Pax Romana

[Arminius of the Cherusci]

Hi all, I know there are a few threads already concerning Augustus' foreign policy, but none that I have read seem to address the issue I am interested in.

 

Augustus was responsible for a large-scale re-evaluation and program of reform in the administration of the provinces, and brought about the division of the Roman world into the two categories of Imperial and Senatorial provinces. He removed a lot of the inherent corruption that had plagued the Republic's administration of the provinces through paying a fixed salary to the magistrates and equite prefects that governed the provinces, revising tax collection and implementing a certain level of self-government in both Imperial and Senatorial provinces. His reforms ensured that ambitious individuals could not use the provinces as stepping stones to political prestige as the big names of the late Republic (notably Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Caesar) had done.

 

He also reduced the amount of civil unrest in those provinces previously hostile to Roman influence such as Spain and northern Gaul.

 

My question to you all is this: Was Augustus, as Suetonius and others argue, chiefly concerned with spreading Roman culture to uncivilised nations, or did his reforms serve to curtail the use of the provinces to amass fortune and powers that could be used to undermine the princeps?

 

In other words, am I being too sceptical when I argue that he was primarily concerned with the strengthening of his own position and own prestige (many of his reforms seem to be geared toward keeping the provinces quiet while he expands his frontiers, into Germanica for instance...)?

 

Was Augustus serving Rome or merely himself?

 

I await your input with anticipation!

[Primus Pilus]

I see no reason to believe that Augustus was much different than most other politicians throughout history... he was simply better at it. I think its fair to say he was attempting to accomplish several tasks.

 

* Pacify, Romanize and assimilate conquered populations.

 

* Remove provincial corruption and the opportunities for rivals to develop in those provinces.

 

* Strengthen Rome as a central authority

 

* Establish military, cultural and economic stability (in whichever order and as many subcategories as one would like to insert... sort of the generic catch all item here )

 

* Secure his own position and legacy as first citizen

 

Considering the nature of politics over the century prior to his usurpation of power, I don't think its out of line to suggest that Augustus first priority may have been to secure his own position. This may seem a discredit to the man, but to accomplish the other tasks with limited or precarious authority would've been far more difficult.

 

I don't think you're being unreasonable at all.

[Gaius Octavius]

If Augustus' object was to expand the frontiers of the Empire, the Varrian Disaster put an end to that. He unbdoubtedly wanted peace in the provinces to strenghten his position in Rome. But to conclude that his sole object was self aggrandizement is, in my opinion an error. If this were the case at first, the welfare of the nation soon became his primary object.

[M. Porcius Cato]

To conclude that his sole object was self aggrandizement is, in my opinion an error. If this were the case at first, the welfare of the nation soon became his primary object.

 

Gee, I wonder how much was spent plastering the Res Gestae all over the Mediterranean. Was that late-career move a case of putting the welfare of the nation first or a case of self-aggrandizement? In the Res Gestae, he even has the gall to spin his propaganda architecture as "finding Rome a city of brick, but leaving it one of marble". What chutzpah!

[Gaius Octavius]

To conclude that his sole object was self aggrandizement is, in my opinion an error. If this were the case at first, the welfare of the nation soon became his primary object.

 

Gee, I wonder how much was spent plastering the Res Gestae all over the Mediterranean. Was that late-career move a case of putting the welfare of the nation first or a case of self-aggrandizement? In the Res Gestae, he even has the gall to spin his propaganda architecture as "finding Rome a city of brick, but leaving it one of marble". What chutzpah!

 

My post must have been a little too deep for you. Sorry!

Nonetheless, your bit of venom didn't advance the questioner's pursuit any.

 

Dixi

Edited July 13, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Arminius of the Cherusci]

I suppose one could take the view that in order for Augustus to implement all the changes he had in mind, at least in the functioning of the provinces, he would have to strengthen his own position at the same time: he had already made huge changes internally in Roman politics in the role of the senate. I'm starting to appreciate how masterful a politician he was: he was able to implement his own changes while at the same time strengthening the position of the princeps, thereby ensuring his work wasn't able to be undermined.

There are many suggestions that he wished to extend Rome's borders to their natural possible limits, and make use of geographical feature for frontiers, such as the river elbe... did he decide this before or after the Varrian disaster?

 

Isn't Rome's welfare also the welfare of the princeps himself?? If Rome isn't doing so crash hot, and the princeps is the direct representative of Rome itself, the princeps will lose all clout. For Augustus to remain in power, and ensure that the princeps remains the head of state after he is gone, doesn't he have to show the people that Rome is far better off under the direct rule of one man? By looking out for Rome's wealth and interest, he was merely making sure he remained at the top of the system, and it's two-fold, if Rome is the most powerful nation in the region, he will remain the most powerful individual in the region.

