A Deputy Roman Emperor: The Role of Marcus Agrippa during the ‘Age of Augustus’
Introduction
Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa (64/63 BC - 12 BC) was a key friend and political ally of the first Roman emperor, Augustus. Due to the predominance of Augustus in the ancient sources, Agrippa is often overshadowed in the history of the ‘Augustan Age’. In Suetonius’ Life of Augustus, Agrippa is mentioned when describing other members of the imperial family, such as Augustus’ daughter Julia (Suetonius, Life of Augustus 63). Nonetheless, Agrippa was an influential friend and advisor to the emperor, especially during the Civil Wars of the Late Roman Republic during which he also assumed the role of general and admiral. After the defeat of Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, Augustus began to covertly assume more roles that we would recognise as those of an emperor. For instance, two important legal titles, Tribunicia Potestas (lit. the power of the tribunes) and Imperium (a designation of power given to military leaders) were granted to Augustus on a regular basis. These titles gave him the power to veto the decisions of the Senate as well as to command armies outside of Rome, arguably giving Augustus ultimate authority over the Empire.
Augustus never sought an official title. He was given many by the Senate, but two of his favourites were Princeps Civitatus (‘first citizen’) and Pater Patriae (‘father of his country’) (Res Gestae 35). For Augustus it was important to present a semblance of democracy to avoid the much dreaded association with kingship. He could not be seen to be a king, yet he wanted the authority of one. This is where Agrippa enters the picture. Whilst there are many aspects of Agrippa’s life that could be analysed here, I will focus on his journeys to the eastern half of the empire in 23, 18 and 13 BC. The best opportunity to assess Agrippa’s power is by examining key moments when he is geographically separated from Augustus. This methodology means that actions taken by Agrippa can only be attributed to him, and not to Augustus. When Agrippa was in Ephesus, for instance, it would be improbable that he would wait for the emperor’s permission when governing. For instance, according to Stanford’s geospatial database, the trip from Ephesus to Rome in the summer would likely take 16 days, which would equate to 32 days minimum for a return trip (Scheidel & Meeks, 2012). Therefore, when Agrippa was in the East he would have had to govern by himself.
How do we define power?
Augustus could not command the entire empire by himself, nor would the Republican tradition of collegiate power enable him to do so. In the turbulent early years of his reign he needed someone he could trust to run the eastern half of the Roman World - Agrippa. Agrippa was granted tribunicia potestas and imperium before his journeys to the provinces in 23, 18 and 13 BC. Some historians, such as Gaius Stern (2015), Matthew Clark (2010) and Paweł Sawiński (2021), argue that these grants of legal powers are indicative of Agrippa becoming a co-emperor. This assumption, however, is made through hindsight. Many scholarly connections between the tribunicia potestas, imperium and imperial authority are derived from the definition of power established in the later imperial periods, long after a paradigm of imperial rule was created. Ten years after the end of the Civil War, Romans would not have been clear on what an ‘emperor’ was in the same as we are today; for the Romans of 23 BC, imperium did not mean ‘emperor’, therefore, Agrippa can not be considered a co-emperor.
A more apt definition of Agrippa’s position in these years is as a deputy to Augustus, that is an assistant in imperial power and a helpmeet for the emperor, not someone who could supersede him. Ancient sources do not describe Agrippa specifically as an imperator - meaning someone who held imperium. The senator-cum-historian Dio Cassius from the 2nd century AD claims that “Agrippa was promoted to the supreme power, one might say, by him [Augustus]” (Dio Cassius, 54.12.1-2). This refers in particular to the extraordinary powers given to Agrippa in 18 BC, five years after the first grant of imperium in 23 BC. This grant of power was given to Agrippa in order to raise an army and put down the Cantabri rebellion in Spain (Dio Cassius, 54.11-12). Another set of imperium and tribunicia potestas was given to Agrippa in 13 BC. This, therefore, represents a pattern of granting Agrippa imperium when he would wield military or legislative authority in the provinces. The provincial aspect is important, as this power did not overstep Augustus’ own power in Rome. This was an existing Republican practice that Augustus and Agrippa used, and is an important context to consider when examining the nascent stages of Roman imperial rule (Mitchell et al., 2019, 2).
