What historians think about Augustus Caesar?

There are three categories for historians and their source material:

Primary: ancient historians existed at the time of the event

Secondary: ancient historians existed after the event and analysed/used primary sources

modern: Modern historaians who use either of the above

majority of the primary sources do not criticize Augustus and idolize him, in contrast some secondary sources like Tacitus hate Augustus

Overall however it is agreed(by many modern historians) that Augustus was emperor because of his freinds Marcus vipsanius Agrippa and Gaius Maecanus.

The primary sources(historians) were either sychophantic or terrified of persecution by Augustus, the Secondary sources are also biased because they were hired by patrons with vested interests in Augustus's depiction.

In short thereare a range of views all with their own bias.