Augustus and the Succession

[phil25]

I was intrigued by something The Augusta wrote in her thread about the achievements of the republic, and opened this new thread to avoid diverting the other.

 

What she said, in part, was:

 

...although I am a great admirer of Augustus, I nevertheless believe that he made a very fundamental mistake in creating the Principate: he made its success dependent upon the personality of the individual Princeps. This may be naive of me, but it is a belief I have held for over 30 years. Augustus was capable of ruling well, but could not legislate for his successors doing likewise.

 

Briefly, I wonder whether Augustus did recognise and try to find a solution to this problem.

 

He brought up Gaius and Lucius veryu carefully, and trained them in his methods. They must have been given a VERY intimate understanding of his vision, motives and methods.

 

When they died prematurely, he reverted to Tiberius - a known quantity, but put in harness with Augustus for a time. (As Augustus could not know the timing of his own death, the period might be long or short, but it was done.) Further, Germanicus - a soldier currently proving himself in the field - was made tiberius heir and successor to the purple, even over Tiberius' own son, Drusus. Now elsewhere we have discussed Augustus' perceived desire to preserve his own bloodline on the throne, but could we have here also an attempt to ensure sensible succession two generations ahead?

 

The problem came in that Germanicus' family were killed off - with the exception of the enigmatic but odd Gaius. he in his turn killed off Tiberius' other heir, Gemellus (unproven in ability).

 

So Sejanus - and possibly Agrippina Minor's impatience - may have distorted Augustus' intentions.

 

But I would go further and ask:

 

In Tacitus were are given a picture of Tiberius resisting the imperium - wanting a debate. This is depicted as a devious trick, as asubterfuge. But what if it was genuine?

 

Did Augustus want the Senate to be part of the process of the succession? Was it hoped that men of the right blood (ie Octavian's descendents) would be chosen, but that the senate would weed out the unfit or undesireable?

 

In that case, Augustus' (and Tiberius') error may have been to underestimate the extent to which the Senate had lost its will and ability to act without direction. Like an invalid in a hospital they had lost the ability to take initiative. They had become institutionalised.

 

I recognise that this view is not incompatible with Augusta's.

 

But I would welcome her and others' views on this explanation which has just struck me.

 

Phil

[spittle]

Quote from The Caesars.

 

Scene setter. Two senior Senators (Consuls?) are imploring Tiberius to accept the purple. He says:

 

"You wish for an Emperor because you have lived under Augustus but the rule of one man with absolute power is the worst system ever invented by men. When one mans will governs the known world life and human happiness hangs by a rotten thread".

[caldrail]

In Tacitus were are given a picture of Tiberius resisting the imperium - wanting a debate. This is depicted as a devious trick, as asubterfuge. But what if it was genuine?

 

If Tiberius genuinely wanted debate he wouldn't have mattered, beause the senate didn't. They were happy with augustus by and large, and I suspect thought Tiberius would also prove a good ruler having had the blessing of augustus himself albeit reluctantly. Things probably wouldn't have changed much, because if Tiberius persisted then he would have thrown the succession to the wolves - and we know what happens to a group of ambitious romans with a free seat of power on offer.

 

Did Augustus want the Senate to be part of the process of the succession? Was it hoped that men of the right blood (ie Octavian's descendents) would be chosen, but that the senate would weed out the unfit or undesireable?

 

No, I don't think he did. I doubt augustus was looking ahead further than who followed him, and we do note that the romans never really settled on a formal method of succession. As far as I can see augustus wanted to ensure that his choice of man rose to power after him. Tiberius was not his first choice but there again circumstance intervened and in any case the choice needed to be acceptable to the senate to prevent another power struggle. Once again it was another balancing act by augustus.

 

In that case, Augustus' (and Tiberius') error may have been to underestimate the extent to which the Senate had lost its will and ability to act without direction. Like an invalid in a hospital they had lost the ability to take initiative. They had become institutionalised.

 

Hmmm.... I wouldn't say so. Pacified, content with a successful princeps, but not institutionalised. There were still men among them waiting in the wings to assume power if the opportunity arose. Remember they declared war on Claudius, and made Nero a public enemy. What I will agree to is the point of view that the senate were no longer in the driving seat. Like a multitude of back-seat drivers they were quite insistent on things sometimes, and their power reflected the strength of whoever was ruling. Later on we see an institutionalised senate but certainly not before the julio-claudians had run their course.

 

{edit PP... just fixed your quote tags}

Edited November 14, 2006 by Primus Pilus

[The Augusta]

No, I don't think he did. I doubt augustus was looking ahead further than who followed him, and we do note that the romans never really settled on a formal method of succession. As far as I can see augustus wanted to ensure that his choice of man rose to power after him. Tiberius was not his first choice but there again circumstance intervened and in any case the choice needed to be acceptable to the senate to prevent another power struggle. Once again it was another balancing act by augustus. [\quote]

 

Caldrail has more or less given my own point of view in his entire post, but in this quote, where he states that Augustus did not really think beyond the man who would follow him - I would just add that Augustus did take the step of trying to ensure an actual line of succession (i.e. the Julian) by compelling Tiberius to adopt Germanicus. So, I think we can safely conclude by this act that he intended the Julians to form the succession after his death for however long their line would last. But I still maintain my own gripe about this: by aiming to assure a blood line, rather than allowing the senate to 'elect' a man of merit, he was shortsighted. One only has to look at Emperor number 3 to see how he failed, and Gaius was Germanicus' own son after all. We have no way of knowing, of course, whether one of his elder brothers, Nero or Drusus would have made a better job of things.

 

There have been discourses by scholars on what Augustus proposed for the succession. Tacitus, of course, tells us that he had considered throwing a few other names into the pot - Lucius Arruntius or Calpurnius Piso - men not connected to him by blood; but as this is one of our Tacitus's reports that start with the words 'It was said' (like many of his others) it may well have no base in truth. Whatever the case, these names did not go before the Senate in his will.

 

Caldrail says that Augustus' choice of successor 'needed to be acceptable to the senate to prevent another power struggle'. I agree. Nor do I fully accept that the Senate would have - at that stage - just blindly endorsed the dead Princeps' wishes. TIberius was a man of merit: he had a great military record behind him in 14AD, and held the tribunician power. We must not lose sight of the fact that at this stage in Tiberius' career he had been a faithful and dutiful servant to Augustus and to the state. The Senate would not have felt that they were taking too much of a risk. As for the populist elements, there was Germanicus to look to as heir presumptive. I think I have made my feelings about Germanicus known already on the Forum. Without going into a long discussion here about him, suffice it to say that in nominating him as the potential successor of Tiberius, Augustus well and truly erred - as history was to prove.