Power through Acquisition
When Agrippa was granted the imperium and tribunicia potestas he had legal superiority over everyone, except the emperor himself. As mentioned above, these powers were designed to give authority to Agrippa to raise an army in the provinces as well as to overrule provincial governors, implying that Agrippa was recognised as an individual who could rule over multiple governors at one time, a deputy, if you like.
The ancient historian, Velleius Paterculus, reported that in 23 BC Agrippa fell out with Augustus’ nephew and heir presumptive, Marcellus. Velleius claims that Agrippa was annoyed with Augustus at his preference for the nineteen-year-old. The historian writes that Agrippa “had gone to Asia on the pretexts of imperial business, but who really, as rumour reports, had taken himself off for the time being because of his secret dislike of Marcellus.” (Velleius Paterculus, 2.93.2). If we remove the sensationalised story of the rift between the heir presumptive and the deputy, Velleius claims that Agrippa went to the East in 23 BC on “imperial business”. Along with the grants of imperium and tribunicia potestas, this suggests that Agrippa was sent to the East by Augustus to govern that portion of the empire on his behalf - perhaps an action of a deputy, yet a deputy in that specific geographical area for a limited period of time. This was likely to be something that organically arose, rather than part of a large plan by Augustus, as this level of long-term planning is unlikely, following the argument of Mitchell et al. (2019). Agrippa did this in order to conduct business for the benefit of the state, leading to his elevation to the position of deputy.
This distinction is important because being made deputy implies a level of intent, whereas becoming a deputy implies a natural development of the role. The historian Matthew Clark (2010, 95) claims that Tiberius (Augustus’ step-son and successor) inherited a role of junior emperor from Agrippa. This argument assumes that there was an official position of ‘emperor’ and ‘junior emperor’ to inherit - this system of government was more akin with later periods of Roman rule, and again does not account for hindsight. Moreover, Tiberius and Agrippa cannot be accurately compared as they had different positions within the imperial household. Agrippa had a unique position that was accumulated throughout his life, similar to how Augustus acquired power, whereas Tiberius’ power was given to him by Augustus, sometimes reluctantly (Tacitus, Annals, 1.3-4). Whilst Tiberius was granted imperium for his campaign to the Alps in 15 BC, he was accompanied by his brother Drusus (Sawiński 2021, 52). Thus, Augustus never trusted anyone other than Agrippa to hold such extra-ordinary legal power.
Gaius Stern (2015, 62) goes even further than Clark and claims that Agrippa was the second emperor of Rome, and the only reason we do not see him as such is because he pre-deceased Augustus. Stern uses the grants of imperium and tribunicia potestas as his evidence, alongside priesthoods given to Agrippa, however, these honours range throughout his political life. Agrippa’s position shifted, and his influence and power were not linear. Therefore, it is impossible to state that evidence spanning the best part of forty years means that he was co-emperor after 23 BC. This would imply a detailed level of planning, and this would be improbable. Such a level of planning would require a tremendous level of foresight; a far more plausible scenario is one of reactivity to events, or short-term planning.
Reactive Power
Historically, the idea that Augustus and Agrippa had a long-term plan for how they would acquire power is popular with historians. Along with Stern other scholars, such as Eric Gruen (2005, 50) and Ernst Badian (1980, 101), argue that Augustus used Agrippa as a second-in-command or co-emperor in order to not be seen as monarchical and to maintain a Republican façade. More recently, James Tan (2019, 196-7) has claimed that it was useful for Agrippa to endorse Augustus as it reinforced the Republican tradition of collegiate rule. Again, these arguments rely on hindsight and a summative view of Agrippa’s career that forget the reactive nature of politics. Agrippa was given imperium and tribunicia potestas because Augustus wanted him to secure different parts of the empire, whether it be Spain during the Cantabri rebellion in 23 BC, or unrest amongst the Jewish population of Cyrene later on. This power was reactive rather than proactive. This reactive power was targeted and not designed to emulate the civil power of Augustus, but was designed to be military in nature, fitting for the admiral who won the Battle of Actium.
