Alex Kulcsar
To what extent was the early Roman Empire (31BC-14AD) democratic?
The Roman Republic shifted to the Roman Empire in 27 BCE when the famous dictator
Julius Caesar whispered his last words upon assassination at the Ides of March on March 15th
44 B.C.E. With the demise of Caesar saw the birth of Augustus who's political and social
reforms with the usage of the Lex Julia and sensationalist image introduced an autocratic
form of government where the status quo changed. Augustus brought on a change in internal
powers, with one example being that now the governing of an Emperor had liberties of a veto
and to command armies which could subsequently strengthen the frontiers of the empire
while dramatically impacting people's rights and franchise. As such, the democratic nature of
the early Roman Empire seemed to become a closer reality, however barriers stood at the
time which would limit the modern viewer of labelling the early roman empire as truly
democratic. To answer the question 'to what extent was the early roman empire democratic?'
The following areas were investigated: Emperor Augustus's reforms, voting, representation of
minorities and the senate's composition.
It was not until about 30 B.c. that Octavian – later becoming Augustus - finally conquered all rivals,
gained supreme power in Rome, became, in fact, Rome's first emperor, and thus changed its political
system forever. A change Augustus provided was restricting the power of the senate, this was because
many resented Augustus’ rapid rise to absolute power as he conquered all of his rivals gaining
supreme power as Romes first emperor. Particularly the issue that he consolidated his own power
while curtailing theirs was the main factor in resentment by the Senate. In the republican period the
senate had governed Rome and all its provinces, however a shift under the Augustan period permitted
government to be controlled by the emperor, this subsequently made the senate a shadow of its former
self, with all the trappings but little of the power it once held. In the early roman empire Cassius
Dio argued that Augustus only assumed a natural position in the roman empire Coursus
Honorum, stating that thus he could say 'I haven't done anything new or revolutionary; I'm
just a legally appointed magistrate.' For reasons such as that he would not act in such a high
rank position forever, only for life. This is different to what the modern voter would view as
democratic, for instance in the USA after WW2 in 1951 the 22nd Amendment of the United
States constitution limited a president's rule to go beyond two elected terms after FDR served
for four terms – pressing that people in the 20 and 21st century think that new leaders should
rise to power and have a chance to offer something new in terms of legislation and ideas to a
nation. This questions the early roman empire's democratic nature as Augustus reigned from
31 BC – 14 AD. Further, Dio argued that “‘When he perceived, however, that people therefore
suspected him of yearning for a position as king, he no longer sought this title, but instead accepted
the title Augustus.” This shows that Augustus clearly didn’t want to associate himself with any sort of
monarchy that would put the aristocracy on the top of the power chain, however in effect this is
exactly what he did, detailing himself as a sacred creature who was supreme above everyone else. As
such, membership in the senate became sought after by individuals seeking prestige and social
standing, rather than actual authority. Arguably, this doesn’t show any sense of ‘democracy’ because
the separation of powers were non existent under Augustus’ rule, the senate and the emperor worked
together essentially. This must have led to disproportional legislation being passed because the
emperor could have taken advance over the situation and passed legislation that would benefit him -
not his people or in fact the nation itself. This is supported by the fact that Augustus reduced the size
of the senate from 900 members to 600. However, in analysis,During the reigns of the first emperors,
legislative, judicial, and electoral powers were all transferred from the Roman assemblies to the
senate. In conclusion the composition of the senate and the powers they managed to retain which was
1
, Alex Kulcsar
very few failed democratic values,making the senate merely a shadow of its former self. Despite a
significant gifting of power by Augustus to the senate who now controlled judicial cases too, this was
only a show of pretend. And with Augustus’ mighty veto power – the senate had no chance to actually
use their new power, they were left condemned under Augustus’ superiority that consequently
drowned out all the possibility legislations and actions the senate could have took to enrich Rome’s
public. The statue Augustus from Primaporta portrays the mindset that Augustus wished to
portray through his own imagery, validating himself as a deity almost which could be argued
shifts from the democratic question, proving himself to be more autocratic or even dictator-
like wit the central power laying in his hands and the decisions to be from his own values and
beliefs. As such, the Senate during the early Roman Empire under Augustus’ reign was not
democratic as it could have been, despite important political changes occurring.
Emperor Augustus’ reforms became a trademark to his legacy, through his reforms the
Roman Republic made is effective shift into the Empire that expanded both geographically
and economically. Inviting further people into their lands, and offering them a chance to see
what Augustus thought was the right manner to govern Rome. Roman law was divided into
two categories; public law and private law. Public law is the affairs of the Roman state,
private law is the interests of the individuals. Augustus wanted to return to the traditional
values of the Roman Republic and he uses the role of women in Rome to aid his missions.
