Childress

As you can see, different people. Yikes. Of course, Marius was born in the 2nd century BC, thus no possible connection. I'm reading that the other Trebonius (no praenomen?) figured in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

There was an interesting case regarding a legionary called Trebonius, who was subject to attempted seduction by an officer related to Gaius Marius. Was that the same Trebonius who was one of the conspirators and executed following the assassination of Caesar? If Caesar was indeed bisexual (doubtful) or homosexual (preposterous) he has company among some modern commanders. Baron von Steuben, an adept commander during the Revolutionary War, was prosecuted for his homosexuality. Washington was fully aware of his sexual proclivities. In a dispatch: “He appears to be much of a gentleman and as far as I have had an opportunity of judging, a man of military knowledge, and acquainted with the world.” Perhaps, the most eminent example is Frederick the Great who, as a commander, richly deserves the title "Great". Rumors of his homosexuality were rampant but never conclusively proved. Macauley wrote that Frederick was prone to "vices from which history averts her eyes, and which even Satire blushes to name." Keep in mind, the great historian was a product of the strait-laced Victorian era. And let us not pass over Hadrian, he merits a thread on his own. In contrast to Caesar, his propensities were not in doubt.

Caesar's alleged trysts with the King of Bithynia caused wagging tongues. Were the rumors true? It's unknowable at this distance of time but the gossip was, indeed, persistent. Until the arrival of Christianity, homosexuality in Rome was generally ho-hum provided the practitioner did not play the passive role. That was the very accusation brought by the gossipy historian, Suetonius, who claimed Caesar would wear a ladies’ outfit to please the king. The verdict: Given the source, unlikely, but the hearsays stick to him like flypaper.

Caesar's career strikingly parallels that of John Kennedy; both were notoriously promiscuous (1) and both "bonked" the most glamourous women of their era, Cleopatra and Marylin Monroe. Their rise was due to military exploits: Caesar's conquest of Gaul and Kennedy's heroism during the Pacific War. Both men were assassinated, in dramatic fashion, followed by lavish and emotional funerals.

Re: Caesar the rockstar. How popular was he? His military victories, dear to Romans, were skilfully promoted via his dispatches from the front. Ordinary citizens adored him but the Senate, not so much, although he did ally with Pompey and Crassus. Despite his power grabs, that body would posthumously grant him the title Divine Julius, making him the first historical Roman to be deified. But Caesar's support was essentially based on the common people, the disenfranchised (peregrines, for example), and, above all, his veterans. For many he died a martyr, hence his grieving funeral. When [Caesar's father-in-law] Piso brought Caesar's body into the Forum, a huge number of armed men gathered to guard it. It was laid with lavish pomp and cries of mourning on the rostra, whereupon wailing and lamentation arose again for a long time, and the armed men clashed their weapons, and very soon people began to change their minds about the amnesty. -Livius.org Pure delirium. I submit his charisma has endured to the present day.

The Republic didn't go anywhere. Augustus propped it up Republic light? Or simply Primus inter pares? On second thought, calling Augustus a "Dictator" was unjust. A (very) simplistic summation of the three cited in the OP:Constantine was a thug with a visionAugustus raised cunning to the highest art of statesmanshipCaesar was a rockstar

Last year, the Ancient History site ranked the Top 10 Roman emperors. They did award Augustus #1, properly I think. However, their list stressed military and cultural achievements rather than millennial resonance. https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/rom ... ient-rome/For what it's worth, here's my ranking:1- Augustus2- Constantine (A close call)3- Caesar

