Join the new world

According to the Romans, there was no Octavian or Augustus, there was only Gaius Julius Caesar, son of Gaius Julius Caesar. For when Caesar adopted Octavian formally, Octavian inherited not only Caesar’s vast wealth, but also his name. And the name, arguably, is what made Octavian the Princeps Civitatis, the First Citizen, the de facto Roman Emperor.

Many historians judge Octavian, later known as Augustus, as the superior Caesar. This is based on his ability to accomplish what Caesar himself could not, namely making himself the sole ruler and emperor of the Roman world. Many point to Augustus’s adept political maneuvering and his military prowess in crushing Marc Antony, Cleopatra and all others who opposed his reign.

Yet when one studies the facts of both Caesar’s and Augustus’s reigns, it can become obvious that while Augustus succeeded where Caesar failed, this does not qualify him as the superior Caesar. For Augustus succeeded only through the victories of other men and through reprehensible acts that Caesar himself would not stoop to.

Contrary to popular opinion, Augustus was not an adept military leader. Despite fighting under his uncle Caesar’s command in Spain briefly, Augustus was an intellectual, a man of books and scrolls, and he was disinterested in military matters. His distaste for military affairs reflected in his command, and numerous times Augustus blundered militarily when taking direct military control himself. In the Sicilian War against Sextus Pompeii, Augustus’s surprise naval assault completely failed, and he was increasingly forced to rely on the leadership of his subordinate general Agrippa. It was Agrippa who was able to, in the name of Augustus, conquer Rome. Augustus’s military triumphs can nearly all be accredited in some way to his friend Agrippa.
Yet even when it was not Agrippa, Augustus continually rode the coattails of other men in their victories. In the Battle of Mutina against Marc Antony, both Roman Consuls Hirtius and Pansa died in the victory, allowing Augustus, who had little to do with the battle itself, to claim the glory of victory for himself.

Not only was Augustus not a skilled tactician, but his political maneuvering left much to be desired. His short-sighted economic policies led to the collapse of agriculture in the Italian countryside and instigated an economic recession and famine. And the key act which secured his power was not some subtle political maneuvering, it was the outright massacre of his opponents. In a series of government-sanctioned murders known as the Proscriptions, Augustus and his allies Marc Antony and Lepidus published lists of names of men to be murdered. Any who helped in the murder of a listed man was entitled to a portion of his property, while those who helped a listed man was subject to be added to the list themselves. These Proscriptions resulted in gangs of thugs and armed men roaming the streets of Rome, finding and killing any on the list and looting their homes.

The descriptions of the Proscriptions by Appian are truly disturbing. Brothers holding each other before death were killed by a single sword strike. Children were cut down as their tutors attempted to shield them. Men were dragged out of hiding places and butchered in the street. This was the political maneuvering of Augustus.

By contrast, Caesar was everything that Augustus claimed to be and more. A military general and adept politician, Caesar won his military glories by his own sweat and brow and made himself ruler of Rome not through any act of political mass murder but rather through adept political maneuvering to put himself and his allies in charge.

Caesar’s victories are well known and without going into detail it can be said that he soundly defeated, in many cases against impossible odds, the Gauls, Germans, Britons, Egyptians, North Africans, Pontics and fellow Romans. Whereas Augustus merely claimed the victories won by his generals, Caesar won his victories himself.

In addition, Caesar notably and admirably refused to utilize Proscriptions. These had been used by the second Roman dictator, the warlord Sulla, who had proscribed numerous Romans, including many of Caesar’s friends and nearly Caesar himself. The killings were a traumatic memory in the minds of many Romans, including Caesar, and for that reason he chose to not resort to such killings himself. Instead, Caesar went through much effort to incorporate nearly every enemy of his back into the fold, seeking to unite the Roman leadership behind him again rather than simply kill all those who opposed him. And while this may have contributed to his death, none can deny that his refusal to outright massacre his political opponents was admirable and respectable.

Thus, I submit, that while many admire Augustus as the superior Caesar, the truly superior Caesar is the OG one, Gaius Julius Caesar.