What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC Essay Example

What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC Essay The key component of monarchy as a political system is generally considered to be the rule, usually in this period absolute, of one person over a state for the duration of their lifetime. It also contains an inherently hereditary nature, with the holder of the office not being elected or appointed through a political process, but named by their predecessor as heir. Rome of the first century BC, however, boasted a strong tradition of proud Republicanism; a tradition with which the concept of monarchy seemed wholly incompatible. Despite the virtual collapse of the Roman Republic in the foregoing years of military demagogues and civil war, and the systematic murder of vehement Republicans such as Cicero under the Triumvirate, the concept of hereditary rule was still widely regarded with hostility following the Battle of Actium. Memories of Julius Caesars adoption of quasi-monarchical powers in Rome loomed large, and the civil war had left the concept of monarchy indelibly associated with the eastern despotism and excess of the reviled Cleopatra. Such different systems of government are seemingly irreconcilable, being as they are inherently antagonistic. Yet Augustus Caesar, one of the most consummate politicians of the ancient world, somehow managed to achieve what had eluded all his predecessors; the establishment and maintenance of sustainable political dominance in Rome. We will write a custom essay sample on What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC specifically for you for only $16.38 $13.9/page Order now We will write a custom essay sample on What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer We will write a custom essay sample on What extent did Augustus establish a monarchy between 31BC and 19BC specifically for you FOR ONLY $16.38 $13.9/page Hire Writer Throughout his long period of rule, Augustus was careful to cloak the reality of his power in Republican phraseology and custom, yet, in bequeathing the Roman world a legacy of hereditary rule in many ways akin to monarchy, he simultaneously destroyed the very fabric and ideals of the Republican tradition. Following his victory over Antony at Actium, Caesars young heir, was, by his own admission, in complete control of affairs1 in Rome. At this point, Octavian enjoyed power similar to that of his adoptive father. Yet, although the true foundations of his pre-eminence his imperium over a vast army, granted in 43BC,2 his triumphant emergence from the civil war, and his command of unparalleled financial resources- had been established, Octavian was in no sense a monarch at this point. His regime lacked stability, especially since his position may have had little constitutional validity. His official term as triumvir had ended in either 33 or 32BC, and there is little solid evidence that he was ever granted additional extraordinary powers, although this possibility cannot be discounted. The Res Gestae inevitably points to the rather ambiguous universal consent,3 as the foundation of this dominance, which, given that Octavian had defeated the unpopular Antony and that all hopes of the peace Rome desperately craved now lay with the young man, may actually contain a grain of truth. Whether universal consent was the sole basis of his power or not, support was likely to have a finite duration, given that Octavians dominance was redolent of the political systems most despised, monarchy and dictatorship. The precedent of his adoptive father, however, loomed large, and Octavian, a consummate politician, was all too aware of the probable peril of riding roughshod over Republican sentiment; assassination. He recognised that, for his power to be sustainable, it would have to develop a basis acceptable to the Roman conscience. This is not necessarily proof that Octavian held any genuine desire to fully revive the Republic; whilst Suetonius asserts that twice Augustus seriously thought of restoring the Republican ystem,4 the princeps actions reveal any such intention, if it did ever exist, quickly evaporated. Octavian, despite his propagandist assertions to the contrary in the Res Gestae, was in all probability interested in maintaining and sustaining his power; in translating Caesars dream of permanent, stable family dominance into the realm of the possible and achievable. To do this, he had to create a monarchy veiled in Republican terminology and tradition, and establish himself as a mo narchical figure acceptable to the Romans. Dio leaves us in little doubt as to Octavians motives, claiming that he was eager to establish the monarchy in very truth. 5 In terms of establishing a stable political system in which his own power was accepted, Octavian used two main tactics. Firstly, he had to secure a constitutional legitimacy for his continued dominance, and, as Suetonius claimed, take great trouble to prevent his political system from causing any individual distress,6 particularly to the conservative political classes. Octavian, as quoted by Suetonius, was eager to build firm and lasting foundations for the Government of the State. 7 Secondly, and just as importantly, he had to secure his personal popularity amongst the Roman people, and cultivate a new, acceptable image of monarchy far removed from popular images of tyranny and despotism. In terms of achieving a new constitution, Octavian realised that he would have to tread exceptionally carefully, given that resistance to overt displays of power was strongest amongst the conservatives of the Senate. Ever the shrewd politician, Octavian quickly realised that, paradoxically, the best way to obtain sustainable personal power was to appease the elite by posing as the defender, rather than the destroyer, of the Republican tradition. Octavian, once known for his ruthless ambition, suddenly and seamlessly metamorphosed into the saviour of Roman liberty, an image which he would cultivate until his death. The settlement of 27BC was the striking culmination of this tactic; Octavian appeared before the senate and resigned all of his extraordinary powers. The Res Gestae alludes to the event only briefly, but, given its propagandist purpose, understandably implies that Augustus was acting benevolently as he transferred the republic from my power to the dominion of the senate and people