Augustus

[Guest Javier]

what opinion had the Roman citizens about Augustus?

 

 

 

Thank you

 

Javier

[Primus Pilus]

Well generally speaking, Augustus was much loved and admired. Not only was he the heir of Caesar, he put an end to the civil wars and much political corruption. Arts, culture and especially the economy flourished under his reign, which all bodes well for the common citizen.

[Viggen]

I think for the Romans Octavian was the "ultimate Good Emperor", synonym for peace and prosperity...

 

cheers

viggen

[phil25]

Delving into old threads, as I am sometimes wont to do (exploring what was discussed on UNRV before my time essentially) I came across this.

 

There have been several recent threads about Augustus' reputation, and this one seemed worth reviving.

 

First of all, as an aside, wasn't Trajan regarded as the best of emperors (optimus princeps) in his day?

 

More importantly, I think this brief discussion indicates how much of our information about ancient Rome from written sources (archaeology may tell us something different) rewflects Senatorial and sometimes equestrian views rather than those of the populace as a whole.

 

Even if we accept (which I do not entirely) the reputations of the "mad emperors" such as Nero, Gaius, Domitian, and Commodus, their activities impacted much more on the rich and famous than on the pleb in the Subura. These men - and we have some indications in the sources - were hugely popular with the masses while hated by the political elite. So they must have been getting something right.

 

Augustus certainly seems to have got the balance right - the city itself was beautified and made more impressive (brick to marble); peace was restored except on the frontiers; control of Egypt post-Actium gave better hold over the corn supply; there were frequent amusements, games, triumphs etc; and there was political stability.

 

But even so we hear of food riots (interestingly, as I recall, when Augustus was absent from Rome).

 

I wonder what the populace (as against the elite0 thought of the young Octavian when he first emerged on the political scene in 44? The name he had adopted, Caesar, certainly carried weight. In those days, with relatively poor communication and no visual media apart from the eyeball and rather crude coins - is it possible that initially your "common man" (the man on the Subura omnibus!!) thought that this was Julius Caesar himself returned? It would seem incredible to us, but we know that pretend Nero's gained some following after than princep's death. So there was potential.

 

One assumes that the proscriptions would have made little impact, unless a man in the street saw advancement in being an informer. But would that be the case? Since Marius' day (within long living memory in 44) the rostra in the Forum had seen decapitated heads displayed there with some frequency. I wonder what the reaction in the Roman slums or suburbs would have been? Presumably there would have been some reaction given the client/patron relationships which were integral to that society - but would resentment have festered, or would things just have been forgotten?

 

Forgive me, I am just thinking out loud here. But this is an interesting topic. I'd be interested in the thoughts of others.

 

Phil

[Aurelianus]

To hear history from the average plebe would be a very rare and interesting occurrence, however one I would love to happen.

 

The idea of your average punter thinking of Octavian as Caesar returned, but it is quite likely that they thought he was the flesh and blood son of Caesar (with Roman adoption there wasn't actually that much difference anyway), and it was general consensus that the son was expected to be exactly like the father when it came great men. I suspect that many were not actually aware that Augustus was not the blood son of Caesar, even at Augustus' death.

 

I would not have thought that the proscriptions caused any resentment toward Augustus due to the patron/client relationships, as clients whose patron had been executed was likely to be anti caesarean anyway, and those patrons weren't executed will likely to have both benefited and viewed it as a just vengeance on Caesar.

 

Thinking out loud is good I do it all time

[caesardictator]

Augustus was the master at propaganda. Therefore, would have exploited Caesar's image and Godlike status (indeed probably caused by Augustus creating a frenzy in the Caesar loving public) for his own ends i.e. getting the supreme power. Probably in a better way than Caesar, Octavian could see what was needed for Rome to survive. Not so much an all powerful Dictator (as Caesar and Sulla had both failed at that) but more like a 'Daddy'. Someone with the power in the background making the politicians think they were ruling but all the time influencing decisions and life itself. The Godfather perhaps?

 

With this in mind, the brilliant propagandist would have gotten away scott free with the proscriptions - referring all the blame to Mark Antony (an easy target).

Edited October 15, 2006 by caesardictator

[phil25]

But Caesardictator, your analysis seems to assume that Octavian had all the personal abilities and powers BEFORE Actium that he demonstrated afterwards (gained through experience?). I must admit I don't see him as quite so Athena like (ie stepping out fully developed from the outset).

