Who was the better leader and why? Was it fate to have two of the greatest leaders in history back to back?

Both are great leaders, but I choose Augustus since he brought with him a time of peace and stability, which strengthened Rome greatly. A few rulers have used their time as well as Augustus did.

Was it fate to have two of the greatest leaders in history back to back?

What does this question mean? Is it a historical question or a metaphysical one?

Julius Caesar as military leader and Augustus as civilian leader. Were they two of "the greatest leaders in history?" - perhaps if we make the club large enough, which is not an insult to these two men either. They clearly were above average achievers within the great category. The opportunity for greatness came and they made the most of it.

Who was the better leader and why? Was it fate to have two of the greatest leaders in history back to back?

Just one thing: Without Julius Caesar no Augustus. So there.

Just one thing: Without Julius Caesar no Augustus. So there.

Without Caveman Ugg, there's no Cyrus the Great.

Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate Ugg's enormous empire, I just think the actual time period should be irrelevant, only the trials they went through and their outcome.

They both had strengths and weaknesses. Both were competent or better. Augustus was a genial propagandist and Julius was of immense military skill, in addition to being a man of letters. I personally rate Julius higher, but it's wholly personal preference.

I say Julius(Gotta love that name). He unified Rome. He created the empire. It just that Augustus finised what Julius started.

I say Julius(Gotta love that name). He unified Rome. He created the empire. It just that Augustus finised what Julius started.

He didn't "unify" Rome. He started a civil war that he won. I don't really consider creating the empire a good thing, being that absolute monarchy is only better than a republic if you happen to be the king.

If every emperor were Augustus or Marcus Aurelius, then it would certainly be an improvement. This wasn't the case.

Saying that he 'started' the civil war is kind of simplistic. Marcus Aurelius was not the emperor you want to quote for 'good stuff as result of absolute monarchy'. Further, the monarchy that prevailed upon Augustus' seizure of power was by no means absolute.

Technicalities, technicalities... :p

Technicalities, technicalities... :p
The devil is in the details.

The devil is in the details.

Hence why we must forego them, and say the most vague things imaginable. Like this!

Further, the monarchy that prevailed upon Augustus' seizure of power was by no means absolute.

He kept the Comitia only to rubber stamp his legislation and vote on his chosen candidates. Took foreign policy and most of the appointments for the provinces away from the senate, and made sure that he could propose legislation there or veto any he didn't like. Together with the imperium maius granting him supreme command over the army and the tribunitia potestas also giving him the right to the final decision judicial processes, I don't think he forgot anything a absolute monarch might miss. :D

I only don't know if he made some creative use of the lex maiestatis, but his appointed successor Tiberius certainly did.

All right, technically we wasn't even a monarch. Technicalities :D

All right, technically we wasn't even a monarch. Technicalities :D
:mischief: yeah....

The clear winner is Augustus, who managed to succeed in a military as well as a civilian way (except this Teuteburger Forest thing). Ceasar failed in the second one.

Augustus lived long enough to cement his creation, such that the general population didn't have any first-hand memories of the Republic, that's his greatest achievement, staying in power and surviving.

They both had strengths and weaknesses. Both were competent or better. Augustus was a genial propagandist and Julius was of immense military skill, in addition to being a man of letters. I personally rate Julius higher, but it's wholly personal preference.
This. Also, what Masada said.

double post

Without Caveman Ugg, there's no Cyrus the Great.

Caveman Ugg (who could forget him?) wasn't the immediate predecessor of Cyrus the Great, now was he?:rolleyes:

Without Caesar Octavius would be a non-entity. (He was adopted by Caesar, remember?)

Without Caesar Octavius would be a non-entity. (He was adopted by Caesar, remember?)

But this is irrelevant to an assessment of their personal qualities and achievements. You might as well say that without Mr Bonaparte Sr, little Napoleon would never have gone on to achieve what he did, so old man Bonaparte was a great general. Or Origen would never have written his works of genius if he hadn't had a rich patron, Ambrosius, to commission them - but that doesn't make Ambrosius a greater theologian than Origen!

