How Did Octavian Hide His Power

[suzhannah]

Through Cisero, a little can be read about Octavian, however, I am interested in any other material that discusses the character of the boy. It has been said he had a bloody rise to power, but, all I have read is how ill he seemed to be in the throws of important battles. It is obvioius he had major spin doctors and powerful advisers when he became Augustus. However, my main interest is befoe this period.

 

Has anyone read anything apart from Everitt's Cicero? the parts of the book about Octavian's early life aren't greatly covered though. Do we know who the former advisors of Caeser, who clearly helped Octavian elevate into a triumvir position with Antony & Lepidus were?

 

To me this is a fascinating period in history, as a deeply republican society transformed into an imperial one. Although one must have the greates respect for Augustus bringing the much needed peace and stability to the ailing republic, it still begs the question (I would love answered) of how a 19 year old came to control first the party and then the state.

 

Any views or info on primary or secondary indepth sources?

 

Thanks

[spittle]

I recently read AUGUSTUS: GODFATHER OF EUROPE by Richard Holland.

 

I would put Octavians success down to pure dumb luck and being surrounded by talent (Agrippa, Meceanas and Livia to name a few).

[caldrail]

Dumb luck? I think not. Octavian was an ambitious and ruthless young man, clearly inspired by his adoptive relative Julius Caesar and clever enough to learn from caesars mistakes.

 

Hiding his power? Well octavian did not adopt the title of an autocrat. What he did was proclaim that he was the first citizen, the most important of many, which eased the minds of the senate who may have feared another dictator or even worse a monarch.

 

Remember that political power at the end of the republic was vastly increased by the exercise of military clout. By being able to call upon armed forces, aided by Marcus Agrippa, he has a powerful bargaining chip and a means to eliminate his rivals. Military success is always a plus point in roman minds and his part in the civil war did him no harm.

 

Of course, as augustus he relied on his popularity to maintain his status and conducted a careful balancing act between rule by decree and as an apparent servant of the people. At various stages he tests the water to ensure his popularity is still there, and at others appears a little nervous that his power might be declining.

[Bripus Klmunus]

Well said, caldrail. I really don't agree either that it was dumb luck - Octavian was, like Caesar, a master of propaganda. After Caesar was named one of the gods of the Roman State, Octavian was quick to point out that he was a son of a god.

 

As mentioned, he was surrounded by some of the best philosophical and military advisors in Rome, and was in all accounts a "take no prisoners" type of leader. While Caesar would more often than not be very forgiving and show clemancy towards his enemies, Octavian had apparently learned from that mistake.

 

Someone as powerful as Octavian was cannot be said to be merely accidentally so. I don't believe at all that he hid his power. He was simply underestimated time and again by those who saw the great-nephew of Julius Caesar to be nothing more than an 18-year old boy.

[Mosquito]

What he did was proclaim that he was the first citizen, the most important of many, which eased the minds of the senate who may have feared another dictator or even worse a monarch.

 

What senate? The worst politic opponents were killed or murdered. In 29 BC he removed about 200 senators from senate list. In 18BC he made next purge in the list of senators. His own followers were getting the seats. With such senate he could have done whatever he wanted.

[Gaius Octavius]

What senate? The worst politic opponents were killed or murdered. In 29 BC he removed about 200 senators from senate list. In 18BC he made next purge in the list of senators. His own followers were getting the seats. With such senate he could have done whatever he wanted.

 

I am in total agreement, The vile Augustus should have returned power back to the putrefied, pusillanimous, impotent Senate of the recent past.

[georgious]

What senate? The worst politic opponents were killed or murdered. In 29 BC he removed about 200 senators from senate list. In 18BC he made next purge in the list of senators. His own followers were getting the seats. With such senate he could have done whatever he wanted.

 

I am in total agreement, The vile Augustus should have returned power back to the putrefied, pusillanimous, impotent Senate of the recent past.

