Did Caesar Ultimately

[Vespasion]

I've been searching through the topics for a while and haven't seen a topic discussing this.

 

In my oppinion Gaius Julius Caesar ultimatly signed the Empires death warrant. My reason for this is that:

 

Towards the end of the empire, the emperors became increasingly scared of being overthrown by a popular general and often due to this fear had the most promising generals killed.Therefore if Caesar hadn't overthrown the republic, the generals would not have been hunted down as traitors but have been given consulships in which to expand the empire and bring Roman rule to barbarian nations; also as a republic, in my oppinion Rome would have been in a better position to deal with invading hordes.

 

Thanks.

[P.Clodius]

Towards the end of the empire, the emperors became increasingly scared of being overthrown by a popular general....

 

This is indeed true. However, this was not unique to Imperial times. Look at Scipio's spectacular fall from grace.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think in order for an ancient Republic to be able to administer an empire so huge, it would had to have altered its function in ways impossible to accomplish, and in ways which would be more ruinous than a centralized imperial system. You really don't want someone governing Aegyptus or having control of the eastern legions who got into his position because he was good with manipulating the vote in Rome. The republic's biggest disease was the wrong people getting into the wrong jobs all the time due to family connections or bad politis. Of course there was nepotism in the empire, but I don't think it was as prone to error under most emperors.

 

If Julius Caesar was responsible for the fall of the empire it sure took a long time to mature.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Favonius Cornelius

[Spurius]

Here is a discussion on the fall of the Republic. It has some good points and shows the diversity of opinion on this subject here in UNRV.

 

There might be some good discussion points to bring back up from that topic for this topic.

[Sextus Roscius]

I've been searching through the topics for a while and haven't seen a topic discussing this.

 

In my oppinion Gaius Julius Caesar ultimatly signed the Empires death warrant. My reason for this is that:

 

Towards the end of the empire, the emperors became increasingly scared of being overthrown by a popular general and often due to this fear had the most promising generals killed.Therefore if Caesar hadn't overthrown the republic, the generals would not have been hunted down as traitors but have been given consulships in which to expand the empire and bring Roman rule to barbarian nations; also as a republic, in my oppinion Rome would have been in a better position to deal with invading hordes.

 

Thanks.

 

While true that Caesar might have signed the death warrant for the empire, as F.C. said, for a admistration such as the senate to manage, or even counquer a empire so large, it would have to alter its function and format in ways unseen by humans as they are means to be. I feel that the empire was doomed to a dictatorship all along once the marian reforms had taken place, which put the favor of the soldiers not in the senate, but in the generals who payed them. This ultimatly took power away from the government. As we all know, when the army is more powerful than the politicians than both are doomed.

[Tobias]

I can only agree with Favonius; if it was Caesar that caused the downfall of the Empire, it took a fair while to occur (in the nature of many hundreds of years).

One must not make the mistake that it was distrust in popular generals alone that caused the downfall of the Empire. The lack of funds coming into the Empire caused the debasement of the coins again and again, and several reigns of inept emperors as well as successive barbarian invasions had more impact on the fall, coupled with execution of popular generals.

If Caesar hadn't hastened the end of the Republic then it would have had a far more ignominious end, perhaps even a conquest by another general. The Republican system was outworn, corrupted and abused. It was bound to fall. By the time of the deposition of Romulus and the conquest of Constantinople, the Empires had existed perhaps beyond their use-by dates. The West only survived as long as it did thanks to Aetius, and the East because it was always the richer and better organised half. I don't believe Caesar caused the eventual downfall of the Empires.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I think Caesar did contribute very mightily to the downfall of Rome.

 

The security of Rome amidst its possessions--whether vast or small--required Rome to extend the foreign policy it used with her Italian allies, who were largely loyal to Rome.

 

Caesar's Gallic escapades ruined any chance of this happening in most of Europe, where the enemies of Rome were merely held at bay at great cost to the state. Had Caesar furthered the Italicization of Gaul--rather than having run up a huge body-count for the sake of a triumph--Rome would have enjoyed a transalpine buffer and an enormous source of wealth. Instead, she had to waste vast resources for the subjugation of neighbors who were afraid of being the next victim of some ambitious plutocrat.

 

Caesar was also a crook--and he had to be in order to buy off the loyalty of his troops who were engaged in an illegal war. Caesar's grand larceny was imitated by an untold number of petty magistrates. While corruption did not begin with Caesar, he demonstrated just how much crime pays. Moreover, Caesar's lesson led to the utterly backwards privy-purse model of government finance (employed especially by Augustus) and the disastrously infationary monetary policies employed by future Roman leaders.

 

While Caesar did not lead Rome over the cliff, he did turn her onto the path leading to the cliff.

 

IMHO, Caesar's governorial tenure in Gaul was an unmitigated disaster for the long-term security of the Republic and was legitimate grounds for his prosecution and recall by the Senate.

[Germanicus]

I just don't think it's a simple as a yes or no answer. You might as well say "Sulla caused the fall of Rome" - as he was the first to march on Rome and take power by force.

 

While corruption did not begin with Caesar, he demonstrated just how much crime pays

 

There were many other examples for corrupt Governors prior to Caesar, indeed, prior to his consulship Caesar prosecuted some of them.

 

IMHO, Caesar's governorial tenure in Gaul was an unmitigated disaster for the long-term security of the Republic and was legitimate grounds for his prosecution and recall by the Senate.

