What was Augustus like?

[M. Porcius Cato]

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

 

Correction: Octavian had others butcher anyone that may have been capable. Octavian himself was too busy hiding in a swamp or behind his friends' petticoats to butcher anyone. Of course, I'm sure there's a legitimate excuse for his gross cowardice at Philippi--maybe he was busy looking for his filial irae.

 

To me, Octaivan's swamp-mucking at Philippi is emblematic of his whole military career. Even as a thug, he was simply a cowardly, short-sighted opportunist, with his successes almost entirely confined to his use of force against the unarmed--the unarmed Senate, the unarmed men whom he proscribed, and the unarmed men at Perusia and Philippi who surrendered to him. That he outlasted his competitors by this disgusting technique is true--but in a civil war, SOMEBODY has to be the last person standing. I take this is to be an achievement of rather dubious quality.

 

If there's a case to be made for any method in all this sneaky madness, it's going to have to be made after Actium. Before that, there's absolutely nothing in Octavian's early career that is even worthy of a Roman name (funny, it should be Caesar's!).

[Nephele]

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.

 

 

The Sopranos television series, too, has made several comparisons between New Jersey's favorite organized crime family and the Roman Empire. For example, there is an episode titled "Pax Soprano" -- an obvious allusion to Rome's "Pax Romana."

 

And, I suppose like Augustus, Tony Soprano has his good qualities along with his bad. He definitely shares with Augustus a peculiar sense of morality as regards "family values."

 

Regardless of everything else about Augustus, good with the bad, I shall never be able to reconcile myself to his banishment of my favorite Roman poet, Ovid.

 

-- Nephele

[ASCLEPIADES]

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

 

Correction: Octavian had others butcher anyone that may have been capable. Octavian himself was too busy hiding in a swamp or behind his friends' petticoats to butcher anyone. Of course, I'm sure there's a legitimate excuse for his gross cowardice at Philippi--maybe he was busy looking for his filial irae.

 

To me, Octaivan's swamp-mucking at Philippi is emblematic of his whole military career. Even as a thug, he was simply a cowardly, short-sighted opportunist, with his successes almost entirely confined to his use of force against the unarmed--the unarmed Senate, the unarmed men whom he proscribed, and the unarmed men at Perusia and Philippi who surrendered to

him. That he outlasted his competitors by this disgusting technique is true--but in a civil war, SOMEBODY has to be the last person standing. I take this is to be an achievement of rather dubious quality.

 

If there's a case to be made for any method in all this sneaky madness, it's going to have to be made after Actium. Before that, there's absolutely nothing in Octavian's early career that is even worthy of a Roman name (funny, it should be Caesar's!).

As far as I know, at least at the end of the Civil Wars, every Roman Nobile was trying to butcher every other Nobile (thug, if you like) who was not on his side.

 

In this disgusting Roman practice, Octavius was hardly original; he was only the most successful.

 

Most of his enemies (check my last previous post), senators or not, were hardly unarmed.

 

In a Civil war, obviously someone has to be the last person standing. The obvious question is: why Octavius? I suppose we are not pretending once again it was mere luck or that his ethical background gave him an advantage over his supposedly more scrupulous competitors.

 

Contrary to Caesar, he was indeed a coward, but hardly a short-sighted one, even at the pre-Actium era;; why do you think so?

 

And why "madness"? His butchering was not indiscriminate; on the contrary, his victims were very carefully selected, and the method behind such carnage is clearly discernable.

[M. Porcius Cato]

There's a huge difference between Caesar's civil war and Octavian's. Caesar at least fought against armed men. He didn't slaughter his enemies while they were lying in bed or after they had surrendered (for the most part). And the Liberators too, though they killed Caesar while he was personally unarmed, did not do so in secret, and out of principle, they refrained from killing Antony and from proscribing the whole party of Caesar (though they had the gladiators to do it if they had been so inclined).

 

What Octavian and Antony did went far beyond civil war--'war' is a battle between combatants. Those on the list of the proscribed and the men, women, and children of Perusia were not combatants. This is difference between butchery (which you do to unarmed cattle, not men) and war. It's an elementary distinction, but an important one.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Contrary to Caesar, he was indeed a coward, but hardly a short-sighted one, even at the pre-Actium era;; why do you think so?

 

I don't believe for a minute that while Octavian was slaughtering the family of his future wife at Perusia he had any consitutional reforms in mind. The second settlement of Augusts wasn't animating young Octavian to hide in a swamp whilst his camp was overrun by Brutus' troops. Octavian left Italy in poverty and starving because he didn't know what the heck he was doing.

[P.Clodius]

Octavian himself was too busy hiding in a swamp...

Ever been in harms way? No one knows how they will react until tested...Here's one of Sherman's quotes, after he and Grant had been given a taste of southern 'hospitality'. "Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?" After a puff of his cigar, Grant replied calmly: "Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow, though." Were Grant and Sherman cowards for not 'fighting to the last man'? Those who are quick to condemn are those who sit in front of the TV and Monday morning quarterback the Iraq war!

