Did Caesar Ultimately

[Germanicus]

Well you can blame Caesar for causing the fall of the Imperium by not conquering Germania Magna.

 

 

You actually made my day with this post Flavius !

[Segestan]

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.

 

 

 

It was Ceasar who attempted to reclaim Rome for the masses vs. the Oligarchy. The Republic had become a state of Millionaires and Beggars. Cicero was a leader of the oligarchy in the Senate. It is Not hard to imagine the reasons for the murder of Julius Ceasar. In fact the death of Ceasar was the real end of the Republic Not when he crossed the Rubicon.

 

regards,

[Messalina Mommsen]

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

 

Interesting you mention this. There's been a lot of public debate recently in Australia about the Muslim community here, in particular relation to terrorism. It's been making me think about human interactions throughout history and the ways in which different cultures have clashed based on their beliefs and ideologies. In particular, it's interesting to think about the Pagan/Christian world of the Third Century and the ways in which belief systems came to a loggerhead- causing social upheaval with the persecutions etc. In a sense, I guess what I'm trying to say is that one person will not cause the downfall of an empire or political regime. Things must be viewed in their wider context- with an understanding of the social, religious and cultural factors of the historical period. While the likes of George Bush or Australia's Johnny Howard, for example, are causing a lot of upheaval and change, I don't think these men alone can bring about the downfall of the western world as we know it. I think a lot of other factors have contributed to the mess we find ourselves in today. In the case of the fall of Rome, I think it really began with the social reforms of the Gracchi brothers...

[tribunician power]

It was Ceasar who attempted to reclaim Rome for the masses vs. the Oligarchy. The Republic had become a state of Millionaires and Beggars. Cicero was a leader of the oligarchy in the Senate. It is Not hard to imagine the reasons for the murder of Julius Ceasar. In fact the death of Ceasar was the real end of the Republic Not when he crossed the Rubicon.

 

regards,

Wow, the selfless Caesar, that's a new one on me. However, Caesar had no intent of relinquishing power of the state to the people or the senate. Your right then when you say that the real end of the republic was not when the legions crossed the Rubicon, though in fact the republic was held hostage by powerful men throughout it's history and I think it is more in debate as to whether it actually existed as a republic aside from it's very early days of independence.

[Virgil61]

Wow, the selfless Caesar, that's a new one on me. However, Caesar had no intent of relinquishing power of the state to the people or the senate. Your right then when you say that the real end of the republic was not when the legions crossed the Rubicon, though in fact the republic was held hostage by powerful men throughout it's history and I think it is more in debate as to whether it actually existed as a republic aside from it's very early days of independence.

 

I believe his point seemed to be that the rich oligarchs feared JC because he'd thrown in his lot with the populares at a fairly young age. He may not have been "selfless" but there's ample evidence that he was keen on reforming the system by leveling the playing field between populares and optimates with land reforms, debt reduction, etc. He extended the benefits of citizenship on a relatively wide scale and I believe he was the first to appoint a Gaul as Senator much to the consternation of many in the Senate.

 

When seen in the light of the optimates history of disenfranchisement of a large portion of the populace, JC comes off as a much more sympathetic figure.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm not buying this, Caesar caued the downfall of the republic, not the empire.

 

The longevity of Roman rule depended on its being a republic, and so Caesar's actions in destroying the republic did contribute very greatly to Rome's later weaknesses and vulnerability.

 

There is no question whether the republic was the best form of government for Rome (if there is, let's take it to another thread...), only whether the features of a republic provided greater wealth, security, and long-term stability than the series of hereditary dictatorships Caesar inititiated.

 

For all the faults of the Republic, does anyone believe that investing absolute power in the hands of a single person is a good idea? Absolute power is what turns a mere fool like Varro or Bibulus into a fanatical murderer like Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Elegabalus, etc, etc, etc.

 

For all the faults of the Republic, does anyone believe that differences in political opinion should be resolved by the sword rather than by persuasion? That men like Cicero are the inferiors of jackals like young Pompey (Sulla's 'teenage butcher'), Antony, Sejanus, and the thousands of thugs and secret police set upon the throats (and hands and tongues) of thinking Romans?

 

For all the faults of the Republic, does anyone believe that hereditary succession is more stable than the ballot box? Count up all the years of civil war prior to Caesar and all the years of civil war after him, and I think you'll find that once the Senate lost its power to the dynastic rule of political generals, civil war became a routine scourge on the Roman people, slowly withering its power to the point where a mere band of brigands could topple it.

 

For all the faults of the Republic, does anyone believe that it was MORE corrupt and rapine than the empire? During the Republic, corruption was a prosecutable offense and was the obsession of the giants of the Senate (like my namesake). During the Empire, corruption was such the norm that there was virtually no distinction between the public finances and the Emperor's privy purse. By what standards is the privy purse to be spent? Obviously, by the whim of the Emperor and not by the good of the state.

