Why Did Caesar Fail, yet

Augustus Succeed, in
Obtaining One Man Rule
Over Rome?
Jonathan Hayman
4/22/2010
Summary:

While there are many reasons that Augustus succeeded where Caesar failed, two areas are of particular
significance. Specifically, Augustus was able to deal with his enemies in Rome much more effectively,
while consolidating and representing his new power and status in a way that was much more appealing
than Caesar.
Jonathan Hayman Page 2
4/22/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One Man Rule Over Rome?
If asked the question “Who was more likely to have taken over the Roman Empire?” and you had

two choices: one man an experienced politician and war veteran, the other a youth, known for falling ill,

with limited experience in both realms, you would want to answer the first man. However, history is

different. The former is Julius Caesar, one of histories’ most well-known and tragic figures due to his

untimely death, while the latter is Augustus, his often-ill nephew and future emperor of Rome. The

question lingers as to why Caesar, a man who was able to march on Rome victoriously and declare

himself dictator, was unable to cement his rule while his nephew, who simply inherited his estate, was

able to accomplish this feat. The answer lies in what may seem like historical nuances, but in reality were

well-planned moves by Augustus, making much better decisions than Caesar. While there are many

reasons that Augustus succeeded where Caesar failed, two areas are of particular significance.

Specifically, Augustus was able to deal with his enemies in Rome much more effectively, while

consolidating and representing his new power and status in a way that was much more appealing than

Caesar.

To effectively contrast Octavian and Caesar, one first must understand their stories. Originally,

Julius Caesar was bound by the first Triumvirate, a secret pact between Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar not

to oppose each other’s political ambitions1. However, on the death of Crassus, this secret pact fell apart.

Caesar marched on Rome, with Pompey as its defender. When crossing the Rubicon Caesar purportedly

said, “Let the die be cast,” 2 although this cannot be confirmed. Caesar was victorious in the battle for

Rome, but continued chasing Pompey until after the Battle of Pharsalus where Caesar destroyed his

forces3. After this point, Caesar pursued Pompey until he was killed in Egypt4. With their father dead, as

Roman custom was that a son avenged the murderer of his father5, Pompey’s sons were Caesar’s next
1
Plutarch, Life of Crassus, xiv-xv.
2
Pluatarch, The Parallel Lives, Life of Julius Caesar, Page 523
3
Caesar Civil War 3.89-94; Plutarch Caesar 46; Cassius Dio 41.62; Appian Civil War 2.64
4
Cassius Dio, 42.4
5
Cassius Dio, 45.3
Jonathan Hayman Page 3
4/22/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One Man Rule Over Rome?
targets, one killed in Spain, the other forced to live by “robbery”6. With Pompey’s sons out of the picture,

Caesar had the option of either pursuing his remaining enemies or offering them clemency, the latter of

which he chose7. The rest of Caesar’ narrative can be read from any history textbook or even

Shakespeare; Caesar was murdered on the Ides of March in 44 B.C. with numerous stab wounds8, having

been dictator for four years without break9.

After Caesar’s death, Octavian takes over the narrative after finding out he was named Caesar’s

heir10. In addition to receiving any monies and property that Caesar controlled, he inherited the loyalty of

his father’s clients and legions. Skipping over a few minor political maneuvers he made prior, Octavian

entered into a Triumviral agreement in 43 B.C. with Marc Athony and Lepidus, this time publicly ratified

by the Senate11. Given complete power the Triumvirate decided to take a page out of Sulla’s book. They

needed money, and they had many enemies, especially those involved in the plot against Caesar. By

initiating a proscription, they would be able to kill two birds with one stone: their enemies would be dead

and their coffers would be filled. As a result, a large portion of the optimate Senate was slaughtered, with

Appian putting the death toll at 300 Senators, roughly a third of the entire Senate, and 2000 Equites12, and

Octavian was largely without major enemies within the city of Rome itself. The void in the Senate proved

to be an additional boon to Octavian; the Triumvirate filled the empty seats with those that were loyal to

them <insert note>. Outside Rome was a different story. Like any good Roman son, Octavian had to kill

those who murdered his father. He accomplished this through the Battle of Philippi in 42 B.C., ending

