What's the similarity between, say, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Peter the Great, Augustus, Kemal Ataturk, Henry VIII, Alexander the Great, Napoleon I, Oliver Cromwell, Seleucus I, Darius I, Philip II of Macedon, Pisastratus the Tyrant, Sulla, Ptolemy I, Antiochus IV, Caesar, and all others like them?
They are dictators who used Mafia like techniques, as you may phrase it, to maintain absolute power. They killed, murdered, etc, etc... They had absolute control of their countries, or at least tried to. All those leaders, in their aim, and technique, are like mobsters in control of states.
Whats the difference between them?
Some are physically brave, like Alexander. Others are cowards in battle, like, as you say, Augustus.
Some are great generals, like Alexander, and Philip, Napoleon, and Caesar.
Some are great reformers, like Ataturk, Peter the Great, Darius, Cromwell and yes, even Augustus (if only for his reform of provincial government, if nothing else, and the empires finances), and Napoleon I.
Some are great administrators, like Darius I, Philip II, Augustus, Ptolemy I.
Some leave a great legacy to future generations for hundreds of years, like Peter the Great, Darius, Alexander, Caesar and Augustus.
Some left their country in utter ruin, like Hitler and Napoleon, or civil war, like Caesar.
Some made a decisive break with the past and changed their country's history, whether or not they want to or not, like Henry VIII, Caesar, Augustus, Peter the Great, Stalin, Sulla, and Cromwell.
Some left their countries enlarged in area, like Caesar, Augustus, Sulla, Alexander, Philip, Stalin, Cyrus the Great.
Some led their countries into a victorious war with a foreign enemy, like Philip II of Macedon, Alexander, Sulla, Stalin, Ataturk, Napoleon, while some led them into a foreign war only to be defeated, like Hitler, Henry VIII, Antiochus III and IV, and Napoleon
Some presided over their country's cultural golden age, like Augustus, or Elizabeth I.
Some presided over a long spell of internal peace and prosperity, like Augustus, or Antoninus Pius.
Some founded important institutions that endured for a long long time, like Henry VIII, Augustus, Peter the Great, while others crumble at their death or even before their death, like Hitler, Napoleon, and Ahkenaton.
This criteria is of course, arbitrary.
However, it does underscore my point that the only way to fairly evaluate Augustus as an emperor is to compare him to his peers, the other emperors of Rome, and other leaders of history who wielded great if not absolute control. It is unfair that we levy standards, so perfect, so high, that no one can be judged favorably as a result.
How does Augustus measure up to other emperors of the Roman Empire? How does he measure up to the task he set out to do with the tools he had as a disposal?
To my mind, in absolute standards, he still accomplished great things, but has serious faults, but in comparison to other emperors and rulers, he truly was a great emperor.