Good day Hivers and Book Clubbers,
So after showing off my collection in the last post, I'm back to talking about the books within that collection. We're staying in the realm of non-fiction for this one. The book I'm reviewing here is titled 'Augustus: From Revolutionary to Emperor', written by Adrian Goldsworthy. Written in 2014, my English-language paperback is from 2015. I bought it off of Amazon, so I suppose it is quite widely available. The story proper amounts to about 480 pages, but the tempo is decent enough and not too dry/academic for my taste.
Revolutionary?
I'll start with a critique: I'm not too certain if I agree with the word 'Revolutionary' used in the title. A revolution implies a quick upside-down in the affairs of state: the French and Russian and American revolutions being the classic and obvious examples.
Augustus changed the identity of Rome from a Republic to an Empire. But he did not do it quickly, and also not on his own. The first 100 pages or so of the book deal with the exploits of his uncle and adoptive father: Julius Caesar. Caesar was the man who made the first big steps on the path to a single leader at the top, by becoming dictator for life.
He did not last long, though; republican sentiment was still around, and he ended up stabbed to death in the Senate. His adopted son would become the head of the family, and would enter the political ring at age 19.
Being a politician at this time in the Roman Republic meant being a warlord; binding legions to yourself, often with the promise of pay in land, was commonly practised by many would-be leaders.
Gaius Caesar (which was his actual name, not yet Augustus) had several challengers for the leadership of the Republic, most prominent among them Mark Antony. Antony was older, from an old aristocratic line, and a respectable opponent. His relationship with Cleopatra would become legendary.
Yet Augustus beat him through complex political maneuvring and a decisive sea-battle at Actium in 31 B.C. Augustus, for all his qualities, was not a great general. He recognized this, though, by selecting great generals to do the battling for him. Many arrogant leaders in history have died in battles by overestimating themselves. Augustus did not, and this attributed to his rise to the top, albeit in a somewhat backhanded way.
Pax Romana
Augustus became princeps in 30 B.C., though he was not crowned in the usual sense. He kept the idea of a functioning Republic alive, and would never call the entity he created a Roman Empire. Though he did clearly hold all the relevant power.
His 'reign' would start the Pax Romana, the long period of peace. Though there was no actual peace in this era. What is meant is the absence of civil war. Julius Caesar had fought with Pompeius Magnus for his dictatorship. Augustus had fought with Mark Antony, among others, for his title of princeps. Roman killed Roman for several decades.
Augustus was able to stop this cycle during his 44-year-long rule. Yet he would continue to fight, and send his legions to several theaters. He completely pacified the Spanish Peninsula by sending the legions into the north-west (today's Galicia and Portugal). He would finally pacify the Alpine regions, which were hard to reach and control by the Legions.
I did not know that the Romans only started to control the Alps this late into its existence, though it makes sense: mountains are hard to control, and there is little reward in terms of land and plunder to be had. Though with more and more provinces to the north of the Alps under Roman control, it became time to do so.
Augustus expanded northward towars the Danube, and in Germania beyond the Rhine, though the last one would not be permanent. Control over a large part of Germania was lost in 9 A.D., when Arminus (Hermann) led a massive ambush against three Roman legions and completely wiped them out in the Teutoburg Forest. It was the biggest military disaster in at least 50 years for the Romans.
A long life
Goldsworthy was able to write a long book, because Augustus' life was very long: he became active in Roman affairs from age 19 onwards, and would rule as princeps until his death at age 75 in 14 A.D. His succession, much like his own, was safeguarded through adoption. Augustus had no natural sons of his own, and he would adopt Tiberius, who was 45 years old at the time. A proven commander and capable administrator, Tiberius would be a mixed bag. But that is outside the scope of this review and the book the review is about.
Conclusion
The book starts out on the tangent that Augustus is not as well-known as Julius Caesar. I'm not sure this is true; their name recognition is very high in both cases. That tends to happen when months of the year are named after yourself (July, August).
The book is, at times, somewhat hard to keep up with: family ties are complicated, and the Romans did not have a big variety in names, so you can get lost in the weeds as to the connection between some of the people in the story. Though this might just be me personally.
The book is a great introduction, but also offers much to someone who is familiar with the time-period. Goldsworthy lays the classical sources next to each other, and makes judgement-calls as to which might be more likely to have happened. He seems to be quite even-handed in this. His personal perception views Augustus as a man of his time, which is a quality that not many modern historians have these days.
As mentioned, the English-language version of this book is available on the big websites like Amazon, so its availability across the world should be decent. If you're looking to learn more on a hectic period of Roman history, this might be a great place to step into it. I'll be back with more reviews in the future. Until then,
-Pieter Nijmeijer
(Top image: self-made photo of book cover)