4 ms·

Gaius Octavius (later known as Augustus) at age of approximately 17 was able to convince his mother to let him join his great uncle Julius in Hispania. He impre

Gaius Octavius (later known as Augustus) at age of approximately 17 was able to convince his mother to let him join his great uncle Julius in Hispania. He impressed Julius so much that upon return to Rome Julius updated his will to make Octavius his primary beneficiary. Julius' murder two years later on 15 March 44BC resulted in Octavian traveling to Rome to claim his inheritance, winning the loyalty of much of the army in the ensuing chaos, defeating and executing a number of heavy hitters including Mark Antony, Cleopatra, and Caesarion (Julius' son with Cleopatra), and eventually becoming the first Roman Emperor.

ithinkso 5y ago
This assumes he wouldn't impress Cesar later on a different occasion or that it was the first time he was trying to convince his mother to let him go.
- eschulz 5y ago
  Yes, I agree. However, life is short, and you have to take advantage of every opportunity you can to impress someone like Julius Caesar. There's no guarantee that you'll have another opportunity to spend time with such a busy and powerful man, even if he is your great uncle.
  - SPascareli13 5y ago
    I just want to go in a small tangent here, but I imagine that if Cesar knew he was going to die and had to adopt someone to continue his rule, he probably wouldn't pick his sickly nephew with no experience, no matter how bright he might be. So I think it's very likely that Cesar put him in his will since he is a blood relative and didn't really expected to die soon anyways, but didn't mean to have him as his sole heir forever.
    - eschulz 5y ago
      That's a good point. Did Julius not have a mental disorder which caused him to lack fear? It's a good for Octavian that he got close to his great uncle while he could.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  I've wondered if this isn't a "just so" story told by Octavius. Caesar just may not have had a lot of good choices, so posthumously adopted Octavius and made him his beneficiary, in which case it could have happened regardless of the trip (though it might be hard to make that case stick).
nescioquid 5y ago
Some 80 or so years prior to Caesar's assassination, a consul fomented a mob to kill a Tribune (G. Gracchus) who was pushing hard for land reforms. Historians often cite this as laying the foundation for the Roman revolution because it normalized violence as a political tool. It was followed by proscriptions and the Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BCE. What if Octavius never traveled to Hispania? Caesar may well have still adopted his nephew in order to make him his beneficiary. What would have happened if there were no Octavius? Possibly Marcus Antonius would have consolidated power. Would we have no transistors today if Shockley hadn't worked at Bell Labs? I guess my viewpoint strongly biases me towards seeing continuity and underlying processes. For every tipping point, there was a pre-existing process; for every process an event you can treat as a "handle".
- mbg721 5y ago
  What's your take on Catiline? I have just enough classical education to be a little dangerous, but my understanding is that he's sort of seen as a would-be Julius Caesar who showed up at the wrong time; Cicero was horrified by them both, but his conservative faction eventually lost so much power in the Senate that Caesar succeeded where Catiline failed.
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    I can see that. Both Caesar and Catiline sought power through extra-constitutional means. Caesar surely took notes (and Cicero thought Caesar even secretly supported Catiline). They were all in the senate together under Cicero's consulship, after all. They were all hyper-ambitious patricians. The conservatives (optimates -- the best) regarded the populares (the faction Caesar aligned himself with) as people willing to threaten the order of the state by pandering to the masses. This is what Catiline did, and Caesar too. This was the basic threat that the Gracchi brothers appeared to present in agitating for land reform and something that underscored Caesar's political agenda (he had to find land for his loyal veterans).
- refenestrator 5y ago
  I agree with your main point here but anyone who thinks violence as a political tool needed normalizing should not be listened to.

ithinkso 5y ago

This assumes he wouldn't impress Cesar later on a different occasion or that it was the first time he was trying to convince his mother to let him go.

eschulz 5y ago
Yes, I agree. However, life is short, and you have to take advantage of every opportunity you can to impress someone like Julius Caesar. There's no guarantee that you'll have another opportunity to spend time with such a busy and powerful man, even if he is your great uncle.
- SPascareli13 5y ago
  I just want to go in a small tangent here, but I imagine that if Cesar knew he was going to die and had to adopt someone to continue his rule, he probably wouldn't pick his sickly nephew with no experience, no matter how bright he might be. So I think it's very likely that Cesar put him in his will since he is a blood relative and didn't really expected to die soon anyways, but didn't mean to have him as his sole heir forever.
  - eschulz 5y ago
    That's a good point. Did Julius not have a mental disorder which caused him to lack fear? It's a good for Octavian that he got close to his great uncle while he could.
nescioquid 5y ago
I've wondered if this isn't a "just so" story told by Octavius. Caesar just may not have had a lot of good choices, so posthumously adopted Octavius and made him his beneficiary, in which case it could have happened regardless of the trip (though it might be hard to make that case stick).

nescioquid 5y ago

Some 80 or so years prior to Caesar's assassination, a consul fomented a mob to kill a Tribune (G. Gracchus) who was pushing hard for land reforms. Historians often cite this as laying the foundation for the Roman revolution because it normalized violence as a political tool. It was followed by proscriptions and the Catilinarian conspiracy in 63 BCE. What if Octavius never traveled to Hispania? Caesar may well have still adopted his nephew in order to make him his beneficiary. What would have happened if there were no Octavius? Possibly Marcus Antonius would have consolidated power. Would we have no transistors today if Shockley hadn't worked at Bell Labs? I guess my viewpoint strongly biases me towards seeing continuity and underlying processes. For every tipping point, there was a pre-existing process; for every process an event you can treat as a "handle".

mbg721 5y ago
What's your take on Catiline? I have just enough classical education to be a little dangerous, but my understanding is that he's sort of seen as a would-be Julius Caesar who showed up at the wrong time; Cicero was horrified by them both, but his conservative faction eventually lost so much power in the Senate that Caesar succeeded where Catiline failed.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  I can see that. Both Caesar and Catiline sought power through extra-constitutional means. Caesar surely took notes (and Cicero thought Caesar even secretly supported Catiline). They were all in the senate together under Cicero's consulship, after all. They were all hyper-ambitious patricians. The conservatives (optimates -- the best) regarded the populares (the faction Caesar aligned himself with) as people willing to threaten the order of the state by pandering to the masses. This is what Catiline did, and Caesar too. This was the basic threat that the Gracchi brothers appeared to present in agitating for land reform and something that underscored Caesar's political agenda (he had to find land for his loyal veterans).
refenestrator 5y ago
I agree with your main point here but anyone who thinks violence as a political tool needed normalizing should not be listened to.