Was the emperor an official position like a consul or a praetor,

>>2549130
he was permanent

in the age of the republic they would either send 2 consuls to war , or they would elect a dictator if times were really bad

>>2549174
but was it an official constitutional position?

>>2549192
I'm not sure to tell ya the truth if your looking for specifics , i know in the early stages of the empire they did keep the senate around. Perhaps Augustus wrote it into law officially if Julius didn't

>>2549192

IIRC Augustus just collected a ton of individual powers. Like imagine if someone was president of the United States, speaker of the house, president of the senate, and chief justice of the supreme court all at the same time, while his party is in power. While not technically a king, the power this person has is pretty equivalent.

I think later it became more and more formalized. Some other Rome expert correct me if I'm wrong.

>>2549130

Emperors began as Princeps, that is, Princeps Senatus, the first of the Senate, the first guy who gets to speak in each session. Caesar and later Augustus got this title and stuffed it with extra powers until they were grossly devoid of any accountability, basically attaining Imperium, becoming Imperators. This first stage of the Roman Empire is called the Principate.

Later the Empire would make the title more formal, as they got used to having a supreme leader culturally. This stage was called the Dominate.

>>2549192

No it wasn't. There was no constituion, Roman society was based on tradition so a constitution was unnecessary because reforms were generally not very accepted (see Gracchus).

No, the power of the emperor was based on auctoritas, which was a stronger form of authority than span the entire society. This was the same principle by which the senate ruled the republic. Augustus said himself "I had more auctoritas than anyone else, but not more potestas (power based on the law) than my colleagues". He used this authority to gain different kinds of potestas like the potestas tribunitas, with which he could block out the senate and use his full authority by having the people vote for new laws, etc.

The problem was that while Augustus crafted his Principat closely onto the existing form of the republic, his position wasn't really defined by any laws or constitution. Which is why it changed so much through the coming centuries. Especially the power struggle between senate and emperor was a problem for alter emperors.

File: augustus2sm.jpg (60KB, 299x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 299x400px

>>2549317
>Emperors began as Princeps, that is, Princeps Senatus, the first of the Senate, the first guy who gets to speak in each session.

Exactly. I always found it funny. When looking at how the senate and the government of the republic worked it literally screamed to me how easily it would be to abuse this system and instate yourself as a monarch. The republic never worked. The reason it lasted for centuries was it's slow development to the form we actually know as the republic. In the Roman kingdom the senate was merely advisory, which didn't change for a long time after the monarchy was abolished. The king was exchanged for first one, than two consuls, which were advised by the senate. Only as the power of the consuls was further restricted by limiting the consulate to a single year did the senate become influential, and only because all these experienced ex-consuls would now sit in there. They would of course still have a lot of say in things even though they legally can't really do anything. But by that time we're already in the high republic and heading for the problems of single senators having too much power. Cue Gracchus, Marius, Sulla all the way to the end and Augustus.

It never worked well.

>>2549363

it worked well all the way to the period Rome actually became imperialistic because the people who got filthy rich off the wars would not let up.

actual Dictators were never once spoken off ill.