What was Augustus like?

[M. Porcius Cato]

An outside of a narrow timeframe in Ancient Athens, exactly how many people anywhere could claim this as a mandate for rule?

 

For rule of what? The whole point of the republican system was to prevent anyone from being ruled by their magistrates. The magistrates were there to be ruled by the laws, not for the citizens to be ruled by the magistrates.

[Primus Pilus]

On ad IX ides Maius, DCCX AUV (May 7, 44 bc), Octavius adressed the Roman people at the Forum for the first time. He was 18 years old, virtually unknown, and had no soldiers, money nor any political or military experience.

 

He had the support of Caesar's veterans in Brundisium. He hadn't yet raised his army, but he did not arrive in Rome unprotected nor without funds.

 

Cass. Dio. 45.33.2

When, however, he had crossed to Brundisium and had been informed about Caesar's will and the people's second thought, he made no delay, particularly as he had large sums of money and numerous soldiers who had been sent ahead under his charge, but immediately assumed the name of Caesar, succeeded to his estate, and began to busy himself with public affairs.

 

Nicolaus of Damascus 18

He sent immediately to Asia for the money and means that Caesar had previously dispatched for the Parthian War, and when he received it along with a year's tribute from the people of Asia, contenting himself with the portion that had belonged to Caesar he turned the public property over to the state treasury. At that time, too, some of his friends urged him as they had at Apollonia to go to Caesar's colonies and to levy an army, inducing the men to join an expedition on his behalf by employing the prestige of the great name of Caesar. They declared that the soldiers would gladly follow the leadership of Caesar's son and would do everything for him; for there persisted among them a wonderful loyalty and good will toward Caesar and a memory of what they had accomplished with him in his lifetime, and they desired under the auspices of Caesar's name to win the power which they had formerly bestowed upon Caesar.

 

Nicolaus, being a chronological contemporary, doesn't go as far as Cassius Dio in suggesting that Octavian sent forces ahead of him to Rome, but I highly doubt that the son of Caesar arrived in Rome completely alone in the midst of so much volatility. Clearly he did not bring enough men to manipulate Antonius, but frankly, arriving completely alone would've been rather stupid.

 

However, Nicolaus continues to suggest that those soldiers who were already in Rome were not indisposed to Octavian even if they were not official supporters. They play a key role in legitimizing Octavian to Antonius (Begins with Life of Augustus chap. 29

 

Less than eight months later, on ad XI Ianuarius, DCCXI AUC (January 3, 43 bc), and despite the powerful opposition of Antonius and other rivals, he was made a member of the Senate and appointed with propraetor's Imperium to command an army together with the Consuls.

 

A legalization of his private army that was standing outside of Rome without opposition (Antonius had already marched north against Dec. Brutus). The threat to the safety of the Senate was real, though those same senators also saw an opportunity to use Octavian for their own gain. Octavian may have been understandably protecting his own interests by raising a private army, but getting one's way by force (or threat thereof) is not the prime definition of being a master politician.

 

Inspired oratory was part of the explanation, arguably more from Cicero than from himself. But above all, he was a master politician from the very first moment.

 

I don't doubt his savvy or daring, nor do I doubt his skill at manipulating popular opinion under the circumstances, nor do I doubt that the opposing tyrant Antonius was failing to recognize Octavian's legal right to Caesar's will, but raising a private army and holding the government hostage is more akin to tyranny than politics. Despite the fact that circumstances are instrumental in the judgment of political ability, Octavian had the distinct advantage of being the son of Caesar, and the only one advocating the distribution of the donative to the populace per Caesar's will. Clearly a smart move when one is trying to gain public support, by it leads to the question: would Octavian have been recognized as a master politician in any other era but this one?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, PP.

Your right reference of Cassius Dio would be 45.3.2. And he continues:

- 45.5-6: "Antony himself pretended to be doing his best to have it passed, but through some tribunes he kept securing its postponement, in order that the young man, not being as yet Caesar's son according to law, might not meddle with the property and might be weaker in all other ways. Caesar (Octavius) was vexed at this, but as he was unable to speak his mind freely, he bore it until he had won over the multitude, by whom he understood his father had been raised to honour". The mere fact that he got his inheritance at all was evidence of his exceptional abilities. He sent immediately to Asia for the money and means of Caesar (before they were still legally recognized as his possessions) because he has none at that very moment. Previous to Caesar's death, he was simply another Roman student in Greece.

