The Augusta

Now, that's obscure -- and looks like you nailed it, G-Man. -- Nephele He has indeed! Well done, G-Man. Your turn.

Good to see you back, Neil. But, alas, no - it isn't Decius.

Nope. OK - so now you have learned hairstyles - we need to get you sorted with beards! But its a decent try, GO. I warn you all - this one is a bit more obscure, but the man in question was an emperor.

Thank you friends. I have begun this momentous day with breakfast in bed brought to me by my favourite female slave, Alexandra, who tries to pass herself off as my daughter If she behaves herself for the rest of the day I may free her. If not, I am keeping that nice new whistle in reserve - thank you for the gift, G-Man. But hurry up with those beefcakes, Neph!

If you've cash to throw around, G-Man - you may consider getting him the new X-Box Elite. What PP omitted to mention is that the 360 is HD-DVD - but if you're using this as a pure games console with next gen graphics, things like that may not come into it. My own son (17) is going to treat himself to the X-Box elite around Xmas-time - we've been on PS2 for some years now and have decided that for next gen we are going with the X-Box rather than the PS3. As PP said, for online gaming, the 360 would be better than the simple X-Box - but be warned - subscriptions for online gaming are charged separately and come at something like

OK lads - see you next August!

I can assure you, Ursus - it is not a one way street! Of course, there is always the odd man who has actually heard of Julius Caesar and Caligula - but you would be surprised what blank looks follow the introduction of the name 'Augustus'. And I am NOT joking! But you made a very good point regarding the huge interest in the Roman military. We gals tend not to get too involved in that - although Lost Warrior will stand her corner, I'm sure. It is sometimes a stumbling block.

Well, that just about sums it up in a very succinct manner, GO. Caldrail wrote an eloquent post to which I merely wanted to add one comment: if this man was not as good as we all think, why then did he reign longer (and , for the most part, unopposed) than any other emperor? Yes - we all know there was the odd conspiracy - but please don't let's overstate them! Is Caldrail honestly expecting any of us to accept that a man could reign for 40 years purely by force of arms and tyranny? Sorry - even in ancient Rome, I can't believe it. Why, then, were his successors compared to him unfavourably? (I am limiting myself to the Julio-Claudians here). Propaganda alone cannot keep a man in power for the length of time enjoyed by Augustus. And please - let us NEVER forget that Octavian and Augustus are the same person. Sorry to hammer Syme down your throats again, but he made a telling comment when he called Augusts a chameleon. 'Colour changed, but not the substance'. Now, that substance was there through the years of struggle as well as the years of peace. Yes he was ruthless; but there was also something of the astute - even - dare we say it 'benevolent' - ruler in him then. This perpetual examination of Octavian/Augustus as two separate beings has gone on for generations. It is a total fallacy. There was as much good in Octavian as there was bad in Augustus and vice versa - but every man grows and matures. And as for the helping hand from Caesar's name and countless other benefits thrown out by some posters here - these things do not keep a man in power for 40 years. There is a simple fact inherent in all sources, that Augustus died revered, respected and loved by the majority. No amount of modern cynicism and revisionism will ever alter that fact. Sorry to come away from the Nicolaus debate, guys - I just wanted to address the original points implicit in Caldrail's posts.

Count me out, I like to be offended...But beware, I fire back! Asclepiades, you are a gentleman, and your kindness is appreciated. Others may be sensitive, but I am like a German - it is almost impossible to offend me. Truly - I am a die-hard football supporter who has frequented the terraces in far less politically correct times than these. I have very broad shoulders. However, your sensitivity to others' feelings is commendable.

Before I finally retire for the night - may I wish Longbow a very happy birthday. Hope it's a good one! I am sure Nephele will be along soon to drape you in purple and wreath you with acanthus.

