WI: Octavian never becomes Roman Emperor, because nobody does

[Tom Colton]

Bit of a misleading title, but basically, what happens if after Actium Octavian decides that the solution to the endless civil wars isn't to concentrate all of the most important powers into one person?

How else could the Republic develop from that point onwards? Were there any other realistic solutions given the context of his proving his total primacy over the Roman world?

 

[frustrated progressive]

Bit of a misleading title, but basically, what happens if after Actium Octavian decides that the solution to the endless civil wars isn't to concentrate all of the most important powers into one person?

How else could the Republic develop from that point onwards? Were there any other realistic solutions given the context of his proving his total primacy over the Roman world?

Who would do the deciding? After Actium, he was the sole power in the Roman state. If you mean that Octavian strips himself of power, why on Earth would he do that? His entire career has been solely focused on gaining absolute dominion. Why would he throw that away after finally achieving it?

 

[Urcea]

Bit of a misleading title, but basically, what happens if after Actium Octavian decides that the solution to the endless civil wars isn't to concentrate all of the most important powers into one person?

It really depends on what the solution is. I can't really think of one to solve Rome's problems, besides maybe partitioning the Republic, but even then, even in an Italian state, the incentive to march on Rome is there.

 

[Agricola]

Octavianus is the richest man of the empire. Actually his property is much bigger than the property of the republic. This alone prevents, that he ever becomes a private citizen again. Compared to him, Licinius Crassus was a poor farmer.

From the day, when Caesar was murdered, Octavianus fought like a lion to survive. He got the name and the treasury of Caesar. So it was very clear, that he would be killed very soon, if not taking the initiative. Some historians believe, that Octavianus did not fight for power. At least not initially. It was just a fight for survival.

After Actium nothing changed. He is even richer than ever. And he still had enough enemies. Giving away power, could mean suicide. It does not matter, if Octavianus likes the power or not. The question is, if he likes life or not. It is fully impossible for him to become a private person again. But I can imagine a more republican kind of principate. Not much, but a bit, as a first step. But who cares, what I can imagine? The interesting question is, what Octavianus can imagine, and WHY.

 

[Russian]

Octavianus is the richest man of the empire. Actually his property is much bigger than the property of the republic. This alone prevents, that he ever becomes a private citizen again. Compared to him, Licinius Crassus was a poor farmer.

From the day, when Caesar was murdered, Octavianus fought like a lion to survive. He got the name and the treasury of Caesar. So it was very clear, that he would be killed very soon, if not taking the initiative. Some historians believe, that Octavianus did not fight for power. At least not initially. It was just a fight for survival.

After Actium nothing changed. He is even richer than ever. And he still had enough enemies. Giving away power, could mean suicide. It does not matter, if Octavianus likes the power or not. The question is, if he likes life or not. It is fully impossible for him to become a private person again. But I can imagine a more republican kind of principate. Not much, but a bit, as a first step. But who cares, what I can imagine? The interesting question is, what Octavianus can imagine, and WHY.

That was good.
I mean the post.
I just want to add that Octavianus (in theory) could get rid of his inherited riches to survive, but what about the name? I guess even if he publicly declared that he was not Caesar that wouldn't have the desired effect, everybody would have known that he was the guy Julius Caesar chose to be his successor... meaning he is doomed anyway.
So, yes, he didn't have any other choice, as you said - fight for survival.

 

[RogueTraderEnthusiast]

It could be more plausible that Octavian doesn't believe that anyone else on their own would be able to be responsible for the whole Empire, and re-engineers the Republic. In this case his motivation is the survival of the world he has forged.

The issue is "How"? It may be that when he turns 65 (Jesus this guy lived forever), that he orders substantial republican reform, creating a form of "Federal Republic" - A Senate in all the "Republican Provinces" - Essentially every province that he doesn't judge direct control over as essential to the Empire - as well as establishing a non-Imperial military structure that does not encourage rebellion, but does reward expansion (the details of which I am still fuzzy on). This would probably leave Aegyptus, the Bosphorus, Sicily, the straits of Gibraltar, and probably Italia proper under central control.

Then the Princeps of the Republic (or Grand Republic?) is the guy in charge - each Senate determines their own Princeps (Princeps of the Republic in Gaul), and whilst those Princeps have power, the Princeps of the Republic can only be chosen from among those members, perhaps by representatives of each Senate.