Caesar, the lover of Cleopatra, was clearly the most charismatic of the three. He has been the subject of countless history books, films, and novels and he would lend his name to Kaisers, Tsars, as well as, several Islamic rulers. Boundlessly ambitious, he left his mark; as a commander of men, he was unequaled during his era. But was the destroyer of the Republic equal to his enormous fame? His political heirs would establish the Principate but republican government in Rome was already beginning to totter during his lifetime. Caesar's most important feat- this essay submits- was the conquest of Gaul, the territories he conquered there were to remain under Roman rule for five centuries. That single accomplishment ensured the security of the Empire by deterring attacks from the north as well as forming the important province that later became France.Augustus, the true founder of the Roman Empire, realized that the political chaos following the murder of Caesar could not continue, he sensed citizens were wearied with the unending turmoil and factions. As long as the facade of a republic continued they were, over time, became content with a benevolent dictator. Although ruthless during his struggle to the top, Augustus was surprisingly conciliatory once he achieved power. A wizard of symbolism and political imagery, he reorganized the government allowing (mostly) internal peace and prosperity for two centuries. Augustus' military ability, though not of the caliber of Caesar or Alexander, has been underestimated; his conquests were extensive and enduring. As a founder, he might be compared with George Washington but his influence was considerably larger given the enormous importance of the Roman Empire in world history.The 4th-century emperor, Constantine, reunited the Roman Empire under his rule after a series of civil wars. He would play a major role in the establishment of Christianity, his decrees enabled a persecuted sect to become the official state religion (1). His policies in that arena would prove to be game-changing, but there's more. He rebuilt the city of Byzantium, renamed Constantinople, which became one of the great cities of the world. More significantly, he introduced laws that made certain occupations hereditary and restricted farmers to their lands; thus he may be considered one of the fathers of feudalism.1- It appears the spiritual aspect of Christianity completely eluded Constantine; he was ruthless and cruel. For reasons unclear, he had his wife and son executed.

I mean, I'm well educated As is yours truly, at a once prestigious institution in the late 70s that is now sunk in Woke philosophy. Those with practical degrees- STEM, prominently- are less likely to aspire to government posts. In the US the number of Liberal Arts graduates soared after WW2 thanks to the GI bill (and ambitious parents?) but that trend is now losing favor so one might expect a diminution of those chasing state employments in the future. Or not, the emoluments remain enticing and job security is ironclad guarded by aggressive unions. This is happening all over the West.

To what end? Roman politics was always an activity that required qualification via previous achievement of some sort. The university was a conveyer belt to the Roman administration, Those sheepskins came in handy; there were just so many rhetors and grammarians to go around. I've aired my 'elite education' theory on several sites over the years as a major cause of Rome's downfall but most (not all) of the responses were either baffled or hostile. I now know feel how Sisyphus felt the eternal punishment of forever rolling a boulder up a hill in the depths of Hades. So you're in good company. it wasn't unusual for speakers to pull open their togas and point out war wounds to demonstrate their commitment to Rome. Political speaking was quite theatrical by the way. Slapping thighs, demonstrative gestures, they put on quite a performance of ham acting in order to liven their speeches. Hilarious! Great stuff.

True, it's futile to speak of universities in the modern sense; in the ancient world, there were simply masters and paying students. However, the groupings could be sizeable and outstanding professors might win celebrity status. The trajectory of Augustine's teaching career is informative; it illustrates the impressive extent of the academic world within the Roman Empire. Augustine taught grammar at Thagaste during 373 and 374. The following year he moved to Carthage to conduct a school of rhetoric and remained there for the next nine years. Disturbed by unruly students in Carthage, he moved to establish a school in Rome, where he believed the best andthe brightest rhetoricians practiced, in 383. However, Augustine was disappointed with the apathetic reception. It was the custom for students to pay their fees to the professor on the last day of the term, and many students attended faithfully all term and then did not pay. Manichaean friends [Augustine became a Christian later] introduced him to the prefect of the City of Rome, Symmachus, who had been asked by the imperial court at Milan to provide a rhetoric professor. Augustine won the job and headed north to take his position in Milan in late 384. Thirty years old, he had won the most visible academic position in the Latin world at a time when such posts gave ready access to political careers. -Wiki "...when such posts gave ready access to political careers." Think about that.

A controversial proposal, for sure. Putnam and other sociologists found that when companies 'diversify' their employees they're much less vulnerable to strikes and wage demands. Atomization ensues, the workers fail to put up a unified front. True, the strong Roman culture was able to absorb disparate ethnicities and religions for a considerable time. As the Empire grew in power the citizen became smaller, gradually losing his voting rights. Augustus sensed Romans were weary with the constant political turmoil and were ready to accept a benevolent despot, provided the pretense of democratic rule continued. Candidates in Rome still offered themselves for government posts but these were now hand-picked by Augustus. However, competitive elections continued outside of Rome as witnessed in the political slogans painted on the walls of Pompeii. It didn't last.