To return again to the words of Dio Cassius (54.12.5), Augustus “granted Agrippa many privileges almost equal to his own.” The important words being “almost equal”. Agrippa’s authority did not equal that of the emperor. The ancient Jewish historian Josephus (AJ. 15.361) claims that Agrippa was devoted to Augustus, although his purpose here is to highlight the friendship that Herod had with Rome’s ruling class. This reminds us of the personal friendship between them, yet it is important to remember that this friendship was unequal from the beginning: Agrippa was the son of a little known Italian decurion (local magistrate), and Augustus was the great-nephew and adopted son of the great Dictator Julius Caesar (Tacitus, Annals, 3). It is unlikely that Agrippa was able, politically as well as socially, to have the same status as Augustus.
The ancient historian Nicolaus of Damascus, a contemporary of Agrippa, describes a crucial event in 16 BC, during his second sojourn to the East, starting in 18 BC. Nicolaus, in his Life of Augustus (134-50), writes that Julia, Agrippa’s wife and Augustus’ daughter, came to visit him in Ilium (modern-day Greece), but was almost drowned during the journey due to a storm. Nicolaus records that Agrippa was furious that the people of Ilium were not more prepared for Julia’s arrival and wanted to fine the city 100,000 drachmae. The people appealed to Herod of Judaea, who asked Agrippa to remove the fine. This shows that Agrippa had legislative power over the East, which derived from his imperium. This was granted to allow him to govern, and residents and client kings in the area recognised that he had this power.
Another key case study that shows Agrippa’s authority was recorded by Josephus in his history, Jewish Antiquities. Josephus describes how, during the period 16-13 BC, the Jews of Cyrene and Ephesus appealed to Agrippa about the restrictions upon their religious and cultural rights, sending Nicolaus of Damascus to lead their embassy. After some discussion, Agrippa reprimanded the offenders and confirmed that Jewish religious and cultural practices had to be protected, Josephus notes that he did this on behalf of the “Roman government” (Josephus, 16.60-1). This highlights the widespread legislative authority given to Agrippa in the East; he did not have to consult Augustus to make these decisions. This could be why historians, like Stern, have been quick to claim that Agrippa held the position of ‘co-emperor’.
What does material culture tell us?
Ancient literary sources are usually written by the upper echelons of society, for a specific purpose. For instance, Julius Caesar wrote his Civil War to build a coalition of Romans against his enemies (Raaflaub 2010, 166), in the case of Josephus it was to flatter the ruling Herodian regime of Judaea. Yet, looking at material remains, this picture becomes more nuanced. The Cyrene and Ephesus delegation shows that Agrippa had some sort of sole power, however, this idea is not straightforward.
An inscription found in the Roman province of Asia (modern-day Turkey and the surrounding area) made under the rule of the proconsul Iullus Antonius, son of Mark Antony and adoptive nephew of Augustus, in 7 BC demonstrates the perceptions local people had about Agrippa’s power, even after his death. This inscription says: “I should confirm my opinion in agreement with those given by Augustus and Agrippa. It is therefore my wish that you know I coincide with the decisions of Augustus and Agrippa and allow them [the Jews of Cyrene and Ephesus] to behave and act without hindrance in accordance with their ancestral customs” (IG II2 4122 - trans. Dillon & Garland, 2015, 710). Years after Agrippa’s decision regarding Cyrene and Ephesus, this proclamation was upheld, yet it was done so in both Agrippa and Augustus’ name. Thus, Agrippa held tangible power, but it had to be in the shadow of Augustus. Agrippa is recognised as a political entity in the East, albeit a position deputised by Augustus.
