Wallace-Hadrill makes the argument that the seat of Augustus’s empire, the Imperial home on the Palatine Hill, was where the sovereignty of the emperor would become the most effective. When Augustus garnered control of the Roman Empire, the aristocracy of Rome—both the friends and enemies of the emperor-- flocked to his side in hopes of joining his Imperial court. Each courtier had a varying degree of intimacy with Augustus; the closer one was to him, the more of his borrowed authority they could access. Successful courtiers were masters of manipulation who could maneuver through positions and relationships to ingratiate themselves to the court and to the emperor. In the Imperial court, being close to the emperor and being powerful were synonymous. …show more content…
Citizens, patricians, and philosophers from around the empire had to meet the emperor of Rome on his terms, in the heart of his homeland. Many aristocrats frequently attended Imperial dinners and visits. There were many traditional greetings exchanged between Augustus and the senators, such as the tradition of kissing the senators’ cheeks, which served to keep the senators and the emperor in relatively good graces. On the other hand, the constant tension of ambition caused trouble for the emperor. Cliques formed and vied for the emperor’s attentions; Flattery was common, and many courtiers were frequently ridiculed outside of the court for their shameless attempts at the emperor’s good graces.
The only thing that discredits the author’s argument is that his attempt to fully describe the court is based largely on anecdotal evidence. Unable to accurately detail the complexities of the Roman court and the extent of its power with appropriate evidence, the author makes generalizations based on courts of other kingdoms and empires in order to create an otherwise plausible conceptualization of the magnitude of the Roman