Introduction
In seeking to answer the question I propose to examine certain aspects of Augustus’ rise to power and the way he obtained and exercised his auctoritas/Ἀξιώματι/influence and became the de facto if not de jure, sole ‘leader’ for Rome. Looking at the auctoritas and potestas/Έξουσίας/powers he had and the way he exercised them was he the first emperor of Rome having destroyed the Republic, did he actually save the Republic? given the state it was in or did he do something else?
The argument presented here is that Augustus did not destroy the Republic. His use of his powers and his positions were within the Republican framework of the time – even if, on occasions, at its accepted margins. Through the use of the Republic’s mechanisms he consolidated his powers as leader. He brought about peace and security to Rome thus secured its future and ensured that it could function as the world power of its time. However, through his actions he brought about an evolutionary change in the way that Rome viewed and accepted its way of government – a single point of focus to a sole individual, even if legally not the sole leader. This change, in time, would open the way to the formal establishment of a monarchical system of
…show more content…
During his 57 years of rule he sought to avoid – at least by the letter of the law – more official power that his colleagues had (RG 34) He did that by succeeding to have the Senate and the people as the instigators of those positions. At the same time he also made a point of not accepting those that might affect their republican sensitivities such as refusing to accept the post of guardian of laws and customs but also of the dictatorship and perpetual consulship mentioned in RG 5.1 and RG 5.3. Also on leaving office, Augustus like the other consuls, swore that he had done nothing contrary to the laws (Dio Cass.