What are Augustus Caesar's good qualities?

Answer 1

The term five good emperors is more the fruit of the ideological views of Machiavelli, rather than a fair comparison with their predecessors. In fact, he saw Titus, who reigned before his "five good emperors" as a good emperor, but ruled him out for the reason explained below. The seven emperors before the five good ones (apart for the three men who ruled shortly in the fights for power of the Year of the Four Emperors, 69 AD, which Vespasian won) were not necessarily bad. In the reign of the early emperors there was tension between the emperors, who were absolute rulers, and the senators and the aristocracy who disliked their power.

The rule of Tiberius was not a strong one because he was a reluctant emperor. Caligula started well, but seems to have gone insane as a result of an illness. Claudius was one of the only two scholar emperors in Roman history. He strengthened the imperial government vis-a-vis the senate. He pursued good policies. His weakness was that he was manipulated by two very ambitious wives. Nero was grossly misrepresented by Roman writers (who were aristocrats) because the aristocracy disliked him. He was loved by the lower classes who were very upset when he died. Much of what was said about him was slander. He pursued good policies and favoured the poor, but clashed with the aristocracy. His main flaws were egocentrism, eccentricity and megalomania. Vespasian was lenient towards the aristocracy, generous towards the unfortunate, and a patron of literature. He was liberal and tolerated dissent. He was blunt in expressing his opinions. As mentioned above, Machiavelli considered Titus a good emperors. Unlike previous emperors Domitian was open about the emperor's absolute power and did not disguise his dislike of the aristocracy. However, he made concessions to the aristocracy.

Many of the early emperors persecuted the senators at times and had a number of them executed. This was due to conspiracies against them and, more generally, the mentioned tension. It has also to be noted that until recently many scholars, including Machiavelli, tended to take the writings of (aristocratic) ancient Romans about the emperors at face value. More recently, a more critical appraisal by modern historians had put these emperors in a more favourable light.

The term the 'five good emperors' was coined by Machiavelli and is still used today. He said that these emperors were good rulers and exercised good governance. He mentioned six emperors who ruled well: Titus (ruled 71-81)) Nerva (96-98 AD), Trajan (98-117), Hadrian (117-138), Antoninus Pius (138-161) and Marcus Aurelius (161-180). However, he used the term five good emperors because the other five men succeeded by adoption (by the previous emperor), whereas Titus was the son of the emperor Vespasian. He thought that they were good rulers because they did not inherit the throne by birth. They were good rulers, lived good lives and earned the goodwill of the people. Machiavelli also said that when emperors inherited the throne by birth again, bad rule started and the ruin of the empire commenced. He wrote: 'From the study of this history we may also learn how a good government is to be established; for while all the emperors who succeeded to the throne by birth, except Titus, were bad, all were good succeeded by adoption, as in the case of the five from Nerva to Marcus. But as soon as the empire fell once more to the heirs by birth, its ruin recommenced.'

The famous 18th century historian Edward Gibbon wrote that during the reign of the five good emperors: "The vast extent of the Roman Empire was governed by absolute power, under the guidance of virtue and wisdom. The armies were restrained by the firm but gentle hand of five successive emperors, whose characters and authority commanded respect. The forms of the civil administration were carefully preserved by [these emperors], who delighted in the image of liberty, and were pleased with considering themselves as the accountable ministers of the laws. Such princes deserved the honour of restoring the republic had the Romans of their days been capable of enjoying a rational freedom."

Answer 2

The two main qualities that are distinctive of Augustus are determination and patience. These first manifested themselves back when he was a teenager trying to collect his inheritance and remained with him all through his political struggles. Even as emperor, he knew what he wanted, but was wise enough to "make haste slowly", as he was fond of saying, when others tried to get him to make a radical change.