Augustus: First Emperor of Rome

by Adrian Goldsworthy

The dramatic story of Augustus, Rome’s first emperor, who plunged into Rome’s violent power struggles at the age of nineteen, proceeded to destroy all rivals, and more than anyone else created the Roman Empire
 
"A fascinating study of political life in ancient Rome."—Nick Romeo, Christian Science Monitor

Caesar Augustus’ story, one of the most riveting in Western history, is filled with drama and contradiction, risky gambles and unexpected success. Thrusting himself into Rome’s extremely violent politics while yet a very young man, Augustus skillfully maneuvered his way through twisting alliances during years of civil war. Named heir to the murdered Julius Caesar, he outwitted and outlasted far more experienced rivals like Antony and Brutus. Ruling supreme, he reinvented himself as a benevolent man of peace and created a new system of government.
 
In this highly anticipated biography Goldsworthy puts his deep knowledge of ancient sources to full use, recounting the events of Augustus’ long life in greater detail than ever before. Goldsworthy pins down the man behind the a consummate manipulator, propagandist, and showman, both generous and ruthless. Under Augustus’ rule the empire prospered, yet his success was never assured and the events of his life unfolded with exciting unpredictability. Goldsworthy captures the passion and savagery, the public image and private struggles of the real man whose epic life continues to influence Western history.

Genres: History, Biography, Nonfiction, Ancient History, Roman History, Politics, Audiobook

640 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2014

About the author

Adrian Goldsworthy, born in 1969, is the author of numerous acclaimed books, including biographies of Julius Caesar and Augustus. He lectures widely and consults on historical documentaries for the History Channel, National Geographic, and the BBC. He lives in the UK.

Reviews

[Gary Inbinder · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very well-written, well-researched, objective and compelling biography of one of the most important, successful, interesting and complex rulers of the ancient world.

Goldsworthy includes, in an endnote examining the possible birthdate(s) of Jesus, a wise caveat for those who rely primarily on the "evidence" presented in popular historical fiction that might be tainted with rumor, speculation, myth, fantasy, and the personal preferences and prejudices of the author:

"...it is important to acknowledge the limits of our evidence, and there is no harm in reminding ourselves that there are similarly many aspects of Augustus’ life, and of ancient history in general, that cannot be established with confident – let alone absolute – certainty."

Goldsworthy, Adrian. Augustus (p. 492). Yale University Press. Kindle Edition.

[Anthony · Rating 4 out of 5]

The First of His Kind

Adrian Goldsworthy is an author that grabs your attention. I have found every book I have read of his to be of a high standard and worth reading. Whether you’re a scholar of ancient history or the casual reader they have something to offer. That being said, I have never read one of his fiction books, but we are talking history here. For me Augustus is a follow on from his excellent Caesar. Goldsworthy himself considers the books to be a part of a trio, with Antony and Cleopatra finding its way into the middle. These great historical figures have all had a much needed reboot and to be honest I do not think anyone could write better biographies.

Goldsworthy understands Ancient Rome and the man behind the legacy of Augustus, as much in we will ever be able to understand the man who is a huge mystery in so many ways. He starts by explaining that Augustus wasn’t really called Augustus in his lifetime and to divide him between ‘Octavian’ and ‘Augustus’ for before and after assuming power can be misleading. He was known as Caius Octavius, then when he became Julius Caesar’s heir we was known as Caius Julius Casear, he could have added Octavianus, his obscure family name, but chose not to, and finally the name of Augustus was awarded to him by the senate, clearly carefully crafted to please and honour him. As Goldsworthy makes clear, Augustus was never known as an emperor in his lifetime, he was conscious not to use that, the hated ‘king’ or even ‘dictator’ as his titles. He chose Princeps which means ‘First Citizen’. Even though as time went on and focus became more around Augustus’ family, there was a lack of a monarchical feel. This only became more apparent with a development of a court and favourites, under his successor Tiberius.

Augustus was a military dictator, but also an effective and good ruler. But it is important to not he owed everything to the unstable years of the civil wars which followed Julius Caesar’s death and as such Augustus’ inheritance. As famously said at the time, ‘he owes everything to his name, and this was true. As he inherited a huge army loyal to him because he was his great uncles’ heir. With those around him, first Antony and Lepidus, then later Marcus Agrippa, he was able to win victories increase his imperium (power) and auctoritas (prestige). He was ruthless when he needed to be and showed clemency where he saw fit. For example, the conspirators of the Ides of March or Sextus Pompieus, Pompey’s son were hunted down and taken out. But Lepidus, his former ally in defeating them was allowed to retire as he posed not threat.

The eternal youth in our minds, due to his propaganda of how he was portrayed in coins and statues, Augustus was the victim of his own success, he outlived everyone but his second wife Livia. Whom he met as a young and beautiful, but heavily pregnant and married woman. Tiberius Claudius Nero, her husband was ‘asked’ to divorce her and although they never had children it was a long and successful marriage lasting over 40 years. He was a difficult father to his own natural child Julia. He at one time banished her due to rumours of adultery, not allowing her any luxuries or the company of men. He was fond of his grandchildren Caius and Lucius Caesar, but tragically both died as young men. This caused him to have to rethink the succession. Agrippa, who he owed a lot of his success to died before him, as did his friends the poets Horace and Virgil. Both near contemporaries. For the future, he turned to Tiberius, in his mid 40s at the time of Augustus’ death in 14AD. Tiberius was Livia’s oldest son, and even then Augustus preferred his younger brother Drusus, who had also died before the Princeps. Augustus clearly had no confidence in Tiberius, who had withdrawn from public life to Rhodes and would famously do so to the island of Capri in his reign. Tiberius was hated later and so the twisted view of him in later years may be due to later propaganda. His reign was known to be peaceful. What is certain is that Augustus was one of (if not the) the best Roman emperors, with all looking to be ‘as good as Trajan’ and ‘luckier than Augustus.’

Unlike in Goldsworthy’s Caesar, there is no background or world building, however this works, as you’re supposed to read Caesar and then Antony and Cleopatra first. It would be repetitive and unnecessary to cover this same ground again. However, this can then retract from the context, especially for the visual reader. As a result this is something to be mindful of, if you have not read the other books. The introduction and beginning of Caesar is what really hooked me on and took me back to my routes of studying the ancient world. One criticism is that Goldsworthy does not seek to spend a lot of time discussing the Pax Romana, the Roman Peace, something which he built his career and reputation on as he was so popular due to selling himself as someone who brought stability to Rome. Augustus’ life’s work and propaganda was based on this. Nor is there as much focus on how he styled himself with his hair etc to captivate young and fashionable but disenchanted, aristocrats to his cause. Minor points, but then it seems more is to say about the man. Overall this is a solid, really good book that is worth time reading.

[Ben-Ain · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 ⭐

Como no podía ser de otro modo, Adrian Goldsworthy no me ha defraudado en absoluto en su estudio sobre la figura de Augusto. El historiador, a mi parecer uno de los máximos exponentes contemporáneos en cuanto a conocimiento de la historia de la Roma antigua, demuestra sobradamente que, además de conocimiento, también derrocha soltura a la hora de hacerlo digerible para al público general sin que para ello descuide un ápice el contenido para que sea de utilidad al estudioso de la materia.

La vida de Augusto queda fielmente narrada y expuesta desde sus orígenes hasta su muerte, siempre basándose en fuentes originales y utilizando una extensa bibliografía complementaria—sólo hay que echar un vistazo a las decenas de páginas de ésta—para cubrir todos los aspectos del emperador.

El lector que se acerque a este libro con un buen conocimiento previo sobre la figura de su padre adoptivo, Julio César, puede que considere los primeros capítulos como algo superfluos. Sin embargo, en mi opinión, considero que son necesarios para trazar un marco sin el cual no se entendería el desarrollo de la personalidad de César Augusto y la toma de decisiones que marcarían su carrera.

