RomanArmyTalk

Full Version: Augustus vs. Gaius
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
This is not a greatest man question, but simply one to compare two of the greatest Romans. How were these two men similar, from the way they ran the government, to their generalling skills, to their personalities and tempers, whom Caesar was famous for. <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

hmmm...you mean THE Gaius aka Emperor Gaius aka Caligula? If you do I don't understand the question <p></p><i></i>
My mistake, I was in a hurry so didn't have time to specify, I mean Gaius Julius Caesar <p></p><i></i>
No competition. Augustus was a terible battlefield commander. <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

Well, he did manage to best Antony. Or is your argument that Augustus relied too much on his subordinates or something like that? I was just reading about Actium the other day and remember that he had what seemed like a pretty sharp naval commander under him... Agrippa, I think it was. I guess Cleopatra's sudden flight didn't help much, either; what was the deal with that anyway?<br>
<br>
By the time Antony was making a last stand at Alexandria, in the wake of Actium and Augustus' brilliant propaganda, it was probably hopeless, because of too many defections of Antony's men and commanders.<br>
<br>
The intervention of "Fortuna?" or perhaps a whole different kind of "expertise" at work...?<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=aglarsen>AGLarsen</A> at: 6/2/04 2:29 am<br></i>
Hirtius and Pansa won Forum Gallorum for him. He was "unwell" at Philippi. Agrippa won Actium for him. See a pattern emerging? <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

Octavian Augustus was a prudent person. More a politician than a general. Indeed he "did not feel very well" at Philippi, apparently a typical case of battle fright.<br>
He was also totally ruthless and before he became Augustus he was famous for his total lack of magnanimitas. Contrary to Caesar he did not forgive his enemies, he killed them, and their families and friends along with them.<br>
As a result, he was not murdered on the ides of march and died of old age after a very long and happy reign..<br>
Octavian Augustus was also a couple: He was Livia's husband. And Livia Augusta was definitely not the typical modest, retiring, submissive roman matrona..<br>
Rumour had it in Rome that "while Augustus rules over the Empire, Livia rules over Augustus..."<br>
Caesar was smarter than Augustus, I think. He was definitely not prudent since, contrary to Augustus, I think he genuinely believed he was of divine origin. That made him trust his legendary luck to a point that borders on the obscene..<br>
Contrary to a popular opinion, although he was a good general, he was not an exceptional one. Apart his stroke of genius at Pharsalus with his refused right flank, an analysis of his campaigns shows more often than not a lack of preparedness and an enthusiasm for the offensive that caused him some troubles, like at Gergovia. The War of the Gauls reveals also some episodes when recon was clearly absent and the british expedition not turning into total disaster is just another example of the Divine Julius' obscene luck. As for recon... He sent one galley sail around southern Britain a little while and that's it..<br>
The African wars also show some appalling examples of total disregard for reconnaissance. Caesar's tactic for a seaborne landing was apparently: "Let's sail there, then we'll find a place to land..." (See the British expedition).<br>
At some point he actually searched for his army for some time. They had landed somewhere around.. Didn't know exactly where.. Fortuna will help..<br>
Another bad case of pushing one's luck to the breaking point.<br>
The big difference with Augustus of course was Caesar's exceptional charisma. Like all great conquerors his mere presence was enough to boost the morale of the soldiers to maximum levels and the "quirites" episode with the mutinous tenth legion demonstrates that he must have had an extraordinary presence.<br>
And well, while Augustus was Livia's hubby, the Divine Julius was "the bald catamite, the husband of all wives and the wife of all husbands.."<br>
And one fine day on the ides of march, the Divine Julius pushed his luck a bit too far.<br>
...And to this day, there are still fresh flowers on the site where he was cremated on the Forum. Another difference.. <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/[email protected]narmytalk>Antoninus Lucretius</A> <IMG HEIGHT=10 WIDTH=10 SRC="http://lucretius.homestead.com/files/Cesar_triste.jpg" BORDER=0> at: 6/4/04 12:05 pm<br></i>
Granted that Augustus wasn't as great a commander as casear by any means, however Augustus was one of the best possible men to start off the empire and get through the civil war with Anthony. How might caesar have handled the start of the empire. <p></p><i></i>
<strong><em>No competition. Augustus was a terrible battlefield commander.</em></strong><br>
<br>
But the best politician - hands down the most able Caeser Rome has ever had. Subtle, defiant, strong, devious, a planner, a thinker, a manipulator, an appeaser, a diplomat. Look at the length of his reign. How different Rome was at the end of that reign. He certainly remade Rome. <p>Paul Elliott<br>
<br>
<strong>Heroes of Delphi</strong> - Classical Greece gone D20<br>
<strong>Zenobia</strong> - Fantasy RPG in the Eastern Roman Empire<br>
<strong>Warlords of Alexander</strong> - Kingdoms in conflict for the ruins of Alexander's Empire<br>
<br>
www.geocities.com/mithrapolis/games.html</p><i></i>
Hi all,<br>
<br>
I wouldn't underrate Caesar as a Politician - Don't forget he was recognised as the greatest orator at Rome apart from Cicero and the Gallic Wars are some of the greatest political propaganda ever written.<br>
<br>
Not that I am underestimating Augustus and would concur that Caesar was the better General and Augustus the better politician, although if any of the assassination plots against Augustus had succeeded what would we say? Not to mention that our opinion of Augustus remaking Rome as a good thing is not necessarily right. If he hadn't survived so long there may have been a return to what existed before. But the fact was at his death there were few who could remember the Republic. So, I think Augustus' two great qualities were longevity and delegation - you have to give him credit for having men like Agrippa, Pansa and Hirtius around.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
<br>
Muzzaguchi <p>It is an unscrupulous intellect that does not pay Antiquity its due reverence - Erasmus of Rotterdam<br>
<br>
'Modern history, like a deaf man, answers questions no one asks' - Tolstoy War and Peace Ep. ii.1</p><i></i>
I am not so sure that at the time of Augustus that republic would have been saved by an assassination. <p></p><i></i>

