Search the Community

What do you think about Caesar's storytelling ambitions? Did anyone read something made by Caesar? We all know several quotes made by himself, and we even learn it in schools. So, do you think his oral ambition helped him in ruling the empire? http://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/veni-vidi-scripsi-literary-conquests-gaius-julius-caesar-009060

Imperator - Originally meaning 'general' or 'commander-in-chief' but it evolved under the Principate into being synonymous with ruling, leading to our word emperor. Praetorian (Guy De La Beyodere) The name of "imperator" is held by them all for life, not only by those who have won victories in battle, but also by those who have not, in token of their independent authority, and this has displaced the titles of "King" and "Dictator". These last titles they have never assumed since the time they first fell out of use in the conduct of the government, but the functions of these offices are secured to them under the appellation of "imperator." Roman History Book 53 (Cassius Dio) Imperial Rome was still the Roman Republic, just the same old SPQR but with single person leadership accepted. There was no actual change of regime and indeed, Augustus had promised as a young man to the Senate that he would protect the Republic when Cicero persuaded them to make his army of Caesar's veterans legal. A more radical change perhaps, but as historian Michael Grant pointed out, Rome had always had an impressive record of change when it suited them. In any case, 'republic' means a form of government to us. Not to the Romans, it meant res publica, For The People, or the obligation of privilege to care for those without. It was the loss of that civic duty that Roman writers would later bemoan, not the loss of a particular regime. People make a big deal of the so-called emperors, but no Roman ever called himself that. Here’s the thing - the latin word imperator meant ‘victorious general’. It was originally used as a salute from the soldiers to generals who won battles and campaigns, a spontaneous military honour. After Augustus won the civil war against Antony & Cleopatra, he made ‘Imperator’ part of his name, to acknowledge his war hero status. Because he wanted to retain that military honour as well as owning the highest level licence to lead armies (imperium maia), he had the name Imperator renewed legally at regular intervals, something like twenty times over his lifetime. It did not confer any power or authority itself, although the word was derived from the latin verb imperare “to command” as was appropriate to Roman legions. Roman leaders preferred this title above all others for two reasons, firstly because Romans loved military glory and stressed its importance, and secondly, because Augustus had used it and so they felt as stepping into his leadership role they too had every right, even those without military victories to qualify (though some imperators later went on campaign to justify the title). But there’s a problem. Rome was a society based on ideas of free will and self determination, and if you command a civilian, then you enslave him - Cassius Dio especially underlines that theme in his writing. The ability to make your own decisions was fundamental to your humanity, and being unable to make your own decisions meant you were a slave, equal to an animal in status. So it was tyranny if you commanded ordinary citizens. That was why Roman leaders did not issue personal directives to society at large but made laws in republican fashion to control the public. Now, if we fast forward to the medieval world and beyond, we find that surviving Roman texts name the Roman leaders of the imperial period as ‘imperator’ and knowing what that word meant, it surely described a monarch? This was after all an era that began with actual experience of the eastern Roman Empire in its last days. That was why the modern word Emperor evolved. So our popular concept today of the ‘Roman Emperor’ is in fact based on a form that rulers of the Roman world had finally developed into, not as they began. Augustus had absolute control in Egypt, reserved as his personal province where the Senate could not legally go. He had control by proxy over regions with military garrisons. The rest of the Empire remained under Senatorial oversight, using self rule in loyal tribute, but with Augustus in the position of Princeps Senatus “First Senator” which made him more manager than monarch. The Senate began ignoring the democratic side of Roman politics - why ask the plebs questions to vote on when we can ask our leader? In fact Augustus went to some effort to reform the Senate for efficient government, which turned out to be a lifetime mission. So Augustus was in a senior position, hugely powerful thanks to his collection of privileges, but not a direct ruler. Nor did he want to be. As tradition demanded he returned his emergency power to the Senate and People of Rome after Antony died. He thought of giving up active politics at that point, so Suetonius records, because he recognised he was in a position to seize control of Rome, and he was more republican minded than that. It was fine to be powerful if you were a Triumvir, a council of three reformers, but as the only remaining triumvir, he was on less secure ground. He refused demands from the public to become Dictator. He refused proposed senatorial law to make him Dictator. He would later deny that he was ever Dictator at all. Yes, but critics claim, he had tribunician veto. He could stop any law if he wanted surely? Actually, no. One of the limitations of the Republic was that power was limited by provincia. No, not provinces, it meant areas of responsibility. Had Augustus vetoed everything in the Senate, not only would government have been impossible, he would be labelled as a tyrant and dealt with. His tribunician veto applied to preventing the aristocracy from abusing the common people. No other reason was legal, although Augustus felt obliged to veto Senate debate for seven years toward the end of his reign - but that wasn’t for his own power, it was a last all out attempt to get the Senate to behave and stop knifing each other in petty squabbles. An irresponsible government could hardly govern the plebeians responsibly. He relented just before he died when the Senate settled down after seven years of thwarted argument. And sole absolute ruler? Well, having learned his powers were wide ranging and respectable but not absolute, we also discover that Augustus shared his power as any good republican might. Marcus Agrippa received the very same powers that Augustus enjoyed, running Rome for a total of nine years in the absence of his friend. And his nominated successor, Tiberius, also received the same powers in order that precedent would be both observed and peacefully passed on. Augustus knew full well the risks of civil war if he did not ensure some sort of arrangement was made. So Augustus was Princeps Senatus (First Senator), Princeps (First Citizen), Pater Patriae (Father of the Nation), Imperator (Victorious General), and a few other titles, but never Emperor. However, when Caligula ascended to power, he had other ideas, and notably it was usually the younger Imperatores who thought the stuffy old Senate was an impediment to their personal rule. Those who cooperated with the Senate usually did better. But the power of the Senate did decline, either by their own compliance with military power, imperial influence and inheritance, or their own unwillingness to stand as a united body, until Diocletian declared his word was law, at which point he was legally commanding citizens and the Senate was no longer the de facto Roman government (though it was hardly that anyway by that time). Nonetheless, whilst those later Roman rulers were as close to monarchs as they would ever get, they still observed the Senate, still accepted republican style powers, and still preserved SPQR to the very end in the west. And the Senate survived them by at least a century.

