What was Augustus like?

[Gaius Octavius]

Please see:

 

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=7435

[caldrail]

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!

Absolute rubbish. Octavian was groomed for success by Julius Caesar. Without his uncle, Octavian would have been another also ran in roman politics. Doors were opened for Octavian right from the start. That was NOT down to Octavians skill as a politician, since he was not particularly skilled at that stage, and for a long time even after coming to power his hold on the senate was a little dodgy. Why do you think his daughter julia got banished? Because she misbehaved? So did other peoples daughters. The problem was that she was lapping up the attention of influnetial men with pillow talk. The senate knew what augustus was doing before he he told anyone, and that meant he couldn't operate as freely as he would prefer. He didn't show leading romans how to do it, they showed him.

 

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

Holding your cards close to your chest is something completely different to what I described. Sorry, your arguement is based on misunderstanding. And no, simply keeping silent doesn't mean you're any good as a politician - it simply means you know something someone else wants to.

 

Lets also remember he was not guaranteed of victory.

That's right, he created his 'victory'.

I fall over laughing. Octavian was not the same class of general as Julius Caesar. Nor can anyone 'create' a victory on the battlefield. Its a contest of violence and tactics, and whilst you can load the dice in your favour, I notice that Octavian retreated in a big hurry at least once. Antony made insults to him because of it.

 

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?

Oh good grief. He didn't invent this committee out of thin air. These people needed a someone as a figurehead. He didn't weld this lot togther, he was chosen by them (now I know you're going to say that proves your point - no, it doesn't, not everyone in charge is holding the reins as you should well know). Remember Cicero's comment? Use him then push him aside? Octavians greatest victory was survival, not controlling the empire. Does that make him a great politician? Nope. There are many ways to survive in a political bearpit and some of those are far from honourable.

 

I'm sorry, but you've swallowed the pro-augustus propaganda issued two thousand years ago. All those regal statues don't impress me, I'm more concerned with what he actually did. What he actually did was struggle for a long time.

Edited October 11, 2007 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

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.

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?

Now, you only have to quote a couple of examples:... of young men doing the same "rite of passage" to become senators before being 20 years old... of his family connections, surely extraordinary ... and especially of those better politics that were eventually defeated by him (by mere luck, for sure).

 

He was not guaranteed of victory; you got that right. He got patronage and made others work for him when they thought the opposite was happening; and we are talking here of men like Cicero and Anthony to begin with. There's where you find the calm master politician. He seemed hesitant... a couple of times during an almost six decades long political career. And he was the ultimate winner besides his utterly lack of military abilities. You really think that was just luck? Are you serious?

 

He wasn't always a benign ruler, only when it fitted his purpose (ie, most of the time). My depiction of Octavius is as "rosey" as Machiavelli's Prince. And we haven't started talking about his legate yet.

[Gaius Octavius]

I'm sorry, but you've swallowed the pro-augustus propaganda issued two thousand years ago. All those regal statues don't impress me, I'm more concerned with what he actually did. What he actually did was struggle for a long time.

 

Pres. Kennedy was 'groomed' for his role. Monarchs and emperors are groomed for their roles. Most Roman emperors were groomed for their roles for 1,500 years. Geo. Washington switched sides when he was refused a regular army commission by the British. Generals and politicians are groomed for their roles today as in the past. Family, contacts, money, and struggle play a most important part in their advancement. Taking advantage of the skills of others is part and parcel of a great man. So is breaking the 'rules'; the American revolutions. Are these leaders (both men and women) to be consigned to infamy as many here would seem to have Augustus?

 

The entire Western World celebrates Augustus. Two thousand years of study has it all wrong. Writers and historians have fallen for this 'propaganda'. Everyone has gotten it all wrong!

 

[As an aside, Britain has an island named after Caesar; the U.S., a state.]

[caldrail]

He was not guaranteed of victory; you got that right. He got patronage and made others work for him when they thought the opposite was happening; and we are talking here of men like Cicero and Anthony to begin with. There's where you find the calm master politician. He seemed hesitant... a couple of times during an almost six decades long political career. And he was the ultimate winner besides his utterly lack of military abilities. You really think that was just luck? Are you serious?

I didn't say he won by luck alone, I said that luck was part of it. You're arguing an extreme - I'm presenting a more general case. Nor was he utterly lacking in military ability. He won five or six civil wars for heavens sake. What I'm saying is that was wasn't the sparkling genius on the battlefield that Caesar was (Who was?) and you have to accept that he learned his trade both from the tutelage of Caesar (who tried to persuade his mum Aetia to let him go to war) and from bitter experience. He developed as a military commander (and relied on Agrippa) whereas Antony, his greatest rival, seems to remain no more skilled by the time of Actium, or even duller and distracted (for obvious reasons?)

 

He wasn't always a benign ruler, only when it fitted his purpose (ie, most of the time). My depiction of Octavius is as "rosey" as Machiavelli's Prince. And we haven't started talking about his legate yet.

There we must be careful. Octavian behaved much like a mafia boss, as indeed so did his rivals, that was how romans of the time did business if they wanted to get ahead. There is that story that he sacrificed 300 victims who defied him. Now whilst I believe he was willing to cut people down (he did hire assassins to take out Antony), the overall trend in Octavians story doesn't really portray him as particularly religious, and I suspect the sacrifical side of the story is possibly anti-augustus muck-raking by his contemporary critics, who certainly lived on in the senate after he came to power.

Edited October 12, 2007 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nor was he utterly lacking in military ability. He won five or six civil wars for heavens sake.

Nope, strictly speaking, it wasn't him, but his generals;firstly and mostly Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa among them, but also Quintus Salvidienus Rufus, Marcus Antonius (vg, at Philippi), Menas (against Sextus Pompeius) and others. And more than any other factor, his political mastership over all of them.

[ASCLEPIADES]

you have to accept that he learned his trade both from the tutelage of Caesar (who tried to persuade his mum Aetia to let him go to war)

As far as I know, Octavius had minimal contact with Caesar for any possible "tutelage" (C. Suetonius, De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Augustus, Cp. VIII, sec. I-II):

 

"Four years later, after assuming the gown of manhood, he received military prizes at Caesar's African triumph, although he had taken no part in the war on account of his youth. When his uncle presently went to Spain to engage the sons of Pompey, although Augustus had hardly yet recovered his strength after a severe illness, he followed over roads beset by the enemy with only a very few companions, and that too after suffering shipwreck, and thereby greatly endeared himself to Caesar, who soon formed a high opinion of his character over and above the energy with which he had made the journey.

When Caesar, after recovering the Spanish provinces, planned an expedition against the Dacians and then against the Parthians, Augustus, who had been sent on in advance to Apollonia, devoted his leisure to study."

 

Please remember that Caesar's adoption was posthumous; previously, Octavius was the stepson of Lucius Marcius Philippus.

[Ingsoc]

you have to accept that he learned his trade both from the tutelage of Caesar (who tried to persuade his mum Aetia to let him go to war)

As far as I know, Octavius had minimal contact with Caesar for any possible "tutelage" (C. Suetonius, De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Augustus, Cp. VIII, sec. I-II):

 

According to Cassius Dio his relationship with Caesar were close:

 

"So much for Antony's conduct. Now Gaius Octavius Caepias, as the son of Caesar's niece, Attia, was named, came from Velitrae in the Volscian country; after being bereft of his father Octavius he was brought up in the house of his mother and her husband, Lucius Philippus, but on attaining maturity lived with Caesar. 2 For Caesar, being childless and basing great hopes upon him, loved and cherished him, intending to leave him as successor to his name, authority, and sovereignty." (Cassius Dio, 45.1)

 

And according to Nicolaus of Damescus Atia indeed object to her son joining thr military for fear for his life:

 

"Caesar had by this time completed the wars in Europe, had conquered Pompey in Macedonia, had taken Egypt, had returned from Syria and the Euxine Sea, and was intending to advance in to Libya in order to put down what was left of war over there; and Octavius wanted to take the field with him in order that he night gain experience in the practice of war. But when he found that his mother Atia was opposed he said nothing by way of argument but remained at home." (Nicolaus of Damescus, Life of Augustus, 6)