The problem still remains that Octavian would die the wealthiest man in the republic. He would have to give away vast amounts of wealth prior to his death, and on his deathbed, to prevent his successor from becoming instant Princeps of the Republic. Perhaps a huge land giveaway to his soldiers?

The division of powers, based on the premise that he doesn't believe anyone else has the capacity to rule the full Empire, probably means that there is a lot of decentralisation to the provinces - with the Military and Territories of the Republic under central government, and the Military problem still needs to be resolved - is the Princeps of the Republic akin to the Commander in Chief, more authoritative than military man?

Security may have to fall under central control to prevent those Republics safe from danger from neglecting it, or refusing to contribute. (Italia comes to mind). But he'd still need to develop a nimble military system.

It isn't a small task, but short of a Federal Republic, with a balance of Territories and Provinces, I'm not sure what I can contribute to the idea, beyond glee at more democracy.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

In many ways Octavian did believe this. His entire succession policy seemed to be to have several people that shared in the powers he had, rather than one clear cut successor. It just so happened that everyone just happened to die, or in the case of Agrippa posthumous, was unfit, or in the case of germanicus, too young. So that just left Tiberius.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

One of the problems with this, as most other discussions of 'surviving Republic', is that the Republic was a dead letter by this point. There had been too many strong men who ruled either alone or in triumvirates, from Sulla and Marius through the various triumvirates to Julius ruling alone...

I don't see anyway to turn back the clock - and if there is one, it's not going to be a supreme autocrat autocrattically imposing democracy (!). (well, or even oligarchy).

 

[SlyDessertFox]

One of the problems with this, as most other discussions of 'surviving Republic', is that the Republic was a dead letter by this point. There had been too many strong men who ruled either alone or in triumvirates, from Sulla and Marius through the various triumvirates to Julius ruling alone...

I don't see anyway to turn back the clock - and if there is one, it's not going to be a supreme autocrat autocrattically imposing democracy (!). (well, or even oligarchy).

The latest I think you can salvage the republic is 44-42 BCE, but its tricky. It gets much easier before Caesar crosses the Rubicon.

Saving it over the long term is tricky. The republic is never going to reform quickly and ant reforms imposed by a man like sulla aren't likely to last because they are generally super divisive because of the circumstances they were created in. So the republic has to have time to reform slowly. Stuff like the lex pompeia of 52 bce, which tried to reign in provincial corruption and running up massive debts to win elections with the promise of immediate returns, are only going to happen slowly. So you need to give it time to reform itself, which the republic was doing at a slow pace. It basically has to waddle along until its reformed enough to deal with an empire. It would be easier if romes conquests did not occur so quickly.

 

[TheYoungPretender]

Bit of a misleading title, but basically, what happens if after Actium Octavian decides that the solution to the endless civil wars isn't to concentrate all of the most important powers into one person?

How else could the Republic develop from that point onwards? Were there any other realistic solutions given the context of his proving his total primacy over the Roman world?

Octavianus is the richest man of the empire. Actually his property is much bigger than the property of the republic. This alone prevents, that he ever becomes a private citizen again. Compared to him, Licinius Crassus was a poor farmer.

From the day, when Caesar was murdered, Octavianus fought like a lion to survive. He got the name and the treasury of Caesar. So it was very clear, that he would be killed very soon, if not taking the initiative. Some historians believe, that Octavianus did not fight for power. At least not initially. It was just a fight for survival.

After Actium nothing changed. He is even richer than ever. And he still had enough enemies. Giving away power, could mean suicide. It does not matter, if Octavianus likes the power or not. The question is, if he likes life or not. It is fully impossible for him to become a private person again. But I can imagine a more republican kind of principate. Not much, but a bit, as a first step. But who cares, what I can imagine? The interesting question is, what Octavianus can imagine, and WHY.

First, I think you need a dead Octavianus for this to happen. Have him crook of typhoid in the 20s, or have him fall to food riots in roughly the same period. He does not, and cannot retire; but the fact he lived until 14 was a bit of a stroke of luck.

The latest I think you can salvage the republic is 44-42 BCE, but its tricky. It gets much easier before Caesar crosses the Rubicon.

Saving it over the long term is tricky. The republic is never going to reform quickly and ant reforms imposed by a man like sulla aren't likely to last because they are generally super divisive because of the circumstances they were created in. So the republic has to have time to reform slowly. Stuff like the lex pompeia of 52 bce, which tried to reign in provincial corruption and running up massive debts to win elections with the promise of immediate returns, are only going to happen slowly. So you need to give it time to reform itself, which the republic was doing at a slow pace. It basically has to waddle along until its reformed enough to deal with an empire. It would be easier if romes conquests did not occur so quickly.