When in university I was taught that Octavian payed lip-service at the constitutional forms of the republic while concentrating power at himself. I still wonder what the forms of the old republic meant to the average Roman - I am inclined to think that apart from the Republican aristocracy they meant very little-of course historical sources are terribly biased in the sense that it was the republican aristocracy in the person of a new man Cicero that is the main source for the period. After all one wonders that even when Augustus reached supreme power in the Roman world-whatever supreme power and roman world may mean, was this fact all important for the daily life of the vast majority of the state's inhabitants- I doubt. It may have been significant for some powerfull and influential people in the capital but I do not think that most people in the Empire even learned about the change.As the English poem says:How few that human hearts endure can kings or laws cause or cure.This ephasis on grand personalities and the cult of them is a symtom of identification with tribal totems as Freud would have put it.Actually taking most roman politicians as role-models is the equivalent of taking Dilliger and Al-capone as role models although the fact that the latter are more recent has not created the neccesary time for myth-creation and white-washing. I can not understand how historians could draw moral examples from this bunch of warlords, time-servers and obviously robbers and extortionists on a large-scale. The fact that this truce among thieves which was dignified under the name of mos maiorum could form the object of admir5ation of latter historians justifies the belief of Christian apologists on the innate wickedness of man.Of course Augustus ended the rule of the republican oligarchy and substituted it with the rule of an imperial bureucracy but how this can be judged a positive development is open to doubt.My problem is that how could such political forms survive for so long- I mean was the average human being of the age of such bad moral and intellectual quality to deserve such leadership?

[Primus Pilus]

When in university I was taught that Octavian payed lip-service at the constitutional forms of the republic while concentrating power at himself. I still wonder what the forms of the old republic meant to the average Roman - I am inclined to think that apart from the Republican aristocracy they meant very little

 

Then why the pretense at all? Octavian was methodical in his accumulation of power and careful not to strip the facade of Republicanism as he did so. If the Republic meant little, then there was little need to disguise the shift to monarchy. The so-called oligarchy that was the Senate had been replaced with Caesarean constituents through various purges, and for the most part, he therefore held the support of the existing aristocracy. If there was no outcry among the Senate for Republicanism who was left to make the case to the people and motivate them? Had Augustus not been careful in his approach to accumulating power, there may have been a greater potential for just such an occurrence. Of course, on that we can never be quite sure.

 

I do agree that the average citizen might not have cared. After all, a great number had lived through the turmoil of the politically charged street gangs, the 'triumvirate', and two decades of civil war. Complacency/relief in the name of peace might have been the more practical motivating factor, rather than a disinterest in form of government.

[cleopatra]

Hello everyone,

Between the years 30-27 BC there are records of opposition to Octavianus, such as the grandson of the trimvier Crausus who Augustus felt threatened by and tried to diminish his power (Crausus is mysteriously cut out from history records after the year 27 when he confronted Augustus), and also the prefectus of Egypt Cornellius Galus who was charged in court for conspiracy against Octavianus the same year (27).

So, after establishing that there was in fact opposition to Augustus at this time, it is safe to say that his rise to ultimate power was a slow one, and didnt stop in the year 27, even after he removed senators in 29. Also, his policy most of the time wasnt to kill off or remove all his political rivals from power: Quite the contrary: He learned that there was in fact opposition to him within the senate, and he worked to rectify it politically. Not by removing his rivals or killing them off, but by actually giving them political positions. For example, in the year 24 bc there was another conspiracy revealed against Augustus by the his co counsul Varro Murena. Murena was executed after being charged with the crime, and in his place Augustus offered the job as counsul to his rival (and ceasers rival) Calpurnius Piso. There are numerous other examples like this, showing that his main policy was keep your friends close and your enemies closer. After gaining wealth, political power, and so on he used it to bring his rivals up, not remove them or fight with them, and by doing this he made them dependant on him and for him and also showed that the ways of the Republic existed and he was all for them, a critical pretense he had to keep up in order to maintain the support for him.

Another typical trait was rejecting all offers by the plebs to be a dictator - again, so as not to be recognized with any anti republican forms of government - but he accepted all the other political positionns gradually, which together gave him the imperium of a dictator without actually being one. He was smart to keep up the pretense of it being a republic, like after accepting the tiltle of Augustus and the procounsul imperium at 27 bc he then immediately left for Gaul and Spain, as if to show the Romans that he wasnt planning on establishing a monarchy.

An important thing he did politicaly was get his status and imperium officially acknowledged by the senate at all time,and always operating according to the law. He always made sure to renew his titles and postion (like the renewing his tribune authority every year since 36).

Finally, I think that apart from political brilliance and the capability of reading the situation as it is and not getting over confident, his control over most of the provinces from 27 bc given to him for ten years by the senate was a big contributer to his rise to power. This kind of power over the provinces meant control over the Roman legions there as well, enabeling him to influence politically. Caldrail said it already -,the military was vital for Romans to gain power.

I think that there are a number of things that contributed to Augusts's rise to power, but no way was it only luck. He was a briliant politician and soldier and knew how to take advantage of every situation. Of course, all of the other things youve all said, like him being Ceasers official successor , the decline of the senates power and all that are huge contributions as well and are not to be undermined.