Octavian To Augustus

[WotWotius]

This is another one of my college essays and i wondering what you people thought of it.

 

Oh and this essay took me bloody ages, so don't be too cruel!

 

Octavain's rise to power and the 1st and 2nd settlements.

Out of all the emperors Rome has seen, Augustus is probably the most famous and influential. Although the he was not the strongest of men (in fact he nearly died of illness on many occasions), he was however a very brave, mentally headstrong person who possessed a commodity so rare in rulers: grace.

Though most historians would agree that Augustus was an able ruler of Rome and her Empire, there are still many wildly differing opinions on whether he was the ‘restorer of the republic’, or a cunning but power-hungry oppressor of ‘the sound old ways’. For example, the historian Dio Cassius wrote that Augustus had ‘…given the people a monarchical government …’ (Dio Cassius’ Roman history LII), though he believed this was for the better. However, the contemporary historian Velleius Paterculus believes that Augustus was without fault (almost god like) and naively believed that the old republic was functioning just as it had always been. Augustus may have shared this view, but certainly he highlighted this in his autobiography, the Res Gestae.

Born on 23 September 63 BC in Rome, Augustus was originally named Gaius Octiavius (Octavian); upon the death of his father in 59 BC, Octavian was taken into the care of his great uncle the conquering hero and future dictator of Rome (‘Dictator Perpetuo’), Julius Caesar. At age 16 Octavian took part in Caesar’s triumphs whereby he received his first toga (a right of passage into manhood). At this point Caesar was beginning to see great potential in the boy and was even considering making him his heir. A year later Octavian served in Caesar’s Spanish legion: despite the odds being against him, he showed immense courage on this campaign and as a result, he was officially made Caesar’s rightful heir… however, Augustus was not aware of this until Caesar’s assassination in 44BC.

Though the majority of Rome’s senate was involved in Julius Caesar’s murder, traditionally the ringleaders of the plot are seen to be the senators Brutus and Cassius, who killed Caesar to restore the old ways of the Roman Republic (Res Pulica): ironically the assassination initiated the final stage of its collapse. I say this because upon hearing the news of his adopted father’s death, Octavian began his campaign of revenge.

When Octavian arrived in Rome in late 44 BC Octavian latched himself with the worldly renowned orator Cicero, who provided Octavian with Legions to attack Caesar’s best friend and successor, Mark Antony who was currently laying siege to Decimus Brutus (one of Caesar’s assassins) at the town of Mutina. However, after using the legions for their intended purpose, he used them to attack and kill Decimus Brutus once inside Mutina. During the battle the two reigning consuls, Hirtius, and Pansa were both killed under suspicious circumstances. Could Octavian have engineered their deaths in order to free the position of Consul? The way he acted immediately after their deaths definitely supports this view.

In August 43 BC Octavian marched on Rome, and the threat of his legions granted him his first consulship, despite being drastically under the age limit. Three months thereafter he met with Antony and Lepidus at Bologna and constituted themselves (officially by decree of a powerless senate) Triumvirs, joint rulers of the Republic. The Triumvirs then went about appointing their shares of the empire. It was at this point that Cicero realised he had created monster with too much power completely bent on revenge, famously referring to him as a ‘three headed monster’. Cicero was eventually killed in the prescription (along with many other citizens of Rome) that followed. Others that fell to the sword of the Triumvirate included Brutus and Cassius who fell during the battle of Philippi in 43BC.

Though Octavian had an agreement with Marc Antony, their relationship was by no means a calm one; many events occurred which put them at odds. For example, Marc Antony’s wife, Fulvia made war against Octavian over territory: she was eventually beaten during the Siege of Peruga. Though Octavian forgave Antony for this, he was not prepared to forgive him for divorcing his new wife Octavia, who was Octavian’s sister. And if that was not already a big enough insult, Marc Antony then went to live with his Egyptian mistress the queen of Egypt, Cleopatra. War was imminent between the two, however Octavian needed the senate’s support for the war; so he read out in public Antony's will, which had quite illegally came into his possession. In the will it stated that large amounts of Roman land were to go into Egyptian possession and Antony would be buried in Egypt if he were to die. The senate saw this as a very un-Roman and insulting act and immediately declared war.

