Arminius of the Cherusci

I agree but I think perhaps you underestimate Caesar a little: Caesar's complete downfall was that he grew to believe his own hype, his own legend. Without an obvious rival, Caesar thought he had achieved his aims - he'd completely taken the Roman system. He only failed as a politician at the final hurdle; four lengths ahead and home free, and he pulls up early. Obviously this alone makes Octavian-Augustus so much more impressive, as he never let his guard down. But of course, without Caesar as an example, Octavian's career would never have been as notable!

My point exactly. Still hasn't cleared up his actual intentions though.

Also in regard to this: How much of Augustus' court dealings were engineered? To be seen to not desire power would further strengthen his position and place a division between himself and his predecessors of the Late Republic - Caesar had used such ploys of recieving honours to gauge his support amongst the populace. How accurate are the accounts of Augustus' refusal of honours - did they come from the res gestae or contemporaries? I see it thus: early in his reign as princeps, Augustus manipulated the political system to show him in a modest light, with the interests of serving Rome at heart - by 'refusing' to take the honours and imperium the senate 'wanted' to grant to him, he was really ensuring he would recieve those powers. Also, the risks of taking high honours were seen when Caesar let himself be put above the state - there is a reason Augustus preferred the term princeps to imperator.

I suppose one could take the view that in order for Augustus to implement all the changes he had in mind, at least in the functioning of the provinces, he would have to strengthen his own position at the same time: he had already made huge changes internally in Roman politics in the role of the senate. I'm starting to appreciate how masterful a politician he was: he was able to implement his own changes while at the same time strengthening the position of the princeps, thereby ensuring his work wasn't able to be undermined. There are many suggestions that he wished to extend Rome's borders to their natural possible limits, and make use of geographical feature for frontiers, such as the river elbe... did he decide this before or after the Varrian disaster? Isn't Rome's welfare also the welfare of the princeps himself?? If Rome isn't doing so crash hot, and the princeps is the direct representative of Rome itself, the princeps will lose all clout. For Augustus to remain in power, and ensure that the princeps remains the head of state after he is gone, doesn't he have to show the people that Rome is far better off under the direct rule of one man? By looking out for Rome's wealth and interest, he was merely making sure he remained at the top of the system, and it's two-fold, if Rome is the most powerful nation in the region, he will remain the most powerful individual in the region. Your thoughts please...

Hi all, I know there are a few threads already concerning Augustus' foreign policy, but none that I have read seem to address the issue I am interested in. Augustus was responsible for a large-scale re-evaluation and program of reform in the administration of the provinces, and brought about the division of the Roman world into the two categories of Imperial and Senatorial provinces. He removed a lot of the inherent corruption that had plagued the Republic's administration of the provinces through paying a fixed salary to the magistrates and equite prefects that governed the provinces, revising tax collection and implementing a certain level of self-government in both Imperial and Senatorial provinces. His reforms ensured that ambitious individuals could not use the provinces as stepping stones to political prestige as the big names of the late Republic (notably Marius, Sulla, Pompey and Caesar) had done. He also reduced the amount of civil unrest in those provinces previously hostile to Roman influence such as Spain and northern Gaul. My question to you all is this: Was Augustus, as Suetonius and others argue, chiefly concerned with spreading Roman culture to uncivilised nations, or did his reforms serve to curtail the use of the provinces to amass fortune and powers that could be used to undermine the princeps? In other words, am I being too sceptical when I argue that he was primarily concerned with the strengthening of his own position and own prestige (many of his reforms seem to be geared toward keeping the provinces quiet while he expands his frontiers, into Germanica for instance...)? Was Augustus serving Rome or merely himself? I await your input with anticipation!