Los únicos aspectos negativos del libro no tienen nada que ver con su autor sino con la editorial La Esfera de los Libros, que a mi parecer ha descuidado enormemente el formato digital de la obra. Me he topado con errores tipográficos a mansalva y no pocos de traducción, en el que se confunden nombres o incluso las figuras de Julio César padre con César Augusto hijo. Desconozco si la edición en papel también tiene esos errores, pero me ha sorprendido mucho que una obra así salga a la luz con semejante colección de fallos.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Augustus: First Emperor of Rome, by Adrian Goldsworthy, is an excellent biographical account of Caesar Octavian's rise to power and his subsequent creation of the Roman Empire. The work chronicles his life from his birth to death. He was born Caius Octavian Thurinus of a fairly well off but relatively unknown aristocratic family from an Italian city outside of Rome. His great grandfather had become an important politician in the area, and the subsequent generations were important politicians, bankers etc. Octavian's father was a senator in Rome, and although not a big-wig during the civil war years in the 50 BC era, was an important and crafty senator who often took a neutral path in conflicts such as these. Octavian's father died when he was young, and he went to live with his grand-father, also a Roman politician, and finally was adopted by Julius Caesar - who was related to the boy through marriage.

The book then goes on to look at the civil war between Julius Caesar and Pompey, the Ides of March assassination and subsequently, Octavian Caesar's entry into the political world. As a boy in a patrician family, Octavian grew up attending Senatorial meetings, studying Greek, philosophy, history and the arts of war. When adopted by Julius Caesar, he was given elevated status, and important introductory functions to build his political acumen. After Julius Caesar's assassination, he sought justice against his Republican murderers, and came back to Rome from his place of study in Greece. He petitioned to have money Julius Caesar had promised to the people of Rome paid out by the Senate, and became an interesting political tool by competitors for power, including Mark Antony, the "Liberators" (Brutus, Casseus etc.) and Pompey Magnus' sons. These political squabbles allowed Octavian Caesar an opportunity to explore power himself, and he utilized his given name (Caesar) and the death of his adopted father, as well as political machinations and public appeal, to eventually gain status. He recruited former soldiers from Julius Caesar's veterans, and was able to form enough legions to be a thorn in the side of the various contenders for power, although not yet the main player. He was able to occupy Rome covertly, and allied with Antony and Lepidus to eventually for a Triumvirate of power - turning against the Pompey's and the Republican forces. Once the Republicans were dealt with, Octavian (here on called Caesar) gained immense power and influence, was voted titles by a cowed Senate, and fell out with his fellow rulers, eventually defeating Antony in open combat at Actium.

This marked the beginning of Caesar as "Augustus." Although not voted the title until later on, at this point Augustus Caesar had no equal in power. He took great pains to maintain the appearance of an independent Senate, going so far as to welcome criticism's and gentle rebuking and teasing, but not the outright abuse and mud-slinging that characterized later Republican politics. He frequently rejected politically voted honours in his name, as a sign of humility, and of course as a way of maintaining his appearance to the public. He also avoided the mistakes of his adopted father, avoiding the title "dictator" and abhorring any mention of monarchy. He kept his house near other aristocrats in Rome, and was careful to balance his image with his predecessors, frequently honouring his adopted father, and even Pompey Magnus, Sulla and other great men of Rome's past. He worked to expand the borders of Rome, campaigning (often through subordinates) in Cantabria in Spain, across the Rhine into Germany, in modern Switzerland and in Africa and Asia. He built many public works, repaired important buildings, and frequently gave gifts of games, cash, grain and holidays to the people or Rome. He was also careful to ensure a political outlet for young and ambitious aristocratic men, frequently promoting people to positions of power, forgiving those who questioned his rule (although not to the extent of his adopted father) and building a base of talented subordinates among his family and close comrades.

Augustus' reign was also marked with tragedy. Many of his potential heirs and closest comrades, from Agrippa, to Lucius Caesar, to Drasus, died before their patron. He survived all of his grandchildren, and his only daughter, Julia, was estranged due to her public extravagance and flaunting of her marriage with his close associate and eventual successor, Tiberius. Tiberius himself could not take the stress of his position, and retired to Rhodes for five years, much to Augustus' disappointment. However, as the list of family members grew thin, due to scandal, disease or death in battle, Augustus again turned to Tiberius. Augustus died of illness, aged 75 (an extremely old age at this time).

Goldsworthy has done a fabulous job chronicling the life and times of Augustus Caesar, the first Emperor of Rome. Although Julius Caesar is sometimes given the credit, the dictator did not survive to pass on his lineage, and Augustus was the one who built the legislative and political framework of the early Roman Empire. As a character, Augustus is fascinating. He was a sickly child, and suffered from fits of illness throughout his long life, with death scares multiple times. He was also a fairly mediocre general, losing a handful of the battles he fought, and later delegating campaigns to his subordinates (namely Agrippa and Tiberius, as well as his grandsons). He balanced his quick temper with a thoughtful and wise knowledge of Roman politics, and was often able to achieve public relations coups from many of his mistakes and attacks from political opponents.

Goldsworthy also does a good job highlighting his flaws. He was no legendary general, and often delegated military matters to subordinates. He was sickly, and succumbed to the pressures of this period of time a few times, often falling into depression that he needed to recover from. He engaged in massacres, executing thousands of opponents in the Triumvirate period, and dealt harshly with insurrection in the provinces. He took sole power of a large empire in turmoil, and eliminated his opponents ruthlessly through political, diplomatic and often violent means. He was quick to temper, and saw his own daughter exiled and shunned from public life.

Goldsworthy does an admirable job in this biography. It is highly readable, well sourced, and organized along temporal lines, with sections listed by the name Augustus would have been referred to during that time period. He does fall into a trap that much ancient historical narratives falls into. His work is opinionated in some ways, as he discounts other works of scholarship or other historical theories on slight pretexts or based on his own thought process. This is not a direct criticism, as ancient history is full of gaps, missing records, altered monuments and biased primary sources. One must fill in the gaps to have a compete narrative. Goldsworthy tries to do this. He utilizes multiple source types, from monuments, to archeological evidence, to primary sources, historical records and even biblical sources. Even so, there are many missing pieces to the interesting puzzle of Augustus Caesar. There is also controversy over the reasons why he did what he did, and to how accurate some of the later historical works used as primary sources (some written a century or more after events, some under political pressure from Augustus himself, some with an axe to grind in the contemporary political landscape etc.). These issues may never be resolved satisfactorily. Even so, Goldsworthy has written an engaging, entertaining and enlightening biography on one of Western histories most important historical figures. So much of our institutions and ideals take a page from Rome's historical precedent. Augustus helped build Rome into an Empire that would last another 14 centuries, right up to the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Its trappings continue to this day in our political institutions and even our language. It is immediately recognizable, and yet totally alien all at once. One can mesh with Augustus' decisions in some cases, and see them as enlightening, and at others, recoil at his ferocity. This was a different time, for sure, but the ideals of this Emperor, and the system he set up is recognizable enough to feel familiar and to compare it subconsciously with other Empires and Monarchy's in Western history. Augustus is an all important historical figure, and Goldsworthy's biography is an excellent choice if one wishes to learn more about his life and how he governed.

[Faith · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first emperor of Rome ruled for 44 years. My introduction to Augustus was through historical fiction and I wanted to learn more about his life. This book was both more and less than I was expecting. The author obviously did a lot of research and wanted to share it all, but I would have preferred a more focused biography of Augustus. I didn’t really need to know about breast feeding practices, the age at which boys got their first haircuts and donned their first adult togas, or the name of Marc Antony's current concubine (Cytheris,if you care). Augustus didn’t appear in the first 10% of the book. He was 15 when first introduced.

A great deal of this book consisted of wars and marriages. I found that there was too much speculation and not enough entertaining narrative. There was too much “may have”, “might have”, “probably”, and “hints at”. For example, Scipio was chosen consul but he served for less than a year. The author writes: “We do not have any idea why this occurred, but the silence of our sources makes it unlikely that there was any sinister reason for the change.” It doesn’t seem right to draw conclusions based on the fact that you can’t find any ancient record describing the cause.