 

Would a lad in his 20s, in a society that put so much emphasis on maturity (ie no consulship until a man was 42) really have perceive himself as being a potential "daddy" when so young? Would not the mature Antonius have been the better placed to adopt that "pater /parens patriae" pose?

 

As for escaping blame for the proscriptions, I always thought that Octavian was seen as a bloody-stained and quite vicious youth - along the lines of the young Pompeius Magnus (adolescens carnifex). Part of the puzzle of Augustus is surely quite how he managed the sleight of hand that changed his image?

 

Just questions,

 

Phil

[caesardictator]

I think he did have these abilities at such a young age. Might sound ridiculous I guess but Octavian was a very cold, calculating person from the outset. His method of how he would hold power (Caesar himself had sorted out his achieving the power) meant that he had to rely on his own inherent abilities. They might not have been refined but his idea of how he would govern was there before Actium. Also, we have to assume that Caesar knew what he was doing in choosing this young man.

 

As for maturity, given that Roman society did put so much emphasis on maturity, he had to have some inbuilt mechanism to survive. Which must have contributed to him achieving the consulship at 20 instead of the given 42? Apart from the blackmail element.

 

Being aware of the maturity aspect, perhaps he tried to make himself seem not so much a daddy in years but in stature. Obviously, he couldn't be the adventurer or showman that Caesar was or the General that Antony was and therefore had to choose more subtle means of control. Perhaps it was the abilities portrayed at such a young age that made Agrippa stick with him so early on?

[phil25]

...his idea of how he would govern was there before Actium.

 

Source, evidence?

 

All most all you say is contention - you cite no evidence except conjecture.

 

Phil

[caesardictator]

You are quite right. It's more of me interpreting what I've read and making my opinion based on that. Terrible prediliction of mine, forgive me.

 

However, I am eager to learn which is why I've joined this forum in the first place. Therefore, I'm interested in the other side of the discussion. If Octavian did not have preconceived ideas of how he would govern or how to retain/grow his power, what are you suggesting?

 

Surely there was some inherent ability - 'From the beginning his sense for realities was unerring, his ambition implacable'. (Sir Ronald Syme) ?

[phil25]

I have no answers, only questions - which is why i was interested in the source/origin of your seeming certainty.

 

I started a recent thread on the subject of exactly when Octavian began to conceive of and plan for his eventual sole-rulership. Whatever he aimed for in March 44 surely cannot have been that - did he even think he would achieve the consulship at such a very young age, at that point?

 

Of course, he had parallels and predecessors to inspire him - Caesar himself, Pompeius Magnus, consul without holding junior office; Sulla... to name but three.

 

But in those early days of his career, was Octavian out to ape Sulla's bloodthirsty rollercoater? Or did he model himself on Pompeius - but Octavian surely never perceived himself a great military man (such self-deception seems to me to be alien to his character, which was sublimely pragmatic).

 

He had able allies in Maecenas (the politician and propagandist) and Agrippa (the soldier) but both were equally young and untried at this stage. Maecenas may have had a precocious confidence, but what evidence did he have of his abilities to convince others.

 

Maybe they simply decided to join the game, play a hand, and go forward step by step, looking to see what "fate" had in store for them. Or maybe, they had a game-plan from the start - but if so, can we deduce what it was...

 

It is others' analysis of these questions in which I am interested.

 

Phil

[caesardictator]

You are quite right. It's more of me interpreting what I've read and making my opinion based on that. Terrible prediliction of mine, forgive me.

 

However, I am eager to learn which is why I've joined this forum in the first place. Therefore, I'm interested in the other side of the discussion. If Octavian did not have preconceived ideas of how he would govern or how to retain/grow his power, what are you suggesting?

 

Surely there was some inherent ability - 'From the beginning his sense for realities was unerring, his ambition implacable'. (Sir Ronald Syme) ?

[phil25]

...Surely there was some inherent ability - 'From the beginning his sense for realities was unerring, his ambition implacable'. (Sir Ronald Syme) ?

 

That I don't deny - indeed, I think my last post makes that very point. But I hardly think anyone could have foressen in early 44, the outcome or position reached by 31.

 

Octavian was somewhat sickly - who could have foreseen his longevity?

 

That - defeat and early death avoided - he would have been a significant player, I do not doubt. But did he really, at the outset, plan on the defeat of Antonius and the support of tota Italia?

 

Even if he did, what would his model have been? Certainly not the final Augustan settlement, as that was only realised by trial and error.