 

If Julius Caesar (inter alia) caused the downfall of the republic, he struck a blow to Rome from which it never recovered. QED.

 

Why should this be controversial at all? Are the long-term consequences of political events so difficult to believe? History is a long series of very many incremental changes set in motion by a vastly smaller number of innovations. Bringing slavery to the American colonies set off hundreds of years of factional strife that culminated in a civil war and in unprecedented Presidential powers. Bringing the monarch of England to trial and execution set off hundreds of years of conflict that ultimately culminated in the permanent crippling of the monarchy and the spread of European republicanism. Closing China off to international trade set off the long decline of an innovative and dynamic society. Etc Etc. There is a very good reason that Caesar's crossing the Rubicon has become a metaphor for such events, and there is no reason for skepticism about the point.

[M. Porcius Cato]

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.

 

n 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 !

 

Leaving aside the state of the republic for another discussion, Caesar deserves absolutely no thanks for his genocidal policies in Gaul. During the 100 years BEFORE Caesar's adventures, the Gauls were not only no threat to Rome, they provided Rome with excellent trade, taxes, auxiliaries, and were being rapidly Italicized northward of Narbonensis. For this we may thank noble Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus. Caesar, far from deserving thanks, simply made a desert and called it peace.

 

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 !

 

Caesar continued to have peaceful and lawful options (albeit diminishing) before, during, and after his Gallic escapades. Compromises were presented to Caesar in envoy after envoy, and his only rationale for civil war was the protection of his dignitas (what there was of it). I do agree, however, that these compromises were irrational--all should have seen that Caesar intended on marching on Rome, but the blame for this blindness rests with Pompey not with Cato. Had Pompey been ruled by Cato rather than by his wife Julia, Caesar would have been met on the banks of the Rubicon and crushed immediately.

 

Sadly, it took too many years (though not so many daggers) to finish that job.

[Vespasion]

As it has been said before, one man having complete power is a recipe for diasaster and far greater corruption, the Romans realised this and tried to avoid it at all costs.

 

They did the right thing in my oppinion, despite the Republics problems it gradually would have been forced to adapt to a more intellectual process when giving out field commands.

 

For example do you beleive an Emperor of Rome such as Nero would have been able to defeat Hannibal after the amount of civil wars which had occured. The republic had one redeeming feature almost unlimitless man-power which the republic sometimes used wisely and sometimes did not.

[Virgil61]

Leaving aside the state of the republic for another discussion, Caesar deserves absolutely no thanks for his genocidal policies in Gaul. During the 100 years BEFORE Caesar's adventures, the Gauls were not only no threat to Rome, they provided Rome with excellent trade, taxes, auxiliaries, and were being rapidly Italicized northward of Narbonensis. For this we may thank noble Ahenobarbus and Fabius Maximus. Caesar, far from deserving thanks, simply made a desert and called it peace.

 

Genocide? Surely you have figures besides Plutarch

Edited November 25, 2005 by Virgil61

[tribunician power]

Wow, the selfless Caesar, that's a new one on me. However, Caesar had no intent of relinquishing power of the state to the people or the senate. Your right then when you say that the real end of the republic was not when the legions crossed the Rubicon, though in fact the republic was held hostage by powerful men throughout it's history and I think it is more in debate as to whether it actually existed as a republic aside from it's very early days of independence.

 

I believe his point seemed to be that the rich oligarchs feared JC because he'd thrown in his lot with the populares at a fairly young age. He may not have been "selfless" but there's ample evidence that he was keen on reforming the system by leveling the playing field between populares and optimates with land reforms, debt reduction, etc. He extended the benefits of citizenship on a relatively wide scale and I believe he was the first to appoint a Gaul as Senator much to the consternation of many in the Senate.

 

When seen in the light of the optimates history of disenfranchisement of a large portion of the populace, JC comes off as a much more sympathetic figure.

I always had the feeling that he was pandering to the populous. He certainly gained strencth by winning over the plebes. Every man he promoted to senatorial rank was a potential ally. I would say that he was filling the senate with freinds somewhat similar to George W. Bush's judicial appointments.

Edited November 25, 2005 by tribunician power

[Virgil61]

I always had the feeling that he was pandering to the populous. He certainly gained strencth by winning over the plebes. Every man he promoted to senatorial rank was a potential ally. I would say that he was filling the senate with freinds somewhat similar to George W. Bush's judicial appointments.

