The path to the principate

Early Empire

Mark Antony’s unwilling contribution

Mark Antony (83–30 BC) was a Roman general and statesman. Mark's mother was Julia of the Julii family, and his father was Antony "the Cretan". In 74 BC, Antony's father was commissioned as praetor to clear the Mediterranean of pirates, in which he was unsuccessful but attacked Crete and its inhabitants, hence the pejorative nickname "the Cretan" after his death. Mark Antony, who was only 12 years old at the time of his father's death (71 BC), inherited from him a tarnished name and a fatherless upbringing in relative poverty. Julia, too quickly for Roman custom, married Publius Cornelius Lentulius Sura, a patrician from the Cornelian family, who had been expelled from the Senate for immorality in 70 BC. He returned to the Senate in 63 BC, becoming praetor, but the disgrace he experienced put him on the side of Catalina's conspirators. He was executed as a traitor that same year. The grandfathers on both sides of Antony had close ties to the Senate and the old aristocratic elite and belonged to Sulla's party. Both were killed by the Marius.

Antony's uncle, Gaius Antonius, who was co-consul with Cicero, and who "flirted" with the Cataline conspiracy, and his stepfather, who died on the side of that conspiracy, had a greater influence on Antony's political views in his youth than the previous generation. It can be assumed how growing up in such a situation shaped Antony's character, but what is reliably known from the sources is that in his youth he associated with people of dissolute character, such as Gaius Scribonius Curio and Publius Clodius Pulcher. Curio and Antony were inseparable, and Plutarch mentions how the two of them went out together to satisfy their needs through drink, women, and gambling, leaving Antony deeply in debt. Antony himself was so deeply in debt that he refused an inheritance from his father because it would have meant taking on his father's debts, which were large in amount.

Antony collaborated with Clodius and his gang of people who were actually very poor optimates, like Antony himself, who were furious with the current aristocratic elite in the Senate who had all the wealth and with whom they were in debt. The participation of Antony's stepfather in the Catiline conspiracy only strengthened Antony's political ambitions, realizing that any chance for change could only lie with the populares. After Clodius became the weapon of the triumvirs to maintain or disrupt order in the streets, Antony's path to the triumvirs was opened. At the age of 25, in 58 BC, tired of Clodius's way of life, he went to Greece to study oratory and train himself to become a soldier. In the same year, Aulus Gabinius, then proconsul, arrived, sailing for Syria, and appointed Antony as commander of the cavalry under his command. On Gabinius' recommendation, he joined Caesar's staff during the Gallic Wars, and Caesar gained an excellent soldier and follower from him. During the civil war in Rome (49-45 BC), at the Battle of Pharsalus (48 BC), Antony proved himself as a leader, and was appointed commander of the cavalry by Caesar, and when the Fifth Consulate was established, he became consul. Caesar's assassination in March 44 BC represents the second stage in Antony's life. Antony's action against Aemilius Lepidus and the Caesar assassins was a politically ingenious move by which he prevented further bloodshed and preserved the Roman state. On the other hand, his charismatic power to rouse the crowd at Caesar's funeral, which began a lynching against the Caesar assassins, Antony's non-intervention at that moment, and leaving the task to the consul Dolabella, sent a clear message about his current power. With the acquisition of Caesar's notebooks, he finds himself in a position to interpret Caesar's decisions on laws to be voted on in the Senate, appointments in the Senate, to manipulate them to his advantage and de facto become a tyrant.

On the other hand, despite this policy of conciliation, Mark Antony found himself in a stalemate. Although he provides the veterans with money and land to maintain their loyalty to him, and reaches an agreement with the main supporters of that party, he creates discontent within Caesar's party because of his attitude towards the Caesar assassins. Antony could not classify himself among the Caesar-killers – that was impossible – but they could not be dismissed just like that while his consulship was still in force, and it had been previously decided that the Caesar assassins would not be tried due to the Senate's decision. Brutus and Cassius had to leave Rome and it was obvious that they were unable to do anything at that moment – ​​Antony was at the height of his power – but he had to find a way to resolve this situation very quickly. In May 44 BC, Octavian appeared, disrupting Antony's image as the only possible successor to Caesar, and it was revealed that Octavian also wanted to claim the position of leader of the Caesarian party. The Caesar assassins, who were then in a very unfavorable position due to Antony's maneuvering, found in Octavian an opportunity to seduce the leaders of the Caesarian party and create an internal war between Antony and Octavian. This was the policy that Cicero pursued, hoping to buy time for Brutus and Cassius, and the other conspirators, to reorganize and return to Rome in triumph. Octavian, wary, clearly seeing that his position as Caesar's successor was precarious, found an ally in Cicero. Before meeting Antony, he went to Cicero to strike up a friendship. At the time of their meeting, Antony saw in Octavian nothing more than a boy trying to seize power he did not deserve. Octavian demanded that Antony hand over the money he was supposed to inherit, but Antony refused his request. This meeting is permeated by Antony's underestimation of Octavian's ambitions, and this impression will last a long time despite Octavian's subsequent successes. This shows the complexity of Antony's task, as he must balance his receptiveness to both sides in order to maintain his supremacy. In contrast, Octavian wants to attract Caesar's supporters, dissatisfied with Antony's policies, to his side.

Ironically, Antony at this moment shows himself to be an excellent politician, who, despite great difficulties, manages to implement a program that gives him the most favorable position. He expelled the Caesar assassins but still had to be formally consul of the Roman Republic and the Senate, and in order to maintain friendship, he had to act on some matters that, according to Caesar's soldiers, were very unpopular. Although Antony found himself in a difficult situation, he proved to be a capable statesman. Octavian was cautious, and he showed that he could make political maneuvering the situation, but at this point Antony is proving to be a much more capable (and experienced) politician. After Antony's consulship expired, Antony ordered that he be given the territories from which he would be in a position to militarily control Rome. According to Caesar's scribes, Antony was to receive Macedonia and 6 of Caesar's legions that were preparing there for a campaign against the Parthians, but Antony soon replaced Macedonia with Cisalpine Gaul and other Gallic provinces because they were closer to Rome. Antony's political instinct was correct at this point - he who controls northern Italy is in a position, as Caesar was in 49 BC, to intervene in Roman affairs whenever he wishes. This province should have belonged to Decimus Brutus but due to the activities of Antony he was transferred to Macedonia which, deprived of its legions, was completely empty. Brutus and Cassius, who were without legions and without political power, were given the administration of Crete and Cyrene. With this, Antony made the first real break with the Caesar-assassins, clearly declaring by this action that it was he who was trying to control Rome. This break was necessary, because at a time when Octavian was competing with Antony for power over the Caesarian party, and the Caesar-assassins could not be allowed to gather strength, this sharp break was inevitable if Antony wanted to preserve his position among Caesar's soldiers which he was slowly beginning to lose. Cicero recognized that the situation was getting worse, that Decimus Brutus would not agree to move from northern Italy to Macedonia and that Antony could only be opposed at that moment by Octavian. Antony, who had obtained permission to govern Cisalpine Gaul by plebiscite and with the remainder of the Macedonian army that remained loyal to him (two legions had deserted him out of dissatisfaction with him and joined Octavian), set out for that province. Therefore, a state of war was declared because the Senate had not authorized him to enter Cisalpine Gaul, which had been assigned to Decimus Brutus by decision of this body, and take over the government there. With this, Antony opposed the Senate, and thus Cicero. Cicero led the Senate to oppose Antony, to have Brutus and Cassius given Macedonia and Syria, with Cassius waging war against Dolabella who after the consulship went to govern Syria, which he had won by plebiscite like Antony.

Antony's instinct in choosing the provinces was correct - but the moment was not. He considered that having control of the army, he also had control of the Senate. What Antony did not see at this time was that the Senate had the ability to offer him resistance. First, Decimus Brutus refused to leave the province, and raised some legions. Antony underestimated the extent of Octavian's influence, considering that when he arrived at Brindisi, two legions deserted him in favor of Octavian, denouncing Antony's soft policy towards the Caesar assassins. Nevertheless, he still considered that with control of Cisalpine Gaul, and the strength of his remaining legions, the resistance of Decimus and the Senate would be resolved. However, he also underestimated Cicero's influence, who very quickly, despite Piso's speeches persuaded the Senate to declare a state of war and oppose Antony. Antony now found himself in a situation similar to that of Caesar after crossing the Rubicon. Octavian began to gather an army, which was illegal, entered Rome, and publicly declared that he would wage war against Antony and avenge his father's honor – to Cicero's dismay. He later had to leave the city, because Antony's troops entered Rome to expel him. Antony wanted to declare Octavian an enemy of the state for this, but in vain. Cicero provided a legal basis for Octavian to have command of the army. Octavian and the two new consuls, Hirtius and Pansa, set out in 43 BC to intercept Mark Antony in his siege of Mutina, and to help Decimus Brutus. Cicero, realizing that he was in a disadvantageous situation, managed to convince the Senate not to accept the compromises that Antony offered. Cicero's policy was successful - he divided the Caesarians into open conflict. Antony underestimated Cicero the most, who managed to achieve all this on his own, despite the fact that he had no help from Brutus, or Cassius, or any other famous Caesar’s assassins, but managed to realize it all with his oratory skills and political influence.

At Mutina, Antony was defeated, and both consuls who participated in that battle were killed. With the news of this victory, but also taking into account the death of both consuls in battle against the enemy, Cicero could officially declare Antony an enemy of the state. On the other hand, all the glory should have gone to Octavian. He did not pursue Antony - Antony managed to sneak away with his legions and escape to the Alps. There he managed to reorganize, with the influx of new soldiers from Aemilius Lepidus who surrendered to Antony without a fight. Antony, regardless of his previous political stance, was loved by the soldiers, and especially during the retreat over the Alps he showed his military virtue. However, Antony was in luck - as it turned out, there was also Octavian's dissatisfaction with the outcome. The Senate refused to elevate the young Octavian to the consulship, while Decimus Brutus vied for the right to the triumph that Octavian considered he deserved. Cicero sensed that Octavian's wishes would not be granted, and that the alliance would collapse. With 8 legions Octavian re-entered Rome, abandoning the side of the conspirators and with a pact of non-aggression made with Antony. Cicero's ambition to divide the Caesarians and overthrow them from within was ultimately unsuccessful. Antony experienced an excellent combination of circumstances that allowed him to recover from the defeat at Mutina. Things might have been different if, in addition to Octavian, Cicero had another army - but he played his cards too boldly and failed to fully complete what he had successfully begun. The Senate thought that with Antony's defeat they could also execute Octavian, but this cost them dearly. Cicero might have been successful if Brutus and Cassius had been there with their legions and had united to try to destroy Octavian and Antony – but they were not there. Cicero and the conspirators in the East disagreed on strategy, with the latter believing that they should simply leave Antony and Octavian to fight each other and that the situation would resolve itself. With Octavian's entry into Rome, and the previously agreed pact at Bononia, Antony, Lepidus, and the young Octavian defeated the anti-Caesarist party in Rome. Immediately the Senate's decisions were revoked - the decision to declare Dolabella an enemy was annulled, and the amnesty granted to Brutus and Cassius was also revoked. This finally set off the conflict towards the East. In the previously mentioned agreement in Bononia, it was decided that Lepidus would remain in Italy, and that Antony and Octavian would set out on a campaign against Brutus and Cassius.