 

Phil

[WotWotius]

what opinion had the Roman citizens about Augustus?

 

 

 

Thank you

 

Javier

 

In my view, it seems that the Principate was much better suited to supporting a large urban population than the Republican government ever did. Though the average Roman pleb was would have still been suffering various social injustices under the Principate--as stated in previous discussions--from what I have read into the matter, quality of life and maybe even life expectancy was better under the rule of emperors.

 

For instance, the centralised government provided by Augustus initiated various building programs designed to appease the urban poor; most notable of which were the three aqueducts built under the supervision of Marcus Agrippa, and after his death, under the eyes of three curators of the water supply (all of which were well established patricians at the height of their careers). Once built, the aqueducts were thoroughly maintained and monitored: according to Dio, Agrippa had a troop of 240 trained slaves to repair them and to cut off people who have tapped the water supply illegally. Because water was now so readily available, Augustus was in a position to order the construction of the Baths of Agrippa: Rome's first large-scale public baths.

 

Another service provided under the principate was the fight service. After the antics of Rufus Egnatius--a praetor who attempted to form a fire brigade--Augustus created his own fire brigade under the command of an adile; though this did not really amount to much. However, in 6 AD, he eventually brought the Cohortes Vigiles into existence--town watchmen who also acted as firefighters.

 

During the age of Augustus, wholesale slum clearance was beyond the technology and the think of the time. Suetonius tells us that Augustus did however re-house people living in the slums cleared to make way for the Forum Augustum. He additionally proposed legislation to limit the number of stories attached to the Roman apartment (insulae). But if we are to believe the satirist Juvenal, this law was often evaded.

 

Augustus' reign witnessed the beginning of a permanent free Annona ration:

'I made grain and cash contributions from my granary...sometimes for 100, 000 people or more.' -Res Gestae

During a particularly bad famine in 22 BC grain was supplied at a '...very cheap rate; sometimes he provided it for free...' -Suetonius, life of Augustus.

 

Though we do indeed hear of riots within the streets Rome at this time, these were mainly caused by the physical and military state situation of the Empire: the grain riot mentioned above was initiated by the fact that there just happened to be a large concentration on hungry individuals in a confined space, rather than because of the urban poor's view of Augustus - in fact, during this riot, the plebeians were (according to Suetonius) howling for Augustus to take up the dictatorship. One of the few other urban riot that Augustus presided over occurred directly after the Varus disaster - hearsay gained momentum, and soon enough, the citizens of Rome were under the impression that barbarians were at the gates. So it would seem that it was the air of fear that caused the riot rather than Augustus' political position.

 

Finally there was also the additional perk of Augustus' freebies such as games and and largesse:

'None of Augustus' predecessors had provided such splendid shows.' -Suetonius, life of Augustus

'His awards of largesse to the people were frequent...' -Suetonius, life of Augustus

 

All of these services may well have arisen if the Republic prevailed. However, under the centralised rule of Augustus these services were provided more quickly and efficiently than they would have done under the bureaucratic Republic. My point being that because of all these services, quality of life would have been better under the principate, the city may have been able to support such great influx of people.

 

However, if we are to believe Tacitus' unrealistically biased view of the Principate, all of these amenities provided by Augustus were only created by the man to secure his position - though that would probably mean absolutely nothing to an under-nourished pleb receiving bread (selling one's political values was probably worth it). Tacitus would also have us think that though Augustus 'seduced the public' with gifts, he actually stole their liberty. I will probably get heckled for writing this, but it would seem that the only political rights that a pleb had before the principate was to express their political anguish by rioting (Saturnius' fate in 100 B.C. is a good a good example of this). Therefore, when Augustus put an end to politically-based riots by establishing the Praetorian Guard, he extinguished the tiny amount of liberty the plebs had left; in my estimation, the urban poor's pre Augustan 'libertas' was so minute, that what Augustus did would not have been noticed, or would have been overlooked by the fact that now, under Augustus, Rome's citizens now had: a fixed grain supply; more aqueducts; fewer riots; a town watch; occasional gifts and ludi days; and, more importantly, peace.

[spittle]

Back to the 'Maturity' issue.

'No Consulship till 42'. Wasn't that started by Sulla ?

 

Where did the story originate of G J Caesar crying with frustration at the base of Alexanders statue because he compared his own achievements to those of 'the Great Alexander' at age 30 ?

Even if the tale is apocryphal, if it was begun by an ancient source it reveals an attitude towards youthfull success being accepted by the Romans.