What do you think?
Rate this book
Augusto: el primer emperador
En esta dinámica y atractiva biografía, el autor nos muestra la profunda humanidad de un hombre extraordinario, de un dotado y poderoso gobernante.
Augusto fue uno de los hombres más influyentes de la historia y el primer emperador de Roma.
Trabajó concienzudamente, reconstruyó Roma y la transformó en una poderosa metrópolis y en uno de los centros políticos y artísticos más importantes del mundo antiguo.
Augusto fue uno de los hombres más influyentes de la historia y el primer emperador de Roma.
Trabajó concienzudamente, reconstruyó Roma y la transformó en una poderosa metrópolis y en uno de los centros políticos y artísticos más importantes del mundo antiguo.
480 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2006
About the author
Anthony Everitt
12 books427 followersAnthony Everitt is a British academic. He studied English literature at the University of Cambridge. He publishes regularly in The Guardian and The Financial Times. He worked in literature and visual arts. He was Secretary-General of the Arts Council of Great Britain. He is a visiting professor in the performing and visual arts at Nottingham Trent University. Everitt is a companion of the Liverpool Institute of Performing Arts and an Honorary Fellow of the Dartington College of Arts. Everitt has written books about Roman history, amongst which biographies of Augustus, Hadrian and Cicero and a book on The Rise of Rome. He lives in Wivenhoe near Colchester.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 462 reviews
October 18, 2015
I have tried over and over again to write a review on this outstanding and spellbinding book but without success. Nevertheless what I will state categorically is that Everitt has succeeded magnificently in bringing Augustus alive to the reader. The author also achieved a real sense of place as Rome also became alive to me. I so wish that the book had been longer as I didn’t want to finish it.
Trust me, read this book. It is out there waiting for you to be captivated the way I was.
One of my top favourite books – highly recommended.
Trust me, read this book. It is out there waiting for you to be captivated the way I was.
One of my top favourite books – highly recommended.
February 27, 2018
The story of Augustus is woven with betrayal & violence. His rise to power, his political adversaries, and his unprecedented rule at are all covered in glorious detail while remaining engaging & informative.
Augustus is a fascinating historical figure & this is by far the most compelling narrative I've read about how he rose to power through clever maneuvers and an unyielding ambition.
Would recommend this for anyone interested in learning about the life of Augustus & how he shaped the Rome of his time!
Augustus is a fascinating historical figure & this is by far the most compelling narrative I've read about how he rose to power through clever maneuvers and an unyielding ambition.
Would recommend this for anyone interested in learning about the life of Augustus & how he shaped the Rome of his time!
February 26, 2020
Augustus' by Anthony Everitt is a very reader-accessible biography of Augustus, Rome's first Emperor. The book is a chronicle of the entire life of Augustus and his parents from birth to death (70 BCE - 14 CE). His family was a famous one, well known to those of us familiar with Shakespeare's political stage plays and several PBS/Masterpiece series! However, as much as the political and family strife of ancient Rome now entertains us, it is the military campaigns and the brilliant commanders which made Rome a civilization which lasted almost 500 years as a world power.
The book too briefly outlines some of the customs and laws the ancient Romans had and how some of them changed or were given more attention after Augustus established himself as emperor. A literate society like the Romans possessed, especially since Augustus apparently believed in free speech, means a gold mine of documentation about them.
It is a shame so much of it has been lost through the succeeding centuries! We know more literature existed because of references to lost books made in surviving works.
What is known about the military campaigns Augustus participated in or designed and led are discussed in 'Augustus'. Ad infinitum. Those of you who enjoy reading about the strategies and tactics of military campaigns will certainly enjoy 'Augustus'! He was not always the winner of these battles. Indeed, he made some serious mistakes which cost many lives in his legions and serious loss of of face. But when he realized his limitations as a military mind, he employed more able friends and others he knew to be better commanders than himself.
Augustus was a calm personality, generally, not given to excess of emotions or habits. It made him a good ruler, if not a military genius. What I picked up from reading about his campaigns - decades of them (most Romans LOVED instigating constant military campaigns!) - was geography and weather and personalities of leaders was very important. Knowledge of roads, hills, marshes, being aware of one's supply lines, deployments of troops - often meant the difference between winning and losing. Pincer movements, where and when to place infantry/archers/engineers, taking care of one's troops (troops felt free to revolt and desert if not paid, or even if ashamed of their particular Roman commanders) , etc. are obviously key to battles.
But don't ask me, I was a secretary.
Ffs, ancient Romans certainly loved to gather up legions and make war on frenemies, other politicians, and rulers of distant lands! Preemptive and defensive war strikes seem to have been always on the agenda of Roman politicians and wannabes. I think it is safe to say the constant politicking Romans indulged in stirred up a lot of ambitious men into hopes of furthering their social positions through commanding legions into making war! At least it appears so from the written history they left behind after their civilization was done. They wrote a LOT of war memoirs!
Living in Rome, a city of maybe a million people, was a prestigious prize of citizenship not given to anyone not considered important or born there. One way to be important was to be born into or marry into an old Roman dynasty which had held onto its property and wealth for generations. The other was military action which brought honor and wealth to Rome and enough personal social capital to buy into the top ranks of Roman society - which was primarily a political society. Thus every ambitious Italian and Roman studied rhetoric and literature, and how to fight wars, as young men. Top rank Romans had running water, baths, fabulous houses, slaves, cool art and architecture, amazing circuses and gladiator fights, the pick of beautiful women, exotic foods, respect of other brilliant men of power and authority who could provide armies to their friends - who didn't want to become a rich Roman! Even if it meant enduring periodic life-threatening political purges every other year or so and sometimes exile to much more primitive lands on occasion.
Augustus died at age seventy-six - perhaps a natural one - which set off some uprisings in conquered provinces which had been quiet, and of course some of his relatives immediately plotted to take the top spot - you know, the usual ongoing struggle of power and politics in Rome. But Augustus ruled an exceptionally long time, almost forty-four years. He must have had "the right stuff", somehow, so it makes him an attractive subject for biographers. I think Everitt's is an easy readable one, especially if one is interested in military campaigns.
There are maps of ancient Rome and the Mediterranean, as well as extensive Notes, Sources and Index sections. An excellent Chronology is provided after a table of contents section. The author does not really indulge much or too far in speculative or titillating conjectures, despite that he could have from the tidbits of gossip which were hinted at in discovered grafitti the Romans left behind (yes! Grafitti!) and sly poetry and plays with libelous references to social gossip (there were lawsuits and such, occasionally, too - Romans did that). This is one of the more sedate books about ancient Romans I have read, as a result. He does do some logical speculation where there are gaps in discovered ancient memoirs, histories, letters or literature.
Historians do love literate cultures!
PS. Caesar, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Pompey, Cicero, Agrippa, Cato, Julia, Tiberius, Drusus, Marcellus, Horace, Germanicus, Ovid - all of the Marquee personalities make an appearance! They are remembered for their various successes and tragedies because there is so much source material on them. They were real people, and Everitt brings them to life, using historical sources.
The book too briefly outlines some of the customs and laws the ancient Romans had and how some of them changed or were given more attention after Augustus established himself as emperor. A literate society like the Romans possessed, especially since Augustus apparently believed in free speech, means a gold mine of documentation about them.
It is a shame so much of it has been lost through the succeeding centuries! We know more literature existed because of references to lost books made in surviving works.
What is known about the military campaigns Augustus participated in or designed and led are discussed in 'Augustus'. Ad infinitum. Those of you who enjoy reading about the strategies and tactics of military campaigns will certainly enjoy 'Augustus'! He was not always the winner of these battles. Indeed, he made some serious mistakes which cost many lives in his legions and serious loss of of face. But when he realized his limitations as a military mind, he employed more able friends and others he knew to be better commanders than himself.
Augustus was a calm personality, generally, not given to excess of emotions or habits. It made him a good ruler, if not a military genius. What I picked up from reading about his campaigns - decades of them (most Romans LOVED instigating constant military campaigns!) - was geography and weather and personalities of leaders was very important. Knowledge of roads, hills, marshes, being aware of one's supply lines, deployments of troops - often meant the difference between winning and losing. Pincer movements, where and when to place infantry/archers/engineers, taking care of one's troops (troops felt free to revolt and desert if not paid, or even if ashamed of their particular Roman commanders) , etc. are obviously key to battles.