You added a potpourri- and legitimate- of causes to explain Rome's fall. I'll add diversity; following the Republic became a polyglot entity, the sense of a unified race was lost. A diverse nation over time becomes a submissive nation, ripe for tyranny: divide et impera. (See Robert Putnam on diversity) For many, the fall of the Roman Empire leaves them with an agonizing sense of loss. In their minds they re-run different scenarios envisioning a different outcome but, as you said, Rome was a victim of its own success. Similarly, some regret the end of the Byzantine Empire at the hands of the Turks; if only the city walls had held! The earlier austerity had long since gone, along with the hardened attitudes it engendered. People paid lip service to Rome's love affair with martial values. Once this had been a driving force in politics and diplomacy. By the later empire, it was becoming an idea that was beloved in theory but quietly avoided at all costs in favour of a comfortable life. Their time had come.

That's what Gibbon believed. In his works, he pointed to the rise of Christianity and its effect on the Roman psyche; that religion, with its meekness, neutered the Roman martial ardor. The clergy successfully preached the doctrines of patience and pusillanimity; the active virtues of society were discouraged; and the last remains of military spirit were buried in the cloister.... Was he right? Obviously, later Christian nations proved him wrong. However, at that time the new religion was perceived as a dissident element. Remember, Gibbon was a child of the Enlightenment, an era often hostile to Christianity. I proposed that the rise of an overpowering bureaucracy in Rome was, at least in part, the result of the heedless expansion of universities. Christianity created, over time, a parallel bureaucracy, absorbing much of the highly educated.

Academic inflation was not the only cause of Rome's decline. There was the religion issue. (Dear to Gibbon) During his reign Augustus encouraged the observance of and loyalty to the old Roman religion; he appeared to grasp the symbiotic relationship between religion on one hand and fertility and morality on the other. Disturbed by the increasing childlessness among the higher classes, he passed laws encouraging marriage and the production of children as well as criminalizing adultery. These enjoyed, at best, a transitory success. The rather arid pagan faith had always been more ceremonial than emotional. And it was vulnerable; Greek philosophers and playwrights had been undermining or ridiculing paganism since the time of Socrates and before. Shrines! Shrines! Surely you don't believe in the gods. What's your argument? Where's your proof?― Aristophanes, The KnightsThese elite attitudes eventually traveled to Rome, discrediting the state religion, first among the educated then the masses but religion appears to abhor a vacuum. Well before the Principate of Augustus, numerous foreign imports were already competing in Rome, among them Cybele, Isis, and Mithra- all intensely emotional. The monotheistic rigor of Judaism posed difficulties for Roman policy at times leading to intractable conflict. (Jews began to arrive in Italy following the destruction of the Temple) . Christianity, a vigorous proselytizing offshoot of Judaism, first appeared in Rome in the mid- 1st century. The Augustan peace and the expansion of an efficient road network contributed to the rapid expansion of that upstart religion throughout the empire; St Paul, with his countless missionary travels, was a beneficiary. A religious movement claiming exclusivity and intransigent doctrines can foster fanaticism and the newly converted Christians were willing to die for their faith. Roman armies had earlier encountered Jewish fanaticism during the Siege of Jerusalem but, within the City, this was something new, baffling. The initial reaction was fierce, persecutions ensued. But these failed in the end; potential soldiers joined monastic orders, religious establishments challenged imperial bureaucracies, rival Christian sects battled in the streets, emperors converted to the new faith.We know now that mature Christianity is compatible with the most advanced societies. However, in Ancient Rome, early Christianity appears to have been a destabilizing factor. @Caldrail. I wouldn't accept the rationale behind this post. Do you acknowledge that Rome became, through the centuries, increasingly bureaucratized? Gibbon did. If so, how? Were there no repercussions? @LegateLivius. Go read The True Believer and you will see how much education and the elitist intellectuals both destroyed and ensured the survival of the Roman Empire. Hoffer is one of my gurus, you have good taste.