Ex-Caesar.

[Divi Filius]

I agree with caldrail and think Augustus is very much responsible for failing to establish a constitutional mechanism of succession.

 

And how long do you think this would have lasted? How can a constitution work if the main power of the state(army) is in the hands of one man? Look at what happened with Diocletian: So long as he was there to guide his caesars and augustuses then the system worked, once he stepped out of the limelight all hell broke loose.

Whatever measure Augustus made would have surely been temporary, unless he wanted to distribute power to other bodies, thereby creating a balance. But by doing that he would be jepardizing his own position. In the end, Augustus had little to no power in the course of the Roman empire, no matter what he could have enacted. Like Sulla, all his work could have gone to the shredder by the next powermonger.

[caldrail]

I agree with caldrail and think Augustus is very much responsible for failing to establish a constitutional mechanism of succession.

 

And how long do you think this would have lasted? How can a constitution work if the main power of the state(army) is in the hands of one man? Look at what happened with Diocletian: So long as he was there to guide his caesars and augustuses then the system worked, once he stepped out of the limelight all hell broke loose.

Whatever measure Augustus made would have surely been temporary, unless he wanted to distribute power to other bodies, thereby creating a balance. But by doing that he would be jepardizing his own position. In the end, Augustus had little to no power in the course of the Roman empire, no matter what he could have enacted. Like Sulla, all his work could have gone to the shredder by the next powermonger.

Yes, but in theory the rule of the principate was temporary too. Augustus clearly hoped it would continue because he favoured autocratic rule. The possibility that his work might be overturned is the reason why he worked hard on maintaining his benign public image. In fact, powermongers were at work right from the start in typical roman fashion. Roman politics had become very tubulent. As with any long-term autocratic rule, there are bound to be usurpers who wanted the power for themselves. This is one reason why Augustus worked so hard at balancing his own instinct for decree and the public need for consultation and consent.

 

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.

 

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'?

Roman republican government functioned on three principles...

1 - Power is given by consent

 

2 - Power is shared

 

3- Power is temporary

These guiding principles were, I think, behind the success of republican Rome as a state. Roman democracy, albeit limited to the wealthy, ensured that roman politicians could aspire to leadership without domination and therefore Rome would not suffer another monarchy. Sometimes strong leadership in times of crisis bcomes a reality, hence the position of Dictator, where one man is given sole power for a limited period. Even this was by the consent of the same people who determined who ruled as Consul. These republican institutions remained unchanged during the Principate. Octavian pushed his way to the front and was able to dominate the senate enough to become Princeps, or First Citizen. By doing so, he was saying that he was in charge yet of no greater status than any senator. It was important to avoid the stain of monarchy. Antony fell by the wayside on this point, having associated himself with an egyptian queen. Julius Caesar had claimed that "I am not King, but Caesar". Unfortunately, having become Dictator for life, he was in fact a monarch by any other name. Suetonius for instance lists him as the first emperor and thats something I agree with. Caesar was murdered on this principle. He was too powerful, too grandiose, and his power prevented anyone else from achieving political ambition. Octavian was under Caesars wing from the start. Now as to whether Caesar demanded sexual favours from Octavian we can't say, but he did expect something from the lad, and one wonders if Caesar was already grooming him for success. We see this in dominant personalities. They choose their successors and develop their character carefully. As an aspiring autocrat, Octavian was in a position to learn from the mistakes of his mentor. To achieve power in Rome, he eliminated the opposition, both by military action and by proscription afterward. Once in power, there was a danger he could be seen as a tyrant, which would be an excuse for hotheads to plot against him. Octavian wisely chose to name himself Princeps and allow the senate some self-respect. This was Octavians balancing act. From that point forwards, he was playing a popularity game. The fact that the Principate was settled in 23BC is not the major breakthrough it appears. It was not outlining the hereditary succession of the Julio-Claudian dynasty, merely rubber-stamping Octavians position as overlord of the Republic. That agreement could have been overturned in a second. The moment that Octavian, now Augustus, brought up the suggestion of who was to follow him he was at risk of claims of kingship. Its a very important point that he did not attempt to make hereditary succession as a legal standard. True, he wanted his own children to follow him. To some extent Augustus was the proud father, hoping his children would become great citizens worthy of remembrance. It was also true that his children were people he knew well and could mould from birth to follow in his footsteps. I don't believe Augustus meant that Rome should be a monarchy as such, merely that his family should dominate roman politics to ensure a peaceful progression of power. This is entirely within roman character since family connection had been an important factor in political careers since the republic began. There was no compunction to elevate the senior child or make any provision for the selection. It was a popularity contest where a father brought his chosen successor to the public for approval. The fact he wanted Germanicus as a future princeps is not hugely significant - it underlines the desire for political stability, family success, and typically an underlying need for good order. Once Augustus had been a succesful popular ruler, it was very likely that his descendants would be viewed favourably. Again this was in the nature of roman charcter. But despite this - there was no reason why anyone not of Augustus's family couldn't become princeps, or emperor, because Augustus never attempted to make any ruling to prevent it and therefore assure his descendants would be rulers. Even with the somewhat murderous continuity of the Juilo-Claudians, the various plots and rebellions showed that Augustus's descendants were still judged on popularity as much as bloodline.

