In a classical sense, historians have classified the downfall of the Roman republic as being during the period 133-14AD or from the Grachii to Octavian. from the dissident rumblings from the trubunician Tiberius to the outright proclamtion of Marius as consul for consecutive terms, it seems clear that the movement from republic to monarchy was in full swing. However, ancient historian Gustaf Ferguson has brought new evidence to refute these accepted truths. .
Throughout the imperial period, the senate was given varying degrees of power depending on the whim of the ruling emperor. In Nero's time it has limited duties but in Tiberius' time it had nearly the status of the ruling elite. Ferguson suggests that the emperors were in fact an invention of the senate to control a populus intent on setting up a monarchy. The degree to which the senate ruled was dependant on economic and social attitudes rather than the whims of the emperors. For instance, during the time of Nero could be considered a period of Laissez Faire similar to that of Britain in the 1800's. .
Tiberius and indeed Octavian allowed the senate virtually free reign in the running of the empire, or rather the senate chose of its own free will to take an active role in the govering of Rome whilst shunting Octavianus to one side. Therefore, to the populus, Octavian is undisputed 'elected' leader whilst the senate is free to do what is did best, governance and manipulation. It is a fact that after the death of Julius Caeser, there were no more dissidents from the general population as in the times of Marius, Pompey and Claudius for example.
Fergusons argument does however have some holes. Why is the time of Hadrian, did the emperors persecute the senate but anulling legislation and reducing its numbers. Ferguson explains this by the fact that Hadrian did in fact inspire much public support and felt confident in his position to ignore senates perogative.