Hey, now come on, dear Gaius. I've had over 30 years of my opinions on Augustus, and nothing will fundamentally alter the majority of those opinions about him. I do like to think, however, that I can still be open-minded enough at my age to admit to new possibilities that we perhaps have not seen before when reading between the lines of our sources. It was merely a possibility that I hadn't considered before. It is plausible - but perhaps academic. It does nothing to lessen or augment my admiration for the man. Plus - I was not one of the people in this thread who subscribed to the theory that PP was voicing regarding the adoption - i.e. that had Octavian not known about his adoption and had he not been so close to Caesar, this meant that he achieved everything on his own. Or, implicit in this argument was that the later 'propagandists' Cassius Dio and Suetonius were downplaying the help he got from Julius. That hadn't been my take on things at all. Octavian was a cold-hearted, ruthless opportunist who nevertheless regenerated the Roman state. I have never had any misconceptions about a sweet-and-innocent young man who just muddled along the best he could. For all the derision we hear of Syme on the Forum from time to time, I am still 100% behind his portrait of this man - and funnily enough, it is not a portrait I have any problems with at all. I still admire him totally within his age - and as any thorough reading of Syme's work will show, the author had a reluctant regard for him too! Nicolaus may be right and he may be wrong. One thing is certain: Octavian may have had help from his family name; he may have ridden the popularity stakes owing everything to Julius; he may well have chosen superb generals who won his wars for him; he may even have secretly known that he was to be adopted; and finally - he may well have had an awful lot of good fortune in his rise to power. He nevertheless survived 15 years of strife and civil war, when others did not. He was shrewd and he was clever. And this is one of the reasons I will never agree with Caldrail's denial that he was one of the greatest politicians of his age. It takes a very shrewd mind to delegate and to play the opposing factions one against the other. It has been an interesting digression to discuss the adoption, but as the title of the thread is 'What was Augustus like?' whether or not he knew of his status within the bosom of Julius' family when he was 19 years old does not detract from his achievements and those of his regime. IMHO Augustus' personality was fundamental to that success. There are those who admire him and those who loathe him and we can all cite good reasons for our stance on this; but I doubt that any of us - even his detractors - would doubt that he left his mark on the world, and he was not just the puppet of others' machinations.

Revisionism, plain and simple. Of course this can be healthy and considered normal as new evidence arises. Current events (at the time of writing) can influence a thesis, an obvious one would be "Naughty dictator/fascist one man rule" thesis of the nineteen thirties and forties, or the "white mans burden/for the good of civilization" thesis of the eighteen hundreds to support imperialism. Unfortunately certain quarters of this forum seek empiricism when as we know empiricism is an impossible thing in ancient history. Never was a truer word said, PC! I have always maintained that our own outlook influences our interpretation or even reception of history. And I do mean our own personal outlook - not just generational influences; the people rather than the politics. That's an over-simplification, but it should give you the general idea of why this particular woman loves her history. I shall be bold - yet again - and state that I have admiration for ancient autocrats. They do not all have to be like Saddam or Hitler. So unlike others on the Forum I shall maintain my admiration of Augustus, warts and all. But why do you say empiricism is impossible, Publius? Is it so impossible to think ourselves into the Roman mindset? I honestly and truthfully do not think it is so impossible after all. I live in a democracy (well, after a fashion) and would not countenance an Augustus today - for all his merits. But 2,000 years ago, in a different setting, well.... Too few people truly sparkle today. Must we cast away the jewels of history? I suppose my own personal interpretation and reception comes from the fact that I admire personalities, rather than systems.

I have no argument at all with this PP. Antony was not being entirely flippant when he maintained that Octavian owed everything to his name. Although I am a staunch Augustus supporter, I have never ever contended that he could have even been in the position to 'raise a private army and save Rome from the domination of a faction' (RG, 1) without his connection to Julius. But I cannot see why people should try to say this in any case. He publicly honoured Julius throughout his life with temples and comets on statues' heads and such nonsense. I don't think Augustus himself ever wanted to play down his connection. And this to me, makes Nicolaus' testimony all the more telling. You see - I'm beginning to rethink this now, and wonder if he did know secretly what was afoot after all! (Thank the gods for this Forum and our candid discussions. We're never too old to change our minds.) PP - I feel as though we've been sat in the pub chatting about this.

A living man made the adoption. Point taken, Gaius - but I think what Asclepiades and I are trying to say is that the adoption was not known until after the Dictator's death. I remain convinced of this, but we are trying the thrash it out with the help of PP's citation of Nicolaus.