There are so many Republics. There is the Republic of Renaissance legend, of Romantic idealism, of Enlightenment virtues, of mess reality, of Principate hope and fear. I can't speak to them all. What I can speak to, when it comes to Rome's cities, and the Roman system the Republic and the then the Principate built, is having two of three things in the same political entity - the vast grain surplus of Africa, the vast grain surplus of Egypt, and the Rome itself and the other cities that were much bigger than their hinterlands. The real question of any alternate Rome is if these things stay under the same rule, be it Republican, be it a string of Hellenic style dynast, or what have you, you need the Rome-Carthage tax axis unbroken for anything vaguely Roman, in the sense we think of the 1st century BC to the second century after to exist.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

One reform that is necessary is somehow avoiding the Marian reforms and maintaining a landowning class based army, or managing it in a way that the soldiers are not loyal to the general but to the state itself. So a state fund, like what was established during the augustan era to pay the troops. Also, a standard method of land distribution after the time of service is over in order to avoid the protracted fights between the commanders and the senate over giving their soldiers land distribution.

This would alleviate one serious problem with the republic which is the senators did not like any other one individual or faction to gain credit for an important law or reform, or for distributing land. So they would block the entire thing, even if they agreed with the principle, rather than let the one senator gain credit (see Tiberius Gracchus's land reforms which were passed after he was murdered). So the battles over land distribution to soldiers wouldn't be nearly as big a problem if there was an established process for what was to happen, rather than the individual battles for each army that happened all too often.

Perhaps something akin to how the Romans set up Latin colonies. Create colonies for the soldiers across the empire. This also helps hasten romanization and makes maintaining control of territory much easier.

 

[Agricola]

One reform that is necessary is somehow avoiding the Marian reforms and maintaining a landowning class based army, ...

This is just possible, if the roman empire does not expand that much beyond Italy. Or they expand much slower. Because the romans do not agree about the promagistrate, but use the so far extremely succesful socii-model only. Starting after the 1st punic war for Sicilia and all following provinces. Actually provinces do not exist in this model.

But the socii model does not scale. Not that fast. And without a fast expansion almost all major issues of the republic disappear. At least the romans get the time to adapt.

It would be interesting to think about an alternate history, when the roman republic expands solely based on the socii model combined with colonies and client kingdoms. I am wondering how far they could get.

 

[SlyDessertFox]

This is just possible, if the roman empire does not expand that much beyond Italy. Or they expand much slower. Because the romans do not agree about the promagistrate, but use the so far extremely succesful socii-model only. Starting after the 1st punic war for Sicilia and all following provinces. Actually provinces do not exist in this model.

But the socii model does not scale. Not that fast. And without a fast expansion almost all major issues of the republic disappear. At least the romans get the time to adapt.

It would be interesting to think about an alternate history, when the roman republic expands solely based on the socii model combined with colonies and client kingdoms. I am wondering how far they could get.

Care to elaborate on what this would look like? I know you've gone into detail before on this. I have found your proposal an interesting way for the Romans to expand and adapt.

 

[Agricola]

Care to elaborate on what this would look like?

My problem is, I am a perfectionist. My knowledge is mainly about the principate. And even if I collected a lot of facts, ideas and processes, I am still not satisfied with any of my solutions about an alternate history starting during the principate. Not satisfied enough to publish them.

Of course I have read a lot about the republic. But mainly about the reasons of its fall. Not that much about details. I would need to study the complete "Who is Who" of the roman republic from 250 to at least 100 BC. Plus the history of every damn tribe and city state around Italy. Not looking even at you Carthago! Because in such a TL Carthago can't fall.

 

[Matteo]

I disagree with some of Agricola's and Slydesertfox's statements.

First if all, the conquest of the empire did not create the difficulties that are usually described as the crisis of the republic. It just accelerated and intensified difficulties that were structural to Rome.

The problem of aristocratic encroachment over ager publicus already existed since the beginnings of the republic. There was the very important Lex Licinia de modo agrorum in 367 BCE. And there was the very important Lex Flaminia in 232 BCE, about which Polybius wrote that It marked the beginning of the break-up between the roman people and the roman aristocracy over agrarian issues.

