Arduumresgestasscriber

I suspect there's so many Caesars because... Caesar was a history buff that was in the right place at the right time:D.

1.Cato Major 2.Scipio Africanus 3.Augustus 4.Cladius 5.Seneca Hmm...

I hope not,this has been fun to read.

.......

Even Machiavelli spoke of artillery in contempt in Discourses on Livy(early 16th century), so artillery couldn't have been big in field battles in ancient rome.

Fiscal health? I think the empire was able to conduct large operations because it was more capable and experienced in taking money from the people. Fiscal health from the state's point of view but...

We are also, for good as well as ill, the heirs of the Roman Republic. Had the title not already been taken, I would have called this book Citizens--- for they are its protagnoists, and the tragedy of the Republic's collapse is theirs. The Roman people too, in the end, grew tired of antique virtues, preferring the comforts of easy slavery and peace. Rather bread and circuses than endless internecine wars. As the Romans themselves recognized, their freedom had contained the seeds of its own ruin, a reflection sufficient to inspire much gloomy moralizing under the rule of a Nero or a Domitian. Nor in the centirues since, has it ever lost its power to unsettle. ---Preface, The Last Years of the Roman Republic by Tom Holland Is this true?

BBC Six episodes Ancient Rome: The Rise and Fall of an empire(or something like that) 2006 What's the theme music? It's really nice, but what's the name of it?

A thought just hit me. Perhaps Caesar knew his actions in Gaul were illegal. And wanting to hold on to his ill-gotten gains, made a roll of the dice. Hard to step down when you pay your tens of thousands of men and they swear loyalty to you. 8 years of that is enough to turn anyone's head.

Was this his way of dramatically paving way for his hero Caesar?

No but it showed that he was more of a flipflopping "politician" than we would think most of the time, doesn't it?

I think the only reason why Cicero was not invited to assassinate Caesar was more to do with his personal affiliation with the dictator - the two did seem to get on in this respect. As Cicero greeted Caesar's assassination with delight, I also do not believe Cicero would have ever joined Caesar on a political level. I remember Cicero defended the Triumvirate on one occasion. I think Cicero was quite interested in advancing his own career too no?

I think support doesn't mean unequivocal support. I mean, you would support McCain to get rid of ethanol subsidies, but would you support him if he proposed attacking and levelling Iran?

.........

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6629 There, Cato gives us evidence that "the struggle of the orders" was a more myth than reality before Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon. So WHY did the Nobiles support Caesar?

The fruit of too much liberty is slavery--- Cicero

This sounds like Mommsen again. Since Mommsen's time, new archaeological evidence has shown evidence of widespread smallholdings (aka, peasant farming) before, during, and after (1) the import agreement with Sicily and (2) the Punic Wars. For a systematic look at this issue, see Nate Rosenstein's Rome at War. The idea that the Roman farmer was turning into landless proletarii is the biggest myth of the history of the middle republic (except maybe the one about Rome salting the earth at Carthage). So why were subsidized grains such a big matter in politics in Rome? What were all those people doing in the city if they had small farms?

This sounds like Mommsen again. Since Mommsen's time, new archaeological evidence has shown evidence of widespread smallholdings (aka, peasant farming) before, during, and after (1) the import agreement with Sicily and (2) the Punic Wars. For a systematic look at this issue, see Nate Rosenstein's Rome at War. The idea that the Roman farmer was turning into landless proletarii is the biggest myth of the history of the middle republic (except maybe the one about Rome salting the earth at Carthage). Without defining 'small holding', i.e., keeping body and soul in touch, how can anyone get anywhere here? 23 jugera? One jugera? Tenant farmer? How does one know that this 'new' information, (that is not from primary sources), is nothing more than propaganda? I hope that none will ever have the temerity to use Mommsen as a source, on any matter, again! How am I supposed to know if Mommsen is wrong, oops he was the first one I had the misfortune to pick up on Roman history. So what better ones are there? And where is he mostly wrong?

The Sullan restoration was largely in favor of the nobility and its oligarchy no? Perhaps he felt that aristocrats were "the rule of the best".

Supposedly with cheaper Sicilian grain overflowing the Roman capital, and the Roman farmer turned into landless proles with the majority of the land concentrated inthe hands of the few... What happened to the Romans that went into the city? What did they do there except pander for largesses of grain?

Yea but people like Sulla were diehard Optimates following the path to no end.

So were there no revolutionaries that were "pure of heart" so to speak? So far, in the Populares camp we see: 1) Ambitious people like Caesar using popular support(or buying it rather) for their own purposes 2) Lepidus who defected from his original class due to fear of persecution 3) Demagogues who wanted sway with the masses so they could gain bargaining power with the upper classes and gain a nice living 4) People who were unrefined and despised by the Senate and moneyed elite, like Marius, who was rather forced this way to join the Populares 5) Figures that were more or less neutral but were pushed by the masses to leading the Populares 6) People who were proscribed in the Sullan restoration or whose material interests were harmed by the Optimates and joined the Populares 7) Young ones who wanted to make a name for themselves by bashing the "fat cats" (Add if you can figure out any other type I missed)

It appears Marius was able to use this strategy of blockading off supplies to Rome to great effect.

I could understand how Senators would take bribes, but from a potential enemy of the state? That's sort of... unscrupulous. My book for reference is History of Rome by Theodore Mommsen.

"A more than equivocal character, Publius Cethegus, formerly one of the most zealous Marians, afterwards as a deserter received into favour by Sulla,(4) acted a most influential part in the political doings of this period--unrivalled as a cunning tale-bearer and mediator between the sections of the senate, and as having a statesman's acquaintance with the secrets of all cabals: at times the appointment to the most important posts of command was decided by a word from his mistress Praecia. Such a plight was only possible where none of the men taking part in politics rose above mediocrity: any man of more than ordinary talent would have swept away this system of factions like cobwebs; but there was in reality the saddest lack of men of political or military capacity."---History of Rome by Theodore Mommsen So I'm curious. How would a strong leader have done in such turbulent times and were there any examples in Roman history of such strong leadership?