Agustus returns Rome to a republic

Caesar Augustus is widely regarded as the greatest emperor of Rome. What if, within a few years of his death, he turned Rome back over to the people, and retired from public life? Perhaps it happened because of some discussion with a philosopher, a life changing event, or reading the romantic accounts of the glory of popular rule. It may stretch plausibility for one of these things to happen, but if it did, how would history change? Would Rome be better off and last centuries longer? Or would it make little difference in the end?
 
Well, for everyone concerned at this point, Rome was a republic.

You may find the parallel between IVth and Vth french Republics somehow interesting for what matter political take on the clearly important changes : it was still the good ol' SPQR, only with a strong man that will prevent all these squabbling factions to mess thing up and to take on the average citizen.

The monarchical idea, with a vertuous man ruling above fairly and equally, was popular as much on senatorial/equestrial elites (especially with the growth of stoicism) than the people, and partially explains why the idea became popular and continued to be so even after Augustus.

So, assuming Augustus does this, you'd have not only dynastical concerns (which means military concerns, giving the army was one of the pillars and main supporter of dynastic succession) but also political and social.
Let's say the Senate enacts this, you'd have at "best" a return to the joyful situation of Ist century BCE : tensions, riots, maybe Civil Wars; before something decant from this.

At worst, another strong man appears and takes the upper hand on SPQR thanks to its institutional role and relation to the deceased princeps.

It would certainly change things, tough, would it be only when it comes to the percieved political and institutional role of the emperor, and maybe a more formalized and dualic relationship with the Senate.
 
Rome has never been in the hands of the people, not in 753 BC not 1453 AD and no time in between. When it comes to Rome you have two choices, oligarchy, anarchy or monarchy. Augustus wisely favoured the latter and set about to make that a reality for the Roman state because anything else would have ran it into the ground.

I understand that as a man of your times you have a strong preference for democracy but you must understand that democracy is not always possible nor should it. The assemblies for the elections of officials were always an extension of the oligarchy, every man that stood for election was a man of substance who was either ingratiated to the ruling body of landholding senators or a member of the landholding class themselves. The Plebs did not raise one of their own into public office and if they did, that man would quickly find themselves going the way of the Gracchi brothers. Popular rule is an illusion created by the ruling powers of any given age to give credence to the idea that the common man has power over his fate within the political system, that illusion is far more subtle in our times but true popular rule has not been achieved by human beings on a state-wide or even city-wide level.

This is my response to what I think you mean by republic, as for Rome actually being a republic (non hereditary power placed in the hands of individuals chosen by means other than blood) then you could argue that it has always been a republic, a very non-inclusive and bipolar one, but a republic nonetheless.


Now if democratic ideals and popular rule were implemented throughout the Empire it would collapse, near completely. Italy might hold together into some kind of confederation but all the conquered territory, the Hispanians, the Illyrians, Hellenes, Judeans and Egyptians would all quickly push for independence. And being a fully democratic state ruled by the people the political will to hold onto far-flung territories which want nothing more than to be apart would be lacking.

Rome would have to be a very different beast for any of this to be possible and if any of this were possible it might just survive on into the future, if for no other reason than its territorial and political ambitions would have been more limited and sustainable.
 
It either makes little difference (the republic is changed forever likely in the direction of its abolition) or it leads to a fragmentation of the Roman Empire which had expanded well past the point where the republican governmental structure worked.
 
Top