Augustus, good or bad emperor?

[Octavia]

Hey all. I hhave a discussion for all of you. What is your oppinion about Apgugsus's reign? Was he a good or bad person and good emperor? I know he was ruthless at the battle of actium and all that, but afterward, I feel his personality changed. What do you all think?

[Nephele]

For a pro-Augustus viewpoint (you'll also want to read differing points of view), you may enjoy this latest contribution by UNRV community member WotWotius to UNRV's collection of outstanding essays. Click on link below:

 

Why was Augustus so successful in creating the Roman Empire?

 

Octavia, are you able to use the board's Search feature with the program you're using to read this board? A search on Augustus should be able to turn up a number of old threads in which he has been discussed, that you may want to participate in.

 

-- Nephele

[Primus Pilus]

Leaving the ideology out of it (ie the restriction of political freedom, elimination of rivals, etc.), he was an unquestionably effective administrator.

• The economic prosperity of the empire grew and Roman authority was cemented throughout after a few precarious years of instability and divided loyalties.
  
• Art, architecture, literature and culture entered what is sometimes referred to as a golden age.
  
• Despite some issues with potential mutiny in Illyria and the failings of Varus in Germania, the legions were positively reorganized for central control and the defense of the empire.
  
• He was a propoganda wizard who simply had people feeling good about their world and their future.
  
• While I disagree with the principle of it and it's ultimate result, he established a line of succession that (temporarily) eliminated civil war.
  
• The plebes were treated well (or kept in line via bread and circuses should anyone prefer, but this was nothing unusual in Roman culture regardless of Republic vs. Empire).
  
• After the purges of the second triumvirate political supporters were advanced and a semblance of old constitutional practice continued to exist. At least there were no more purges after the Augustan settlements and what we might consider the official establishment of "empire". He did revise the senate rolls at least 4 times (27, 18, 11 BC and 4 AD), but these do not seem to have been accompanied with proscriptions.
  

As far as emperors go, he was a good one. Whether or not people consider that an oxymoron is their own decision.

[Octavia]

I don't know if my reader can read the search option but sometime I will try to find out some things on Augustus by using that feature and also, thanks for the info on all you have given me. Me personally, I think he was probably the best emperor out of the claudians except for Claudius. He was the second in my oppinion.

[Ursus]

I can't think of many better emperors by comparison, simply put (using my own definitions of good and bad). His failures were few, and he established a socio-political regime that survived more or less intact for 3 centuries. Most of the better emperors of the Principate were good to the extent they were competent administrators in the mold of Augustus.

 

As far as visionary political architects, he is matched only by Constantine (building upon Diocletian). And some would say Justinian the Byzantine is his equal, but that is outside my realm of expertise.

[Ingsoc]

As an Emperor Augustus was the best, simply due to the fact that he was the one who molded the position that we in modern time called "Emperor of Rome". hence every emperor that follow him, regardless of his style of governship or personally, ruled with Augustan style since the very job of emperor was molded in Augustus image.

[M. Porcius Cato]

Why not ask what the Romans thought of Augustus?

 

In recording the funeral of Augustus in his Annals, Tacitus records two opinions expressed by those in attendance.

 

On the day of the funeral soldiers stood round as a guard, amid much ridicule from those who had either themselves witnessed or who had heard from their parents of the famous day when slavery was still something fresh, and freedom had been resought in vain, when the slaying of Caesar, the Dictator, seemed to some the vilest, to others, the most glorious of deeds. "Now," they said, "an aged sovereign, whose power had lasted long, who had provided his heirs with abundant means to coerce the State, requires forsooth the defence of soldiers that his burial may be undisturbed."