Concluding Thoughts
Roman power and legal structures are difficult to discuss and define. It is important to remain cognisant of the fact that whilst studying Roman politics, we cannot rely on our own established definitions of power. It is true that we derive our word ‘emperor’ from the Latin ‘imperator’, yet the latter is not the definition of the former, but is a term that has developed over time. The same must be true of Agrippa’s political position after 23 BC. Whilst it is true that Agrippa had the same legal powers of tribunicia potestas and imperium, and held important state offices like the consulship and priesthoods, these should not be conflated with the position of a co-emperor. Augustus did hold all of the above, yet he hailed from a more prestigious social background: the key being he was the adopted son of Julius Caesar and claimed he descended from the goddess Venus.
So, if Agrippa cannot be considered a co-emperor to Augustus, can he be considered a deputy? This article has shown how Agrippa’s political position was usually reactive to threats to the empire, or one that was developed due to the trust Augustus placed in him. He did not hold the status of a co-emperor, yet, as we have seen in the accounts of Dio Cassius, his position was unique and greater than provincial governors. He was too deferential to Augustus to be a co-emperor, but his geographical authority too broad to be a provincial governor. His power was lesser than an emperor, but greater than anyone else; Agrippa was sent to the provinces to deputise for Augustus and govern the empire on his behalf. Due to this, it would be justified to argue that Marcus Agrippa was the deputy, in an unofficial capacity, to the first Roman Emperor.
Bibliography
Badian, Ernst. ‘Notes on the Laudatio of Agrippa’, The Classical Journal, Vol. 76, No. 2, 1980, 97-109
Clark, Matthew. Augustus, First Roman Emperor. Power, Propaganda and the Politics of Survival, Exeter: Bristol University Press, 2010
Dillon, Matthew and Lynda Garland. Ancient Rome: Social and Historical Documents from the Early Republic to the Death of Augustus, 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2015
Dio Cassius. Roman History, Volume VI: Books 51-55, translated by Earnest Cary and Herbert Foster, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917
Gruen, Eric. ‘Augustus and the Making of the Principate’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus, edited by Karl Galinsky, 33-52, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005
Josephus. Jewish Antiquities, Volume VI: Books 14-15, translated by Ralph Marcus and Allen Wikgren, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1943
Mitchell, Hannah, Kit Morrell, Josiah Osgood and Kathryn Welch. ‘The Alternative Augustan Age’, in The Alternative Augustan Age, edited by Kit Morrell, Josiah Osgood and Kathryn Welch, 1-11, New York: Oxford University Press, 2019
Nicolaus of Damascus. Life of Augustus, translated by Clayton Morris Hall, Northampton, Mass: Smith College, 1923
Raaflaub, Kurt. ‘Creating a Grand Coalition of True Roman Citizens: On Caesar’s Political Strategy in the Civil War’, in Citizens of Discord: Rome and its Civil Wars, edited by Brian Breed, Cynthia Damon and Andreola Rossi, 159-170. New York: Oxford University Press
Sawiński, Paweł. Holders of Extraordinary Imperium under Augustus and Tiberius: A Study into the Beginnings of the Principate, Oxford: Routledge, 2021
Scheidel, Walter & Elijah Meeks. ‘ORBIS: The Stanford Geospatial Network Model of the Roman World’, https://orbis.stanford.edu/ [Accessed 08/02/2026], 2012
Stern, Gaius. ‘Augustus, Agrippa, the Ara Pacis, and the Coinage of 13 BC’, Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. 55, No. 1-4, 2015, 61-78
Suetonius. Lives of the Caesars, Volume I: Julius. Augustus. Tiberius. Gaius Caligula, translated by J. C. Rolfe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914
Tacitus. Histories: Books 4-5. Annals: Books 1-3, translated by Clifford H. Moore and John Jackson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931
Tan, James. ‘How Do You Solve a Problem Like Marcus Agrippa?’, in The Alternative Augustan Age, edited by Kit Morrell, Josiah Osgood and Kathryn Welch, 182-198. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019
Velleius Paterculus. Compendium of Roman History. Res Gestae Divi Augusti, translated by Frederick Shipley. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1924
Image References
Centre: By Marie-Lan Nguyen (User:Jastrow), 2009, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7472755
Left: Public Domain
Right: By Marie-Lan Nguyen - Own work, CC BY 2.5, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=15739475
Top: By Wknight94 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=5026057