I have a question that I can never seem to find an answer to. How, especially during the civil wars, were armies raised outside Rome? For example, I read that Brutus and Pompey gathered an army in Greece to face off against Caesar. What I want to know is where did those legionaries come from? Were they living in Greece? In a colonia? Did they side with Brutus ideologically and travel from Italy to Greece? Were they actually Greeks and not Romans at all? If so, why would they get involved?

I am privileged to interview Dr. Francesco Galassi on behalf of UNRV. He and his co-author Huton Ashrafian wrote the interesting and thought-provoking book, “Julius Caesar’s Disease: A new Diagnosis.” Guy S. für UNRV: Dr. Galassi, how did you become interested in the study of paleopathology (the study of ancient diseases in man and animals)? More specifically, what inspired you to reevaluate the health of Julius Caesar? ...continue to the interview with Francesco Galassi! Thanks @guy and Francesco

The book titled "The Assasination of Julius Caesar" by Michael Parenti, makes for compelling reading. It provides a detailed account of the events leading up to, and including, the fatefull Ides of March. Written from what I can only term a modern day "plebian" perspective, Parenti separates the book into chapters which compliment each other. They range in subject from discussions about Caesar the Popularis, to Cicero.....the conservative but brilliant orator who's position at the time was certainly anti Caesar, and whose same position has been adopted time and time again by historians ever since those fatefull days of the late republic... ...read the full review of The Assassination Of Julius Caesar by Michael Parenti

At the moment I am doing research for a personal study on, what extent the Roman warlords were responsible for the fall of the republic. The specific time period I am looking into is from around 133BC (with the Gracchi reforms) to 23BC (Early Years of Augustus’ Reign) I would be grateful of any information or views of this area you could provide me with, even a reading list would be massively beneficial. The thing that will be of greatest importance to me is views and opinions on who or what was responsible for fall of the Republic.

There it was again - Another flicker of light. What on earth is going on? Curiosity got the better of me and I opened the back window last night to try and see what was causing that phenomenon. It was a pretty ordinary evening. Not too cold, perhaps a bit damp, and apart from the odd swish of a passing car, or the flitter of a bat to and fro, nothing stirred. The local cat was making its way home across the yard, a sign that the foxes were coming out to play. Then I realised what those strange flickers were. Far away to the west a thunderstorm was in progress, too far away for thunder to be heard. Normally our vision is very limited in stormy weather and we only get a more immediate and dramatic experience. It just so happened there wasn't much cloud to impede the firework display, and that's the first time I've ever seen such a distant storm in this country. What a fascinating and surreal sight. Close Quarter Battle Has anyone seen this series about special forces and military tactics? Generally it's quite informative if not exactly gripping, but I had to laugh at the reconstruction of a French Foreign Legion attack on an airfield. They couldn't afford blanks and had to add barrel flashes with some cheesy special effects. Naturally. Tantrum of the Week "What gives him the right to use that title?" screeched some lady at the library earlier today, clearly outraged that her socialist sympathies were being ignored by legal rights and thousands of years of tradition and custom. Off with my head? Not around here lady. There's been a few people muttering darkly just lately. Not that it makes any difference. I'm entitled ,you see, and that's all there is to it.