Legio XIII

Aye, but without a clear successor, it was up to Antony (Caesar's right hand man) and Octavian (Caesar's adopted son and heir) to duke it out for proving to the Roman people who had more of a right to Caesar's legacy. Legally, Octavian got Caesar's lands, money and clients, and he was also the Pontifex Maximus, so he did have religious authority. But Octavian held no official military position or office (I believe), so in effect he was a legitimate heir of Caesar that controlled an illegal army. Antony did have a legal office - he was a Tribune of the people, and as such held considerable power in the Roman government, particularly that of veto. If Antony wished, he could bring the Roman state to a screeching halt if he so desired to, but veto was a power that had to be used very carefully, lest it backfire and create the tribune some terrible enemies. Antony was also a military hero and proven soldier. He was experienced and could command the leadership of Caesar's men by inciting them to revenge if he so wished. Antony and Octavian's men did clash near Mutinae, and Antony defeated. All of the men who fought were once Caesar's men, yet their loyalties were split between Antony and Octavian. So it wasn't so clear cut that since all men belonged to Caesar that their loyalties were clear... I'm sure both Antony and Octavian incited their legions to violence using Caesar's name. With Antony in retreat, one would figure that Octavian wouldn't need him, right? But he did. The Senate backed Octavian, I think, and Octavian needed Antony. Octavian was too young and inexperienced to command the state by himself, and I believe the Senate passed a law just for Octavian to lower the age making one eligible to be a Consul. The Senate needed Octavian. Octavian needed Antony. Antony grudgingly had to accept the terms, it would seem. And Lepidus, he used to be Antony's man, but apparently became ambitious. Octavian was originally reduced to junior membership, and apparently Antony thought he was going to ride herd over both Octavian and Lepidus, but Octavian was patient and cunning, and in time, we see that he outlasted his senior partners. Between Antony and Octavian, Caesar's assassins were done away with. And proscription took care of the rest of their enemies. I personally would love to have been a fly on the wall, following around Octavian to see what decisions he made and why. That'd be an interesting guy to observe throughout his life. I'm talking too much again. Sorry, I just love the topic. I'm sure I've got some inaccuracies here and there - the curse of memory - so I welcome corrections. Cheers! Gregg

I've heard this as well. Which is why the Romans soured when a coin with Caesar on it was issued when he was in power. While it was normal for family members in power to have coins issues celebrating the achievements of their own ancestors, issuing a coing of a living leader was considered bad form. I have a coin issued in 106 BC by a member of the Claudii family (cognomen Pulcher), and the coin celebrates the victory of their ancestor C. Pulcher - then a Consul - against the Lugurians and Istrians in about 174 BC (I'm going on memory, but it's in that decade). C Pulcher was awarded a Triumph by the Senate. The coin issuer must have been a Quastor or equivalent. Interestingly enough, I believe there is an existing law in the US that makes it illegal for any living president to have their likeness appear on currency or postage stamps, so instead, Congress has buildings and aircraft carriers named after them instead, which is legal. Likewise, the Romans in power also put their names on public monuments so that people knew who was in charge and had the power. Gregg