With the support of the Lex Julia laws, he introduced the Ius trium liberorum which gave the
mothers of three or more children (4 if a freedwoman) legal independence and could administer their own
affairs without a tutor. It also increased the amount of property they could inherit, while it restricted the
husband’s power to dispose of property that had come to him as a dowry. Augustus intended to build a
stronger moral society for advancements in the future, this included encouraging the birth rate
as he was particularly concerned about its declined especially in the upper classes. Women
now also had the right to register the births of legitimate children – this had previously been the sole right
of men. This effectively proves democracy as it gave minorities rights they weren’t offered in the Roman
republic, such as giving them rights that allowed their independence to peak through. We can see
similarities with modern countries such as North Korea, which happens to be one of the only
dictatorships and so lacking any democratic values to the average Westerner. In December of
2023, Kim Jong-un made a tearful plea to the women of north Korea to have more babies to
arrest the declining birth rate which the average North Korean woman has is around 1.79
children over her lifetime, a rate that falls short of 2.1 needed to maintain the population
according to UN assessments. The North Korean dictator stated that it was 'everyone's
housekeeping duty'. The particular highlight of difference between these two time periods is
that the legislations failed in the early Roman Empire with no impact on the birth rate at that
time whereas it can be expected that now the population is rising in the north Korean
dictatorship by force. However in analysis, Childless widows were expected to remarry within 12
months and divorcees within 6 months, although these were modified in AD9.
Under the lex Julia, adulterous women were punished by exile or hard labour, as well as the loss of a third
of her property and half her dowry, whereas before, she could be executed. However in analysis,A
wronged wife still had no right to prosecute an adulterous husband, but her father could bring a charge if
he could prove adultery. In conclusion, Augustus reforms opened a new diverse political arena for the
minorities of his nation to thrive in, however there were still traditional restrictions that laid upon
minorities such as women, thus his reforms were not democratic.
In the republican period and the early empirical period under Augustus saw all male citizens had been
eligible to vote in the popular assemblies for the election of magistrates. These elections were
energetically, often bitterly, contested by candidates from the senatorial class. The Lex Julia of 90 BC
extended voting rights to citizens across Italy greatly expanded the franchise. By the final Republican
census of 70 BC, there were 910,000 possible electors. However, in analysis, Augustus undermined
2
To what extent was the early Roman Empire (31BC-14AD) democratic?
The Roman Republic shifted to the Roman Empire in 27 BCE when the famous dictator
Julius Caesar whispered his last words upon assassination at the Ides of March on March 15th
44 B.C.E. With the demise of Caesar saw the birth of Augustus who's political and social
reforms with the usage of the Lex Julia and sensationalist image introduced an autocratic
form of government where the status quo changed. Augustus brought on a change in internal
powers, with one example being that now the governing of an Emperor had liberties of a veto
and to command armies which could subsequently strengthen the frontiers of the empire
while dramatically impacting people's rights and franchise. As such, the democratic nature of
the early Roman Empire seemed to become a closer reality, however barriers stood at the
time which would limit the modern viewer of labelling the early roman empire as truly
democratic. To answer the question 'to what extent was the early roman empire democratic?'
The following areas were investigated: Emperor Augustus's reforms, voting, representation of
minorities and the senate's composition.