In 31 BC Marc Antony and Octavian’s forces engaged in the naval battle of Actium. The aftermath of this conflict resulted in a dead Cleopatra, a dead Mark Antony and an exceedingly wealthy all-powerful Octavian. Octavian’s victory meant that he was the unchallenged ruler of the Roman world. However, Octavian realised that his adopted father had once been in this position and he had not forgotten how he met a bloody death because of it. Something needed to be done in order to keep in power: enter the ‘First Settlement’

On the eve that his sixth consecutive consulship expired, Octavian presented the senate with ‘…a faithful account of the military and financial state of the empire…’ (Suetonius, Life of Augustus) and to their surprise resigned. Naturally the senate begged him to stay in by offering him new powers. Unsurprisingly Octavian ‘grudgingly’ accepted. Historians still argue whether Octavian really wanted to finish his political career or had planned this event since the battle of Actium; I personally believed he planned the whole ceremony (which was later to be dubbed ‘The First Settlement)

So what exactly did Octavian receive from this deal? Firstly his consecutive Consulships continued (which were renewed each year) though he had to rule with a different colleague each year; this meant that he would be all-powerful but the Cursus Honorum (Roman career structure of the upper classes) would still be in practice as Patricians would have a chance to become consuls.

Octavian also received Censorial powers meaning that he could legally remove senators and demote/promote people’s class. Furthermore, he could call a census of Rome’s populace. However, Octavian refused the job title so he would not receive Caesar’s fate.

A third aspect of the First Settlement was that he gained Proconsular Imperium, which basically means he was able to move armies around in his personal provinces: Egypt, Cyprus, Spain, Gaul and Syria for ten years. This also meant that he would be in control of two-thirds of the Roman army. When the settlement was decided Octavian had the title of Augustus thrust upon him, meaning one to be revered, though Octavian preferred to be addressed with title of ‘Princeps’ meaning first citizen. After the First Settlement, Augustus seemed invincible.

However, the settlement was by no means watertight. Augustus realised there were problems with the deal. For example, in 24 BC the governor of Macedonia Marcus Primus went to war against the neighbouring kingdom of Thrace without the senate’s permission. As this province was outside Augustus’ control, Augustus could not legally do anything to stop him: the event was a real eye-opener for Augustus and it made realise that further steps were to be done to ensure his power. In the same year there was also an attempt on Augustus’ life by two senators who were angry that Augustus was taking a consulship every year: Augustus needed to ensure better personal popularity. On top of all this Augustus was seriously ill and 24 BC he nearly died. This brush with death appeared to have been a further decisive moment in his life. For when he recovered, he set about once more to change the Roman constitution. He did this by going through the same ceremony that he had done in 27 BC, however this time the deal that he struck with the senate was called the ‘Second Settlement’ (23 BC).

In the ‘Second Settlement’ Augustus gave up the consulship and instead was awarded tribunician powers (tribunicia potestas) for life by the senate. Tribunician powers gave him the right to call the senate to meetings, to propose legislation in the popular assembly, and to veto any enactments. As plebeian classes traditionally held this position, the post made him seem like one of the people.

Because he was unable to control all the Roman provinces, Augustus scraped the idea of Proconsular Imperium and traded it in for Imperium Maius. This meant that he had control of all frontier provinces (e.g. Germania) until it became romanised, at this point Augustus hand over the province to a governor. By doing this it would ensure that the majority of Roman troops would remain in ‘his’ provinces. Imperium Maius also meant that Augustus could intervene in any province at any time.

There are two sources in particular that discuss the political situation of 27-23 BC. The first is Augustus’ autobiography the Res Gestae (‘Things I have Achieved’), the second being Tacitus’ Annals. The Res Gestae primary use was propaganda; in it all the great events of his life are either stressed or exaggerated. However the events in his life that would put a blot to his name (e.g. massacring all the citizens of Perugia) as this would not put Augustus in a positive light. So everyone under his rule would be aware of his biography, Augustus had many copies of the document published and had them spread all over his empire; though the biggest copy would outside his mausoleum.

Edited December 27, 2005 by WotWotius

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

What class was this essay for.

