How Did Octavian Gain Power In Rome?

How did Octavian gain power over Rome? A question asked on Quora.com and my answer is expanded here.

Octavian was already powerful, by accident of birth, by becoming the inheritor of Caesar's estate and status, and by forming an illegal army from Caesar's veterans which brought him to the attention of the Senate. They wanted him punished, but Cicero persuaded them the youngster would be useful.

At the age of nineteen, on my own initiative and at my own expense, I raised an army by means of which I restored liberty to the republic, which had been oppressed by the tyranny of a faction. For which service the Senate, with complimentary resolutions, enrolled me in its order, in the consulship of Gaius Pansa and Aulus Hirtius, giving me at the same time consular precedence in voting; it also gave me the imperium. As propraetor it ordered me, along with the consuls, "to see that the republic suffered no harm." - Res Gestae (Augustus)

Octavian rose to dominance by manipulation of popularity, by acting against Marc Antony whose association with Egypt made him a traitor in the eyes of the Senate and People of Rome, by defeating the Romano-Egyptian threat to Rome, by annexing Egypt by conquest, and by returning the supreme power he had been awarded to defeat Cleopatra to the Roman state, then by a series of intense negotiations with the Senate.

But please realise Augustus was not powerful in one title. He held a number of magistracies, priesthoods, and privileges that together added up to some serious influence. He was effectively manager of republican government, but never an emperor despite the popularity of that idea. He retained Egypt as his own personal province where the Senate could not legally go, he had direct influence over regions with military garrisons thanks to his senior imperium (right to command an army), but a third of the empire remained under senatorial oversight.

For ten years in succession I was one of the triumvirs for the re-establishment of the constitution. To the day of writing this I have been princeps senatus for forty years. I have been pontifex maximus, augur, a member of the fifteen commissioners for performing sacred rites, one of the seven for sacred feasts, an arval brother, a sodalis Titius, a fetial priest. - Res Gestae (Augustus)

Also please note that descriptions of Augustus changed over time. He was regarded as the saviour of the Republic during his day (which to be fair he was only too keen to encourage), but five hundred years later he was being described as an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy. Little wonder the Middle Ages decided to call him an Emperor however wrong that was.

May it be my privilege to establish the State in a firm and secure position, and reap from that act the fruit that I desire; but only if I may be called the author of the best possible government, and bear with me the hope when I die that the foundations which I have laid for the State will remain unshaken. - Augustus
 

Consul - One of two annually elected senior magistrates of Rome, also originally military commanders of a legion each.

Imperator - Victorious General, described by Cassius Dio and Varro.

Princeps Senatus - First Senator

Propraetor - Former leader

Supreme Power - Not defined by anyone but indicates the powers of a Dictator without the title, which had been abolished by Marc Antony after Caesar's death.

Triumvir - Member of a council but in Octavian's context, a reformer of the state.

Cicero, like Cato before him, tried to raise up one military dynast (Octavian) to destroy another (Antonius),  thinking he could dispose of the young man if he proved intractable.  Like Cato, he failed dismally.  His "dupe" was far more clever and ruthless than Pompieus...or Cicero.

I see that sort of perspective quite a lot, but to be honest, Octavian wasn't entirely as clever as people try to portray him. His success relied heavily on having good men around him and some people do note he wasn't a great army leader.

His earlier career had more to do with obstructing Antony than his own progression. When he had the precise circumstances that many a future Caesar would have died for - to be the last man standing, popular, with liberal powers, and command of a victorious army, what do we hear from Suetonius? That he considered standing down. 

Octavian was lucky that Antony was not such a gifted leader. I do agree Cicero was plotting - yeah well that was Rome after all - but really Octavian seems to fitted in with Cicero's idea rather better than you want to acknowledge. But I don't think Cicero saw Octavian as a servant, more that he recognised why Octavian was so motivated and decided it would be in his interest if Octavian were allowed to be 'useful' further. 

On 5/7/2023 at 9:09 PM, caldrail said:

How did Octavian gain power over Rome?

Something not mentioned is “luck.”

Octavian was a sickly child who was plagued by poor health throughout his life. Octavian managed to live a long life, however. This was no small feat in a world where there was such a high mortality rate.

Octavian was also lucky to have early in his life two essential friends: Agrippa and Maecenas.

Agrippa was crucial in his political advice and his military expertise in defeating Marc Antony. Agrippa was also crucial for many civil projects (aqueducts, sewage, baths, etc) as Octavian consolidated his power over Rome.

Maecenas was the wealthy patron whose administrative skills were needed to consolidate Octavian’s power. He was also a patron of the arts (Virgil and Horace, for example) who helped to legitimize Octavian’s rule by creating the Augustan mythology.

As mentioned, Octavian was lucky that Antony was either foolish or incompetent in military and political matters. Antony, for example, lost more than 30,000 needed and irreplaceable troops  pursuing a foolish war against Parthia. Antony also alienated potential allies in both Rome and the military with his relationship with Cleopatra.

So, “luck” also played an important role in Octavian’s successful rule over Rome.

Ah, but Augustus did not rule. Personal rule over the citizens of Rome was the same as monarchy, the same as enslavement, the same as tyranny, the entire rationale that the Republic had been formed to avoid. Now I can't deny the sum total of his titles, magistracies, and privileges were pretty influential to say the least, but remember he reformed the Senate. He reformed the military. He obstructed irregularities in democracy though I accept not everyone will see that as having been positive, and he sought to create a strong foundation for the Republic.

Yes, that's right, you read it here first. The idea he swept away the Republic and started some kind of imperialist 'empire' is basically bullshit invented by later Roman writers whose government in their own day was more autocratic and so they simply described Augustus in terms of their own experience without analysing changes in Roman society. During Augustus' lifetime, he was hailed as Saviour of the Republic (and I do concede he encouraged such a view). By the tiome Zosimus wrote about him in the 6th century Dominate, Augustus had become an absolute monarch who abolished the aristocracy.

Little wonder the Middle Ages invented the term 'Emperor' to describe the 'Victorious Generals' who led Rome.

Augustus himself stated in one of his edicts that his influence was the 'fruit of his labour'. Well, if running the empire wasn't the actual work he was up to, what was it? He remained true to his promise of ensuring the Republic would come to no harm. If that meant Rome must accept a certain level of leadership to maintain good order and prosperity, so be it, but the Julio-Claudian dynasty wasn't supposed to be about ruling the empire, it was supposed to be about preventing conflict for power.

If you read the sources carefully, there was a number of people trying to grab power of Rome besides the usual players we read about. Augustus knew this.