I have focused on these events following Caesar's death up to the Battle of Philippi, in order to highlight some important moments that I believe can help to reveal the answers to why Mark Antony would later suffer defeat against Octavian. Specifically, in this second period we see Antony trying to establish himself as the supreme commander of Caesar's party, someone who is on the verge of becoming a tyrant. But in this period we can also see some specific mistakes that he made in his judgment of his enemies, and that a pattern can be seen here that will later be repeated. I believe that Antony first of all underestimated his enemies, and that with simplified thinking, believing that having an army was enough to seize control of the Senate, he embarked on something that almost cost him his life. This was not a gamble, but a misstep, partly based on correct assumptions, but partly flawed in execution. He was not Caesar—he thought he could carry on as if nothing had changed. But the legions loved Caesar, a man who had won victories in Gaul and the East, a man who had given them land, and who had stood by them in Africa and Spain. Mark Antony could not be Caesar after Caesar. Antony had overestimated his influence—he thought the legions would be as unquestionably loyal to him as they had been to Caesar. This illusion is most clearly shattered when he arrives at Brindisi, after the legions have scolded him for his policy towards the Caesar-killers. The world is a different place than it was when Caesar was alive. He underestimated his enemies, Cicero and Octavian in particular, and if the communication between the Caesar assassins had been stronger, the situation would have been completely different. He underestimated Octavian, who quickly got the hang of it, and proved himself to be much more powerful and cunning than he had appeared when Antony first saw him in Pompey's gardens. In the end, we see how badly Antony had misjudged his situation - in this instance, he was lucky that one of his opponents did not have an army he could fully rely on. His other opponent, Octavian, who had outwitted both him and Cicero, would prove to be much more serious. Antony lacked the abilities that Caesar possessed - and Octavian, who never aspired to be one, surpassed Caesar where the latter was weak, and it was precisely this ability of Octavian to develop and advance that was his greatest strength.

Everything else after was a logical sequence of events - after the battle of Philippi, Antony's rule in the East was the fulfillment of his desire for power, passions and pleasures, together with a persistent tendency to underestimate Octavian.

The victor of the battle of Philippi had witnessed Octavian's incompetence on the battlefield, and as a true soldier, he considered Octavian's claim to be Caesar's successor to be truly unfounded because he lacked the qualities that Caesar, and he himself, possessed - martial ability and virtue. However, since Antony could only see Octavian in this light, this was the reason for his defeat. Antony's time in the East also caused him to lose the warrior instincts he had possessed before Philip - his relationship with Cleopatra, his lavish life in the East, and his indifference to political developments in the West, most notably in his failure to assist his brother Lucius Antony and his wife Fulvia in their rebellion against Octavian when he was at his weakest. If Antony had considered Octavian a serious opponent, he would have been attentive to developments there - Octavian was given the administration of starving provinces and soldiers demanding land, which Octavian could only provide by seizing land from Italian landowners. This led to a revolt of the Italian cities, which was exploited by Antony's brother Gaius Lucius, who was then consul, and Fulvia, his wife. They did this in the name of Antony while he was having fun in Alexandria, and on the eastern frontier the Parthian cavalry was preparing. Antony, however, knew nothing of what was happening in Italy or on the eastern frontiers.22 He was first surprised by the news that his wife and brother had turned against Octavian, who had then defeated them at Perugia. Lucius and Fulvia were pardoned, and Antony sailed for Italy. Fulvia, who had been instigating the conflict, urged Antony to form an alliance with the powerful man of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, Sextus Pompey, son of Gaius Pompey, to attack Octavian together. Antony's ships, waiting off Brundisium, reinforced by ships that had recently gone over to his side under Domitius Ahenobarbus, were opposed by by Octavian's legions on land. Sextus Pompey and Octavian were slowly approaching, and it seemed as if a clash would ensue, in which Antony's numerically superior forces would win a certain victory. However, Fulvia died after this, which calmed the tensions.

After long negotiations, an agreement was reached at Brundisium in which the triumvirate was restored. Antony and Octavian ruled the East and West, while Lepidus ruled Africa - Antony married Octavian's sister, Octavia, and Octavian provided him with the troops he owed him. Antony hurried back to the East, as the situation on the border had worsened during his stay in Alexandria and his absence. The Parthian army, led by Quintus Labienus, son of Titus Labienus, Caesar's former lieutenant who had betrayed him in the civil war, invaded and attacked Antony's territories. The oversight in Antony's policy that occurred here might have been avoided if his political instincts had not been blunted during his stay in Egypt with Cleopatra. The communication problems that existed between his brother, Antony's wife, and Antony himself might have been alleviated if Antony had been aware of what Octavian had been doing in the immediate aftermath of Philip. The measures he took to appease the soldiers were deeply unpopular. The fact is that Antony, being in the East, had a huge lead at the outset of their mutual competition. The advantage of the East was that it possessed vast wealth, unparalleled in the West. Antony could easily raise any army or fleet in the East and add it to his already existing legions. Rome depended on Africa, Egypt and Etruria for grain imports - Antony held Egypt, which was a treasury of grain, and thus kept Octavian in check, while Sextus Pompey plundered Etruscan ports and roads. This was temporarily halted by the agreement at Misenum, but that agreement did not last long. Antony did not use his advantages to establish himself as a superior military leader or statesman. When he needed to prove himself as a military leader, his campaign against the Parthians was a complete failure - he failed to achieve the glorious victory that Caesar had won for himself when he conquered Gaul. On the other hand, Octavian slowly grew stronger, and although he was an untalented general, with the help of his friend Agrippa he defeated Sextus Pompey. When the conflict between the two intensified, Octavian to raise morale among his troops attacked the Illyrians and was also victorious there.

As for Antony's skill as a statesman, after the unsuccessful campaign against the Parthians he increasingly ceded territories throughout the East to Cleopatra and her children, acknowledged Caesarion as Caesar's son, and became increasingly attached to Cleopatra. Antony's pretending to be the "new Dionysus" and Cleopatra's imitation of the goddess Isis in an imitation of a Roman triumph only show how much Antony had changed from the Antony politician of 44 BC. He pretended to be the founder of a new dynasty, that he was king in the East, and began to mint money with his image. All this was used by Octavian to emphasize how Antony has defiled the honor of Octavia, a Roman woman, and that he has left her for an Egyptian woman, that he has become depraved and bewitched by Egypt, that he is no longer a Roman. The genius of Octavian's "propaganda" will be shown in its focus not on Antony - but on Cleopatra, because of whom Antony is bewitched, the queen of Egypt who, in the eyes of the Romans, tried to rule Rome through Antony. Finally, Octavian, to prove it, opened Antony's will and made it public, thus confirming what had long been suspected.

Antony's defeat at the Battle of Actium was not unexpected. As a final proof of how much he underestimated Octavian, the fact that he allowed Octavian's ships to come from southern Italy to Greece, instead of blocking the passage with a fleet that was numerically superior to Octavian's, shows how his severe understatement of Octavian played a huge role in Octavian’s victory, even moreso than Octavian’s own capabilities. It was an illogical move; he engaged in a naval battle with a man who had proven himself in warfare at sea while Antony himself was a much more experienced military leader on land. Convinced by Cleopatra that the battle should be fought at sea, he lost. To answer the question posed, we can go along the path of possible assumptions, what Mark Antony wanted or intended. However, "psychologizing" historical figures is a very "dangerous" path because it can lead us into unfounded assumptions, especially in the case of a figure about whom relatively little has been written, and what has been written has been mostly written by people who were his political opponents. That is why it is better to stick to undoubtedly confirmed data.

The fact is that Antony's character developed in his youth in the shadow of his family. His impetuousness and haste developed through growing up and associating with a gang of "aristocratic robbers". Joining the army provides him with stability and simple rules where he adapts and proves himself very quickly. War under Caesar's leadership brings him fame and reputation among the soldiers, and a relationship of mutual synergy is born. However, with the murder of Caesar, both political space and space in Antony's consciousness open up that he can be Caesar after Caesar. The opening of the will and the appointment of Octavian as the main heir, while completely omitting Antony, "pushes" him into a series of attempts to seize power. The time dimension that was favorable for Octavian, who from a young man becomes a cunning politician and a relatively experienced military commander, does not work in Antony's interests. The episode with Cleopatra shows the magnitude of Antony's political ambition which proved disproportionate to his political abilities. Lulled into a comfortable life in Egypt, he began to manifest his youthful traits of ‘‘debauchery’’ again which Cicero ridiculed in the Philippicae. As such, he could not successfully oppose Octavian, who had meanwhile consolidated his power and was preparing himself to confront Antony.

Augustus

Octavian Augustus (Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus) ruled Rome from 27 BC to 14 AD. His accession to power would mark not only the end of the unrest but also the subsequent transformation of the Roman state, whose republican character would increasingly disappear in favor of the principate, a system founded by Augustus himself and lasting until Diocletian. During his stay in the East, Octavian ensured that it was under stable rule, maintaining the order that the defeated Antony had established there, with minor changes. In 29 BC, he returned to Rome. In 28 BC, Octavian and Marcus Agrippa, both consuls, were granted censorial powers and, during the census, revised the list of senators, expelling senators known for their immoral conduct. In doing so, Octavian reorganized the Senate and returned it to the form in which it had existed before Caesar. The first reason for this was to restore the integrity of the Senate, increasing the prestige of the remaining members of the Senate, whose acquisition of senatorial office could once again be considered a meritocratic achievement. The second reason was to expel the remaining political opposition, whether Republican or pro-Antoninian, that still existed in the ranks of this body. At the top of this new list of senators was Octavian himself. The dilemma of the current state structure remained to be resolved. The choice was either to preserve the republican system or to introduce a monarchical system. Octavian did not opt ​​for the latter, opting to preserve the Republic, at least in name. The decisive event that influenced the further course of Octavian's rule, and which was his response to the aforementioned dilemma, was the reform of 27 BC. It is necessary to relate this reform to the reform of 23 BC, which is the focus of this topic, in order to provide a contextual framework.

