Augustus was never made 'Emperor for' life...

[spittle]

Unlike his successor, Tiberius, Augustus was never made 'Emperor' for life. Instead he had it awarded by the Senate, then the Senate increased the length of his position, and then they did it again. Upto his death.

 

My question is this:

Did the Senate have any real option?

Did any Senators attempt to curb his power (witha view to returning to ultimate power being held by the Senate as under the Republic)?

 

Any other information relevant to this thread, such as Senate intrigue's or the fate of Senators who earned the enmity of Augustus would be greatly appreciated.

[phil25]

Without going back to the sources, I cannot answer you authoritatively, Paul.

 

However, my view would be more "subtle" than allowed for by a direct answer to the questions you pose.

 

First the traditional concept of the "princeps" included certain priveleges regarding when he spoke in Senate debates, and Augustus was not the first man to hold the post - but the presteige and the auctoritas and dignitas that went with it were for life - thought not, of course, specifically granted by anyone. They were implicit in the individual unless "lost".

 

Second there was no specific office of "Emperor". Octavian took the title "imperator" - traditioanlly awarded to successful/victorious generals, as a NAME. Thus he was "Imperator Caesar" by his own declaration - but his name changed several times.

 

Augustus was the title that came to be the imperial one among his successors (Augusta for empresses) - and this Tiberius NEVER took - indeed, as i recall, he REFUSED it.

 

The usually accepted identification as ruler was the award by the Senate of the TRIBUNICIAN POWER to the ruler or his designated successor - so Tiberius held the tribuncian power for about a decade before Augustus died. This provided the veto - ie control over laws and actions - and effective political immunity. It also had populist overtones - as the title related to that of the old tribunes of the plebs. It was usually awarded for a period of years and then renewed. (I cannot recall, off hand, whether Tiberius got it for life in 14AD, or was reawarded it later - this is what I would have to check.)

 

Moving on - I don't think that Augustus ever envisaged anything approaching being given powers for life - that would have been to reveal the true identity of the principiate he had establisged. His secret was to conceal that secret and make it appear that the republic continued and had been restored. Thus he was at pains to take only constitutionally recognised titles and positions - with the exception of the NAME - Augustus, which was unique when awarded to him.

 

Finally, the Senate was both concerned, after the initial post-Actium settlement, by Augustus taking a consulship every year (thus sort of demonstrates that he was using constitutional positions to signify his position and authority) because it blocked the progress of the careers of those required for other duties such as Governorships. but they would have been terrified if Augustus had simply stepped aside and taken no position. Thus emerged the second settlement in which Augustus took an occasional consulsip (as with Gaius and Lucius to add lustre and experience to their assuming the office at a younger than usual age) but "ruled" by the means I have already described.

 

Hope this helps, Paul, though it is not a direct answer to your questions.

 

Phil

 

PS Edited to add that Caesar was a fasmily name among the Julio Claudians, who claimed descent from Augustus. By the time that the last of the direct family, Nero, was removed, the name was perceived as being a title, and was taken as a link back to the original ruling line.

 

I would also question whether the Augustan system was ever hereditary, as such, partly because hardly any ruler had a natural son to succeed him. There were elements of election (as their are in the modern English coronation service) and also of appointment and "adoption". But Tiberius was no allowed to have his son Drusus succeed him (Augustus insisted that Tiberius adopt Germanicus as his heir to the throne). Nero took precedence over Claudius' blood son Britannicus. etc.

 

And I would seriously advise against calling the early rulers "emperors" - it causes confusion (given later developments) and is not actually true in the sense the word implies. You run the risk of overlooking the actual position by applying a misleading term.

Edited November 9, 2006 by phil25

[spittle]

It helps a lot, Phil, but I am a little confused about parts of it.

 

"Augustus/Augusta came to be the titles used amongst his successors".

This is the first time I have heard this. I know that in The Caesars Tiberius turns down the title of Caesar but Gaius and Claudius seem happy to be addressed with the title.

(In my reading I am only upto the late Republic so much of my curiosity stems from this forum or the Caesars...this may explain me never hearing the Augustus title being used for others after Octavian).