In any event, the author did provide a lot of information but I think I’ll keep looking for a biography of Augustus. I’ve rounded 3.5 stars up to 4.

I received a free copy of this book from the publisher.

[Pia G. · Rating 4 out of 5]

goldsworthy, augustus’u yalnızca bir figür olarak görmez, onu bir sistemin kurucusu olarak ele alır. kitapta, caesar’ın ölümünün ardından başlayan iç savaşlar, marcus antonius’la kurulan gergin ittifak, actium zaferi ve ardından gelen uzun süreli barış (pax romana), augustus’un özenle inşa ettiği siyasi düzenin temeli olarak sunuluyor. ayrıca goldsworthy, augustus’u bir diktatör olarak değil de roma’nın siyasi yapısına uyum sağlayan bir 'ilk yurttaş' olarak anlatıyor.

kitap yalnızca siyasi olaylarla sınırlı kalmamış. augustus’un ahlâki reformları, sanata verdiği önem, ailesiyle yaşadığı trajediler ve halef bırakma konusundaki sıkıntılar da detaylı biçimde ele alınıyor. böylece augustus'u güçlü bir yönetici olmasının ötesinde, duyguları, hataları ve acıları olan biri olarak görüyoruz.. özellikle kızı julia’nın sürgüne gönderilmesi, marcellus ve lucius’un genç yaşta ölmesi gibi acı olaylar, onun özel hayatındaki sorunları görünür kılıyor.

son olarak, goldsworthy’nin dili oldukça akıcı ve kitabı okurken yalnızca augustus’un kurduğu siyasi sahneyi değil de roma’nın bugüne kalan mirasını da izliyoruz. modern liderlik anlayışı, propaganda, kamuoyunu şekillendirme gibi konular açısından da düşündüren çok şey var.

[Charlie Hasler · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed it. I have wanted to read a book about Augustus for some time as he is mentioned often in other books focusing around the same period but never in a huge amount of detail.

Anyone who is interested in Rome and indeed Augustus then you will love this book. Also gives a lot of information on other key personalities.

Superb.

[Charles Haywood · Rating 5 out of 5]

This review will combine something very old with something very new. The very old, of course, is the title character, the Emperor Augustus, and his times. The very new is a continuation of my thoughts on reaction as a modern political movement. You will see how these things fit together, and in fact are much the same thing, for today, more than ever, everything old is new again. And I will begin to distinguish “conservatives” from “reactionaries,” as I recently promised I would.

Adrian Goldsworthy is one of those British historians, of whom the late John Keegan was probably the first modern example, who are tremendously erudite and deeply familiar with the latest scholarship, but whose own writings are directed to the educated popular market, often with an emphasis on military history. Goldsworthy’s particular focus is Rome and his earlier books cover the very famous: Julius Caesar, Antony, Cleopatra, and so on. This book, “Augustus,” if you think about it, is a departure. It focuses on a cipher—the most important man in Rome’s history, perhaps, the hinge around which that history turns, but not one whom people really discuss, other than pro forma nods to his role as “First Emperor of Rome” and as the ruler during whose reign Jesus was born. We all recognize his statues, which were ubiquitous (if idealized—you have never seen a statue of an old Augustus, though he lived to 75). But what other details can you remember? Probably none (unless you watched and can remember the second season of the HBO series “Rome,” which was excellent, though very much not for children, and in any case only covered the early parts of Augustus’s career). As Goldsworthy points out, there exists no biography purely of the man—rather there are books on his times in which he appears dimly or even as a mere spectator, and usually most of his reign is almost wholly ignored.

The author therefore offers a straightforward chronological history focusing on the man, beginning with Augustus’s birth in 63 B.C.—the birth itself being less immediately important than what was happening then, namely the Catilinarian conspiracy and the ongoing rise of Julius Caesar, the maternal great-uncle of Augustus. Very quickly Goldsworthy cuts to Julius Caesar’s death and subsequent events. We get an excellent summary of a confused time. We are shown the ambition of the nineteen-year-old Gaius Octavius, known as Octavian to us, made the heir of Julius Caesar but lacking experience of both war and command, and without an army compelled to make his way back to Rome from Macedonia not knowing what to expect when he got there. We review the Second Triumvirate; the battle of Philippi (where Brutus and Cassius died); and the growing appreciation, or apprehension, of relevant men (most especially Cicero) for the Octavian they had under-rated or ignored, figuring they could control him (something that usually seems to turn out poorly for would-be puppet masters). Finally, in this time period, we get the defeats of Sextus Pompeius, as well as of Antony and Cleopatra, with Octavian then immediately assuming supreme power (sidelining, but not killing, Lepidus, the third member of the Triumvirate, who in fact lived to a ripe old age).

This history is the history we tend to know of Augustus, and as I say, he’s the cipher in the mix. We thrill to Cleopatra and her asp, the death of Cicero, and other such episodes, not to the growing, consolidating, yet unspectacular power that Octavian held (Augustus, after 27 B.C.). Nobody makes movies in which Augustus is the central figure. At this point, most people studying Rome gloss over the rest of his reign and begin focusing on his successors. Here, the remaining three-fifths of the book covers the forty years of his reign as Augustus, where less exciting things happened and nearly everyone was grateful for the return to boredom, or at least the disappearance of uncertainty and terror, combined with economic and cultural flourishing.

Augustus began by reforming the Senate, along with the consulship and the other magistracies, reducing their number, restoring their prestige, and making various structural changes while retaining the outward forms—at the same time still permitting the upper classes to achieve real power and prestige not solely dependent on his favor. He restored and enhanced religious rites (some of which were embellished or reinvented for the new age, such as closing both doors of the Temple of Janus when Rome was at peace, thereby increasing piety while highlighting his own successes). The rule of law generally prevailed, even as against Caesar in small things, although everyone knew and functionally acknowledged that the ultimate power was Caesar’s, so there was not rule of law in precisely the sense we would use it.

Goldsworthy further covers many other aspects of the early Empire, from colonies to roads, as well as extensive details about Augustus’s family, where, most importantly, his succession plans were frustrated by the deaths of the men and the bad behavior of the women. The Emperor implemented a building program that allowed him to say at his death that “Behold, I found Rome of clay, and leave her to you of marble.” Some of this was decorative; some practical, as in fixing and building new aqueducts and fountains from which the people got fresh water. Naturally, all of this was devoted to strengthening his prominence, as well as the civil society of the city and the fibers of empire. It’s not that Augustus had a grand plan, but he incrementally followed basic principles, and stuck to them whenever possible. At the same time, of course, he particularly rewarded the soldiers who had put him into and kept him in power. As Goldsworthy repeatedly notes, Augustus was a military dictator. No military, no power. He did not make the mistake that Julius Caesar had made, of going around unarmed by himself; nor did he make the mistake Pompey had made, of disbanding his army at the height of his power and trying to rely on his auctoritas (roughly, status and respect due to position, power, and charisma). Augustus had massive amounts of auctoritas—and plenty of soldiers to keep his auctoritas fresh. And he kept his soldiers busy, no longer fighting other Romans, but expanding the empire into more of Spain and Germany, and keeping Rome’s ancient enemies, such as the Parthians, at bay.

