Civil Wars and the Lack of Authority in Rome - Case Study Example

AUGUSTUS AND AUTOCRATIC POWER IN ROME By 13 August Augustus and Autocratic Power in Rome Introduction The period between 27 B.C. and 180 A.D. proved to be a disaster for Rome: strong and powerful in its fight against foreign enemies, Rome was incapable of preserving inner political and social stability. Civil wars and the lack of authority added their share of complexity to the numerous difficulties in the Roman Empire. Actually, the lack of authority and power in the state was one of the basic issues Rome faced at that time. Never before did Rome long for peace and stability as it did during the discussed period, and the emergence of the new leader had to become the turning point in the empire’s way to stability, prosperity, and growth. The autocratic ruling of Augustus in Rome between 27 B.C. and 14 A.D. saved Rome from further destruction and ultimate collapse: the reign of Augustus in Rome signified the emergence of the so-called one-man rule, which denied the relevance of political equality and aristocratic privileges and, simultaneously, use the newly created imperial cult to reform and revive the previously prosperous Roman Empire. The defeat of Antony and Cleopatra during the battle of Actium became the turning point in the development and evolution of the Roman state. The winner of the battle, Octavian, became the sole owner of the military privileges and no opponents could stand up to him any longer (Perry et al. 2008). At that time, the Roman state found itself in the midst of a serious crisis – exhausted by political murders, civil wars, corruption and the lack of effective political leadership, the whole Mediterranean region sought stability and peace (Perry et al. 2008). Octavian clearly understood that monarchy and autocratic ruling were the only ways for Rome to escape civil conflicts, anarchy, and ultimate collapse. Simultaneously, he could not exercise his autocratic power openly, not to conflict with the ruling aristocratic class, the support of which he needed (Perry et al. 2008). As a result, the reign of Augustus in Rome was a form of disguised one-man power, which combined the features of autocracy and resulted in the development of the imperial cult which, despite its strictness and complexity, finally brought stability and peace to Rome. Augustus’s autocracy was the unique combination of the imperial rule and the power of the republican institutions, which had to create the vision of democracy and political freedom in Rome. Needless to say, the discussed democracy and political freedom were only a mask that hid Augustus’s striving to concentrate all imperial power in his hands. Augustus did not eliminate traditional republican institutions, including Magistrates, the Senate, and the state Treasure, but the majority of his political decisions were the result of his shrewd strategies which, afterwards, turned Augustus into the sole possessor of the political power in Rome. Perry et al. (2008) are correct in that “by maintaining the façade of the Republic, Octavian camouflaged his absolute power and contained senatorial opposition”. Octavian eliminated the leading nobles by sending them to fight against his enemies; his power over the military forces was virtually unlimited, making it impossible for the opposition to resist Octavian’s imperial commands (Perry et al. 2008). Even when Octavian expressed his conscious desire to surrender his power, the decision was just another step to becoming the sole legitimate ruler of Rome – Octavian knew that the Senate would ask him to continue his leadership; in this way, he would become a constitutional leader of Rome, instead of being the carrier of lawless despotism that went against the Roman mentality and beliefs (Perry et al. 2008). The way Octavian gradually accumulated political power and forces was wise and strategically well-crafted – he avoided blind political decisions and sought to cover his despotic intentions under the cover of genuine republicanism. Meanwhile, the reign of Augustus turned out to be the example of pure autocracy that bordered on violence and despotism. The Roman Republic gradually gave place to the Roman Empire, and the termination of aristocracy and senatorial rule marked the beginning of the new, one-man political ruling era in Rome. The Roman aristocracy could not but to adjust to the new conditions of political performance – their opinions and decisions no longer matters (Perry et al. 2008). Augustus’s autocratic ruling was the source of the major political transformations in Rome: political equality no longer existed; imperial commands became the single relevant source of political decisions; the power was becoming more centralized and autocratic, creating the new vision of oriental monarchy (Parry et al. 2008). Emperor worship was the novelty introduced by Augustus to confirm and reinforce his sense of political domination – his person often became the object of worshipping and even after his death, the figure of Augustus was deified (Perry et al. 2008). The imperial cult was a complex reflection of processions, ceremonies, and statues which contributed to the development of loyalty bonds between the emperor and his subjects (Perry et al. 2008). As a result, after the first twenty years of his reign, Augustus came to exemplify the image of god-king for thousands of Italians and those living in the western territories (Perry et al. 2008). It should be noted, however, that by no means was Augustus a self-seeking tyrant, and his autocracy often worked for the benefit of the overall stability and peace in the Roman Empire. Despite his autocratic intentions, Augustus considered his political power as a form of trust that was delegated to him by his people (Perry et al. 2008). He was confident that his reign had to promote classical ideals of peace and non-violence, as well as to protect the state from all forms of ignorance and barbarism (Perry et al. 2008). The reforms in the Army under Augustus were aimed to reduce the risks of the civil war – as the Commander in Chief, he prevented the reemergence of self-seeking generals and maintained his soldiers’ loyalty by granting veterans with significant bonuses (Perry et al. 2008). Augustus was confident that a loyal professional army would be the best way to maintain internal stability in the Empire. The city of Rome was repaired and beautified; in Italy, roads were repaired and Italians were granted an opportunity to play an important role in the Empire’s political affairs (Perry et al. 2008). He corrected tax abuse and stopped the devastation of the provincial territories, winning the provincials’ loyalty and gratitude (Perry et al. 2008). By imposing strict standards of loyalty to the emperor and leaving religious traditions and customs intact, Augustus turned autocracy into the source of the major benefits to the public. That is why many Romans called him the savior of the Empire and the carrier of the major hopes for the future (Perry et al. 2008). Conclusion The time of Augustus’s reign in Rome was marked with unprecedented concentration of power in the hands of the political ruler. Republican institutions worked to create a mask of republicanism and democracy, which supported Roman mentality and turned the ruler into a king-god. However, Augustus’s autocracy was not a form of self-seeking tyranny but the only possible way to restore and maintain stability within the empire. Augustus was among those who gave the empire the second life and was able to create a strong state, based on loyalty, imperial cult, fairness, beauty, and the word of imperial order. References Perry, M, Chase, M, Jacob, MC & Jacob, JR 2008, Western Civilization: Ideas, politics and society. Cengage Learning. Read More