Why Did Caesar Fail, yet

Augustus Succeed, in
Obtaining One-man Rule
Over Rome?
Jonathan Hayman
5/3/2010
Summary:

While there are many reasons that Augustus succeeded where Caesar failed, two areas are of particular
significance. Specifically, Augustus dealt more effectively with his enemies than Caesar while at the
same presented his assumption of absolute power as consistent with, rather than in opposition of, both the
laws and values of the Republic.
Jonathan Hayman Page 2
5/3/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One-man Rule Over Rome?
Jonathan Hayman Page 3
5/3/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One-man Rule Over Rome?

Julius Caesar numbers among history’s best generals and propagandists. However, Caesar’s reign

ended only a few years after its start with his assassination. In contrast his inexperienced nephew,

Octavian, succeeded where Caesar failed by establishing his long and successful rule of Rome. While

Octavian’s comparative success might appear to result from historical contingencies, a closer examination

reveals Octavian as a much shrewder politician than Caesar. Specifically, Augustus dealt more effectively

with his enemies than Caesar while at the same presented his assumption of absolute power as consistent

with, rather than in opposition of, both the laws and values of the Republic.

During Caesar’s rise to power, he effectively dealt with his primary opponents, but failed to

recognize the potential danger from less obvious sources. Originally, Julius Caesar was politically

protected by the First Triumvirate, a secret pact between Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar not to oppose each

other’s political ambitions1. However, the deaths of Crassus at Carrhae2 and of Caesar’s daughter Julia3

sparked tensions between the Pompey and Caesar. Eventually, these tensions broke the pact. Pompey and

the Senate struck first by ordering Caesar to disband his legions4; Caesar instead marched on Rome in

retaliation5. Victorious in the battle for Rome, Caesar subsequently defeated Pompey’s forces in Battle of

Pharsalus6 and pursued Pompey to Egypt, where Pompey was murdered7. Roman custom dictated that a

son avenge the murder of his father8. Therefore, Caesar recognized that Pompey’s two sons and their

supporters were threats he had to eliminate. He did so, at the Battle of Munda, killing the older son and

1
Plutarch, Life of Crassus, 12-15
2
Cassius Dio 40.27
3
Plutarch, Life ot Caesar, 23
4
Seutonius, Caesar 28
5
Plutarch, Life of Caesar 32
6
Plutarch, Life of Caesar 42-46
7
Cassius Dio, 42.4
8
Cassius Dio, 45.4 mentions Octavian’s avenging of Caesar’s death once becoming his adopted son
Jonathan Hayman Page 4
5/3/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One-man Rule Over Rome?

the main Pompeian supporters, and forcing the younger to live by “piracy”9. Having eliminated these

primary threats, Caesar felt secure in offering clemency to those remaining, a mistake with important

repercussions10. Caesar failed to recognize the potential threat they posed, as they included future

conspirators11. Caesar was murdered in 44 B.C. by an entourage in the Senate, which included Brutus12.

This murder was completely unexpected; Caesar had full control of Rome and its Senate. He had killed

all of those that he deemed to be serious threats. As a result, he did not forsee the possibility of a

conspiracy, much less one involving Brutus due to their extremely close relationship, with Caesar

possibly being his biological father13. Thus, even though he was politically gifted, Caesar was unable to

anticipate the danger posed by those to whom he offered clemency.

Octavian, while pursuing many strategies similar to Caesar’s, dealt with his enemies in a more

effective manner. Octavian too entered into a Triumviral agreement in 43 B.C. with Marc Athony and

Lepidus, this time an open agreement ratified by the Senate14. Given complete power the Triumvirate

decided to issue a proscription against their political enemies, such as Caesar’s conspirators, a strategy

used previously by Sulla. In addition to removing their political enemies, a proscription would provide

much needed financial support to the Triumvirate from confiscated assets. The proscription led to the

death of approximately one third of the Senate, with the Appian putting the death toll at 300 Senators,

roughly a third of the entire Senate, and 2000 Equites15. As a result, Octavian was without major enemies

within the city of Rome. Perhaps more importantly, the resulting power vacuum allowed Octavian and the

9
Appian, Civil Wars 2.105-106
10
Plutarch, Life of Caesar, 57
11
Plutarch, Life of Caesar, 57
12
Seutonius, Caesar 82
13
Plutarch, Life of Brutus, 5
14
Cassius Dio, 47.2
15
Appian 4.5
Jonathan Hayman Page 5
5/3/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One-man Rule Over Rome?

