His reign marked the beginning  of one of history’s greatest empires and the end of one of its first republics. Was Rome’s first emperor a visionary leader who guaranteed  his civilization’s place in history or a tyrant who destroyed its core values? Find out in History versus Augustus. Order, order. The defendant today is Gaius Octavius? Gaius Julius Caesar/Augustus...  Do we have the wrong guy? No, your Honor. Gaius Octavius, born in 63 BCE,  was the grand-nephew of Julius Caesar. He became Gaius Julius Caesar upon being named his great-uncle’s  adoptive son and heir. And he gained the title Augustus in 27 BCE when the Senate granted  him additional honors. You mean when he established  sole authority and became emperor of Rome. Is that bad? Didn’t every place have some king  or emperor back then? Actually, your Honor, the Roman people had overthrown  their kings centuries before to establish a republic, a government meant to serve the people, not the privilege of a ruling family. And it was Octavius  who destroyed this tradition. Octavius was a model public servant. At 16, he was elected  to the College of Pontiffs that supervised religious worship. He fought for Rome in Hispania  alongside his great-uncle Caesar and took up the responsibility  of avenging Caesar’s death when the corrupt oligarchs in the Senate betrayed and murdered him. Caesar had been a power-hungry tyrant  who tried to make himself a king while consorting with  his Egyptian queen Cleopatra. After his death, Octavius joined his general Mark Antony in starting a civil war  that tore Rome apart, then stabbed his ally in the back  to increase his own power. Antony was a fool. He waged a disastrous campaign in Parthia and plotted to turn Roman territories into personal kingdoms  for himself and Cleopatra. Isn’t that what Caesar  had been accused of? Well... So Octavius destroyed Antony  for trying to become a king and then became one himself? That’s right. You can see the megalomania even in  his adopted title – "The Illustrious One." That was a religious honorific. And Augustus didn’t seek power  for his own sake. As winner of the civil war  and commander of the most troops, it was his duty to restore  law and order to Rome so that other factions  didn’t continue fighting. He didn’t restore the law - he made it subordinate to him! Not true. Augustus worked to restore  the Senate’s prestige, improved food security  for the lower classes, and relinquished control of  the army when he resigned his consul post. Mere optics. He used his military influence  and personal wealth to stack the Senate in his favor, while retaining the powers of a tribune and the right to celebrate  military triumphs. He kept control of provinces  with the most legions. And if that wasn’t enough, he assumed the consul position  twice more to promote his grandchildren. He was clearly trying  to establish a dynasty. But what did he do with all that power? Glad you asked, your Honor. Augustus’s accomplishments  were almost too many to name. He established consistent  taxation for all provinces, ending private exploitation  by local tax officials. He personally financed a network of roads and employed couriers so news and troops could travel easily throughout the realm. And it was under Augustus that many of Rome’s famous  public buildings were constructed. The writers of the time were nearly  unanimous in praising his rule. Did the writers have any other choice? Augustus exiled plenty of people  on vague charges, including Ovid,  one of Rome’s greatest poets. And you forgot to mention the intrusive  laws regarding citizens’ personal lives – punishing adultery, restricting marriage  between social classes, even penalties for remaining unmarried. He was trying to improve the citizenry and instill discipline. And he succeeded. His legacy speaks for itself: 40 years of internal stability, a professional army that expanded  Rome’s frontiers in all directions, and a government still remembered  as a model of civic virtue. His legacy was an empire that would go on to wage endless  conquest until it collapsed, and a tradition of military autocracy. Any time a dictator in a general’s uniform commits atrocities while claiming to act on behalf  of "the people," we have Augustus Caesar to thank. So you’re saying Augustus  was a good emperor, and you’re saying there’s no such thing? We’re used to celebrating  historical leaders for their achievements and victories. But to ask whether an individual should  have such power in the first place is to put history itself on trial.