If you had some good reason for saying that Caesar adopted Octavius specifically because he recognised Octavius' incredible ability and could predict what a good emperor he would be, then you might have an additional reason for rating Caesar highly (although that would not, in itself, be a reason for rating Caesar over Octavius - a man who recognises genius in another is doing well, but it doesn't make him a greater genius). Alternatively, if you had some good reason for saying that Octavius' brilliance somehow came about because of Caesar's adoption of him (perhaps Caesar mentored him and taught him how to be brilliant) then you might have a better case. Simply saying that Caesar was a necessary condition for Octavius, however, is no case.

But this is irrelevant to an assessment of their personal qualities and achievements. .... Simply saying that Caesar was a necessary condition for Octavius, however, is no case.

I think Jeelen was replying to the SECOND question:

Who was the better leader and why? Was it fate to have two of the greatest leaders in history back to back?

It wasn't 'fate' to have them back to back - one great leader handpicked a second great leader (by adoption) to follow him. One of the better Roman customs of the time, adopting promising young men as a successor, instead of relying on genetic serendipity...

Julius to Augustus: "My work made your work possible!"

But this is irrelevant to an assessment of their personal qualities and achievements. You might as well say that without Mr Bonaparte Sr, little Napoleon would never have gone on to achieve what he did, so old man Bonaparte was a great general. Or Origen would never have written his works of genius if he hadn't had a rich patron, Ambrosius, to commission them - but that doesn't make Ambrosius a greater theologian than Origen!


But if you're in any way factoring in the manner in which one rises to power as an indicator of overall greatness, than Octavian's 'adoption to prominence' certainly comes into play. Caesar came from much humbler beginnings comparatively and kicked, scratched, intrigued, bribed, married, allied, and cajoled his way to the top. Octavian instantly became one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in Rome the second Caesar died and all he had to do was impress Caesar a bit without even really trying for prominence. Caesar was for the most part a self-made 'great man', Octavian had much of his early greatness handed to him.

That said, I'm going Caesar. Octavian had too many gifts given to him. The loyalty of many of Caesar's veteran, elite legions due to a line in a will. Agrippa, without whom Octavian never lasts the Civil War.

Caesar was a brilliant general, an equally gifted and crafty politician, a renown author and orator, a political reformer, and if he had half as many years as de facto head of state as Octavian did, I have little doubt that his stamp on the empire/republic (who knows how that would've turned out) would have been even more profound and far-reaching than Octavians.

It is not that Octavian was greater, it was that he lived longer at the height of his power.

I'll say Gaius Iulius Caesar was better, because that was legally the name of both of them once Octavius was adopted.

I probably have more republican than imperialistic sympathies though, so I'd prefer a Cato to a Caesar any day.

I probably have more republican than imperialistic sympathies though, so I'd prefer a Cato to a Caesar any day.
Republican and imperialist are not mutually exclusive, as the Roman Republic rather impressively demonstrated. :)

Julius Caesar. Augustus was a pretty good first emperor, but Julius could do all of the above and a lot more. His political maneuvers are as remarkable as his military ones, whereas Teutoburgerwald marked the end of Rome's era of rapid expansion. And I think we should look at their successors - Augustus left us a legacy of vicious tyrants that followed him.

Republican and imperialist are not mutually exclusive, as the Roman Republic rather impressively demonstrated. :)

People tend to forget the largest expansion of Roman territory occurred before they were run by a military dictatorship.

I'll say Gaius Iulius Caesar was better, because that was legally the name of both of them once Octavius was adopted.

I probably have more republican than imperialistic sympathies though, so I'd prefer a Cato to a Caesar any day.

As Dachs noted, there is nothing stopping republicans from being quite the militant imperialists and in fact, many of them were. Also, I have very little sympathy for the republican cause. Most of them were ridiculously wealthy entrenched elites who did everything within their power to ensure things stayed that way. They resisted nearly every reform and usually tried to destroy every reformer. They were not in any real sense the representatives of the people nor did they actively try to advance their interests.

Caesar was hardly the first demagogue to pander to populist interests to advance their own power and prestige. The Republic had dozens of them before. Most probably were self-interested panderers using the outrage of the disaffected masses to their own personal advantage. But the fact is there were serious disparities and inequities in wealth, privileges, and rights that the republicans were not addressing, and in fact virulently opposed any measures or reforms that might address them.