 

If I am understanding the situation correctly the first few 'Emperors' (I'll stay with that title for simplicities sake) had a type of contradictory balancing act to politically perform. On the one hand they took the title Caesar (and/or Augustus) which came to mean 'more than King' and on the other hand they avoided any suggestion of being a hereditary monarchy as the powers that be went along with an act of a functioning republic and the hatred of monarchy was an essential factor. (?)

 

I'll be reading up on Augustus within the next few weeks so I may be able to answer some of these questions myself.

[phil25]

Historians usually make a distinction between the early "imperial" period (which is known as the PRINCIPIATE) and comprises largely the julio Claudians, to Nero; and the later period where the nature of the monarchy was clearer and we begin to call the rulers "EMPERORS. as tacitus said, the year of the four emperors revealed the secret of empire - that it was essentially military and relied on control of the legions.

 

That is one part of Augustus' panoply of titles and powers that i forgot to mention before, he was given control of the vast majority of the legions by the Senate through the greater "imperium" or power he held over all the provinces. which contained Roman military forces. He outranked every Senatorial legate, Governor, pro-Praetror etc, whatever their magisterial rank, and appointed his own legates or deputies to run "his" provinces. In this he copied Pompeius' earlier practice in regard to Spain, and (I think) Agrippa ran the east via legates from Rhodes for a time.

 

Re the title AUGUSTUS: Tiberius declined to take it, believing that it should be unique to it's first holder (it was after all his name). But the idea of the ruler being the "August One" seems to have been considered appropriate by Gaius and later principes.

 

In his will, Augustus re-named his wife Livia Drusilla as Julia Augusta; and gaius made his aunt, Antonia (Claudius' mother) an Augusta. It was not, at least originally, I think an automatic title of the princeps' consort. I believe that Messalina and Agrippina Minor (Claudius' last two consorts) were both given the title (someone please correct me if I am wrong).

 

In the later empire, after Diocletian's reforms, the senior two rulers were titled AUGUSTUS (in plural Augusti) while their junior partners were titled Caesars. But that was a comparatively late development.

 

The whole point of the early Augustan settlement, post Actium was to conceal the fact that Rome and its empire were now effectively ruled by one man. I always assume that Octavian believed that the reason that his great-uncle and adoptive father, Julius, had failed so fatally was because his titles and powers were too overt - Dictator in perpetuity, offers of crowns, thrones at games etc.

 

Thus, Augustus took a name that was also an honorific title and that had no previous cnonotations (Romulus was apparently an alternative that was dismissed as having kingly associations. Also Romulus, the first king was reputed to have been killed by the Senate in some versions of the legend.) he ruled initially by taking an annual consulship, and I discussed the implications of that earlier.

 

The fiction was that Augustus had restored the republic, that he was a modest, private man, whose outstanding and unparrallelled (certainly unmatched in his day) authority and dignity (auctoritas and dignitas in Latin) gave him influence and a leading role in affairs - BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DEMANDED IT. This was, in truth, the iron fist in the velvet glove.

 

You need to be subtle in your thinking to understand the nature of the Augustan regime. It is clever, precise and was not arrived at overnight. It was then further modified by his successors. In time, divinity came to hedge the role too, at first after death in Rome (though Augustus was worshipped as a god in the east in his lifetime, and was divi filius - son of a god - in light of his adoption by the deified Julius Caesar), then gradually this became a divinity during life. By Domitian's time, he seems to have expected to be referred to as "dominus et deus" literally lord and god!! (A parallel might be Kaiser Wilhelm II's penchant for being called "All Highest".)

 

I could go on, but I don't want to bore you, Paul.

 

Phil

[Caesar CXXXVII]

2 corrections , if I may - "Augustus was the title that came to be the imperial one among his successors (Augusta for empresses) - and this Tiberius NEVER took - indeed, as i recall, he REFUSED it."

 

 

A Denarius from a.d. 20 titled TI CAESAR DIVI AVG F AVGVSTVS - http://www.usask.ca/antiquities/coins/tiberius.html

 

"But Tiberius was no allowed to have his son Drusus succeed him (Augustus insisted that Tiberius adopt Germanicus as his heir to the throne).

