Septimius Severus

Septimius Severus is the book’s most successful example of a new prince who secures power through a deliberate combination of force and fraud. Among the Roman Emperors considered from Marcus Aurelius through Maximinus, he alone is shown as overcoming the conflicting demands of the people and the army: he oppressed the former, satisfied the latter, and yet preserved enough reputation to remain feared and respected rather than universally hated. His career therefore gives practical form to the image of the ruler who knows how to be both lion and fox.

Identity and Political Situation

Septimius Severus appears in the discussion of the Roman Empire’s unusually difficult political structure. Unlike ordinary princes, Roman Emperors had to contend not only with the ambition of nobles and the disobedience of the people but also with the cruelty and rapacity of their soldiers. The people preferred sober rulers and the peace that allowed them to live securely; the soldiers preferred a warlike emperor, even one harsh, proud, or greedy, because his aggression against the people could secure additional pay and license their own appetites. A prince who could not control both groups was therefore exposed to ruin.

This conflict made the position of a new emperor especially precarious. Those who inherited or had already established authority might restrain both the people and the army, but a newcomer needed extraordinary support and was often forced to choose which class to satisfy. Septimius Severus succeeded because he understood that political survival required adaptation to this divided social order rather than an abstract commitment to uniform virtue. His example is set against rulers who either offended the soldiers or lost control of them while trying to please the people.

Seizure of the Empire

Septimius Severus first exploited the death of Pertinax, who had been killed by the Praetorian Guard. Knowing the indolent disposition of Julianus, he persuaded the army under his command in Illyria that it was their duty to march to Rome and avenge Pertinax. The appeal to vengeance concealed his actual design on the Empire. He moved before his intentions became known and reached Italy so quickly that the Senate, acting through fear, elected him Emperor and put Julianus to death.

The seizure did not make him sole master. Two rival claimants still threatened his position: Niger, who had caused himself to be proclaimed Emperor in Asia and commanded the armies of the East, and Albinus, who held command in the West and also aspired to the imperial dignity. Septimius Severus judged it dangerous to fight both openly at once. He therefore separated the two problems, confronting Niger with arms while dealing with Albinus through deception.

To Albinus he wrote that the Senate had chosen him Emperor and that he wished to share the dignity with him. He sent Albinus the title of Caesar and presented him as a colleague approved by the Senate. Albinus accepted these assurances as genuine. Once Septimius Severus had defeated and killed Niger and restored tranquillity in the East, he returned to Rome and reversed the public meaning of the arrangement. Before the Senate, he accused Albinus of having treacherously sought his destruction despite the favors received. On that pretext he went to Gaul, stripped Albinus of his dignities, and killed him.

The Lion and the Fox

The sequence of these actions gives the clearest account of Septimius Severus’s method. He used the lion’s force when force was necessary, but the fox’s craft when open conflict would have exposed him to simultaneous enemies. The march from Illyria concealed an imperial ambition beneath the language of duty; the settlement with Albinus postponed a dangerous war until Niger had been defeated; and the later accusation converted a former ally into a condemned traitor. Military action and political artifice were not separate phases of his rule but coordinated instruments.

His treatment of the army was equally calculated. The soldiers were the decisive foundation of his authority, and he kept them friendly even while oppressing the people. This did not make his government gentle. Septimius Severus is explicitly grouped with Commodus and Caracalla as a cruel and rapacious ruler who, to satisfy the soldiery, inflicted wrong upon the population. His difference from those emperors lay not in moral innocence but in political capacity. His strength of character made him admirable to both groups: the people remained amazed and awestruck by him, while the soldiers remained respectful and contented.

That combination protected him from the hatred his cruelty might otherwise have generated. His reputation did not erase oppression, but it altered its political effect. The people feared and respected him, while the army, whose support was indispensable, did not turn against him. The book consequently treats his success as a matter of disciplined authority rather than personal kindness: he understood which injuries could be imposed, upon whom, and under what shield of reputation.

Comparison with Other Princes

Septimius Severus is also a corrective to mistaken imitation. The book contrasts hereditary authority with the unstable position of a prince who has newly acquired power. Marcus Aurelius, as an established hereditary ruler, could govern under conditions unavailable to a newcomer. Pertinax and Alexander failed when they tried to imitate Marcus, because their newness deprived them of the inherited security that made his conduct possible. Conversely, Caracalla, Commodus, and Maximinus fatally imitated Septimius Severus without possessing the qualities that had enabled him to succeed.

The distinction is not that a new prince must copy every action of Septimius Severus. Rather, he should borrow from him the elements necessary to lay the foundations of government, while borrowing from Marcus Aurelius the qualities suited to maintaining and glorifying a power already established. Septimius Severus thus functions as a model of political foundation, not as a universal moral or administrative template.

His career also belongs to the book’s wider comparative method. The discussion repeatedly argues that the fate of a ruler depends on the character of the state and the institutions surrounding him. Just as Alexander the Great could retain the kingdom of Darius because its centralized structure left no independent barons capable of organizing resistance, a ruler in a divided political environment must account for the autonomous forces that can make or break his authority. Septimius Severus’s achievement lies in recognizing the Roman army as such a force and mastering it before it mastered him.

Narrative Role and Evaluation

Septimius Severus is the book’s successful counterexample to emperors destroyed by hatred or contempt. Alexander, though just and unwilling to execute anyone without trial during fourteen years of rule, fell into contempt because he was considered effeminate and governed by his mother; the army conspired against and killed him. Caracalla possessed qualities that pleased the people and endeared him to the army, including a warlike spirit, endurance of hardship, and contempt for luxury, but his extravagant cruelty made him hated by everyone and so feared by his associates that a centurion killed him in the midst of his army.

Septimius Severus avoided both failures. He was cruel and rapacious, yet his military reputation and force of character prevented contempt; he relied on the soldiers, yet did not let their loyalty dissolve into the indiscipline that destroys a ruler. His conduct illustrates the book’s broader claim that a prince must sometimes be other than good when the class supporting him is corrupt, because virtuous conduct can become politically damaging if it alienates the power on which authority rests.

For that reason, Septimius Severus is treated not simply as a historical emperor but as a practical lesson in founding rule. He secured the Empire through speed, concealment, selective violence, and the manipulation of rival ambitions. His example shows that political success for a new prince depends on matching means to circumstances: the lion supplies the force to conquer, the fox supplies the deception to outmaneuver rivals, and reputation supplies the protection that keeps necessary cruelty from becoming universal hatred.