But don't ask me, I was a secretary.
Ffs, ancient Romans certainly loved to gather up legions and make war on frenemies, other politicians, and rulers of distant lands! Preemptive and defensive war strikes seem to have been always on the agenda of Roman politicians and wannabes. I think it is safe to say the constant politicking Romans indulged in stirred up a lot of ambitious men into hopes of furthering their social positions through commanding legions into making war! At least it appears so from the written history they left behind after their civilization was done. They wrote a LOT of war memoirs!
Living in Rome, a city of maybe a million people, was a prestigious prize of citizenship not given to anyone not considered important or born there. One way to be important was to be born into or marry into an old Roman dynasty which had held onto its property and wealth for generations. The other was military action which brought honor and wealth to Rome and enough personal social capital to buy into the top ranks of Roman society - which was primarily a political society. Thus every ambitious Italian and Roman studied rhetoric and literature, and how to fight wars, as young men. Top rank Romans had running water, baths, fabulous houses, slaves, cool art and architecture, amazing circuses and gladiator fights, the pick of beautiful women, exotic foods, respect of other brilliant men of power and authority who could provide armies to their friends - who didn't want to become a rich Roman! Even if it meant enduring periodic life-threatening political purges every other year or so and sometimes exile to much more primitive lands on occasion.
Augustus died at age seventy-six - perhaps a natural one - which set off some uprisings in conquered provinces which had been quiet, and of course some of his relatives immediately plotted to take the top spot - you know, the usual ongoing struggle of power and politics in Rome. But Augustus ruled an exceptionally long time, almost forty-four years. He must have had "the right stuff", somehow, so it makes him an attractive subject for biographers. I think Everitt's is an easy readable one, especially if one is interested in military campaigns.
There are maps of ancient Rome and the Mediterranean, as well as extensive Notes, Sources and Index sections. An excellent Chronology is provided after a table of contents section. The author does not really indulge much or too far in speculative or titillating conjectures, despite that he could have from the tidbits of gossip which were hinted at in discovered grafitti the Romans left behind (yes! Grafitti!) and sly poetry and plays with libelous references to social gossip (there were lawsuits and such, occasionally, too - Romans did that). This is one of the more sedate books about ancient Romans I have read, as a result. He does do some logical speculation where there are gaps in discovered ancient memoirs, histories, letters or literature.
Historians do love literate cultures!
PS. Caesar, Cleopatra, Mark Anthony, Pompey, Cicero, Agrippa, Cato, Julia, Tiberius, Drusus, Marcellus, Horace, Germanicus, Ovid - all of the Marquee personalities make an appearance! They are remembered for their various successes and tragedies because there is so much source material on them. They were real people, and Everitt brings them to life, using historical sources.
September 4, 2015
Probably the best (either this one or Cicero: The Life and Times of Rome's Greatest Politician) of Everett's Roman biographies and histories. A nice introduction and review of Augustus. Nothing particularly new in this book, but Everitt has a flair for narrative biography.
IF you are new to Anthony Everitt, I'd suggest reading in the following order:
1. The Rise of Rome 3 stars
2. Cicero 4 stars
3. Augustus 4 stars
4. Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome 3 stars
But really, unless you are planning on all four, go ahead and read them any damn way you want.
IF you are new to Anthony Everitt, I'd suggest reading in the following order:
1. The Rise of Rome 3 stars
2. Cicero 4 stars
3. Augustus 4 stars
4. Hadrian and the Triumph of Rome 3 stars
But really, unless you are planning on all four, go ahead and read them any damn way you want.
October 18, 2017
Writing a biography about a person that lived 2,000 years ago is a risky endeavor for anyone who strives for historical accuracy. Even when the person is Augustus Caesar, the known facts predominantly consist of isolated events of macro importance or fragments of writing that have lost much of their context. As is the case with Augustus: The Life of Rome's First Emperor, extensive speculation is required to bring a semblance of life to the factual islands that dot the historical timeline.
The underlying ambiguity begs the need for the reader keep at hand a small pinch of salt to be taken one grain at a time as they proceed through the book. To Everitt’s credit, he's dedicated his career to writing on ancient people and civilizations including a biography on one of Augustus’ contemporaries, Cicero. He has also written books on the rise of Rome and on the life of one other Roman emperor, Hadrain. From this perspective, it’s probable that Everitt’s speculations are as good as they get. But nonetheless, too many facts will never be known.
The impression of Augustus that Everitt imparts is one of measured control. Augustus is presented as the emperor that had the loyalty of the entire Roman army at his command, but recognized the need to rule through subtle means. He had the wisdom to be inclusive of his opponents in the formulation of ideas. And he often took extended periods of time to achieve his goals so that others would have time to recognize the purpose of his policies. In short, his public governance seems to have effectively resisted the absolute corruption that accompanies absolute power (take grain of salt here).
As for collaboration, I have no other expert opinions to offer. I read Everitt’s biography in an attempt to verify John Williams’ historical fiction Augustus. Both Everitt and Williams agree on an Augustus Caesar that lead through wisdom rather than force. Then there is my uninformed opinion of Augustus Caesar that was instilled in me during my elementary school days so long ago; that Augustus was the Roman emperor who ushered in a period of peace that lasted 200 years. While I know now that this far from the truth from a world perspective, both Everitt and Williams suggest that this may be somewhat true for the Romans living in the Rome that was transformed by Augustus Caesar (take grain of salt here).
The underlying ambiguity begs the need for the reader keep at hand a small pinch of salt to be taken one grain at a time as they proceed through the book. To Everitt’s credit, he's dedicated his career to writing on ancient people and civilizations including a biography on one of Augustus’ contemporaries, Cicero. He has also written books on the rise of Rome and on the life of one other Roman emperor, Hadrain. From this perspective, it’s probable that Everitt’s speculations are as good as they get. But nonetheless, too many facts will never be known.
The impression of Augustus that Everitt imparts is one of measured control. Augustus is presented as the emperor that had the loyalty of the entire Roman army at his command, but recognized the need to rule through subtle means. He had the wisdom to be inclusive of his opponents in the formulation of ideas. And he often took extended periods of time to achieve his goals so that others would have time to recognize the purpose of his policies. In short, his public governance seems to have effectively resisted the absolute corruption that accompanies absolute power (take grain of salt here).
As for collaboration, I have no other expert opinions to offer. I read Everitt’s biography in an attempt to verify John Williams’ historical fiction Augustus. Both Everitt and Williams agree on an Augustus Caesar that lead through wisdom rather than force. Then there is my uninformed opinion of Augustus Caesar that was instilled in me during my elementary school days so long ago; that Augustus was the Roman emperor who ushered in a period of peace that lasted 200 years. While I know now that this far from the truth from a world perspective, both Everitt and Williams suggest that this may be somewhat true for the Romans living in the Rome that was transformed by Augustus Caesar (take grain of salt here).
July 16, 2007
Towards the end of his previous book, "Cicero", Everitt describes Cicero taking Julius Caesar's grand-nephew, the young Gaius Octavius, under his wing and introducing him to the world of Roman politics. In gratitude, the young Gaius winds up forming an alliance with Mark Antony and reluctantly agreeing to have Cicero killed (although he forces Antony to murder his uncle in exchange). Thus begins the rise to power of Rome's first emperor, later to call himself Augustus.
On one hand, Augustus could be reviled as a back-stabbing, self-obsessed, power-hungry man who was ultimately responsible for killing the frail, aged granny that was the Roman Republic with a rabbit punch. On the other hand, he was careful to at least preserve the facade of democracy and free speech, he secured the Empire's borders, streamlined bureaucracy and weeded out a number of intolerable fools. The Bush family would never have flourished in ancient Rome.
As in "Cicero", Everitt does a generally impressive job of taking famous historical figures that we may be tangentially aware of (Antony & Cleopatra, Ovid, Horace, etc.) and really makes them seem like real people living in a world that is at once recognizable on some levels and horrifically different on others. It was interesting reading this at the same time as keeping up to date with the machinations of the executive and legislative branches in the news (the Scooter Libby scandal; the questions about the extent of executive privilege) and also having just seen Oliver Stone's excellent interviews with Fidel Castro in his new documentary, "Comandante." The US is no Roman Empire and neither is Cuba, but all three have their similarities in terms of the limits people are prepared to go to gain and maintain power and the viciousness that can take hold in nominally "elected" government.
