Derek Caelin is writing a book5d ago

Words shift, and how they shift matters.

The word "Emperor" today means, "the ruler of an empire": a sovereign with supreme military, political, executive power over many nations.

The origin of the word is "imperātor", a title granted by the Roman Senate - a Republican Institution - to Julius Ceaser, and then his nephew Octavian.

At the time, the title had a strictly military connotation. The imperator was the "person giving orders, commanding officer" in a military, and the purple he wore was a symbol of his military office.

Under Augustus, and throughout the centuries that followed, the meaning shifted to "imperāre": "to demand the production of, levy, give orders, exercise authority, hold political power".

Military power became executive and political.

#etemology #RomanEmpire

Show threadDerek Caelin is writing a book5d ago

Reading "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" I'm reminded of #Egypt, whose leaders have largely been pulled from the military (the brief exception was Morsi, after the Revolution - and his time was brief).

Julius Ceasar and Augustus came to power through military success, and they commanded the loyalty of their troops partly by giving enormous donatives and pay. Over time, the money provided to the legions grew, and the legions exercised great influence over the emperors. The legions killed emperors, and they appointed emperors.

Show threadDerek Caelin is writing a book

Speaking of the meaning of words shifting, how about "Senate"?

The word "Senate" today, at least in the U.S., reflects a body of elected officials. This word and form was deliberately chosen by the founders on the example of the Roman Senate, which ruled while Rome was a Republic and "advised" for centuries while it was an empire.

But the Roman Senate was an aristocratic institution - seats were initially held only by patricians, the ruling class of Rome.

Watching "#Gladiator" or any other modern movie about Roman emperors, there is often a plotline of "restoring the Republic", which feels like a development towards a more just society. But it really it represents a shifting of power from a monarch to a representative body of the ruling class.

Then again, in the United States, Senators tend to be wealthy and privileged, and the institution's claim to represent the nation is, shall we say, dubious.

Mar 20 at 12:39pmWeb
Show threadDerek Caelin is writing a book5d ago

Anyway, I'm reading about a nation in decline, and seeing the decay of democratic institutions. It's hard not to draw connections.

https://www.npr.org/2026/03/20/nx-s1-5754021/trump-democracy-autocracy-dictatorship-reports