- 45.5.1: "In this way he who was formerly called Octavius, but already by this time Caesar, and subsequently Augustus, took a hand in public affairs; and he managed and dealt with them more vigorously than any man in his prime, more prudently than any graybeard." That would be the prime definition of being a master politician. He succeeded in the purest Darwinian way.

The last time I checked, tyranny was still politics. I think indeed that Octavius would have been recognized as a master politician in any other era; but that is mere speculation.

Edited October 8, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

That would be the prime definition of being a master politician. He succeeded in the purest Darwinian way.

The last time I checked, tyranny was still politics.

 

True enough, it's just that the methodology lacks legitimacy in my mind. Therefore I personally find it harder to respect vs. someone who succeeds politically through force of will or conviction without threat or use of violence. Perhaps semantics, but I hope at least my point is understood.

 

I think indeed that Octavius would have been recognized as a master politician in any other era; but that is mere speculation.

 

I find it doubtful that the Octavius on his own merit without the Caesar name would've played quite the same sort of role. Octavian(us) though, as heir to Caesar would have been a player in some capacity regardless of Caesar's fate (death by old age, assassination, retirement to private life, etc.). Regardless, I understandably agree that the hypothetical is a rather pointless thing for us to spend much time debating.

 

Wild and unsubstantiated speculation can be fun though

[Primus Pilus]

The mere fact that he got his inheritance at all was evidence of his exceptional abilities. He sent immediately to Asia for the money and means of Caesar (before they were still legally recognized as his possessions) because he has none at that very moment. Previous to Caesar's death, he was simply another Roman student in Greece.

 

 

I missed this on the first pass... He still sent for and received such financial support before he arrived in Rome. He did not arrive on the scene completely bereft of financial means. Nobody may have known him as an individual, but everyone knew he was Caesar's heir. He just didn't have enough influence to inspire Antonius into action.

 

{EDIT} A clarification is in order. The inheritance that Antonius kept from Caesar was that under the control of the public treasury. Octavian still had enough money (according to Nicolaus) to make himself a player, he just couldn't use the inheritance money that was in state care (Antonius) in order to gain the massive support of the populace (through Caesar's donative).

[Ursus]

An outside of a narrow timeframe in Ancient Athens, exactly how many people anywhere could claim this as a mandate for rule?

 

For rule of what? The whole point of the republican system was to prevent anyone from being ruled by their magistrates. The magistrates were there to be ruled by the laws, not for the citizens to be ruled by the magistrates.

 

Look, I'm not going to get into another woe-is-the-end-of-the-Republic-and-the-death-of-democracy argument. This is the imperium folder, not the res publica folder. The Republic fell, for better or for worse. I prefer to value or devalue Augustus and his successors based on their own merits.

 

And getting back to topic, I find Augustus a rather shrewd administrator, autocratic powers and all.

[M. Porcius Cato]

A clarification is in order. The inheritance that Antonius kept from Caesar was that under the control of the public treasury. Octavian still had enough money (according to Nicolaus) to make himself a player, he just couldn't use the inheritance money that was in state care (Antonius) in order to gain the massive support of the populace (through Caesar's donative).

 

If the money were in the public treasury, wouldn't it have fallen under the jurisdiction of the presiding quaestor? Who was quaestor?

[ASCLEPIADES]

I missed this on the first pass... He still sent for and received such financial support before he arrived in Rome. He did not arrive on the scene completely bereft of financial means. Nobody may have known him as an individual, but everyone knew he was Caesar's heir. He just didn't have enough influence to inspire Antonius into action.

 

{EDIT} A clarification is in order. The inheritance that Antonius kept from Caesar was that under the control of the public treasury. Octavian still had enough money (according to Nicolaus) to make himself a player, he just couldn't use the inheritance money that was in state care (Antonius) in order to gain the massive support of the populace (through Caesar's donative).

LC Sulla was arguably at least as rich as Caesar, if niot even more. Do you remember what happened with his heir?.