On one hand, Augustus could be reviled as a back-stabbing, self-obsessed, power-hungry man who was ultimately responsible for killing the frail, aged granny that was the Roman Republic with a rabbit punch. On the other hand, he was careful to at least preserve the facade of democracy and free speech, he secured the Empire's borders, streamlined bureaucracy and weeded out a number of intolerable fools. The Bush family would never have flourished in ancient Rome.
As in "Cicero", Everitt does a generally impressive job of taking famous historical figures that we may be tangentially aware of (Antony & Cleopatra, Ovid, Horace, etc.) and really makes them seem like real people living in a world that is at once recognizable on some levels and horrifically different on others. It was interesting reading this at the same time as keeping up to date with the machinations of the executive and legislative branches in the news (the Scooter Libby scandal; the questions about the extent of executive privilege) and also having just seen Oliver Stone's excellent interviews with Fidel Castro in his new documentary, "Comandante." The US is no Roman Empire and neither is Cuba, but all three have their similarities in terms of the limits people are prepared to go to gain and maintain power and the viciousness that can take hold in nominally "elected" government.
February 10, 2017
I do not think I ever read a book on Roman history that I did not like and this book has not changed that. Augustus is considered Rome's first Emperor due to the fact that he spent over 40 years as Emperor. He came to this position by being the nephew and then becoming Julius Caesar's adopted son. Caesar trained him, as a youngster, in the rudiments of Rome's military leadership training. However, when Caesar was assassinated in March 15 of 44 BC Caesar's most important soldier Mark Antony and Augustus led their armies and defeated Caesar's murderer's armies led by Brutus in the Battle of Philippi in 42 BC. Following Brutus's defeat Antony, Augustus and Lepidus divided the vast Roman Empire in 3 sections. Antony cleverly took the East including Egypt for that was the wealthiest region. Augustus took Rome which was in rebellion. Lepidus was given Trans Alpine Gaul.
Antony was a poor administer reveling in the wealth of Egypt and falling for Egypt's seductive Queen Cleopatra. Augustus needed grain from Egypt to feed his constituents. Antony's slow response in providing the grain angered Augustus. In addition Antony's popularity faded in Rome due to his relationship with the non Roman Egyptian Queen. Augustus sensing a time to unify Rome under himself attacked Antony and defeated him in the Battle of Actium 2 September 31 BC, on the Ionian Sea.
Augustus implemented two reforms in his long reign -constitutional reform and imperial expansion under himself as the ruler. He accomplished this as well as brought relative peace and prosperity to Rome. As a result, he is regarded as one of Rome's greatest Emperors.
Antony was a poor administer reveling in the wealth of Egypt and falling for Egypt's seductive Queen Cleopatra. Augustus needed grain from Egypt to feed his constituents. Antony's slow response in providing the grain angered Augustus. In addition Antony's popularity faded in Rome due to his relationship with the non Roman Egyptian Queen. Augustus sensing a time to unify Rome under himself attacked Antony and defeated him in the Battle of Actium 2 September 31 BC, on the Ionian Sea.
Augustus implemented two reforms in his long reign -constitutional reform and imperial expansion under himself as the ruler. He accomplished this as well as brought relative peace and prosperity to Rome. As a result, he is regarded as one of Rome's greatest Emperors.
October 27, 2007
Very well done. Told as narratively as possible, almost in novel form at some points. Very engaging, makes you feel like you know these people. If you liked the HBO series, you'll like this book. It was a very easy read each time I picked it up, which is saying something as I read it during a very stressful time during which I didn't have a lot of time to spare. But I always enjoyed diving into it. You'd think that I'd need something a bit more relaxing. But not with the way this was written.
I don't have to expound upon why Augustus was worth reading about. Augustus was awesome. The man had his faults, but he was brilliant, thoughtful, a capable administrator and the founder of the Roman Empire. It is thanks to him that we speak of the glories of Rome, arguably. At least I think it is.
I'm going to have to read this again more carefully, not distracted by other things. It'd be worth it.
I don't have to expound upon why Augustus was worth reading about. Augustus was awesome. The man had his faults, but he was brilliant, thoughtful, a capable administrator and the founder of the Roman Empire. It is thanks to him that we speak of the glories of Rome, arguably. At least I think it is.
I'm going to have to read this again more carefully, not distracted by other things. It'd be worth it.
December 4, 2021
The most gripping part of the book is the first chapter. Its evocation of the last few days of Augustus' life is good narrative woven with solid historical research. Unfortunately, that is the last time you will see that sort of writing. From then on the prose is exceptionally dry and loses its hard focus on Augustus. Everitt's use of source material and analysis is brilliant but his own prose is just too dull. Part of this might not be his fault.
Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus
Divine Son of Caesar Supreme Commander Augustus
Sounds magnificent but looks may be deceiving.
Augustus was an inferior military general to his adoptive father Julius Caesar, his best friend Marcus Agrippa and his one-time partner and eventual rival Marc Antony. He was an inferior writer and poet to contemporaries like Horace and Virgil, an inferior speaker to many of his fellow senators, and we can only imagine he was also an inferior historian to those of the day (but we won't know because no source material remains). In the health stakes he had seemingly worse health than almost every other Roman citizen alive (Suetonius leads us to believe he had worse teeth than a modern day Brit). Despite a promising rise through the ranks at a young age, Augustus then appeared to stumble his way to greatness with a talent for survival and choosing competent supporters.
He had one other talent which was definitely his greatest.
Politics.
Augustus was the greatest politician of his age and possibly even the two millennia he lived in. His ability to maintain absolute power while living in a "democratic republic" puts modern despots to shame.
But Augustus had something modern dictators don't; an understanding of his weaknesses. This paved the way for his political success. He knew when he needed help and he was not afraid to ask for it or in many cases command it. Augustus also had a genius in recognising with a few tweaks that the existing structures of Rome would actually be the most effective form of government. The senate could be turned into his legislative body, the army could be turned into a national army loyal only to him, rather than the various consuls and generals of the past. Probably most impressive was his ability to harness art, patronising all the artists we know from the period to create memorable plays, poems, and sculptures that would serve only to strengthen the mythology he'd already wrapped himself in. Augustus was possibly the greatest PR person that has ever existed. He sold Rome and the world the most convincing vision of a man who did everything for the city he loved.
This book also does a great job of exposing Augustus' austere and frugal manner while simultaneously lifting the curtain on what seems to be his voracious and insatiable sexual appetite. Admittedly the book adheres more to the dusty scrooge in tone. The scope is very broad and we spend a lot of time with other personalities from Roman history. While this gives us an expansive view it often comes at the detriment of narrative flow and sometimes you find the book feeling more like a general Roman History book than one about Augustus. As mentioned before, in some ways this echoes Augustus' own desire to let others show their strengths as long as it's in aid of his own agenda.
An interesting read but I will now turn to John Williams' novel in search of a more gripping narrative about this enigmatic ruler.
Imperator Caesar Divi Filius Augustus
Divine Son of Caesar Supreme Commander Augustus
Sounds magnificent but looks may be deceiving.
Augustus was an inferior military general to his adoptive father Julius Caesar, his best friend Marcus Agrippa and his one-time partner and eventual rival Marc Antony. He was an inferior writer and poet to contemporaries like Horace and Virgil, an inferior speaker to many of his fellow senators, and we can only imagine he was also an inferior historian to those of the day (but we won't know because no source material remains). In the health stakes he had seemingly worse health than almost every other Roman citizen alive (Suetonius leads us to believe he had worse teeth than a modern day Brit). Despite a promising rise through the ranks at a young age, Augustus then appeared to stumble his way to greatness with a talent for survival and choosing competent supporters.
He had one other talent which was definitely his greatest.
Politics.
Augustus was the greatest politician of his age and possibly even the two millennia he lived in. His ability to maintain absolute power while living in a "democratic republic" puts modern despots to shame.
