Could Augustus Have Restored the Republic?

[Anaxagoras]

Suppose that, after securing absolute power and bringing stability back to Rome, Augustus had been determined to restore the Republic rather than continue the autocratic government that had emerged under his rule? Could he have done so, or would any such effort be doomed to simply bring back the violence and chaos that had characterized the First Century BC?

 

[Tonifranz]

Well, he did claim to restore the republic, and I'm sure he really believed it to be so, only with the guiding hand of the Princeps. After all, that was the entire point of the events of 27 BC, to claim a return to normality, the rule of law, and the restoration of the Republic. Of course, everyone knew Augustus held the power, but everyone was willing to go along with the pretense.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Well, he did claim to restore the republic, and I'm sure he really believed it to be so, only with the guiding hand of the Princeps. After all, that was the entire point of the events of 27 BC, to claim a return to normality, the rule of law, and the restoration of the Republic. Of course, everyone knew Augustus held the power, but everyone was willing to go along with the pretense.

But he also made sure that power passed into his chosen successor (Tiberius, as his first choices all died), rather than back into the hands of the Senate. Augustus worked for years to make sure that this is what happened. Could he have acted differently, somehow finding a way to, upon his death or even before, have power pass back into the hands of elected magistrates as had been the case before the fall of the Republic?

 

[Agricola]

No, the roman republic had proven the hard way, that it was not able to govern an empire of that size with a standing army that huge.
And how should this transition back to a republic work? The principate is based on 3 major pillars (plus some minor ones).
1. the imperium proconsulare
2. the tribunicitas potestas
3. the patrimonium caesarii
So if Augustus does not expropriate himself, there is no way to restore the res publica libera. And this is fully unthinkable for a true roman. Augustus was a very true and conservative roman.

Even if somebody kills Augustus and his entire family and expropriates him based on a damnatio memoriae, we still need a new constitution. Because the old republican constitution failed dramatically.

 

[DominusNovus]

How does he restore it, if its still a thing? I'd say a better word would be 'reform.'

 

[Agricola]

I could imagine a bit less absolutistic monarchy in a first step. But how and why?

 

[Tonifranz]

I could imagine a bit less absolutistic monarchy in a first step. But how and why?

It's not an absolute monarchy at all. He has less power than say, Louis XIV in France. There are limits to what an emperor could do, at least during the Principate. He cannot just do anything he liked. His acts must be acceptable to the elite around him, and the governing class. Roman emperors need to act in a certain way, less he ends up getting assassinated, or deposed.

The problem was that if you get an emperor with less power, it might be weak enough that it would lead to Civil war. The civil wars of the last years of the republic, and the stability and peace of the years of Augustus, showed to the Romans the consequences of an absence of an iron hand from above.

 

[Agricola]

It's not an absolute monarchy at all. He has less power than say, Louis XIV in France.

Almost all absolute monarchs had less power than Louis XIV

There are limits to what an emperor could do, ... emperors need to act in a certain way, less he ends up getting assassinated, or deposed.

Yes, this is true for every monarch, including the absolute ones. Trust me, you an me, we will not be able to end this dispute during this life. So we better stop discussing here and now.

The problem was that if you get an emperor with less power, it might be weak enough that it would lead to Civil war. The civil wars of the last years of the republic, and the stability and peace of the years of Augustus, showed to the Romans the consequences of an absence of an iron hand from above.

I fully agree to your conclusion. The roman aristocracy had almost ruined Rome and its provinces. You need an institution, which is able to control the aristocrats.

 

[Genrexx]

I agree:

The roman aristocracy had almost ruined Rome and its provinces. You need an institution, which is able to control the aristocrats.

Still I'd say the aristocracy couldn't help itself. There was always tension between the aristos and other citizens. For centuries the political structures of the Republic evolved to balance these tensions.

But when Rome took Greece and Asia Minor (c. 150 BCE) the balance shifted. The aristos got so many slaves (in the Provinces) and so much economic power that they priced the middle class (of actual Citizens) out. Marius, Ptolemy, Julius - were all demagogues exploiting the resentment of (most) downward-mobile Roman citizens who were being reduced to near slavery.

The Republic was dead long before Augustus was born. Sure Octavius restored the facade. He cut the surviving senators back into the deal. But he couldn't really run the whole thing without help. Still the Republic - as a Republic - was long dead. Caligula demonstrates this.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

Suppose that, after securing absolute power and bringing stability back to Rome, Augustus had been determined to restore the Republic rather than continue the autocratic government that had emerged under his rule? Could he have done so, or would any such effort be doomed to simply bring back the violence and chaos that had characterized the First Century BC?

