Was Augustus/Octavian necessary?

This question relies on several assumptions.

Firstly, that the Roman state will be militarily successful in a way that approximates its success as of actual history.

Secondly, that the growth in power of Roman military figures will transform them into warlords over time, again as of actual history.

Thirdly, that this will cause social instability, civil wars from the competition between these warlords, and civil war between those warlords and the state itself.

So, to elaborate the question further, was the extraordinary figure of Octavian representative of the level of talent required to create a newer, stable governmental model for Rome? Could someone of lesser talents, or more focused talents, have managed it? Would civil wars have continued to occur for a longer period of time without his stabilising influence, eventually leading to a much earlier collapse of the proto-Roman Empire?

I suppose additional questions include, would an Imperial system have come into place without Augustus? If not, what would have been a viable and stable alternative given the actual practical realities of the situation, and if yes, how would it have differed without Augustus to found it and codify it?
 
Octavian was a brilliant politician and diplomatist. Without him I could see civil war continuing for several more years until either someone with similar political skills (and military backing) managed to establish peace.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
it could go like Diadochi

Some roman general seize egypt, establish dinasty, settle it with roman military colonies from his soldier. Other seize Hispania, Anatolia, etc.

instead of Roman Empire, we get Romanic age, where Roman culture, military colonies, and way of war spread, but no unified political structure.
 
This question relies on several assumptions.

Firstly, that the Roman state will be militarily successful in a way that approximates its success as of actual history.

Secondly, that the growth in power of Roman military figures will transform them into warlords over time, again as of actual history.

Thirdly, that this will cause social instability, civil wars from the competition between these warlords, and civil war between those warlords and the state itself.

So, to elaborate the question further, was the extraordinary figure of Octavian representative of the level of talent required to create a newer, stable governmental model for Rome? Could someone of lesser talents, or more focused talents, have managed it? Would civil wars have continued to occur for a longer period of time without his stabilising influence, eventually leading to a much earlier collapse of the proto-Roman Empire?

I suppose additional questions include, would an Imperial system have come into place without Augustus? If not, what would have been a viable and stable alternative given the actual practical realities of the situation, and if yes, how would it have differed without Augustus to found it and codify it?
IMO a shift to autocracy was inevitable once Rome came to control the whole Mediterranean. A Graeco-Roman style of city-state government with a military made up of conscripted men of property who bought their own equipment simply did not work.

One of the notable things that both Caesar and Octavian did was to rein in the tax-farmers operating in Asia Province, during the late republic the business class (Equestrian) lobbyists used their clout to essentially loot Asia Province in a way that was completely unsustainable and exacerbated the problems of keeping Mithridates of Pontus in his place.

Also, once the Roman military has by necessity been professionalized by Gaius Marius the legions became more loyal to their commanders than to the Roman state.

it could go like Diadochi

Some roman general seize egypt, establish dinasty, settle it with roman military colonies from his soldier. Other seize Hispania, Anatolia, etc.

instead of Roman Empire, we get Romanic age, where Roman culture, military colonies, and way of war spread, but no unified political structure.
It is interesting to speculate if the empire has become permanently split between Octavian and Antony.
 
Top