On January 13, 27 BC, Octavian announced to the Senate that he was returning all of his triumvirate power to him. The task of the triumvirate was to restore the legal situation within the state, which was done with Octavian at the helm. Therefore, Octavian returned the provinces over which he had control back to the Senate for administration. This led to a protest from the Senate itself, which begged Octavian not to give up power and leave the state he had saved from disorder. The "surrender" of power was an event that Octavian had arranged in advance, knowing that the Senate depended on him and his legions for the stability of the state. By an agreement from 27 BC between him and the Senate, Octavian took over the administration of the border areas where the majority of the Roman army was located. These were the Spanish and Gallic provinces and Syria, which were to be under his administration for a period of 10 years, after which he would return them to the Senate for administration. These territories were on the borders, and it was necessary to pacify them or secure them in case of incursions by the Parthians or Germanic tribes into their territory. With this, Octavian did not directly threaten the center of the Roman state, as his predecessors from northern Italy had done, thus facilitating cooperation between himself and the Senate, while at the same time presenting himself as the protector of the Roman state. Three days after this, he was again proclaimed consul and his name was changed to Augustus. His position was supported by the formal powers granted to him by the Senate, but Augustus' real power lay in his army, which he had financed, made a stable and loyal head of state, through a large number of patronages between himself and rising senators, and in the great wealth he possessed. In late 24 BC, Augustus participated in the trial of Marcus Antonius Primus, proconsul of Macedonia, who had invaded the Odrysian kingdom without authorization. He claimed that Augustus or his nephew, Marcus Claudius Marcellus, had given him the authority to invade the Thracian kingdom, and Augustus testified that he did not do something that Marcellus could not do. Prima was convicted, but it was revealed during the trial that a conspiracy had been hatched against Augustus – Prima's lawyer, Licinius Varro Murena, together with Fanius Caepio, wanted to restore the republican authority that they believed Augustus was suppressing. Murena and Caepio were tried.

These were the circumstances that led Augustus to enact a new reform. Another republican rebellion was not allowed to happen, and Augustus' successive consulships were annoying to many republicans. Therefore, Augustus renounced the consulate, and a new reform of government took place, namely the reform of 23 BC. With this reform, Augustus received two powers that formed the core of not only his own, but also of the power of future emperors during the principate. First, there was imperium maius – unlimited imperium, i.e. unlimited rule over all armies from all regions of the Roman Empire. All proconsuls thus effectively became Augustus’s, or the emperor’s legates, because the proconsular imperium was subordinate to the great imperium of the Roman emperor. On the other hand, the authority tribunicia potestas. Thus, the emperor had all the tribunician power, which was lifelong and inalienable. With this authority, he had the right to participate in the sessions of the Senate, he had the right to debate and propose laws at every session of the Senate. However, Augustus, with his patrician origin, could not become a plebeian tribune. Magistrates were elected by the Senate, but later the emperor would take over the role of electing magistrates, and in the judiciary he could even judge himself if he deemed it necessary. With the tribunate, a direct link was established between the Roman people and the emperor - where the emperor, with the powers he has, represents the interests of the people, and with the powers he possesses, becomes the supreme ruler.

These are the main features of the principate, the development of which can be seen in two phases: the first phase, when power in the state was divided between the Senate and the princeps, and the second phase, when that power passes completely into the hands of the princeps, and the Senate and other state bodies become dependent on him.

Foreign policy

Augustus' foreign policy determined the future policy of the Roman state in relation to its neighbors. From 35 to 31 BC, Augustus was one of the contenders for power over the Roman state. During this period, the goal of his foreign policy was to defeat his rivals in the struggle for power. This period ended with the defeat of Antony at Actium in 31 BC. In the following period, from 31 BC to 14 AD, Augustus' foreign policy was no longer the foreign policy of only Italy or Gaul, but of the entire Roman state. The following two phases can be distinguished here: from 27–6 BC is the period of expansionism towards the West and the consolidation of borders towards the East; and the period from 6–14 1 BC, when the foundations for a long-term foreign policy of Rome, based on the defense of the borders, were laid. The year 35 BC marks the end of Octavian's war with Sextus Pompey, or as he says in Res Gestae divi Augusti: "I have freed the sea from the robbers". The conflict with Sextus Pompey was inevitable. The son of the defeated Pompey, with Sicily, Corsica and Sardinia, clashed with Octavian, disrupting his supply chains. The alliance with Antony was already unstable, as the war in Perusia shows, and the opportunity for Sextus and Antony to unite and crush Octavian was about to come true. After a temporary peace, the conflict between Octavian and Sextus broke out again in 39/38. BC. Octavian attacked Sicily with two fleets – one sailed from Etruria, the other from Tarentum 5 . Two battles followed: in the battle of Cumae no one was victorious, and at Messina Octavian was defeated. Riots broke out in Rome and in Italy, and Octavian was forced to defend Italy in case Pompey came to the Italian mainland. Pompey, however, did not use this opportunity to defeat Octavian, who was in a very unfavorable situation. This allowed Octavian to reorganize and prepare a new campaign. To this end, he invited Agrippa to come back from Gaul to Italy to lead a new campaign against Sextus. The Treaty of Tarentum in 37 BC, between Antony and Octavian, gave Octavian a new opportunity – Octavian gave Antony troops to campaign against the Parthians, and Antony, in return, gave him enough ships to once again oppose Sextus. The second campaign against Sextus began in 36 BC. Sextus Pompey, who was in Sicily, was attacked by Octavian from three sides. Despite Octavian being defeated again at the beginning of the campaign, Agrippa managed to surround Sextus and defeat him at the Battle of Naulocha, thus ending Pompey's rebellion against the triumvirs. He attempted to defect to Asia Minor, but upon arriving there, Sextus Pompey, the last of the republicans, was killed.

Octavian secured himself in the West with his victory over Sextus Pompey – Lepidus' short-lived rebellion did not disrupt his plans. This victory over Sextus Pompey, although not considered an achievement of Octavian's foreign policy in the period, provides a template for Octavian/Augustus' future campaigns and foreign policy in general. He no longer personally led his future campaigns, but instead his legates and generals subordinate to him – most often Agrippa, later others. The days when he personally led an army, as was the case at Mutina, Philip or Perusia, quickly faded from memory. Octavian no longer took risks, but entered into conflicts calculatedly. Incursions into enemy territories were only approved if they had a carefully thought out strategy and a clear objective. Signs of this were visible in his second campaign in Sicily. After the failure he experienced in the first phase of that campaign, Octavian approached the whole matter more carefully, and Agrippa's role in resolving Sextus' resistance, as well as Sextus' indecision, was significant. Since it was a war between him and Sextus Pompey, it showed what Octavian was like as a military leader – not a particularly talented, but a very prudent strategist. Before facing Antony, Octavian had launched a campaign in what is now Dalmatia against the Illyrians. The Illyrians in Dalmatia had been assisting Pompey in the civil war against Caesar, which had cast doubt on their loyalty to Octavian. There was a possibility, as they had previously against Caesar, that they might rebel against Caesar's successor. Most importantly for Octavian, their region, which was north of Macedonia, could serve as an excellent stronghold from which Antony's territories would be in sight of Octavian's legions. There was also a reason for the war - Aulus Gabinius, who, after Caesar's victory at Pharsalus. passing through Dalmatia was ambushed by them and defeated. On this occasion, the Illyrians captured the war standards of that army, and subsequent punitive campaigns were unsuccessful. Octavian took advantage of this and entered Dalmatia (35–33 BC), conquered places in Pannonia and along the coast towards the Adriatic Sea, and then went out to the Danube. The conquests in Dalmatia and Pannonia were not permanent or extensive. The purpose of pacifying those regions was strategic - it was necessary for Octavian's legions to have unhindered passage through those territories, for Octavian to present himself as a successful military leader in relation to Antony, and to instill discipline in his legions. The Dalmatians and other Illyrian tribes recognized his authority and obliged to pay taxes. The war banners were returned. Herein lies the virtue of Octavian in relation to his opponent, Antony – his campaign had a modest but effective effect and purpose. It was a reputation for another successful campaign and a sure footing with which, in the event of war, he would defeat his opponent in the East. He did not overdo it in his intention to portray himself as a successful commander by attempting to conquer untamable or vast territories, as Antony had attempted with the Parthians. Octavian's cautious judgment was correct, while Antony, although a more experienced commander, failed to achieve the desired outcome. Considering that one of the most significant foreign policy disputes during Augustus' reign was in Illyria, it can be said that, if any extensive campaign had been planned in this area at that time, it would not have ended so favorably.

The final stage of this period was the conflict with Antony, which ended with Octavian's victory in 31 at Actium. But first came the war of words. Octavian had plenty of material at his disposal - Antony's drunkenness, a theme that was extensively developed in Cicero's Philippics, Antony's neglect of Octavia and complete devotion to Cleopatra, the defeat at Parthia and his "triumph" at Alexandria. Finally, his will, in which he promised Roman territory to Cleopatra and her children, as well as the recognition of Caesarion as Caesar's full heir, was particularly damaging to him. Antony allowed Octavian to portray him as a renegade Roman who, captivated by the Egyptian queen, threatened to seize Rome and subjugate the Roman state to a foreign occupier. Thus Octavian presented the war against Antony as a just war against Cleopatra, who threatened to rule Rome through Antony. Faced with this threat, all of Italy and the other western provinces swore allegiance to fight against the invasion from the East. As Octavian, later Augustus, said: "All of Italy voluntarily swore allegiance to me and asked me to be commander in the war I had won at Actium."

Antony's defeat at the Battle of Actium ended a period of turmoil in the Roman state. This victory made Octavian the most powerful man in Rome, setting the course for future Roman foreign policy. The last war of the Roman Republic (32–30 BC) ended with the annexation of Egypt under Octavian's personal rule. Provinces such as Asia, which included the western part of Asia Minor, and included cities such as Pergamon and Ephesus, Bithynia-Pontus, which included the northern part of Asia Minor and overlooked the Black Sea, and Syria, which bordered Parthia, formed the backbone of the order that Antony had established in the East and that Octavian had maintained. Octavian would take up the pattern of establishing vassal states, begun in the time of Antony, and establish it as the main feature of Roman (and future Byzantine) foreign policy towards the Parthians, later the Sassanids. A good example is Commagene, which was located between Syria and Parthia, where Octavian installed a vassal ruler. Armenia became a key factor in the relationship between the Romans and the Persians. Whoever had control over Armenia, which was neither a Roman province nor a Persian satrapy, through vassal rulers, also had supremacy over all strategic routes leading to Media and Mesopotamia or to Asia Minor and Syria. With this reorientation of Roman foreign policy under Augustus, the focus shifted from the pursuit of conquest against Persia, which had been the main feature of previous Roman generals from Crassus to Antony, to border maintenance and general restraint towards the Parthians and later the Sassanids. Offensive wars during Augustus's reign were shifted from the Parthian frontier to Arabia and Ethiopia, whose objectives were exclusively material and geopolitical. Thus, the policy of creating vassal states towards Persia and proxy wars persisted into the Byzantine era. Such a relationship, with a few exceptions, would last until 628 AD, when both empires, the Sassanid and the East Roman, would be checked by the rising power of the Arabs.