As far as any Roman was concerned, he had restored the Republic. The republic was not a system of government, it was the state (the res publica). The Augustan principate was as much a continuation of the republic in the minds of Romans as the republic as we know it was. By the end of the civil wars, almost nobody really wished to return to the pre-war system as it was. There were those who wanted less autocracy for sure. If he wanted to, Augustus could create some system that gave him even less formal power, but keep in mind, officially, Augustus did not have as much formal power as you would think. His powers were voted to him by the Senate, Senators still had provinces that, in theory at least, were free from his control, the Senate had to vote for people to receive tribunician powers, and after his death, the Senate had to approve to grant a successor similar powers and titles.

In practice, Augustus operated considerable soft power to make sure elections went his way and the Senate did what he wished to do, and this became more official and autocratic under Tiberius and his successors. That more overt autocracy caused serious pushback among Senators during the reign of Julio-Claudian emperors since.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

As far as any Roman was concerned, he had restored the Republic. The republic was not a system of government, it was the state (the res publica).

We are talking about the res publica libera here, which is the Roman Republic and not only the state.

 

[Agricola]

If he wanted to, Augustus could create some system that gave him even less formal power, ...

Yes, and he already tinkered a bit: Think about the initial consilium principis, Tiberius canceled or merged. The problem is, even if Augustus gives formally constitutional power to the senate or any other authority, he still has de facto the real power. And nobody can stop him or his heir to use it.
- he controls the army via his authority and the patrimonium
- he controls the treasury via the patrimonium caesaris
- he controls the senate via adlectio and control of imperial careers
- he controls the plebs (comitia) via his authority, propaganda and panem et circenses.

A state usually operates stably, if the constitutional power is with the real power. If this becomes unbalanced, it is time for constitutional reforms or you risk a coup or a revolution. If you look at an aristocratic republic like mid-age Venice, all power was with the aristocrats. A democracy would have had no chance. The aristocrats would had controlled the plebs and all institutions anyways. And they did their very best to avoid any autocracy / monarchy by balancing the power amongst the aristocrats and limiting the power of needed offices in terms of time and scope. Of course the aristocrats had the real power to do so. Sounds pretty similar to the roman republic before the 2nd Punic War, doesn't it?

In the roman world, autocracy had finally won. And the main instrument of power was the army. Even if Augustus never used his imperium proconsulare and the legions to fight against his opponents in Rome, the threat was always there. Aristocratic republics had no huge professional standing armies. They used temporary mercenary armies or also temporary militia of the citizens. Therefore working aristocratic republics have always been rather small. They grew via coalitions e.g greek koinons. But this was limited, too.

The roman empire was not small and needed such a huge standing professional army. So the first question, we should answer is: How could an aristocratic republic control a huge standing army and the generals of the army without creating a new autocrat. How could Augustus abandon his imperium proconsulare, without causing another civil war or at least way more usurpations than we saw in the next 250 years. Remember aside from 2 rather short civil wars after Nero and Commodus, we had not that many usurpations until 235 AD.

And, if you take away formal authority from the princeps and give it to somebody else, he has to get the real power, too. How do you do that? Is that possible at all? What is the real (informal) base of Augustus power?

And remember, this is just the 2nd and easier question. The 1st one was: Why should a true roman like Augustus expropriate himself and his family?

 

[Tonifranz]

Yes, and he already tinkered a bit: Think about the initial consilium principis, Tiberius canceled or merged. The problem is, even if Augustus gives formally constitutional power to the senate or any other authority, he still has de facto the real power. And nobody can stop him or his heir to use it.
- he controls the army via his authority and the patrimonium
- he controls the treasury via the patrimonium caesaris
- he controls the senate via adlectio and control of imperial careers
- he controls the plebs (comitia) via his authority, propaganda and panem et circenses.

A state usually operates stably, if the constitutional power is with the real power. If this becomes unbalanced, it is time for constitutional reforms or you risk a coup or a revolution. If you look at an aristocratic republic like mid-age Venice, all power was with the aristocrats. A democracy would have had no chance. The aristocrats would had controlled the plebs and all institutions anyways. And they did their very best to avoid any autocracy / monarchy by balancing the power amongst the aristocrats and limiting the power of needed offices in terms of time and scope. Of course the aristocrats had the real power to do so. Sounds pretty similar to the roman republic before the 2nd Punic War, doesn't it?