Triumvirate to fill a number of empty Senate seats with allies, providing further protection from

Senatorial conspiracy, at least within Rome16. Both Roman custom and political strategy dictated that

Octavian kill those who murdered his father. At the Battle of Philippi in 42 B.C., Octavian achieved this

end with the deaths of both Brutus and Cassius17. This victory led to Octavian and Anthony forming what

would turn into the Praetorian Guard18. The Second Triumvirate followed the fate of the First, ending with

the defeat of Anthony at the Battle of Actium in 31 B.C19. Octavian afterwards, in his shrewd political

maneuvering, agreed to give clemency to all Roman citizens who desired it20. Unlike Caesar’s clemency,

however, this offer was a mere gesture, as Octavian had already removed most of his major Roman

enemies via proscription.

Based on the above, Caesar and Augustus demonstrated radically different tolerances for political

threats. Caesar only eliminated his direct rival for political power, Pompey, as well as his sons and a few

supporters, who were direct extensions of Pompey. Caesar either failed to recognize the threat of or hoped

to win over other his political enemies, such as the conspirators21. While this allowed Caesar to say that he

was merciful, it left a large number of enemies alive. Augustus recognized the threat posed by unknown

political enemies after hearing of Caesar’s defeat and did the opposite: he eliminated political threats

through proscription. In doing so, he was able to not just kill some enemies of his faction, but even

potential threats such as his Senatorial ally Cicero22. Furthermore, proscription enabled Augustus to

protect himself from political intrigue by installing loyal senators to replace the proscribed. It was only

16
Cassius Dio, 47.15
17
Cassius Dio, 47.37-49
18
Appian, Civil Wars 5.3
19
Velleius Paterculus, Compendum of Roman History II/ lxxxiv-lxxix
20
Res Gestae 3: ‘victorque omnibus v[eniam pentib]us civibus peperci.’
21
Plutarch, Life of Caesar, 57
22
Cassius Dio, 47.8
Jonathan Hayman Page 6
5/3/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One-man Rule Over Rome?

after this massive purge that Augustus followed his father in offering clemency. This clemency, when

offered, was not much in substance; all but the most insignificant of his enemies were dead. In addition to

actively eliminating political enemies, Augustus foresaw a need for proactive protection. Besides the

installation of a loyal Senate, Augustus also created a personal police force, the Imperial Praetorian

Guard, out of the Praetorian cohorts he formed after Philippi23. With this system of police in place, it

would be near impossible for anyone to kill him without Rome’s strong military forces, which Augustus

controlled. By ensuring there was no one who could oppose him and creating a police force, Augustus

minimized the likelihood that he would fall to enemies in the same way Caesar did.

A perhaps equally important distinction between the two Caesars is the way they presented their

rise to power. Caesar chose a direct path to power, with little concern for how his actions would appear

in the public theater. He first consolidated power through the Triumvirate with Crassus and Pompey. With

the death of Crassus, there was no longer a buffer between Caesar and Pompey, which led to Caesar’s

march on Rome. Following the occupation of Rome and the elimination of Pompey, the Senate declared

Caesar Dictator for Life24. While Octavian’s rise was similar to Caesar’s in the substance of his actions,

he took pains to grant it legitimacy in the eyes of the public. To begin, although Augustus’ Second

