03-23-2009, 02:00 AM
Lots of questions, but the basic question is, in my opinion this one: was monarchy inevitable? Augustus has done a splendid job convincing people that it was -to paraphrase De Gaulle- him or chaos, or, as Tacitus says, peace or liberty. Many historians believe that this was indeed the issue, but I am not really convinced.
In 44-43, Mark Antony did a splendid job balancing between on the one hand the Senate and its old Republican ideas, and on the other hand innovative ideas of the Caesarian type. During his Egyptian years, he presented a type of oriental monarchy that is consistently ridiculized by our Roman sources, but that might have worked, as the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman Dominate were to show.
Had Octavian never been there, Antony might have renewed the Republic; later, he changed his mind and chose an oriental style of leadership. Octavian's coup in 44-43 and the outcome of the battle of Actium may indeed have mattered, and the Augustean momarchy may have been less inevitable than is sometimes assumed.
In 44-43, Mark Antony did a splendid job balancing between on the one hand the Senate and its old Republican ideas, and on the other hand innovative ideas of the Caesarian type. During his Egyptian years, he presented a type of oriental monarchy that is consistently ridiculized by our Roman sources, but that might have worked, as the Hellenistic kingdoms and the Roman Dominate were to show.
Had Octavian never been there, Antony might have renewed the Republic; later, he changed his mind and chose an oriental style of leadership. Octavian's coup in 44-43 and the outcome of the battle of Actium may indeed have mattered, and the Augustean momarchy may have been less inevitable than is sometimes assumed.
