Pax Romana

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

Yes, I agree with this entirely. Whether because he simply wasn't as vain as Caesar or because he simply understood the system better, Octavian succeeded where Caesar failed because he managed to keep some semblance of collegiality in place. For all his reputation as a 'master politician', Caesar was an amateur to Octavian.

[Arminius of the Cherusci]

I agree but I think perhaps you underestimate Caesar a little:

 

Caesar's complete downfall was that he grew to believe his own hype, his own legend. Without an obvious rival, Caesar thought he had achieved his aims - he'd completely taken the Roman system. He only failed as a politician at the final hurdle; four lengths ahead and home free, and he pulls up early. Obviously this alone makes Octavian-Augustus so much more impressive, as he never let his guard down. But of course, without Caesar as an example, Octavian's career would never have been as notable!

[Julia C]

Divus Augustus in Hades? Try Olympus!

 

With regards to the thread topic, I don't see why it has to be one or the other. Augustus was certainly a Roman, and he wanted to advance Roman civilization and culture to the rest of the world. If he could do this while rendering his potential rivals unable to amass wealth from the provinces at the same time, then it was even better!

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Lets put ourselves in Octavian's shoes, who given the chances he had would not have done the same, he had the opportunity to take total control of the most powerful city in the world, make himself rich, secure his family's future and also play a major part in Romes future, it would be pretty had to turn that sort of opportunity down dont you think?

Also if Octavian had not have gone down that road he would probably have been murdered due to his connection to Caesar so i think his options were pretty limited anyway and besides if Octavian hadn't done it then who?? Marc Antony? would he have been half as good an emperor as Augustus? i very much doubt it

[Ursus]

[quote name='Julia C

[Antiochus of Seleucia]

It's quite possible he figured out that if he works hard to advance his empire, people for generations to come will look up to him. I think it worked. Many frontier generals who rebelled thinking they could take over the empire are generally frowned upon because all they did was weaken order and stability.

 

The one thing I think Augustus did horribly wrong was create the praetorian gaurd.