From this narrative, a clear portrait of the character of Augustus emerges. Unlike Julius Caesar, he was not a particularly impressive military leader. In fact, with at least some justice he was accused of being conveniently ill or otherwise incapacitated at crucial and dangerous moments, such as Philippi, where he was accused of hiding in a marsh, and by his own admission he absented himself because of a warning dream his physician had. Still, he was wildly ambitious, yet cautious enough to not be constantly risking everything on a throw of the dice, as Antony did, or to do stupid things like allow himself to be cast as a drunk bewitched by a foreign queen, as Antony also did. “Hurry slowly” was one of his watchwords. At the same time, like nearly all warlords, he could be bloodthirsty—Augustus, along with the other members of the Second Triumvirate, used proscriptions extensively, both to eliminate their opponents (Julius Caesar’s policy of aggressive clemency was one of the reasons he got killed, because nobody likes to be beholden in that way) and to get land and money to reward their supporters. It was said in making these proscriptions that Augustus was both callow and vicious, traits that later left him, or were subsumed, but which Goldsworthy notes are part of the balance of the man. On the other hand, he was fond of humor, even at his own expense, as when after Antony was defeated at Actium he paid a man in Rome 5,000 denarii for a bird that was trained to cry “Hail Caesar, victor imperator!”—and when told there was a second bird, paid the same for that one, even when he discovered its cry was “Hail Antony, victor imperator!” He was also reportedly amused when “he encountered a man who looked uncannily like him, prompting the princeps to ask the man whether his mother had ever spent time in Rome. The man said no, before adding that his father was a frequent visitor.”

One of the things that makes this book interesting, and also suggests routes of further inquiry for the interested reader, is that quite frequently Goldsworthy will, without going into detail, refer to scholarly controversies surrounding a particular point. This often happens, for example, when he is discussing possible or putative resistance by the senatorial class to the dominance of Augustus. As is well known, records of events and their motivation tend to become less reliable in authoritarian societies, not so much because of fear of punishment as because the real decisions are taken informally, behind closed doors, by groups of the powerful. Thus, scholars must tease the facts out of relatively little evidence. Goldsworthy rejects what appears to be, from his comments, the common scholarly idea that this or that event showed a strong undercurrent of opposition to Augustus. For the most part, Goldsworthy believes that the upper classes (and all the other classes) were much happier with Augustus than with the previous disorders, and while they jockeyed for position, wealth and power, both with respect to obtaining those from Augustus and purely among themselves, there was no coherent set of individuals who had any actual desire or plan to restore the true Republic. Apparently others (whom he cites) disagree, though what Goldsworthy describes certainly seems likely, given nearly a century of civil war. Throughout the book, there are numerous other interesting points. For example, everyone knows that much of the writing of the ancient world is lost—but it seems odd, and sad, that even Augustus’s own voluminous memoirs (written early in his reign) are wholly lost. Other facts add flavor and depth: “Centurions were men of some property and often came from the aristocracies of the country towns of Italy. The old view of them as sergeant majors promoted from the ranks is a sadly persistent myth.” And, finally, we get fashion tips. One sometimes opponent, sometimes ally was the Germanic tribe of Suebi, “who were famous for wearing their hair tied in a knot on the top or side of their heads—the Suebian knot.” So the man-bun has respectable antecedents. I’m pretty sure, though, that today’s wearers of man-buns lack the masculinity of the Suebi.

Augustus allowed a modest amount of criticism of himself, and generally free discourse. He also patronized the greatest artists, not for propaganda, but because he “prided himself on association with only the finest writers. This was a matter of self-respect, but also good politics. Alexander the Great’s reputation had suffered through accepting overblown praise from mediocre poets.” Goldsworthy rejects “the modern prejudice [that assumes] that all great artists must by nature be dissidents, especially if they live under a leader who has fought his way to power. As a comparison, we would do well to think of the many great works of music and art produced under the rule of, and often with direct patronage of, absolute monarchs in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” To this I would add every single great work of art created prior to the modern era, all of which (other than some in ancient Athens) were produced under some form of government other than democracy—not to mention that most “great works” of modern art, mostly created under democracy by artists eager to undermine and destroy their own societies, often funded by those they viciously attack, aren’t great at all. The causative linkage among great art and forms of governance, though, if any, I will leave to another day.

This is not a Christian or religious book in any way, but Goldsworthy elsewhere has identified himself as Christian, and perhaps that shows in his intermittent focus on Herod the Great’s client kingdom. Among other things, he notes that Herod rebuilt the capital of Samaria and renamed it Sebastos, and settled it largely with veterans, whose sons often served in the Roman army under the governor’s command—hence, “the soldiers who executed Jesus were almost certainly Sebasteni.” And in an appendix, Goldsworthy evaluates the dating of Jesus’s birth, in particular as relates to the census of Cyrenius [i.e., Publius Sulpicius Qurinius] mentioned in Luke 2 as the reason for Jesus being born in Bethlehem. Although Goldsworthy doesn’t mention it, very frequently simplistic attacks on Christianity are made claiming that “Augustus never ordered an empire-wide census.” That may be true—or it may not, given that so much of the records are lost, and Goldsworthy says it’s “perfectly possible,” since it would just be formally ordering and organizing what already happened in practice in an ad hoc manner. But it’s not relevant to or probative of the truth of Jesus’s birth, since as Goldsworthy says, “There was no reason for Luke to be careful in precisely describing the administrative methods of taxation within the Roman Empire, even assuming that he understood such things, given how few people really understand today all aspects of the taxation system in their own countries. . . . What is clear is that under Augustus . . . most—perhaps all—provinces were subjected to one or more censuses which assessed liability for taxation.” “The Gospel writing may merely reflect the perspective of a provincial, for whom census and taxation were imposed by the Roman authorities with a regularity that must have seemed as if it was a system imposed by a single decision.” And given that the taxation census of Qurinius (the first one imposed directly by the Romans) was in A.D. 6, and Herod died in 4 B.C., it was probably not actually this census that was the one mentioned, but an earlier one carried out by Herod, who would have been perceived as acting for Augustus—and which very well may have required registration in one’s home community. “The Gospel writers were not providing fully detailed historical contexts for the events they described, but telling their readers what they felt was important.” Thus, the precise contours of the Nativity census or taxation are not known, but what is known is wholly consistent with the Biblical account.

So much for history. What of today? It is an obvious and fair question what, if any, lessons or warnings there are for us in the Augustan transition to a new form of governance. In the unsettled modern age, facile parallels to Rome are constantly drawn. Most of them are ignorant and foolish—as with using any historical parallel, great caution is needed, both in order that false conclusions not be drawn and in order to avoid excessively constraining thought and action by believing, even if only implicitly, that past performance dictates future results. But if the Augustan transition tells us anything, it is that all systems end, and that there is no magic to the republican form of government, whatever we may viscerally feel. When Augustus died, there was no serious movement to return to the Republic. “The acknowledgement that the principate worked was universal and only a little grudging.” The key word there is “worked.” What works today may not be what worked yesterday, but usually people are trapped into existing frames of thought, until one day, they aren’t, and something new works. The trick is to figure out where we are in that cycle and what actions to take in response.

The Augustan transition is usually thought of as the change from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire, but that is not really true. The Republic was already dead as a doornail when Augustus was born; the only question was what was going to replace it. Certainly, we can argue why the Republic had run its course, but no educated person would disagree that it had run its course. That wasn’t obvious to all at the time—for example, the assassins of Julius Caesar hoped to return to the days of republican virtue. Whether because it was actually virtue, or because those days privileged men of their class, is irrelevant. The point is that their hope was always pitiful. Revolutions seeking to wholly return to the past are merely embarkations on the proverbial ship of fools. They never restore the past and rarely result in achieving any of the goals of those who create them. Our view of the end result of revolutions is distorted by the primacy in our thought given to the American Revolution and the Glorious Revolution, which are viewed as having positive, largely cost-free results in accord with their movers. But essentially all other revolutions have left most people worse off, usually including most of the revolution’s instigators, and have accomplished few, if any, of their supposed goals. And none have restored the past, because you can’t restore the past, which after all is necessarily prologue.

