Other Titles For Augustus?

I have been thinking about this. What would be other names that could be chosen for Octavian other than Augustus? I know Romulus is the most likely alternative and was very nearly chosen IOTL, but what others? Optimus? Maximus? Magnus? Any other alternatives? I'm not familiar with Latin so I can't really think of anything original myself.
 
One idea is Lovis Filium, which means The Son of Jupiter. That seems like the kind of title a Roman emperor would give himself.
 
Caesar. Yeah, as a title it was used by many emperors. For the most part though, it seemed to indicate 'second place,' especially by the time it was used to designate heirs or junior emperors. What if Octavian had just stayed as 'Imperator Caesar divi filius'? The Julio-Claudians would still carry the name 'Caesar', given that it was still a cognomen, but later emperors might have treated the name 'Caesar' the way they eventually did with 'Augustus', which would mean that the "heir" (or "emperor-designate"; "junior emperor") would probably have a different title.

Admittedly, it would be hard to think of why he wouldn't take an honorific, given the reasons to why he became known as "Augustus." As a title, Augustus was not chosen at random; it had a religious theme and was rooted in Rome's republican past, both of which were used to legitimize Augustus' de facto autocracy. Still, sometimes I have wondered why "Caesar" became superseded by "Augustus." Perhaps emperors wished to be associated more with the legacy of Augustus instead of Julius Caesar.

Divus Octavius, maybe?

Doubtful. He dropped the name 'Octavius' after his adoption via Julius Caesar's will. Aside from his titles divi filius ("son of a god"), he never promoted himself as "divine" while he was still alive the way other emperors did. So the title divus would probably still be a posthumous honorific for him regardless of whether he used 'Augustus' or some other honorific title.
 
Last edited:
From what I know we call him Octavian Augustus for the sake of convenience.
The contemporaries called him Caesar.
(*of course it was not a title, but name)

But for us it is not convenient as every time it is hard to understand which Caesar do you mean.
hence Octavian Augustus
 
One idea is Lovis Filium, which means The Son of Jupiter. That seems like the kind of title a Roman emperor would give himself.

Later emperors did that. Diocletian had the cognomen Iovianus (from Jupiter). But as already mentioned, the early principate was not the time to deify living persons. And furthermore the julian family was connected to Venus, not to Jupiter.

Still, sometimes I have wondered why "Caesar" became superseded by "Augustus." Perhaps emperors wished to be associated more with the legacy of Augustus instead of Julius Caesar

Because Caesar was a cognomen and therfeore became part of the families name of an emperor. Even Germanicus and Britannicus, who never became emperor, had the cognomen Caesar. Also if an emperor adopted an heir, he became part of the family and therfore Caesar automatically. So Caesar became a synonyme for heir. And exactly this was a Caesar of the tetrarchy: the heir of the Augustus.
 
Last edited:
Basilius. ERE version of Augustus
Sebastos was the greek term for Augustus, Autokrator for Imperator and Basileos for Rex, a title Octavian would have avoided at all costs since he was very careful to keep up the semblance that the Roman Republic had been restored by him as merely the first citizen (primus inter pares) and any titles contradicting this appearance would in all likelyhood have gotten him killed.
 
Because Caesar was a cognomen and therfeore became part of the families name of an emperor. Even Germanicus and Britannicus, who never became emperor, had the cognomen Caesar. Also if an emperor adopted an heir, he became part of the family and therfore Caesar automatically. So Caesar became a synonyme for heir. And exactly this was a Caesar of the tetrarchy: the heir of the Augustus.

Could the title 'Caesar' have become a synonym for "emperor" (instead of "heir") in the way that 'Augustus' was? It would have to be after the Julio-Claudian dynasty, under which 'Caesar' was still a family name rather than a title. At the risk of answering my own question, the more I think about it, the more convinced I am that 'Caesar' would have still become a synonym for "heir" instead of "emperor" for the reasons you mentioned, regardless of whatever honorific title the Senate chose to bestow on Octavian.

It's ironic that in modern times 'Augustus' is typically associated with the first emperor while 'Caesar' is incorrectly used (especially in cinema) as a synonym for "Roman emperor" (examples like 'Gladiator' and 'Attila' come to mind, although I'm sure there's more out there).
 