In the roman world, autocracy had finally won. And the main instrument of power was the army. Even if Augustus never used his imperium proconsulare and the legions to fight against his opponents in Rome, the threat was always there. Aristocratic republics had no huge professional standing armies. They used temporary mercenary armies or also temporary militia of the citizens. Therefore working aristocratic republics have always been rather small. They grew via coalitions e.g greek koinons. But this was limited, too.

The roman empire was not small and needed such a huge standing professional army. So the first question, we should answer is: How could an aristocratic republic control a huge standing army and the generals of the army without creating a new autocrat. How could Augustus abandon his imperium proconsulare, without causing another civil war or at least way more usurpations than we saw in the next 250 years. Remember aside from 2 rather short civil wars after Nero and Commodus, we had not that many usurpations until 235 AD.

And, if you take away formal authority from the princeps and give it to somebody else, he has to get the real power, too. How do you do that? Is that possible at all? What is the real (informal) base of Augustus power?

And remember, this is just the 2nd and easier question. The 1st one was: Why should a true roman like Augustus expropriate himself and his family?

There was a precedent of a autocrat who successfully won ultimate power, reformed the state into his liking, and retired with the aristocracy seemingly strengthened.

That is Sulla.

His main reforms lasted less than a decade. His system lasted less than 30 years. Augustus knew what happened. He know what would happen if he relinquished power to the aristocracy--Civil War.

 

[Agricola]

Sulla did just a restoration. Not a reform. Restorations don't last long. Remember the restoration after the napoleonic wars. Just a wet aristocratic dream, and a rather short illusion.

Sulla was not able or willing to see, that due to expansion and the massive growth of capital, the former balanced roman aristocracy, which was indispensable for a working roman republic, became heavily unbalanced with a few oligarchs at the top. So a reform to a well thought out oligarchic republic might have been an option. Not a restoration of the senate's power, who actually had not longer the real power. Consequently the senate had to fail. As mentioned above: constitutional power without real power leads to a coup or a revolution if not reformed timely.

 

[Agricola]

Just another thought about restoration. The OP asked, how Augustus could have restored the republic. The simple answer is: he can't! Because restorations don't work. The constitution of the res publica libera did not longer match the reality and the constitutional needs of the current roman society. Augustus knew this and he did a reform, not a restoration like Sulla. He turned the republic into a monarchy. So the open question is: is there any other constitution at all, which fits the needs of the roman society better, than Augustus' principate? Of course just constitutions, the limited ancient politology (philosophy) was able to understand.

 

[Tonifranz]

Sulla did just a restoration. Not a reform. Restorations don't last long. Remember the restoration after the napoleonic wars. Just a wet aristocratic dream, and a rather short illusion.

Sulla was not able or willing to see, that due to expansion and the massive growth of capital, the former balanced roman aristocracy, which was indispensable for a working roman republic, became heavily unbalanced with a few oligarchs at the top. So a reform to a well thought out oligarchic republic might have been an option. Not a restoration of the senate's power, who actually had not longer the real power. Consequently the senate had to fail. As mentioned above: constitutional power without real power leads to a coup or a revolution if not reformed timely.

Liu Bang did a restoration of Imperial Rule after the demise of the Qin, and so did Zhu Yuanzhang to the rule of native Chinese. Both restorations lasted a long time! And so did Liu Xuan, who restored the Han dynasty after Wang Mang. It lasted nearly 200 years. The Sui restored a united China, and it lasted a long time. Ieyasu Tokugawa did a restoration of the rule of Shoguns, and it lasted for 250 years. Spain restored Spanish rule in the Philippines in 1763, and it lasted 135 years. The Middle Kingdom and the New Kingdom could be considered a restoration of Egypt after the Intermediate Periods, and it lasted a long time. Charles VII restored Capetian Rule over all of France, which lasted a long time, until 1792. Jovian restored Christianity as the state religion, which lasted very long too. And of course, Aurelian restored the health of the Roman Empire, and it lasted a long time, about 150 years, until the reign of Honorius.

So restorations could last a long time.

Augustus did as much restoration as he did reforms. And it lasted a long time! Before Augustus, the senatorial aristocracy ruled Rome and its empire. After Augustus, the senatorial aristocracy ruled Rome and its empire. It took more than two centuries for a non senator (Macrinus) to become emperor. It was only in the 3rd century under Gallienus that senators ceased the monopoly of military commands.

