Roman Historian admits Augustus was a Monarch

[Onasander]

This is a excerpt from Zonares, he was a late roman historian in the eastern roman empire, his work contains may lost works from the collapse of Rome now otherwise lost, and he servered directly underneath Emperors, and as a government official and historian knew of the senate from direct experience within the palace.

 

"Because the history had taken note of Romans and of Rome,I thought it necessary for me to write about these, to, and to hand down whence and from what the people of the Romans had its beginning; by whom the region of Italy was previously inhabited; whence Romulus, the man who became the founder of Rome, was brought forth to the light of day; gow Remus, his brother, was killed and then, too, how the former disappeared; how the city itself was first ruled; what manners and customs it employed; how Tarquinius Superabus, after he had changed the sovereignty to a tyranny, was deposed; how many and what sort of wars Rome waged as a result of his disposition; how conditions for Romans were changed to Aristocracy to Democracy, with consuls and distatores, then tribunes too, performing the administration of public affairs, what the consulship was was in olden days, what the dictatorship was, and what the work of the censors was; what term was assigned to each of these offices; what a triumph was like amongst them and whence it's name was introduced; what sort of things-even if not everything- through lack of books detailing such things- happened in the times of the consuls; how, from these, rule for the Romans later changed to monarchy; how, even if not clearly, Gaius Julius Caesar first pretended to this, then, after he had been killed upon the speakers platform by those who clung to liberty, Augustus Octavius Caesar, who was a nephew of the slain Caesar and who had been given to him in adoption, pursued the killers of his adoptive father, having Anthony, too, participating with him in the work, and how, after he had afterwards quarreled also with him, he had been victorious at the battle off Actium, and then, when he had overtaken him after he had fled to Alexandria with Cleopatra, he brought the man to such a degree of necessity that he killed even himself; the extent of Roman losses in these civil wars, first when Octavius and Anthony took the field against Brutus, Cassius, and Caesars other killers, and how these men battled against one another; how Cleopatra, Egypt's queen, a descendant of the Ptolemies, was taken alive how she, too, killed herself, so it was concluded, by the bite of an asp; and that thus, after he had returned to rome with brilliant victory celebrations, Octaviys pursued absolute rule and transformed the leadership of the Romans into a genuine monarchy.....

 

 

 

-----

 

That was one long sentence, but it grasps the essentials of my argument.... the Kyklos Cycle, how Rome switched from a republic to a monarchy, and how being a dynastic emperor differed from elected consuls.

 

Written by a Roman historian who served under a emperor, with access to sources we don't even have anymore.

 

Page 28-29 of "The History of Zonatas" translated by Francis Hagan

Edited November 23, 2014 by Onasander

[caldrail]

Augustus was not a monarch. He might appear to be one, but as Tom Holland points out, his role in modern terms was more like a mafia godfather. I prefer to call Augustus an autocrat. A very influential man, a very aggressive politician in many ways, a very nervous politician in others, and yes, he did try to create an imperial dynasty - but that dynasty was intended to be 'chief advisors', not kings. Nor were ruling powers assigned to Augustus in the same way that Julius Caesar had attracted. He was given temporary powers - boasting of thirteen consulships (which means he was a co-ruler of the Roman empire officially for a total of thirteen years - and of course was given the role of Imperator (which many confuse with the word 'emperor' - the two have different meanings - Imperator means he was the military commander of the Roman empire and indeed he went to great lengths to assure personal loyalty from the legions)

 

As I pointed out to you before, the Republic hadn't gone anywhere. It had changed it's political structure and power sharing (not for the better as some would say), but any idea that Augustus was a king is complete rubbish.

[Onasander]

Ummm... this guy actually served under these "mafia chief administers".... and said.... absolute monarchy. That's not rubbish, that's a legally qualified opinion acceptable in a court of law.

[caldrail]

No it isn't. Not even close. The idea of kingship is nothing more than intellectual laziness. People who say that Augustus and his inheritors were kings are merely looking at the superficial, the record of influence and decision making, without looking into circumstance. Context is everything. The Romans did not institute a monarch after the Republic was fomed at any time, either formally or informally. Commodus was nominated by the ROmans as the 'First Caesar born to the Purple' and even he wasn't called a king. Nor was he.