[Germanicus]

there are still many wildly differing opinions on whether he was the

[WotWotius]

In terms of contemporary sources there are many opinions on Augutus.

 

For example, Horace, Virgil and Velleius Paterculus all believed (or wrote) that Augustus restored the Repuiblic.*

 

However, the hirstorian Tacitus depicts Augustus as an evil tyrant.

 

Dio on the other hand admits he was a good emperor, but does not portray him as the restor of the republic.

 

 

*Having said this, these were people (particually Virgil) who were on Augustus' pay roll so their opinions were bound to favourable.

Edited December 30, 2005 by WotWotius

[Primus Pilus]

In terms of contemporary sources there are many opinions on Augutus.

 

For example, Horace, Virgil and Velleius Paterculus all believed (or wrote) that Augustus restored the Repuiblic.*

 

However, the hirstorian Tacitus depicts Augustus as an evil tyrant.

 

Dio on the other hand admits he was a good emperor, but does not portray him as the restor of the republic.

 

 

*Having said this, these were people (particually Virgil) were on Augustus' pay roll so their opinions were bound to favourable.

 

Indeed, they may have said such things but to report that they 'believed' Augustus restored the Republic is misleading. I suppose the genius of Augustus was that he veiled the transition of power from Republic to Principate in such a way that even contemporaries did not see it. However, regardless of what they saw, it is quite clear that the Principate was the dissolution of the Republican system as a true governing authority. Certainly there were traditions left, the Senate itself, the magistracies, etc., but Augustus was a monarch in all but name.

[Germanicus]

I was referring to modern historians. - No differring opinion regarding "Restorer of the Republic there"

[phil25]

We need to separate propaganda and spin, from the reality.

 

Augustus and his advisers wanted the world to believe that the republic had been restored, and put a lot of energy into creating mechanisms that seemed to reflect this - Augustus stopped monopolising the consulship so that the cursus could resume for others etc.

 

But think of the image of themselves that Hitler and the Nazis put out in the 30s - and compare that to what they were actually doing and saying and preparing for (as we now know) behind the scenes.

 

Without all the monstrousness of C20th fascism, the Augustan regime was little different.

 

But the debate about a return to republicanism does not seem to have gone away. I interpret some of Tiberius' actions (especially in his early years0 as trying to move away from the "monrachism" of Augustus, to even more traditional methods. But the Senate had become to supine to function.

 

However, the one thing that Augustus and Tiberius never overlooked was the fact that there had now to be a "strong man" at the centre of affairs, directing things. Without such a ruler, the republic would soon descend again into civil war as rival generals vied for power. Even so, civil war erupted again in 69 after the collapse of the Principiate under Nero (only just over 50 years after Augustus' death remenber).

 

You know, there is an easy test as to whether Augustus did or did not retore the republic in form or substance.

 

Simply define the criteria that for you define the essence of Roman republican Government - role of the tribes and centuries in elections; method of election of magistrates, role of the consuls, public careers etc. (Note that it doesn't actually matter whether others agree with your chosen criteria for this purpose.)

 

Then make a second list of what defines the Augustan settlement for you. Compare the two.

 

Finally (or you could go straight to this third stage) list those items in your first list that remain true under Augustus.

 

Just my views, of course,

 

Phil

[Tobias]

As far as Augustus being called the "Restorer of the republic" is concerned, i can only agree with PP in that it was rather clever of Augustus to make it seem as if all he was in the Roman Empire was the "Princeps", whereas he was really the big man, the head bloke. I believe that is where the term "Principate" comes from; the state of government at the time of Augustus.

[phil25]

There is, of course, a sense in which Augustus DID restore the republic - or at least a version of it.

 

He certainly learned from his predecessor Caesar the Dictator in concealing his rule - no titles of "king" or even the (by then anyway abolished) "dictator". He did not even monopolise the consulship after his early years in power, and dated his "reign" by the years of his tribunicias potestas.

 

But he certainly COULD HAVE imposed a much more obvious monarchical style had he wished - and as later emerged (even in the Principiate under Gaius and Nero) under the full blown "empire". It was even less obvious than either of the triumvirates in it's wielding of naked power.