But Augustus had something modern dictators don't; an understanding of his weaknesses. This paved the way for his political success. He knew when he needed help and he was not afraid to ask for it or in many cases command it. Augustus also had a genius in recognising with a few tweaks that the existing structures of Rome would actually be the most effective form of government. The senate could be turned into his legislative body, the army could be turned into a national army loyal only to him, rather than the various consuls and generals of the past. Probably most impressive was his ability to harness art, patronising all the artists we know from the period to create memorable plays, poems, and sculptures that would serve only to strengthen the mythology he'd already wrapped himself in. Augustus was possibly the greatest PR person that has ever existed. He sold Rome and the world the most convincing vision of a man who did everything for the city he loved.
This book also does a great job of exposing Augustus' austere and frugal manner while simultaneously lifting the curtain on what seems to be his voracious and insatiable sexual appetite. Admittedly the book adheres more to the dusty scrooge in tone. The scope is very broad and we spend a lot of time with other personalities from Roman history. While this gives us an expansive view it often comes at the detriment of narrative flow and sometimes you find the book feeling more like a general Roman History book than one about Augustus. As mentioned before, in some ways this echoes Augustus' own desire to let others show their strengths as long as it's in aid of his own agenda.
An interesting read but I will now turn to John Williams' novel in search of a more gripping narrative about this enigmatic ruler.
September 11, 2007
A solid biography of the founding father of the Roman Principate. Indulges in a fair amount of speculation, but I suppose that's what separates scholarly history from popular history, and the author gives you plenty of notice when he's off on a flight of (informed) fancy. Besides, given the paucity of reliable sources for much of Gaius's/Octavian's/Augustus's life, perhaps some speculation is called for.
Any student of Roman history should have a handle on the life and times of Imperator no. 1, and this isn't a bad place to start. Everitt also includes a nice appendix of primary source materials, and a bibliography for suggested reading in a variety of areas related to the end of the Republic and the early Imperial period.
Any student of Roman history should have a handle on the life and times of Imperator no. 1, and this isn't a bad place to start. Everitt also includes a nice appendix of primary source materials, and a bibliography for suggested reading in a variety of areas related to the end of the Republic and the early Imperial period.
March 11, 2022
“Have I played my part in the farce of life well enough?”
—Caesar Augustus
To say that Augustus was successful would be an understatement. He increased the boundaries of the Roman Empire more than anybody else, turned the ugly city of Rome into an architectural masterpiece, became the first full-fledged autocrat after 500 years of democracy, and ruled longer than any other Roman emperor. And he achieved all this despite his poor health and mediocre military skills. But how?
Anthony Everitt’s eponymous book offers an extensive answer to this question. In a nutshell, Augustus owed his triumphs to a combination of luck, patience, determination, and above all, supreme ability to use those around him. He didn’t mind slaughtering people by the thousands when this served him some purpose or other. He aspired to succeed where his great-uncle Julius Caesar had failed and become the undisputed sole ruler of Rome. By any means necessary.
Augustus was posthumously adopted by Julius Caesar and received a vast amount of money into the bargain. He teamed up with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus to avenge his assassinated adoptive father. That done, he got rid of his former allies with the help of his lifelong friend Agrippa. Slowly but surely, Augustus acquired more and more power until he took charge of everything.
The title of emperor, however, is anachronistic, for he insisted on being addressed as princeps (first citizen). This was in line with his hypocritical claim that he supported democracy and the Republic. He even kept the Senate, but all major decisions were his.
After most of his opposition had been either wiped out or persuaded to join him, Augustus focused his attention on improving the daily life of the remaining Roman citizens. Inspired by what he had seen in Alexandria, Egypt, he set out to make Rome the most magnificent city in the world. A myriad of grandiose construction projects ensued, and some of the resulting structures still stand 2,000 years later. His own house, however, was relatively modest.
Augustus frequently toured his empire in an attempt to ensure peace. He gave Roman citizenship to local rulers, thereby fostering loyalty to Rome. When this didn’t work, he had the rebels killed. Also, he deported hosts of men of military age to avoid future trouble.
One of Augustus’s problems was preparing the ground for a peaceful succession. He had no legitimate male children of his own, and his nephews, grandchildren, and adopted children either predeceased him or were unfit to rule. In the end, he appointed his stepson Tiberius as his heir. On August 19, 14 C.E., the princeps died at the age of 76 knowing that his legacy would endure. His mission was complete.
So, did Augustus play his “part in the farce of life well enough?” Opinions vary. Anthony Everitt suggests that, “for all his flaws, the balance sheet ends in credit. For the most part, the private man lived decently according to the standards of the time, and the public man did terrible things, but usually for the public good.” I don’t subscribe to this point of view.
Augustus did good things only when bad ones wouldn’t be more beneficial. Whether he believed that his actions served the Roman people is beside the point. He did what he did. Willingly. And that many of his contemporaries would have been just as cruel in his place, or even more so, doesn’t make him a good person either.
In conclusion, Augustus is a well-written and important book. It provides yet another example of atrocities begotten by imperial ambition. It offers a glimpse of the empire that shaped Europe, if not the entire world. And it proves that George Orwell was right: “[t]he object of power is power.”
—Caesar Augustus
To say that Augustus was successful would be an understatement. He increased the boundaries of the Roman Empire more than anybody else, turned the ugly city of Rome into an architectural masterpiece, became the first full-fledged autocrat after 500 years of democracy, and ruled longer than any other Roman emperor. And he achieved all this despite his poor health and mediocre military skills. But how?
Anthony Everitt’s eponymous book offers an extensive answer to this question. In a nutshell, Augustus owed his triumphs to a combination of luck, patience, determination, and above all, supreme ability to use those around him. He didn’t mind slaughtering people by the thousands when this served him some purpose or other. He aspired to succeed where his great-uncle Julius Caesar had failed and become the undisputed sole ruler of Rome. By any means necessary.
Augustus was posthumously adopted by Julius Caesar and received a vast amount of money into the bargain. He teamed up with Mark Antony and Marcus Aemilius Lepidus to avenge his assassinated adoptive father. That done, he got rid of his former allies with the help of his lifelong friend Agrippa. Slowly but surely, Augustus acquired more and more power until he took charge of everything.
The title of emperor, however, is anachronistic, for he insisted on being addressed as princeps (first citizen). This was in line with his hypocritical claim that he supported democracy and the Republic. He even kept the Senate, but all major decisions were his.
After most of his opposition had been either wiped out or persuaded to join him, Augustus focused his attention on improving the daily life of the remaining Roman citizens. Inspired by what he had seen in Alexandria, Egypt, he set out to make Rome the most magnificent city in the world. A myriad of grandiose construction projects ensued, and some of the resulting structures still stand 2,000 years later. His own house, however, was relatively modest.
Augustus frequently toured his empire in an attempt to ensure peace. He gave Roman citizenship to local rulers, thereby fostering loyalty to Rome. When this didn’t work, he had the rebels killed. Also, he deported hosts of men of military age to avoid future trouble.
One of Augustus’s problems was preparing the ground for a peaceful succession. He had no legitimate male children of his own, and his nephews, grandchildren, and adopted children either predeceased him or were unfit to rule. In the end, he appointed his stepson Tiberius as his heir. On August 19, 14 C.E., the princeps died at the age of 76 knowing that his legacy would endure. His mission was complete.
So, did Augustus play his “part in the farce of life well enough?” Opinions vary. Anthony Everitt suggests that, “for all his flaws, the balance sheet ends in credit. For the most part, the private man lived decently according to the standards of the time, and the public man did terrible things, but usually for the public good.” I don’t subscribe to this point of view.
Augustus did good things only when bad ones wouldn’t be more beneficial. Whether he believed that his actions served the Roman people is beside the point. He did what he did. Willingly. And that many of his contemporaries would have been just as cruel in his place, or even more so, doesn’t make him a good person either.
In conclusion, Augustus is a well-written and important book. It provides yet another example of atrocities begotten by imperial ambition. It offers a glimpse of the empire that shaped Europe, if not the entire world. And it proves that George Orwell was right: “[t]he object of power is power.”
July 18, 2016
Approachable biography of one of the most important figures in western history. The book, being relatively short, is dense but very informative. Beside Augustus itself, Everitt brings to life many historical figures that had an influence on the emperor (both past and contemporary) and are essential to understand the political situation at the time. This approach contributes to a true 360 degrees view of the main character.