[indianasmith]

And it is worth pointing out that what you cited is the opinion of a historian who lived three centuries after the fact.

Many in America called Andrew Jackson "King Andrew the First" while he was still alive - but that didn't make it so!

[Onasander]

What made it a Monarchy was it was a dynastic tyranny, and only the "dynasty" had a real say in the succession, especially in the beginning. Caesar chose his relative augustus, augustus tiberius, so on. It was a dynastic, monarchical house, not unlike House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

 

Jackson wasn't a dynastic. He was voted in, and his replacement at the end of his lawful holding of office...... lawful in the sense he followed the laws of the republic and didn't make up his own laws at a whim and 'abide by them', was voted in, and was replaced by another president after him. Hence, the US was a republic. Rome from Augustus on was NOT a republic, unless you want to compromise and call it a Banana Republic.... but Banana Republics are the only kind of republics that can have Monarchies, largely because the people residing there are too uneducated and brainwashed to know what a fourth grade social studies class in America could teach them.... how severely F*ked over they are.

 

For the Romans, the republican period lasted centuries, but was largely dominated by Monarchies. We don't memorize consuls, we memorize early king lists, and emperors.

 

It's only because of the fixation the rise of modern republics from the Enlightenment, to now.... that we pay any attention to the republican era. It's a little Narcissistic and self aggrandizing, but that is the ancestral, ideoligical inspiration for many modern nations, especially the US.... and we don't appreciate it when some historian gets it in his head to throw down millennia of agreed history, philosophy, and statecraft just so he can pave a road for more thick headed fools to lead insurrections to overthrow their governments, establish dictatorships, pass the power on to their kids, and have the nerve like North Korea to continue to call themselves a republic.... a ideal which died under such evil and crude men.

 

A republic is a shared commitment, has element of democracy.... but not a virtual direct democracy in all it's branches..... where power is vested in many to deliberate and debate.... and outside of constitutional checks and balances, segregations of powers, or agreed to parlimentry procedures.... the buck stops with them.

 

The US is a Bicameral Legislative Republic. All members are elected.... save for emergency appointments due to death, via elections. Our Executive Administration head is elected as well, and until recently, his cabinet was approved by congress (now we use subject 'Czars' as a loophole against congressional approval.)

 

Even under Obama, the most Tyrannical president we've had since Abraham Lincoln (and I'm a hugh supporter of Lincoln, but let's be honest, he's not the poster child of how a democracy should ideally work)... the transparency of the Executive Branch blotted out, we started wars out of the blue for no apparent reason and next to no warning to congress (Libya), a entire half of our legislative system fell to Obama (Senate).... but we were still able to keep the House of Representatives independent, and our elections were still preserved, and soon the legislative branch in Jan will begin to function as legislators legislating, and not sycophants stone walling to a tyrants whim.

 

During the civil war in the US, we had elections as well..... and they were allowed to threaten Lincoln's reelection. Same for Bush, or Clinton.... or any other American president. Even the Confederate States in the South sought this. In our colonial era, when administered by foreign lords, like Lord Dunmore, we had local legislators..... though not technically a republic..... giving we had a monarch as head of state. We haven't had a pure dictator like Augustus since..... John Smith.... at Jamestown.

 

The US has had two monarchs, on in Utah, and on in Michigan.... both Mormons, and the Michigan one was king ONLY over his Mormon branch, but was a lawfully elected Senator for his district and pointed out the difference himself.

 

Hence the debate between Republic of England vs. the UK. In the Republic of England..... you would have no king. He would have NO Parliamentary Role, over any other citizen (citizen, not subject).

 

You intentionally confuse the living daylights out of the term republic, which is a default impossibility. It's very insulting to people who live in a republic, and knows damn well what it means.

Edited November 30, 2014 by Onasander

[caldrail]

A dynastic title? "Caesar" was nothing of the sort. It ought to havebeen and Augustus had every intention of creating such. There was nothing in Roman law that said a Caesar had to rule the empire. They didn't officially need one. Unfortunately, once the precedent had been set, it was difficult to avoid, because many senators preferred some scapegoat at the top rather than a mass slaughter of politicians when things got sticky, because there were always senators wanting to join factions and support a powerful individual, and because there were always individuals who wanted the job (however bogus it actually was). As I've rep[eated ad nauseum, Commodus was the first Caesar identified as a dynastic inheritor by the Romans. Not even the Julio-Claudians got that credit - because it wasn't the family tie that got them the job - it was senatorial politics.

