Augustus, father of western civilization....?

[Viggen]

...not often do you get so many replies at Facebook, 21 and counting so must be a touchy subject and thought i repost it here...

 

..."If there is anyone who qualifies as the founding father of western civilisation, it is Augustus," writes Anthony Everitt", do you agree?

 

..via Guardian

[Ingsoc]

I really don't get this article, how the fact that Augustus was a brilliant politician has anything to do with being the "father of western civilization"?

 

Rome is not doubt the foundation on which the western civilization build upon, the question is in what extent was it the work of a single man (in this case Augustus) or the natural development of the Roman state.

 

Even before his rule the Roman state started to assimilate the conquered people under it's domain, the elites were given Roman citizenship and education and at the end entire people receive the Roman rights and became full fledge Roman.

[Melvadius]

This issue was picked up in the Independent review in Jan 2007. I do wonder why the Guardian is only reviewing this book now - was there a paperback issue or is it simply desperation to get something they can fit inot to their 'Great Dynasties' series of reviews?

 

...Everitt tells us at the beginning of his informative biography that if anyone qualifies as "the founding father of Western civilisation", it is Augustus. Fortunately, this somewhat silly statement is not followed through. Had Augustus never happened, Rome would doubtless have continued to expand through the Mediterranean world. What Augustus did achieve, after a period of civil wars, was a restoration job: not of the so-called Republic (in reality, an oligarchy), but of the autocracy briefly achieved by Julius....continued

 

As to being the 'founding' father of Western Civilisation I agree with Ingsoc's confusion although I see 'Western civilisation' as being based on more than one bedrock - Greece had a major part to play in Rome's development as did several other cultures both as actors and reactors to Rome's development. I could even argue for the Islamic states beign of significance as they effectively saved some of the ancient writings which feed into the Renaissance flowering that could otherwise have been lost.

 

While Augustus aquired Rome and obviously had a significant influence saying that there was a single 'founding father' seems to be going several steps too far into speculation as he stood on the shoulders of those who had gone before and created the conditions around the breakup of the Republic that he was ultimately able to take control of.

[CiceroD]

Ok I've pulled the book off the shelf and this is the quote directly

 

Imperator Caesar Augustus to give him his proper title, was one of the most influential men in history. As Rome's first emperor, he transformed the chaotic Roman Republic into an orderly imperial autocracy. His consolidation of the Roman Empire two thousand years ago laid the foundations on which Europe both as a region and as a culture were subsequently built. If anyone qualifies as the founding father of western civilization, it is Augustus

 

Just how did he define Europe as a region? Sure he conquered Illyricum and finally brought Spain under Roman authority. but this doesn't define Europe. I would say that it was the Medieval Church that created the sense of "Christendom" and therefore Western Culture.

 

I think that no one holds the title to "founding father of western civilization"

[caldrail]

Rome's first emperor? Suetonius disagrees, and correctly gives that honour to Julius Caesar in that he was made dictator for life, thus an emperor by any other name. In any case, Augustus took the title princeps or 'First Citizen', because he definitely did not want to share Caesars fate by appearing to take on the mantle of monarchy. I agree it was largely spin, and that Augustus was an emperor by another name, but bear in mind the Imperator refers to military command, not political overlordship.

[Ingsoc]

Rome's first emperor? Suetonius disagrees, and correctly gives that honour to Julius Caesar in that he was made dictator for life, thus an emperor by any other name. In any case, Augustus took the title princeps or 'First Citizen', because he definitely did not want to share Caesars fate by appearing to take on the mantle of monarchy. I agree it was largely spin, and that Augustus was an emperor by another name, but bear in mind the Imperator refers to military command, not political overlordship.

 

By that logic you could include Sulla as well.

 

The main reason for me to disagree with you (and Suetonius) is the fact that Caesar spend most of his rule fighting for control over the Roman state and the time between the victory in the civil war to his assassination was too short to have a real affect of the work of the Roman state. In the end, just like it was with Sulla, after his death the state return to square one and the old battles between the nobility return as well.

[Kosmo]

The roman and the western civilization don't have a simple relationship with catholicism being the first and most influential roman heritage for the medieval West. In this bigger picture the figure of the first roman emperor is not very important.

[Ursus]

I think Augustus helped accelerate and solidify a Hellenizing trend in Ancient Rome, and therefore should be noted for that. Yes, he was a gangster before coming to power. But once in power he was a patron of the arts.

