Leaderboard

Augustus did NOT become a tribune at all. It was illegal for him to do so. He was granted the right to retain tribunician power and these powers were regularly renewed. I notice people who see Augustus (or any other Princeps) as all-powerful point at his power of veto immediately. Remember that Augustus could not realistically veto everything. Why would he? What's the point of reforming republican government over the course of a lifetime just to prevent it from working? Why would Augustus claim to have created the best possible Roman government if he had no intention of allowing it to function? It's nonsensical. Novosedoff - Whilst I'm not really going to argue about your view of corruption in high places, such behaviour, even in the ruthlessly greedy Roman Empire, was not universal. Why would the Romans write about corruption in the sense they do if the sort of corruption you point at was an ordinary part of life? Everyone would know it went on and it was pointless making an anecdote about it. Please realise that corruption in elections was the primary reason for public unrest and also the major motivation for Roman rulers to intervene.

The key words are "cursus honorum" because this is what determined the career paths in the Roman public politics. Although initially the magistrate posts were only available to the patricians, by the beginning of the current era the plebs could replace them almost at any position. It was all turned upside down when in 23BC Augustus, who was a patrician (thanks to Caesar's efforts), became the perpetual tribune with the authority to overrule any decision taken by other tribunes (initially in the republican era the tribunes would be always elected only among the plebs, although the story of Gracchus brought some wind of changes to that). In fact, by AD 12 the title of tribune had become so unpopular among the candidates of the senatorial rank, that Augustus had to introduce a new change and made the position available to the candidates of the equestrian rank too. Voting wasn't cancelled, candidates would still have to compete. Some positions assumed a lot of responsibility over budgets distributed by Senate's decrees. For instance, it is estimated that each legion required over 600,000 denarii per annum just for wages. Plundering at war times was rather lucrative business too. The most successful politicians and statesmen are always the ones who can benefit their private pockets from their jobs in public offices. This is what drove Julius Caesar to start his public career too when he was deeply in debt. Lets say you work as a quaestor. Your job duties assume the power to audit public spending. Lets say I am your good mate from childhood. I offer you a deal. My spending on some public construction works will be 40% higher than normal, but since I know that you'll be checking it, I offer you to split the benefits from overestimating my budgets.You'll get your kickback from me. Does this example convince you to run for elections at the quaestor's office? 🙂 https://youtu.be/TVtvBoELA-g

The Principate began with traditional republican voting. Augustus had restored such procedures during his reforms. He passed a law in ad5, the Lex Valeria Cornelia, which set up a special advisory body of senators and decurial equites (senior plebs with civic responsibilities) to produce a list of favoured candidates called destinati before the Comitia. There's some debate over this especially because this body appears to have waned in importance by ad14. In any case, Tiberius transferred these elections to the Senate when he came to power. There is a hint in a document called the Tabula Hebana which suggests that better control of voting was to offset the risk of public riots. Tiberius had a stricter control over voting than Augustus, though this was not the case after Tiberius set up semi-retirement in Capri. By then the Senate had much more freedom to control voting and no doubt the ideas to remove voting from the plebs completely starts from that moment, as the Senate begin to find ways to avoid setting issues for the popular assemblies to vote on. It was easier to seek guidance from the senior man among them, the Princeps Senatus, or Princeps, or if you really have to use the word, Emperor, who might in theory prove an excellent scapegoat. The Senate had never liked sharing their privileges in governmental business with lower classes or outsiders. Tacitus holds that Tiberius influenced the selection of candidates by speeches, not by decisions. None of the Roman writers say that the Princeps controlled the Comitia. Dio tells us that the people continued to meet for elections. The Princeps appears in general to have intervened to prevent unsuitable candidates, such as those who canvassed or bribed their way into consideration, or perhaps for something as simple as personal dislike, but tended otherwise to let the Comitia vote as per tradition. There were exceptions such as Egnatius Rufus who got himself considered for consulship in 19BC and only the previous Consul managed to impede him. However, it is noted that Tiberius was only allowing enough candidates to fill the position, not to allow choice and this at a time when Tiberius was said to be refusing extra powers from the Senate, but this might not actually be the case as we know the Senate were asking for extra candidates and so Tiberius was simply acting to mediate the voting for the same reasons Augustus sought to. There were some public disturbances over voting during the early Principate, Augustus had Agrippa keep order in Rome, and it seems the caution exercised by the Roman leaders was justified. In ad7 a riot was so bad that Augustus chose to appoint magistrates directly. Although the Princeps made recommendations about candidates, the Senate continued to do business as they had in the late Republic, by filling posts by merit, agreement, or lot. By the time Caligula comes to power, the period of riots has gone, replaced by considerable apathy which no doubt suited the Senate entirely. The mechanism existed, persisted, but was essentially pointless as too many decisions were being made outside of the Comitia's reach. So intervention from the Princeps was a matter of expedience rather than the exercise of power, with the Senate taking advantage of change to assert their dominant role in government.