How well liked was Augustus in his time?

[RedGuard]

basically as the title says, how well was he liked by his contemporaries? It seems hard to believe to me that Rome, an ancient society that prided itself on its independence from kings, so readily accepted its first emperor with open arms. Then again I suppose it was likely that they would be afraid to say so. and I suppose the fact that Antony, Lepidus and Octavian all ordered people to be killed, and after the civil war it was likely that most of the opponents were dead.

[Cyclops]

Well first of all Augustus had a long time, forty years as Augustus. There were a generation and a half of Romans who only knew him as ruler, andc how much he was loved may have changed significantly.

As heir of Julius Caesar, he retained the devotion of a large segment of the army, and IIRC was able to return nominal rule of most provinces and their legions to the Senate simply because he knew the men stationed in those provinces were reliably attached to him and would not join any revolt.

Of course he was the recipient of numerous honorifics, even deification in the east, but popular and unpopular leaders alike could expect those (eg Caligula and Nero , neither of whom, after their initial shine wore off, ruled well or was well liked in Rome or the provinces). Even the grimly competent and personally unattractive Tiberius was deluged with offers of titles which he typically refused.

I think Augustus was appreciated and the peace he brought was loved in general, at first because he ended the bloodshed (by killing all his enemies) and later because he had become a benevolent-seeming fixture, who refused kingship and kept a husk of republican forms to disguise his raw power (which played well in Italy and the West) but wads clearly held absolute power over most of the known world (which played well in the east).

There was the odd wobble in the seeming veneer of popularity: I recall (and wiki confirms) one of Crassus' descendants earned a particular honour, the Spoila opima (for personally defeating an enemy general) but Augustus refused to award it on a technicality. This shows a certain jealousy of honour as well as insecurity. He also seems to have controlled his public image, eg being portrayed as youthful even into his seventies, so his popularity was a result of careful management in great part.

[Caligula's_Horse]

I'm not sure "how well liked" is the question we should be asking. Rome wasn't a democracy, and public opinion surveys wouldn't be invented for many centuries to come, so there are no numbers to go. We can hazard guesses from the accounts of the period, and in that sense, he seemed popular enough (largely because he succeeded Caesar which was popular while he lived, and by comparison to the irrelevant Lepidus and Anthony which sold out to a Ptolemic Egypt), but its no sure thing.
Given how long his rule was, its also fairly certain that his popularity swayed over time.

A better question would be "was his rule challenged", which we can answer a fair bit better, and is more relevant anyway. The answer being, no real challenge after the civil war, where his primary political opposition was removed.
It helped that Augustus fought the war partially on the Senate's behalf; while its hard to judge the feelings of the average man on the street, we do know that the Senate at least was hostile to Anthony. Augustus was also well aware of how bad a king would look, and therefore took the reigns of power with great care, making sure to among other things preserve the Senate (while greatly diminishing its power) and to adopt the title of Principate rather then king or dictator for life; wise PR moves.

By that time, I believe it was also obvious to your average Roman aristocrat that the Republic was unsustainable. First Sulla, then Caesar, then Augustus, each which came accompanied by a civil war. They probably figured it was better to just have an imperial line and stick with it, rather then default to a republic and face a civil war every time a general gets too full of himself (which ended up happening anyway under the Empire, just later and less often).

[empr guy]

Augustus really liked to pretend he was just a good citizen leading the country, because he was the best man for the job and for no other reason. From what I've read it seems like he put a lot of effort into keeping the senate and old offices actually doing their jobs (of course they went along with whatever he said), and they granted powers to him for all his accomplishments which would make sense to Romans.

He actually had quite a few people killed himself, but after the second triumvirate he had control of basically the entire army, like 40+ somewhat experienced legions, no one in their right mind was going to challenge him in the field. Additionally everyone saw what happened once Caesar was assassinated, another civil war with another dictator. I think realistically his early appeal came from bringing an end to all the civil wars that had been plaguing the republic, even once emperor he avoided costly wars, like a campaign against parthia. After that he launched a pretty good propaganda campaign painting himself as the best thing that ever happened to Rome, and he ended up the most publicly awarded citizen ever by the time he was like 50, which probably reinforced that perception to the common people. He also gave out gifts of money to every male citizen every so often as well as constant building projects which meant a lot of jobs, so i'd be surprised if the average peasant didn't legitimately like him.