6
Appian, Civil Wars Book II Chapter XV Section 105
7
Plutarch, The Parallel Lives: The Life of Caesar, Page 577.
8
Seutonius, Divius Caesar 82
9
Inscriptiones Italiae, vol XIII, part 1, pp. 77, 87
10
Cassius Dio, 45.3
11
Cassius Dio, 47.2
12
Appian, Civil Wars 4.5
Jonathan Hayman Page 4
4/22/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One Man Rule Over Rome?
with the deaths of both Brutus and Cassius13. Right after the battle ended, Octavian and Marc Athony

formed what would turn into the Praetorian Guard14. Another event of note this year was Octavian’s

being officially declared “Divi Filius” or Son of God by the Senate15. This is just one of the many titles

Octavian built up over his years as emperor. To make a long story short, the second Triumvirate just like

the first broke up. The whole feud that ensued between Marc Athony and Octavian ended with the Battle

of Actium in 31 B.C16. Octavian afterwards in his shrewd political maneuvering agreed to give clemency

to all Roman citizens who desired it17. Augustus offered clemency long after the proscriptions, which had

rid him of the majority of his enemies.

In 27 B.C., showing just how masterful a politician Octavian had become, he declared all

emergency measures during the civil war invalid and resigned as a triumvir officially, deciding to take on

the name Princeps, or First Citizen, instead18. All the power of law was officially returned to the Senate,

too19. Additionally, from 27 B.C. onward, Octavian changed his name to Augustus20, his final name until

death. In addition to names, Augustus began to take on new powers that effectively made him a dictator

in all but title. He took on a proconsular position that gave him control of some of the empire’s best areas

in 23 B.C.21. Additionally, he also received tribunate powers, giving him control of Roman law with his

ability to veto22. He continued to consolidate power by taking over other titles and positions in the

13
Plutarch, Caesar Chapter 69
14
Appian, Civil Wars 5.1
15
Inscription on Porta Tiburtina
16
Velleius Paterculus, Compendum of Roman History II/ lxxxiv-lxxix
17
Res Gestae 3: ‘victorque omnibus v[eniam pentib]us civibus peperci.’
18
Tacitus Annals I. ii, iii. 7-iv. 2
19
Tacitus Annals I. ii, iii. 7-iv. 2
20
Orosius, History against the Pagan VI. XX. 1-2
21
Cassius Dio, 53.32
22
Cassius Dio, 53.32
Jonathan Hayman Page 5
4/22/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One Man Rule Over Rome?
following years, but none matched his combined consular-tribunal power. With all of his spectacular

maneuverings Augustus lived his days out until natural death in 14 A.D23.

The question remains: why was Caesar brutally murdered while Augustus Emperor of Rome? As

stated before, part of the answer lies in how Caesar treated his enemies compared to Augustus. Through

his dealings with Pompey, one can see how Caesar handled his enemies; he only killed those that were

necessary. If he had not killed Pompey’s children, they would have had proper reason to go after Caesar

and avenge Pompey’s death. Practically all others he offered clemency to, including future conspirators

such as Brutus24. While this did allow Caesar to say that he was merciful, it was anyone’s guess as to the

number of enemies he had waiting silently in the shadows. Unfortunately for Caesar he did not figure out

his enemies soon enough and was murdered. Augustus’ actions were almost the opposite. Through his

proscriptions, he was able to not just kill some enemies of his faction, but effectively all his enemies in

Rome. He was so thorough in his clean-up that he even let his long-time comrade Cicero be proscribed

<insert note>. By taking out all of his most powerful enemies, especially Senators and Equites, he

insured that there was no person that could truly oppose him. As the Senators Augustus installed were

loyal to him, he did not have to worry about political intrigue to the extent that Caesar needed to and

should have. It was only later that Augustus offered clemency like his father. This clemency, when

offered, was not much in substance; all his most powerful enemies, Marc Athony included, were dead.

