To what extent did the Roman emperor Augustus restore the republic?

Authors Avatar

Andrew Wright

To what extent did Augustus restore the Republic?

In Res Gestae, Augustus alludes several times to his objectives which reflect his republican ideals, claiming that he fought Mark Anthony at Mutina solely “in defence of the Republic. Augustus also confesses his primary objective which is “namely to be called the author of the best form of constitution.” In reality however, these claims are likely to be propaganda and simply a means of maintaining the illusion that he wished to restore the Republic, when he was arguably dismantling it.

Augustus claims that he did “not accept any office inconsistent with the customs of our ancestors” which would suggest that maintaining the Republic was what he desired. (Res Gestae) This claim is highly debatable however as in many cases Augustus receives powers which have a questionable legality to them. For instance in 43BC during the battle of Mutina, Augustus is given the powers of propraetor and thus given imperium which is controversial as it essential breaks the cursus honorum as Augustus was too young to be able to hold any office at the time. Augustus’ statement that he refused to hold any office inconsistent with Republican traditions can be argued to be true to an extent as he seems to get around this fact by holding powers of certain offices without holding the position itself. For instance, Augustus held the powers of Maius Imperium which gave him control over all other proconsuls which he fails to mention in Res Gestae and had no real precedent; he also held consular powers for life without accepting the title itself. This method of holding power can be argued to be an innovation and thus acting against the Republican and not restoring it to its ‘true title.’ Augustus is quick to mention in Res Gestae the positions which he did not accept such as Consul for life and dictator for life which could argue that Augustus wasn’t in fact an emperor. In reality however this can be seen to simply be propaganda or even a fear of Caesar’s ghost and thus assassination. In 27BC Augustus also offers the Senate all of his powers would also suggest that Augustus was a true republican but like the powers he rejected can realistically be concluded to be a political charade and propaganda stunt. I therefore believe that whilst the powers that Augustus held acted within a legal framework, they are not reflections of a citizen aiming to restore the Republic but rather those of an Emperor creating the mirage of the former.

Join now!

Augustus’ relationship with the Senate and the powers he took away and changes he made to the institution can be used to determine whether or not he restored the roman republic. According to Dio, during the post-Actium period Augustus forbade any senator from leaving Rome. In fact even when the panic had subsided he continued to disallow any Senators from entering Egypt and continued to control their freedom of action.  The powers of Censor were also a threat to Augustus’ power as they effectively decided who was a Senator and citizen so it was no surprise that Augustus effectively destroyed ...

This is a preview of the whole essay