Did Caesar Ultimately

[Segestan]

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.

 

 

The blame for the

[TOPHalanx]

Not sure if you are referring to me, but....

 

I meant it more for the fall of the Empire. Even by virtue of how expansive the borders of the Empire were, I wager that parity between quality of life was rampant as the borders grew. I have no research on the topic, however conisder: was the life of a Roman in Gaul better or worse than a Roman living outside Nicomedia? At some point, "putting coin in every Roman hand" isn't the most pressing issue, maintaining border control is. So some Romans live better than others. I hardly think that civil aggression was based simply on the pride of Easterners or Westerners.

 

As for the fall of the Republic, I tack it up to old-fashioned Italian hard-headedness on the part of the Senators. Being a descendant of a Calabrese father, I know all about this. New ideas were taking shape in Rome, and as mentioned before, the Senators were sticklers for the status quo. If whatever means either maintained their power or increased their power, there was no reason to change.

 

I am reminded of the case for electoral reform in majority Parliamentary governments. Why does a majority power want to change the way elections are held when the change could cost them control?

 

Back on topic. I wouldn't say a split in any real, tangeable sense caused the fall of the Republic. Segestan's comments are quite illuminating, but I wonder if the class separation itself manifested the end of the Republic. Look at the French Revolution: scholars to this day still quabble over whether social conditions or the rise of the Philosophes lead to the end of the Ancien regime. One group were too poor and stupid to do anything but flay nobility alive; the other group were already well enough off to not have to "rock the boat" as it were.

 

If it was specifically a class split that caused the fall of the Republic, you would have seen revolution in the streets. In some way the tyrants must have noticed this and waited for the perfect moment to take momentum away from the poorer peoples and re-constitute Rome as an Empire.

[tribunician power]

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.

Caesar wasted no time in putting himself up for priesthood shortly after the disagreement with Sulla in an effort I would assume to begin his political war against Sulla. I think he merely underestimated Sulla and overestimated himself. Had he believed, right away, he was damaging his career he would not have so quickly put himself forth for an office which appeared to be so far out of his league given his age. After losing the election he heard news of Sulla's rage and fled shortly thereafter. What you speak of is naivity of a young boy not a blind pursuit of liberty for the masses. The political alliances he shared with fellow senators along the way leaves much to be desired not to mention his highly suspected involvement in the Catiline conspiracy which also centered around gaining plebian support for the gain of only a few.

Edited November 26, 2005 by tribunician power

[Virgil61]

Caesar wasted no time in putting himself up for priesthood shortly after the disagreement with Sulla in an effort I would assume to begin his political war against Sulla. I think he merely underestimated Sulla and overestimated himself. Had he believed, right away, he was damaging his career he would not have so quickly put himself forth for an office which appeared to be so far out of his league given his age. After losing the election he heard news of Sulla's rage and fled shortly thereafter. What you speak of is naivity of a young boy not a blind pursuit of liberty for the masses. The political alliances he shared with fellow senators along the way leaves much to be desired not to mention his highly suspected involvement in the Catiline conspiracy which also centered around gaining plebian support for the gain of only a few.

 

I don't see the linkage between the run for the priesthood, which I suspect he would have done Sulla or no Sulla. It may have been a last-ditch attempt to protect himself but by the time he'd attempted the run-- if the timeline is correct-- his career was already damaged; he'd refused to divorce his wife, had his wife's dowry and property stripped from him and Rome was in a state of terror over Sulla's proscriptions. JC was an ambitious opportunist but I don't think he was a fool even at that age. He also had the added burden of being Marius' nephew for whom Sulla's hatred probably didn't escape him.

 

His "highly suspected" involvement in the Catiline conspiracy boiled down to accusations and promises of proof that never materialized. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination that there were many optimates who disliked JC even then and wished to rid themselves of an irritant-- one of the accusers had lost to him for the position of pontifus maximus. Plutarch, Seutonius and Sallust (biased of course) agree that Cicero, who was no ally of JC and a target for the conspirators, came to his defence.

 

Don't think I believe JC was a choir-boy, he was as opportunist as they come up to a point and could be guilty of certain shenanigans. I do believe that, warts and all, he did commit himself to the populares cause. I think he was almost as consistent at that as he was ambitious. For all his faults the optimates were generally a much worse bunch. I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one.

