The Augusta

Yes, because its relevant. Caesars motivations in the development of Octavians career need to be understood because that way we understand Octavian too. It may have been merely a slander against Caesar - but in fact it was a slander against Octavian too. Another name on the proscription? Actually, the slander, I would say, was entirely against Octavian - as the 'recipient' of these attentions! That was the Roman mindset on these things, after all. I agree that it has some relevance. Octavian's enemies/rivals' jibe thus being equivalent to today's insults about movie stars getting their parts on a casting couch. As 'monarchy' is a modern term totally alien to the Romans, there is no arguing this statement, Caldrail, so I will concede the point.

Don't get me wrong here, GPM - I know what the principle is and I used to be able to see the hidden thingies in these kind of puzzles a few years ago. I really do think that eyesight affects these things Does anyone else use reading glasses - anyone else blind as a bat when it comes to close-up work? Hehe - and if so, have those people got the puzzle?

There is a huge difference in - say - one of the Cornelii Lentuli of the Republic introducing his son to public life and setting him on the bottom rungs of the cursus honorum, and a man who held supreme power doing the same thing. Gaius and Lucius were not being led forward as youngsters standing for the quaestorship - they were being put forward as the heirs to empire. True enough, when the people clamoured for Gaius to be elected to the consulship at a ridiculously young age (14), Augustus put his foot down. Notwithstanding his protests, Gaius was consul in 1AD at the age of 20. Did Augustus allow other men of noble families to do the same? Augustus wanting his family to dominate Roman politics in the future may or may not equate with his wish to found a monarchy, but his position was unique, and he was hoping that the senate would endorse his choice in the same unique position. How could this be Republican?

Well, Gaius, I have always subscribed to the theory that history is made by the men/women who made it (if you know what I mean). Whether this has become old-fashioned or not, I cannot renounce it. Maybe there could have been a peaceful outcome if we had no Antony. It's so hard to judge on theory alone without taking account of the main players at the time. You asked us to take just one of those players away - Octavian - but that still left others who were not only shaping history at the time but who, had things gone differently, could have shaped it for the future. We can only work with the characters we are given. Would another man have steered Rome towards a new form of government - of course, it is possible. But when we come to ask who that man was (if not Augustus) we then have to either make assumptions about the people who were still there, or speculate about a new person coming to the fore. Phew - it's a tough one. Let's throw something else into the pot: If Brutus and Cassius had formulated a proper plan for the restoration of the Republic after they raised their daggers, the world may well have been a different place. Brutus always strikes me as a decent, patriotic man who, under different circumstances, could have rallied more people to his cause. I guess the main thing that is coming out of our posts is Antony. If your original question had allowed for his death as well as Octavian's - well, then we would be headed for a whole new theory.

Tiberius has to be taken out of the equation totally. If 'Octavian had died a day after Caesar' as Gaius originally proposed, I doubt that Tiberius' own father would have suddenly grown a spine and pushed himself to the forefront of Roman politics. He was too much of a weathercock, having commanded Caesar's fleet in the Alexandrian war when quaestor, then as soon as Caesar's body hit the floor he began proposing honours for the 'liberators'. Then he served as praetor quite happily under the triumvirs until the country began to rise against Octavian due to the land allotments for the veterans and Pompeius' harrying of the corn supply. This prompted him not to lay down his office as the law demanded, join the list of proscribed, and instigate a slave revolt, easily put down by Salvidienus and Agrippa. Nero was forever choosing the wrong moment and the wrong side. In my humble opinion he deserves to wallow in the obscurity to which history has confined him. But your essential point, Caldrail, about Tiberius not lasting a minute without Augustus' approval is a valid one. As I see it, if we are to go back all the way to Caesar's death here, and Octavian dies more or less immediately afterwards, then you return to the situation of Antony and his supporters versus the 'liberators'. I have to agree with Caldrail, Antony wanted to be heir to Caesar's power, so I think we would still have had Mutina, and that other great Roman weathercock, Lepidus, could have swung either way (Cicero's letters of the time are full of snippets about which way Lepidus was leaning. He seemed to change his stance with each month!) But without Octavian's extra legions, Decimus Brutus may not have been able to withstand the siege of Mutina, and Antony would not have fled to Gaul. Had Lepidus supported him at that stage Antony may well have seized the dictatorship for himself. I still think we would have had a Philippi situation, as Brutus and Cassius had to challenge him. I do believe that Antony would have still won such a battle, but then he would have had to deal with Pompeius. Are we allowing for Agrippa in our theory? If not, who would have created the naval base and built the extra ships needed for the Sicilian War? This was a long and protracted affair and Octavian lost half his fleet at one stage! Would there have even been a Sicilian War? Would Antony have instigated Proscriptions if he was sole dictator? If not, then Pompeius would not have had the suypport of the proscribed as he did under the triumvirate. Heck, he would not even have been proscribed himself! There are so many 'ifs' and 'buts' in these sort of speculative theories. Cleopatra? She had aided Cassius, so no doubt Antony would have still been involved there, but without the threat of Octavian would he have embroiled himself so deeply in a political way? This is the point where I differ with those who say that he would have formed some kind of dual monarchy with Cleopatra. We can only speculate about that if all had proceeded as it did but he had been the victor at Actium. Without Octavian the events leading to Actium would not have happened. My own simple view is that of Caldrail's too. I think we would have seen the anarchy and civil wars of a 69AD. The Republic would have only put up with Antony for so long, and the strife would have continued. I cannot hold with the view of some scholars that Antony was a good old republican at heart and would have restored ordered government.

