The battle for power in the Roman Empire - lesson from Machiavelli | Anthony Kaldellis

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.