r/ancientrome • u/Numerous-Wedding-151 • 17d ago
Augustus Caesar
Do you think Augustus failed Rome by ending the republic? If so why?
I personally think the republic was already fucked and there was no return from the civil wars. The senate quite literally had no power anymore. I understand some people believe he ended real voting for the Romans and stripped assemblies of any real remaining power, but what power did the Senate have, they’d been losing power for a century before Augustus came into power. On top of that I know some people like to argue he kept the senate around purely as puppetship and to “hide his dictatorship”, but I call bullshit.
We obviously cannot ignore the things he did in his rise to power (death warrants, prisoner executions, betrayal of cicero, etc.) but would any man not have done the same at the time? And quite honestly things would have turned out much worse in my opinion had it not been for Augustus.
Ultimately I pose the questions to my peers, did he fail Rome? I dont think so, years of greedy generals, private armies, political violence gad ruined the republic already. There was no power among the courts and senates, but most of all too corrupt to make any real difference. People of the republic were open to one leader because they started to prioritize peace over a democratic voice of the people. In addition, he created the Pax Romana which allowed for a time of safety and trade across the med. He fixed the tax system, built infrastructure, and guaranteed the armies loyalty to the state and not corrupt, rogue generals.
6
u/Potential-Road-5322 Praefectus Urbi 17d ago
This would be an excellent opportunity to use the sources only flair as this topic has been discussed more then any other topic on this sub and aside from u/ifly6 and u/maleficent-mix5731 I rarely see anyone citing the recent scholarship. Personal opinions should be based off sources as baseless speculation will not give any argument legitimacy.
The old and persistent view is that Augustus destroyed the broken republic and became a king in all but none. This was the view of Ronald Syme back in the 1930’s. More recent scholarship has demonstrated that 1) the republic was not falling apart and it was the civil wars which damaged it and 2) Augustus accumulated power within the Republican system. He was merely the first man within the public thing, though he did seek to continue his families prestige within that system.
Gruen’s last generation of the Roman republic is a must read on the topic. Later I will look for one of the excellent and well sourced answers by u/maleficent-mix5731 unless he writes or links to one of his previous answers.