 

 

 

You intentionally confuse the living daylights out of the term republic, which is a default impossibility. It's very insulting to people who live in a republic, and knows damn well what it means.

You can stop this sort of nonsense right now. Republic means "For the people", which in the context of the Roman world was something of an excuse if not an outright lie. All tjhe Caesars did was make things more complicated and reduce the public's say in matters. What "republic" means to the modern US or any other similarly democratic state is irrelevant.

[indianasmith]

I get the feeling I just stepped into the middle of a long running crossfire . . .

[caldrail]

Feel free to join in. We love debates on this site

[GhostOfClayton]

I think he liked to put out the political message of being 'primes inter pares' (a concept that long preceded him in the Senate), but clearly he was autocratic in the extreme.  Not quite Stalin, but certainly not disimilar to the Orwellian Napoleon.  (Sorry if that sounded a bit pseudo-intellectual).

[caldrail]

Augustus' nasty side rarely gets focused on - being such a successful politican and getting favourable reviews from the ROmans themselves, he tends to be described as 'great' - but in reality he was very quick to get suspicious about potential threats and none too merciful once he'd made up his mind.

[indianasmith]

Well, he saw what being merciful did for dear old great-uncle Julius!

[Safiria Caesar]

Allow me to humbly step into this long standing debate with my personal opinions.

Augustus was not a monarch. He might appear to be one, but as Tom Holland points out, his role in modern terms was more like a mafia godfather. I prefer to call Augustus an autocrat.

.....

As I pointed out to you before, the Republic hadn't gone anywhere. It had changed it's political structure and power sharing (not for the better as some would say), but any idea that Augustus was a king is complete rubbish.

 

I hardly can take the point that Augustus was not a monarch.

I do agree that we cannot discuss about the Roman Republic in terms of the modern definition of a Republic, but saying that the Republic hadn't gone anywhere... well, I find that quite hard to agree with, unless, and I know that's a provocation, you take the point of view of Caesar, "nihil esse rem publicam, appellationem modo sine corpore ac specie" (Suet., Life of Caesar, 77) that the Republic is nothing but a mere name, without body or form. And yes, I know that dear old Suetonius is not a very reliable source...

Now, in this sense, I could agree that the Republic was still in place under Augustus, otherwise it seems quite hard to get along with your statement.

August had, effectively, taken upon himself so many power and rights, that he was running the State on his own, leaving the Senate without much to do or say, other than agreeing with him.

As to why he never admitted that the Republic was gone, I stand with Indianasmith... he saw what happened to his "dear old great-uncle Julius".

 

But I do agree with Caldrail about the fact that the nasty side of Augustus is rarely focused on, which something that really makes me angry when I read about him! Everybody horiifies at Sulla's proscriptions, but when it come to Augustus' proscriptions many authors tend to underplay them. Why?   He even put some of his own relatives on them (true, most of them got away with their life, if not with their money), but still we are talking about a boy in his twenties... I find it quite indicative of what kind of person he was.

About Augustus duality, it comes to mind a book I read some years ago, by an Italian journalist and writer - not a historian - who had a big passion for Ancient Rome and studied and wrote on it, Antonio Spinosa. The book was "Augusto, il grande baro", which can be translated in Augusts, the great cheater (or mystifier, if you prefer)...

[caldrail]

 

 

I hardly can take the point that Augustus was not a monarch....

...August had, effectively, taken upon himself so many power and rights, that he was running the State on his own, leaving the Senate without much to do or say, other than agreeing with him.

