This is an astounding assertion. We've provided tonnes of facts. In contrast, can you cite a single modern historian who supports your view? I've asked this before, and you have never been able to do so. What do you think all the historical events we're citing are? Are you disputing the veracity of any of them? You were telling us only pages ago that the veto had to be renewed every year (which you were wrong about, and never conceded or apologized for), and then Joe confused the consular veto for a tribunican one a page later, and you're telling us we don't have the facts on our side?!Okay, let's bring this to a head. frankly neither Olleus nor Caesarmagnus have offered any real historical evidence or insight to their argument
This is simply assertions that ignore reality. I imagine every pretty much dictator would make the same claims about themselves. The question is whether their claims match the reality. For a tonne of reasons they didn't, but since you won't read our arguments (and said as much) it's kind of hard to communicate that to you. I'll make it easier and just ask for one modern historian of note who supports your view. Just one.which devolves basically into their preferred opinion. Augustus worked with the Senate, not in charge of it, though we agree his influence was such that he held a guiding hand. He was a transitional form of leader, one using republican forms, leading to a situation from the Dominate onwards when one might more realistically describe the Roman Caesar's as 'Emperors'. The idea that merely avoiding calling oneself by a name or such was enough is not convincing. The Romans attached huge importance to titles and usually underpinned them with privilege - for them, social status was everything and Augustus had adopted a role in society as Princeps, "First Citizen", which meant far more to them than either of you. Ideas of Auctoritas are more nebulous and complex than the simplistic modern concepts you offer. In Rome, the one single absolute authority that had any social acceptance was that of the head of family. By social primacy, Augustus was functioning as the City's 'father', and it was this that gave him the apparent power whatever political rights he had accumulated. The Client/Patron system was part of Roman society. It was what made the Senate powerful, it was what made Augustus more so.
I do expect dismissalsand more adverse opinion, but to be honest, you're wasting your time, unless of course either of you actually bother reading the sources and learning something about Roman politics, sociology, and mindset. I'm not an expert - I never claimed to be - but at least I don't believe my opinion is worth more than anyone else.