Augustus resolved the Parthian question through diplomacy. A treaty was concluded with Phraates IV (38/37–2 BC), king of kings, who was constantly under threat of being overthrown by his brother, Tiridates. Phraates returned to the Romans the standards that had been seized after Crassus and Antony's campaigns in Parthia, and Augustus surrendered Tiridates, who had fled to Rome after a failed coup attempt to seize power in Parthia. Three years after the surrender, in 20 BC, he regained his battle standards. Tiberius was most responsible for this, who, after the campaign in Spain, moved to the East to intervene in the Armenian question. Namely, with the death of Artavazdes II (55–34 BC), whom Mark Antony had deposed from the throne due to the failure of the Parthian campaign, it became controversial who would succeed him in Armenia. Artavazdes' son, Artaxes II, managed to escape from captivity in Alexandria and found refuge with the Parthians, from where, with the help of Phratas, he took the throne of Armenia in 34 and ruled until 20 BC. His policy was anti-Roman and very cruel. Artaxes was deposed and killed in 20 BC, and Tiberius, summoned by Augustus, entered Armenia through Syria and handed over the throne to Tigranes III (20–8 BC), another son of Artavazdes. For this, Augustus staged a triumph, presenting this as the conquest of Armenia and the subjugation of the Parthians to the Roman will. As mentioned earlier, Armenia was not actually conquered, but rather was ruled by a vassal king loyal to Rome. The status of Armenia would fluctuate from ruler to ruler – after the death of Tigranes III, he was succeeded by his son, Tigranes IV, who ruled jointly with his sister, Erato, by siding with the Parthians. It took the intervention of Augustus' grandson, Gaius Iulius, to restore a new king loyal to Rome to the throne of Armenia.

The first campaign that Augustus led in the West after his victory against Antony was in Spain. Since Augustus, through the reform of 27 BC, had been given proconsular administration over Spain, Gaul, and Syria, which were large but unstable areas, he immediately left Rome and went to Spain to stabilize that province. Augustus was in Spain from 27 to 24 BC. The war against the warlike Spanish tribes, the Asturians and Cantabrians, who had rebelled against the Roman yoke, in the unfamiliar and mountainous terrain of northern Spain was extremely difficult for the Roman legions. Even after the Roman legions had succeeded in conquering the aforementioned tribes, they rose up against them again. Just a year after arriving in Spain, Augustus fell ill and withdrew to Tarragona – it took 4 years after Augustus' return to Rome (23 BC) for Agrippa to completely conquer and pacify the region, in 19 BC. Thus the remaining areas of Spain not previously under Roman rule were conquered, and Spain itself was then divided into three provinces – Baetica, which was under the rule of the Senate, and the other two, Tarragona and Lusitania, that remained under the rule of Augustus. During his stay in Spain, Augustus sent Aulus Terentius Varro Murena, the adopted brother of Lucius Licinius Varro Murena, to conquer the Salasi, an Aliguri-Celtic tribe living in the Alps, in 25 BC. Part of the tribe was exterminated, and another part was sold into slavery. This marked the beginning of slow Roman expansionism towards the north. Augustus's goal was to conquer the Thracian and Celtic tribes south of the Danube, and the Germanic tribes west of the Elbe who had contact with Roman civilization. This border would be primarily natural, easy to defend, and would provide the Romans with the necessary roads for the defense of Italy and other areas. Therefore, Illyricum also had to be conquered, because only through Illyricum would Italy and the West be connected to the East, towards Macedonia. Nine years later, in 16 BC, the Romans conquered Raetia and Noericum, thus expanding access to Illyria, creating the possibility of Illyria was finally completely subdued. A war against the Illyrians followed in 13 BC – initially under the leadership of Agrippa. Tiberius took over the leadership a year later, due to Agrippa’s death. He subdued the Pannonian tribes of the Breucani and Dalmatians, and Illyricum was temporarily pacified.

Finally, under the leadership of Drusus, Augustus' stepson, he began a campaign in Germany in 12 BC. It was conducted at the same time as Tiberius's in Illyricum. This campaign was conditioned by the defeat inflicted on the Roman army in 17 BC, when, as Lucius Annaeus Florus describes, three Germanic tribes, the Cherusci, Suebi, and Sugambri, started a war in Gaul, burned 20 Roman centurions, and then agreed among themselves how to divide the spoils they were about to conquer, and according to Strabo, it was the Sugambri who started the war. The chaos they had created in Gaul forced Augustus to do something, especially since the battle standards of the Gallic legions had been lost. Drusus took command of the legions sent to conquer Germany. First it was necessary to establish winter camps, a fleet, and access for the army to Germany. As mentioned earlier, it was essential to establish provinces with good, defensible borders – the new province planned in this case, Germania, was to extend all the way to the Elbe River. He first defeated the Sugambri, who had attempted to carry the battle across the Roman border. With his fleet, he defeated the Frisians, a northern Germanic tribe, and sailed to the North Sea. The campaign was temporarily halted, to be resumed in 11 BC, against the Hatti, and the two tribes who had been the main culprits in the invasion of Gaul, the Cherusci and the Sugambri. A year later he advanced east and defeated the Marcomanni, and in the same year reached the Elbe. There he stopped, thus ending the campaign in Germany, and for the first time in the history of the Roman state, most of Germany was under direct Roman rule. On the way back, Drusus died in 9 BC, and was replaced by Tiberius in the same year, to finish what Drusus had started - he formally demanded that all Germans submit to Roman power, which some tribes refused, among whom were the Sugambri.

This forced Tiberius to stay in Germany for another two years. He managed to defeat the Sugambri tribe that had rebelled, thus temporarily putting an end to the organized Germanic rebellion. Thus the conquest of Germany, which was not so much expansionist as it was primarily intended to provide security for Gaul, was successful. After Tiberius' successful campaign in Germany, he left it in 6 BC, at the same time as he had a falling out with Augustus. The campaigns in Germany continued - Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus, consul for 16 AD, fought in Germany and almost completely conquered all the areas south of the Elbe - in the meantime, the Marcomanni, under the leadership of Marobodus, had established their own state bordering on Pannonia and Noeric. A final campaign was being prepared, in 6 AD, led by Tiberius, to conquer that kingdom as well, although this did not come to pass, as Rome had to wage a second war, "the most difficult of all external wars since the Punic Wars" in 36 AD. The uprising in Illyricum disrupted plans to conquer Germany to the end. The war lasted from 6 to 9 AD. Illyria rose up under the leadership of Baton, and old enemies, such as the Breucians in Pannonia, joined Baton and thus created a huge uprising in Pannonia and Dalmatia. Augustus prepared all of Italy for the possibility of the war spreading to their mainland, as the rebellion was so huge that it was feared that the rebels would spill over from Illyricum into Italy. Augustus monitored the events from Ariminum, while Tiberius was joined by Germanicus, son of Drusus, and two legions moving from Asia Minor to Moesia. The army, stationed at Siscia, now Sisco, was tasked with defending Italy against any barbarian incursions. At one point, there were 15 legions under Tiberius' command, ready to crush the uprising. In the second year of the revolt, there were signs that the Illyrians would surrender – but Baton Desidiatus killed Baton of Breuc and took command of the rebels, inspiring the Pannonians to rise again. The conflict ended in 9 AD, when Tiberius managed to unite all his troops for an attack against Baton. Roman control of the Danube was secured.

The revolt in Illyricum was the trigger for a series of new uprisings in the territories in the East and West that had almost been conquered. At the same time, there was an uprising in Isauria, Asia Minor and in Judea, with the death of King Herod, the kingdom was divided between his three sons Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip. Archelaus soon lost support, and Augustus annexed Judea and added it to the province of Syria. Although the revolt in Illyria was suppressed, Germania was restless. All the legions that were in Germania were transferred to Illyricum - Publius Quintilius Varus was the only one left with three legions. While returning to his winter camp near the Rhine, Arminius, his adjutant who led the auxiliary Germanic troops, warned Varus of a local rebellion. This rebellion never happened – it was an excuse for Arminius to direct Varro onto a road that was unknown to the Roman legions, making it easier for the Germans he had gathered to ambush him. Thus came the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD. Quintilius Varro and his three legions died in battle against the Germans, who, as the Romans were passing through a narrow, marshy area, attacked the Romans from all sides. This defeat so upset Augustus that he “was so astonished that for several months he let his beard and hair grow long and sometimes banged his head against the gates, shouting: Quintilius Varro, give me back my legions!” All the territorial gains in Germany that had been made in the previous decades had disappeared. Although Tiberius later re-entered Germany and was there from 9 to 12 AD to repair the damage caused by Varus' defeat, Rome gave up any further ambition to rule Germany. Thus, the Roman frontier in the West was established at the Rhine, while in the East, with some exceptions, the frontier remained unchanged, and a period of diminishing expansionism began in order to maintain state cohesion.

The culture of the Augustan principate: Virgil

Publius Virgilius Maron (70–19 BC) is one of the most famous poets in the history of Rome and Europe. He was born near Mantua, in the village of Andes, and his family was not particularly wealthy. From Aelius Donatus, a grammarian and teacher of Jerome, we learn that his father was a potter or a laborer for Magus, and that later, having become the son-in-law of the same Magus, he became rich through the wood trade and beekeeping. Donatus, who took his information from Suetonius, tells of a legend that accompanied Virgil's birth - namely, that his mother dreamed while she was still pregnant with him that she gave birth to a laurel branch, which, as soon as it touched the ground, took root at the same moment, and a large tree grew in that place. Another sign appeared in the fulfillment of the customs of that region, which the people were obliged to do. Every time a child was born, a poplar branch had to be planted. This was done in the case of Virgil. Donatus says that, according to legend, this tree grew faster than other trees of the same species, and that because of its luxuriance, it was respected and later called "Virgil's tree". Virgil spent his childhood and youth in Cremona, until he was 17, after which he went to Milan, and later to Rome. His father provided him with education, first in Cremona, then in Milan, and then in Rome. There he studied rhetoric, medicine, and philosophy, which had the greatest influence on him. We learn this information from his smaller poems, which are part of the Cataleptone, among which is the Pupil's Farewell. In this poem, Virgil describes his departure from rhetorical training and career to study philosophy with the Epicurean Siron. This does not mean, however, that Virgil abandoned literature or poetry, and focused solely on philosophy – or that he was only familiar with the philosophy of Epicurus. Philosophy and poetry are intertwined in Virgil, and influences from Platonism, Stoicism, and Pythagoreanism can also be found in his most famous works.