The return to Rome of monarchy, the default form of human government, was probably inevitable, given the circumstances of constant disorder, that no person will tolerate if he can avoid it at nearly any cost. Really, the ascension of Augustus was socially Pareto optimal—nobody was worse off, and many people were better off. The traditional rebuttal to this is to point to either the nasty later Emperors (Caligula, Commodus) or to the eventual breakdown of the Empire. Neither suggests that Augustus was not an improvement to the first century B.C. If we, in the United States, had for decades been swept from coast to coast by war, tanks swarming across Nebraska cornfields, mass confiscations of money and goods, destruction of hundreds or thousands of towns, with each party as it captured a city posting lists of thousands of civilians to be immediately hunted down and killed, we would be not unhappy if someone stopped all this by grasping the reins of power permanently, especially if republican forms were maintained (a particular focus of Machiavelli in his Discourses on Livy, the subject of a forthcoming review of mine), considerable freedom was maintained for all people (more than under civil war, certainly), the rule of law was restored, the economy boomed and national prestige was reborn. In fact, I would bet that almost nobody would miss democracy. I certainly wouldn’t, in those circumstances. Democracy, or republicanism, is overrated, probably because we associate the (fading) glory of the modern West with democracy, likely overstating the connection, or even seeing one where none exists.

[Review continues as first comment.]

[Elentarri · Rating 4 out of 5]

The rise of Julius Caesar's great-nephew Gaius Octavius (63BC - 14AD) from a relatively obscure family to Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus (adopted son of the dictator Julius Caesar), warlord, divi filius 'son of a god', Pater Patriae 'Father of the Fatherland/country', and Princeps Civitatis 'First Citizen' of the Roman Empire. After the assassination of Julius Caesar, the suicide of Antony and Cleopatra, and the resultant demise of the Second Triumvirate, Augustus was too powerful to depose and became an autocrat, while trying to maintain the outward facade of a restored republic. With a lot of politicking, legislative reforms, generosity with his wealth, and an intimidating army, Augustus managed to provide some stability to the Roman Empire that had previously been convulsed by civil wars. This particular biography is fairly well-written, semi-scholarly, and as objective as is possible when taking into account the type of historical material available.

[Carol Storm · Rating 3 out of 5]

Passable biography but if you're looking for entertainment THE TWELVE CAESARS by Suetonius is actually a lot more fun. The original is still the greatest!

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ask most people who was the first Roman emperor, and the name you are mostly likely to hear is that of Julius Caesar. Yet for all his prominence in the events surrounding the fall of the Republic, it was not Julius Caesar who became Rome’s first emperor, but his great-nephew Caius Octavius, a man better known to history as Augustus. Named Caesar’s heir in the dictator’s will, Augustus spent over a decade after his great-uncle’s assassination consolidating power through a series of wars and alliances. After establishing himself as Rome’s sole ruler, he received from the Senate the titles of augustus and princeps, which not only confirmed Octavius’s ascendancy but the establishment as well of a new system of rule, one that would endure for centuries after his death.

Despite these achievements, Augustus’s lengthy reign has not received anywhere near the attention enjoyed by his legendary great uncle and the tumultuous events of the latter man’s life. Part of the reason for this, as Adrian Goldsworthy notes in his excellent biography of the emperor, is due to the uneven amount of information available about it in the surviving literary sources. These he employs with the growing body of physical evidence to provide not just an account of Augustus’s life, but an account as well of how the emperorship emerged to become the new center of power in the Roman Empire.

To recount Augustus’s life, Goldsworthy divides his book into five parts. Though the first of these covers the years of his upbringing, the paucity of reliable details leads the author to recount instead the contemporaneous events of the civil war and Julius Caesar’s rise to power. Not only does this help Goldsworthy set the context for Caius Octavius’s rise, it underscores the unique set of circumstances required for it. Had Caesar lost to Pompey, it is debatable whether history would even know his grand-nephew’s name; had he avoided or survived assassination, it is possible someone else would have been the beneficiary of Caesar’s contacts and alliances. Instead, Caius Octavius was the inheritor of the bulk of his great-uncle’s vast fortune and patronage network, catapulting him instantly to the front rank of politics.

Yet Caius Julius Caesar (as Caius Octavius now renamed himself) was just one contender for power in the vacuum caused by his great-uncle’s death. Thirteen years would pass before young Caesar would defeat the last of his enemies in battle to become the sole ruler of the republic. Recounting this process takes up the second and third parts of Goldsworthy’s book, as he details the various campaigns, partnerships, and conspiracies that brought it about. Here he downplays the inevitability of young Caesar’s rise, noting the numerous missteps and defeats that he suffered during this period. In many respects this period proved a learning process, one in which he learned how to better navigate politics and outmaneuver his enemies. Thanks to this experience, by the time of Mark Antony’s death in the aftermath of the battle of Actium in 31 BCE, Caius Julius Caesar had not only secured his power, he had mastered his ability to wield it on the Roman political scene.

The Senate’s vote of the title of augustus in 27 BCE was thus an acknowledgement of Caius Julius Caesar’s unprecedented status. Though Augustus held a variety of different offices in the years that followed, Goldsworthy makes clear in the final two sections of the book that his real power lay in his control over the military. This he exercised in a peripatetic existence punctuated by campaigns designed to add to Rome’s glory. Augustus was aided in his efforts by a select clique of family and friends with whom he shared power, an arrangement that Goldsworthy notes was virtually unique in Roman history. Yet the deaths of his adopted stepsons, Gaius and Lucius, and the banishment of Agrippa Postumus meant that Augustus soldiered on with the duties of his position right up to his death in 14 CE, aided only by the reluctant support of his successor, Tiberius.

Goldsworthy recounts all of this with an assuredness born of a thorough command of his subject. His confidence in his conclusions might be greater than his sources can support, but nevertheless speaks to a judgment honed by his considerably familiarity with the era. This he employs to bridge the many gaps in our knowledge of Augustus’s life and reign with speculation grounded in the sources we do have, supplemented by archaeological finds that fill out our understanding in important ways. Conveyed as it is with Goldsworthy’s deft writing style, it all makes for a biography that is a both an enjoyable read and one that is highly recommended for anyone seeking to learn about Rome’s first emperor and his enduring legacy for its empire.

[Marybeth ❤️ · Rating 4 out of 5]

With thanks to NetGalley for the ARC ����

4 stars!

It was so exciting to get this arc. Augustus is such a fascinating figure, and Goldsworthy really does him justice. The book is meticulously researched and full of rich detail, but still manages to be accessible and easy to read.

It covers one of the most gripping periods in Roman history, and as a classics student the research was highly appreciated. All the politics, power shifts, and drama that shaped an empire; and it never once felt heavy or 'too academic'.

A great read for anyone even slightly interested in history or the ancient world.

[Brandon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Augustus regarded as one of the greatest men of the ancient world! He reformed government , military, public works and quality of life for the Roman’s and was the start of the Roman Empire! This book was very informative and detailed about the life of Augustus I highly recommend this to Roman historians and historians alike!

[BAM doesn’t answer to her real name · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’m wondering if I should count this as a royal project read? …. I mean he was an emperor, a conquerer. I’m going to put on my beanie and think

Royal reads project

[Faustibooks · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is yet another great book by Adrian Goldsworthy that deserves a five-star rating. In this book, Goldsworthy writes about Caesar Augustus, perhaps one of the most influential people in history. Born as Gaius Octavius in an extremely volatile time period for the Roman Republic, from political strife, several civil wars, rebellions and massive corruption, the Republic was in constant crisis. The final decades of the Roman Republic are extremely fascinating, yet also quite complex, however, Goldsworthy does an astonishing job of summarizing these events and putting Augustus' birth and youth into context. The helpful use of maps, tables, family trees and especially a list of all the notable people at the end of the book really helps to digest this chaotic time period.

This book makes frequent use of funny and interesting anecdotes about the princeps and the people around him, as well as using direct quotes from his contemporaries, such as Cicero and Julius Caesar making the biography more amusing to read. I also really enjoyed a quick glance at the famed Aeneid by Virgil, another notable contemporary of Augustus.

While I believe most people could read this without having much prior knowledge of the Roman Republic, I strongly recommend reading Goldworthy's Caesar: The Life Of A Colossus as the stories connect quite well.