The situation was rife for ambitious individuals to position themselves as the 'champion of the people' because quite frankly, their pleas were being ignored or suppressed by those who held power. Even if Caesar had failed miserably early, there would have been another. And another. And another until the currently system was drastically reformed or overthrown. Most of this the republicans brought on themselves. They were no friends to the average people of Rome and a dictator or emperor who at least pretended to be, and in fact undertook many reforms that might suggest they really were, was FAR preferable to a bunch of wealthy, elitist aristocrats chanting 'Republican' while they screwed the lions share of the people within it.

I tend to agree with some of these statements. Doesn't make these historical figures any less in ability for it really, just their motivations were personal ambition. As someone said "Sulla can be liberating" once you accept that. But there is something different about the Barracks emperors after Titus; Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, and the peaceful reign of Antoninus Pius. They are even called "the Five Good Emperors", after the depravity, chaos, and destruction of the previous bunch that followed Augustus, which gave Emperors a bad name. They weren't in the same vein as that fratricidal aristocracy, some weren't even Romans, proving that the empire had become multi-national. Maybe the worst blot found on their records is that some of them persecuted the helpless christians, they felt threatened by for some reason. They were generals who took to their duty and selected their successors: "the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of wisdom and virtue".[ Gibbon] Philosopher Kings ? some of them were. They completed some of the best Roman engineering projects that helped cement the Pax Romana where all were citizens.
But to be fair to Julius, he did not choose civil war by himself, and his abilities were certainly as good as any of these. The fact that he had to acquire power the hard way earns our respect too. I believe there are examples as a political administrator where he distributed even handed justice, temperance and where his legislation allowed common people to thrive and have rights. The Republic was more than just an exploitive entity keeping its people down.

I'd prefer a Cato to a Caesar any day.

I prefer Cicero to any Cato.;)

I say Julius(Gotta love that name). He unified Rome. He created the empire. It just that Augustus finised what Julius started.

I would say that Sulla did a good job of dismantling the Republic before Julius got there.

Republican and imperialist are not mutually exclusive, as the Roman Republic rather impressively demonstrated. :)

Or as the United States is demonstrating. Or that any of the European states demonstrated.

Both were excellent leaders, but Augustus learned from his predecessor's mistakes by concealing the true nature of his absolute authority, by cloaking it in a veneer of republican institutions and legal dictates. Julius Caesar was less subtle. Also, Augustus was more ruthless. By the time he assumed absolute power, he had killed off all of his political opponents.

They were no friends to the average people of Rome and a dictator or emperor who at least pretended to be, and in fact undertook many reforms that might suggest they really were, was FAR preferable to a bunch of wealthy, elitist aristocrats chanting 'Republican' while they screwed the lions share of the people within it.

I don't know... most emperors indeed had to please the (roman) plebeians, especially while they kept residence in Rome. But during the republic - prior to Sulla, at least - the comitia held some real power, and kept the people, down to the plebeians, involved in politics. There were the Gracchus, for example, and they did made some changes - nothing of the kind would be possible under the empire. There were the tribunes, and even if many they were usually manipulated by the politicians of the senatorial class they also limited their action. The emperors put an end to that (actually Sulla started it too).

Sure, the later Roman Republic and the Empire provided grain for free, games etc - but that was because the imperial funds grew enormously through the tribute from the rest of the empire. The plebeians were successfully bribed, to the point where they kept quiet (unlike other roman cities like Alexandria or Constantinople later), so we can say guess that the freeman lived better during that period. But they lost all political power, all interest in it, became passive: when the empire fell its population did not took up weapons to keep it together and its institutions standing, the Res Publica wasn't theirs anymore... Just compare the sack of Rome by the Goths and later the Vandals with the obstinate resistance against Hannibal during the second punic war. It wasn't the same Rome at all, the later was throughly rotten.

Sure, the later Roman Republic and the Empire provided grain for free, games etc - but that was because the imperial funds grew enormously through the tribute from the rest of the empire. The plebeians were successfully bribed, to the point where they kept quiet (unlike other roman cities like Alexandria or Constantinople later), so we can say guess that the freeman lived better during that period. But they lost all political power, all interest in it, became passive: when the empire fell its population did not took up weapons to keep it together and its institutions standing, the Res Publica wasn't theirs anymore... Just compare the sack of Rome by the Goths and later the Vandals with the obstinate resistance against Hannibal during the second punic war. It wasn't the same Rome at all, the later was throughly rotten.