We learn from Donatus that from a very early age, Virgil was a very sickly person. Donatus, still taking information about Virgil from Suetonius, says that he often suffered from various pains, most often in the stomach, head and throat. He was allegedly of large stature, moderate in eating and drinking, and an untalented orator. He began to write poems in his childhood. The most important friends and collaborators in Virgil's life were Cornelius Gaius, Asinius Pollio and Alphen Varus. He dedicated his Eclogues to them, among other things because they helped him not to lose his property due to the general confiscation of land carried out by Octavian after the Battle of Philippi. 4 He dedicated his verses to yet another person, this time the Georgics – Maecenas, who saved him from a veteran to whom Virgil's estate had been ceded, and with the friendship he formed with him, he entered into a patron-client relationship, in which Maecenas was the patron and he the client. 5 This enabled Virgil to come into contact with Augustus. He thus became an integral part of the group of poets gathered under Maecenas's patronage. These poets, among whom were Horace, Propertius, Varius Rufus and others, glorified Augustus and the era he was introducing and foreshadowing through poetry and art. Thus, Virgil's two poems – the Georgics and the most important, the Aeneid, in addition to serving as the ideological foundations on which Augustus's power and that of the future Roman emperors was based, represent enormous cultural achievements in the history of Rome and Europe.

Virgil's three main works are: the Eclogues, the Georgics, and the Aeneid. He wrote the first in three years (41/40–37 BC), the second in seven years (37–29 BC), and the third in ten years (29–19 BC). Before moving on to Virgil's works themselves, something should be said about the literary trends on which Virgil's poetry draws, but also develops in an independent direction. The first example can be found in his Eclogues, or Bucolic Poems. The poet who most influenced this genre, and from whom Virgil borrowed a lot with his turn, was Theocritus. A poet from Sicily in the 3rd century BC and the founder of bucolic (or pastoral) poems, he used myths from Greek mythology, such as the death of the shepherd Daphnis (in the 1st idyll) or the love of Polyphemus for the nymph Galatea (in the 6th and 11th idylls). This model - division into several idylls, with a focus on simple, pastoral life, which is like the motif that flourished due to the instability of the times in which people lived was the basis that Virgil used, and on which he himself built, when writing the Eclogues. This raises the question of the difference in their approach. Theocritus's account of the shepherds, which is distant and objective, presents how they really lived, from the perspective of someone who does not belong to that environment. Here arises an idealization of the subject and the world in which the subject finds himself, coming from someone who does not belong to him - inspired by the sentimentality that is present, especially in Greek poetry, about anyone who leaves the city in search of a peaceful life in the countryside. Theocritus' world is therefore a truly closed world. Virgil takes a different approach – his shepherds are not really shepherds, but express the mood of the Roman society of the time, in which the intellectual, cultural and political aspects of the time are comprehensively intertwined. This approach, which is still Alexandrian in form, following the example of Theocritus, thus has a different aim. The idealization of a form of life that is the link between Theocritus and Alexandrian poetry is thus subordinated, as M. von Albrecht says, to the manifestation of the "organic unity" that was immanent to Virgil's age. This historical dimension that Virgil introduces into his poetry is what makes it different from its Greek and Roman predecessors. Instead of a simple idealization, Virgil provides a resolution to the dilemma and contrast of ideality and reality that exists within the Eclogues, especially in Eclogue 1, and that exists implicitly in the very form of "pastoral" poetry - in which the poet's search for peace that is unattainable for humanity is expressed. This is Virgil's great step compared to Hesiod. The possibility of a golden age is not excluded for humanity, as it is for Hesiod due to the corruption of humanity that followed numerous mythical ages; on the contrary, for Virgil it is just coming, because ‘‘...from heaven a new generation descends...’’ which will make that golden age possible - a divine boy, as Virgil calls him in the 4th Eclogue, who will restore the old times and "...will rule the peaceful world." Therefore, Virgil's poetry, using the models and structures of his predecessors, removes the alienation of ideality from reality and reality from ideality that has existed since Hesiod, and it succeeds in this by uniting them with all their contradictions, and provides a current resolution - one is not removed from the other, but they arose from the same source and their harmony appears when this is understood and the resolution that is here in the form of that golden boy is provided, by means of which one will be in the other and vice versa. The justification for this vision is found in Eclogue 6, which shows the poet's power to see the machinations of reality and illuminate them, using the figure of Bacchus' companion Silenus to demonstrate this - thus creating the idea of ​​the poet-prophet. However, in Eclogue 9, doubt arises within the poet himself, who, through the figures of Meris and Lycida, questions whether poetry can truly see and change reality. This dilemma, which arises within Virgil himself, will be resolved in the Georgics, to the benefit of poetry, but not of the poet. Thus his poetry broadens its horizons and develops a skepticism about itself, in a way that had not existed before. His next work, the Georgics, or poems on agriculture, followed the writing of the Eclogues. It differs from the bucolic poems in that it is a didactic epic consisting of 4 books, or poems. The poet presents the skills needed in agriculture, beekeeping, fruit growing, and animal husbandry. It is more difficult to find a direct model whose principles he may have used, or from whom he drew particular inspiration. What is known in scholarship is that the style of writing and the motifs he uses are influenced by his readings of various Greek and Roman authors – Hesiod, Xenophon, the aforementioned Theocritus, Aristotle, and Aratus from the Greek authors, Cato, Varro, and Lucretius from the Roman authors. However, despite the fact that rural life is the main theme, it deviates from the usual pattern used in Hesiod or Theocritus. In this work, the theme of unity that appears in the Eclogues is developed, where all the forces in nature and nature itself are explained through poetry, almost magically. The whole cosmos and everything in it gives the poet a sign, through the poem, of its order, of powers greater than itself, of its unity and wholeness, in the spirit of ‘‘ἕν ϰαì πᾶν’’. The usual signs of nature do not only represent its internal mechanism, but also hint at future advantages or disadvantages. In Virgil here too there is a direct reversal, in contrast to the implicit one in the Eclogues, of Hesiod's understanding of agriculture, which he viewed as burdened with difficulties due to the vengeance of the gods on humanity - Virgil argued against him that labor is not a curse from the gods, but a skill entrusted to humanity to fight against nature, and on its foundations build civilization. Only through work does man, unlike Hesiod, for whom this skill is a necessary evil because the unity between man and nature is broken, reach his potential. With the help of the bee state, Virgil praises the old Roman virtue, draws a parallel between the bees and the Roman citizens, as well as the harmony of their order with the state that is being restored under the Augustan restoration, and thus makes the historical dimension of this work significant. By celebrating "Caesar" (or Octavian) at the beginning and end, an overarching structure is created in which Octavian is given a significant role - as the ruler who will lead this order, represented in the form of an apiary. The harmony of order on Earth (in the way the bees live in the 4th canto) and the cosmological order that permeates the entire work thus create a harmonious unity and here we see the influence of Stoicism on Virgil and the manifestation of pantheism that spreads its influence and law in all spheres of life and existence. Such motifs of unity had already appeared in the Eclogues, and in the Aeneid this motif reached its climax. On the other hand, the open praise of Octavian slowly introduces the reader into another dimension that was hinted at in the Eclogues and became visibly present in the Georgics. This is the work that made Virgil famous, and brought him closer to Augustus – thus contributing to the creation of the Aeneid. Therefore, Virgil’s earlier verses correspond here: "It rained all night, and in the morning we watch the plays again: Jupiter has divided power with Caesar, so one rules the night, the other the day."

His third and greatest work is the Aeneid. With this, Virgil makes the transition from didactic poetry to epic poetry. If we just say that the theme of this work of Virgil is to to offer a myth of the creation of Rome, following the Homeric tradition, would be a correct but abstract explanation of the Aeneid. It represents the culmination of a development that first manifested itself in the Eclogues and progressed in the Georgics – here all these motifs merge into a single closed structure that seeks to place not only Rome, but the entire world, within a single plot that will explain everything that has happened in history and will happen. Written in the period after Octavian's victory at Actium in 31 BC, the Aeneid expresses its political message, slowly accumulated in the Eclogues and Georgics. In the Aeneid, the circle closes. The Aeneid consists of 12 cantos. The first canto begins with Aeneas' journey across the sea from Troy, first towards Rome, but then towards Carthage, amidst Juno's (or Hera's) intervention, which causes a storm at sea and forces Aeneas to head for the Carthaginian coast. Venus, Aeneas' mother, begged Jupiter to save Aeneas - and kept her promise - that Aeneas' descendants, the Romans, would rule the world. With the help of Mercury, he conveyed to the Carthaginian queen, Dido, that Aeneas and the Trojans were coming - and his mother, Venus, disguised as a local girl, showed him where Carthage was and who ruled it. Arriving in the city, Dido welcomes Aeneas hospitably, and Venus, alarmed by the possibility that Dido might turn against Aeneas in the meantime, sends her son, Cupid, to make Dido fall in love with Aeneas. Afterwards, at a feast attended by both the Trojans and the Carthaginians, Dido asks Aeneas, now in love with him thanks to Cupid's power, to tell his story. With this, the epic truly begins in Book 2. Aeneas first begins with the fall of Troy. The Greeks, leaving the great wooden horse behind, having given up on direct conflict with the Trojans, turn back and it seems that this is the end of the war. In truth, they had hidden behind the island of Tenedos, and the horse was actually a group of famous Greek warriors who were waiting for the right moment to come out and attack Troy from within. This was the crux of Odysseus' plan - the horse was also a gift to the Trojans. One shepherd who remained there, Sinon, remained there to deceive the Trojans into the peaceful intentions of the Greeks, namely the Danaans. Sinon, in order to convince them that he was not lying, lied that he was to be a sacrifice so that the Greeks would appease Poseidon for a safe return trip, and that this was why Sinon had fled from them. Sinon then explained to them the purpose of the large wooden horse – it was a gift intended for the goddess Minerva (or Athena) because they had destroyed her temple in Troy, and since they had not found Sinon, it was supposed to be a gift that would allow them a safe journey back. Sinon tempted the Trojans to accept the horse in the city, because if they did so, they would succeed in defeating the Danaans who would return, otherwise, "the people and the kingdom of Priam will perish". However, Laocoon, the priest of Neptune, did not believe Sinon, saying: "I fear the Danaans even when they bring gifts." He threw a huge spear at the horse, for which he would later be punished – because as soon as Sinon's speech was over, Aeneas saw two huge snakes emerge from the sea and drown Laocoön and his sons for the sacrilege he had committed. When night fell that same day, Sinon released the Greeks, and they entered the city. While the battle raged on the walls and inside the city,

Aeneas had a dream about Hector, who told him to save himself:

"Flee from this fire, son of the goddess,

The enemy has penetrated – Troy is falling from above!

It is enough for the fatherland and Priam.

I would save Pergamum if I could save myself.

Troy and the Penates give you their holy places,

Let them accompany your fate, seek a high city,

Which you raise to them after you wander across the sea!"