 

 

IMHO, this would have been the opinion of your namesake and his string pullers in the Senate, but in fact the conquest of Gaul provided income, troops, senators and citizens for hundreds of years of Empire following conquest. The republic was already dead, the Senate just didn't know it. Italy itself was not threatened again by Gallic (they were now citizens) or Germanic (they were faced by Legions in Gaul or Pannonia) tribespeople again for at least 200 years after the Gallic wars - thankyou Caesar !

 

Had Caesar furthered the Italicization of Gaul--rather than having run up a huge body-count for the sake of a triumph--Rome would have enjoyed a transalpine buffer and an enormous source of wealth.

 

He did further the Italicization of Gaul, and Gaul populated by his clients and citizens offered exactly that - a buffer and a source of great wealth.

 

My own opinion is that those elements in the Senate that wished to prosecute Caesar on his return to private citizen status, were so incapable of compromise, and so hapless in their final actions, (Thinking once again of your namesake) that they left Caesar no option. Lay down you legions and return to Rome so we can strip you of your estates and banish you and deny you fire and water.....or....you have 7 veteran legions at your command......and the people of Rome.....love you.....I know what I'd do !

Edited November 22, 2005 by Germanicus

[Hamilcar Barca]

I'm not buying this, Caesar caued the downfall of the republic, not the empire. While we're making a radical claims here's mine: George Washington started the decline of the U.S - In 200 years the United States is going to collapse into anarchy and be conquered by Muslims.

[Germanicus]

I like your thinking Hamilcar

[Tobias]

M Porcius Cato: You're lucky that Germanicus got to your post first

I cannot add much else to his argument except to say that Caesar was forced into unlawful war by the actions of the Optimates; such as their unreasoning, blind jealous hatred of Caesar (who's only crime was to show them how pathetic they really were and burst their inflated egos).

The Republic was already gone; it was disfunctional, corrupt and rotting before Caesar began his quest for power. I'm positive that Caesar had next to no bearing on the fall of the Empire.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Well you can blame Caesar for causing the fall of the Imperium by not conquering Germania Magna. (Seriously, give it a thought)

[Vespasion]

(I'm not buying this, Caesar caued the downfall of the republic, not the empire. While we're making a radical claims here's mine: George Washington started the decline of the U.S - In 200 years the United States is going to collapse into anarchy and be conquered by Muslims)- Hannibal Barca

 

Come to Britain we've already been taken over by the muslims:lol:

 

But to be serious Caesar did not need to destroy the senate he could of just established that his crimes where commited on behalf of the empire or he could of invaded and captured Rome but after being granted immunity handed the city over to the republic as Sulla had.

 

The republic was not completly failing at the time it simply needed modernisation and a change of senators not a dictator!

 

Plus as M.P.C said Caesar commited crimes against the republic of Rome and deserved punishment despite what conquests he had acheived. He was still breaking the law!

 

The modern equivilant is stealing a car to get a man having a heart attack to hospital; valiant yet illegal, in the eyes of the law, laws can't be broken despite any circumstances unless the law permits cahnges.

Edited November 23, 2005 by Vespasion

[tribunician power]

I've been searching through the topics for a while and haven't seen a topic discussing this.

 

In my oppinion Gaius Julius Caesar ultimatly signed the Empires death warrant. My reason for this is that:

 

Towards the end of the empire, the emperors became increasingly scared of being overthrown by a popular general and often due to this fear had the most promising generals killed.Therefore if Caesar hadn't overthrown the republic, the generals would not have been hunted down as traitors but have been given consulships in which to expand the empire and bring Roman rule to barbarian nations; also as a republic, in my oppinion Rome would have been in a better position to deal with invading hordes.

 

Thanks.

 

While true that Caesar might have signed the death warrant for the empire, as F.C. said, for a admistration such as the senate to manage, or even counquer a empire so large, it would have to alter its function and format in ways unseen by humans as they are means to be. I feel that the empire was doomed to a dictatorship all along once the marian reforms had taken place, which put the favor of the soldiers not in the senate, but in the generals who payed them. This ultimatly took power away from the government. As we all know, when the army is more powerful than the politicians than both are doomed.

Marius used the armies to secure a position where he could reform them. Without his power as a general he would not have been elected consul even one time. So I would imagine that the problem existed far earlier than his reforms.

[tribunician power]

(I'm not buying this, Caesar caued the downfall of the republic, not the empire. While we're making a radical claims here's mine: George Washington started the decline of the U.S - In 200 years the United States is going to collapse into anarchy and be conquered by Muslims)- Hannibal Barca

 

Come to Britain we've already been taken over by the muslims:lol:

 

But to be serious Caesar did not need to destroy the senate he could of just established that his crimes where commited on behalf of the empire or he could of invaded and captured Rome but after being granted immunity handed the city over to the republic as Sulla had.

 

The republic was not completly failing at the time it simply needed modernisation and a change of senators not a dictator!

 

Plus as M.P.C said Caesar commited crimes against the republic of Rome and deserved punishment despite what conquests he had acheived. He was still breaking the law!

 

The modern equivilant is stealing a car to get a man having a heart attack to hospital; valiant yet illegal, in the eyes of the law, laws can't be broken despite any circumstances unless the law permits cahnges.

The two main problems with the republic both appeared to be easily solved by an emperor. One of these being the extremely slow action of the senate due to arguing and filibustering as well as personal designs on greatness and jealousy between the senators. The second real problem I see is the lack of continuity in policy and continuity of the people in power. Caesar simply took advantage of the peoples yearn for change and the military power granted to him by the senate and performed the obvious and the inevitible. He could simply rewrite the laws when he recieved power.

Edited November 24, 2005 by tribunician power