Question

how was Reagan and Augustus similar?

Answer 1

Help?

Answer 2

Well, they were both men. Both leaders of their nations at difficult times. Beyond that, it's difficult.

Reagan's biggest gifts as a leader were, first, a clear and powerful personal philosophy. He had certain principles in which he believed, and unlike most leaders who rise to prominence, he didn't really care whether wealthy and powerful interests, such as the media, other government leaders, or wealthy donors to his own (or the opposition's) political party felt. He was perfectly capable of telling them all to go to heck when what they wanted or feared disagreed with his philosophy.

Hence, when media and Democratic politicians told him he was going to destroy the world in nuclear fire if he continued to press the USSR hard, he ignored them. And, of course, he was completely right, and the world is now free of the scourge of the Cold War thanks to him. It's worth noting that he had to tell major Republican donors to buzz off, beause many of they also wanted to pursue the Nixon/Kissinger route of detente, arms treaties, summits and so forth. (It should be kept in mind that the continual state of Cold War was very good for many interests, including -- on the Republican side -- those who manufactured weapons, and -- on the Democratic side -- those who reported news on international crises, or summits, treaties, et cetera. Many people's jobs were downsized or lost when the Cold War ended, and they could hardly have been expected to have been neutral about that.)

His second gift was his ability to speak plainly and connect with the typical American voter. He was extraordinarily unpopular with the media and with many other government leaders -- but he won resounding election victories, because the typical American voter liked him, felt he (Reagan) understood him (the voter). Indeed, the trust went both ways: Reagan was more likely to trust the typical voter than another politician, or a journalist.

I am not sure whether Octavian was a gifted speaker: he must have been at least somewhat, because in his day you really needed to rally the troops personally. Furthermore, Octavian was working with a society torn apart, in the middle of civil strife if not revolution, and Reagan had nothing like that level of chaos. Reagan could count on orderly social institutions functioning, while Octavian had to persuade people to do pretty much everything he wanted done. So he must have been pretty good at public speaking.

But I strongly suspect Octavian's greatest gifts were, first, as a military general -- he successfully beat on the battlefield the other claimants to Caesar's dictatorship -- and, second, as a strategizer in court intrigue, because he was able to form and then discard alliances with other powerful figures in such a way that he skated atop, successful, every time, while others took turns being ascendant and then falling into ruin.

Neither of these really applies to Reagan. He had no need for court intrigue, because he vaulted in one election from nobody -- a former governor -- to President in one leap, and then afterward there wasn't a lot of need to intrigue. To be sure, he had to work with Congress, particularly Democratic Speaker Tip O'Neill, to get anything done, and he was indeed good at that kind of wheeling and dealing. So that's some similarity.

And Reagan's abilities as a military general were never tested. The only wars the US fought were those in which it had overwhelming advantage. If anything, Reagan's generalship could be called into question by the ignominious retreat of the Marines from Lebanon after the suicide bombing of their barracks killed 200+ of them. There's no getting around the fact that this was a terrible performance by Reagan as C in C.