[CiceroD]

The roman and the western civilization don't have a simple relationship with catholicism being the first and most influential roman heritage for the medieval West. In this bigger picture the figure of the first roman emperor is not very important.

 

Don't sell Augustus short either. As the author states in the quote he did succeed in "consolidating" the Roman Empire. He got a people who loathed monarchy to resign themselves to his rule and he created a system that would survive his hideous heirs.

 

But ultimately the question is: did his actions define Europe and later culture? Why don't we take a look at a world without Augustus? Without him this period of civil strife could not have continued. Either:

 

1) Another strongman would have filled his shoes as Imperitor.

2) External enemies (Or breakaway provinces) could have ended a Rome weakened by extended civil wars (as they did later)

 

If the former, then Rome could conceivibly have continued to provide the backbone to western culture. If the latter "Romanized" successor states could have fulfilled the same role.

[P.Clodius]

Yes, he was a gangster before coming to power. But once in power he was a patron of the arts.

And not only that, wasn't he noted at the time for his moderation,(after achieving supremacy)? The more power that he accrued the less he exercised it.

[caldrail]

Rome's first emperor? Suetonius disagrees, and correctly gives that honour to Julius Caesar in that he was made dictator for life, thus an emperor by any other name. In any case, Augustus took the title princeps or 'First Citizen', because he definitely did not want to share Caesars fate by appearing to take on the mantle of monarchy. I agree it was largely spin, and that Augustus was an emperor by another name, but bear in mind the Imperator refers to military command, not political overlordship.

 

By that logic you could include Sulla as well.

 

The main reason for me to disagree with you (and Suetonius) is the fact that Caesar spend most of his rule fighting for control over the Roman state and the time between the victory in the civil war to his assassination was too short to have a real affect of the work of the Roman state. In the end, just like it was with Sulla, after his death the state return to square one and the old battles between the nobility return as well.

 

A disagreement? Oh no...

 

Seriously though there is a difference, and Sulla fails to qualify for the emperor club because although he was for a while an autocratic ruler of Rome, he was not given the role for life. Since Suetonius was referring to 'Caesars' rather than 'emperor' (Our word, not theirs), it was not possible for Sulla to have become Caesar before Gaius Julius set the precedent.

 

You could argue that Sulla had set a previous precedent. Okay, in a way he did, but bear in mind Sulla apparently had no long term intention to rulke Rome once he had put it back on its feet, at least as he saw it. There was no sense of ownership in his initiative however rebellious and tyrannical it may have been. Instead, it was Gaius Julius and his successors who took possession of the empire without any intention of letting go of power.

[Emperor Goblinus]

The roman and the western civilization don't have a simple relationship with catholicism being the first and most influential roman heritage for the medieval West. In this bigger picture the figure of the first roman emperor is not very important.

 

Don't sell Augustus short either. As the author states in the quote he did succeed in "consolidating" the Roman Empire. He got a people who loathed monarchy to resign themselves to his rule and he created a system that would survive his hideous heirs.

 

But ultimately the question is: did his actions define Europe and later culture? Why don't we take a look at a world without Augustus? Without him this period of civil strife could not have continued. Either:

 

1) Another strongman would have filled his shoes as Imperitor.

2) External enemies (Or breakaway provinces) could have ended a Rome weakened by extended civil wars (as they did later)

 

If the former, then Rome could conceivibly have continued to provide the backbone to western culture. If the latter "Romanized" successor states could have fulfilled the same role.

 

At the end of the first century BCE, many regions in the western half of the empire were still not very romanized. Had the Rome collapsed then, it is possible that a Roman aristocracy and military elite in the provinces might have been continued on, but in places like Gaul, Pannonia, and northern Spain, the original pre-Roman leaders would probably have reasserted themselves and Roman cultural influence would have waned. Britain would be far different and Romania would not exist. Undoubtedly there would have been some Roman influence that would have been carried over into the modern day, but it would have been far less. More than likely, Western Europe as a whole would probably have been largely a Celtic culture.

[Ursus]

More than likely, Western Europe as a whole would probably have been largely a Celtic culture.

 

The Germans most likely would have still invaded. So, a hybrid Germanic-Celtic culture.

[Axel Wers]

Augustus, founder of empire what fundamentally influenced history of Europe has birthday today!

[Viggen]

Augustus, founder of empire what fundamentally influenced history of Europe has birthday today!

 

...nice article to this birthday from PHDiva

http://phdiva.blogspot.co.at/2014/09/today-in-63-bc-gaius-octavius-thurinus.html