It is important to stress that this is a non-fiction book, heavy on the details of political manoeuvres and the geography and strategies of military campaigns, sometimes down to a blow by blow account of battles (first half of the book), and is not equally detailed on the aspects of Augustus’ personal life. Chapter 20 contains a vivid and engaging account of a day in Augustus and Livia’s times, however readers looking for a romanticised version of the emperor life, for instance, his infatuation with Livia, the alleged numerous extramarital affairs, the turbulent relationship with his daughter Julia or the private struggle with Mark Antony and Cleopatra may be disappointed.
Everitt names and provides excerpts from the primary sources; this is done in a casual and unobtrusive manner so to not distract the reader from the narrative flow, while providing evidence to statements and corroboration to his theories. The Julio-Claudian dynasty tree, geographical maps at the beginning as well as the comprehensive primary sources references and bibliography at the end of the book are welcome useful inclusions. Recommended to readers interested in Roman history.
Favourite quotes:
If Julius Caesar had lived he would probably have devised a far more radical scheme, imposing a brutally abrupt transition from a republican past to an imperial future. Augustus may have been less brilliant than his adoptive father, but he was wiser. He understood that if his new system was to last, it should be seen to grow out of what came before. Rather than insist on a chasm, he built a bridge.
Romans distinguished between imperium, power, and auctoritas, authority. It was evidence of the remarkable success of the Augustan system that the princeps was able to command obedience simply through his authority, and was very seldom obliged to draw on the brute power at his disposal.
Perhaps the most instructive aspect of Augustus’ approach to politics was his twin recognition that in the long run power was unsustainable without consent, and that consent could best be won by associating radical constitutional change with a traditional and moralizing ideology.
It is important to stress that this is a non-fiction book, heavy on the details of political manoeuvres and the geography and strategies of military campaigns, sometimes down to a blow by blow account of battles (first half of the book), and is not equally detailed on the aspects of Augustus’ personal life. Chapter 20 contains a vivid and engaging account of a day in Augustus and Livia’s times, however readers looking for a romanticised version of the emperor life, for instance, his infatuation with Livia, the alleged numerous extramarital affairs, the turbulent relationship with his daughter Julia or the private struggle with Mark Antony and Cleopatra may be disappointed.
Everitt names and provides excerpts from the primary sources; this is done in a casual and unobtrusive manner so to not distract the reader from the narrative flow, while providing evidence to statements and corroboration to his theories. The Julio-Claudian dynasty tree, geographical maps at the beginning as well as the comprehensive primary sources references and bibliography at the end of the book are welcome useful inclusions. Recommended to readers interested in Roman history.
Favourite quotes:
If Julius Caesar had lived he would probably have devised a far more radical scheme, imposing a brutally abrupt transition from a republican past to an imperial future. Augustus may have been less brilliant than his adoptive father, but he was wiser. He understood that if his new system was to last, it should be seen to grow out of what came before. Rather than insist on a chasm, he built a bridge.
Romans distinguished between imperium, power, and auctoritas, authority. It was evidence of the remarkable success of the Augustan system that the princeps was able to command obedience simply through his authority, and was very seldom obliged to draw on the brute power at his disposal.
Perhaps the most instructive aspect of Augustus’ approach to politics was his twin recognition that in the long run power was unsustainable without consent, and that consent could best be won by associating radical constitutional change with a traditional and moralizing ideology.
August 18, 2024
rip augustus you would’ve loved modern medicine
September 19, 2017
Debía esta reseña desde el año pasado. Fue una lectura bastante distinta a las otras pues los "personajes" no son ficticios ni derivados de la mente del autor, sino que fueron, aunque mucho tiempo atrás, personas de carne y hueso. Considero que constituye una tarea harto difícil la redacción una obra biográfica, máxime cuando se trata de una obra de no-ficción (es decir, cuando la obra en cuestión no es una novela que reconstruye los hechos) y si de una que pretende mostrarse como una exposición sistemática y ordenada de los hechos tal como éstos ocurrieron al momento de su producción.
La historia no es una mera repetición de datos, ni el simple recuento de los hechos ocurridos, la verdadera historia trata de armonizar las informaciones contenidas en las fuentes que han llegado hasta nuestros días y, a partir de ahí, construir el relato e interpretar los hechos según la visión que presenta el historiador. Tarea ésta que se aplica en su totalidad a una obra de carácter biográfico pues ésta, al fin y al cabo, es historia. En obras de este tipo, todos las fuentes consultadas, los datos presentados y la exposición e interpretación de los hechos y momentos históricos convergen en un punto: la personalidad del protagonista. Si, en mi humilde opinión, constituye ya un emprendimiento de gran complejidad realizar el retrato biográfico de un personaje moderno y sus hechos circundantes y determinantes (por ejemplo, el papa Juan Pablo II, Fidel Castro o Alfredo Stroessner), cuánta mayor dificultad ha de entrañar hacerlo con alguien que ha dejado este mundo más de dos mil años atrás.
Considero (y ello no tiene porqué constituir la verdad absoluta) que Anthony Everitt ha capeado con éxito la dura tormenta que tal labor presupone. Sin lugar a dudas es la mejor y más completa biografía de Augusto que he leído en mi vida (podrán existir mejores, pero no he tenido el privilegio de leerlas). Los hechos históricos se encuentran expuestos con absoluto rigor científico con escrupulosa cita de las fuentes que sostienen tal presentación. La persona de Augusto se presenta completamente desmitificada y como debe serlo: un ser humano más como todos, uno que alcanzó el más alto poder político en su época, pero ser humano al fin.
Se permite el autor ciertas libertades en su exposición e interpretación, pero ello resulta comprensible. Muchos datos deben ser reconstruidos desde las pocas informaciones que han llegado hasta el momento presente, muchas fuentes no han sobrevivido al inexorable paso del tiempo.
De Augusto se ha dicho mucho. No existe manera de desconocer la magnificencia de su obra, puesto que su legado sobrevive hasta hoy, pero ello no debe constituir un obstáculo para dar a conocer sus debilidades y, sobre todo, sus errores, que los cometió y muchos. El primer emperador romano fue, pues, un hombre de una personalidad compleja.
Disfruté la lectura como hacía rato no lo hacía con una buena obra histórica de no-ficción. Recomiendo su lectura.
La historia no es una mera repetición de datos, ni el simple recuento de los hechos ocurridos, la verdadera historia trata de armonizar las informaciones contenidas en las fuentes que han llegado hasta nuestros días y, a partir de ahí, construir el relato e interpretar los hechos según la visión que presenta el historiador. Tarea ésta que se aplica en su totalidad a una obra de carácter biográfico pues ésta, al fin y al cabo, es historia. En obras de este tipo, todos las fuentes consultadas, los datos presentados y la exposición e interpretación de los hechos y momentos históricos convergen en un punto: la personalidad del protagonista. Si, en mi humilde opinión, constituye ya un emprendimiento de gran complejidad realizar el retrato biográfico de un personaje moderno y sus hechos circundantes y determinantes (por ejemplo, el papa Juan Pablo II, Fidel Castro o Alfredo Stroessner), cuánta mayor dificultad ha de entrañar hacerlo con alguien que ha dejado este mundo más de dos mil años atrás.
Considero (y ello no tiene porqué constituir la verdad absoluta) que Anthony Everitt ha capeado con éxito la dura tormenta que tal labor presupone. Sin lugar a dudas es la mejor y más completa biografía de Augusto que he leído en mi vida (podrán existir mejores, pero no he tenido el privilegio de leerlas). Los hechos históricos se encuentran expuestos con absoluto rigor científico con escrupulosa cita de las fuentes que sostienen tal presentación. La persona de Augusto se presenta completamente desmitificada y como debe serlo: un ser humano más como todos, uno que alcanzó el más alto poder político en su época, pero ser humano al fin.
Se permite el autor ciertas libertades en su exposición e interpretación, pero ello resulta comprensible. Muchos datos deben ser reconstruidos desde las pocas informaciones que han llegado hasta el momento presente, muchas fuentes no han sobrevivido al inexorable paso del tiempo.
De Augusto se ha dicho mucho. No existe manera de desconocer la magnificencia de su obra, puesto que su legado sobrevive hasta hoy, pero ello no debe constituir un obstáculo para dar a conocer sus debilidades y, sobre todo, sus errores, que los cometió y muchos. El primer emperador romano fue, pues, un hombre de una personalidad compleja.
Disfruté la lectura como hacía rato no lo hacía con una buena obra histórica de no-ficción. Recomiendo su lectura.
