Octavius/ Augustus - hero or villain?

[ShadesWolf]

Gaius Octavius Thurinus/ Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus - hero or villian?

After a time of continued civil war, he gave the Republic peace and stability. However, he never really gave the senate back their full authority and over time the power was pasted onto him as principate (first amongst equals)

So do we think he was a good guy who just got lucky or a manipulator who took advantage of the situation to get ultimate power.

[Centurion1]

manipulator thats beyond question but still doesnt make him bad. all great men are manipulators

[Megas Methuselah]

Indeed. There are no heroes or villains, good guys or bad guys. Humans are divided into two categories: the great ones, and the rest.

[CountArach]

He was not inherently worse than that which came before him, and in many ways he was better.

[Vuk]

villian

[Jolt]

I would have preffered that Brutus ['take at great surprise']pwn both him and Marcus Antonius and restored the Republic back to its old corruption.

[G. Septimus]

I would have preffered that Brutus wtfpwn both him and Marcus Antonius and restored the Republic back to its old corruption.

for short:
he's good, Brutus only wanted to return the Republic for money, and, love of the people

manipulator thats beyond question but still doesnt make him bad. all great men are manipulators

yes, except them titled with honourable titles, such as:
"The Lion Hearted"(Richard I)
while "Augustus" means of his greatness of wit, and Manipulation such as Phillip Augustus of France

[Brenus]

“Phillip Augustus of France”? The winner of Bouvines? The one who re-conquered Normandy on the English?

[Ludens]

So do we think he was a good guy who just got lucky or a manipulator who took advantage of the situation to get ultimate power.

I don't think either option is an appropriate description of Augustus' rise to power. For one thing, the fact that Augustus did not return power to the Senate does not mark him out as a bad guy. By 50 BC the Senate had repeatedly shown itself unable to deal with the growing pains of an emergent empire. The inherent conservatism of the system had worked very well at preventing anyone from gaining too much power (most of the time, anyway), but was at the same time blocking the reforms necessary for solving the problems caused by Roman imperialism.

Contemporary and Victorian historians often view the Senate as the Protector of Freedom in Republic, but I'd say it had been making a poor job of it during the century leading up to Augustus' rise. Basically there were only two possible outcomes at this point: the Senate reformed itself or was set aside. They were unable of the former, so it ended up being the latter. I have little doubt that Augustus took power from the Senate for selfish reasons, but it wasn't necessarily a bad thing.

That said: I dislike the "hero or villain" dilemma as it leaves no room for nuance. Augustus definitely wasn't a hero: he was selfish, ambitious, and caused the death of many people during his rise to power. Ruthlessness can be a good thing in a leader, but one has to ask if, say, the proscriptions were really necessary. Without the proscriptions, I'd say he was a great statesman, but neither hero nor villain. However, since he participate in them I have to go with villain.

[G. Septimus]

“Phillip Augustus of France”? The winner of Bouvines? The one who re-conquered Normandy on the English?

uh, probably.
there was a reason he was called Augustus for
please correct me

[TinCow]

I'd prefer to just call him a man, but if I had to pick one I'd pick hero. By the time of Caesar's death, the Republic was done. The question was not whether the Republic could be restored, but who would take over as dictator. Octavius was an enlightened ruler, and benefitted the people far more than others like Pompey or Antony would have. In a choice between an enlightened dictator and a negligent or tyrannical one, the enlightened dictatory is the hero.

[Ludens]

Octavius was an enlightened ruler, and benefitted the people far more than others like Pompey or Antony would have. In a choice between an enlightened dictator and a negligent or tyrannical one, the enlightened dictatory is the hero.

He certainly was an enlightened emperor, but as a triumphir not so much. I understand he acted like a gangster after Anthony left for the east. I guess he should get credit for not growing worse after obtaining absolute power, but that does not cancel out his earlier behaviour. It's far easier to be benevolent when you are the undisputed ruler (and awarded yourself with the obscene revenue from Egypt).