As a young adult, Octavius got launched into public life after the assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC who named him his adoptive son and heir in his will. He rose to the task and quickly became one of the most powerful men in Rome, beating his rivals and the conspirators who murdered his father. Later on 16 January 27 BC he would take the name Augustus, meaning venerable. His rule ended the chaotic times of the Republic and brought stability and prosperity to Rome and her provinces, creating what we now know as the Roman Empire. Aside from Augustus, there are also many other great names in the story, people such as Mark Antony, Cleopatra, Pompey, Brutus, Cicero, Agrippa, Livia, Herod and Virgil. Augustus' story from his rise to power to his eventual death as the most powerful man in the world is fascinating and Goldsworthy did an amazing job in putting it all into one book. His way of writing is engaging and he is clearly very knowledgeable on the subject. This book is definitely one of my favourites and I am looking forward to reading more by Adrian Goldsworthy.

P.S. By the way, this is the book that has made me laugh the most until now, especially at the part with Augustus and the talking ravens

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

A few months back I read Goldsworthy's biography of Julius Caesar, so it made sense to continue the story by reading the biography of Augustus Caesar. Simply put, this book is a fantastic account of the first Roman Emperor.

What I most appreciated was the story after Augustus had won the battle of Actium and the civil wars. Most overviews of history I've read go on to simply note that Augustus reigned until his death at 14 AD. But that's 45 years, a long reign in any era! Goldsworthy does not diminish the fact that Augustus had thousands of people killed and was as violent as any other military dictator. But as dictators go, Augustus is about as good as you can get and after the wars he set about to reforming and rebuilding the Empire. He left it in 14 AD much better then he found it.

Beyond Augustus' story, I was impressed with the character of Marcus Agrippa. Agrippa achieved great things in his own right and it is doubtful Augustus could have been so successful with Agrippa next to him. In a time of everyone competing for the top, it was amazing to me Agrippa remained loyal his entire life. He had no problem doing great things and giving credit to Augustus. I think we all could use an Agrippa by our sides throughout life.

It was also interesting to learn about how Augustus would have been referred. I always heard him as "Octavian" until he became "Caesar Augustus". But after Julius Caesar's death, when Octavian was adopted as his son, he went by "Caesar." So Goldsworthy calls him Caesar at this time, and when he has to mention the older Caesar he calls him Julius Caesar.

Finally, for those interested in Christian faith, there is an interesting appendix on the birth of Jesus. It was refreshing to read a historian with no skin in the game write on this. I have no idea what Goldsworthy's faith is, but he clearly is not trying to prove anything, like most Christians and skeptics who approach this text. He notes difficulties and probabilities and moves on.

Overall, a very interesting and engaging piece of historical biography.

[Yair Zumaeta Acero · Rating 4 out of 5]

Muchos han sido los que han navegados los ríos de la historia como comandantes supremos de sus barcos y de sus tiempos. Los ecos de sus gestas, victorias y logros llegan aún hoy hasta nosotros como gritos de guerra y ceremonias de triumphus que se perpetúan en el tiempo y evitan que sus autores se pierdan en el olvido. Pero han sido pocos los que además de comandantes, fueron capaces de cambiar la corriente de las aguas de la historia, reescribiendo su curso para siempre. Y en ese gran Olimpo de personajes inmortales de la historia humana, en una de sus principales sillas seguramente encontremos al gran Emperador César Augusto, divi filius, pater patriae. El hombre que logró transformar una agónica y anárquica República romana en una dictadura de tintes monárquicos, trayendo paz y estabilidad como pocos períodos de la antigüedad (Pax Augusta) y cambiando de esta manera la forma de entender y asumir el poder en Occidente, creando incluso la simbología asociada al “emperador” y al “imperio” a través de la cual se moldeó Europa hasta su cénit en 1914 – casi dos milenios después -; además de representar la figura perfecta del “buen gobierno” hasta nuestros días.

Y muy a pesar de la importancia histórica de Augusto, lejos ha estado la historiografía en lograr un acuerdo frente a su vida y obra. No sólo por el eterno problema que gran parte de lo que sobre él se escribió durante y con posterioridad a su mandato, no logró sobrevivir los embates del tiempo hasta nuestros días; sino también por la cantidad de contradicciones que se presentan entre las fuentes sobrevivientes. Las narraciones más completas sobre Augusto fueron escritas tiempo después de los acontecimientos, y los relatos de Apiano, Dion Casio, Suetonio, Plutarco Séneca y Macrobio son contradictorios entre sí pues dependen de fuentes primarias anteriores cuyo punto de vista varía desde la aprobación hasta la completa hostilidad según su posición en las guerras civiles del 49, 43 y 32 a.e.c. Es así como podemos ver a un joven Octaviano retratado como un oportunista, sanguinario, cruel, frío y calculador ansioso por conquistar el poder absoluto en Roma, en contraste con el perfecto estadista y administrador, tolerante, pacífico y mecenas de las letras y las artes de su edad madura. Y es aquí cuando aparece la biografía escrita por el doctor y profesor de historia en Oxford, el británico Adrian Goldsworthy para procurar conciliar ambas etapas de la vida de Augusto, intentando desentrañar la verdad que se esconde tras las fuentes clásicas.

Goldsworthy ya había hecho un trabajo magnífico con la biografía de Marco Antonio y Cleopatra, con el relato de las guerras púnicas en La caída de Cartago. Las guerras Púnicas, 265 - 146 A.C. y especialmente, con su magistral biografía del gran Julio César (una de mis biografías favoritas). En “Augusto: De Revolucionario a Emperador”, el autor nos da una grandiosa visión en conjunto del personaje iniciando cómo no con un breve resumen de la vida de su padre adoptivo Julio César y los idus de marzo – esenciales para entender el ascenso de Octaviano hasta convertirse en César Augusto, con un énfasis claro en las operaciones militares (especialidad de Goldsworthy) que llevaron a Augusto a tener el monopolio de las legiones militares, así como del poder y la consecuente victoria sobre todos su enemigos – Módena, Filipos, Sicilia y especialmente Accio contra Marco Antonio y Cleopatra-. De ritmo ágil, narrado con emoción y cercanía y a la vez lo bastante erudito y explicativo – fiel al estilo del autor – “Augusto” es una maravillosa biografía que además de glorificar al gran Emperador que “encontró una ciudad de adobe y entregó una de mármol eterno”, no nos permite olvidar su pésimo talante como general (cuyas mayores victorias se dieron gracias a su mano derecha, Marco Vipsanio Agripa), ni sus primeros años oscuros en los que no le tembló la mano para firmar proscripciones durante el segundo triunvirato, donde cientos de romanos perdieron la vida – entre ellos el famosísimo Cicerón; y tampoco que su gran amor Livia Drusila se la robó (literalmente) a su anterior marido; o que condenó al exilio perpetuo a su única hija no adoptiva y su nieta por adúlteras, prohibiendo que fueran enterradas junto a él en su mausoleo.

Un libro que se ha convertido ya en una obra de referencia indispensable para todo aquel que desee conocer acerca de Augusto, de los últimos años de la República Romana o de la consolidación del principado como modelo de gobierno hasta la mismísima caída de Roma. Si los libros de historiadores del calibre de Luciano Canfora, Ronald Syme o Erich Gruen lograron en su momento revelarnos hasta los mínimos detalles de la vida de Augusto, es ahora Goldsworthy quien logra llevar al público general y en un lenguaje de divulgación mucho más asequible que el de otros académicos, los resultados de las investigaciones y análisis de las fuentes que lograron quienes le precedieron en la tarea de revelar la vida de uno de los grandes prohombres de nuestra historia.

“Dado que he representado bien mi papel en esta comedia que es la vida, aplaudidme todos, y del escenario despedidme con un aplauso.”

[Miranda Alford]

Agrippa is a legend and is underrated.

