In 30 BCE, the armies of Octavian decisively defeated Mark Anthony at the Battle of Actium. By the end of the year, both Anthony and his lover Cleopat

The Augustinian Settlement

submited by

Style Pass

2024-07-02 15:00:04

In 30 BCE, the armies of Octavian decisively defeated Mark Anthony at the Battle of Actium. By the end of the year, both Anthony and his lover Cleopatra had killed themselves, and the young heir of Caesar stood triumphant over the Roman world, having finally won the cycle of civil wars begun in 49 BCE, with the crossing of the Rubicon. Octavian would return in triumph to Rome, and in 27 BCE, the Senate would bestow upon him the name “Augustus”, symbolizing his new unquestioned power over the State.

In history books, this year marks a firm transition–from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, with Augustus taking his place as the first Emperor of Rome. But Augustus’ reign is as notable for its continuity as it is in its reformation. The “Empire” as a distinct state was never established, and neither was an actual office of “Emperor”, and Roman writers continued to refer to the res publica for centuries. The mechanisms, traditions, and institutions of the Republican system were maintained wholesale, and the regime was defined by its adherence to tradition and stability, promising, if anything, a restoration of ancient virtue. This was, however, done in tandem with Augustus’ establishment of direct, personal rule of the state by himself, which his heirs would maintain for centuries.

I think it’s worth taking a close look at exactly how this was done, and how it may have been seen or convinced of by contemporaries. Historians have a tendency to look backwards with hindsight. We know that the Augustinian Settlement formed the basis of a hereditary monarchy that lasted for centuries, and so we see it primarily in that context. But is that too simplistic a view?