Political tactics that go back aeons

'Spin' isn't such a new concept - in ancient Rome, the art of persuasion for political advancement was a fine art and integral for people becoming powerplayers in the affairs of the Empire


The ‘spin jocks’ that we know today have a lot to thank the Roman Empire for. In fact, the Romans campaigned harder, were more bombastic and critical of their opponents, making today’s political campaigns look like child’s play.

“Politicians routinely claimed their opponents were fornicators, adulterers, murderers, cowards, uncultured dolts, the works.” Professor Jeffery Tatum

Professor Jeffery Tatum, an expert on the topic of ancient Roman politics and the Professor of Classics at the Victoria University of Wellington, says Romans had to be well trained in the art of put downs, witty comebacks and nasty insults just to make themselves stand out.

“Modern negative campaigning is vanilla pudding compared with how the Romans treated one another,” Professor Tatum tells Neos Kosmos.

“Politicians routinely claimed their opponents were fornicators, adulterers, murderers, cowards, uncultured dolts, the works.

“Their version of spin meant putting out the best representation of themselves – and in vilifying their opponents.”

Certainly makes for more interesting debates.

The tactics the Romans used to win a place in the senate were dirty but fed into exactly what the voting public expected.

“Every debate was a show,” Professor Tatum says.

“Romans would stand in the streets for hours listening to their politicians argue.

“People loved listening to them, even if they disagreed with them.”

A far cry from the disinterested public of today.

Citizens were interested in politics

Of course, the election process was a little different from what we’re used to. Only male Roman citizens could vote and every piece of policy had to be voted in by the public, almost like a referendum on every bit of change the senators wanted to enact.

Progress was directly in the hands of the citizens, and for anything that would affect them negatively, strong debate was the only way the politicians could persuade citizens to embrace change.

“Because laws were passed by the people, voters couldn’t afford to be disengaged from the issue at hand,” Professor Tatum says.

Of course, there were many tactics used that would be completely illegal in today’s standings.

Romans were not above bribery

When Romans wanted to be elected into senate (where one sat for life), all forms of bribery and flattery were used.

“Candidates offered banquets and gifts to voters, showed themselves to be friendly and accessible, paraded evidence of past triumphs and there were political posters everywhere.

“The most important thing, in the final weeks, was moving around the Forum, showing everyone how popular you already were.”

Running for office was in fact a very costly thing and almost always an exclusive playground for the rich. Power in office meant prestige for their family and enough political influence to keep their riches growing.

“Most politicians continually pushed the boundaries of what was legal or ethical in spending money,” Professor Tatum says.

Roman citizens weren’t stupid. The facade of flattery and financial sweeteners was seen as a lazy and greedy way to win office.

Many wanted to see the whole process eradicated.

“The Romans recognised that this was becoming a seriously destabilising influence, but they failed to find a solution to it,” Professor Tatum explains.

The best and easiest way to win office was to exude authenticity.

Greek teachers trained Romans to become great public speakers

Those on the campaign trail took lessons from the best teachers of the art of public speaking, many of whom were Greek. They studied the speeches of the best and were taught how to enunciate and include the right gravitas in their speech. Many were tutored by actors, and were much more conscious of how to move their bodies, how to gesture and even taught how to deal with hecklers.

The pageantry of public speaking was sometimes more advanced than today’s standards.

If a Roman couldn’t stack up with his fellow opponents in public debate, they would have to rely on their fame (whether it be on the battle field or in their family’s accomplishments).

“Speaking generally, oratory was never as crucial a factor as military valour,” Professor Tatum admits.

One of the most famous politicians of Rome created his profile by his military conquests.

Julius Caesar’s popularity came from his management of the Gallic wars and the Roman civil war, keeping the borders safe and expanding the empire.

But like many politicians, their power didn’t last for long. For Julius Caesar, his political influence was an affront to the republican dream and his opponents sought to destroy him permanently for it.

Politics wasn’t a bloodsport

Contrary to popular belief, politics wasn’t such a bloody sport during the republican governments.

“Violence was unusual, which is why the Romans wrote about it when it happened,” Professor Tatum says.

“In reality, Roman aristocrats were remarkably unwilling to harm one another. It was very rare for an aristocrat even to strike another aristocrat: they preferred harsh language.

“Politics became deadly when the system fell apart.”

Despite not having a direct part to play in politics, women were quite influential in swaying political agenda.

Romans had their ‘first ladies’

The term ‘first lady’ might have been based on the way Roman women used their powers of persuasion over their senator husbands.

Although they couldn’t vote, they were still able to publicly endorse candidates. Women at the top of Roman society were respected for their views and were active in political debate, even if it was
mostly behind closed doors.

It might not have been such a big deal during the republic days, but during the time of the empire, emperor’s wives used their influence expertly -though it wasn’t an easy role to have.

Even those with their husband’s best interests at heart were attacked with bad press.

“If she acted a wife’s traditional role, which involved being active in his career and in giving advice and exercising influence – something wives were expected to do in Rome, since they were partners in the marriage – well, if she did this in the imperial household, she was deemed by aristocratic men, the men likely to be threatened by her influence, as an objectionable figure,” Professor Tatum explains.

Roman politics had two forms, debate to persuade in the republic years, and propaganda to manipulate during the emperor period.

It seems both still exist in our modern world.

Professor Jeffery Tatum will be giving a lecture on the topic ‘Propaganda in Ancient Rome’ in Adelaide as part of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens visiting professor program. The lecture will be held on Thursday 28 August at 7.00 pm at the Napier Building (Room GO4) University of Adelaide. For more information, contact Zoi Papafilopoulos on 0413 339 488 or Anastasia Potiris on 0438 358 326.