Augustus vs Julius

Transkar

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
77
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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?)
 
Top Bottom