Thank you Nephele - you do everything with style.

Ilian, you are becoming the master of useful links! Thank you very much for pointing out this informative article. I had always wondered how the texts had managed to come down to us.

Grazie. I'm sitting for a statue as we speak! I think they're doing me as Hecate!

OK - as one of the few people on this board who will understand my next phrase, GPM - this is doing my head in! Please, can someone explain! I've tried unfocusing and re-focusing - there seems to be something vaguely appearing as a pattern, rather like those pics in magazine ads that hide a new Mercedes or something. Now, my eyes, behind my reading specs, are not what they were, but even so, I can't make head nor tail of it all. Help!!!

I cannot agree with this. Had Augustus died while the boys were young, their father, who was Augustus' co-regent, would have acted as regent until they were old enough to enter public life. After Agrippa's death, Tiberius would have acted as regent - he was given Tribunician Power shortly before he took it into his head to abandon Augustus and withdraw to Rhodes. And during his 'exile' or whatever we wish to call it in Rhodes, he still held the tribunician power until 1BC. Had anything happened to Augustus in that time, the senate could not have ignored the fact that Tiberius was so designated. None of us know what would have happened had that been the case, but we are talking about Augustus' actual plans - not how they eventually turned out years after his death. Tiberius' trib. pot. officially ended in 1BC, but the year after, Gaius allowed him to return to Rome - by which time, Gaius was 21 years old and had already held his first command (unsuccessful as it was). And how insane was Augustus to trust in a 21 year old? He had his own example to follow for that - and Gaius had at least been brought up under the Principate and taught the arts of imperial government - Augustus had had to work it out for himself. Plus, the fact that civil war did not break out at the accession of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius or Nero, shows that Augustus was not that short-sighted after all. Whatever his achievements during his lifetime he could not legislate from beyond the grave, and he did what he could to ensure a smooth succession process within the limits he had to work with. And here we have the crux of the matter. This view is argued from a distinctly anti-monarchical, republican stance. It is a very good point, however, that history has proved to be correct more often than not. However, I am not sure exactly what you mean by ALL royal houses being short-lived. By what comparison? Our own Plantagenet house ruled England from 1139 to 1399, and even then when it split into Lancaster and York, they were still Plantagenets. So, one could say that the Plantagent royal house ruled England from 1139 to 1485 (with the death of Richard III) a total of 346 years. I don't call that short-lived by any standards. Why, it's only about 150 years short of the Roman Republic! The Republic lasted around 500 years, as did the western empire, both systems have things to commend them, both have things to avoid.

Gaius - are you asking if someone else would have instigated the Principate? Or are you asking if, without an Octavian, there would not have been one? It sounds like an interesting topic, but I just need to know from where we start.

A wonderful article, PP. This is an era that I am determined to explore, as I find I am becoming more and more interested in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries. Your article is the perfect place to start. Thank you.