In general, from what I understand to be true, I agree with you. In practicality, Gaius Julius Caesar was indeed the first de facto emperor of Rome, but in the eyes of the Roman law, he was still a dictator (albeit dictator perpetuo - dictator in perpetuity). He held the military power as dictator (and in the eyes of Roman law, when there was a dictator, he was the principal consul which wielded all imperium on behalf of the Senate), he held all political power (mainly through intimidation and killing off his opponents, albeit not through Roman law), and he held all religious power (he was the Pontifex Maximus). Ergo, Caesar was in practice - but not in law - the first Roman emperor. Unfortunately for him, the Senate didn't agree with this, and consequently the Senate gave Caesar the boot. Octavian (later Augustus) was the first Roman emperor (actually called a princeps, from which the English word prince descends) in the eyes of Roman law. He had all military power, all political power, and all religious power. He was given the power of imperium throughout all Roman lands by the Senate. But I think what seems to be overlooked is that Augustus weilded this power under the intentional guise presented to the Roman people that the Republic was still in existence. Augustus was smart enough to let the Senate wield power, but he made them ever mindful that at the end of the day it was really the princeps that wielded the real power. So long as the aristocrats and powerful plebs could advance through office, there was less pressure to do away with the princeps. Additionally, Augustus had his power of imperium extended by the Senate every 10 years - a move which made the Senate and people think that Republican principles were still in place... he didn't have the power of imperium in perpetuity. The difference between Augustus and Julius Caesar is that Augustus succeeded in playing his hand carefully exactly where Caesar failed. Caesar basically rubbed people the wrong way, and despite his outwardly altruistic expressions of foregiveness, people didn't believe him. For too long the Roman Senate felt that Caesar was illegally waging war in Gaul and was trying to get at ultimate power, and when he crossed into Italty and triggered the civil war, his fate was sealed - Caesar was doomed to die. Augustus, on the other hand, played the game of patience with the Senate, made them feel that he respected the old ways of the Republic, and he made gestures to make influential people believe he didn't have the same lust for power that Julius Caesar did. At one time, when he was offered ultimate power by the Senate, he refused it once - realizing that he was the only person who could help Rome through the turbulent times after the Civil War, Augustus knew they'd insist he accept ultimate power, and he did. And when he had it, he didn't make the Senate think that he wanted to become the new rex Romana (Roman king). Caesar didn't address the problem of succession; and familial succession - in addition to ultimate control of all power over the state - is the other factor that defines a monarchy/empire. Caesar left no clear heir to his power, and even if he had, the Senate would have rejected it, because only a king could appoint an heir without the consent of the Senate (apparently even the Roman kings - before the Republic - required approval of the people). Augustus tactfully took care of the issue of succession by ensuring his desired heirs to power were appointed to lesser positions in power that wouldn't worry the Senate, but would allow the heir(s) to be groomed for leadership in the future. Augustus used the system to control the system. Caesar used the sword to control the system. In short, Caesar was the greater imperator, but Augustus was the greater politician. Caesar was doomed to fail by his own arrogance - Augustus was doomed to succeed because he didn't let his arrogance show. Augustus succeeded in walking the tightrope from the time he became the undisputed military champion of the Republic until he died in 14 AD. Augustus was a smart dude - boring, but smart. Caesar was the star that shone twice as bright, but burned half as long.

We'll never know for sure, but I will speculate. Don't forget the Octavian had recruited his own legion from Caesar's veterans around Capua, and as the adopted son of Julius Caesar, he inherited all of the clients of Caesar, and ergo their loyalties. I believe in Roman eyes, an adoption was exactly the same as a birth relationship, so there was no distinction. Octavian used this relationship to work his way into the game. It's my belief that if Antony had been killed as well, then the power struggle would have been between Octavian, Lepidus and the Senate. Octavian likely would have been able to get much of Antony's legions to come under his wing, due to his familial relationship to Caesar, and also because Octavian was paying. Lepidus - at least the way things happened - turned out to be the weaker of the partners in the Second Triumvirate; who could say if he'd be the weaker in a struggle between Octavian, himself and the Senate? I'd imagine the Senate would side with whomever was the least likely to follow in Caesar's footsteps as dictator. Octavian appears to have been a very shrewd politician and understood the reality of situations. I think his youth and inexperience would have been balanced out by his shrewd manueuverings. No telling if he could prevail however; would Octavian have been a charismatic leader that legions would follow when blood began to be shed if Antony was out of the picture? Good question. There are stories that Octavian conveniently disappeared before battles when Antony was alive, and I have to think that the men followed Antony's lead, not Octavian's. Part of me thinks that unless the Senate and Lepidus were fools, Octavian's legions would have eventually crumbled without Antony's experience. But if the Senate and Lepidus didn't unite or put up any stiff opposition against Octavian, then I think Octavian might have eventually succeeded. But again, one of Antony's generals may have surfaced to try and claim power. Interesting topic.