His weaker enemies were dead. He was just offering those, so weak to be judged not worthy of

consideration, clemency. Augustus saw that Caesar offered too much in terms of clemency and corrected

that mistake when it was his turn to rule Rome. However, even with all of his enemies dead in Rome or

killed on the battlefield, Augustus took note of how his father’s death could have been prevented. If he

had a few people guarding him in the Senate, surely the conspirators, even if they tried, could not have

killed Caesar. As a result, Augustus saw the need for a personal bodyguard and created the Imperial

Praetorian Guard out of the Praetorian cohorts he formed after Philippi. With this system of police in
23
Cassius Dio, 56.30
24
Plutarch, The Parallel Lives: The Life of Caesar, Page 577.
Jonathan Hayman Page 6
4/22/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One Man Rule Over Rome?
place, it would be near impossible for anyone to kill him without Rome’s strong military forces, which

Augustus controlled.

However, dealing with enemies and creating police was a temporary solution. The People and the

Senate both opposed a rex, or a king. This is illustrated by the murder of Caesar. Caesar marched on

Rome and declared himself dictator overnight, taking away the power of the Republic. Augustus had to

be sure that the people saw him as a citizen working within the framework of the Republic. As a result,

after the Second Triumvirate had served its purpose, he “gave up” these powers in order to be called

simply Princeps. It made clear that he was the most powerful man in Rome and also made clear he was no

king. With this careful balancing act constantly on his mind, he slowly took on new offices in Rome with

the approval of the Senate. Essentially, Augustus made the taking over of Rome look as if he was giving

Rome back its Republic since he had everything done through the Senate. Over a short period, he was

able to gain all of his official power back. Additionally, Augustus changed his names multiple times to

match his status, further bolstering his public authority. This is a stark contrast to Caesar, who seized all

powers overnight without permission and never gave them back. To put it simply: Augustus saw Caesar’s

mistakes and corrected them. He took over what he pretended he was restoring, gave it back, then slowly

regained power again rather than just taking over. This eased the transition and provided the guise that

Augustus was working within the legal system.

In the end, there is an important factor that Augustus’ genius overshadows; he was Julius

Caesar’s son-in-law. With this came not only money and foresight into his actions, but also such a strong

background that he could actually take action with authority. It is unclear whether he would have been

able to handle the political situation without this kind of authority. In a similar line of thinking, Caesar

had himself been surrounded by strong political minds, training for his own tumultuous career. Caesar

had during his young life an amazing number of family members as consul25. If Caesar did not have this

link to strong political figures, would he have been able to secure his imperium in Gaul that allowed him
25
Suetonius, Divius Caesar 6 gives evidence of multiple family connections, including Marius, taking office as
consul during his lifetime and not far prior to his birth.
Jonathan Hayman Page 7
4/22/2010
Why Did Caesar Fail, yet Augustus Succeed, in Obtaining One Man Rule Over Rome?
such glory? Would he have had the will to march on Rome? This must to be left to speculation. What we

do know is that successful leaders in the past, both in the political and business world, had a similar edge,

according to Malcolm Gladwell’s statistical analyses in his book Outliers. For both Caesars, this edge was

just being part of the family. Augustus was able to accomplish what others of equal status had not due to

his compounded advantage and abilities as a politician. In the past, all super political forces, such as

Marius and Sulla, did not have a myriad of consulships and even a dictatorship just before their political

career them like Augustus did, but only their political and military acumen. Another advantage is that

Augustus was able to look back upon Caesar’s life and see what mistakes he made in attempting one man

rule. He was also able to make these decisions partially due to the political authority that came from his

family. A final example of the advantages Augustus had is in his obligation to avenge Caesar that gave

him the excuse to kill his enemies through a proscription. The set of circumstances Augustus was born

into were unique from that of any one person in the past. If he did not have this advantage, it is unclear

whether he would have been able to cement one man rule in Rome. However, the fact is that Augustus did

with his familial advantage, ability to properly deal with enemies, and shrewdness in acquiring power.