I say what I mean. Lawrence Richardson has demonstrated to me time and again the importance of appreciating the isolated, oftentimes arcane detail in its fuller context. All three have encouraged my interest in Roman governmental procedure and given generously of their time.
Political Representation(s) in Rome
Critical Analysis of Law , 2022
According to the conventional account, the concept of political representation played no active role before the early Middle Ages. But this vision is misguided. In Rome-not only under the Republic, but also during the imperial period-the practice of power was premised on a variety of forms of political representation. This claim is not entirely without precedent. One classicist, Gary Remer, has suggested that Cicero articulated a robust concept of the orator as political representative in his philosophical works. But this article carries the argument further. Various forms of political representation underpinned politics, operating at many levels and taking many forms beyond the standard election-based account, including personal representation and symbolic and cultural representation. This historical account grounds an intervention in political and legal theory. It helps construct a flexible and multidimensional account of representation, which illuminates modern representative dynamics with more nuance.
The ancient sources mention speeches being delivered in the late Republic in con-tiones by both consuls-elect and tribunes of the plebs designate. It has usually been assumed that as magistrates-elect they did not have the right to summon a popular assembly. In this paper it is suggested that magistrates-designate – or at least some of them – had this privilege. This should be understood in the more general framework in which the designati played a political and institutional role during the late Republic.