Domitian vs. Trajan

If we believe our ancient sources, there are two types of Roman emperors; Good emperors and Bad emperors. Either an emperor was the kindest, bravest man in the empire and a servant to the good of the empire, or he was a cruel wicked man who executed people for fun and had deviant sexual appetites. But it seems clear that this black and white image was not necessarily a truthful one. All our ancient sources are senatorial, except for Suetonius, who was a knight; as others would not have had the leisure and the skills to become historians. So the reputation of an emperor, recorded for posterity, depended in many ways on his relationship with the senate. The senate had lost most of its power since the accession of Augustus. The governing body of Republican days was no more. The Princeps had absorbed all the real decision making into himself and his advisors in his private council and the senate only ruled over the giving out of special honours (mainly to the emperor), the occasional court-case and all hand of other trivial matters. But individual senators were still able to gain influence, wealth and power, whether by courting the emperor or by being sent off on an important mission to the East. However, since the senate was not abolished and the Principate was founded on the concept that the emperor was just another senator with tribunicia potestas and imperium maius, chosen amongst his fellows for his superior abilities, the senate still had to be seen to be active and senators needed to be made to feel useful. Emperors who saw the use of the senate and the importance of keeping it happy, have come down in the history books as good emperors. On the other hand, emperors who decided that they did not require the senators and their constant intrigue to rule, were not portrayed quite so well. It is also clear that since on more than one occasion emperors were killed in conspiracies or revolts, and dynasties thus ended, the successor of a murdered emperor was likely to justify his own position by influencing the historical sources into a particular dislike of the previous emperor. He would encourage from the senators a sort of flattery through mockery and demeaning of the predecessor, as was the case with Nero and the memory of Claudius. Nor of course would the senators themselves, who had obviously prospered under the previous emperor (as they had by now reached senatorial status), be all too willing to risk offending the new emperor by expressing thanks to his murdered predecessor for their current position, rather the opposite to ensure their new loyalties were clear.

Join now!

Domitian and Trajan, whose reigns were separated but by the two years of the emperor Nerva, serve as the archetypal examples of the bad and the good emperors. Domitian was the third (and last) member of the Flavian dynasty. Trajan on the other hand was the first of a long line of adoptive emperors. In that very position, Trajan already had the advantage. Domitian followed in the footsteps of his beloved elder brother Titus, whose death, it was suggested, was perhaps not entirely accidental. He also had the knowledge of someone whose arrival to power was not due to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay