What was Augustus like?

[Gaius Octavius]

C., old boy, somehow, some wise, with whatever resources at hand, Augustus accomplished what no one else could or did, and the world was better off.

 

Who was the man who should have ruled Rome?

[ASCLEPIADES]

Nicolaus doesn't say that Octavius knew of the adoption, and in fact he admits that Caesar kept it secret. He only says that the act of putting him in the will occurred at the time of the triumph. The record of when Caesar registered the will with the Vestals should have been available to anyone who cared to look it up.

 

You are dismissing the account of Nicolaus based on something he didn't actually say. Again, he does not in anyway contradict the other sources, but simply provides more detail. I'll post it again for convenience.

 

Some time before he had decided to adopt him, but fearing that elated at the hope of such good fortune, as those usually are who are brought up in wealth, he might become forgetful of virtue and depart form his accustomed mode of life, Caesar concealed his intention but he adopted him as son in his Will (for he had no male children of his own) and made him residuary legatee of his entire estate, after bequeathing one fourth of his property to friends and townsmen, as was afterwards known.

 

Salve, PP.

I'm certainly confused, because following the link that you kindly left us to Nicolaus' History of Augustus (1923 CM Hall's translation), I found the following quotation, which I post again for convenience:

 

"FGrH F 127: (8): After this Caesar celebrated his triumphs for the Libyan War and the others which he had fought; and he ordered the young Caesar, whom he had now adopted, and who was in a way a son even by nature, on account of the closeness of their relationship, to follow his chariot, having bestowed upon him military decorations, as if he had been his aide (syskenon) the war."

 

Nicolaus clearly contradicts himself if you compare it with your quotation from FGrH F 128: (13).

 

Then, as you rightly points, the corrected score would be:

 

Lifetime adoption 1 (Nicolaus) : Posthumous adoption 5 (Appian, Cassius Dio, Nicolaus, Suetonius and Velleius).

 

Thanks in advance for any additional clarification.

[Primus Pilus]

Nicolaus doesn't say that Octavius knew of the adoption, and in fact he admits that Caesar kept it secret. He only says that the act of putting him in the will occurred at the time of the triumph. The record of when Caesar registered the will with the Vestals should have been available to anyone who cared to look it up.

 

You are dismissing the account of Nicolaus based on something he didn't actually say. Again, he does not in anyway contradict the other sources, but simply provides more detail. I'll post it again for convenience.

 

Some time before he had decided to adopt him, but fearing that elated at the hope of such good fortune, as those usually are who are brought up in wealth, he might become forgetful of virtue and depart form his accustomed mode of life, Caesar concealed his intention but he adopted him as son in his Will (for he had no male children of his own) and made him residuary legatee of his entire estate, after bequeathing one fourth of his property to friends and townsmen, as was afterwards known.

 

Salve, PP.

I'm certainly confused, because following the link that you kindly left us to Nicolaus' History of Augustus (1923 CM Hall's translation), I found the following quotation, which I post again for convenience:

 

"FGrH F 127: (8): After this Caesar celebrated his triumphs for the Libyan War and the others which he had fought; and he ordered the young Caesar, whom he had now adopted, and who was in a way a son even by nature, on account of the closeness of their relationship, to follow his chariot, having bestowed upon him military decorations, as if he had been his aide (syskenon) the war."

 

Nicolaus clearly contradicts himself if you compare it with your quotation from FGrH F 128: (13).

 

Then, as you rightly points, the corrected score would be:

 

Lifetime adoption 1 (Nicolaus) : Posthumous adoption 5 (Appian, Cassius Dio, Nicolaus, Suetonius and Velleius).

 

Thanks in advance for any additional clarification.

 

I agree, that would certainly seem confusing. However, I read this as someone not paying proper attention to contextual chronology within his writing. What I mean to suggest is that, yes Nicolaus is still correct from Caesar's viewpoint. Caesar adopted Octavius and in his perspective Octavius was his son (or was going to be by legal definition). The issue is that Octavius still didn't know it, at least as far as I can tell. I very well could be misinterpreting what Nicolaus is saying, but in connecting both passages together (the declaration that Caesar kept it secret follows the triumph passage contextually), I am inclined to believe that Nicolaus has just poorly presented his facts as opposed to reporting incorrect facts.

[Gaius Octavius]

"FGrH F 127: (8): After this Caesar celebrated his triumphs for the Libyan War and the others which he had fought; and he ordered the young Caesar, whom he had now adopted, and who was in a way a son even by nature, on account of the closeness of their relationship, to follow his chariot, having bestowed upon him military decorations, as if he had been his aide (syskenon) the war."

 

"Now" is the operative word for our purposes. I repeat, DEAD MEN CAN'T MAKE WILLS. N. is not contradicting himself. It became KNOWN posthumously! We're playing with semantics here.

 

Nicolaus clearly contradicts himself if you compare it with your quotation from FGrH F 128: (13).

 

Then, as you rightly points, the corrected score would be:

 

Lifetime adoption 1 (Nicolaus) : Posthumous adoption 5 (Appian, Cassius Dio, Nicolaus, Suetonius and Velleius).

 

Thanks in advance for any additional clarification.

[ASCLEPIADES]

I agree, that would certainly seem confusing. However, I read this as someone not paying proper attention to contextual chronology within his writing. What I mean to suggest is that, yes Nicolaus is still correct from Caesar's viewpoint. Caesar adopted Octavius and in his perspective Octavius was his son (or was going to be by legal definition). The issue is that Octavius still didn't know it, at least as far as I can tell. I very well could be misinterpreting what Nicolaus is saying, but in connecting both passages together (the declaration that Caesar kept it secret follows the triumph passage contextually), I am inclined to believe that Nicolaus has just poorly presented his facts as opposed to reporting incorrect facts.

That's certainly a possibility.

 

Another one is that both fragments (FGrH F 127 and FGrH F 128) came from different hands.

 

Or also that Hall's translation was misleading.

[The Augusta]

C., old boy, somehow, some wise, with whatever resources at hand, Augustus accomplished what no one else could or did, and the world was better off.

 

Well, that just about sums it up in a very succinct manner, GO. Caldrail wrote an eloquent post to which I merely wanted to add one comment: if this man was not as good as we all think, why then did he reign longer (and , for the most part, unopposed) than any other emperor? Yes - we all know there was the odd conspiracy - but please don't let's overstate them! Is Caldrail honestly expecting any of us to accept that a man could reign for 40 years purely by force of arms and tyranny? Sorry - even in ancient Rome, I can't believe it. Why, then, were his successors compared to him unfavourably? (I am limiting myself to the Julio-Claudians here). Propaganda alone cannot keep a man in power for the length of time enjoyed by Augustus. And please - let us NEVER forget that Octavian and Augustus are the same person. Sorry to hammer Syme down your throats again, but he made a telling comment when he called Augusts a chameleon. 'Colour changed, but not the substance'. Now, that substance was there through the years of struggle as well as the years of peace. Yes he was ruthless; but there was also something of the astute - even - dare we say it 'benevolent' - ruler in him then.

 

This perpetual examination of Octavian/Augustus as two separate beings has gone on for generations. It is a total fallacy. There was as much good in Octavian as there was bad in Augustus and vice versa - but every man grows and matures.

 

And as for the helping hand from Caesar's name and countless other benefits thrown out by some posters here - these things do not keep a man in power for 40 years. There is a simple fact inherent in all sources, that Augustus died revered, respected and loved by the majority. No amount of modern cynicism and revisionism will ever alter that fact.

 

Sorry to come away from the Nicolaus debate, guys - I just wanted to address the original points implicit in Caldrail's posts.

[Gaius Octavius]

Tattletale, it couldn't have been said better. Everytime I ask who would have been better, none reply. Just twaddle for the sake of twaddle!

[caldrail]

Is Caldrail honestly expecting any of us to accept that a man could reign for 40 years purely by force of arms and tyranny?

Thats not my arguement. He rose to power like any mafia boss, by using people and putting the squeeze on others. Force of arms and tyranny (well, he wasn't an ogre, but then as I've stated before, being nice to everyone won't win you power in Rome) got him there. Once in power, he needed to keep the senate sweet, and sometimes didn't. Whilst the story portrays him glowing terms - he was a successful ruler after all following years of political turmoil and uncertainty - I cannot see a masterful politician calmly manoevering his way through forty years. Things improved for him, as his carefully contrived image bore fruit, but he wasn't given an easy ride in the senate by any means, and often I suspect couldn't act for fear of tipping the balance and upsetting people just a little too much, something very clear in his mind following the death of Caesar. Seriously, if you put aside the regal politician and see him as a ruthless mafia style ganglord, you're closer to what he was and how he acted.

[Gaius Octavius]

Is Caldrail honestly expecting any of us to accept that a man could reign for 40 years purely by force of arms and tyranny?

Thats not my arguement. He rose to power like any mafia boss, by using people and putting the squeeze on others. Force of arms and tyranny (well, he wasn't an ogre, but then as I've stated before, being nice to everyone won't win you power in Rome) got him there.

 

Seems to me as if it is your argument.

 

Seriously, if you put aside the regal politician and see him as a ruthless mafia style ganglord, you're closer to what he was and how he acted.

 

These people rule gangs, not empires.

[Primus Pilus]

Tattletale, it couldn't have been said better. Everytime I ask who would have been better, none reply. Just twaddle for the sake of twaddle!

 

Hard to know... he butchered anyone that may have been capable.

[G-Manicus]

Seriously, if you put aside the regal politician and see him as a ruthless mafia style ganglord, you're closer to what he was and how he acted.

