Augustus, good or bad emperor?

[Antiochus III]

Is it Hunnish or Hunnic? I've never been clear on this.

 

Antiochus III

[caldrail]

This criteria is of course, arbitrary.

 

However, it does underscore my point that the only way to fairly evaluate Augustus as an emperor is to compare him to his peers, the other emperors of Rome, and other leaders of history who wielded great if not absolute control. It is unfair that we levy standards, so perfect, so high, that no one can be judged favorably as a result.

Unfair? Not at alll, and the whole point of levying standards is that it provides the basis of civilsation, in that members of the herd must achieve a certain level of behaviour or be disenfranchised. You could find fault in anyone I suppose, but the achievements of a man can be measured in many different ways. I was always taught that the greatest gift a man can make is to lay down his life for others, (Now obviously there aren't many dictators willing to do that!) but surely the same selflessness makes a man great even if the result is not fatal? You see, a man who beats his chest and fearlessly confronts is often admired, but his actions might be selfish. A man who sets aside his own ambition to aid those in need does not act selfishly. Either personality has risen to the fore in history, usually the former it must be said, but its up to you to decide which is more admirable and whether the standards they set are too high.

[M. Porcius Cato]

the only way to fairly evaluate Augustus as an emperor is to compare him to his peers, the other emperors of Rome, and other leaders of history who wielded great if not absolute control. It is unfair that we levy standards, so perfect, so high, that no one can be judged favorably as a result.

 

Certainly compared to all the other despots mentioned, Augustus' monarchy ended in a fairly mild and beneficent government. I'm not sure that he was any better than Trajan or Hadrian, but I take your point that he was about as good as a monarch can be (which isn't saying much). Still, if you compare him to his contemporaries (like Cicero), Octavian was a bloody terror, and if he had died at Actium, his reputation would have been no better than Catiline's.

[WotWotius]

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

 

Wow, was that actually unloaded?! When did that happen?

Edited May 15, 2008 by WotWotius

[Ursus]

Wow, was that actually unloaded?! When did that happen?

 

 

Months ago. Get your nose out of those uni books once in a while.

[caldrail]

Certainly compared to all the other despots mentioned, Augustus' monarchy ended in a fairly mild and beneficent government. I'm not sure that he was any better than Trajan or Hadrian, but I take your point that he was about as good as a monarch can be (which isn't saying much). Still, if you compare him to his contemporaries (like Cicero), Octavian was a bloody terror, and if he had died at Actium, his reputation would have been no better than Catiline's.

Ok, but isn't it also true the only reason his autocracy was so benign was simply to ensure his own survival? Had he a stronger grasp on roman politics, perhaps he might have reverted to the bloody terror of his youth?

[Kosmo]

Augustus it's not so great in my view.

He overexpanded the empire, a move with disastrous efects.

He also relied on professional soldiers inside and outside and that led to an increasingly expensive army that controlled Rome.

His political system was weak and prone to problems.

[Ursus]

Augustus it's not so great in my view.

He overexpanded the empire, a move with disastrous efects.

He also relied on professional soldiers inside and outside and that led to an increasingly expensive army that controlled Rome.

His political system was weak and prone to problems.

 

I think most of Augustus' territories were profitable in the long term. It was the exapnsions of his successors that seemed mixed at best. And the political-military system seemed adequate enough until the rise of more powerful enemies on the Germanic and Persian frontiers did necessitate a drastic restructuring.

[caldrail]

Augustus it's not so great in my view.

He overexpanded the empire, a move with disastrous efects.

He also relied on professional soldiers inside and outside and that led to an increasingly expensive army that controlled Rome.

His political system was weak and prone to problems.

 

No he didn't overextend the empire. He was trying to expand his tax coverage and improve the security of his borders by a policy of romanisation (which was nothing unusual). Unfortunately, he made the mistake of assuming Varus could handle the administration and security of his new buffer zone, and hadn't figured on a charismatic and clever individual like Arminius to weld an alliance of german tribes.

[Kosmo]

He expanded the empire up to the Danube. Thracians, illirians and celts from Noricum and Raetia that had contacts with Greeks and Romans and were rather civil as neighbours became subjects and the empire had far worse negihbours: germans, sarmatians, dacians. He (and Caesar, Caludius, Trajan) eliminated people that were usefull as buffer.

The defensive frontier of Rome on the Alps was easier to defend that Agri Decumates and High Danube and could be defended by a italian levy while a further away border recquired proffesional soldiers.

He wanted to conquer Germany but he failed. He also planned to attack Britain. He was an expansionst and that probably because of internal reasons = more glory.

[caldrail]

No, he didn't want to conquer germanania, he wanted to to tax it. There was no campaign against the germans, but a long process of romanisation and a relatively calm colonisation. Roman towns have been found well inside german held territory much further than previously realised, abandoned after the Varian Disaster. Varus was not there to crush the germans, he was there to keep the peace and ensure taxes were paid. He went on the march because Arminius told him a rebellion against Rome had started - clearly unacceptable, and Varus would have been keen not to dissappoint Augustus with his control of the german territories.

Edited May 19, 2008 by caldrail

[ASCLEPIADES]

No, he didn't want to conquer germanania, he wanted to to tax it.

 

Salve, Amici

 

Publius Annius Florus didn't agree; here comes EPITOMAE de Tito Livio Bellorum Omnium Annorum DCC, Liber II, cap XXX:

 

"Germaniam quoque utinam vincere tanti non putasset! Magis turpiter amissa est quam gloriose adquisita. Sed quatenus sciebat patrem suum C. Caesarem bis transvectum ponte Rhenum quaesisse bellum, in illius honorem concupierant facere provinciam; et factum erat, si barbari tam vitia nostra quam imperia ferre potuisset."

 

"I wish he (Augustus) had not thought it of so much importance to conquer Germany. The dishonour with which it was lost was greater than the glory with which it was gained. But because he knew that Caesar, his father, had twice made bridges over the Rhine to prosecute the war against the country, he was desirous, in honour of him, to make it a province, and it would have been made so effectually, if the barbarians could have endured our vices as well as our government."

[caldrail]

Ok, but thats a matter of interpretation. What Forus is saying is that Augustus wanted citizens he could tax. He didn't invade as such, nor campaigned against the germans, what was going on was a sort of peace-keeping force on the ground whilst the romanisation process took place. Germany was a wilderness, there was no infrastructure or city to capture, thus conquest purely in military terms is impossible. So Augustus was creating them in turning Germania into a province. To Florus, that was the same thing, in that foreign soil became roman province. Remember that military and political divisions in the roman world were inseperable. Otherwise, as Florus finds desirable, Germania should have been made another client-state - Still an independent realm, but one considered an ally and amenable to roman culture.

[Primus Pilus]

I'm not quite sure how the military campaigns of Drusus and Tiberius, that resulted in the surrender of such tribes as the Canninefates, the Attuarii, and Bructeri, the Cherusci, etc. can not be classified as conquest? I don't disagree that Augustus was looking to extend the tax base as well as the defensible border of the empire from the Rhine to the Weser, perhaps extending to the Elbe, but the Germanics were not welcoming the Romans with open arms throughout their territories.

 

A nice example is that of Velleius Paterculus, who was there on campaign with Tiberius. Quite the interesting read really... he is full of pride in the grandeur of Rome.

 

Roman History Book 2.106 (Tiberius' campaigns actually begin in #102, but the direct link to 104 is quite telling)

[caldrail]

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?