You're not alone, Ursus! I'm totally lost (LOL)

This does not take account of the accidents that affected his policy. His intentions were very clear on the 'succession' - Gaius and Lucius as 'Princeps Iuventutis' etc. were the designated and recognised heirs to the Principate. Augustus can hardly be held responsible for the intervention of fate in this. When he commended Tiberius to the Senate in his will he was also doing his best to ensure the succession, and he forced Tiberius to adopt Germanicus as 'the next in line'. The fact that fate intervened yet again with the death of Germanicus in no way reflects on the succession policy of the first Princeps. His immediate successors were all of one dynasty - how does that equate with failure? (I mean failure in the policy here, not failure in the choice of men - again, something Augustus could not control from the walls of his mausoleum.) I am not sure what you mean, Caldrail, by saying that Rome never did have any constitutional method of determining rulership once the old republic was pushed aside for personal gain. Was it entirely unconstitutional that Augustus commended Tiberius to the senators for them to endorse his position or otherwise? They had endorsed Augustus in his position, after all. When you say that the Principate was new and therefore in an experimental stage, I agree with you entirely, and we do know that there was dissension - the plot of 23BC; perhaps other plots in 2BC and 7AD. The fact that Augustus emerged from these unscathed says a lot about the nature of his autocracy. I think we should also avoid the term 'creating an empire'. Rome, as you rightly say, already had an 'empire' - it is much clearer to speak of Augustus' political innovation as the Principate. However, I can't agree with you that he did not want to reinforce the Principate/Monarchy (whatever term we wish to use) for future generations. The settlement of 23BC made the Principate a legal institution; the conferring of the tribunicia potestas and maius imperium on, first, Agrippa and then Tiberius was a clear indication of his intentions. In both cases these men were designated as his 'co-regent' and in the event of his death would have been the natural choice to succeed him. What more could he do to 'ensure the succession'? Just my two penn'orth...

I found that a bit confusing on the map too. Until the advent of the Parthian Empire, Persia and Parthia are seen on maps as two distinctly different areas. Persia proper was the southern part of Iran even in Cyrus' time (6thC BC) and Parthia a little more north. The map that Pan links must be one indicating the 'beyond the Euphrates' edge of the Roman empire, so it is understandable that 'Parthia' stretches over the whole land mass. I suppose it is more correct to say that this area is ancient Iran, and both Parthia and Persia were part of it. Hopefully, this should make it clear how they stood in relation to each other

That's impressive! I am sure it has been taken from that famous panoramic map of Rome in the age of Constantine that was available as a poster for tourists a few years ago. Or at least the artists have used that as a starting point. I've tried to find a repro of that on the internet to link to but can't seem to find it. Still, I am sure many of you will have seen it. It was a 3D map. Terrific work! Whenever I see these things I bemoan the fact that I was born 2,000 years too late and in the wrong country!

Decimus, this is absolutely beautiful work. Unfortunately, I am still at work so can only dip into the site for a minute, but I wanted to congratulate you at once, and I look forward to exploring your domus more thoroughly later on this evening. Once again, well done.

Doc, I don't believe it! I'm always caught out by the Scythians too. Perhaps this map will help Or this one

If this is your real birthday, Cato, I'll eat my hat! I hope you have a great day, and that Julius' ghost does not haunt you too much.

In your honour: I cannot let our Nephele outdo me with her anagrams. Here, O Pater, is your image as represented in the Major Arcana. May you continue to direct our world with light and laughter - and lots of emoticons! :wub:

Are you reminding us to send Cato a birthday card, Gaius? (I'm sure it's not his real birthday, you know! I think he's chosen it as his official birthday - like the Queen)

Alas, Pertinax - it will not make you a god! Gaius hath a quality that defies mere mortal description.

It sounds as though they had a black and wicked sense of humour! In fact, it's not unlike that of Northern England. Come to think of it, a thread on the Romans' humour may prove interesting.... and at least it would get us away from all this torture!

And yet you punched poor Cicero in the nose.... [shakes head] Cato - must a girl be forever judged on the actions she performed at 18 years of age?

It is indeed '3 before the Ides' as I call it. As for the essays - I have to confess that your edict, O, Dive, has stirred old passions within me. I am less concerned with winning a prize, however, than with the joy of taking part. God - that is so British of me! As for the Roman New Year starting in March - I have not researched this deeply but it would stand to sense as being named after Mars, after all! Plus, the sowing of seeds (remember that when Julius altered the calendar he altered the seasons too) would have originally fallen under Mars' aegis, as to the ancient Italians he was an agricultural god before he was the God of War. Just a thought - I claim no authority. Makes sense; it's the start of spring, to signify the start of a new growing year. Although how would this fit in with sowing of seeds...wouldn't that be done often during winter? Doc - see my comment to GO above - March before Julius' reforms would have been more of a winter month.