 

Germanicus was adopted as a son and heir to his property , not as heir to the "throne" . Tiberius could choose between his (now) 2 sons for the "throne" or even to choose them both as he did in 37 in redard to Gaius Caesar and Tiberius "Gemellus" .

 

Yes , the "Imperial throne" was hereditary pure and simple . If an Augustus had a son (biological or adopted) , he was to succeed him . Tiberius was the son (yes , adopted) of Augustus , Gaius was the son of Tiberius (adopted) . Gaius was dead without a son . Nero was the son of Claudius (adopted) , he died without a son . Titus was the son of Vespasianus , Domitianus was the brother of Titus and died without sons . Traianus was the son (adopted) of Nerva and so on . Even the consept of the "adopted Emperors" is wrong - The adoptive Emperors (Nerva , Traianus , Hadrian and Pius) simply had no biological sons and in the very first instanse Commodus the biological son of Aurelius - succeed him . Geta and Caracalla succeeded Severus and were dead without sons so their relatives , Heliogabalus and Alexandrus succeeded them .

 

You could have only 2 ways to become Emperor - To be older son of the previous Emperor (or his closeset relative) or to took the "throne" by using power .

[Aurelianus]

Yes , the "Imperial throne" was hereditary pure and simple . If an Augustus had a son (biological or adopted) , he was to succeed him . Tiberius was the son (yes , adopted) of Augustus , Gaius was the son of Tiberius (adopted) . Gaius was dead without a son . Nero was the son of Claudius (adopted) , he died without a son . Titus was the son of Vespasianus , Domitianus was the brother of Titus and died without sons . Traianus was the son (adopted) of Nerva and so on . Even the consept of the "adopted Emperors" is wrong - The adoptive Emperors (Nerva , Traianus , Hadrian and Pius) simply had no biological sons and in the very first instanse Commodus the biological son of Aurelius - succeed him . Geta and Caracalla succeeded Severus and were dead without sons so their relatives , Heliogabalus and Alexandrus succeeded them .

 

You could have only 2 ways to become Emperor - To be older son of the previous Emperor (or his closeset relative) or to took the "throne" by using power .

 

I would have to dissagree, Adoption was the way the emperors used of signaling their chosen sucsessor, because, as the son of the emperor their possition would be less likely contested.

 

There was just one way to become emperor: army backing.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

K.H. Waters in "The second dynasty of Rome" (Phoenix 17.3 1963) - "The founder of the Roman Empire achieved two remarcable feats...He established a hereditary monarchy in the most aristocratic , conservative...and he succeeded in securing the acceptance , if not the enthusiasm , even of the Roman Senate for both the monarchic and hereditary principles .

"...The imediate point is that as early as 25 b.c. an heir apparent had been designated , soon to be removed by crual fate . Designated - for the lack of a son , or at least a legitimate son...He determind that his succesor should be a member of his family: The blood tie had always been important in Rome: In this particular case the continuance of the regime itself might well depend on how plausibly the transfer of power could be made to resemble a normal legacy to a son and heir . But in Rome , the long established custom of perpetuating a familyiline in name if not in blood rendered adoption an acceptable device for the purpose of establishing a successor..."

 

So , again , the only way to transfer the "throne" is from father to son , a biological son . In a case when there was no such a son , the only way was to adopt one . the facts are that when a biological son was alive he took the "throne" (the only extraordinary case was Britanicus and Nero , but that is another story) . There is no example of a biological son who did not succeed his father . when Constantine the great won the empire in 324 he orderd Licinius and his son to be murdered , why ? Because the son was the heir to the "throne"

 

About the army - Every un-democratic regime is based on the army . In Rome the army was the key factor regarding competitors but even the winners had to connect themselfs to the previous Emperors (Severus made the dead Pertinax to adopt him....

[Primus Pilus]

Keep in mind that part of the process of the "adoptive period" included adopting heirs who also did not have sons. Trajan was a grown man without children when adopted by Nerva. The adoption of Hadrian is likely to have occurred posthumously, so we can't quite be sure what Trajan's intentions were. However, Hadrian was also a grown man in an unpleasant marriage, so his having legitimate children was unlikely (especially considering how hard it would've been for Antinous to give him a son )

 

The adoptive concept ultimately failed because Hadrian's selection of Antoninus Pius (who had no children and was already middle aged) was also contingent upon his adoption of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in turn (imperial names used to avoid confusion). Both of these men were teenagers and it was not really practical to expect either of them to not have children of their own.