The second Punic war and the political domination that was established by Rome over all the Mediterranean shores during the generation that followed (de facto, Rome had no more rival from 168 on) just froze the latent social conflict for 50 years, before It erupted again on a much bigger scale and intensity because of all the wealth that the roman aristocracy almost monopolized to its political profit.

Rome could not think the relations with others in terms of federalism because Rome was mainly led by an aristocracy on the foundations of bilateral relationships that were clientela if possible or alliance if clientela could not be imposed.

All the History of the roman republic is the story of the roman aristocracy "merging"-"acquisiting" allied aristocracies in order to reinforce their power in Rome, be it against rival factions or against the roman people (the plèbes not including the plebeian aristocrats that were in fact foreign aristocrats integrated in the roman ruling class but with initially a status and after 366 BCE a prestige not fully equal to the patricians.

The point was either to turn Italy into a nation that would dominate and exploit its neighbours or to become a world empire with a globalized/open ruling class.

And the roman ruling class OTL always favoured the globalism solution because It was in its interest and because not integrating the foreign client aristocracies would provoke the rebellion of the clients and the collapse of Rome's domination.

Octavian, as well as Caesar, could but deal with the situation he inherited and whose roots were multisecular.

Contrary to aristocratic propaganda, the kings of Rome had a quite good image, except from the aristocrats point of view.

Aristocratic competition, the so-called Libertas, was bringing Rome and its empire to their doom. That's why Tacitus reckoned Rome needed a Princeps to have peace and prosperity.


Secundly, there was no State in the modern meaning of the word. The republic (be It Rome or any other city) was the union of the human beings that shared common citizenship but respecting the social hierarchy. Citizens were all but equal. Each citizen had rights, authorities and duties proportionate to his social standing.

So there was no class consciousness of the mass of the poor people, except a blink of such consciousness at the Time of the Gracchi.

So the people could not think in terms of a general interest that would have been distinct from the social body. They could not conceive the State as a distinct intangible entity that would encompass the citizens. This is a modern creation.

I don't mean that some people did not understand what was dysfunctional in the roman aristocratic republic. But if they wanted a fairer share of the spoils of war, they would clash with all elite vested interests (who were the de facto owners of Rome and its empire and whose social position stood on such inequality/clientela/dependancy/corruption.

I think that even if Rome had not conquered provinces, the roman aristocracy would have enriched itself at the expense of the common people, as It happened with other ancient cities until you had stasis, revolution with a tyrant, then oligarchy again, then stasis again and tyrant again, ... etc.

 

[Agricola]

I disagree with some of Agricola's and Slydesertfox's statements.

First if all, the conquest of the empire did not create the difficulties that are usually described as the crisis of the republic. It just accelerated and intensified difficulties that were structural to Rome.

Interesting. Because I don't disagree with you. Not really. Everything you said, makes a lot of sense.

You wrote, that the expansion accelerated and intensified the structural issues. From my point of view the main issue, which finally led to the fall of the republic was
- the growing imbalance in the senatorial aristocracy due to the exteme wealth coming with expansion and the exploitation of the provinces
- the much looser control of the magistrates by the senate, due to distance. Again after expansion.
- and the missing division of power in the province managment via promagistrate, which was invented to manage this expansion.

I say, that without the pro-magistrate, such a fast expansion would have been impossible. All three major problems do not escalate that fast. And the romans would have time to adapt. The social conflict between free farmers and the big landlords would arise no matter what. But that was not crucial for the fall of the republic. A "Roman Revolution" never happened. There was no revolutionary class and no cadre starting a revolution. Even not the Gracchi. The roman revolution is a fully outdated theory of the 19th century.

Also the "War against the Socii" is unavoidable. The roman domination of allied aristocracy, you mentioned, did not work forever. This war was indeed a revolution. The socii were the revolutionary class. The nobles of the socii were the leading cadre, Lenin required for every revolution. And at the end the revolution was succesful. The socii became romans and had full roman citizen rights and access to the central government. Perhaps this badly needed change is possible less bloody in an alternate history?

The initial question was, how the roman republic could survive. The answer is: if it does not expand. Simple like that!
Would the roman aristocracy like it? Rather not! Again we agree. Is a not expanding or much slower expanding and surviving roman republic therefore fully ASB? I say no. It is possible. Just hard to describe plausibly. And I doubt, this is the kind of glorious roman republic, people like to read about.