of Rome. 8 The ambiguity of this statement conceals the true nature of the settlement, which Dio more accurately paints as a clever trick to have his supremacy ratified by the Senate9 and the Res Gestae fails to mention the vast provincia that Octavian, now rewarded with the cognomen Augustus, received in return. Suetonius, who also addresses the settlement only peripherally, informs us that Augustus kept for himself all the more vigorous provinces;10 these were Gaul, Spain (excluding Baetica), Syria and Cyprus, over which he gained proconsular authority for a ten year period, in addition to Egypt, which he administered as virtually his own private kingdom. Suetonius and the Res Gestae, however, both neglect to mention that Augustus retained control of all the legions (although Dio to an extent implies this in saying that Augustus took the more powerful11). In addition, Augustus continued to stand for, and was elected to, the consulship. This was an unprecedented move, as no previous public figure had held both consular and proconsular authority concurrently. Undoubtedly, the settlement was not a service12 to Rome as Augustus implied, but an enormously clever manipulation of the Senate that simultaneously gave Augustus vast powers within the Republican system, legitimised his position, and won him mass acclaim. The claims in the Res Gestae that after this time I possessed no more official power than others who were my colleagues in several magistracies13 are strictly true, but what is omitted is the fact that Augustus had an unparalleled accumulation of magistracies. Dio even dates the foundation of the monarchy to the settlement of 27BC, claiming In this way the power of both people and senate passed entirely into the hands of Augustus, and from this time there was, strictly speaking, a monarch14 Arguably, this statement needs to be qualified on two grounds. Firstly, Augustus did not have absolute legal power; he still ultimately accountable to the law. Additionally, many facets of the Republic were restored, albeit in a modified form the Senate regained control over the more peaceful provinces, and all magistrates performed their traditional functions. Secondly, the settlement did not instantaneously establish a monarchy; it merely provided the constitutional basis for, and therefore enhanced the legitimacy of, Augustus dominance within the Republic. Further enhancements were made to the political settlement in 23BC, when Augustus renounced the perpetual consulship and gained instead all the components of tribunician power, in addition to imperium maius over the other consuls that was valid even with the boundary of the pomerium. This settlement is alluded to neither in the Res Gestae (Augustus simply mentions that he was awarded tribunician power15) or in Suetonius, whose coverage of constitutional matters is sketchy. Dio mentions that Augustus was granted tribunician power, but only vaguely implies a political purpose in saying Augustus resigned the consulship n order that as many as possible might become consuls16 The reason for these changes is unclear; one interpretation is that Augustus wanted to make his power even less overt, perhaps as a result of a conspiracy against his life in 24BC (although Dio dates the conspiracy to 22BC, the year after the settlement,17 which may suggest that it occurred as a response to the settl ement), another is that referred to above by Dio, namely, that he realised his monopoly of the consulship was infuriating other politicians as it limited their possibilities of advancement to the position. Although the second settlement ostensibly reduced Augustus power, depriving him of his consular imperium, and probably, therefore, his imperium within Rome itself, it transpired that the period of 24BC-19BC was key in the establishment of the principate. To what extent Augustus anticipated the constructive effects of the settlement is difficult to gauge, but given his immense political acumen, it cannot be discounted that the settlement was a highly calculated move. To the politically unsophisticated masses, this settlement indicated Augustus resignation from Roman politics. Fortuitously for Augustus, this resignation coincided with damaging floods and food shortages, which the superstitious interpreted as negative omens. In consequence, there were demands for Augustus to accept the dictatorship or the perpetual consulship,18 a clear validation of his continued dominance. Augustus refused, claiming that I would not accept any office inconsistent with the custom of our ancestors. 19 He thus managed to simultaneously emerge with an enhanced reputation, and with popular support that could potentially be used as leverage to force the senators into acquiescence. Any loss of power, too, seems to have been temporary, for Dio indicates that in 19BC Augustus gained [authority of] consul for life,20 although he did not formally hold the post. This is not mentioned in the Res Gestae, but, given that the constitutional basis of Augustus dominance is largely ignored, this is unsurprising. Between 31BC and 19BC, Augustus established the legal foundation of his predominance extremely successfully. His tactic of acting inside the Roman constitution had allowed him to amass considerable power whilst avoiding offence to Republican sentiment. He had, indeed established the legal foundations of a new position that, although strictly a composite of constitutional positions, allowed him to gradually assume monarchical authority. Augustus choice to omit mention of his legal powers, or potestas in the Res Gestae means that it is easy to underestimate their importance, but by 19BC his legal rights were indeed great; not only did he have proconsular authority over half the empire and control of most of the legions, but his imperium maius enabled him to intervene even in senatorial provinces, whilst the consular imperium he may have received in 19BC gave him legal pre-eminence in Rome itself. Although tribunician power was primarily symbolic, giving Augustus an image as defender of the people, it did allow him to propose legislation and veto the laws of the Senate. Despite these successes in establishing increasing dominance, there were still key differences between the constitutional powers of Augustus and the powers usually associated with monarchy. Augustus ultimately did not enjoy absolute power, as he was accountable