Exam no. B231107 - 2095 words
To what extent did Augustus restore the Republic?
Augustus is one of history’s most famous figures, however, his self-proclaimed statement of
“restoring the Republic” remains a controversial topic amongst historians today. In this essay,
I will argue that Augustus did not restore the Republic. I agree with the historian Hadrill who
believes “the power of the Roman emperors was absolute and autocratic.”1
Firstly, one must define the term ‘Republic’. The Romans defined ‘res publica’ as giving
power back to the Senate and the people, but it also included concepts such as religion,
morality and traditional values. The Republic consisted of the magistrates, two consuls
possessing imperium who sought advice from aristocratic peers to formulate policy, and
finally, the Populus in the comitia who would decide whether to make the policy into law.
Nonetheless, by the time of Augustus, the Republic was declining with men such as Sulla
Julius Caesar attempting to compromise traditional principles by becoming dictators and
trying to turn the Senate into a rubber-stamping institution. Not only were politicians
becoming more ambitious, but politics was dominated by rivalries and foreign wars
demonstrated the weaknesses of the Republic which relied on respect for authority and
tradition.2 Thus, when Octavian rose to power, emphasised his mission of restoring the
Republic to avoid the same demise as his predecessor.
After Actium, Augustus was undisputedly in control. He created a political formula which
gave the Republic ‘Libertas’ whilst asserting himself as its permanent supervisor.
1 Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1982), ‘Civilis princeps: between citizen and king’, JRS, 35
2 Shotter, D. (2005) Augustus Caesar, London: Routledge, 3-17
To what extent did Augustus restore the Republic?
Augustus is one of history’s most famous figures, however, his self-proclaimed statement of
“restoring the Republic” remains a controversial topic amongst historians today. In this essay,
I will argue that Augustus did not restore the Republic. I agree with the historian Hadrill who
believes “the power of the Roman emperors was absolute and autocratic.”1
Firstly, one must define the term ‘Republic’. The Romans defined ‘res publica’ as giving
power back to the Senate and the people, but it also included concepts such as religion,
morality and traditional values. The Republic consisted of the magistrates, two consuls
possessing imperium who sought advice from aristocratic peers to formulate policy, and
finally, the Populus in the comitia who would decide whether to make the policy into law.
Nonetheless, by the time of Augustus, the Republic was declining with men such as Sulla
Julius Caesar attempting to compromise traditional principles by becoming dictators and
trying to turn the Senate into a rubber-stamping institution. Not only were politicians
becoming more ambitious, but politics was dominated by rivalries and foreign wars
demonstrated the weaknesses of the Republic which relied on respect for authority and
tradition.2 Thus, when Octavian rose to power, emphasised his mission of restoring the
Republic to avoid the same demise as his predecessor.
After Actium, Augustus was undisputedly in control. He created a political formula which
gave the Republic ‘Libertas’ whilst asserting himself as its permanent supervisor.
1 Wallace-Hadrill, A. (1982), ‘Civilis princeps: between citizen and king’, JRS, 35
2 Shotter, D. (2005) Augustus Caesar, London: Routledge, 3-17