Maybe not. That would be because Sulla Jr. was no Octavius; money was not enough. To begin with, he was only about ten years old at the death of the Dictator; but even so...

 

Here comes W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, pp. 943-944:

" Faustus and his sister were left under the guardianship of L. Lucullus. The enemies of Sulla's constitution constantly threatened Faustus with a prosecution to compel him to restore the public money which his father had received or taken out of the treasury ... In B. c. 60 he exhibited the gladiatorial games which his father in his last will had enjoined upon him, and at the same time he treated the people in the most sumptuous man

Edited October 9, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[Primus Pilus]

A clarification is in order. The inheritance that Antonius kept from Caesar was that under the control of the public treasury. Octavian still had enough money (according to Nicolaus) to make himself a player, he just couldn't use the inheritance money that was in state care (Antonius) in order to gain the massive support of the populace (through Caesar's donative).

 

If the money were in the public treasury, wouldn't it have fallen under the jurisdiction of the presiding quaestor? Who was quaestor?

 

Yes, but I meant this quite figuratively. Regardless of who held ultimate jurisdiction over the actual inheritance, it was Antonius who prevented the transfer of property via various delaying methods. Of course, none of the sources are very clear exactly where all the money went, or where the treasury got the money to reimburse Octavian for his private army (after Antonius marched against Dec. Brutus) because Nicolaus of Damascus makes it seem that the treasury was bereft of the funds by the time Octavian tried to claim it anyway Nic. Life of Aug. 28. In any case, it just makes it seem more likely to me that Octavian had plenty of money before he arrived in Rome.

[Nephele]

A clarification is in order. The inheritance that Antonius kept from Caesar was that under the control of the public treasury. Octavian still had enough money (according to Nicolaus) to make himself a player, he just couldn't use the inheritance money that was in state care (Antonius) in order to gain the massive support of the populace (through Caesar's donative).

 

If the money were in the public treasury, wouldn't it have fallen under the jurisdiction of the presiding quaestor? Who was quaestor?

 

I don't know if this is any help, if Antonius nevertheless had the ability to thwart the transference of Octavian's money. But in answer to your question I looked up Broughton's listing of Quaestors for the year 44 BCE:

 

Q. Cornelius. "Quaestor Urbanus. Named in a decree of the Senate quoted by Josephus."

 

L. Cornelius Balbus. "Since he was serving under Pollio in Farther Spain in the spring of 43 it is probably that he went to the province with him as Quaestor in 44."

 

Cornelius Cinna. "Served under Dolabella, and at the end of the year lost to Brutus in Thessaly the cavalry he was bringing to his commander in Asia."

 

P. Cornelius Lentulus Spinther. "Served in Asia under Trebonius."

 

L. Egnatuleius. "Quaestor under the Consul Antony. He brought the Fourth Legion from Macedonia to Italy and in November led it over to Octavian. The Senate commended his action on December 20, and in January 43 Cicero proposed to reward him with the right of candidacy for office three years before the legal time."

 

Q. Rutilius. "Quaestor Urbanus, named in a decree of the Senate quoted by Josephus."

 

L. Sestius. "Probably Quaestor this year, he prepared a fleet for Brutus and Cassius.

 

D. Turullius. "One of Caesar's murderers who went to Bithynia with Annius Cimber, and held command of the fleet which Cimber prepared in 44 and sent against Dolabella in 43."

 

-- Nephele

[Primus Pilus]

I missed this on the first pass... He still sent for and received such financial support before he arrived in Rome. He did not arrive on the scene completely bereft of financial means. Nobody may have known him as an individual, but everyone knew he was Caesar's heir. He just didn't have enough influence to inspire Antonius into action.

 

{EDIT} A clarification is in order. The inheritance that Antonius kept from Caesar was that under the control of the public treasury. Octavian still had enough money (according to Nicolaus) to make himself a player, he just couldn't use the inheritance money that was in state care (Antonius) in order to gain the massive support of the populace (through Caesar's donative).

 

LC Sulla was arguably at least as rich as Caesar, if niot even more. Do you remember what happened with his heir?.