It was not until about 30 B.c. that Octavian – later becoming Augustus - finally conquered all rivals,
gained supreme power in Rome, became, in fact, Rome's first emperor, and thus changed its political
system forever. A change Augustus provided was restricting the power of the senate, this was because
many resented Augustus’ rapid rise to absolute power as he conquered all of his rivals gaining
supreme power as Romes first emperor. Particularly the issue that he consolidated his own power
while curtailing theirs was the main factor in resentment by the Senate. In the republican period the
senate had governed Rome and all its provinces, however a shift under the Augustan period permitted
government to be controlled by the emperor, this subsequently made the senate a shadow of its former
self, with all the trappings but little of the power it once held. In the early roman empire Cassius
Dio argued that Augustus only assumed a natural position in the roman empire Coursus
Honorum, stating that thus he could say 'I haven't done anything new or revolutionary; I'm
just a legally appointed magistrate.' For reasons such as that he would not act in such a high
rank position forever, only for life. This is different to what the modern voter would view as
democratic, for instance in the USA after WW2 in 1951 the 22nd Amendment of the United
States constitution limited a president's rule to go beyond two elected terms after FDR served
for four terms – pressing that people in the 20 and 21st century think that new leaders should
rise to power and have a chance to offer something new in terms of legislation and ideas to a
nation. This questions the early roman empire's democratic nature as Augustus reigned from
31 BC – 14 AD. Further, Dio argued that “‘When he perceived, however, that people therefore
suspected him of yearning for a position as king, he no longer sought this title, but instead accepted
the title Augustus.” This shows that Augustus clearly didn’t want to associate himself with any sort of
monarchy that would put the aristocracy on the top of the power chain, however in effect this is
exactly what he did, detailing himself as a sacred creature who was supreme above everyone else. As
such, membership in the senate became sought after by individuals seeking prestige and social
standing, rather than actual authority. Arguably, this doesn’t show any sense of ‘democracy’ because
the separation of powers were non existent under Augustus’ rule, the senate and the emperor worked
together essentially. This must have led to disproportional legislation being passed because the
emperor could have taken advance over the situation and passed legislation that would benefit him -
not his people or in fact the nation itself. This is supported by the fact that Augustus reduced the size
of the senate from 900 members to 600. However, in analysis,During the reigns of the first emperors,
legislative, judicial, and electoral powers were all transferred from the Roman assemblies to the
senate. In conclusion the composition of the senate and the powers they managed to retain which was
1
, Alex Kulcsar
very few failed democratic values,making the senate merely a shadow of its former self. Despite a
significant gifting of power by Augustus to the senate who now controlled judicial cases too, this was
only a show of pretend. And with Augustus’ mighty veto power – the senate had no chance to actually
use their new power, they were left condemned under Augustus’ superiority that consequently
drowned out all the possibility legislations and actions the senate could have took to enrich Rome’s
public. The statue Augustus from Primaporta portrays the mindset that Augustus wished to
portray through his own imagery, validating himself as a deity almost which could be argued
shifts from the democratic question, proving himself to be more autocratic or even dictator-
like wit the central power laying in his hands and the decisions to be from his own values and
beliefs. As such, the Senate during the early Roman Empire under Augustus’ reign was not
democratic as it could have been, despite important political changes occurring.
Emperor Augustus’ reforms became a trademark to his legacy, through his reforms the
Roman Republic made is effective shift into the Empire that expanded both geographically
and economically. Inviting further people into their lands, and offering them a chance to see
what Augustus thought was the right manner to govern Rome. Roman law was divided into
two categories; public law and private law. Public law is the affairs of the Roman state,
private law is the interests of the individuals. Augustus wanted to return to the traditional
values of the Roman Republic and he uses the role of women in Rome to aid his missions.
With the support of the Lex Julia laws, he introduced the Ius trium liberorum which gave the
mothers of three or more children (4 if a freedwoman) legal independence and could administer their own
affairs without a tutor. It also increased the amount of property they could inherit, while it restricted the
husband’s power to dispose of property that had come to him as a dowry. Augustus intended to build a
stronger moral society for advancements in the future, this included encouraging the birth rate
as he was particularly concerned about its declined especially in the upper classes. Women
now also had the right to register the births of legitimate children – this had previously been the sole right
of men. This effectively proves democracy as it gave minorities rights they weren’t offered in the Roman
republic, such as giving them rights that allowed their independence to peak through. We can see
similarities with modern countries such as North Korea, which happens to be one of the only
dictatorships and so lacking any democratic values to the average Westerner. In December of
2023, Kim Jong-un made a tearful plea to the women of north Korea to have more babies to
arrest the declining birth rate which the average North Korean woman has is around 1.79
children over her lifetime, a rate that falls short of 2.1 needed to maintain the population
according to UN assessments. The North Korean dictator stated that it was 'everyone's
housekeeping duty'. The particular highlight of difference between these two time periods is
that the legislations failed in the early Roman Empire with no impact on the birth rate at that
time whereas it can be expected that now the population is rising in the north Korean
dictatorship by force. However in analysis, Childless widows were expected to remarry within 12
months and divorcees within 6 months, although these were modified in AD9.
Under the lex Julia, adulterous women were punished by exile or hard labour, as well as the loss of a third
of her property and half her dowry, whereas before, she could be executed. However in analysis,A
wronged wife still had no right to prosecute an adulterous husband, but her father could bring a charge if
he could prove adultery. In conclusion, Augustus reforms opened a new diverse political arena for the
minorities of his nation to thrive in, however there were still traditional restrictions that laid upon
minorities such as women, thus his reforms were not democratic.
In the republican period and the early empirical period under Augustus saw all male citizens had been
eligible to vote in the popular assemblies for the election of magistrates. These elections were
energetically, often bitterly, contested by candidates from the senatorial class. The Lex Julia of 90 BC
extended voting rights to citizens across Italy greatly expanded the franchise. By the final Republican
census of 70 BC, there were 910,000 possible electors. However, in analysis, Augustus undermined
2