to the constitution and the law. Indeed, many of his special rights, namely his proconsular authority over his provincia, were officially only granted for periods of five or ten years, although they would never be revoked. What is paramount, however, is that although Augustus recognised the importance of having his position ratified in constitutional terms, largely in order to secure the acquiescence of the governing class, he did not intend to have his authority continuously scrutinised in terms of legal minutiae. Augustus potestas, or legal powers, clarified his role and legitimised his pre-existing dominance, but Augustus never intended for them to provide an exhaustive description of his role or to limit his powers. Instead, Augustus hoped that, with success and popularity, he would evolve into a monarchical figure acceptable to the Romans, and would be able to issue commands without people inquiring by virtue of what statute he was acting. This unofficial influence, or auctoritas, was a key component of Augustus power. Augustus auctoritas was largely derived from his unparalleled achievements, and, fortuitously for the princeps, these continued to occur after 31BC. Augustus exploited the true foundations of his power, namely his military success and enormous wealth, plus his considerable political skill, to gain triumphs for the Empire. Between 31BC and 19BC he achieved more success in the provinces, pacifying Gaul and Spain and annexing Galatia and Lyconia. In 25BC the Temple of Janus was closed, which, as is mentioned in the Res Gestae, symbolised that victories had secured peace through land and sea throughout the whole empire of the Roman people. 21 Military success was combined with striking munificence; in the Res Gestae Augustus highlights that between 31BC and 19BC he gave 700 sesterces to each of the Roman plebs, that after the war he gave 1000 sesterces to each of his soldiers, and that in 23BC he bought grain to help ease the food shortages. 22 This was in addition to his lauded building programme; by 19BC his immense spending on public works had begun. The inevitable result of such achievements was popularity amongst both the masses and, increasingly, the Senate, and as more people concurred with Augustus dominance his auctoritas further increased. Interestingly, Augustus chose to highlight his auctoritas rather than his potestas in the Res Gestae, which contains the implicit assumption throughout that great successes merited great rewards and influence. Indeed, whilst barely mentioning his imperium and omitting his provincia totally, Augustus confidently asserts that he excelled all in influence. 23 His choice to emphasise his unofficial power rather than his potestas was again politically expedient, reinforcing the image that Augustus was not the destroyer of the Republican tradition, but a great man who had been rewarded for service to his country. The latter image was far more acceptable to the conservative nobility, who, as a result of the peace and success that Augustus had heralded, and also due to the memories of the functi oning Republic becoming more distant, were increasingly prepared to collaborate with Augustus and accept his diluted version of monarchy. Allied to his pursuit of personal popularity, Augustus also attempted to reduce the instinctive Roman hostility towards one man having overt control through creating an image of hereditary rule far removed from previous notions of tyranny and poor government. A skilled propagandist, Augustus presented himself simultaneously as a benevolent patriarch, a skilled general who actively championed the liberty of the Republic24and added to its glory, and a great statesman. He also manipulated his position as the divi filius of the deified Caesar, and encouraged, particularly in the provinces, the development of an imperial cult. To propagate these images, Augustus employed subtle yet pervasive propaganda. Coins were minted and statues built in praise of Augustus achievements, and poets such as Horace and Virgil were encouraged to write in praise of the princeps and the Empire. Commonly ascribed to him were the virtues of, as he writes in the Res Gestae, courage, clemency, justice and piety,25 and even the cognomen Augustus was suggestive, meaning revered one. Although the amassing of auctoritas continued until his death, by 19BC Augustus had certainly started to evolve into a monarchical figure who boasted the support of the Roman people and had largely overcome resistance to his rule. Whilst Augustus longevity and continued success would allow his power to further increase, by 19BC he had, as Suetonius claimed was his aim, built firm and lasting foundations for the Government of the State. 26 His next concern was to ensure that these foundations which I have established for the State will abide secure. 27 This appears to be a veiled reference to his wish to appoint a successor, which is perhaps the best proof that Augustus aim was always to develop hereditary monarchy in Rome. Even before 19BC, Augustus was preoccupied with the issue of the succession, particularly during his serious illness of 23BC. Although Dio asserts that Augustus did not, to be sure, appoint a successor,28 he, perhaps surprisingly, states that all were expecting that Marcellus would be preferred for the position29 (Augustus seemed to instead prefer Agrippa). The latter quotes suggests that even as early as 23BC, there was a growing acceptance of hereditary rule, one of the most important precepts of monarchical government. By 19BC, the precepts of monarchy, only recently anathema to proud senators and politicians, were beginning to become the undeniable realities of a Roman political system increasingly dominated by one individual, Augustus Caesar, who had carefully yet systematically undermined the values of the Republican system he had purported to protect. Whilst Augustus did not officially possess monarchical power and was ultimately subject to the law and constitution, his skill in amassing numerous offices, powers and honours, combined with his popularity and unparalleled auctoritas, meant that his authority was increasingly unchecked. Even after only 15 years of rule, Caesars heir had skilfully laid the foundations for a monarchy distinctly Roman, a monarchy cloaked in Republican phraseology and custom, yet which would consign the Republic itself forever to history.