[Gaius Octavius]

Caldrail, did you have to add: "... Now as to whether Caesar demanded sexual favours from Octavian we can't say,....", to what I feel was an otherwise excellent post?

[The Augusta]

To some extent Augustus was the proud father, hoping his children would become great citizens worthy of remembrance. It was also true that his children were people he knew well and could mould from birth to follow in his footsteps. I don't believe Augustus meant that Rome should be a monarchy as such, merely that his family should dominate roman politics to ensure a peaceful progression of power. This is entirely within roman character since family connection had been an important factor in political careers since the republic began.

 

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?

Edited March 18, 2007 by The Augusta

[Divi Filius]

Yes, but in theory the rule of the principate was temporary too. Augustus clearly hoped it would continue because he favoured autocratic rule. The possibility that his work might be overturned is the reason why he worked hard on maintaining his benign public image.

 

I disagree. Unless there was some major military uprising that sought the re-establishment of the republic(which, as later revolts were to prove, was ridiculous) there was relitively little anyone could do to overturn his rule. The senate was thoroughly cowed by the events of the late republic, to the frustration of Augustus, and the people seemed to grow indifferent. Augustus' position was secure so long as he maintained full control of the army. The fact that Augustus was moderate does not mean that he was afraid of his position(thats not to say that he wasnt either, the fact that he "corrected" many of his uncles mistakes means that he did worry about assassination) but has to do more with the fact that he was actually moderate. The "good" emperor's followed the same path and they had even less to fear, a fact that gives Tacitus the need to write his histories of a time when you could not say what you wanted.

[caldrail]

Caldrail, did you have to add: "... Now as to whether Caesar demanded sexual favours from Octavian we can't say,....", to what I feel was an otherwise excellent post?

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?

[caldrail]

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?

Can I stress that Augustus did not create a monarchy, nor do I believe he intended to as we understand it. People like Caesar and Octavian were acting like mafia crimelords. On the face of it, respectable and benign. Beneath the surface, ice cold and ruthless. Octavian was no different - except that he was a wiser politican than Caesar. He was setting up a family dominance after winning a turf war. His family, not others. That was the mindset of roman patronage.

 

I disagree. Unless there was some major military uprising that sought the re-establishment of the republic(which, as later revolts were to prove, was ridiculous) there was relitively little anyone could do to overturn his rule. The senate was thoroughly cowed by the events of the late republic, to the frustration of Augustus, and the people seemed to grow indifferent. Augustus' position was secure so long as he maintained full control of the army. The fact that Augustus was moderate does not mean that he was afraid of his position(thats not to say that he wasnt either, the fact that he "corrected" many of his uncles mistakes means that he did worry about assassination) but has to do more with the fact that he was actually moderate. The "good" emperor's followed the same path and they had even less to fear, a fact that gives Tacitus the need to write his histories of a time when you could not say what you wanted.

Augustus was a master of maintaining his benign image. Remember that this was the same person who took out his rivals both on the field of battle, by a purge afterward, and was due to give Cleopatra the same fate as vercingetorix. A good emperor but boy oh boy he could be nasty when he wanted. Remember what happened to that guy in egypt who was trying to build popular support? In modern terms, he had his feet in concrete and was pushed off the quay.

[The Augusta]

Caldrail, did you have to add: "... Now as to whether Caesar demanded sexual favours from Octavian we can't say,....", to what I feel was an otherwise excellent post?

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.

 

Can I stress that Augustus did not create a monarchy, nor do I believe he intended to as we understand it. People like Caesar and Octavian were acting like mafia crimelords. On the face of it, respectable and benign. Beneath the surface, ice cold and ruthless. Octavian was no different - except that he was a wiser politican than Caesar. He was setting up a family dominance after winning a turf war. His family, not others. That was the mindset of roman patronage.

 

 

As 'monarchy' is a modern term totally alien to the Romans, there is no arguing this statement, Caldrail, so I will concede the point.

[caldrail]

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.

I would say much worse than that. Remember the romans were of a macho disposition typical of a violent conquest state, revelling in virile manhood. The reason there were so many men of a - less manly disposition shall we say? - is because some of them couldn't live up to the ideal, or perhaps they sought individualism in this direction. Its always the most prominent politicians that attract this sort of comment and its deliberately demeaning.