‘Augustus used his wealth to benefit all classes of Rome and Italy equally’ – To what extent do you agree? Explain your views with reference to both the Res Gestae and Suetonius’ Augustus.
Augustus’ wealth came from many sources, including his inheritance from his adoptive father and his personal annexation of Egypt after his victory at Actium in 31BC. While it can be said that he used this wealth to benefit all, as he likes to portray in his Res Gestae, with detailed accounts of his spending making up a large proportion of the text, the actual effects of this spending can be argued to have not benefitted all classes or both Rome and Italy equally. The poor still remained in their ‘slums’ and even his public works were only really accessed …show more content…
This won him great loyalty and admiration from the masses, but it also benefited all Roman citizens serving in the army, regardless of their existing wealth or nationality, meaning even the lower class legionaries from Italy would benefit in the same way their wealthier comrades would have done (although perhaps not to the same extent). With the first few lines of Res Gestae, Augustus tells us of his raising of a veteran army of his adoptive father, using his own wealth, and he continued this financial support of the army, which he knew had won him his Principate, into their retirement. By creating veteran colonies, such as in Camulodunum (modern day Colchester), he ensured the loyalty of his troops with the promise of support after service and he benefitted all of his troops, somewhat equally. All veterans were allotted land and settlement upon their retirement in the last province they had served in, meaning the wealth he passed on to them was redistributed among the provinces, where veterans bought and sold and engaged in economic activity. In the case of veteran settlement, Augustus made sure all veteran legionaries were benefitted, whether from Rome or from other areas of Italy, so long as they held Roman citizenship, something that should be deemed one of his greatest successes, considering the role veteran settlement (or therein lack of) had played in Roman politics before
Augustus’ wealth came from many sources, including his inheritance from his adoptive father and his personal annexation of Egypt after his victory at Actium in 31BC. While it can be said that he used this wealth to benefit all, as he likes to portray in his Res Gestae, with detailed accounts of his spending making up a large proportion of the text, the actual effects of this spending can be argued to have not benefitted all classes or both Rome and Italy equally. The poor still remained in their ‘slums’ and even his public works were only really accessed …show more content…
This won him great loyalty and admiration from the masses, but it also benefited all Roman citizens serving in the army, regardless of their existing wealth or nationality, meaning even the lower class legionaries from Italy would benefit in the same way their wealthier comrades would have done (although perhaps not to the same extent). With the first few lines of Res Gestae, Augustus tells us of his raising of a veteran army of his adoptive father, using his own wealth, and he continued this financial support of the army, which he knew had won him his Principate, into their retirement. By creating veteran colonies, such as in Camulodunum (modern day Colchester), he ensured the loyalty of his troops with the promise of support after service and he benefitted all of his troops, somewhat equally. All veterans were allotted land and settlement upon their retirement in the last province they had served in, meaning the wealth he passed on to them was redistributed among the provinces, where veterans bought and sold and engaged in economic activity. In the case of veteran settlement, Augustus made sure all veteran legionaries were benefitted, whether from Rome or from other areas of Italy, so long as they held Roman citizenship, something that should be deemed one of his greatest successes, considering the role veteran settlement (or therein lack of) had played in Roman politics before