History vs. Augustus - Peta Greenfield & Alex Gendler
His reign marked the beginning
of one of history’s greatest empires
and the end of one of its first republics.
Was Rome’s first emperor
a visionary leader who guaranteed
his civilization’s place in history
or a tyrant who destroyed its core values?
Find out in History versus Augustus.
Order, order.
The defendant today is Gaius Octavius?
Gaius Julius Caesar/Augustus...
Do we have the wrong guy?
No, your Honor.
Gaius Octavius, born in 63 BCE,
was the grand-nephew of Julius Caesar.
He became Gaius Julius Caesar
upon being named his great-uncle’s
adoptive son and heir.
And he gained the title Augustus in 27 BCE
when the Senate granted
him additional honors.
You mean when he established
sole authority and became emperor of Rome.
Is that bad?
Didn’t every place have some king
or emperor back then?
Actually, your Honor,
the Roman people had overthrown
their kings centuries before
to establish a republic,
a government meant to serve the people,
not the privilege of a ruling family.
And it was Octavius
who destroyed this tradition.
Octavius was a model public servant.
At 16, he was elected
to the College of Pontiffs
that supervised religious worship.
He fought for Rome in Hispania
alongside his great-uncle Caesar
and took up the responsibility
of avenging Caesar’s death
when the corrupt oligarchs in the Senate
betrayed and murdered him.
Caesar had been a power-hungry tyrant
who tried to make himself a king
while consorting with
his Egyptian queen Cleopatra.
After his death,
Octavius joined his general Mark Antony
in starting a civil war
that tore Rome apart,
then stabbed his ally in the back
to increase his own power.
Antony was a fool.
He waged a disastrous campaign in Parthia
and plotted to turn Roman territories
into personal kingdoms
for himself and Cleopatra.
Isn’t that what Caesar
had been accused of?
Well...
So Octavius destroyed Antony
for trying to become a king
and then became one himself?
That’s right.
You can see the megalomania even in
his adopted title – "The Illustrious One."
That was a religious honorific.
And Augustus didn’t seek power
for his own sake.
As winner of the civil war
and commander of the most troops,
it was his duty to restore
law and order to Rome
so that other factions
didn’t continue fighting.
He didn’t restore the law -
he made it subordinate to him!
Not true.
Augustus worked to restore
the Senate’s prestige,
improved food security
for the lower classes,
and relinquished control of
the army when he resigned his consul post.
Mere optics.
He used his military influence
and personal wealth
to stack the Senate in his favor,
while retaining the powers of a tribune
and the right to celebrate
military triumphs.
He kept control of provinces
with the most legions.
And if that wasn’t enough,
he assumed the consul position
twice more to promote his grandchildren.
He was clearly trying
to establish a dynasty.
But what did he do with all that power?
Glad you asked, your Honor.
Augustus’s accomplishments
were almost too many to name.
He established consistent
taxation for all provinces,
ending private exploitation
by local tax officials.
He personally financed a network of roads
and employed couriers
so news and troops could travel
easily throughout the realm.
And it was under Augustus
that many of Rome’s famous
public buildings were constructed.
The writers of the time were nearly
unanimous in praising his rule.
Did the writers have any other choice?
Augustus exiled plenty of people
on vague charges,
including Ovid,
one of Rome’s greatest poets.
And you forgot to mention the intrusive
laws regarding citizens’ personal lives –
punishing adultery,
restricting marriage
between social classes,
even penalties for remaining unmarried.
He was trying to improve the citizenry
and instill discipline.
And he succeeded.
His legacy speaks for itself:
40 years of internal stability,
a professional army that expanded
Rome’s frontiers in all directions,
and a government still remembered
as a model of civic virtue.
His legacy was an empire
that would go on to wage endless
conquest until it collapsed,
and a tradition of military autocracy.
Any time a dictator in a general’s uniform
commits atrocities
while claiming to act on behalf
of "the people,"
we have Augustus Caesar to thank.
So you’re saying Augustus
was a good emperor,
and you’re saying there’s no such thing?
We’re used to celebrating
historical leaders
for their achievements and victories.
But to ask whether an individual should
have such power in the first place
is to put history itself on trial.
