Technically the republic didn’t die. It was greatly changed. Octavian didn’t create a single title of emperor. He had a slew of political, religious, military, and honorific titles (Augustus being one of them) that gave him sole power in Rome. The senate continued on under the emperor although it gradually lost influence. Especially during the crisis of the third century, where barracks emperors and their armies were the true power. Diocletian turned the empire into an official military autocracy. In fact the senate would outlast the western emperors by over a century.
Even long after Rome had become an autocratic empire, the citizens of Rome continued to believe that they lived in a republic. If you had asked them what their government is they would have told you that it was a republic with no king.
Fun Fact: Allegedly during the Battle of Abritus in 251 Emperor Decius’s son, Herennius Etruscus, was killed, and upon hearing of it Decius said, “Let no one mourn. The death of one soldier is not a great loss to the Republic.”
I would go as far as to claim that the Roman Empire was NOT a monarchy at all, or at least it wasn’t at first.
I would argue that from 27 BC to AD 284, the Roman Empire was Family-Military Dictatorship.
This system combines a Military Dictatorship with a Family Dictatorship.
In this system, the state is under the complete control of the military whose leader holds absolute power with said leadership being decided by familial relation to the current leader.
It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power in 284 that Rome became a true Monarchy, and it wasn’t until Constantine the Great unified the country in 324 that the Monarchy became Hereditary.
If you want a modern example of this look up the Somoza Dynasty of Nicaragua. They ruled that nation from 1936 to 1979.
Yup. At first it was the principate, where the senate still had some power and influence. It was the republic but with the princeps at the helm with a hell of a lot of power. It was a very much a benevolent dictatorship.
Then Diocletian turned it into a true military autocracy in the form of the dominate. Although I wouldn’t argue that it was Constantine that made it hereditary, dynasties had been a thing since the beginning.
and it wasn’t until Constantine the Great unified the country in 324 that the Monarchy became Hereditary.
Just because the control of it switches from different Houses doesn't mean it wasn't an empire with a monarch.
There are many Houses that have been in charge of the British crown. Same with the Chinese dynasties. Power swaps don't fundamentally change the nature of the government.
The Republic died with Octavian beating Antony at Actium. Pure consolidation of power is not a republic anymore. Yes, the senate still existed. But who cares, it was entirely toothless. That's like saying Napoleon wasn't an emperor because he kept around the French parliament... they got to decide nothing.
They were generals that were declared emperor (some successfully and others not so much) by their soldiers during the crisis of the third century. From the death of Alexander Severus to the rise of Diocletian (himself a barracks emperor) there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Augustus held many titles such as princeps (his main title and where we get prince from) and imperator (basically general, where we get emperor from) as well as consular authority wherever he was. He created the principate.
Diocletian ended the time when the senate had power with his reforms a and reformed the empire into the dominate where it was a true miltary autocracy.
there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Can't remember if this was the period where 1 of them just bought the emperorship from the Praetorians or if that was 1 during the Year of the Five Emperors.
No problem, the crisis isn’t often talked about in school. For me (iirc, it’s been about 6 years) once we got past the five good emperor the rest just gets glossed over with only Constantine and a few others being brought up before the fall...of the west, they never talk about the very successful east.
The sixty includes a lot of men who claimed to be emperor but are not recognized as true emperors and are instead labeled as usurpers. But it was like 50-60 in fifty years.
Technically the republic didn’t die. It was greatly changed. Octavian didn’t create a single title of emperor. He had a slew of political, religious, military, and honorific titles (Augustus being one of them) that gave him sole power in Rome. The senate continued on under the emperor although it gradually lost influence. Especially during the crisis of the third century, where barracks emperors and their armies were the true power. Diocletian turned the empire into an official military autocracy. In fact the senate would outlast the western emperors by over a century.
Even long after Rome had become an autocratic empire, the citizens of Rome continued to believe that they lived in a republic. If you had asked them what their government is they would have told you that it was a republic with no king.
Fun Fact: Allegedly during the Battle of Abritus in 251 Emperor Decius’s son, Herennius Etruscus, was killed, and upon hearing of it Decius said, “Let no one mourn. The death of one soldier is not a great loss to the Republic.”
Very true. And yeah I’ve heard that quote before, very sad but epic.
I would go as far as to claim that the Roman Empire was NOT a monarchy at all, or at least it wasn’t at first.
I would argue that from 27 BC to AD 284, the Roman Empire was Family-Military Dictatorship.
This system combines a Military Dictatorship with a Family Dictatorship.
In this system, the state is under the complete control of the military whose leader holds absolute power with said leadership being decided by familial relation to the current leader.
It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power It wasn’t until Diocletian came to power in 284 that Rome became a true Monarchy, and it wasn’t until Constantine the Great unified the country in 324 that the Monarchy became Hereditary.
If you want a modern example of this look up the Somoza Dynasty of Nicaragua. They ruled that nation from 1936 to 1979.
Yup. At first it was the principate, where the senate still had some power and influence. It was the republic but with the princeps at the helm with a hell of a lot of power. It was a very much a benevolent dictatorship.
Then Diocletian turned it into a true military autocracy in the form of the dominate. Although I wouldn’t argue that it was Constantine that made it hereditary, dynasties had been a thing since the beginning.
Just because the control of it switches from different Houses doesn't mean it wasn't an empire with a monarch.
There are many Houses that have been in charge of the British crown. Same with the Chinese dynasties. Power swaps don't fundamentally change the nature of the government.
The Republic died with Octavian beating Antony at Actium. Pure consolidation of power is not a republic anymore. Yes, the senate still existed. But who cares, it was entirely toothless. That's like saying Napoleon wasn't an emperor because he kept around the French parliament... they got to decide nothing.
They were generals that were declared emperor (some successfully and others not so much) by their soldiers during the crisis of the third century. From the death of Alexander Severus to the rise of Diocletian (himself a barracks emperor) there were like 60 legitimate and illegitimate emperors.
Augustus held many titles such as princeps (his main title and where we get prince from) and imperator (basically general, where we get emperor from) as well as consular authority wherever he was. He created the principate.
Diocletian ended the time when the senate had power with his reforms a and reformed the empire into the dominate where it was a true miltary autocracy.
Can't remember if this was the period where 1 of them just bought the emperorship from the Praetorians or if that was 1 during the Year of the Five Emperors.
That was the year of the five emperors, Julian or something.
No problem, the crisis isn’t often talked about in school. For me (iirc, it’s been about 6 years) once we got past the five good emperor the rest just gets glossed over with only Constantine and a few others being brought up before the fall...of the west, they never talk about the very successful east.
The sixty includes a lot of men who claimed to be emperor but are not recognized as true emperors and are instead labeled as usurpers. But it was like 50-60 in fifty years.