Good overview of Augustus' actions but nothing extra. It exists tbh. I also looked like an absolute tragedy because was reading this at the tennis job and everyone else was reading light stuff. What can I say i'm not like other girls *flicks hair*.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I am not an expert in Roman history, so I cannot speak to the accuracy of this work. However, I am, in the end, impressed by the work. First, the author has an extensive background in Roman history, having written an excellent biography of Julius Caesar, as well as works on battles and military matters. Second, he does not seem to me to go beyond the evidence. At any number of points, he notes that we cannot know what happened, although he sometimes makes an informed guess (some biographers have gone way too far with these "guesses"; Goldsworthy seems to be more discreet). Third, there are a number of maps, some rather indifferent and others useful. I wonder if there could not have been somewhat more and somewhat better. Fourth, the political structure of Rome is described quite nice3ly, including a confusing array of posts that could be held by leaders.

The unlikely story of Caius Octavius who became Augustus is well told. Goldsworthy begins with what we can gather about his youth--and the extraordinary good luck of having been adopted by his great-uncle Julius Caesar. The background of the first triumvirate--Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar--is discussed and the end of their alliance at the top of the dominance hierarchy of Rome. After Caesar's assassination, the dynamics of Roman politics changed dramatically. How Octavius became Augustus and survived the aftermath is, again, a well told tale. A second triumvirate developed--Marc Antony, Lepidus, and Octavius. There was much tension among them, and a falling out seems to have been inevitable. The process by which Augustus emerged as Roman leader is told in considerable detail.

Then, the long career of Augustus as Princeps is related. This is, again, done nicely. There was much pain in his life, as so many close to him died early. We learned of key figures, such as Agrippa, who helped his leadership and accomplishments. His personal life, as much as can be ascertained, adds a human element to this biography.

This is a fine biography. I am impressed that so many years later, one could assemble as detailed a story as emerges here.

[Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Augustus was the nephew and adopted son and heir of Julius Caesar. As such he led one of the factions in the civil war that followed Caesar's murder and emerged as sole ruler from 27BC, ruling the empire for forty years.

Augustus skilfully developed the role of emperor, co-opting the major families and politicians of Rome into a system that proved stable for the four decades of his rule. He expanded the empire, reformed the state and encouraged massive investment and huge public works to make Rome an imperial city.

He operated with skill and bravery, was lucky at times and extremely ruthless when it was necessary. Augustus exploited the desperate need for order following the deprivation of the civil war, refashioning the political system as sole ruler whilst outwardly following many of the traditions of the Roman republic. He was lucky in that he had excellent associates such as Agrippa and Maecenas - he was in truth not the best general -who ably assisted him in his task of ruling a massive state.

Goldsworthy does a great job in setting out the life of one of the greatest Romans. He shows us how a callow youth rose from one of several competing warlords through a combination of luck, skill and guile to become supreme leader of Rome. He also shows us how Augustus managed to stay in control for forty years, and how he mellowed and adapted to rule the state whilst masking the brutal fact that he was essentially a military dictator - allowing the other Roman clans a stake in the system.

Worth a read

[Scipio Africanus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Adrian Goldsworthy is undoubtedly one of the best Roman historians of recent years. Never a dull moment and always great insight. Im a Julius Caesar guy, but I can see why he adopted Octavian.

[Leah · Rating 4 out of 5]

When in Rome...

“…as military dictators go, Caesar Augustus was not such a bad one.”

Great-nephew and principal heir to Julius Caesar, Augustus was just nineteen when Caesar was murdered, but it seems he was never in doubt of his right to take over the honours of the older man. His early career was as a warlord, using the wealth he had inherited and borrowing extensively to ensure that he had the largest army as the Roman republic descended into civil war. He was also helped by the loyalty of Julius Caesar’s troops – a loyalty they were willing, on the whole, to extend to his heir. Having at length achieved internal peace, Augustus’ later career was as a (fairly) benevolent military dictator who brought stability to Rome and enabled it to extend and, to some degree, pacify the empire.

Adrian Goldsworthy is a recognised scholar of ancient Rome and has a doctorate from Oxford University in ancient military history. Although this is a period I know nothing about, it quickly becomes clear that the book has been thoroughly researched. While concentrating on Augustus himself, Goldsworthy takes time to set his story well into the period, giving plenty of information about the period before Augustus rose to prominence, so that the newcomer gets a real feeling for the society that he was operating within. As always with histories of so long ago, the source documents are limited and often even they were written a considerable time after the events. Goldsworthy acknowledges this and reminds the reader of the effect of contemporary and later propaganda on the picture left behind of such a prominent figure as Augustus. As he says “As always with the ancient world, it is easier to say what he did than it is to understand the man’s inner thoughts and character.” He also remembers that not all of his readers will have a grounding in Roman history, so takes the time to explain things that can be confusing, like the naming conventions for both men and women or the structure of the army. This meant that I found the book very accessible and only very rarely felt that I was floundering a bit.

Personally there was a bit too much concentration on the military side of things for me. Obviously as a military dictator, the army was an important part of Augustus’ story, as were the various rebellions, battles and conquests. It certainly isn’t a criticism of the book, therefore, since I can’t see how Goldsworthy could really have left any of it out, but I did find it all got a little tedious after a while. He shows Augustus as a slick political operator rather than a heroic warrior – in fact, there is a clear suggestion that Augustus tended to fall conveniently ill and retreat to the rear whenever the fighting hotted up. However he seems to have been ruthless in pursuit of his aims, willing to change allegiance whenever he thought it would benefit him and displaying a high degree of brutality towards his defeated enemies - behaviour all the more remarkable, perhaps, given his youth. Goldsworthy covers the Cleopatra/Mark Anthony episode in some depth, but rather suggests that Cleopatra has been given more importance by later historians than she really deserved.

I found Augustus’ later life of more interest, especially his attempts to ensure that he had 'trained' heirs to take over after his death – attempts that were constantly thwarted by the tragedy of early deaths within his extended family. Names familiar to anyone who watched the BBC’s I, Claudius (or, indeed, who read the original book by Robert Graves) have their context and importance thoroughly explained, and Goldsworthy weighs up the evidence for and against the suggestions of Livia (Augustus’ wife) as murderer of more than one of her relations – and tends to come down in her favour on the whole. Considering the difficulties of lack of source material, I felt Goldsworthy gave a fairly rounded picture of Augustus – a man whose behaviour seemed, as Goldsworthy says, to improve as he got older. The man who in his youth cheerfully proscribed his enemies and had them killed seemed willing to show a little more tolerance in his old age – though not always to his own family. I got the distinct impression that Goldsworthy was being kinder to Augustus than some of his critics may have been over the years.

Overall, this is a well written book, accessible enough for a casual reader with little or no pre-existing knowledge of the period; but with enough depth and detail to be interesting to people more familiar with this part of history too.

NB This book was provided for review by the publisher, Yale University Press.

www.fictionfanblog.wordpress.com

[Drift Manraj · Rating 2 out of 5]

som John Lennon en gång sjöng "war is over". Denna bok var min opp, min fiende, jag var Spider-Man och denna bok var Green Goblin.

Nu när jag läst klart boken blickar jag tillbaka och ser för det mest det goda i boken, författaren är påläst och ger en nyanserad syn på Augustus liv och den kalabalik som utspelade sig under hans livstid. Man får också en bra blick över Roms politiska arena och det komplicerade systemtet som styrde. Men jag måste vara ärlig och inte endast fokusera på det fina, det positiva. Jag måste vara bestämd och ärlig när jag skriver denna review.

Boken var jooobbbbbbig, som att läsa en lång vetenskaplig text, absolut lärorik men svååår. Rekommenderar inte denna bok som introduktion till Augustus eller romarriket, boken är mer lämplig för en individ som redan har koll på antikens Rom och Augustus, någon som vill vidare utbilda sig, bekanta sig med roms första kejsare och hur en dag skulle sett ut i antikens Rom.

[Saúl · Rating 4 out of 5]

Estupenda biografía del hombre que abolió la República romana (aunque al principio quisiera salvarla) y acabó creando el Imperio (aunque nunca lo llamara así).

