The battle for power in the Roman Empire - lesson from Machiavelli | Anthony Kaldellis
Anthony Kaldellis explains how the late Roman Empire maintained power through a consistent persona of responsiveness and accountability rather than absolute rule, using the threat of civil war and public consultation mechanisms like the Hippodrome to incentivize emperors to serve their subjects' interests.
Summary
Anthony Kaldellis discusses how Roman emperors, despite possessing nominally absolute power, projected a carefully maintained persona to their subjects emphasizing responsiveness, accountability, and tireless work on behalf of the people. This persona was communicated through laws, petitions, rhetoric, and imperial messaging that emphasized the emperor's sleepless dedication to solving problems before subjects experienced them.
Kaldellis distinguishes between imperial rhetoric and actual behavior, arguing that the gap between the two was surprisingly small. While acknowledging corruption and abuse existed, his research suggests emperors were generally sincere in their stated commitment to serving their subjects' interests and actually implemented what they promised. This consistency between words and actions was not propaganda but genuine governance strategy.
The key structural feature enabling this system was the absence of hereditary succession rights. Unlike empires founded by conquering dynasties, the Roman Empire emerged from a republic, forcing even Augustus to maintain the facade of respecting republican institutions rather than ruling as an explicit monarch. This lack of legitimacy through birth meant emperors remained perpetually vulnerable to overthrow—approximately 46% of Byzantine emperors were violently deposed.
Faced with this existential insecurity, emperors discovered that maintaining popularity through good governance was more effective than tyranny for survival. The threat of civil war (roughly 120 occurred during the thousand-year period studied) created incentives for accountability. Emperors conducted what Kaldellis calls a 'perpetual referendum' through public appearances in the Hippodrome, where gatherings of 30,000-100,000 people would cheer, chant, or boo in response to policies. When citizens demonstrated opposition—such as to Alexios III's proposed German tax in the 1190s—emperors would reverse course.
This system functioned as a form of popular consultation and consensus-testing across multiple venues: the Hippodrome, military gatherings, churches, and public forums. It resembled democracy in its connection between rulers and ruled, though operating through different institutional mechanisms than modern electoral systems. The Byzantine system's survival for a thousand years suggests it was an effective method for governing large populations while preventing rebellion through genuine responsiveness.
Key Insights
- The Roman Empire projected a consistent persona across its entire history that emphasized emperor responsiveness, accountability, and working solely for subject benefit rather than private interest, communicated through laws, petitions, and imperial rhetoric.
- Emperors were generally sincere in what they said and actually did what they promised overall, despite being nominally absolute rulers, which was counterintuitive and driven by structural vulnerability.
- The Roman Empire lacked hereditary succession rights because the emperor emerged from within a republic rather than through conquest, creating perpetual insecurity where approximately 46% of Byzantine emperors were violently overthrown.
- Approximately 120 civil wars occurred over the thousand-year Byzantine period, creating constant threat that made tyrannical behavior counterproductive for survival, as harsh rule would accelerate rather than prevent overthrow.
- The Hippodrome functioned as a perpetual referendum where emperors tested public opinion through acclamations and chants, allowing them to immediately detect and correct unpopular policies like taxation based on crowd response.
Topics
Transcript
[0:02] So, you argue that even though the personality of the various emperors varied, as we'll talk about, and as they're often venerated, celebrated, criticized, talked about, the late Roman Empire was projecting a persona to its citizens that was consistent throughout its history. Can you describe what you mean by this and describe the different detailed characteristics of this persona? >> Yes. So, this persona, it's what the governments or the emperor, the court, [0:33] and the spokesman, the bureaucracy want their subjects to think uh this whole thing is about. Like, how is power being used, why, and for whom, right? >> [snorts] >> And they do so in laws that they promulgate throughout the empire. Sometimes they…
Full transcript available for MurmurCast members
Sign Up to AccessMore from Lex Clips
Was the Roman Empire a military dictatorship? | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses why the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire is better understood as a 'monarchic republic' rather than a military dictatorship, despite emperors controlling armies. He argues the term 'empire' is conventionally misapplied, and explains that the Eastern Roman state was fundamentally a polity governed by a monarch who served the republic, with armies rarely used for internal social control.
The greatest emperor of the Byzantine Empire | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis explains why Constantine I ranks as the greatest Byzantine Emperor despite his ruthlessness and murderous nature. His ranking is based on the consequential, world-history-changing decisions he made—particularly founding Constantinople and converting the empire to Christianity—rather than on personal likability or even competent administration alone.
The rise of the Roman Empire in the East | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis explains how Constantinople grew from 25,000 to 500,000 people in two centuries through mass migration from Greek-speaking provinces, driven by senatorial relocation and a grain dole program. Constantine systematically redirected resources from Rome to establish Constantinople as the new center of the Roman Empire in the East.
Why Christianity succeeded and spread throughout the world | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses why Christianity successfully spread throughout the Roman Empire after Constantine, highlighting its adaptability across intellectual, ritual, military, and political spheres. He explores the paradox that while Christianity's exclusive truth claims make it divisive, they also create powerful community consolidation and identity, with theological doctrines actually evolving through conflict despite the religion's narrative of defending unchanging truth.
The role of violence in the Roman Empire | Anthony Kaldellis and Lex Fridman
Anthony Kaldellis discusses how the Byzantine Empire maintained stability for a thousand years through a system of perpetual popular consultation rather than formal institutions, where emperors faced constant threats of violent overthrow but used public opinion feedback to govern effectively. The threat of civil war and public disapproval acted as checks on imperial power, incentivizing good governance and preventing despotic behavior.