Did Augustus create, "strictly speaking", a "monarchy" as Dio Cassius alleged?

[foddle]

Hello, this is the question for my Ancient History Assignment. Could i have some opinions with evidence regarding this question? Thank you in advance.

[caldrail]

Aha, now this is right up my street. Firstly, the idea of monarchy is actually ours and comes from translation of latin texts, which lose something of the original meaning in translation. The Roman word for 'king' is Rex, but when they use that word, they don't mean the sort of monarch we immediately think of, a sort of medievalesque dynast. The word Rex means, more strictly, "Tyrant In Charge". Romans associated absolute and permanent rule by one man as tyrannical inherently. This is why the idea of being a king was so abhorrent to them after the Republic was founded.

Although Rome was never properly a democracy, it did have democratic sentiments, and the Romans believed that free will and self determination was what made a human being superior to animals.(slaves were legally 'Not Human' and equivalent to animals, because they were told what to do). The idea that one man could dictate to the nation state effectively meant he was enslaving society as a whole, so perhaps you can understand why the Romans weren't happy about Rex-hood.

Julius Caesar had every intention of ruling Rome. His career works toward that end. But notice how he puts on a display at one Lupercalia by refusing three times the 'Crown' offered by Marc Antony. Instead, he gets himself made Dictator for three years. Dictator was a Republican office in which a man was given full executive power to cope with an emergency. After six months, or the end of the crisis, the power should be handed back to the Senate. Or else. Caesar then got himself;f made Dictator for ten years, and finally, for life. That made him an absolute ruler, the only Roman to have that power since the end of the Roman monarchical period when Tarquin Superbus was ousted. It also made him Rex, despite his efforts to show he wasn't, and nobody was really fooled. With him permanently in power, he was too powerful, and no-one else could have their turn at the top. So the conspiracy to get rid of him began and eventually Caesar was assassinated.

Augustus comes to power after surviving the civil wars in a position of supreme influence. As it happens, Augustus had once seized power illegally. A centurion had marched into the Senate and told the assemblage to make Octavian Consul, holding the hilt of his sword "Or this will". But as the man holding the reins with a victorious army, he was keen not to make the mistake that Caesar had made.

In fact Marc Antony had abolished the post of Dictator after Caesar's death. yet with Augustus so influential and potentially dangerous, there were accusations of whether he was Dictator and would he please admit it. Augustus always refused. He even refused to be called 'Dominus' as he portrayed a more egalitarian image. He called himself Princeps 'First Citizen', and pursued a role of executive advisor, though few were really fooled by that either, but at least he wasn't trying to be Rex. Of course Augustus wanted to dominate and rule - he was an ambitious man, but note that Suetonius mentions that twice Augustus seriously considered giving up his role and returning power to the Senate (which is kind of interesting given that one of his first acts as ruler and victor of the wars was to hand power back to the Senate officially)

Does that make him a monarch? Cassius Dio moans that he might as well have been, such was the extraordinary power and influence that Augustus successfully managed to maintain to his death of old age. For Dio, writing in a later period when the Caesars had gotten used to wielding power, it was an obvious comparison. Yet no Caesar after Julius, not even Augustus, was ever an absolute ruler. Their role in society was as the top social dog, with political offices, honours, rights, and such given to him by the Senate. Although it had overtones of dynastic rule, the job was never officially part of a Roman constitution, never actually required to run the state, never defined or regulated, with no established means of succession other than winner takes all. You grabbed power, wielded money and influence, maintained your popularity, and ttried to avoid being bumped off by those frightened of you or those that wanted to be where you are.

Augustus clearly had every intention of founding a dynasty of executive advisors in his mould. fate had other ideas, and he was forced to nominate Tiberius as his successor - though this was not official - merely another Augustan guideline. Was he a monarch? Not in the modern or medieval sense, as he was never crowned or titled as such, nor was such a role ever tolerated in Rome after Ttarquin. Was he a monarch in Roman estimations? Yes. If you understand why.

[Viggen]

@caldrail every lazy students dream come true!

great reply!