[Roma_Victrix]

I can almost guarantee that his popularity, at least among the upper and middle classes, would have been at its lowest when in 43 BC he and Antony were engaging in the lawless partisan manhunt of the proscriptions against those of the senatorial and equatorial classes they deemed as outlaws against the state. It was, of course, a shameless cleaning of house for political enemies as well as a means to acquire more revenue via stolen property of those that fled or lost their lives due to this. It was one of the more cold and calculated decisions he ever made and it was very early on. After the defeat of Antony and throughout his reign you see a far greater restraint when it comes to resorting to violence to settle things. He did, however, push forward with amassing more and more constitutional powers for himself. Since no one really dared to challenge his authority, there wasn't much of a reason for him to go hunting people down. Seeing how he wasn't a sociopath, he obviously didn't just do that for fun.

[Joseon194]

I think Augustus knew what his position was early on in his life and he had a good grasp of what to do make sure he would maintain his position and raise it higher. He was the heir to Julius Caesar and he knew the magnitude of that title and what he could do with it. He proved himself to the legions early on in his career and helped solidify his position as it would for other subsequent upstarts in the later empire. While it is true that the idea of a public opinion did not exist at this point, the public did like him because of the ending of the civil war and the strife that had plagued the twilight years of the Republic. Strife such as that affects the common people more than anyone and if they knew that that era was coming to an end, they would have showered anyone with adoration that had ended it (ie Octavian). Augustus has been lauded by many historians to be a very shrewd and calculating politician and he knew that he would have had to have all his bases covered to make sure that his power would not sway that easily. I would like to believe that he rarely made any mistakes on the chessboard that was the politics of the SPQR and that he was well aware of what he needed to do to make sure he stayed in power and that required plebeian support.

[G-Megas-Doux]

Octavian was a rich military dictator when Rome had a huge population of urban poor. He would feed them with his grain dole and entertain them with his games and circuses. The excess poor found work in the Legion and the veterans were then settled away from Rome and in many colonies. Thus he did not have disenfranchised veterans on the door step. He was not necessarily popular think of him as the local crime boss. If he was doing something useful for someone then they tolerated him and were glad they could take advantage of his grace. If he was unable to perform in his duties people began to show unrest. The only thing that mattered was what was affecting the man on the street at any one time. Provinces with well run urban centres needed little military presence and were run by supporters of Octavian who did not rock the boat. Provinces that did require a military presence were under Octavian's special Pro Consular authority with his most trusted followers delegated to lead the resident garrisons far away from Rome where a real military threat prevented those Legates from leaving.

Octavian was not popular he merely anesthetised the populace and neutralised his threats. There were occasional times of civil unrest around the turn of the millennium when the Illyrians and the Germans were causing problems and there were problems when the grain shipments were not arriving, otherwise people were more content than appreciative.

[Marcus Aemilius Lepidus]

At least at the end people were reliefed that he was finally dead, but that is something were common for rulers with such a long reign. People generally at such occasion wait for a new fresh start. It was the same with Frederik II the Great or Louis XIV. As for popularity people already mentione the first half of his reigns were he was quite cruelsome often beyond necessary measures. If you look for someone who was really popular you have to look at Germanicus. He was the perfect prince and was long reminded as such what we can recoqnize in many monuments. Even Caligula was more popular than Augustus, the people actually loved him and when he was murdered it was actually a senatorical group which initiated it and they were in immiate danger to be killed by the plebs afterwards because the people were so angry, which gives some insight weather Caligula was really such a bad ruler.

[G-Megas-Doux]

There is a difference between modern times and ancient time. In ancient times people liked the ruler if they were left alone to do what they wanted to do with little interference. In modern times people detest rulers for perceived inconsistencies and ethical failings. Caligula was popular with the people because he didn't abuse them, he abused his social circle which was the patricians and their households. As such the plebs on the streets couldn't care less, either they had heard only rumours or they had no knowledge of his actions and no negative experience. Octavian had a very real impact on his own generation and everyone was affected by his direct actions because he actually ruled them. He was responsible for the food, the citizen role, laws, the army. So was Caligula but Octavian was exceptionally active and forceful with his rulings. Caligula was unfocused and whimsical. This whimsy meant that laws changed but not systematically and thus only few people experienced extraordinary punishment outside of the aristocracy.