Augustus accused!

By: Christy Lee

Political leader and Father of his country, Augustus Caesar, was accused of murdering the Roman republic in 31BCE. He was also charged with the crimes of establishing an empire and ruining the traditions of Rome, and he faced these charges at court in Ancient Rome. Pleading not guilty, Augustus and his defense team argued that the republic never died, only changing to help and fit Rome better. They said that he only helped Rome along, making it more stable with the help of the Senate. Meanwhile, the prosecution announced that Augustus was power hungry, tricking everyone and hiding behind his charitable deeds, and that he did indeed kill the republic. Which side is correct? There was much indecision in the court. The prosecution struck hard, bringing to the stand witnesses Mark Antony, Julia, and Marcus Agrippa, Augustus arch enemy, daughter, and best friend/defense minister. Their best witness was Mark Antony, who stated that Augustus could have shared the power, but decided to take it all for his own gain. This former member of the second triumvirate shared his negative opinions on Augustus, saying that he said was not a good ruler either. Their worst witness was Marcus Agrippa, who disagreed with the prosecutions accusations, saying that his best friend and also his father-in-law ruled fairly, not holding all the power for himself either. Julia was inbetween, having both her good and bad moments for the side she supported. All in all, the prosecution had a strong argument against the accused, Augustus Caesar. The defense was just as adamant, insisting that their client was innocent. They brought to the stand many witnesses, the best of which was the Roman soldier and the worst of which was Livia Drusseila. Upon questioning, the Roman soldier remained loyal to Augustus Caesar, assuring the court that his leader was a good person who ruled fairly and just wanted to help. He stated that Augustus took into consideration the thoughts and opinions of the Senate and everyone else. Livia Drusseila was also very sure that her spouse did not destroy the republic, and that he only changed it in ways that benefitted Rome. However, she made a huge slip up and shocked everyone in the courtroom as she mistakenly called her husband an emperor. By pleading not guilty, Augustus Caesar was saying that he did not kill the republic, but if he was an emperor, that would signal the end of the Roman republic. Throughout the questioning of the defenses witnesses, everyone got a sure sign from the defense that they were absolutely positive in their thoughts that Augustus Caesar was not to blame for the killing of the republic.

The prosecution and defense made it a very tough decision for everyone, both supplying plenty of reasons that supported their view. The prosecution closed with the statement that Augustus killed and destroyed the republic, and that the Etruscan kings were kicked out and no one was allowed to have too much power again. Augustus broke this tradition, therefore ruining the republic and a rule of Rome. The defense, on the other hand, replied that Augustus was not guilty, and that as times changed he helped Rome through a dark age. They said that he was a good, fair ruler, and they ended with a twist: Besides, how could he kill something that never existed in the first place? In the end, it is up to the jury to decide: did Augustus Caesar kill the Roman republic?