Sebastos was the greek term for Augustus, Autokrator for Imperator and Basileos for Rex, a title Octavian would have avoided at all costs since he was very careful to keep up the semblance that the Roman Republic had been restored by him as merely the first citizen (primus inter pares) and any titles contradicting this appearance would in all likelyhood have gotten him killed.
In the east,Augustus was commonly referred as Basileus.Of course,none of the official government documents would refer to him as Basileus.
 
Actually, Romulus was proposed by the Senate, but Octavian didn't agree.

Further ideas:

Brutus (Augustus restored the republic, so...)
Princeps as part of the name
Sanctus (holy)
 
Further ideas:

Brutus (Augustus restored the republic, so...)

While Brutus and his accomplices viewed themselves as liberators and restorers of the republic, the pro-Caesarian faction didn't agree. Indeed, as consul Octavian had Brutus and the other assassins declared murderers and enemies of the state. So it would not be in the interest of the Augustan regime for Octavian to take the name of the man who murdered his great-uncle/adoptive father.
 
While Brutus and his accomplices viewed themselves as liberators and restorers of the republic, the pro-Caesarian faction didn't agree. Indeed, as consul Octavian had Brutus and the other assassins declared murderers and enemies of the state. So it would not be in the interest of the Augustan regime for Octavian to take the name of the man who murdered his great-uncle/adoptive father.

I think he was referring to the other Brutus, the one who killed Tarquin The Proud. Though I immediately thought when I saw that that there's no way Octavian would take it, simply because it brings immediate associations with Marcus and Decimus Brutus, Julius Caesar's murderers.

Could Aeneas work? Are there any other titles that would hold the same religious connotations of Augustus?
 
Could Aeneas work? Are there any other titles that would hold the same religious connotations of Augustus?

'Aeneas' seems a bit presumptuous, mostly for the same reasons as 'Romulus'. Both names represented highly famous individuals with "divine" connections according to Roman paganism. To take the name of either seems a bit...much and less tactful than 'Augustus', which was a relatively obscure honorific prior to its bestowing on Octavian, but was also rooted in Rome's traditional religion and republican past. 'Caesar' he could get away with because it was his name by right under Roman law thanks to his adoption as Julius Caesar's son. That he also became known as the "son of a god" as a result of Caesar's deification was an added bonus. But even 'Caesar' was a bit too controversial, especially with the senatorial aristocracy which Octavian needed on his side. Of course 'Caesar' was not dropped, what with still being a powerful name, a family name, and his name by right. But in order to move forward after decades of civil war and political turmoil, both of which Caesar contributed to, Octavian needed a new name to signal a fresh start for Rome and its people -- and possibly even for himself, given his very bloody rise to power as a 'Caesar'.

One idea I just thought of was "Pacator." It means "peacemaker" or "pacifier." After all, he was the bringer of the Pax Romana. And peace was pretty much what he was selling; not a difficult sell either, given all the years of instability and civil wars that made it possible for one man to rise to near absolute power over a civilization that traditionally rejected that kind of government. Probably no to 'Pacator', but IMHO nothing suggested so far seems to make as much sense as 'Augustus' (but that could just be bias on my part). 'Augustus' just makes too much sense for political and religious reasons, although I admit it's easy to see it that way in hindsight.

'Caesar Pacator' ("Caesar the Peacebringer"). I think it has a ring to it, but not as much as 'Caesar Augustus'.

Another option could be 'Magnus'. Pompey comes to mind, yes, but by the time Octavian was left standing as the sole ruler of Rome, he had achieved greatness in his own right so maybe he could have been 'Caesar Magnus' ("Caesar the Great"). Funny enough though, these suggestions of mine actually make 'Augustus' sound even better to me.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems like "Augustus" was the most suitable choice given Octavian's method of ruling: a traditionalist on the surface; de facto king in secret. Among the facets of the justification of his regime were Roman paganism and tradition. He was a devout believer and a staunch traditionalist who "restored the republic." The first could be true; I haven't seen anything in his history to suggest that he had a different religious belief system or secretly didn't believe at all. As to the second, I think he was quite aware of what he was doing -- using the facade of a "restored republic" to legitimize his rule as an autocrat.
 
Last edited:
Top