[Pantagathus]

However, Hadrian was also a grown man in an unpleasant marriage, so his having legitimate children was unlikely (especially considering how hard it would've been for Antinous to give him a son )

:bash:

 

The adoptive concept ultimately failed because Hadrian's selection of Antoninus Pius (who had no children and was already middle aged) was also contingent upon his adoption of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus in turn (imperial names used to avoid confusion). Both of these men were teenagers and it was not really practical to expect either of them to not have children of their own.

And we see what happened there! Woohoo Commodus!

 

"He appears, indeed, to have inherited all the vices of his mother, Faustina; and his father, in selecting him for his successor, allowed the feelings of the parent to triumph over the wisdom of the magistrate..."

[spittle]

The Succession. Biological v Adoptive Heirs.

 

When Augustus died he had one biological Grandson (Agrippa Posthumous), his Grand-daughter Agrippina, her husband Germanicus (What relation, other than husband of Augustus' Grand-daughter was Germanicus?) and their sons Nero Caesar and Gaius 'Caligula'. Also the brother of Germanicus, Claudius.

He also had his wifes biological son and his adopted one, Tiberius.

 

Despite the fact that Tiberius had been 'Second man in the Empire' for a decade, effectively co-ruling with Augustus, and his adopted son, if a biological link had been the main factor for inheritence surely Tiberius would have been several places away from the first choice as 'Emperor'? Behind Agrippa posthumous, Nero and Gaius?

[Primus Pilus]

Despite the fact that Tiberius had been 'Second man in the Empire' for a decade, effectively co-ruling with Augustus, and his adopted son, if a biological link had been the main factor for inheritence surely Tiberius would have been several places away from the first choice as 'Emperor'? Behind Agrippa posthumous, Nero and Gaius?

 

In Tiberius case, he was secondary though. He occupied a position of relative power as Augustus stepson, but he seems only to have been considered a fore running candidate for heir after the death of Agrippa and until the coming of age of Gaius and Lucius Caesar. This is not to suggest that Tiberius did not occupy a position of importance or imperial prestige. However, Tiberius seems only to have been considered a candidate for heir provided circumstances dictated such a condition.

 

This also ties into the incident of Tiberius' retirement from public life to study in Rhodes. We can't quite be sure if Tiberius simply hated Julia and wished to be away from her, if he loathed the public life and wished for privacy, or if he was protesting the elevation of the sons of Agrippa to a position ahead of him in the imperial hierarchy.

[spittle]

Would this situation have been different later in the Empire period? When the succession method was more solid?

What I mean is when King James VI took the Scots throne at a very early age there was a Regent to rule but James was still King. If Tiberius was a stop gap til a member of Augustus' bloodline became old enough to actually rule could he have been made anything other than 'emperor'. As the idea of hereditary rulers became accepted did a Roman equivalent of REGENT occur?

[phil25]

I entirely disagree with Caesar 23rd's views.

 

The "hereditary" principle cited is disproved by the effective EXCLUSION of Posthumus Agrippa - notwithstanding his (un)timely death - he was never a real political candidate.

 

In EFFECT the Augustan "monarchy" may have been perceived as hereditary, but this is a post hoc, not a contemporary judgement.

 

I have argued elsewhere that Augustus wanted descent through HIS blood, hence his insistence upon the adoption, by Tiberius, of Germanicus to the injury of Drusus. But I also argued that Augustus saw a "duality" (and this I think is my own hypothesis, so blame me for it) with a blood descendent and a loyal supporter - hence Augustus/Agrippa, and his desire for Germanicus/Drusus. Tiberius too may have recognised this, perceiving Sejanus as HIS Vipasnius Agrippa. Would this be too wild an assessment, that the empire needed two men in tandem to govern it? - certainly Diocletian (in different circumstances) seems to have thought a similar arrangement appropriate.