Indeed, it is interesting - but I would want to know what word is translated here as 'adopted' and also whether we can be sure if Octavian actually knew he was adopted at that time? Marcellus and Tiberius rode on either side of Augustus' chariot in the Triumphs of 29BC - but at that time he hadn't 'adopted' either of them. He was merely singling them out for family honours. Nicolaus admits that Caesar kept this information secret, so there's no inconsistency here with the general record. However, there were a few people who knew... Caesar's personal attendants, perhaps the vestals, various advisors, etc. Did Octavius know everything? Clearly not, but there are some strange things to reconcile if people did not think he was an heir. Some time before he had decided to adopt him, but fearing that elated at the hope of such good fortune, as those usually are who are brought up in wealth, he might become forgetful of virtue and depart form his accustomed mode of life, Caesar concealed his intention but he adopted him as son in his Will (for he had no male children of his own) and made him residuary legatee of his entire estate, after bequeathing one fourth of his property to friends and townsmen, as was afterwards known. Now this has got my brain working.... As you mentioned that Nicolaus was near contemporary to events - could he not have had his own propaganda motives for stressing or suggesting this 'adoption' and closeness of the familial relationship? It adds a sort of legitimacy to Octavian's war of vengeance against Brutus and Cassius? Just a thought. Nicolaus was, after all, a friend of Herod the Great, and as Asclepiades pointed out, perhaps the man was accustomed to flattering autocrats? It may be fanciful, but it has certainly got me thinking.

Indeed, it is interesting - but I would want to know what word is translated here as 'adopted' and also whether we can be sure if Octavian actually knew he was adopted at that time? Marcellus and Tiberius rode on either side of Augustus' chariot in the Triumphs of 29BC - but at that time he hadn't 'adopted' either of them. He was merely singling them out for family honours.

That is indeed kind of you Sue. And take no notice of G-Man - he's just trying to scare you. Welcome aboard - I hope you stay with us.

Great to know you will be with us GPM. We did indeed have some nice stuff planned for the aborted meeting, so hopefully that will act as the basis for the new one.

Aha! Is it Nerva in a poor light?

Catiline?

Is it Virgil?

Ha! Well listen up, guys and gals! Yep - the hypocritical CofE thinks Halloween too spooky, yet persists in giving its backing to one of the most barbaric bloody festivals the world has ever known: Bonfire Night! Yes - let's get the kiddies round the big fire and chuck gunpowder in the air, and we'll all watch an effigy of some poor old sod burning to a crisp. Nice custom. "Some costumes are scary. They are really horrible, with blood and gore. We get subjected to that enough in our lives and we should keep children as young as possible," she said. But as for recalling the barbaric death of a man who was hanged, drawn, quartered and his entrails flung on a fire is not in any way spooky and gory at all! By all the gods.... Sorry - it's getting to that time again. I loathe Bonfire Night. I would replace it officially with Halloween tomorrow if I were PM.

But this doesn't make any sense either. Plebeians and senators were not mutually exclusive groups. In fact, most senators WERE plebeians. What do you think a plebeian is? Senators always came from the aristocracy with the exception of Cicero. Plebeians were of the lower class, the mob. When the mob was angry, havoc struck. Senators came from those who were wealthy. The aristocracy is a mis-applied term because membership of the senate was on the basis of how much cash you had, not who your father was, although I accept that people being people a senators son got preferential consideration, itself something very roman. Whether or not the origin of a family was plebian is immaterial. What mattered was which social class you belonged to. You were either senatorial or not. Notice how much scorn is poured on Octavian for his families humble origins. I really do not believe that a roman senator regarded himself as a pleb. Another excellent point that helps to illustrate further our usage of such terms in our present century. Aristocracy to us is synonymous with hereditary powers, wealth etc. but in the ancient world, using the term as the Greeks used it, it meant 'rule by the best men' - which to my simple way of thinking does not necessarily imply a hereditary concept. Let's face it, how did any mediaeval family become 'aristocratic'? Through wealth and the acquisition of land in the first place. But Caldrail is quite right, which is why in scholarly texts, such men are referred to as boni or some other purely Latin term taken from the context of the era. Sometimes, using our modern terminology does nothing to enlighten matters.

I don't think this bit is in doubt, Ingsoc. I am sure that Octavius would have expected to inherit the odd thousand sesterces or two. But being a beneficiary of your old great-uncle's will and being posthumously adopted as his son are not the same thing. However, this raises - I think - a partial answer to MPC's question of why Octavian set off for Italy. He may well have expected a nice inheritance to be waiting for him. I don't suppose we will ever know the truth. And thanks to PP for that passage of Nicolaus. It certainly deserves consideration.

Oh, you clever so-and-so! Well done, G-Man. Your turn.