April 27, 2018
Entertaining look at a man who lived a long life and had an immense influence on Rome. I particularly enjoyed the chapters through the Battle of Actium. After that the author discusses life in Rome in general so it slows down somewhat.
My favorite character was Marcus Agrippa, who was an outstanding soldier and friend of Augustus. It was to Augustus' good fortune to have such a loyal follower.
If you have seen "I, Claudius" you know much of what happened to many of the people in the book. Obviously, much is conjecture, which the author admits. He is also an apologist for Livia.
I enjoyed this book, and would recommend it as a good overview of an important time in Rome's history.
My favorite character was Marcus Agrippa, who was an outstanding soldier and friend of Augustus. It was to Augustus' good fortune to have such a loyal follower.
If you have seen "I, Claudius" you know much of what happened to many of the people in the book. Obviously, much is conjecture, which the author admits. He is also an apologist for Livia.
I enjoyed this book, and would recommend it as a good overview of an important time in Rome's history.
August 3, 2007
A great follow-up to Cicero. Between the two of them you get a thorough introduction not only to these two men, but more generally to life in ancient Rome and its rise to empire. (It's a crazy story, if you hadn't heard.)
June 30, 2023
fucked up if true
🎵Kiss Me, Son of God—They Might Be Giants🎵
🎵Kiss Me, Son of God—They Might Be Giants🎵
January 3, 2023
I have wanted to read "Augustus" by Anthony Everitt for years and years and finally managed to do it.
Although this was a great book that someone who is new to this time period would gain a lot of insight and knowledge from it's not exactly the biography of Augustus’ life I was looking for.
It places a very heavy importance (60% of the book) on the events of Augustus’ 20s. We spend half of that time if not more with Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and other figures instead of with Augustus and from his POV. Context is important to understand who Augustus becomes and what Rome becomes but it was too heavily reliant on the military events of his early life. This book needs more emphasis on Augustus’ upbringing, family and his relationships. My interest in Augustus is as a social reformer and that was severely lacking in this biography.
I almost feel like Anthony Everitt wanted to write a book about Augustus v Antony or the battles and fight over power of the soon to be Roman empire. Maybe it would have been a better book for this. I was looking for a study of Augustus and it wasn't exactly that - although it did cover some of it.
I appreciated the research that went into this and the commentary on the sources - I did also like Everitt exploring the reasons for Augustus' actions and actions of the women in his life. Usually people are harsh when it comes to Livia and Julia but it was nice to read an exploration of the possible reasons for their actions/the bias of the male historians and how it affected our modern opinions of these complicated people.
All in all this was a well written and well research piece of work that would be accessible to almost anyone. For serious Roman history aficionados like me - maybe not what you're looking for.
Although this was a great book that someone who is new to this time period would gain a lot of insight and knowledge from it's not exactly the biography of Augustus’ life I was looking for.
It places a very heavy importance (60% of the book) on the events of Augustus’ 20s. We spend half of that time if not more with Julius Caesar, Mark Antony and other figures instead of with Augustus and from his POV. Context is important to understand who Augustus becomes and what Rome becomes but it was too heavily reliant on the military events of his early life. This book needs more emphasis on Augustus’ upbringing, family and his relationships. My interest in Augustus is as a social reformer and that was severely lacking in this biography.
I almost feel like Anthony Everitt wanted to write a book about Augustus v Antony or the battles and fight over power of the soon to be Roman empire. Maybe it would have been a better book for this. I was looking for a study of Augustus and it wasn't exactly that - although it did cover some of it.
I appreciated the research that went into this and the commentary on the sources - I did also like Everitt exploring the reasons for Augustus' actions and actions of the women in his life. Usually people are harsh when it comes to Livia and Julia but it was nice to read an exploration of the possible reasons for their actions/the bias of the male historians and how it affected our modern opinions of these complicated people.
All in all this was a well written and well research piece of work that would be accessible to almost anyone. For serious Roman history aficionados like me - maybe not what you're looking for.
April 2, 2023
Solid biography about one of the most influential people in the history of the world. It is fairly accessible to an average reader striving to keep the characters limited and distinct (especially important when so many use the same names).
It is decently humanizing but at times whole decades are defined by single personal actions.
I feel like I have a far better context for the world Jesus was born into and Paul navigated as well as the political institutions that shape not only European society but also American politics. Augustus established stability in his time and the residue of that success still brings stability to people’s lives even now thousands of years later. That’s a legacy worth studying.
It is decently humanizing but at times whole decades are defined by single personal actions.
I feel like I have a far better context for the world Jesus was born into and Paul navigated as well as the political institutions that shape not only European society but also American politics. Augustus established stability in his time and the residue of that success still brings stability to people’s lives even now thousands of years later. That’s a legacy worth studying.
February 5, 2010
Anthony Everitt follows up his excellent biography of the Roman politician, lawyer, and writer Cicero with a strong biography of the first Roman emperor, Augustus (born Gaius Octavius in 63 BC). If one add in Goldsworthy's well done recent biography of Julius Caesar, one then has a trio of excellent biographies that help make the political intrigues of Rome in the late Republic and early Empire come to life.
The challenges facing the author include holes in the life story of the man who became Augustus, leaving certain key questions about his life unanswered (nicely outlined in the last chapter). Writing the biography of someone from two thousand years ago is a daunting task, but one that Everitt ends up pulling off well.
The narrative traces the life of Octavius from his childhood onward. What we see is a young man with a lot of grit and determination--and luck. His great uncle, Julius Caesar, became his patron and adopted him, providing a jump start to his career. After Caesar's violent death, Octavius showed political skills by allying with Mark Antony and Lepidus to create a triumvirate, in opposition to those who killed Caesar (whose leaders included Cassius and Brutus).
The book shows how, with great patience, one of his greatest attributes, Octavius slowly increased his power and authority. With some exceptional friends and co-leaders (for instance, Agrippa), he ended up defeating Mark Antony and ascending to power.
The books shows the nature of that ascent, the value of his patience (compared with the impatience of his great uncle), the way that he used his power to stabilize and enhance the Roman Empire, his continual efforts to maintain peace in Rome, his intolerance toward his own family, his dilemmas at trying to organize the succession.
All in all, a very good biography of one of the more important figures in the West.
The challenges facing the author include holes in the life story of the man who became Augustus, leaving certain key questions about his life unanswered (nicely outlined in the last chapter). Writing the biography of someone from two thousand years ago is a daunting task, but one that Everitt ends up pulling off well.
The narrative traces the life of Octavius from his childhood onward. What we see is a young man with a lot of grit and determination--and luck. His great uncle, Julius Caesar, became his patron and adopted him, providing a jump start to his career. After Caesar's violent death, Octavius showed political skills by allying with Mark Antony and Lepidus to create a triumvirate, in opposition to those who killed Caesar (whose leaders included Cassius and Brutus).
The book shows how, with great patience, one of his greatest attributes, Octavius slowly increased his power and authority. With some exceptional friends and co-leaders (for instance, Agrippa), he ended up defeating Mark Antony and ascending to power.
The books shows the nature of that ascent, the value of his patience (compared with the impatience of his great uncle), the way that he used his power to stabilize and enhance the Roman Empire, his continual efforts to maintain peace in Rome, his intolerance toward his own family, his dilemmas at trying to organize the succession.
All in all, a very good biography of one of the more important figures in the West.
April 19, 2011
This book is an audacious attempt to cover in only 327 pages the rise to power and reign of Rome's first emperor. Not all my questions were answered, but I have a better understanding of the period having read this biography.
The author quickly introduces Augustus as Octavian, the handsome and astute great-nephew of Julius Caesar. Trained in public administration by Caesar, Octavian was a person of delicate health who never became the warrior that his great-uncle was. In fact, he leaned heavily upon his friends, Agrippa and Maecenas, to assist him in all military endeavors.
It was in 27 BC that Octavian was given a new name--Imperator Caesar Augustus--but told everyone to call him princeps (leading citizen). Amici Caesaris (friends of Caesar) included Virgil, Livy the historian, and the rotund little poet we know as Horace. Augustus (the revered one) never included Ovid in his intimate circle due, at least in part, to the fact that Ovid exposed the emperor's sexual rapacity and soon found himself exiled on the Black Sea.