Agreed. And it wasn't just the Plebeians that became passive beneficiaries. The Roman army had become a conscripted militia towards the end tasked with the unenviable assignment of guarding the frontiers, while the elite mobile reserve increasingly became dominated by the very barbarian tribes it was supposed to contain, who by comparison, had nothing to lose.

while the elite mobile reserve increasingly became dominated by the very barbarian tribes it was supposed to contain, who by comparison, had nothing to lose.
Did nobody read what I posted in the "what happened to the Roman Army after 410" thread?

Did nobody read what I posted in the "what happened to the Roman Army after 410" thread?

I did. You're right that there was a roman army still in the 4th century, but it's also true that the empire was having trouble recruiting soldiers. There was a reason why they steadily took germans as foederati after the third century

I did. You're right that there was a roman army still in the 4th century, but it's also true that the empire was having trouble recruiting soldiers. There was a reason why they steadily took germans as foederati after the third century
But the extent of this is overrated, is the point. :p

Did nobody read what I posted in the "what happened to the Roman Army after 410" thread?

not yet - Stilicho (actually before 410), Aetius, and Majorian are surely among the best. However, were they not all the sons of 'barbarian' chieftains ?

not yet - Stilicho (actually before 410), Aetius, and Majorian are surely among the best. However, were they not all the sons of 'barbarian' chieftains ?
Maiorianus wasn't even remotely 'barbarian'. Stilicho's Vandal patrimony seems not to have affected contemporaries' perceptions of 'Romanness', whatever that means. Aetius was even less 'barbarian' than he was, being a descendant of Romans that left Dacia when that province was abandoned generations before. None of these emperors, further, can serve as a particularly good barometer of supposed 'barbarization of the Roman army'; the best example of that is the period of Isaurian domination in the Eastern Roman Empire. So it's even further useless if you want to claim that it helped cause the collapse of the Western Empire; it didn't.

Maiorianus wasn't even remotely 'barbarian'. Stilicho's Vandal patrimony seems not to have affected contemporaries' perceptions of 'Romanness', whatever that means. Aetius was even less 'barbarian' than he was, being a descendant of Romans that left Dacia when that province was abandoned generations before. None of these emperors, further, can serve as a particularly good barometer of supposed 'barbarization of the Roman army'; the best example of that is the period of Isaurian domination in the Eastern Roman Empire. So it's even further useless if you want to claim that it helped cause the collapse of the Western Empire; it didn't.

No, I wasn't saying all of that. I pointed out they were some of the best too, but it was an observation that the influence of Rome's barbarian neighbours must have been felt in the frontier armies by this time as well. And these provincial origins could lead to provincial loyalties - far too often in the 4th century AD the 'Romans' were at war with themselves, which I believe is the biggest cause of the military collapse, not the barbarians.

Anyway I thought Aetius had Gothic blood :p
btw I'm still looking for that thread I know I've seen before.

And these provincial origins could lead to provincial loyalties - far too often in the 4th century AD the 'Romans' were at war with themselves, which I believe is the biggest cause of the military collapse, not the barbarians.
Civil wars typically were not generated by provincial loyalties during this period. :p
Anyway I thought Aetius had Gothic blood :p
He might have, but it's doubtful and certainly only a matter of conjecture.
btw I'm still looking for that thread I know I've seen before.
Merry Christmas (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=313445).