Aeneas tried to fight the Greeks by disguising himself as one of them, first not following the orders given to him by Hector from the gods. He fought them unsuccessfully, causing some of his companions to die. Here, too, Priam dies at the hands of Pyrrhus, son of Achilles. Venus, seeing that Aeneas is still fighting, asks him to finally leave Troy, as it is lost forever. Following his mother's words, he returns to his home, from where he then sets out with his father, wife Creusa, and child Iulia to escape Troy. On the way, however, he loses Creusa, and while returning in an attempt to save her, he sees her shadow - which foretells that he will wander the sea until he reaches Hesperium, where the Tiber flows and happiness, an empire and a kingdom of women await him. With this, the plot is set in motion – the main goal is presented. In the third poem, Aeneas tells of his journey until he reaches Carthage, describing his arrival in Thrace, Crete, Epirus, Sicily, where his father, Anchises, died, and finally in Carthage. The fourth poem describes the love of Dido and Aeneid, which comes to a tragic end when Aeneas leaves her – prompted by the gods themselves – to fulfill a prophecy. Dido begged him to stay, but in vain. After Aeneas left, she killed herself, cursing Aeneas and all his descendants. With this, Virgil provides an explanation for the history of the conflict between the Romans and Carthage. It should be mentioned that Virgil relied on tradition and history, the works of Cato the Elder and Varro, and even that he knew the history of Titus Livius. In light of this, Virgil's knowledge of mythology and history originates from Virgil's reading of Greek and Roman authors, and this shows Virgil's great knowledge of Roman antiquities. On the other hand, in the context of the work, with its great mythologizing, this represents the cause of the historical conflict between Rome and Carthage. In the fifth poem, Aeneas reaches Sicily and meets King Acestus. There Aeneas organized battles in honor of his father, and the Trojan women, under the influence of Juno, tired of the journey, burned their ships. In a dream, Aeneas is visited by his father Anchises, who advises him to leave all those women and old men who do not want to go with him, to come to Italy and from there go down to the underworld and find him there. Thus begins the sixth canto. Having arrived in Italy, Aeneas approaches the Sibyl, who tells him that if he wants to go down to the underworld, he must find a golden branch and bring it as a sacrifice to Prosperina, who will then allow him to be in the underworld. Having found it, he goes down with the Sibyl. On the way, Aeneas meets his old friends, enemies, the helmsman Palinurus, then Dido, with whom he has not reconciled, and then Deiphobus, the son of Priam. Finally, he came to his father, in the "place of joy", where he showed him the whole history of Rome. He showed him that his lineage would rule the world, that "Caesar, and all the line of Julius... would ascend to heaven", and that Augustus, "the son of God", "... would restore to the land of Latium, Saturn’s golden age’’. He showed him the entire Roman line that led to Caesar, and whose lineage would usher Rome into a new, golden age, with the words:

‘‘Others will make more beautiful statues of clay,

And they will sculpt living people in marble,

They will speak better and more beautifully in court,

They will draw the path of heaven with a colored pencil,

And they will better predict the rising of the stars.

Roman, know that you rule over nations!

Your art will be – to impose peace,

To spare the submissive and tame the defiant!’’

The sixth book of the Aeneid concludes what Virgil's poetry had been developing in the Eclogues and Georgics. What emerged was not just an ideological cover to justify the rule of Augustus and his descendants, but a metanarrative that subordinated the entire world to the Roman arche. Augustus and the social reality he ushered in are the manifestation of that order, which ensures that Roman power is not disrupted as it was in the 1st century BC, the signs of whose unrest can be found in the Eclogues and Georgics. This work continues on Homer, on the Greek tradition, and thus presents itself as its logical continuation. The lamentation of the impossibility of a golden age in the Greek tradition by Hesiod, as well as the antinomian character within the Eclogues and Bucolics, in which there is a constant doubt on the part of the poet himself that what the poem hints at will be fulfilled, disappears in the Aeneid – where that golden age, that order – is guaranteed by Augustus himself and his lineage, whose origins reach back to Aeneas.

Maiestas

The law of insulting the majesty of the Roman people, or maiestas, was a mechanism whose purpose was to defend the state from within. The predecessor of this institution was perduellio, which comes from the word perduellis, a synonym for hostis, or enemy. A traitor to the state, by definition of perduellio, was hostii animo aduersus rem publicam animates. High treason, for example, was committed if a citizen had handed over another citizen to an enemy of the state:

,,Lex XII tabularum iubet eum, qui hostem concitaverit quive civem hosti tradiderit, capite puniri.’’

It should not be overlooked that perdullio covered a much broader jurisdiction than mere proditio; collaboration with the enemy. In relation to proditio, there were two conditions in the Law of the XII Tables which, if fulfilled, would define a citizen as an enemy of the state. The first condition concerned the citizen's hostile attitude towards his country (hostem conciere). The second condition was, as mentioned above, the surrender of the citizen to the enemy (civem hosti tradere). The trial of the accused was under the jurisdiction of the duumviri perduellionis. During the kingdom they were elected by the kings, and in the early republic they were elected by the comitia curiata, or the curial assembly, or the comitia centuriata, the centurial assembly. Although they had great freedom, since they belonged to the rank of magistrates, it was possible to file an appeal against them, provocatio. The death penalty was applied if the accused was found guilty. From the 3rd century onwards, the tribunes had jurisdiction over these trials, becoming the iudicium populi, or trial before the assembly. By the late Republic, the prosecution for perduellio had already become obsolete and had been replaced by the quaestio de maiestate. The 2nd century BC saw significant changes in the nature of Roman criminal law. These changes were due to the scope of the jurisdiction of the quaestio.

Crimes of significant political dimension were left to the quaestiones, which were originally investigative courts. Criminal acts, such as the murder of Silva Silla, were investigated by the quaestiones, as a commission of members chosen ad hoc by the magistrates, with the approval of the senate and/or the people, bypassing the classical prosecution. However, the form of a permanent court, the quaestione, or perpetua, did not emerge until 149 BC. The context for the creation of this body was the Spanish Wars of 154–133 BC, and the campaign of the propraetor, later consul, Servius Sulpicius Galba. While fighting in Hispania, Galba marched against the Lusitanians in 150 BC, who had previously attacked Roman territories. Peace negotiations soon took place between the warring parties. After it was established that the cause of the attack was not explicit hostility towards the Roman people, but the Lusitanians' search for new, fertile land, Galba offered them land in exchange for becoming Roman allies. The Lusitanians agreed, but Galba's offer was only a bait to make them relax. When they set out to settle the territories promised to them, Galba took advantage of their reluctance and defeated them. 6 Returning to Rome in 149 BC, Galba was prosecuted for the crime he had committed by Lucius Scribonius Libo, a plebeian tribune. Although he was acquitted of the charges, the Lex Calpurnia de Repetundis was passed, establishing a permanent court for the first time in Roman history. It dealt with crimes and illegal acts committed by governors during their terms in the provinces. The appearance of the quaestio de repetundis by this law, the first quaestio perpetuae, or court dealing primarily with the illicit acquisition of money by governors in the provinces, marks the beginning of a process by which new forms of criminal law were further developed. At the end of the 2nd century BC, after the reforms, several more quaestiones perpetuae were created, which, in terms of model, resembled the quaestio de repetundis but referred to other, specific types of crimes. Among these was the crime of maiestas. Maiestas, abbreviated from “maiestas minuta populi Romani”, first appeared in the lex Appuleia, probably enacted in 103 or 100 BC. Continuing the already established tradition of perpetua, the law advocated by Lucius Apuleius Saturninus was aimed against incompetent military leaders who abused their position.

It is necessary to point out that being accused of "insulting the majesty of the Roman people" was not precise even at that time. One of the first charges of maiestas in the late Republic was against the tribune, later consul Gaius Norbanus. Although this was not particularly significant in comparison to later cases, it completely replaced perduellio. The next step in the Republican criminal law, regarding maiestas, was Sullin's lex Cornelia maiestatis of 81 BC. It further established the relationship between maiestas and the restrictions that were attached to the rule and freedom of movement of the governor. The next case of maiestas was related to Gaius Cornelius, a plebeian tribune, in 66 BC. Having ignored the veto of another plebeian tribune and incited violence against the consuls that year, he was accused by the Comini brothers, Publius and Gaius, of violating the provisions of the lex Cornelia de maiestate. However, due to the praetor's failure to appear on the day of the trial, Gaius' supporters managed to intimidate the brothers and the charge was eventually dismissed. The case of Gaius Manilius that same year, on the other hand, was different. After being accused of de repetundis, citing Sulinus Cornelia de repetundis, he managed, with the help of Cicero and the riots, to have the charge dismissed. However, after being accused of maiestas in 65 BC, he tried to implement the strategy of Gaius Cornelius; to prevent the trial from taking place with his supporters. This attempt, however, was unsuccessful. The consuls for that year immediately took matters into their own hands and referred the case to the Senate. Manilius failed to defend himself and was found guilty. Sulla's law was later revised by the new lex Iulia maiestatis passed by Caesar around 48 BC, introducing exile (aqua et igni interdictio) as the main punishment for this criminal offense. With the transition from the republic to the principate, the criminal law underwent certain changes. First, the late republican maiestas replaced the old early republican perdullio, taking over in general terms the functions of that institution. Those accused of maiestas were perpetrators of open rebellion against the state or were at the head of or members of a conspiracy against the magistrates of the Roman state; they could commit an offense in public affairs as governors of provinces, etc. Let us consider that these are, as Richard A. Bauman defines them, "republican categories" of criminal law.

The introduction of the principate, however, raises the question of the role and position of the emperor in criminal law. Here we should deal with the Lex Iulia maiestatis from 8 BC, which established that crimen maiestatis, among other things, was committed if the memory of the emperor was desecrated or his statues and portraits were damaged. With this, the crime of lèse majesté was defined. It seems that iniuria against the emperor, as well as the "republican categories", belonged to the same type of crime - a threat to the state and a threat to the princeps were identified, that is, there was no distinction between the two, as there is in modern states. Tacitus explains this when he speaks of Tiberius's accession to power and his introduction of the law on insulting the majesty of the people. In his narrative, he explains that although Tiberius (originally) did not restore the provision according to which crimen maiestatis was committed verbally, Tacitus adds that Augustus did so when he introduced the law and links its use during Augustus' time to Cassius Severus, the victim of the law "who, by his slanderous writings, brought into disrepute respectable men and women".