 

To me, Octaivan's swamp-mucking at Philippi is emblematic of his whole military career.

Who won!

Even as a thug, he was simply a cowardly, short-sighted opportunist, with his successes almost entirely confined to his use of force against the unarmed

Oh my, another dogma induced tirade!

That he outlasted his competitors by this disgusting technique is true--but in a civil war, SOMEBODY has to be the last person standing. I take this is to be an achievement of rather dubious quality.

So Grant and Sherman's achievements were 'of rather dubious quality' I take it?

[ASCLEPIADES]

There's a huge difference between Caesar's civil war and Octavian's. Caesar at least fought against armed men. He didn't slaughter his enemies while they were lying in bed or after they had surrendered (for the most part). And the Liberators too, though they killed Caesar while he was personally unarmed, did not do so in secret, and out of principle, they refrained from killing Antony and from proscribing the whole party of Caesar (though they had the gladiators to do it if they had been so inclined).

 

What Octavian and Antony did went far beyond civil war--'war' is a battle between combatants. Those on the list of the proscribed and the men, women, and children of Perusia were not combatants. This is difference between butchery (which you do to unarmed cattle, not men) and war. It's an elementary distinction, but an important one.

A capital distinction indeed, but I would think it was Caesar's conduct which was the atypical one. Once again, Octavius was hardly original: after all, the Triumvires were three, their accomplices were many, and we must remember that it was the second wave of proscriptions. Besides, Sextus Pompeius' piracy was no limited to armed vessels. Butchery was the rule, not the exception.

 

Presumably Caesar's demise gave a bad message to the non-butchering proponents; after all, many of his assassins were pardoned former enemies.

Edited October 18, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[ASCLEPIADES]

Contrary to Caesar, he was indeed a coward, but hardly a short-sighted one, even at the pre-Actium era;; why do you think so?

 

I don't believe for a minute that while Octavian was slaughtering the family of his future wife at Perusia he had any consitutional reforms in mind. The second settlement of Augusts wasn't animating young Octavian to hide in a swamp whilst his camp was overrun by Brutus' troops. Octavian left Italy in poverty and starving because he didn't know what the heck he was doing.

Then, I suppose Octavius did slaughtering and Constitutional Reforms at different times.

 

The Battle of Philippi (DCCXII AUC / 42 BC) and the Second settlement (DCCXXXI AUC / 23 BC) had almost twenty years between them.

 

Apparently, the contemporaries of Octavius blamed mostly Sextus Pompeius for the Italian poverty and starving, and considered Octavius' victory over him a major contributory factor for its correction.

[ASCLEPIADES]

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.

Salve Iterum.

 

Puzo made a fictitious analogy between an idealized Cosa Nostra and a literary image of the Roman Empire.

 

I think such analogy would be unfair for both sides in the real world (ie, an undeserved compliment for the Mafia).

 

Valete.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Then, I suppose Octavius did slaughtering and Constitutional Reforms at different times.

The Battle of Philippi (DCCXII AUC / 42 BC) and the Second settlement (DCCXXXI AUC / 23 BC) had almost twenty years between them.

Exactly my point--Octavian's early career aimed at nothing other than his own power (achieved mostly through the military talents of others and his name), whereas his later career aimed at stabilizing his power by means of re-establishing the rule of law that he spent so much of his early career flouting.

 

Apparently, the contemporaries of Octavius blamed mostly Sextus Pompeius for the Italian poverty and starving, and considered Octavius' victory over him a major contributory factor for its correction.

Not apparent to me. What contemporaries of Octavian are you talking about?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Oh my, another dogma induced tirade!

 

If the notion that it's cowardly to murder unarmed and law-abiding patriots (like Cicero) is a "dogma," I'm more than happy to be a dogmatist.

[The Augusta]

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.

 

[/size]

 

 

I'm sorry, Caldrail, this is total tommy rot! I am not sure what books you have been reading at all! There was the little thing called The Augustan Peace; there was an enormous rebuilding programme and advances in engineering; there was the founding of colonies; there was stability. Augustus's reign was remembered for all these things. And you are not prepared to call them 'events and advances'? Words fail me, for once - they really do.

[Gaius Octavius]

Lest we forget, The Imperial Navy.

[The Augusta]

Lest we forget, The Imperial Navy.

 

I think Caldrail is trying to say that all these things have been overshadowed by Augustus' rise to power, and that today he is solely remembered for his machinations during the civil wars. I'm sorry, but it's rubbish. I'm all for revisionism, but sheer iconoclasm for the sake of it seems to be beyond all reason. We certainly seem to be going down that path with several figures - not just of antiquity, but throughout all history. This kind of stuff comes and goes in seasons, unfortunately.

[P.Clodius]

[... but sheer iconoclasm for the sake of it seems to be beyond all reason.....

Seconded...Please stop!