Civil wars typically were not generated by provincial loyalties during this period. :p


'this time' being after 410 AD ? OK - what about the 4th Century AD - the allegiance of provincial legions to provincial leaders became paramount in the civil wars that allowed the Anglo-Saxons eventual entry into Britannia, and the Franks into northern Gaul, as well as the auxillary army. Anyway your point is taken, that claiming the mobile reserve (when there still was one) was 'barbarianized' is overstating it. Far more so was it in the latter Eastern Roman empire, and it didn't hurt their survival odds as we well know ;)



Merry Christmas (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=313445).
thanks

No problem.
'this time' being after 410 AD ?
Sure, if you want.
OK - what about the 4th Century AD - the allegiance of provincial legions to provincial leaders became paramount in the civil wars that allowed the Anglo-Saxons eventual entry into Britannia, and the Franks into northern France, as well as the auxillary army.
Except that's not how it happened? The allegiance of the troops to the usurpers is oft-overrated. For every Constantinus III, there were ten dead guys who tried to claim the purple and were murdered by their own men within a few hours. And even when the Constantinuses of the world did manage reasonable success, their troops still did not operate along regional lines. He, for instance, took his troops from Britain into Gaul, Spain, and northern Italy in a supreme bid for power, managed to touch his pinky to the purple, and then spent 410 and 411 finding out just how far you can fall. His troops did not evince any particular desire to defend Britain, their "regional" home, and they abandoned him easily enough for Gerontius and Constantius in 410 and 411.

And the 'Gallic Empire' was not a regional movement either; after two hundred fifty years of Romanization, the Celts all suddenly got out their swords and their woad? No; the Gallic Empire was another grab for power, this time by the would-be emperor Postumus, who simply was unable to break into Italy successful but at the same time was too powerful for the embattled Gallienus to defeat. Aurelian settled his successors' hash quickly enough, and it is telling that no other major Gallic revolt was raised.

The only other major revolt that's ever been classified as 'regional' was that of Carausius and Allectus, about which Plotinus has written at some length, and I will confess that this is perhaps the best evidence for any sort of regionalism in Later Roman military forces. It is notable, however, that that Britannic Empire was rather quickly and easily abandoned by the people itself upon Julius Asclepiodotus' victory at Calleva Atrebatum. From what I understand, Allectus' army after Calleva Atrebatum defected back to the Roman central government (!), and the only troops he had left to fight for him were the Frankish mercenaries he had, who were not numerous enough to hold Londinium against Asclepiodotus.

Also, the Anglo-Saxons and Franks - or at least, their settlement within Roman territory - were primarily fifth-century phenomena. :p

Also, the Anglo-Saxons and Franks - or at least, their settlement within Roman territory - were primarily fifth-century phenomena. :p

true - though I thought the Franks were earlier. It was certainly easier for them once the Legions had been withdrawn to fight in those civil wars.

EDIT: just thought I'd add this quote on Aetius, he had an interesting background that was an asset to the latter Roman Empire;

"Between 405 and 408 he was kept as hostage at the court of the king of the Goths, Alaric I; in 408 Alaric asked to have back Aëtius as hostage, but this time he was refused, as Aëtius was sent as a hostage at the court of the king of the Huns, Rua.[6] Gibbon and some other historians maintain that Aëtius's upbringing among vigorous and warlike peoples such as the Huns gave him a martial vigour lacking in Rome itself at that period."

true - though I thought the Franks were earlier. It was certainly easier for them once the Legions had been withdrawn to fight in those civil wars.
Actually, Constantinus III used the invasion of the Franks et al as cover for his civil war. :p Radagaisus also helped.
"Between 405 and 408 he was kept as hostage at the court of the king of the Goths, Alaric I; in 408 Alaric asked to have back Aëtius as hostage, but this time he was refused, as Aëtius was sent as a hostage at the court of the king of the Huns, Rua.[6] Gibbon and some other historians maintain that Aëtius's upbringing among vigorous and warlike peoples such as the Huns gave him a martial vigour lacking in Rome itself at that period."
Gibbon is, IMHO, an idiot when it comes to editorializing. Constantius was a perfectly good, even genial general. Maiorianus was both martial and vigorous. Anthemius certainly had 'martial vigor'. But it's true that Aetius had an experience that probably helped him a lot in terms of being able to better understand his opponents.

Who was the better leader and why? Was it fate to have two of the greatest leaders in history back to back?

I'd prefer Julius Ceasar, a social reformer in the spirit of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus who was assassinated because he threatened the landed aristocracy's power in the Senate.

I'd prefer Julius Ceasar, a social reformer in the spirit of Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus who was assassinated because he threatened the landed aristocracy's power in the Senate.
Please don't bump old threads with such an innocuous comment. It's annoying.