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.
他登上王位, 開始了史上最偉大的帝國之一, 也終止了最早的共和政體之一。 羅馬的第一任皇帝 到底是位有遠景的領導人, 保障了他的文明在歷史上的地位, 還是一位暴君, 摧毀了他的文明的核心價值?
Order, order. The defendant today is Gaius Octavius?
來「歷史 v.s. 奧古斯都」尋找答案。 秩序,秩序。
Gaius Julius Caesar/Augustus...
今天的被告是屋大維·圖里努斯?
Do we have the wrong guy?
- 蓋烏斯·尤利烏斯·凱撒 - 蓋烏斯·奧古斯都……
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.
我們有抓錯人嗎? 沒抓錯,庭上。 蓋烏斯·屋大維,公元前 63 年生, 是尤利烏斯·凱撒的甥孫。 他變成蓋烏斯·尤利烏斯·凱撒, 因他被指定為 他舅公的養子和繼承人。 在公元前 27 年, 他取得了奧古斯都這個稱號,
You mean when he established sole authority and became emperor of Rome.
這是元老院授予他的額外榮耀。
Is that bad? Didn’t every place have some king or emperor back then?
你是指,當他建立了 唯一的權威並成為羅馬的皇帝。 那不好嗎?
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.
在那個時代,不是每個地方 都有某種國王或皇帝嗎? 其實,庭上, 在數個世紀前,羅馬人 就推翻了他們的君王, 建立了共和體制, 政府的目的在服務人民, 而不是讓單一家族有統治的特權。
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.
而屋大維摧毀了這項傳統。 屋大維是位模範公僕。 16 歲時,他被選入祭司團體, 負責監督宗教崇拜。 在伊伯利亞半島,他為羅馬打仗, 和他的舅公凱撒並肩而戰, 並接下了為凱撒之死復仇的責任, 那時,元老院中腐敗的 寡頭政治執政者
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.
背叛並謀殺了凱撒。 凱撒一直都是個渴望權力的暴君, 他試圖要讓自己成王, 還與埃及女王克利歐佩特拉廝混。 在他死後, 屋大維加入了他的將軍 馬克·安東尼, 展開內戰,這場內戰分裂了羅馬,
Antony was a fool. He waged a disastrous campaign in Parthia and plotted to turn Roman territories into personal kingdoms for himself and Cleopatra.
接著他又暗算了他的盟友, 來增加自己的權力。 安東尼是個傻子。 他在巴底亞發動一場災難性的戰役, 密謀要把羅馬的領土轉為
Isn’t that what Caesar had been accused of?
他和克利歐佩特拉的個人王國。
Well...
那不就是大家指控凱撒的罪名嗎?
So Octavius destroyed Antony for trying to become a king and then became one himself?
嗯…… 因為安東尼想要成為王, 所以屋大維摧毀了他,
That’s right. You can see the megalomania even in his adopted title – "The Illustrious One."
接著屋大維自己卻又成了王? 沒錯。從他採用的頭銜都可以看出 他的權慾熏心──「顯赫者」。
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.
那是個宗教的敬語。 奧古斯都並不是為了 他自己而尋求權力。 身為內戰的勝利者 及大部分軍隊的指揮官, 他有責任要恢復羅馬的法律和秩序, 這樣其他的派別才不會繼續抗戰。
He didn’t restore the law - he made it subordinate to him!
他並沒有恢復法律── 他讓法律服從他!
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.
不是這樣的。 奧古斯都努力恢復元老院的名望, 為低階層的人改善糧食安全, 並辭去他的執政官職務, 放棄軍隊的控制權。
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.
那只是表面。 他用他在軍中的影響力 和個人的財富來搞鬼, 讓元老院站在他這一邊, 同時還保留著護民官的權力, 以及慶祝軍事勝利的權利。 他持續用大部分的軍團來控制各省。 那樣似乎還不夠, 他又再擔任執政官的職務兩次, 來拉拔他的孫子們。 很顯然他是在試圖建立一個王朝。
But what did he do with all that power?
但他有那麼多權力要做什麼?
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.
庭上,很高興你問了。 奧古斯都的成就太多了,無法列舉。 他為各省建立了一致的稅法, 終結了地方稅務官員的私人剝削。 他個人也出資打造道路網, 並僱用信差, 讓新聞和士兵 都能在王國內輕鬆通行。 在奧古斯都的領導下, 建立了許多羅馬的知名建築。
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.
那時的作家幾乎全都 一致讚賞他的統治。 作家有其他的選擇嗎? 奧古斯都以模糊的指控 流放了很多人, 包括奧維德, 羅馬最偉大的詩人之一。 你忘了提到關於公民 個人生活的侵入性法律── 懲罰通姦, 限制跨社會階級的婚姻,
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.
甚至對持續未婚者罰款。 他是在試著提升全體公民 並逐漸帶來紀律。 且他成功了。 他的遺產自己會說話: 40 年的內部穩定, 一支專業軍隊, 向各個方向擴展羅馬的邊界,
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.
後世也記得這個政府 是公民道德的典範。 他的遺產是一個帝國, 在這個帝國垮台之前, 會持續發動無止境的征戰, 另一項遺產則是軍事獨裁的傳統。 每當有一個穿著將軍制服的 獨裁者做出暴行, 卻聲稱那是為了「人民」,
So you’re saying Augustus was a good emperor, and you’re saying there’s no such thing?
那就是奧古斯都·凱撒的功勞。 所以你的意思是, 奧古斯都是個好皇帝,
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.
而你的意思是,沒這回事? 我們很習慣去讚頌歷史上的領導者, 稱讚他們的成就和勝利。 但如果要回到源頭問一個問題: 一個人是否該有這麼大的權力?