Yes, as he was deified after death and during his lifetime received the title "Father of his Country" which was the highest honor a man could be given. All other emperors after him took his family name and were called "Caesar" making it a title as well as a name. Emperors following him all vowed to "rule according to the principles of Augustus" in their inauguration speeches. However despite these later honors, Augustus himself admitted that in his early political days, he sometimes acted illegally and cruelly. But his early actions were forgiven due to the peace, benefits and prosperity his reign brought to the empire.
yes he was a great emperor but the bad thing about octaivan Augustus was that he killed Julius Caesar's son so the only thing that was bad from him was that and he was a good emperor and if u readed that it said he was the first amazing emperor.
Augustus was a good leader. He emerged as the final victor of the civil wars which brought down the Roman Republic. He established his absolute personal rule and became the first Roman Empire. However, he did not rule like a tyrant. The Romans saw him as the man who restored peace and stability. Enlarged the empire to strengthen the defence of the frontiers. He promoted trade and set tax levels which were favourable to private enterprise. He promoted public works to improve Rome and to develop infrastructure around the empire. He also sponsored literature.
Yes, Augustus was a successful ruler because he built a professional army and built new tax
yes he did many things for rome
good
Bad. For roman patircians and for Senate he was bad ruler cause he hated nobility and having bad reputation he did resort all kind of cruelity to ensure his authority and power. He also persecuted Jews and Christians (one theory says that it was Domitian who is actual anichrist mentioned in Book of Revelations). He did start unsucceful campaign in Dacia and caused financial disaster.
Read about Cnut in full on http://www.englandandenglishhistory.com
it is good and bad
Czar Nicholas II was the last ruler of the Romanov family dynasty that had ruled the great empire of Russia for over 300 hundred years. He became Czar of Russia at the age of 26 because of the untimely and unexpected death of his father. Not only was he not ready to fill this position, but he was not skilled in the areas of working with the common people and in government. Although Nicholas was a good leader in some areas, he lacked experience and could be controlled too easily. He experienced trials in his personal and public life as Czar of Russia.
It depends on the scenario, not all alliances are good and not all are bad.
How was Hadrian a good or bad ruler
Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.Octavian, later Augustus, is the Roman ruler that took over Egypt.
No, Augustus was a relative newcomer. The first historical ruler of Rome was Romulus.
He became ruler in the year 1456
she is the best ruler because she loves Canadian bacon.
Augustus.
Yeah loser
They were not cruel and not necessarily bad leaders. Augustus's successor was a reluctant emperor and did not like to get involved in politics. Caligula was the only one who had a reputation for being cruel and this was caused by mental illness. Claudius did many good things for Rome and the empire Nero was eccentric and was subjected to a lot of slander. However, he was not a bad ruler and was loved by the poor.
They were not cruel and not necessarily bad leaders. Augustus's successor was a reluctant emperor and did not like to get involved in politics. Caligula was the only one who had a reputation for being cruel and this was caused by mental illness. Claudius did many good things for Rome and the empire Nero was eccentric and was subjected to a lot of slander. However, he was not a bad ruler and was loved by the poor.
Yeah loser
He was no king at all, but emperor.
Augustus was not the ruler of a country. He was the ruler of an empire: the Roman Empire.