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.