[ASCLEPIADES]

you have to accept that he learned his trade both from the tutelage of Caesar (who tried to persuade his mum Aetia to let him go to war)

As far as I know, Octavius had minimal contact with Caesar for any possible "tutelage" (C. Suetonius, De Vita XII Caesarum, Divus Augustus, Cp. VIII, sec. I-II):

 

According to Cassius Dio his relationship with Caesar were close:

 

"So much for Antony's conduct. Now Gaius Octavius Caepias, as the son of Caesar's niece, Attia, was named, came from Velitrae in the Volscian country; after being bereft of his father Octavius he was brought up in the house of his mother and her husband, Lucius Philippus, but on attaining maturity lived with Caesar. 2 For Caesar, being childless and basing great hopes upon him, loved and cherished him, intending to leave him as successor to his name, authority, and sovereignty." (Cassius Dio, 45.1)

 

And according to Nicolaus of Damescus Atia indeed object to her son joining thr military for fear for his life:

 

"Caesar had by this time completed the wars in Europe, had conquered Pompey in Macedonia, had taken Egypt, had returned from Syria and the Euxine Sea, and was intending to advance in to Libya in order to put down what was left of war over there; and Octavius wanted to take the field with him in order that he night gain experience in the practice of war. But when he found that his mother Atia was opposed he said nothing by way of argument but remained at home." (Nicolaus of Damescus, Life of Augustus, 6)

Gratiam habeo, I.

 

As you can see from the three sources, mostly (flatter) rumours, no hard facts. Check Caesar's agenda; Octavius was not with him at any battle (he supposedly was praised for arriving late at Munda) nor in any other campaign. And during the aftermath of the civil war, while Caesar was at the climax of his dictatorship, Octavius was going to school at Greece (in spite of his terrible health). There was simply no chance for any "tutelage". We have to believe that mommie didn't let him come out to play.

Edited October 12, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[caldrail]

No, she didn't at first, but I understand she relented later. He wasn't able to attend a battle for illness if I remember right. Nonetheless, I can't believe that Caesar never gave gave a few hints and tips in passing at the very least. Its an interesting situation, because Julius Caesar is known to have 'seduced a great many ladies of quality' and therefore may have seduced Atia at least once, raising the possibility that Octavian was Caesars bastard offspring.

[Ingsoc]

There is no evidence of an affair between Atia and Caesar and the Atia is allways portray as a virtous woman, thought Antonius blame Octavius that he became Caesar's heir because he had an affair with him but it's most likely slander.

[Gaius Octavius]

Yeah, yeah, and Brutus also was Caesar's son!

[The Augusta]

Yeah, yeah, and Brutus also was Caesar's son!

 

Rolled eyes from me too, I'm afraid. We are now descending into the madness of the 'Rome' producers.

 

But to address Ingsoc's and Asclepiades' interesting discussion on the intimacy of the Caesar-Octavian relationship - I am inclined to go with Asclepiades on this one. Dio, writing at a much greater remove from events, has had time to embellish this. I am fully of the belief that Caesar and Octavian were not that close. Octavian probably did not know of his adoption until he reached Brundisium.

[Ingsoc]

Yeah, yeah, and Brutus also was Caesar's son!

 

Rolled eyes from me too, I'm afraid. We are now descending into the madness of the 'Rome' producers.

 

Well, his mother was the lover of Caesar after all and according to Plutarch Caesar thought that Brutus was his son.

[Gaius Octavius]

Yeah, yeah, and Brutus also was Caesar's son!

 

Rolled eyes from me too, I'm afraid. We are now descending into the madness of the 'Rome' producers.

 

Well, his mother was the lover of Caesar after all and according to Plutarch Caesar thought that Brutus was his son.

 

So, why didn't C. 'groom' B. rather than A. to be his heir? Would have missed the Ides festivities.