Despite the addition of the Princeps, the ruling class remained the same, as the legates he chose were all senators. Sure, equestrians and freedmen also entered government service, but except of Egypt, the upper echelons of government remained a preserve of the senate and its members (remember, the emperor belonged to the Senate) until the 3rd century.

Yeah, there is plausibility that he restored the republic (which meant the public thing) or the state.

As for Sulla...

He did reforms, not just restored the constitution as it was before he marched on Rome in 87 BC. He castrated the power of the tribunes, and he increased the size of the senate from 300 to 600. In his mind, all the troubles from the Gracchi to Cinna and Marius were caused by uppity tribunes. He increased the number of magistrates, and provided for the automatic membership to the Senate of quastors, and thus, did not depend on Censors to add new Senators.

Sure it was a restoration. But it was also a reform. Keep in mind that most reforms until the modern era seeks to restore a golden age past that was marred by the degeneracy of modern times.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Liu Bang did a restoration of Imperial Rule after the demise of the Qin, and so did Zhu Yuanzhang to the rule of native Chinese. Both restorations lasted a long time! (...) So restorations could last a long time.

The restorations you listed affect mostly Chinese history, and even if Chinese view their history as shaped through dynasties, it's a lot more complex. Each "dynasty" was in fact a completly new form of government with different institutions, some based on existent ones, some of them created by the new dynasty. What you call "a restoration of imperial rule" was in fact a peasant rebellion against Qin which installed a new Emperor. Chinese history isn't static.

Restoration usually don't last long if they try to restore an old government upon a society that changed.

Jovian restored Christianity as the state religion, which lasted very long too.

No, Jovian revoked Julian's restoration of Paganism, which some would say was doomed to fail because it was a restoration.

 

[Tonifranz]

The restorations you listed affect mostly Chinese history, and even if Chinese view their history as shaped through dynasties, it's a lot more complex. Each "dynasty" was in fact a completly new form of government with different institutions, some based on existent ones, some of them created by the new dynasty. What you call "a restoration of imperial rule" was in fact a peasant rebellion against Qin which installed a new Emperor. Chinese history isn't static.

Restoration usually don't last long if they try to restore an old government upon a society that changed.



No, Jovian revoked Julian's restoration of Paganism, which some would say was doomed to fail because it was a restoration.

Still a restoration. They restored the essential idea of the system installed by the Qin, that of a united China ruled by the Son of Heaven. Sui was another such restoration, it restored a regime in which a Son of Heaven ruled all of China. Was society different? Sure. But to the Chinese, those changes weren't important. What was important was that all of Heaven was under the rule of the Emperor and they had the Mandate of Heaven.

My point was that it's a fallacy to say that restorations can't last long. I just pointed out restorations that did last long. And not all are Chinese examples. Ieyasu restored the shogun's rule that was lost under the Ashikaga. Charles VII restored Capetian rule over all France, and there several restorations in Ancient Egypt that lasted too. Augustus, I even argued, could be considered also a restoration.





Jovian still qualifies as a restoration, as it restored something that was abolished by his predecessor.

 

[Agricola]

Don't become a victim of augustean propaganda. The principate was the opposite of a restoration. Mommsen, the great historian of the 19th century even called it "The Roman Revolution". Well, nowadays we have a more precise definition of the term revolution. So modern historians call it the augustean reforms. Reforms as comprehensive and dramatic as during a revolution. Augustus changed almost every structure and process. Even if he hided it perfectly. But the roman society and the aristocratic class was not the same afterwards. Nobody calls it the augustean restoration. Already 2000 years ago, for an educated roman like Tacitus that was very obvious. I doubt any senator was simple-minded enough to buy the fairytale about the restoration of the roman republic.

My knowledge of chinese history is not good enough to assess if these "restorations" have been reforms or not. We should consider, that the term "restoration" used in history science is much more specific than the normal english term "to restore". You can restore the power of a dynasty, but it is no restoration. The scientific term restoration looks to processes and structures. Are they restored? Even if they are not matching the needs of a changed society? How long should such an unbalanced but restored state survive? If you restore the power of a dynasty with the same symbols and ceremonies, but you changed the structures and processes of the state in order that people accept the old dynasty again, you got a reform. Not a restoration. So when the english king signed the Magna Charta in order to restore his power, it was not a "Restoration". It was a "Reform". Actually one of the most important reforms of human history.

But perhaps there was a restoration, which was really a restoration on closer examnation, and lasted longer than usual.