Triumvirate was just as powerful as Caesar’s First, it was ratified in open by the Senate as opposed to

being a secret pact. Shortly after Actium in 27 B.C., Octavian made a masterful political move by

declaring all emergency measures taken during the civil war null and resigning as a Triumvir, deciding to

take on the name Princeps, or First Citizen, instead25. This name expressed in no uncertain terms that

Octavian controlled Rome, but also conveyed his status as a simple citizen. All the power of law was

officially returned to the Senate with his resignation26. Later the same year, Octavian changed his name to
23
Cassius Dio, 55.10
24
Plutarch, Life of Caesar, 57
25
Tacitus Annals I. ii, iii. 7-iv. 2
26
Tacitus Annals I. ii, iii. 7-iv. 2
Jonathan Hayman Page 7
5/3/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One-man Rule Over Rome?

Augustus, roughly translating as revered, his final name until death27. This final name is important in the

same way the change to Princeps was: the title expressed his status as the top man in Rome, but stayed

away from referring to Octavian as a king. In addition to names, Augustus slowly began to take on new

powers that made him a dictator in all but title, starting with a proconsular position that gave him control

of some of the empire’s best areas in 23 B.C28. He also received tribucian powers, giving him control of

Roman law with his ability to veto29. He continued to consolidate power by taking over other titles and

positions in the following years30, although none matched the power he gained with his combined

proconsular-tribune position.

This denunciation of power followed by a reclamation using means both legal and subtle

contrasts with Caesar’s sudden seizure of the Republic. Since the dawn of the Republic, both the people

and the Senate opposed a rex, or a king31. Caesar, by marching on Rome and declaring himself dictator,

effectively abolished the Republic. Both the people and especially the Senators, who had lost their

political power, saw Caesar’s actions as those of a tyrant. This stigma against tyranny served as a

powerful incentive for his enemies. Augustus saw the power of this stigma firsthand. As a result, he

modified the way in which he acquired and presented his political power. Augustus took pains to acquire

power through means consistent with the law, if not the spirit, of the Republic. In order to weaken the

charge of seeking monarchy, Augustus publicly offered to give up absolute power. Even though he did

not resign initially, he did resign from the Triumvirate after achieving his initial political ends, opting

instead for the title of Princeps. This new title solidified his position, allowing him to maintain political

influence, while presenting himself as free from kingly aspirations. In all of his name changes, Augustus
27
Orosius, History against the Pagan VI. XX. 1-2
28
Cassius Dio, 53.32
29
Cassius Dio, 53.32
30
Res Gestae 2 mentions Augustus taking over other positions
31
Plutarch, Life of Tiberius Gracchus, 17 gives evidence that he was killed with tyranny as the excuse
Jonathan Hayman Page 8
5/3/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One-man Rule Over Rome?

purposely chose names that did not have kingly connotations. Indeed, Augustus took pains to present his

rise to power as operating within the Republic by having the Senate approve each position and name.

Over a short period, he was able to gain all of his official power back, consolidating the powers of the

Republic into a monarchy in all but name, acquiring new titles to legitimize his new authority. By

allowing the Senate to elevate him slowly to a position of absolute authority, he was able to claim he was

a citizen given extraordinary power, instead of a tyrant ruthlessly seizing it, a principal charge laid against

Caesar.

Caesar should have been able to take over Rome permanently. He had military power, a capacity

to lead, and a strong reputation built on his Gallic campaign. However, he failed to recognize the threat of

leaving past enemies alive via clemency and the power of Roman opposition to tyranny, both of which

led to his demise. Caesar only killed when necessary, while Augustus allowed clemency only after the

absolute elimination of his enemies. Additionally, while Caesar pushed aside the constitution to make

room for himself, Augustus presented his authority as that of a citizen working with the Senate. This

strategy of eliminating enemies and presenting himself as an ordinary citizen strongly differentiated

Augustus’ otherwise similar rise to power from Caesar’s. As a result of avoiding Caesar’s mistakes,

Augustus was able to avoid his fate and achieve complete rule over Rome.