[TinCow]

He certainly was an enlightened emperor, but as a triumphir not so much. I understand he acted like a gangster after Anthony left for the east. I guess he should get credit for not growing worse after obtaining absolute power, but that does not cancel out his earlier behaviour. It's far easier to be benevolent when you are the undisputed ruler (and awarded yourself with the obscene revenue from Egypt).

That's very true, but I'm not sure any of the other candidates for Emperor would have been any different. While the Republic was doomed, there was a lot of political detritus that had to be cleared away before a single man could truly begin ruling the Empire without hindrance. As I see it, the purges were inevitable; it was only a question of who was going to die, not how many people were going to die. What is an enlightened triumphir, anyway? Any Emperor who had avoided the purges would almost certainly have faced continued rebellion and civil war from those who opposed his rule. The previous 100 years of Roman history shows that. Is it more enlightened to avoid personal responsibility for bloodshed, even if that leads to more deaths in the long-term, or is it more enlightened to actively kill people and thus bring about long-term stability? That seems more like a question for philosophers than for historians.


The key to judging Octavius, IMO, is his behavior once he had absolute power. That is the point at which history always shows a significant difference between good rulers and bad rulers. Octavius could easily have been a Nero or a Claudius, if he had so chosen. Had he engaged in that kind of behavior, the Roman Empire may have crumbled right then and there. Instead, his method of governing stabilized the Empire and established the foundations on which Roman culture, science, and government were distributed to much of Europe.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The Chinese say that a new dynasty ascends the dragon throne in blood. Octavius established a dynasty the same way. Kill any and all reasonable opposition.

He did not make proscriptions a permanent feature of his administration.

Hero/Villain does lack nuance but in a forced choice I'd probably opt for the former....barely.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Murdering loads of people to make yourself the chief thug of society strikes me as fairly villainous, especially if greater villains wait in the wings to exploit the newly-won powers for the office of chief thug.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Murdering loads of people to make yourself the chief thug of society strikes me as fairly villainous, especially if greater villains wait in the wings to exploit the newly-won powers for the office of chief thug.

But could you tell me what kind of dictator/emperor/etc haven't done that?

Octavius was actually quite moderate. As far as I know there was a specific list of people who lost their property and some even their lives but that was done when the Second Triumvirite took control in Rome. And it was done only once. I agree that he was manipulative etc but you also have to admit that it was him who ended the period of civil wars and reunited the Roman Empire.

If I have to choose between those options I would pick hero.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

But could you tell me what kind of dictator/emperor/etc haven't done that?

Could you tell me which one do you think I think is a hero? They're all thugs.

And centralizing power in the Roman Empire was clearly a mixed bag at best, as it opened the door for the Neros and Claudiuses (Claudii?) to enact more efficient and widespread misery.

[Ludens]

Any Emperor who had avoided the purges would almost certainly have faced continued rebellion and civil war from those who opposed his rule. The previous 100 years of Roman history shows that. Is it more enlightened to avoid personal responsibility for bloodshed, even if that leads to more deaths in the long-term, or is it more enlightened to actively kill people and thus bring about long-term stability? That seems more like a question for philosophers than for historians.

True enough. A good leader does not necesarily equate to a good man. And times of chaos tend to weed out all but the most ruthless of leaders, so Rome could be grateful it wasn't worse. But I would define a hero as someone who sacrifices himself for the greater good; Octavius sacrificed others for the greater good.

[Centurion1]

the republic coul not have continued.

[TinCow]

True enough. A good leader does not necesarily equate to a good man. And times of chaos tend to weed out all but the most ruthless of leaders, so Rome could be grateful it wasn't worse. But I would define a hero as someone who sacrifices himself for the greater good; Octavius sacrificed others for the greater good.

Would Cato the Younger then be a 'hero'? He was certainly the late Republic era epitomy of personal sacrifice for the greater good, but he was also a pretty poor politician. Standing solid on a single position until you die is not exactly positive leadership.