What difficulties did Tiberius and Claudius face in trying to reform the senate? (20)
Both Tiberius and Claudius faced various problems in their association and reform of the senate,
usually governed by their accession from the previous emperor. Tiberius faced the task of
succeeding the divine Augustus, who was seen as a god and perfection incarnate- the senate was
directly subservient underneath Augustus and Tiberius faced a near impossible task in emulating the
man who was seen to be the greatest emperor of all time. With Claudius, he faced succeeding
Caligula- a bloodthirsty tyrant who had all but eliminated the Senate’s power and consequently led
senators to detest the imperial family and call for a Republic government. However both emperors
seemed to have Republic affections, but for different reasons.
Firstly, Tiberius proposed and enforced various reforms upon the senate. His first was to abolish the
‘Consilium’ (advisors) and replace them with various magisters (a more republican approach). This
increased Tiberius’ control over the senate until his seclusion to Capri. He also changed revoked
‘certain orders published by the Senate’ (Suetonius) in an attempt to emulate Augustus’ supreme
control over the senate. However Tiberius was met with resistance from the senate, mainly due to
Tiberius’ relationship with them- they often accused him of using ‘evasive answers and hesitations.’
This approach may have been favoured by Tiberius as he believed that running an empire was too
much of a burden for one man- ‘Relieve my burden... emperors have enough burdens and enough
power’. Taking this viewpoint, Tiberius’ reforms may have seemed like a genuine attempt to restore
some power to the senate. However Tacitus’ takes a more cynical view, mainly due to Tiberius’
seclusion to Capri and Sejanus’s implementation.
Suetonius profiles Tiberius’ character as becoming more ‘indulgent’ and ‘sinister’ upon his seclusion
to Capri, and Tacitus (as aforementioned) shares a similar view. During the treason trials and the
following ‘reign of terror’ Tacitus claimed that Tiberius had reduced the Senate to ‘a shadow of its
ancient power’. Indeed Tiberius often proclaimed that the Senate were ‘fit to be slaves’, and so his
seclusion to Capri seems to further strengthen the view that Tiberius had no real desire to be
emperor, and his conduct portrays this. All in all, although the senate mostly bowed to Tiberius’s
wishes and reforms, he was much maligned by the people and the senate- his ‘death was celebrated’
and from this we can draw the conclusion that Tiberius’ reforms were not met with much
enthusiasm- we can say that Tiberius’ main problem with his reforms was that he as a character was
not liked by the senate, so they were loath to accept his proposals.
Now before we discuss Claudius, his succession must be briefly mentioned to add the important
contextual background as it can suffice to explain the immediate senatorial opposition Claudius
faced from the senate. Caligula was ruthless with the senate- he often killed with compunction and
created various and elaborate deaths for them, such as ‘a wall of death’. He ridiculed the senate,
having his horse ‘Incitatus, established as a consul’ (Suetonius) and claimed that ‘if the roman people
had but one neck, he would cut it’. From this we can understand why the senate and the citizens of
Rome held considerable disdain for the imperial family, and why Claudius faced so much opposition
to begin with- he was relic of an imperial regime and the senate had hoped to establish a Republic
once more.
However Claudius had the immediate support of the Praetorian Guard, and in many ways this
enabled him to begin to establish his reforms. The first step that Claudius took in his reformation of
the senate was to ‘reform the senatorial roll’ routing out ‘corrupt senators’- this seemed to be a
fairly logical step and didn’t restrict the power of the Senate. However there Senate were critical of
some reforms, such as bringing the ‘political arena’ back to his home and his inclusion of the ‘longhaired gauls’ as provincial governors. However the greatest problem Claudius faced was his apparent
reliance on freedmen and his wives. Indeed he had a ‘high regard for Polybius’ (a freedman), and his
allocation of financial administration to a committee of freemen; a key quote that sums up this
reliance is ‘freedmen became very powerful and he became a tool of freedmen’.
Now, in comparison with Tiberius, Claudius handled the senate in a less aggressive way- there were
no mass killings or a ‘reign of terror’ induced by a seclusion from Rome. Indeed Claudius was firm
with his prosecution of corruption among senators and was aptly called ‘father of the senate’.
However Claudius tactical removal of the senate’s power highlights a key logic apparent among
emperors- a powerful senate threatens the imperial position. Claudius, although originally wanting
to bring a Republican government back along with the senate, soon realised that if he wanted to
survive, the Senate had to be controlled- the ‘numerous attempts on his life’ were testament to this.
This again justifies the restriction of ‘patronage’ of soldiers in relation to senators; Claudius
foundation of authority rested with the military- he was brother to Germanicus, and owed his safety
to the Praetorian Guard.
So, in conclusion, it is clear that both emperors faced resistance from the Senate in their reforms of
this institution. However Tiberius’ resistance was far greater and more vocal, mainly due to his
inadequacy in comparison to Augustus and violent and unpredictable nature culminating in his
seclusion to Capri and the violent backlash of Sejanus’ betrayal. On the other hand, Claudius faced
resistance due to his imperial ties after Caligula’s tenancy and his apparent ineptness due to his
physical impairment- however Claudius was more measured and calm in his approach to reform, and
so he was received more willingly by the senate. We must also consider the contextual factors that
have influenced our writers. Firstly Tacitus’ accounts can appear to be jaded, especially in his
accounts of Tiberius’ and his association with ‘tyranny’. This was mainly due to his tenancy as
secretary under the tyrannical Hadrian. Similarly Suetonius was well known to exaggerate personal
characteristics, which can lead to biased accounts in relation to the emperors.