 

Then followed much talk about Augustus himself, and many expressed an idle wonder that the same day marked the beginning of his assumption of empire and the close of his life, and, again, that he had ended his days at Nola in the same house and room as his father Octavius. People extolled too the number of his consulships, in which he had equalled Valerius Corvus and Caius Marius combined, the continuance for thirty-seven years of the tribunitian power, the title of Imperator twenty-one times earned, and his other honours which had either frequently repeated or were wholly new. Sensible men, however, spoke variously of his life with praise and censure. Some said "that dutiful feeling towards a father, and the necessities of the State in which laws had then no place, drove him into civil war, which can neither be planned nor conducted on any right principles. He had often yielded to Antonius, while he was taking vengeance on his father's murderers, often also to Lepidus. When the latter sank into feeble dotage and the former had been ruined by his profligacy, the only remedy for his distracted country was the rule of a single man. Yet the State had been organized under the name neither of a kingdom nor a dictatorship, but under that of a prince. The ocean and remote rivers were the boundaries of the empire; the legions, provinces, fleets, all things were linked together; there was law for the citizens; there was respect shown to the allies. The capital had been embellished on a grand scale; only in a few instances had he resorted to force, simply to secure general tranquillity."

 

It was said, on the other hand, "that filial duty and State necessity were merely assumed as a mask. It was really from a lust of sovereignty that he had excited the veterans by bribery, had, when a young man and a subject, raised an army, tampered with the Consul's legions, and feigned an attachment to the faction of Pompeius. Then, when by a decree of the Senate he had usurped the high functions and authority of Praetor when Hirtius and Pansa were slain- whether they were destroyed by the enemy, or Pansa by poison infused into a wound, Hirtius by his own soldiers and Caesar's treacherous machinations- he at once possessed himself of both their armies, wrested the consulate from a reluctant Senate, and turned against the State the arms with which he had been intrusted against Antonius. Citizens were proscribed, lands divided, without so much as the approval of those who executed these deeds. Even granting that the deaths of Cassius and of the Bruti were sacrifices to a hereditary enmity (though duty requires us to waive private feuds for the sake of the public welfare), still Pompeius had been deluded by the phantom of peace, and Lepidus by the mask of friendship. Subsequently, Antonius had been lured on by the treaties of Tarentum and Brundisium, and by his marriage with the sister, and paid by his death the penalty of a treacherous alliance. No doubt, there was peace after all this, but it was a peace stained with blood; there were the disasters of Lollius and Varus, the murders at Rome of the Varros, Egnatii, and Juli."

 

The domestic life too of Augustus was not spared. "Nero's wife had been taken from him, and there had been the farce of consulting the pontiffs, whether, with a child conceived and not yet born, she could properly marry. There were the excesses of Quintus Tedius and Vedius Pollio; last of all, there was Livia, terrible to the State as a mother, terrible to the house of the Caesars as a stepmother. No honour was left for the gods, when Augustus chose to be himself worshipped with temples and statues, like those of the deities, and with flamens and priests. He had not even adopted Tiberius as his successor out of affection or any regard to the State, but, having thoroughly seen his arrogant and savage temper, he had sought glory for himself by a contrast of extreme wickedness." For, in fact, Augustus, a few years before, when he was a second time asking from the Senate the tribunitian power for Tiberius, though his speech was complimentary, had thrown out certain hints as to his manners, style, and habits of life, which he meant as reproaches, while he seemed to excuse. However, when his obsequies had been duly performed, a temple with a religious ritual was decreed him.

[Divi Filius]

We should be careful about how we use sources such as Tacitus. He, being part of the elite and conservative Senatorial world, was not all that well disposed to either Augustus' heirs nor Augustus himself. Tacitus witnessed this mans successors drain the power of the senators and monopolize it all for themselves and sees Augustus as the precursor to all of this.

[M. Porcius Cato]

We should be careful about how we use sources such as Tacitus. He, being part of the elite and conservative Senatorial world, was not all that well disposed to either Augustus' heirs nor Augustus himself.

 

So, in your view, Tacitus was wrong that there were two views about Augustus? That, in fact, there was only one view--that is, unanimous praise for the butcher of Perusia? That's very difficult to believe. If that's not your view, what alternative interpretation should we be "careful" not to overlook?

[Gaius Octavius]

Granting all the evil Tacitus reports 'on the one hand', it should be recognized that Augustus probably stopped the Empire from being fractured as Alexander's was at his death.