There is one particular case, however, where the distinction between crimes against the state and crimes against the emperor did exist. This is the trial of Julia in 2 BC for her adultery. The charge against her was based on laesarum religionum ac violatae maiestatis, not crimen maiestatis, which would be expected if one considers that this should be a crimen maiestatis primarily because it was not only an injury to the personal honor of the emperor, but also to the honor of the state. Here R. Bauman observes that, although the injury to the honor of the Roman princeps, pater patriae, was at issue, it did not involve an injury to the honor of the Roman people and that, accordingly, this was a case of violata maiestas and laesae religions, because Julia had violated certain obligations to Augustus. In this case, it is also important to point out that Augustus was not justifying his divinity as if it had been damaged by Julia's action; he was defending his maiestas, while the second charge, related to the violation of certain religious vows, was related to the gods, separately from the Roman prince. It is therefore important to point out that Julia's case establishes the distinction between the Roman emperor and the divinity. However, this was the only exception, because already in 8 AD, as mentioned earlier, Augustus raised verbal insult to the level of treason, which had its own specific path of development.

R. Bauman believes that this happened for two reasons: the first reason is that this extension of maiestas was intended to defend the state in the same way as the "republican categories" did. The second reason is that this extension was not intended to defend the reputation of the emperor; rather, it was intended to defend the reputation of the inlustris, people of rank and wealth, although, Bauman admits, most of the cases were related to the emperor. At the same time, this created a dichotomy that put impiety, as a consequence of the accusation of maiestas by a Roman princeps when the connection between the emperor and the divinity became increasingly loose, in awkward territory. In addition, it was obvious that the territory between violata maiestatis and laesae religiones was unstable. Consequently, it is uncertain whether this was an extra-legal act, due to this dimension, or whether it nevertheless fell under the lex maiestatis.

One must take into account the existing social trends and trends that were inherent in the principate itself and determined the fate of this institution. For the Roman people, the veneration of Augustus was implicit; for them, the Divus Augustus was their god, and before that, the ruler; there was a need to create a clear cosmological definition of the position of Augustus in relation to the other gods. Accordingly, the first definition that determined the position of Augustus in Roman society after his reign was reduced to what should not be done with him. If the law could not grant him positive authority in relation to the other gods, then the position of the Divus Augustus was negative, contributing to the institutionalization of the Roman principate. The emperor himself, on the other hand, was subject to both categories – republican and Augustan – but in the end, his position was subsumed under pressure within the divine, or Divus. As R. Bauman puts it, if the Divi filius was equated with the Divus, then the ruler was equated with his predecessor. This was the aspiration of the Roman people at that time, who wanted to pay homage to Augustus and his successors through law.

Caligula

Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus (37–41) was the third Roman emperor in the history of the Roman Principate. He was born in Antium. At the time of his accession to power, he was the only surviving son of Germanicus, the famous Roman general who had won a victory in Germany after the defeat of Varus, and Agrippa the Elder, daughter of Agrippa and Augustus' daughter Julia. Although he was formally known as Gaius, this title was overshadowed by the nickname Gaius acquired when he was only two or three years old. Growing up on the Rhine where his father commanded, the soldiers gave him the nickname "Caligula", because the boy was often dressed in military uniform with boots and armor. The name Caligula is actually a diminutive of the Latin word caligae - soldier's boots; that is, boots. This was, as Suetonius states, a joke among the soldiers, but also an indication that Caligula himself was loved by them and that the nickname was not a bad thing.

Suetonius mentions Caligula's participation in suppressing the revolt of the Germanic legions, which coincided with the revolt of the Illyrian legions when Tiberius came to power. He also states that Caligula accompanied his father on his journey to the East, namely Syria, and that after returning from there he lived with his mother. When Germanicus was killed in a conspiracy, Caligula was about 7 years old, since according to Suetonius he was born in 12. From that moment on, difficulties began for the young Caligula; Tiberius did everything to prevent Agrippina or her children from gaining political influence that would be based on Germanicus's reputation, which he had acquired based on his military achievements and popularity in the provinces in the East. Agrippina was exiled, and Caligula was forced to live first with his great-grandmother, and after her death in 29, with his grandmother Antonia. His life there, however, did not last, as he was called to live with Tiberius on Capri; the island to which Tiberius had retired around 26.

When Caligula came to live with Tiberius around 31, Tiberius had already lost his son, Drusus, in 23, and knew the real cause of his death. It was a conspiracy between Sejanus and Drusus's wife to have Drusus killed; sources record that this caused Tiberius to become even more paranoid, and Suetonius characterized it as "frenzy", and that he no longer trusted anyone. In his biography of Tiberius, Suetonius noted that it was a miracle that Tiberius did not kill Caligula. At this time, between 32 and 37, Caligula married Marcus Silanus' daughter, Junia Claudia. Tacitus claims that Caligula was a man who hid his "wild nature" from Tiberius, under a skillful mask of self-control. This allowed him to remain on peaceful terms with Tiberius. Thanks to this, as Sejanus' power began to slowly weaken, Caligula was given various positions. After marrying Junia, he was appointed augur. He managed to create new alliances; after Junia died in childbirth, he entered into a relationship with the wife of the Praetorian prefect Macro, Aenia Naea. She convinced her husband to side with the young Caligula. According to Tacitus, Tiberius died on March 15, 37 AD. Initially, it seemed that Tiberius had stopped breathing and was dead so Caligula was congratulated by his supporters and invited to take over the helm of the state. However, after it turned out that Tiberius was still alive, Macro ordered the emperor to be strangled. Suetonius claims, contrary to Tacitus, that it was not Macro who directly killed Tiberius, but Caligula himself.

Tiberius was hated for many of the measures he implemented towards the end of his reign. Therefore, Caligula's accession to the throne was celebrated by the people. On March 28, he took office as head of the principate. According to Suetonius, the people loved Caligula so much that they called him their star and their pet. Among the first measures that Caligula implemented was to pardon those who had been convicted by the previous regime, and the decisions of the time of Tiberius were declared invalid. The same month that Tiberius died, with the help of the Senate, he declared his will invalid; according to which he gave half of his property to Caligula and the other half to his grandson, Drusus' son, Gemellus. This annulment of the will was achieved on the basis of declaring Gemellus insane, and thereby disinheriting him. Caligula managed to seize power for himself, but unlike Tiberius, he had the support of the people, in part because he was also the son of Germanicus. The aim was to make a clear break with the era of Tiberius; The people who had been exiled from Rome by Tiberius and Sejanus returned, the trials that Tiberius had conducted were abolished, and taxes were reduced. Gladiatorial games were held more frequently, to the great joy of the people. Caligula devoted himself to the construction of new buildings and theaters; the economic conservatism of Tiberius' time disappeared. There seemed to be an agreement between Caligula and the Senate, and at that time it was not thought that the young princeps would become as alienated as Tiberius in his later years.

However, this time of harmony and peace did not last. In October 37, Caligula suddenly fell ill. After he recovered, he seemed to have changed drastically and was no longer the same person he had been. According to tradition, this was the moment when Caligula's true character was revealed. Among his first victims was Gemellus, whom he ordered to be executed. The Senate, which had until then thought it would be possible to share power with the young emperor, soon realized, as H.H. Scullard describes it, that Caligula did not want to deal with the diarchical ideals of Augustus. The persecutions of the time of Tiberius returned, and the first victims were from the senatorial class. Those who were relatives or close to Caligula were also killed, including Marcus Silanus, his father-in-law. Caligula seems to have aspired to absolute power; his play on Hellenistic-monarchical symbolism and his adoption of divine honors modeled on the Egyptian pharaohs suggest that Caligula had no plans to share power with the Senate. This shift to a different model of government could explain why Caligula, probably following the Ptolemies, had an incestuous relationship with his sister, Drusilla, and then ordered her deification after her death.

In 38, Gaius's aversion to the Senate became even clearer, restoring the right to vote to the people by re-establishing elective assemblies. The old bureaucracy of Tiberius' time was exiled or decimated. Even those in the highest positions who had helped Caligula to the throne were not on safe ground. Thus, among the many victims of 38, the Praetorian prefect Macro died. Gaius, however, still sought to remain popular with the people; many who had lost their homes in the fire were compensated for all the damage they had suffered. He increased the salaries of the magistrates, and the works of Titus Labienus and Cremutius Cordus, which had been banned by Tiberius and Sejanus, could be read again.

In late 38 and early 39, a financial crisis arose due to Caligula's unrestrained spending. To cover the costs, the trials of Tiberius' time were revived. Anyone who was even slightly suspected was convicted of treason and his property confiscated. Forced auctions were organized, and the provinces had to pay much higher taxes. He asked the public to finance the state, and marriages, trials, and prostitution were taxed. However, all these laws were passed orally, not in writing, which led to frequent deviations.

In addition to further taxing the provinces, Caligula increasingly deviated from the provincial policy established under Augustus and Tiberius. In the territories of some provinces that had previously been vassal states, such as Commagene, vassal states were restored, headed by the sons of the previous vassal kings. His policy towards the Jews was also unique. Here he deviated from the established norm, which allowed Jews not to participate in the cult of the emperors, because of their faith. However, this soon changed due to events in Alexandria. Alexandrian society at this time was polarized into Jewish and Hellenized parts of the population. H.H. Scallard argues that the cause of their dispute was that the Greeks lacked municipal rights, and that their hatred of the Jews was a consequence of the fact that they had such rights. Therefore, in 38 AD, a great massacre of the Jews took place in Alexandria, organized by the Greeks and the local administration, headed by the prefect of Egypt. Although the prefect was executed for this act, and the Greeks and Jews sent envoys to Caligula to try to reach an agreement between the two warring parties, the negotiations were unsuccessful. When the envoys arrived in Rome, they heard that Caligula had made a complete break with the policies of his predecessors. He ordered a statue of himself to be placed in the center of the temple in Jerusalem. When the Jewish envoys protested this, Philo, who was part of the mission, states that the envoys had to literally chase Caligula from room to room to get any response from him. Philo believes that Caligula acted this way towards the Jews because he viewed the Jewish people with deep suspicion, believing that they were opposed to his wishes and intentions. The governor of Syria, Publius Petronius, himself delayed the implementation of the statue, fearing a rebellion. In the end, Caligula agreed that the statue should not be placed there, thanks to Herod Agrippa. Philo believes that Caligula acted this way towards the Jews because he viewed the Jewish people with deep suspicion, believing that they were opposed to his wishes and intentions. Although the campaign in Britain ended before it began, the campaign he conducted in Germany appears to have been successful. However, this success was overshadowed by a revolt in Mauretania, which occurred after Caligula killed the country's vassal king, Ptolemy.