Anonymous

It probably wouldn't have saved the Republic, but it could have destroyed the empire; it's quite plausible that civil war would have re-erupted and who knows where it would have stopped?<br>
<br>
Aaron <p></p><i></i>
Quote:</em></strong><hr>hmmm...you mean THE Gaius aka Emperor Gaius aka Caligula? <hr><br>
<br>
Caligula is also a great movie about imperial rome. It is actually a very disturbing movie which can can classified as a pornographic film. <p>THERE IS NO VICTORY WITHOUT DEFEAT, AND THERE IS NO DEFEAT WITHOUT VICTORY</p><i></i>

Anonymous

Salvete,<br>
<br>
It's a bit of a tough question, but again, you have to look at it from both the political and military perspectives. Augustus learned well from the political mistakes of his great-uncle and rather than go over-board in his retention of power, he made his rule more subtle with uses of titles like "Primus inter pares" in order not to offend the staunch Republicans who still quailed at the thought of a monarch. So, in terms of consolidation of single power, Augustus seemed to have had the upper hand. And because he was able to establish himself independently of the Senate, yet at the same time still let that body feel important about itself, he could bring about his measures easier without having to climb through the red tape that would have held Gaius Julius Caesar back. But as far as the military department went, Augustus himself lacked the prowess that had made Gaius Caesar famous.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
Alison<br>
<br>
Quintus Flavius Marcianus<br>
Optio/Cornicen<br>
Legio XXI Rapax <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=qflaviusmarcianus>Q Flavius Marcianus</A> at: 6/24/04 6:25 am<br></i>

Anonymous

Antoninus said: "Contrary to a popular opinion, although he [Caesar] was a good general, he was not an exceptional one."<br>
<br>
Was it Fuller who said that Caesar only showed his real tactical genius in getting out of dangerous situations that he shouldn't have got himself into in the first place? <p></p><i></i>
Pages: 1 2