Este es un libro que siempre había querido leer y me ha satisfecho en todo momento. Goldsworthy hace un gran uso de las fuentes y escribe de forma ágil y didáctica, sin hacerse denso ni exclusivo para expertos, por lo que es una lectura recomendada para toda aquel interesado por la vida de este hombre y el contexto histórico.

Lo malo: la edición en ebook que leí necesita una corrección urgente. Está llena de erratas y fallos ortográficos, y eso empaña un poco la experiencia de lectura de una obra que, por lo demás, es realmente excelente.

[Ro L · Rating 4 out of 5]

Este libro me ha ayudado demasiado para conocer, por primera vez y a profundidad, al primer emperador romano. Me ha costado, sí, ya que en ocasiones me parecía redundante, pero en general, me ha parecido muy genial y completo.

[James Langley · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very solid read. The book does a good job of describing the culture of Rome during that time period and how Augustus shaped the way the empire was ruled long after his death.

[Alison · Rating 5 out of 5]

A gift from a friend (who knows I am a confirmed ‘Roman nut’), ‘Augustus’ was a treat to read. Densely packed with information and analysis, written in a clear style and a consistent narrative pace, I found the whole account balanced and eminently readable.

Augustus is such an important figure; a ruthless warlord who brought peace, a clever political operator, propagandist, but energetic and dedicated, a writer, wit, autocrat, a family man, but as unfaithful as any Roman man of the period. He was blessed in having the highly intelligent Livia as his wife and Agrippa as his staunch supporter. I do wonder if his reign would have been so successful without them.

One impression that came through was he chose to live a reasonably modest life and did not seek honours; on the contrary he seemed refuse them at every step. Perhaps he was just being clever, or perhaps he was genuine, but there was no doubt of the level of commanding power he exerted for a remarkable number of years.

Goldsworthy’s book reminded me of some things I’d forgotten; others were new, whether information or interpretation. The family trees and maps were well integrated into the book. I had seen many of the places and artefacts in the plates, but they were a very welcome reminder.

I’d recommend this for the lay reader, ‘Roman nut’ or the history student. You will all be satisfied.

[Danny · Rating 4 out of 5]

“For what is the life of a man, if it is not interwoven with the life of former generations by a sense of history?”

Cicero


I have mixed feelings about this biography of Augustus but in the main I think it is a very fair if not quite favorable portrait of a man who achieved far more than Julius Caesar but perhaps isn’t as famous.

This book and the author’s biography of Caesar share an unfortunate quality in common: the first one hundred or so pages are almost completely tangential. In his Caesar biography, his focus in the first part was primarily Cicero. In this biography, it’s primarily Caesar. But whereas the Caesar biography became an absolute joy to read once I got past the first +/- hundred pages, this Augustus biography continued to shift in and out of focus throughout — hence, the subtraction of a star.

Octavian was just 13 years old when Caesar crossed the Rubicon and commenced the Civil War, and he was just 19 when he became the youngest consul in the history of the Roman Republic. He became master of the Roman world at age 33 at the end of 30 BC, the same age at which Alexander the Great died. He lived for almost 77 years and ruled as “princeps” — or first person — for 44 years after Mark Antony’s suicide. More images of Augustus survive from the ancient world than those of any other human being.

The author gives a description of his physical appearance on page 68:

“His hair curled a little and was slightly blond… He had small teeth, separated by more space than was common… His complexion was neither notably dark nor fair, his movements were graceful and his body and limbs so well proportioned that he seemed taller than he was… Octavius clearly saw himself as short, and for much of his life wore shoes with built-up soles in an effort to seem bigger.”

He was a surprisingly simple man with an awesome sense of humor who lived modestly and virtuously (to an extent). The author recounts an episode where in response to Octavian’s criticism of his affair with Cleopatra, Antony wrote an open letter: “How about you — is it only (Livia) Drusilla you screw? Congratulations, if when you read this letter you have not been inside Tertulla or Terentilla, Rufilla or Salvia Titiseniam, or all of them. Does it really matter where or in whom you dip your wick?” Octavian’s womanizing, which the author notes was “well known,” was excused by his friends as mere honey trapping, but it demonstrates the limitations of his virtues. He was a prolific adulterer who obtained his wife Livia while they were both still married to other people. It is therefore ironic, and deeply hypocritical, that he had exiled his only child as well as his granddaughter (both named Julia) for committing adultery.

For all his life, Augustus avoided giving Rome’s elite even the impression of being an emperor. He was not a distant Jupiter figure but one who could be approached by the important and common alike. He allowed the public to criticize him and make jokes at his expense. He made sure to share some powers with the Senate and encouraged others to become consuls instead of reelecting him year after year.

“[T]he princeps took great pains to deny the existence of any dynasty which would in turn imply monarchy … This was clearly a concern for Augustus, even if the readiness with which senators voted him ever more grand and unprecedented honours suggests that many now cared little for the liberty so dear to Brutus and Cassius…”

After decades of civil war and violence, Romans wanted only peace and tolerated the dominance of a single person to achieve that. Augustus’ supreme control of the military and his praetorian guard were probably persuasive factors too.

“It was hard, perhaps impossible, to imagine Imperator Caesar Augustus, the son of a god, ever retiring to private life, or ever being approached in glory, auctoritas, and pre-eminence by anyone else.”

One of the author’s many tangents is the story of Herod the Great, king of Judea, whose execution of so many family members caused Augustus to quip that he would “rather be Herod’s pig than his son.” The author mentions that Jesus was probably born in the last year or so of Herod’s reign and dedicates an entire appendix to Christ’s date of birth.

Another annoying quality of this book is the author’s blind sympathy for Livia. He completely dismisses any speculation that she might have been much more murderous and scheming than she appears in this book. Livia, whose own great-grandson the Emperor Caligula had dubbed “Ulysses in a frock,” had so much to gain from the sudden deaths of Augustus’ favorites, beginning with Marcellus, then Agrippa, Caius, Lucius, Germanicus, and Postumus. Each death made Augustus more dependent on her son Tiberius, but the author dismisses each (with the exception of Postumus who was killed) as the result of “ill fortune” or an “epidemic,” completely ignoring the fact that Augustus himself, who had poor health all his life, never succumbed to either, and other people who had posed no threat to Livia’s ambition, like Claudius, miraculously survived those years unscathed.

Augustus himself died in 14 AD in the same country house where his father had met his end. He asked his friends who had gathered around his deathbed whether they felt that he had played his part well in the comedy of life. Speaking in Greek, he said, “Since well I’ve played my part, all clap your hands, And from the stage dismiss me with applause.” His last words to his wife were “Livia, remember our married life, and farewell.”

At the end of the book, the author dismisses any comparison between our current state of affairs and the Roman Republic at its decline. “We have not yet come to a situation where a modern Julius Caesar or Augustus might appear,” says he. “Yet” is doing a lot of work in that sentence.



“Augustus pursued power ruthlessly, but once he achieved it showed a great desire to make things work properly… Augustus pursued power relentlessly and then clung to it, whatever he might pretend in public. Such ambition is surely the hallmark of any successful political leader — and no doubt plenty of less successful ones. Yet in his case he made use of that power for the common good.”

Author

[Igor · Rating 5 out of 5]

My third book from Adrian Goldsworthy.

The other two were:
, Caesar: Life of a Colossus
and
, Antony and Cleopatra

Hard to add anything useful with so many reviews. The book is great!

In the beginning I though it could be boring. I was wrong. The Augustus' life and that Roman period are both extremely important to the Western history.

[Ross Cohen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Adrian Goldsworthy's "Augustus" completes a trilogy that began with "Julius Caesar" and "Antony and Cleopatra." Of these three excellent books, "Augustus" is the best. This is mostly due to the nature of Goldsworthy's subject and to the duration for which he ruled. Caesar embodies dynamism, Antony and Cleopatra embody passion, Augustus embodies Rome. And, like Rome, he is complex: Augustus possessed mercy and ruthlessness, ambition and service, cowardice and audacity. Goldsworthy's triumphant biography presents as full an Augustus as a twenty-first century reader is bound to find.