 

As it was Augustus (a title then of extreme dignity but with none of the later accretions of imperial authority it acquired) ruled within the old forms of republican government:

 

* men still held the great offices - quaestor, aedile, praetor and consul, in order and with the increasing nobility that went with the rank

* he used the tribunician power, though altered, rather than creating something new

* the Senate still met and was respected

* and governed the non-military provinces

* the imperial arrangements for provincial government - proconsuls, governors, legates etc was a development of pre-existant forms (Pompeius had governed Spain through legates, and had had a higher imperium over other governors during his special commands

* much of his ability to influence affairs came from his overwhelming auctoritas and dignitas - the same methods used by major figures under the republic

* he was indeed the Princeps Senatus (though perhaps somewhat young for this title by previous standards) and First man in Rome - the position that most republican politicians and nobles of former days had striven to attain.

 

For all that, though, it was NOT the republic, for the reasons i gave in an earlier post.

 

But what an achievement!!! To transform and stabilise a major power, transforming the spirit while seeming to retain the substance of the older system. Slight of hand? Much more surely - the result of learning lessons, of being willing to adapt and change. But above all witness to an incredible political understanding and will - perhaps among the greatest the world has seen. Surely Augustus and his advisers (especially Maecenas and Agrippa) should be up there with the Founding fathers of the USA as creators or constitutions of profound moment and influence, and of proven lasting quality.

 

Phil

[P.Clodius]

However, the hirstorian Tacitus depicts Augustus as an evil tyrant.

I don't recall Tacitus depicting Augustus as an evil tyrrant. Does anyone else? For Tacitus to do so would be to attack a god and he would certainly not have done that. He does "indirectly" criticize some of Augustus' decisions but depict as an evil tyrrant!

[M. Porcius Cato]

However, the hirstorian Tacitus depicts Augustus as an evil tyrant.

I don't recall Tacitus depicting Augustus as an evil tyrrant. Does anyone else? For Tacitus to do so would be to attack a god and he would certainly not have done that. He does "indirectly" criticize some of Augustus' decisions but depict as an evil tyrrant!

The implication is very strongly in Annals 1.1-4. Tacitus calls Augustus a "despot", delegitimizes his rise to power, heaps withering scorn on Augustus' supporters, and Tacitus claims that after Augustus' revolution "there was not a vestige left of the old sound morality." If Augustus was left but morality was not, how else can one interpret that but as a claim that Augustus was immoral? Immoral despot, evil tyrant--pretty darned close, no?

[P.Clodius]

Hmmm, seems I need to re-read Tacitus, its been a while.

[WotWotius]

Tacitus was not a great fan of Emperors. Though this doesn't surpise me as he served 15 years (?) under the rule of Domitian and like many senators at that this time he would have been in constant fear for his life. Evidence for this contempt for Domitian is present in The Agricola where in the early chapters he disscusses the oppression and lack of free thinking that too place during the emperor's rule.

Tacitus then incorporated this dislike of emperors into his later works; in the Annals he even ridicules great Emperor like Augustus saying that '...he suduced the public with the delights of people and corn...bribed senators'* etc. Though this isn't complete ridicule, the tone in which he writes it is very negetive. Furthermore, if you read between the lines in his work on Augustus you will see that from the lanuage he uses, he is implying that Augustus is a tyrant who used his great wealth and powerful position to keep control, as oposed to the personal authority which is mentioned in the Res Gestae.

 

*btw these quotes have been taken from memory, so they may not be completly right...but you get the idea.

Edited February 1, 2006 by WotWotius

[M. Porcius Cato]

And Tacitus was right.

[tflex]

Tacitus was obviously wrong, Augustus used his wealth and power to end a bloody civil war which started due to the actions of a few immoral idiots. After he became emperor, he used his power to bring about peace and stability to the empire, something that was lacking before his reign. For a Roman, Augustus was conservative and morally sound, he cetainly used his power more responsibly than the senate and definately was no tyrant.

 

Tacitus was biased for good reason, he was obviously always concerned about the limitless power of the emperors and wanted more balance with the senate. So it is perfectly natural for him to be skeptical of Augustus's morality but highly inaccurate.

Edited February 2, 2006 by tflex