 

Your thoughts please...

[M. Porcius Cato]

Isn't Rome's welfare also the welfare of the princeps himself??

 

"L'etat, c'est moi" wasn't a good idea when Louis XIV uttered it, and it doesn't recycle well either.

 

Octavian didn't murder his way to power to further Greco-Roman culture. You don't further Greco-Roman culture by imposing Oriental despotism on the very society that invented representative government, which is exactly what the Butcher of Perugia did. I freely grant that the end of the civil wars had some nice side effects, but the long-term consequences of the regime initiated by Octavian included proscriptions, secret police, the replacement of deliberative legistlation with autocratic fiat, and a long string of civil wars and anarchy, which were interrupted only by a few decent guys and plenty of plainly insane psychopaths.

 

All of these ills were the direct consequence of a fatal flaw in the principate--there was no lawful mechanism of accession. To attain imperial power, you had to kill for it and be prepared to keep on killing for it. Thus, it's no surprise that nearly half of all the emperors died of unnatural causes or were otherwise violently deposed; in contrast, over a 500 year period of history, only around 5% of the consuls came to power through extraordinary means.

 

If Octavian's Res Gestae were appropriately worded, it would have included the line "I found Rome a city of laws and left it ruled by fiat." THAT--not Virgil's love poem--was Octavian's most lasting legacy.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

i think Augustus had Rome's best interest at heart, but to achieve his goal he had to make sure that everyone knew that he was the best man for the job, that he was the first citizen and once he'd achieved this he could then concentrate on Rome's future

to say that everything he did was for personal gain in my opinion is wrong, he could have easily taken on the role of dictator but instead he chose to be known as princeps, on all ocassions the senate and people of Rome voluntarily bestowed powers and honours on him which he either reluctently accepted or refused outright, also none of his cardinal powers were confired for life but rather for fixed periods of five years, again his choice.

i just think that his intention was to make the roman empire bigger and better, which he succeeded in doing and if by chance along the way he concreted his and his family's future, well so be it! good luck to him

[Ursus]

Was Augustus serving Rome or merely himself?

 

 

This assumes, perhaps mistakenly, there was a dichotomy between the the two at this point.

[M. Porcius Cato]

to say that everything he did was for personal gain in my opinion is wrong, he could have easily taken on the role of dictator but instead he chose to be known as princeps, on all ocassions the senate and people of Rome voluntarily bestowed powers and honours on him which he either reluctently accepted or refused outright, also none of his cardinal powers were confired for life but rather for fixed periods of five years, again his choice.

 

This is simply wrong.

 

First, Augustus assumed a number of powers for life, including Tribune-for-Life and Proconsul-for-Life, thereby giving him the power to veto anything he didn't like and to direct foreign affairs entirely as he saw fit.

 

Second, the senate could not be said to have done anything 'voluntarily', as Augustus hand-picked the magistrates who were to serve in the Senate, and if he didn't like them later, he could have them removed (in 18 BCE, he purged 200 senators). In effect, the Senate did nothing voluntarily, and over time, senators simply quit showing up for work. The situation was so bad that the quorum rule had to be abondoned, thereby removing any pretense at all that the senate had any power. It was not the Senators who maintained Augustus but Augustus who maintained the Senators.

[Arminius of the Cherusci]

It was not the Senators who maintained Augustus but Augustus who maintained the Senators.

 

 

Also in regard to this: How much of Augustus' court dealings were engineered? To be seen to not desire power would further strengthen his position and place a division between himself and his predecessors of the Late Republic - Caesar had used such ploys of recieving honours to gauge his support amongst the populace.

 

How accurate are the accounts of Augustus' refusal of honours - did they come from the res gestae or contemporaries?

 

I see it thus: early in his reign as princeps, Augustus manipulated the political system to show him in a modest light, with the interests of serving Rome at heart - by 'refusing' to take the honours and imperium the senate 'wanted' to grant to him, he was really ensuring he would recieve those powers. Also, the risks of taking high honours were seen when Caesar let himself be put above the state - there is a reason Augustus preferred the term princeps to imperator.

[Gaius Octavius]

Ariminius:

Goes to show you how smart he was.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Gaius Octavius

[Arminius of the Cherusci]

Ariminius:

Goes to show you how smart he was.

 

 

My point exactly.

 

Still hasn't cleared up his actual intentions though.

[Gaius Octavius]

Ariminius:

Goes to show you how smart he was.

 

 

My point exactly.

 

Still hasn't cleared up his actual intentions though.

 

In order for you to get that, you would have to get between his ears or visit him in Hades.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

ha now that would be something to talk about!