 

He certainly was pandering and the poster boy for the word "opportunistic". But I believe his stance with the populares was genuine, though no less opportunistic because of it. When Sulla held the cards he was given the choice of going over to the side of the optimates and divorcing his wife Cornelia, daughter of Marius' ally Cinna, thereby saving his neck-- he refused. A pure opportunist wouldn't have chosen that path. For all his ego-centered faults he remained constant in his support of the masses and many of his attempts at reforms seem moderate measures compared to what can only be described as the reactionary Senate of that time period.

[Tobias]

Virgil61, the voice of good sense in this argument

I agree with your point that Cato was really the downfall of the Republic. As i and you mentioned before, he was stubborn, possessed an unreasonable and blind hatred and jealousy of Julius Caesar because he showed that you didn't have to be born from a rich ruling class family to be great.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Tobias

[TOPHalanx]

I'm brand new to the forums here, so a hearty hello from Toronto. Being removed from the scholarly life for quite some time, I will come off a tad rusty....anyhow my comment on the fall of the Empire...

 

Vespasion's comment on who is culpable for the fall of the Empire appears to have a bit too much of hindsight. As it is true that Julius Caesar was the first emperor, you can trace the apprehension of later emperors to the first Caear and how you predicate the basis for his power.

 

However, unified peoples of antiquity are much like modern corporations: they can never have enough. Especially true of Rome during the Caesars, health in the economy was based in large part (if not totally), on expansion. As a Republic, Rome fared quite well in expanding her borders, but would have reached (in my opinion) either diminishing returns or a bottleneck if allowed to exist for another hundred years, to be convenient.

 

The Senate, as pointed out before, did a poor job in facilitating the machinery of government and its intention: to represent the populace. Let me make this distinction from popular rule. Being represented by the elected is one thing, but when the elected have it in their vested interest to keep from the populace, you end up with Senators being used as Roman candles.

 

Back to my original comment. I would not put the fault on Julius Caesar for having begun the end of the Empire. It was up until the end of the second century that saw Rome's greatest triumphs, with Trajan and Claudius in my opinon making the greatest strides for expansion.

 

However if I had to put one name next to the title of "destroyer of the empire" I'd have to name Diocletian, for a couple of reasons.

 

First, Diocletian is credited with the tetrarchy system of rule. This was the seed of civil conflict in the Empire, no matter how much is said that the Empire grew too large to maintain (forget ruling over) by one person. It has been my contention ever since I got a proper foothold in Roman history that this separation would manifest itself in the end of the Western Empire.

 

Second, Diocletian made himself more a king than emperor. As I remember reading of past emperors "ascending to the purple" wearing a robe of that colour, Diocletian made it a point to garnish himself in jewels. Furthermore, the commoners had to partake in more selfless actions when coming in contact with Diocletian, soon making the moniker 'princeps' a title fit for the Julio-Claudians.

 

As the tetrarchy would separate Rome into East and West (Constantine's sons would later separate West further), Diocletian's reform of imperial character would further separate Rome into rich and poor. Not that Rome before then was an egalitarian utopia. The average Roman, before Diocletian, would refer to the Emperor as a man among them. Diocletian effectively put an end to that, in ways even the most average citizen could see or hear of it.

 

A little long in the tooth, but submitted for your approval.

[Segestan]

The Fall of the Republic began in earnest around 177 BC on the conquest of Liguria. After the Final Conquest of Italy by the Romans. The domination of Italy meant the end of the Expansive Wars. The populations began to rise rapidly; in BC 173 there were only 269,015 adult male citizens; but by BC 136 there were over 320,000 ; by BC 125 there were 394,336.

The result of this rapid increase in the Roman population was an over-supply in the labor market. No new Roman colony had been sent out since BC 177, and no more plunder from conquered countries remained to be distributed ;and the lands of Italy being all assigned , and the neighboring nations being subdued , there was no further relief to be expected from that source.

The poverty of the Roman masses became more and more widespread deeper with the rapid increase of the populations. The licinian Laws, which required the employment of a certain amount of Free Labor by landowners , and which limited the amount of land owned by a single proprietor , had been for along time disregarded in both particulars. The Capitalist had absorbed the public lands , which thus had come into the possession of a small class of wealthy men, who preferred to have them cultivated by the cheaper labor of slaves. It then became more and more difficult earn a livelihood in Rome, and only the means of acquiring wealth by cultivating public lands on a large scale , in farming out the revenue, or in governing the provinces. But the rich ruling class wholly controlled these sources of wealth, and they only resigned them to persons of their own class , so that the rich were gradually becomin richer and the poor poooer; and thus Rome became

[Vespasion]

Does that mean that you beleive the seperation in classes is to balme for the fall of the republic or the fall of the empire?

 

By the way thanks for that information; i've never heard anyone argue that it was the split in classes that caused the fall of the republic. Anyway your reasons seem to be well researched and your figures precise and your oppinion well argued.

 

Thanks.