First of all, I just want us all to step back and appreciate the fact that you wrote a whole-ass essay in response to my half-baked Monty Python reference, and did it in less than 20 minutes flat.
I’m just glad my response was welcome instead of tedious! XD
…those damn Optimates, amirite?
(Or was that just a personal quirk of Augustus and not a faction thing, or did the whole ’Optimates vs. Populares’ ideological alignment even still exist by the time he was in charge?)
Optimates vs. Populares faded in large part because Augustus took a different path from the normal “reform vs. reaction” struggle that dominated the Late Republic.
Of course, he also could do so because he acquired autocratic power. But that’s another discussion entirely.
Basically, Augustus appeased the optimates by snipping the power of the People’s Assemblies (thus reducing the democratic input of the Roman citizen population) and refusing debt relief or mass land redistribution in Italy, all three major populare causes. But he also appeased the populares by offering land redistribution in the provinces, standardizing reimbursement for the (largely working-class) Legions, and investing the massive fortune (including vast estates that would generate income indefinitely - a big part of the Roman Imperial budget going forward) he gained from Caesar’s will and seizing the wealth of all of his enemies (including the entirety of Egypt) into public works projects (and, yes, public games and races - funny enough, not so much the grain dole) that gave material benefits and employment to the working poor of Rome. And he also appeased the provinces by increasing both autonomy of local municipalities and standardizing provincial structures to reduce the ability of governors to abuse their positions with arbitrary action.
I’m unusual for a Romaboo in that I fucking hate Augustus. But I’ll never deny that he was a clever and skilled politician.
Basically, his solution was fundamentally to give more power to the elite, but a more ‘select’ elite that still answered to other elites. So conservative, but not the same route that the optimates were trying to take, which was just “Deny the poors any aid and take everything for the unaccountable oligarchic class forever while degrading extant institutions into dust”, while Augustus was more “Give the poors half the scraps from optimizing efficiency of extant institutions, and enjoy the popular acclaim and disgusting wealth that result.”
I’m just glad my response was welcome instead of tedious! XD
Nah, these history lessons are great!
…That said, you did kinda not quite answer my actual question, though: was Augustus’ “Italian chauvinism” a personal thing, or an ideological faction thing? Or I guess if the “Optimates vs Populares” political order faded during his reign, I could ask the contrapositive instead: was Julius Caesar’s lack of discrimination against Gauls a Populares thing?
Basically, I’m asking if racism was a partisan political issue in the late Republic.
Oh, I didn’t understand! In that case, the answer is “Kind of” lmao.
Populares sometimes championed the rights of Latins and provincials, but they could appeal to nativist bigotry as well. One might regard the optimates as more racist, but more incidentally than fundamentally so. Augustus appealing to nativism, thus, had some cross-partisan appeal.
RetroFed
PugJesus
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
I’m just glad my response was welcome instead of tedious! XD
Optimates vs. Populares faded in large part because Augustus took a different path from the normal “reform vs. reaction” struggle that dominated the Late Republic.
Of course, he also could do so because he acquired autocratic power. But that’s another discussion entirely.
Basically, Augustus appeased the optimates by snipping the power of the People’s Assemblies (thus reducing the democratic input of the Roman citizen population) and refusing debt relief or mass land redistribution in Italy, all three major populare causes. But he also appeased the populares by offering land redistribution in the provinces, standardizing reimbursement for the (largely working-class) Legions, and investing the massive fortune (including vast estates that would generate income indefinitely - a big part of the Roman Imperial budget going forward) he gained from Caesar’s will and seizing the wealth of all of his enemies (including the entirety of Egypt) into public works projects (and, yes, public games and races - funny enough, not so much the grain dole) that gave material benefits and employment to the working poor of Rome. And he also appeased the provinces by increasing both autonomy of local municipalities and standardizing provincial structures to reduce the ability of governors to abuse their positions with arbitrary action.
I’m unusual for a Romaboo in that I fucking hate Augustus. But I’ll never deny that he was a clever and skilled politician.
Basically, his solution was fundamentally to give more power to the elite, but a more ‘select’ elite that still answered to other elites. So conservative, but not the same route that the optimates were trying to take, which was just “Deny the poors any aid and take everything for the unaccountable oligarchic class forever while degrading extant institutions into dust”, while Augustus was more “Give the poors half the scraps from optimizing efficiency of extant institutions, and enjoy the popular acclaim and disgusting wealth that result.”
Nah, these history lessons are great!
…That said, you did kinda not quite answer my actual question, though: was Augustus’ “Italian chauvinism” a personal thing, or an ideological faction thing? Or I guess if the “Optimates vs Populares” political order faded during his reign, I could ask the contrapositive instead: was Julius Caesar’s lack of discrimination against Gauls a Populares thing?
Basically, I’m asking if racism was a partisan political issue in the late Republic.
Oh, I didn’t understand! In that case, the answer is “Kind of” lmao.
Populares sometimes championed the rights of Latins and provincials, but they could appeal to nativist bigotry as well. One might regard the optimates as more racist, but more incidentally than fundamentally so. Augustus appealing to nativism, thus, had some cross-partisan appeal.
Everyone gets a little racism! As a treat!