Maybe not. That would be because Sulla Jr. was no Octavius; money was not enough. To begin with, he was only about ten years old at the death of the Dictator. Here comes W. Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, pp. 943-944:

 

" Faustus and his sister were left under the guardianship of L. Lucullus. The enemies of Sulla's constitution constantly threatened Faustus with a prosecution to compel him to restore the public money which his father had received or taken out of the treasury ... In B. c. 60 he exhibited the gladiatorial games which his father in his last will had enjoined upon him, and at the same time he treated the people in the most sumptuous man

[P.Clodius]

"If a man of Caesar's genius could not find a solution who can find one now?" Forget the guys name but its in Cicero's letters.

An indication of the potential problems of the post Caesarian government. One of those problems being a highly politicized military. A legion being a self-aware, individual corporate entity...At the end of the conflict with Antony, which was in fact a roman world war, Octavian had, and I'm going from memory here so go easy MPC, 90 legions to contend with, any one of which could have raised the stakes (for the others to follow). Yet Octavian succeeded in reaching equitable agreement with this potentially explosive force. He demobilizes most of them, pays them off or settles them, and there were no mass evictions to make room for the new 'farmers'. This act would have required the finesse of a diplomat, the conviction of a stern commander, the approachability of a 'good friend', in essence this act would have required a politician of the highest order.

[caldrail]

On ad IX ides Maius, DCCX AUV (May 7, 44 bc), Octavius adressed the Roman people at the Forum for the first time. He was 18 years old, virtually unknown, and had no soldiers, money nor any political or military experience.

So what? Thats typical of a young man from a well connected family, and I'm sure the senate approved of his efforts to deliver a speech. Octavian isn't the only young man who won his 'political manhood' by stepping in front of senators. Almost a rite of passage if you will.

 

Less than eight months later, on ad XI Ianuarius, DCCXI AUC (January 3, 43 bc), and despite the powerful opposition of Antonius and other rivals, he was made a member of the Senate and appointed with propraetor's Imperium to command an army together with the Consuls.

His family connections were half the battle there. Politics wasn't the only reason. Remember too that at that stage Octavian wasn't doing all of this by himself. He was being groomed by others, and progressed with their patronage.

 

Inspired oratory was part of the explanation, arguably more from Cicero than from himself. But above all, he was a master politician from the very first moment.

Hmmm... (taps finger on desk).... No.

 

An able politican certainly, but there were better ones. Octavian looked decidely shakey in his early career compared to some other leading romans. In fact, I think Octavian showed considerable courage in his attempts to get ahead because if you read the story, he seems at times hesitant or unsure of himself. Lets also remember he was not guaranteed of victory. He was nearly killed at Perugia when a bunch of gladiators sallied forth from the besieged city and went after him. Politics? Hardly, he had a lucky escape.

 

There is this rosey eyed vision of Augustus as the benign ruler. Good grief, thats exactly what he wanted everyone to think of him. Master politicain? There were occaisions when he stomped out of the senate with his tail between his legs, the senators taunting him with shouts of "Are you going to let us make a decision Caesar?". Look at his panic when Varus got ambushed. Where was the calm master politician then?

[P.Clodius]

Octavian looked decidely shakey in his early career compared to some other leading romans.

Exactly, he was an outsider who showed the 'leading romans' how to do it!

 

In fact, I think Octavian showed considerable courage in his attempts to get ahead because if you read the story...

Very much so. He had proverbial balls!

 

he seems at times hesitant or unsure of himself.

Holding his cards close to his chest to see how things playout? A SURE sign of a skillful politician, no?

 

Lets also remember he was not guaranteed of victory.

That's right, he created his 'victory'. Octavian was the head of a 'committee' of leading caesarians. Early on, this was comprised of Pollio, Antony, Opius, Balbus, Hirtius, and Pansa. Later it was Aggripa, Maecenas, along with family members. His gift was selecting able men and assigning them to tasks. Isn't part and parcel of being an able politician the ability of getting others, perhaps as gifted or more so, to do your bidding?

[The Augusta]

I have a problem with the Augustus fan club. Now I agree he was a better emperor than many who followed, and that he went out of his way to appear a decent man (out of necessity too, he didn't want to be assasinated like Julius Caesar), but lets not forget a lot of this is anciient spin.

 

And a lot of today's criticism is modern cynicism.