Whilst you're welcome to disagree, there is nothing in the Roman sources that says Augustus was a monarch. Neither does his role in Roman society indicate that he was. His powers were not based on official allocation from the Republic, but the use of personal influence. He was defintiely a control freak - even his wife said that - and he acted in much the same way as a mafia gangster, influencing politics both openly with a beneficient face and enforcing it behind the scenes in a rather more ugly tone. Remember that Augustus refused official honours more often than not and officially handed power back to the Senate. When Augustus proposed that he was princeps, he meant it. He was holding on to status and influence, not power, especially since a man - Juluius Caesar - who had taken every power that Rome had to offer, had been so brutally removed from the office he had been given by consent. And it's worth rememering that early on Augustus more than once left the Senate house with jeers at his back, as senators demanded to know when they'd be allowed to make a decision. The adoption of 'Augustus' was not as clear cut as most people believe. He won a propaganda war in many ways - he would have died as brutally as Julius had he lost.

 

There is no similarity between Augustus and Julius in terms of official power - Julius had the lot and permanently. Augustus preferred to be seen to be honoured in the same way as other politicians might thus his official powers were limited. In any case it doesn't matter. There is nothing in the Roman constitution after the Republic was founded that said they had kings ruling them - that was unacceptable by tradition and sensibility - nor was the position of princeps, or the role of Caesar that followed it, anything more than political opportunism.

 

There is no argument that in theory a Caesar had immense control and influence. Not all of them did. Didius Julianus was disdained for buying the job from the Praetorians who had murdered Pertinax shortly before. Didius had not earned his status, even after serving as consul, by any acceptable means up to and including lethal conspiracy - he had simply promised a large sum of money (and didn't even pay that). Thus when rebel armies marched on Rome, he appealed to the Senate for help, and mindful of potential purges to come, they ignored him. Of course they did. The whole reason that the Caesars had been tolerated was because there were too many swords behind them. The reason they were accepted was because some politicians saw their influence as useful to their own careers, and so licked their backsides for all they were worth. The reason they not dismissed legally was because too many senators believed that with sufficient opportunity, they could achieve the same influence and status, and that by removing Caesars from politics, there was no further chance of dominating Roman politics in the same way - and profit - as before. The Senate did not prevent the warlords of the late Republic from seizing power because they preferred to do business with dominant characters rather than have to fight them.

 

 

 

I do agree that we cannot discuss about the Roman Republic in terms of the modern definition of a Republic, but saying that the Republic hadn't gone anywhere... well, I find that quite hard to agree with, unless, and I know that's a provocation, you take the point of view of Caesar, "nihil esse rem publicam, appellationem modo sine corpore ac specie" (Suet., Life of Caesar, 77) that the Republic is nothing but a mere name, without body or form. And yes, I know that dear old Suetonius is not a very reliable source...

Now, in this sense, I could agree that the Republic was still in place under Augustus, otherwise it seems quite hard to get along with your statement.

There is a concept prevalent in the study of Roman history that the Republic ended at some point and the Empire began. This simplification is rather naive and doesn't reflect Roman politics accurately at all. It's the result of a historical categorisation that appeals to the general public - it's easy to understand the republic stopping somehow and the Caesars ruling like kings thereafter.

 

Also, rather than than using the word 'birth', we should perhaps speak of emergence, since the features of the Augustan monarchy that were adopted by its successors took shape gradually, bit by bit, within the Republican institutional edifice. For the Principate was not created ex nihilo, but put slowly into position using existing forms, and following no preconceived plan but, rather, added to and modified according to circumstance...[/]
A History of Rome (Le Glay, Voisin, & Le Bohec)

 

In his Acts and on his coins he (Augustus) stressed that he was the Liberator who had saved the lives of citizens, that he had held no post 'contrary to ancestral tradition', that he had 'transferred the state from his own control to the free will of the Senate and the Romanie', and to those traditional components of the Roman state, the S.P.Q.R., there are many honorific references on his coins. It may seem suprising that in spite of their vigilant Republicanism many members of the Italian governing class were satisfied by what seems to us a fiction. Yet the Romans, although their intense anxiety to preserve everything good in the past made them instinctively averse to open changes, had a fairly impressive record  for modifying their institutions when this was necessary.
The World Of Rome (Michael Grant)

[C. Fabius Lupus]

Even if Octavian was no rex (king), he created a new monarchy. His cognomn Augustus became the new title of the monarch under his successors. He called himself princeps, which later became our modern title of prince.

I think we could say Octavian's reign was the begining of a new form of monarchy that reached its final shape gradually under his successors. But it is already a monarchy, even while the formal title of the monarch was not fully established.