 

Caesar 23 writes: So , again , the only way to transfer the "throne" is from father to son , a biological son . In a case when there was no such a son , the only way was to adopt one . the facts are that when a biological son was alive he took the "throne" (the only extraordinary case was Britanicus and Nero , but that is another story) . There is no example of a biological son who did not succeed his father . when Constantine the great won the empire in 324 he orderd Licinius and his son to be murdered , why ? Because the son was the heir to the "throne"

 

Let us leave aside later examples, since "Spittle's" question related to Augustus. There is NO example in the principiate of blood-son succeeding father - Augustus was succeeded by his step-son; Tiberius by his great-nephew; Gaius by his uncle; Claudius by his step-son. Not until Commodus do we find a successor "born to the purple" (porphyrogenitus).

 

Given rates of infant mortality and the facts which were as apparent to the Romans of the time as to us, Augustus and his successors must surely have been aware of this probablilty.

 

De facto, Augustus DID intend to have a royal family descending in the "Julian" bloodline, and this is demonstrated by his immediate adoption of his daughter's sons by Agrippa; and by his insistence on the adoption of Julia's grandson (Germanicus) by Tiberius. But none of it happened, and it was concealed by a welter of other titles and powers ostentatiously bestowed by the Senate. At the very least there is a distinction between the fact and the perception, in fact the reality was changing and pragmatic.

 

Phil

[spittle]

I hope to see the evolution of 2nd Roman monarchy (Augustus onwards) from Republic during the Julio-Claudians.

 

I accept that Augustus did plan on his bloodline becoming THE dynastic future. He saw Tiberius as a stop gap BUT made him his successor (?). So, I assume, making an actual descendent 'Emperor' (at a very early age - like James VI/I) with Tiberius as a Roman equivalent of Regent was not an option?

 

In the later Empire were there examples of very young boys becoming 'Emperor' with the actual decision making being left to older, more experienced individuals? Maybe like the Emperors of Japan being little more than figure heads with the actual power belonging to the Shoguns or more genuine attempts to keep the throne safe until the coming of age of its actual recipient?

 

Could Augustus have desired the exemption of Drusus for reasons other than it placing his own blood decendents in favourable positions?

Did he consider Drusus to be unsuitable in a similar way to his view of Agrippa Posthumous?

 

I am playing Devils Advocate in order to exclude any possibilities other than a long term strategy for the Augustan bloodline to become the dynastic rulers of the Roman Empire.

 

Edited for this:

What actual blood relation were Germanicus and Claudius to Augustus?

Apart from Germanicus being the father of the Augustan grandchildren (thus placing direct descendents of Augustus in line to be 'Emperor' after himself) would Augustus have had any other motive to ensure Tiberius left the title to Germanicus rather than Drusus?

Edited November 9, 2006 by spittle

[The Augusta]

Edited for this:

What actual blood relation were Germanicus and Claudius to Augustus?

Apart from Germanicus being the father of the Augustan grandchildren (thus placing direct descendents of Augustus in line to be 'Emperor' after himself) would Augustus have had any other motive to ensure Tiberius left the title to Germanicus rather than Drusus?

 

Paul - Germanicus and Claudius were Augustus' great-nephews by blood. Their mother was Antonia, daughter of his sister Octavia.

 

As to your other question - IMHO, Augustus' only motive in having Tiberius adopt Germanicus was to ensure Julian grandchildren, as you so rightly say.

 

 

I accept that Augustus did plan on his bloodline becoming THE dynastic future. He saw Tiberius as a stop gap BUT made him his successor (?). So, I assume, making an actual descendent 'Emperor' (at a very early age - like James VI/I) with Tiberius as a Roman equivalent of Regent was not an option?

 

 

I think it was definitely Augustus' intention upon adopting Gaius and Lucius during their natural father's lifetime, to leave Agrippa as regent for them had Augustus himself died. However, whether the Senate would have accepted young Gaius as their Princeps is somewhat open to debate. He may well have had the same idea in mind in 4AD when he adopted Tiberius on the proviso that he in his turn adopt Germanicus. He had also adopted Postumus at the same time to keep all his irons in the fire. However, both Germanicus and Postumus were little more than boys in 4AD, so had Augustus died, Tiberius would have served as regent. But yet again - we can only speculate to a) the innermost workings of Augustus' mind, and what the Senatorial reaction would have been had the first Princeps died at a younger age.