Augustus, good or bad emperor?

[Primus Pilus]

Essentially what Augustus was doing in Germania was the same as the americans settlers of the 19th century. Since there was no realm to conquer, they simply marched in, put up fences, and said to the alarmed inhabitants that this land is now under new management. Naturally the reaction of the german tribes was similar to that of the plains indians.

 

Pacifying the tribes merely kept the peace - it did not bring them under the empire nor created new provinces. Conquest for the romans meant bringing new territory and its inhabitants under roman control - our definition of conquest is a little different, we simply say it means the enemy was beaten. Now you might claim that one tribe or another was beaten and therefore conquered, but then why did the germanian frontier present such a threat thereafter?

 

I suppose because they never won the proverbial "hearts and minds" of the Germanics. The encroachment of Rome, both militarily and culturally seems to have been an affront. And this should be understood as more than an affront to the power of local "nobility". While "settlement" by colonists as in that of the American west is an understandable association, it also must be understood that it too was followed by military intervention when that colonization and continued expansion was under threat.

 

By the by, it wasn't necessarily me that said the Germanics were conquered but, Valerius Maximus. Ultimately, it turned out he was wrong in the strictest sense, but the truth is that many tribes were at least military suppressed and or subdued in the campaigns of Drusus and Tiberius. It should also be pointed out that Val Max also reports that several tribes still remained independent of Rome... such as the Marcomanni... a tribe notorious for giving Rome a handful along the Danube from the time of first contact (early 1st century) through the wars with Marcus Aurelius. The Rhine frontier on the other hand, while clearly still heavily garrisoned for a reason, didn't see the sort of heavy organized conflict that the Danube frontier did until the later period of the western empire.

[aemilianus]

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?

 

Well maybe you could say that the way it is presented by Tacitus, with the positive views coming before the negative and the list of negative arguments against him could suggest that Tacitus wanted the reader to finish the passage feeling that there was more negative comments spoken about Augustus upon his death than positive. Obviously there would be people sitting on both sides of the fence about Augustus, as would happen upon the death of almost any great man, or even anyone of any fame. The fact that Tacitus tells us of both sides of the argument doesn't mean that he is necessarily presenting the facts without any kind of agenda.

At least it is more interesting (and realistic) than the constant shameless praise we get from most of the sources.

[tk421]

I would say that Augustus was by far one of the best Roman Emperors, and not because he was the first.

 

He did very well against overwhelming odds to consolidate his control of the Roman world and worked tirelessly to make the Empire work. Everything I read about him points to very strong leadership and even leadership by example as he lived quite a frugal lifestyle despite his vast wealth.

 

He outwitted strong opponents like Marc Antony and ended the civil wars that had plagued the Empire for so long.

 

When faced with setbacks like Varus's defeat in Germany in 9AD Augustus took the right steps to ensure a stable northern policy that would last centuries.

 

As for his succession, from what I understand he made several attempts to establish a clear policy. The problem was these 'suitors' to the highest office died during Augustus's 44 year rule. People like Marcellus, Agrippa, Gaius and Lucius, and Postumus all died or were banished so it was very difficult for him to select a better candidate than Tiberius. Being careful not to invoke the popular literature, I would say that he did a very good job, much better than Marcus Aurelius did with his succession. Tiberius was very qualified for the position and well groomed for it, so much so that by 13AD he shared full powers with Augustus.

 

I would certainly say that Augustus was a very good Roman Emperor.

[master morty]

i say augustus is a good guy because he didnt do anything wrong

 

 

[caldrail]

Surely that's a subjective argument. Whilst he went to great pains to maintain the public image of humility, authority, and in particular the protector of morality, he was in private just as paranoid as other rulers of SPQR - and given he had effectively worked toward becoming Rome's back seat driver in defiance of the same traditions that got his adoptive father killed, the idea that "I found Rome in brick and left in marble" represents genuine beneficence is also rather flawed - he was bribing Rome, either specifically, such as rewarding military commanders with triumphs they had not actually qualified for, or generally, such as civic improvement. He squandered a vast sum of money making sure his public reputation remained intact, even after his daughter rebelled and flouted his moral stand by sleeping around excessively, and his need for more cash to bribe, build, and fund the lavish games he staged for free public entertainment led directly to one of Rome's worst military disasters.

Edited October 6, 2017 by caldrail