 

Augustus thought so little of himself and his achievements, that he had to give ultimate power to the 'evil' Tiberius? If this were the case, why not return power to the Senate? Ah, but, we all know that Augustus accomplished nothing good for the Empire!

[caldrail]

The civic achievments of augustus are notable. His personal life of course was as lusty as any man and he certainly took advantage of his status to bed women. I disagree that he formed a line of succession. He tried to, but his choices met early deaths. Tiberius got the job by default, not by choice. Furthermore, the line of succession was not hereditary - it was more to do with status, popularity, position in the roman court, and in later years, the amount of muscle behind you. Augustus had the advantage of being Caesars adoptive heir - that counted for a great deal, and he also had the backing of capable and influential men around him. I do notice that Augustus had a tendency to panic when under pressure, and there is a mention of his running away in battle, and also when a troupe of enemy gladiators chased after him at the siege of Perugia. His administrative skills are mentioned as his saving grace, they may well have been, but I wonder how much of this was down to able people doing the work for him?

[Antiochus III]

Augustus is generally considered to be one of the greatest Roman leaders. I disagree. If one looks at Roman history in general, Roman power grew quickly and steadily from 298 B.C. until around the turn of the milennia, where, although it continued to grow, the number of provinces added slowed, and era of expansion waned. With Varus' defeat in Germania, Augustus decided to stop expanding at such a fast rate and fortify the Rhine, not wanting to take more caualties. Why? THe casualties were not neary as severe as those suffered at Cannae, or other battles. In the past, Romans used an event like that to mobilize even more troops, and expand a lot. I can see where Augustus would want to stop expansion for a short period of time, but a permanent end to expansion, and FORTIFYING the Rhine was very stupid. When, in history has fortifying anything ever worked? Hitler's fortress of Europe failed miserably, to give one major example. Also, not conquering Germania had two long term effects:

1. The revenue gained from taking this region would have been immense. Look at what Caesar was able to pull from Gaul! The Romans would get the initial loot from raiding settlements, and then could have taxed the Germans into the ground for more profit. 2. Also, more population means more men to recruit, and less for the enemy. Later, Germania turned into a base for tribes to launch massive invasions against Rome. Taking Germania would have been great for Rome.

 

Based on these obsevations, Augustus helped Rome fall. His ideas were idiotic, and although there was minor economic boom, he prevented an even bigger one. Also, his foreign policy allowed enemies to gain power, and prevent later Roman invasions from being successful. All in all, though Augustus' reign gives the illusion of being great, it really set the foundation for Rome's fall.

 

Antiochus III

[Gaius Octavius]

A question pops into my mind. Why didn't Caesar make an attempt on Germania rather than planing an invasion of the East?

[Ursus]

A question pops into my mind. Why didn't Caesar make an attempt on Germania rather than planing an invasion of the East?

 

 

The East was richer. More plunder. Plus they had to avenge the recent defeat of Crassus and the lost of the legion eagles to the Parthians.

[Ursus]

With Varus' defeat in Germania, Augustus decided to stop expanding at such a fast rate and fortify the Rhine, not wanting to take more caualties. Why? THe casualties were not neary as severe as those suffered at Cannae, or other battles.

 

 

You're right .... they could have eventually mobilized some more legions and tried again. Why didn't they, except for some revenge expeditions by Tiberius and Germanicus?

 

 

Probably because they weren't worth it. The Germans were less developed economically and culturally than the Celts, and arguably more dangerous. This made the economics of conquest very unprofitable. The Germans were at an agricultural level barely above scratching the soil with a stick, and the further the Romans pentrated into Germanic territory, the less likely it was the legions could live off any conquered settements.

 

It made more sense in the long run to simply fortify the borders and deal with the bands of raiders that managed to penetrate. Because the Germans were not in any sense united, they fought amongst each other more than against the Romans (within ten years of the Varus disaster, Arminius was assassinated by his own people and the German tribes were reverting to civil war). Augustus could never have foreseen that 300 years later these groups would have amalgamated into supertribes thanks to the Hunnish migration.