Caligula's monarchist tendencies, the tyranny and terror he practiced, and the revolt of the provinces were the causes of the revolts by the senatorial class and the Praetorian Guard, which were plotting against the emperor. Gaius' actions in 40, when he attempted to leave Rome and settle in Alexandria, only further aggravated the situation. It was possible that if Caligula left Rome, the Senate and the Praetorian Guard would be unable to exert any influence on the government or stop Caligula. The leaders of the conspiracy against Gaius were mostly officers of the Praetorian Guard, but according to Josephus, many senators seem to have been informed of what was to come. The assassination of Caligula was carried out during the Palatine Games, after Caligula had left the theater; the tribune of the Praetorian cohort, Cassius Chaereus, played a major role in the assassination. Suetonius claims that Cassius took part in the murder because he wanted to get revenge on Caligula for calling him a softie and other derogatory names. Suetonius states that at first no one in the people believed that the third Roman emperor had been killed, but that they thought that he wanted to test whether the people still loved him. However, the Senate took the initiative and tried to restore the Republic; however, the army remained faithful to the idea of ​​​​the empire. After killing Gaius's wife and daughter, they began to search for a man who could succeed Caligula. This candidate, the only one left who could succeed Caligula, was found hidden behind the curtain of the palace; it was Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus' uncle, Claudius. This was the first time that an emperor had been deposed from the throne and killed by the Praetorian Guard. A precedent was set that would, in the future, play a major role in Roman politics and cast a shadow on the structure and functioning of the imperial system, which, in moments of weakness, would be shaken again and again by a powerful military detachment located too close to the center of power.

Claudius: early provincial politics

Tiberius Claudius Caesar Augustus Germanicus, or Claudius, was born on August 1, 10 BC, in Lugdunum. As the son of Nero Claudius Drusus, who was remembered for his military successes in Germany, and Antonia the Younger, daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia, Claudius had a great deal of political capital behind him. Due to his ill health that had accompanied him from his youth, his role during the reigns of Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula was secondary. This changed when Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus was assassinated. The Praetorian Guard, having removed the third princeps from power with the help of the Senate, searched for a person to succeed Caligula. The result of this search was Claudius who was enthroned as leader of the Roman polity in 41.

Claudius's policy in the provinces must be viewed from two angles. The first is the expansion of the Roman socio-economic system specific to the early Empire. The second is the policies of the emperors from Augustus on and the circumstances that awaited Claudius upon his accession to power.

The social structure of the early Empire did not differ significantly from that of the late Republic, because the economic structure remained essentially the same. Two important changes occurred that nevertheless distinguished the early Empire from the late Republic: the establishment of a new political model on which the Roman state was based, namely the principate, and the integration of the provinces within a single comprehensive system. The inclusion of the provinces in the Roman economic system led to systemic changes in the economies of the underdeveloped, peripheral parts of the Roman state, whose modes of production were then quickly modernized. As a result, a great qualitative and quantitative leap in production occurred. This was particularly noticeable in the West, which was under pressure to develop economically due to the high demand of the army stationed there and the increasingly large urban population. There was a wave of urbanization in the West and the East, the creation of urban settlements and the increasing exchange of goods between the provinces. In the case of the West in particular, the city thus became the basis of social and economic life in the Roman state. Thanks to this, a clear differentiation between the West and the East came about in terms of what each region contributed to economic life. The West was a source of raw materials, while certain forms of production were established in the East. Thus, oil, wine, textiles, precious stones, salted fish, wool, silk, etc. were exported from the East. On the other hand, Gaul exported wine, oil and corn. Around 20 AD, pottery began to be produced, and glass was exported from Lugdunum.

The state tried to intervene as little as possible, thereby maintaining the spontaneous development of this economic impulse. However, there were certain controls; it is worth mentioning the portoria, that is, the tax that was collected when goods crossed the borders of one province and entered another. The rate for each province was different. This did not cause much damage to trade, and at the same time it was a way for the state to directly profit from trade between the provinces. The emperors often, and actively, intervened when it came to supplying grain, necessary for the nutrition of Rome. An example that illustrates these tendencies is precisely Claudius' initiative to build a new port at Ostia, which was supposed to encourage even greater trade between Italy and the provinces, thus enabling a more efficient supply of Rome. In addition, in Ostia, a large area was set aside behind the theater that functioned as a commercial "chamber" for foreign importers of goods. The state maintained key routes necessary for the smooth running of trade. The integration of the provinces and mutual trade depended on a network of roads, a stable administration, and urbanization. The Pax Romana served to ensure that the economic system of the empire, which encompassed all parts of the Roman state, developed quantitatively while remaining qualitatively the same. The expansion of the economic system also encouraged the expansion of the Roman social system across the provinces. The division of society that began to take place in the provinces was essentially the same in the east and in the west. Society itself, at the level of the empire, was divided into two parts. The first part was the upper strata of society, which consisted of wealthy landowners who were most often knights or part of the senatorial class. Among the members of the upper strata of society in the provinces, local wealthy families began to appear. The lower strata lived in cities or villages, but were found in various social formations; they could be free people, slaves, or former slaves who had been freed. It is crucial to note that this system of social division was heterogeneous – this division was predominant in the areas around the Mediterranean, while the countries to the north under Roman rule, such as Gaul, Raetia, or Pannonia, which had fewer cities, had a different social division and classification. What is most noticeable in this period is the reduction in the number of slaves compared to previous eras of the Roman state.

Due to the adoption of Augustus's foreign policy, which emphasized caution in expanding the borders of the Roman state, the number of slaves decreased drastically because conquest campaigns were avoided. Therefore, the source of such intensive economic activity in this period should be sought in the upper strata of society, which, due to such circumstances, having been deprived of their old income through high taxation of the provincial population, switched to trade. Although this "turnaround" was not completely carried out within the aristocracy, there was a growing tendency among free wealthy people who were not part of the aristocracy to withdraw to their villas outside the cities, as soon as they had accumulated enough wealth, for the sake of social prestige. This is an indicator of the emergence of a new "bourgeoisie" within the cities, in Italy and the provinces, especially in the west, which was gaining strength. This class gradually became richer and more influential than the old aristocracy, which had been displaced, in no small part, by the policies of Tiberius and Caligula.

Leaving aside for now the structural formations of the empire that had emerged and were emerging during Claudius' time, it is necessary to pay attention to the situation that Claudius found himself in after Caligula. The first urgent case was Mauretania, where an uprising had broken out after Caligula had, without any pretext, killed Mauretania's client ruler, Ptolemy. The uprising was suppressed; Claudius sent Suetonius Paulinus (41–42), and then Hosidius Geta, who conquered the country by 44. Contrary to Augustus's caution about expanding the state, Claudius annexed Mauretania and made it a province, leaving it to no other vassal ruler. It was later divided into two provinces, Mauretania Tingitanica and Mauretania Caesarea. Both provinces had their own capitals, Caesarea and Tingis, which had been established as colonies of Roman veterans. The same was done with Britain; as soon as it was conquered, southeastern Britain became a Roman province, with its center set at Camulodunum, another colony whose first inhabitants were Roman veterans. Lycia, a region of Asia Minor, was annexed in 43, because the Lycian people were, in the words of Suetonius, "destroying themselves by internal discord". Thrace was also annexed in 46, as there was a danger that the region would descend into anarchy after the ruler of the Odrysian Kingdom had been assassinated. Achaia and Macedonia, which had been under the control of the Roman prince Tiberius, were returned by Claudius to the rule of the Senate. He granted freedom to Rhodes, and exempted Troy from taxation for all time.

Another significant problem that arose during Gaius' reign was Judea. There, a Jewish revolt almost broke out over Caligula's imposition of his statue in the Temple of Jerusalem. Thanks to the governor of Syria, Caligula decided not to do so, thus a revolt was averted. Claudius turned Judea back into a vassal kingdom and chose his friend, Herod Agrippa, as its governor. However, after his death in 48, following the example of Mauretania and Britain, Judea was annexed and became a province again. Caligula's order to place the statue in the Temple of Jerusalem was officially revoked. The dispute in Alexandria, which also took place during Caligula's reign, was also resolved. We know the outcome of that dispute from a letter from Claudius to the inhabitants of Alexandria. He warned the Greeks not to enter into conflict with the Jews and not to violate their rights, and the same warning applied to the Jews as well.

Undoubtedly the most significant act that Claudius carried out in connection with the provinces that has survived to our time is his granting of citizenship, as Seneca states, to all Greeks, Gauls, Spaniards and Britons. Claudius's intentions to increase the number of citizens in the state can also be determined from an inscription stating that certain Alpine tribes, such as the Anauni, received citizenship. Here, however, a problem arose. The tribe considered itself to have these rights by virtue of its proximity to and incorporation into the municipum Tridentum, or modern-day Trident. What was discovered was that only certain members had status by virtue of this, and that others, who were not citizens, took advantage of this ambiguity to adopt privileges that were intended for citizens only. Some of these men were members of the Praetorian Guard and centurions; Claudius, to avoid possible discontent, granted them citizenship as a reward if they were sufficiently "Romanized".

In Tacitus' Annals, Book 11, the reasoning behind Claudius' policy regarding the granting of citizenship can be seen, as well as its scope. As Tacitus reports, the question arose before the Senate as to whether people from the provinces should be allowed to become members of the Senate. This was made possible for them by becoming Roman citizens thanks to Claudius's measures. Tacitus presents two opposing sides in this argument; most senators agree that foreigners should not be admitted to the Roman Senate, considering it inappropriate and a sign of Rome's weakness. Claudius, according to Tacitus, did not agree with such a conclusion. He believed that Rome would disappear if the way of government that the senators claimed was optimal were adopted. He justified this by stating that Athens and Sparta, in his opinion, had fallen precisely because of the lack of dialogue between the citizens of those cities and the foreigners who lived with them but were prevented from asking about the internal affairs of those cities. Claudius believed that this was a consequence of the prejudices that prevailed in Athens and Sparta, and warned the senators not to follow the same path. The Senate eventually adopted Claudius' proposal, which advocated the introduction of provincials into the Roman Senate, and the first people whose members were granted the right to become senators were the Aedui. Tacitus also left information that Claudius took a census, and that at the time of the census there were 5,984,072 citizens. If this number is correct, then it means that compared to the last census taken during the reign of Augustus in 14 AD, when there were 4,937,000 citizens, there was a large increase in the number of Roman citizens in the period between 14 and 47/48 AD, when Claudius's census was taken.

Claudius' domestic policy, especially that directed towards the provinces, seems to have been conducted with an awareness of the current social trends taking place in the Roman state. Claudius understood that the networking of the empire, which was taking place in his time and would continue to take place, required a certain change in policy. From this perspective, his departure from the Augustan policy of not expanding the Roman state makes sense. Mauretania and Judea were unstable factors that could threaten the structure that had developed in the early Empire and that had served as the glue of the Roman state. Therefore, the annexation of these areas was more of a necessity, while Claudius's conquests in Britain served to increase his popularity. The procedure of granting citizenship speaks to the high importance of the provinces and how much their place in the socio-economic system of the early Empire was valued, which guaranteed stability to the Roman state even if the center was besieged under political turmoil as it would be by the end of the Julio-Claudian dynasty. This, along with the reforms Augustus carried through, was one of the key characteristics of the early principate.