Augustus may have been less intelligent than Julius Caesar, but proved wiser. He installed autocracy with the consent of "the independent-minded elites" and brought peace and order to Rome during his reign of 44 years.
The author quickly introduces Augustus as Octavian, the handsome and astute great-nephew of Julius Caesar. Trained in public administration by Caesar, Octavian was a person of delicate health who never became the warrior that his great-uncle was. In fact, he leaned heavily upon his friends, Agrippa and Maecenas, to assist him in all military endeavors.
It was in 27 BC that Octavian was given a new name--Imperator Caesar Augustus--but told everyone to call him princeps (leading citizen). Amici Caesaris (friends of Caesar) included Virgil, Livy the historian, and the rotund little poet we know as Horace. Augustus (the revered one) never included Ovid in his intimate circle due, at least in part, to the fact that Ovid exposed the emperor's sexual rapacity and soon found himself exiled on the Black Sea.
Augustus may have been less intelligent than Julius Caesar, but proved wiser. He installed autocracy with the consent of "the independent-minded elites" and brought peace and order to Rome during his reign of 44 years.
January 31, 2018
Anthony Everitt's biography of Gaius Octavian Augustus tells the story of his rise through Roman society by taking us through the major phases of his life, from his provincial childhood to his adoption by his great-uncle Julius Caesar. The multi-dimensional personality of Augustus, his genius as an administrator and planner and his not so brave time in the battlefield is well depicted. We witness his many marriages and friendships which helped him in becoming the most powerful man in Rome. The power struggle with Mark Antony and the invasion of Egypt almost reads like a thriller. The war ended with Augustus's recognition as the "first citizen" of Rome. He survived many illnesses during his lifetime to rule for 40 years and set up an exemplary empire which became the foundation of the western civilization. The author also shows us the glimpses of early Roman life and customs, but where the book shines is in showing the realities of power politics of the early Roman period. Everitt has done an enormous amount of research for bringing a lively history book into the hands of the reader. The chronology and the maps in the beginning of the book are very helpful; however, a glossary and an index of persons at the end would have made it an indispensable book.
November 8, 2021
I read Everitt's biography of Cicero a few years ago and I was very much impressed. That history chronicled the last years of the Roman Republic, up to the assassination of Julius Caesar and the bloody fallout that followed, in which Cicero was killed.
The order to kill Cicero was agreed on by Mark Antony and Octavian, a young teenager who had appeared quite suddenly on the scene with extraordinary political clout. This book tells the story of Octavian, who went on to become the first Emperor of Rome, so it is in effect the sequel biography.
It is every bit as engaging as its precursor, and brings the political world of its protagonists vibrantly to life. The book is as good as it is not only because Everitt is a talented storyteller, but also because of his approach, which he delineates in the introduction - to present events as they happened and appeared to the people living through them, without letting on that he knows what happens next. So with each event that is narrated he provides an analysis of the motivations and options available to all the major players, like you might find in a current affairs opinion piece.
Octavian was a sickly child - the nature of his recurring illness is never specified but he was not active or athletic, and spent much of his childhood at home being cared for by his doting mother, who was Julius Caesar’s niece. He showed political aptitude early on, however, and Caesar ultimately ended up adopting him posthumously, giving Octavian a massive bestowal, in the form both of wealth and the loyalty of Caesar’s legions, should he choose to accept. It is interesting that a posthumously adopted son was considered a more legitimate heir than Caesar’s actual illegitimate son by Cleopatra, but the dynamic between Egypt and Rome meant that an Egyptian would never be welcomed as a Roman leader. Octavian was faced with a huge choice that he hardly felt he could handle. He would have to take charge of legions of Roman soldiers without ever having had any real battle experience. But he decided to take the plunge, taking perhaps one of the more significant decisions in world history, and stepped out from his mother’s protective mantle to become a leading figurehead of the Caesarian political faction.
What he lacked in military experience he made up for with political astuteness, and marshalled his good friend Agrippa to organise the military side of things, while listening to advice from experienced politicos who supported Caesar. In some ways it is remarkable that Agrippa, who wielded the real power as de facto head of the Caesarian legions, did not supplant Octavian as the natural successor, a fact that can probably be attributed both to the strength of their friendship and Octavian swiftly cementing his position within the wider political sphere. Indeed, as events unfolded and Octavian formed a governing triumvirate with Mark Antony and Lepidus to end the civil war, Octavian was very much a junior figure next to the experienced general Mark Antony.
As the years passed and the triumvirate deal was renewed on successive occasions, Octavian shrewdly positioned himself to negotiate more favourable agreements for himself. Ultimately, Mark Antony took charge of the legions in the east, preparing for battles to expand the sphere of Roman influence and create new provinces. His long absence from Rome allowed Octavian to develop his influence in the western provinces, through Spain, Gaul and Italy, and stymieing Antony’s ability to operate effectively in the capital. Antony ultimately settled with the Egyptian queen Cleopatra in Alexandria, giving Octavian plenty of material for propaganda to turn people against him, and things all came to a head in a sea battle in which Antony abandoned his fleets after a confusing denouement which saw both him and Cleopatra escape from a naval blockade.
Octavian promptly conquered Alexandria while Antony killed himself and Cleopatra also died (whether by her own hand or by Octavian’s arrangement is not clear), leaving Octavian as the number one citizen in Rome.
Upon his return the senate lavished honours on him repeatedly, of which he astutely accepted various selections, until he was given the Imperium Maius, making him the first Roman Emperor. Interestingly, this was a renewable honour, re-approved every ten years by the Senate, and at times shared by Agrippa, before his death, and latterly, Tiberius, who succeeded Octavian, now named Augustus.
Everitt portrays his protagonist in a very human way, inviting empathy, but even still it is hard to warm to Octavian, who was really a frightfully ruthless person. He was merciless when dealing with those who opposed him, and wielded his power ungraciously, ordering the deaths or suicides of anyone who crossed his path. He was not particularly unique in this respect - Antony quashed a mutiny in his troops by randomly selecting one in ten mutineers to be bludgeoned to death by the others. The attitude to death was quite different then than now, perhaps because there was no public prison service for rehabilitation of offenders, so death was meted out liberally. There was also a stoical honour code that would compel people to commit suicide rather than face shame, exemplified by Cato the Younger, who killed himself rather than allow his opponent Julius Caesar to pardon him, and practiced by entire armies when they could see that a battle was lost.
The attitude to death aside, there is really not that much different in the nature of humans and politics two thousand years later. Anyone who has followed the past few years of the Trump era, Brexit, and a global pandemic that stalled economies and restricted civilian freedoms in a way that would not have been credited two years ago can attest to the outsized effect unpredictable outcomes can have on the world. The teenage Octavian’s meteoric rise can’t be dismissed as a feature of a primitive society - Ancient Rome was remarkably sophisticated, built on centuries of experience in creating a stable society, with abundant checks and balances. A stable system of governance is only stable until it’s not. Democracy was not eradicated in Rome, but it morphed into something that enabled Augustus to wield unprecedented power. Given the right circumstances, the same story could play out again today, and people would align themselves as political expedient demands. It is this realisation that makes these historical biographies so fascinating - there is so much we can learn from the characters and situations of the past that is acutely applicable to the world today.
The order to kill Cicero was agreed on by Mark Antony and Octavian, a young teenager who had appeared quite suddenly on the scene with extraordinary political clout. This book tells the story of Octavian, who went on to become the first Emperor of Rome, so it is in effect the sequel biography.
It is every bit as engaging as its precursor, and brings the political world of its protagonists vibrantly to life. The book is as good as it is not only because Everitt is a talented storyteller, but also because of his approach, which he delineates in the introduction - to present events as they happened and appeared to the people living through them, without letting on that he knows what happens next. So with each event that is narrated he provides an analysis of the motivations and options available to all the major players, like you might find in a current affairs opinion piece.
Octavian was a sickly child - the nature of his recurring illness is never specified but he was not active or athletic, and spent much of his childhood at home being cared for by his doting mother, who was Julius Caesar’s niece. He showed political aptitude early on, however, and Caesar ultimately ended up adopting him posthumously, giving Octavian a massive bestowal, in the form both of wealth and the loyalty of Caesar’s legions, should he choose to accept. It is interesting that a posthumously adopted son was considered a more legitimate heir than Caesar’s actual illegitimate son by Cleopatra, but the dynamic between Egypt and Rome meant that an Egyptian would never be welcomed as a Roman leader. Octavian was faced with a huge choice that he hardly felt he could handle. He would have to take charge of legions of Roman soldiers without ever having had any real battle experience. But he decided to take the plunge, taking perhaps one of the more significant decisions in world history, and stepped out from his mother’s protective mantle to become a leading figurehead of the Caesarian political faction.
