Octavius/ Augustus - hero or villain?

**ShadesWolf** · 05-16-2010, 22:04

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** · 05-17-2010, 02:59

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

**Megas Methuselah** · 05-17-2010, 03:09

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** · 05-17-2010, 09:48

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

**Vuk** · 05-17-2010, 14:56

villian

**Jolt** · 05-17-2010, 15:11

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.

**Ludens** · 05-19-2010, 13:39

Originally Posted by ShadesWolf

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.