Caesar augustus hero or tyrant the consequences of

Augustus

Michael jordan Reid Berkow

Rome of Augustus

TF: Brian Jobe

February twenty two, 2003

Caesar Augustus, Hero or Tyrant?: The Effects of Hindsight on Dio Cassius Characterization of Caesar

Caesar Augustus, during the time of his reign as princeps of the Both roman people, cultivated for him self an image of military expertise, generosity, virtue, and clemency. Velleius Paterculus History of The italian capital, written only a few years following the death of Augustus, chemicals a picture of the Caesar that a person imagines is very consistent with the approach he wanted to be described. Dio Cassius History of Rome, written around 229 A. D., presents a very different image, representing Augustus because an unsure, bullying tyrant. The three ways the two writers, in their points of the Fight of Actium, represent Caesars differences the majority of prominently happen to be through his fighting design, his attitude towards his captives, as well as the attention directed at his win. Through these types of three automobiles, Velleius and Dio present such radically different editions of Caesar Augustus that it can be almost impossible to reconcile both the into a coherent image of who also the man really was.

Caesars fighting design and personality as an opponent will be portrayed very differently by simply Velleius and Dio, together with the former offering Augustus while diplomatic and decisive, plus the latter talking about him as more of a lovato tyrant when compared to a conquering hero. Velleius unwraps his information of the Battle of Actium by clearly stating where his loyalties lie: Caesar and Antonyfought, one to get the safety, as well as the other intended for the ruin of the world (SB 78). Even though numerous resources cast hesitation upon Augustus military prowess, Velleius points out Caesars decision to leave the immediate action to generals including Agrippa simply by stating that Caesar, booking himself for that part of struggle to which lot of money might summon him, was present almost everywhere (SB 78). It was not really, then, that Caesar was incapable of struggling with at Agrippas level, but rather that having been diplomatically sensible enough to delegate tasks when his services would be more effective in other places. Dios portrayal of Caesars fighting design could not be a little more different. In describing Caesars attack on Antonys causes, he uses words such as threatened, provoked and bothered (SB 139). He further casts Augustus as an uncertain and indecisive innovator, twice declaring that Caesar did not discover how to proceed in the face of Antonys techniques (SB 150, 141). Caesars fighting design and management capabilities while depicted simply by Dio, therefore , paint a a less noble image of the courageous and brave man described in Velleius History.

Caesars treatment of Antonys men after his win is another subject that is cared for in significantly different ways simply by Velleius and Dio. Velleius places emphasis to the point of repetitiveness on Caesars clemency a characteristic that Caesar closely linked to himself, as can be seen in the Res Gestae. Velleius publishes articles that Wonderful clemency was shown in the victory, no one was offer death, and later a few banished (SB 78), and soon thereafter repeats this affirmation, writing it turned out in keeping with Caesars fortune great clemency not one of those who had borne hands against him was offer death by him, or perhaps by his order (SB 79). Dio contrarily presents Caesars victory as a bad tragedy, vividly describing the horrors as a result of Caesars decision to set open fire to Antonys ships. When Velleius writes that Caesar shouted to Antonys guys that Antony had defected, urging them to surrender, looking for to make an impression on by phrases those who he could have slain together with the sword (SB 78), Dios account holds no proof of this repulsion to bloodshed. Dio creates of men burned to death, devoured by marine creatures, injured by missiles, or drowned, and the only men who found a tolerable fatality in the midst of such horrors had been those who decided to kill each other or whom killed themselves (SB 142). After Antonys ships had been completely overtaken, and the remainders had surrendered, Dio creates that Caesars men desperately sailed approximately Antonys boats in the hope of looting their treasure, busily putting out the fires they had themselves set. As a result many of them perished, the victims of the fire and of their particular greed (SB 142). Even though these daunting deeds aren’t directly caused by Caesar him self, the events, excluded entirely by Velleius explanation of the Challenge of Actium, certainly usually do not portray a just and forgiving head, given to great clemency.

The next clear big difference between Velleius and Dios Caesars is based on the attention paid out to the fame bestowed after Caesar following the Battle of Actium. Jehová account ends with the previously described disasters inflicted upon Antonys soldiers by Caesars corrupt and greedy guys. Velleius, however , spends a good deal of time conveying the victorious celebrations and general very good will experienced upon Caesars return to The italian capital, and goes on to write about the truly great benefits conferred upon the Roman people as a result of the victory by Actium. After Caesars go back, writes Velleius, the procession that attained him, the enthusiasm of his reception by men of all classes, ages, and ranks, and the magnificence of his triumphs and of the spectacles that he mounted [cannot be described] (SB 80). He underscores Caesars generosity, credit reporting that in the years following Actium, Generally there [was] nothing that guys can desire from the godswhich Augustus, after his go back to the city did not bestow after the state, the Roman people, and the world (SB 80). While Dio focused on the negative consequences of Caesars victory, eliminating the purported celebrations, Velleius appears resolved to demonstrate that Caesars get was not just advantageous, however the very is going to of the gods.

As the utmost obvious discrepancy between both of these texts is definitely the elapsed time between the death of Caesar and the era in which the writer was producing, it seems probably that with greater distance came a much more balanced, less effusive watch of the gentleman whose activities were so instrumental towards the history of The italian capital. Perhaps, you can conjecture, Velleius closeness on time to Caesars age led him to become unduly inspired by the misconception of Augustus, as his parents generation were certainly direct witnesses to Augustus rule. Whether this nearness provides Velleius with a better viewpoint or perhaps clouds his description with an lack of ability to obtain objectivity is, of course , questionable. Dio, with the hindsight conferred simply by time, was perhaps more able to present an accurate, target rendition of Caesar Augustus, but this individual, unlike Velleius, was not able to draw upon first-person accounts of what it was just like to live underneath Caesar. It appears, then, that people are still left at a standstill regarding who the actual Caesar Augustus was: A heroic deliverer, or a hostile tyrant? Jehová decision to pay attention to Caesars indecisiveness and ethical turpitude, and Velleius different determination to convey with overall clarity Caesars generosity, compassion, clemency, and moral brilliance demonstrate how truly intricate, and enigmatic the man was, and how obscure historical real truth can be.