What he lacked in military experience he made up for with political astuteness, and marshalled his good friend Agrippa to organise the military side of things, while listening to advice from experienced politicos who supported Caesar. In some ways it is remarkable that Agrippa, who wielded the real power as de facto head of the Caesarian legions, did not supplant Octavian as the natural successor, a fact that can probably be attributed both to the strength of their friendship and Octavian swiftly cementing his position within the wider political sphere. Indeed, as events unfolded and Octavian formed a governing triumvirate with Mark Antony and Lepidus to end the civil war, Octavian was very much a junior figure next to the experienced general Mark Antony.
As the years passed and the triumvirate deal was renewed on successive occasions, Octavian shrewdly positioned himself to negotiate more favourable agreements for himself. Ultimately, Mark Antony took charge of the legions in the east, preparing for battles to expand the sphere of Roman influence and create new provinces. His long absence from Rome allowed Octavian to develop his influence in the western provinces, through Spain, Gaul and Italy, and stymieing Antony’s ability to operate effectively in the capital. Antony ultimately settled with the Egyptian queen Cleopatra in Alexandria, giving Octavian plenty of material for propaganda to turn people against him, and things all came to a head in a sea battle in which Antony abandoned his fleets after a confusing denouement which saw both him and Cleopatra escape from a naval blockade.
Octavian promptly conquered Alexandria while Antony killed himself and Cleopatra also died (whether by her own hand or by Octavian’s arrangement is not clear), leaving Octavian as the number one citizen in Rome.
Upon his return the senate lavished honours on him repeatedly, of which he astutely accepted various selections, until he was given the Imperium Maius, making him the first Roman Emperor. Interestingly, this was a renewable honour, re-approved every ten years by the Senate, and at times shared by Agrippa, before his death, and latterly, Tiberius, who succeeded Octavian, now named Augustus.
Everitt portrays his protagonist in a very human way, inviting empathy, but even still it is hard to warm to Octavian, who was really a frightfully ruthless person. He was merciless when dealing with those who opposed him, and wielded his power ungraciously, ordering the deaths or suicides of anyone who crossed his path. He was not particularly unique in this respect - Antony quashed a mutiny in his troops by randomly selecting one in ten mutineers to be bludgeoned to death by the others. The attitude to death was quite different then than now, perhaps because there was no public prison service for rehabilitation of offenders, so death was meted out liberally. There was also a stoical honour code that would compel people to commit suicide rather than face shame, exemplified by Cato the Younger, who killed himself rather than allow his opponent Julius Caesar to pardon him, and practiced by entire armies when they could see that a battle was lost.
The attitude to death aside, there is really not that much different in the nature of humans and politics two thousand years later. Anyone who has followed the past few years of the Trump era, Brexit, and a global pandemic that stalled economies and restricted civilian freedoms in a way that would not have been credited two years ago can attest to the outsized effect unpredictable outcomes can have on the world. The teenage Octavian’s meteoric rise can’t be dismissed as a feature of a primitive society - Ancient Rome was remarkably sophisticated, built on centuries of experience in creating a stable society, with abundant checks and balances. A stable system of governance is only stable until it’s not. Democracy was not eradicated in Rome, but it morphed into something that enabled Augustus to wield unprecedented power. Given the right circumstances, the same story could play out again today, and people would align themselves as political expedient demands. It is this realisation that makes these historical biographies so fascinating - there is so much we can learn from the characters and situations of the past that is acutely applicable to the world today.
February 3, 2017
I liked it but it wasn't enough. I understand that much of what we know about Ancient Rome is supposition, especially in regards to an individual but somehow this book almost came across as all supposition. Was it the way he wrote it?? Do we really know so little??
This book concentrates on the early life of Augustus. His childhood, his rise to power and his consolidation of that power. It dwells on very little in depth, making it a good overall perspective on the making of the emperor but not good for the later years or the details of his personal family, which can get quite complicated. It does attempt to address some of the rumors and assumptions of poisonings and murder but never really manages to dispel them.
This is a great beginning to learning about this era of Roman history but should not be the end.
This book concentrates on the early life of Augustus. His childhood, his rise to power and his consolidation of that power. It dwells on very little in depth, making it a good overall perspective on the making of the emperor but not good for the later years or the details of his personal family, which can get quite complicated. It does attempt to address some of the rumors and assumptions of poisonings and murder but never really manages to dispel them.
This is a great beginning to learning about this era of Roman history but should not be the end.
May 26, 2017
This is a very good biography of Augustus, a man who was a complex as he was powerful. The interesting events of Augustus' life: the murder of Julius Caesar, the battles against republicans and Mark Antony, the end of the republic and creation of the empire... all are related with good judgement and narrative drive while Augustus is brought to life as well as any man who lived 2,000 years ago can be. This would be a great book for anyone who is new to Roman History, but also for anyone who has read a ton of it.
October 29, 2014
Excellent insight into the Roman era. Interesting book that was well written with explanations that extend to modern days. I recommend it highly!
June 25, 2020
While Julius Caesar gets most of the attention in ancient Roman history, his grand-nephew Augustus was in fact the longest-reigning emperor of Rome. How did he get there? It wasn't due to military genius, since he appears to have frequently fallen (psychosomatically?) ill whenever a battle approached, and was mocked for hiding during the major battle of Philippi. Julius Caesar certainly did him a favor by naming him his heir, but young Octavian (he wasn't yet Augustus) took the opportunities he was given and made the most of them, with a mix of relying on people who could handle his weak spots, political savvy, and ruthlessness.
Everitt does a great job illustrating his subject, both by giving appropriate context on important earlier historical moments that informed Augustus's decisions and those of his peers, and by giving interesting details about ancient Roman life that helped understand his world. His writing was gripping and clear, and I found it hard to put down the book at times, even though I knew the general outlines of the plot already. I had two minor nitpicks that made this 4 stars rather than 5. One was a few instances of overly flowery language, particularly the use of a lot of unnecessary French phrases which did not add to the descriptions. Everitt also frequently demeaned Mark Antony's wife Fulvia as, e.g. a "virago", when "politically active" may have been a more appropriate term. Other female characters such as Cleopatra and Livia didn't get the same treatment, so maybe he just didn't provide enough details to justify his characterization of Fulvia. Overall, though, this was a readable and interesting biography of a fascinating man.
Everitt does a great job illustrating his subject, both by giving appropriate context on important earlier historical moments that informed Augustus's decisions and those of his peers, and by giving interesting details about ancient Roman life that helped understand his world. His writing was gripping and clear, and I found it hard to put down the book at times, even though I knew the general outlines of the plot already. I had two minor nitpicks that made this 4 stars rather than 5. One was a few instances of overly flowery language, particularly the use of a lot of unnecessary French phrases which did not add to the descriptions. Everitt also frequently demeaned Mark Antony's wife Fulvia as, e.g. a "virago", when "politically active" may have been a more appropriate term. Other female characters such as Cleopatra and Livia didn't get the same treatment, so maybe he just didn't provide enough details to justify his characterization of Fulvia. Overall, though, this was a readable and interesting biography of a fascinating man.
November 1, 2020
A gripping biography of Augustus. With the exception of Tom Holland's Rubicon, this is perhaps my favorite Roman history book. Everitt does an excellent job not just of relating the major events and achievements of Augustus' life but also of providing detailed accounts of the Roman world he inhabited and was shaped by looked like.
Read
March 29, 2023Een hele fijne biografie van de eerste keizer, de geliefde Augustus. Everitt geeft een goed genuanceerd beeld van de keizer (nooit geweten dat hij eigenlijk niet zo'n militair wonder was bijvoorbeeld) waardoor het duidelijk wordt hoe goed Augustus propaganda eigenlijk heeft gewerkt.
April 7, 2023
This book was fantastic. Everitt made a dense and complex history come to life and the story was really exciting to follow. It is mind blowing to stop and actually imagine what life in the time of Augustus would have been like. I would love to visit Alexandria.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 462 reviews