 

These people rule gangs, not empires.

It's not a bad comparison. Mario Puzo would seem to agree:

 

HAGEN

You were around the old timers who

dreamed up how the Families should

be organized, how they based it on

the old Roman Legions, and called

them 'Regimes'... with the 'Capos'

and 'Soldiers,' and it worked.

 

PENTANGELI

Yeah, it worked. Those were great

old days. We was like the Roman

Empire. The Corleone family was

like the Roman Empire.

Edited October 18, 2007 by G-Manicus

[Gaius Octavius]

Tattletale, it couldn't have been said better. Everytime I ask who would have been better, none reply. Just twaddle for the sake of twaddle!

 

Hard to know... he butchered anyone that may have been capable.

 

If they were capable, why didn't they - whoever 'they' are - take over instead of coming up croppers? Antony! Cicero! Who?

[caldrail]

Is Caldrail honestly expecting any of us to accept that a man could reign for 40 years purely by force of arms and tyranny?

Thats not my arguement. He rose to power like any mafia boss, by using people and putting the squeeze on others. Force of arms and tyranny (well, he wasn't an ogre, but then as I've stated before, being nice to everyone won't win you power in Rome) got him there.

 

Seems to me as if it is your argument.

It didn't take him forty years to reach the top slot. Therefore it isn't my arguement.

 

Seriously, if you put aside the regal politician and see him as a ruthless mafia style ganglord, you're closer to what he was and how he acted.

 

These people rule gangs, not empires.

No, they rule countries too. Saddam, Gadaffi, Castro, Hitler - Hey, your country got annoyed at all of these at one point or another, and your own media has indeed labelled them gangsters!

 

Lets cut the nonsense. Was Augustus the greatest politician ever? Not even close. He was a very cautious man, without any of the 'who dares wins' risk strategies that often mark successful men (including Julius Caesar). Even his policies in Germania reflect that, with gradual colonisation underway with an almost touchy-feely assimilation. He seems to lack that Roman conquering spirit that we see in people like Julius Caesar or Trajan. Strange for a man who in other ways was competitive. Ok, he fought a number of civil wars and took out the opposition. Lets not forget that at the end, Antony almost gave him the support of the senate by siding with Cleopatra. It was a gift that Octavian pounced on, showing he had a certain amount of wits, but Octavian did not have that support before nor was he going to persuade the senate without such an excuse. Having achieved power, he remains there for some forty years. Now I agree thats an achievement in itself given roman sensibilities, but again it does not mean Octavian was especially gifted. He survived in power, and succeeded in political survival. He did so not by charisma, nor persuasion, nor threat, but by cash. He bought success. He found Rome in brick and left it in marble, and boasted in his will of the magnificence of the games he had staged. Unable to achieve the personal popularity that Caesar could, he resorted to civil bribery and propaganda.

 

As a politician Augustus is somewhat lacklustre. Although he made some adjustments like his military reforms, he isn't remembered for the events and advances of his reign, but the manner he got there, and the length of time he stayed in office. In many ways, he resembles a third world dictator.

 

Edited October 18, 2007 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

Tattletale, it couldn't have been said better. Everytime I ask who would have been better, none reply. Just twaddle for the sake of twaddle!

 

Hard to know... he butchered anyone that may have been capable.

Salve iterum.

 

That depends on who are we talking about; Octavius was certainly not a Maximinus, not even a Sulla.

 

If you mean one of the Brutus brothers, Cassius, MT Cicero, Marcus Antonius, Sextus Pompeius, Menas, Cleopatra, Cesarion, or Q Salvidienus Rufus (and maybe even MV Agrippa, or A Postumus) he simply butchered them before being butchered by any of them.

 

Now, if you mean C. Domitius Ahenobarbus, Lucius Antonius, C. Asinius Pollio, L. Munatius Plancus, Aulus Hirtius, M. Aemilius Lepidus, C. Sosius, or M. Aemilius Scaurus (and maybe even G: Cilnius Maecenas or Tiberius), he simply didn

[Primus Pilus]

Tattletale, it couldn't have been said better. Everytime I ask who would have been better, none reply. Just twaddle for the sake of twaddle!

 

Hard to know... he butchered anyone that may have been capable.

 

If they were capable, why didn't they - whoever 'they' are - take over instead of coming up croppers? Antony! Cicero! Who?

 

Other than a few major names (12 or 17 according to Appian), I cannot attest to having any knowledge of whether any, all, or none of the approximate 300 senatorial and 2,000 equestrian* proscribed could've or would've become remarkable contributors to the Roman world. I'm afraid that I lack the hell-spawn powers of Nostradumbass and am completely incapable of such conjecture.

 

* not including any others who were not on the actual lists, but may have been inadvertently or purposely killed in the "denarii for heads" bloodbath.