[tribunician power]

Caesar wasted no time in putting himself up for priesthood shortly after the disagreement with Sulla in an effort I would assume to begin his political war against Sulla. I think he merely underestimated Sulla and overestimated himself. Had he believed, right away, he was damaging his career he would not have so quickly put himself forth for an office which appeared to be so far out of his league given his age. After losing the election he heard news of Sulla's rage and fled shortly thereafter. What you speak of is naivity of a young boy not a blind pursuit of liberty for the masses. The political alliances he shared with fellow senators along the way leaves much to be desired not to mention his highly suspected involvement in the Catiline conspiracy which also centered around gaining plebian support for the gain of only a few.

 

I don't see the linkage between the run for the priesthood, which I suspect he would have done Sulla or no Sulla. It may have been a last-ditch attempt to protect himself but by the time he'd attempted the run-- if the timeline is correct-- his career was already damaged; he'd refused to divorce his wife, had his wife's dowry and property stripped from him and Rome was in a state of terror over Sulla's proscriptions. JC was an ambitious opportunist but I don't think he was a fool even at that age. He also had the added burden of being Marius' nephew for whom Sulla's hatred probably didn't escape him.

 

His "highly suspected" involvement in the Catiline conspiracy boiled down to accusations and promises of proof that never materialized. It doesn't take a great stretch of the imagination that there were many optimates who disliked JC even then and wished to rid themselves of an irritant-- one of the accusers had lost to him for the position of pontifus maximus. Plutarch, Seutonius and Sallust (biased of course) agree that Cicero, who was no ally of JC and a target for the conspirators, came to his defence.

 

Don't think I believe JC was a choir-boy, he was as opportunist as they come up to a point and could be guilty of certain shenanigans. I do believe that, warts and all, he did commit himself to the populares cause. I think he was almost as consistent at that as he was ambitious. For all his faults the optimates were generally a much worse bunch. I suppose we'll agree to disagree on this one.

My copy of Suetonius is missing but I quote Plutarch in his biography of Cicero,"Caesar, so far from being his freind, had incurred his suspicions in connection with the affair of Catiline."I could not find where he defends him but I would not rule it out. The Clodius affair was enough reason for me to doubt all Caesar's motives. So I still maintain that Caesar only used the populares as a platform, but I guess I'll agree to disagree and all that. I appreciate your time however.

[Virgil61]

I appreciate your time however.

 

Just a quick clarification I should have been more specific, defend wasn't the right word to use; In Plutarch's Life of Caesar my copy says Cicero was castigated for not implicating JC, Seutonius says that Cicero was "invoked as a witness" by JC and Sallust says Cicero could not be prevailed into supporting the manufacture of an accusation against JC. Plutarch seems to hint at more sinister motives for JC in his Life of Cicero, but even then says he found no evidence implicating him, though some thought he was afraid of JC's friends.

[pompeius magnus]

Time for my thoughts on the matter now that I have some time to think indepth not including school work. The fall of the republic can not be placed squarelly on one persons shoulders, but many. You can put some on Caesar for marching on Rome, but he was not the first to do so, for this you need to go back to the times of Sulla and Marius. For Caesar it was not all because of his ego. Corruption was rife in the republic and it was rotting from within. The triumvirate, or for those not as well educated in Roman studies it was the union of the three big men Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, was a major faction that may have had an impact in seperating the senate. On the other side of the senate you had the good men, or Boni, who were plotting almost primarily against Caesar, so they had just as much, if not a bigger impact on the fall of the republic as they were constantly whispering in Pompey's ear and with the connection with Caesar through his daughter he was more easily swayed, and even was encouraged into when he should fight Caesar in Greece, leading to his decision on the battle of Pharsals, or something along those lines. Another possibilty and a theory I have been working on is how the challenges on Rome from their rivals, most importantly the Saminites and other Italian tribes, Carthage, Macedonia, and Antochius whom all caused Rome to go to war and thus were conquered and expanded Roman holdings and power which made it harder for a republic to operate such a large empire. So the main point of this is how the expanding power of Rome led to its downfall as a new form of government was needed. Ive said my part, look forward to rebuttles

[sullafelix]

Time for my thoughts on the matter now that I have some time to think indepth not including school work. The fall of the republic can not be placed squarelly on one persons shoulders, but many. You can put some on Caesar for marching on Rome, but he was not the first to do so, for this you need to go back to the times of Sulla and Marius. For Caesar it was not all because of his ego. Corruption was rife in the republic and it was rotting from within. The triumvirate, or for those not as well educated in Roman studies it was the union of the three big men Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus, was a major faction that may have had an impact in seperating the senate. On the other side of the senate you had the good men, or Boni, who were plotting almost primarily against Caesar, so they had just as much, if not a bigger impact on the fall of the republic as they were constantly whispering in Pompey's ear and with the connection with Caesar through his daughter he was more easily swayed, and even was encouraged into when he should fight Caesar in Greece, leading to his decision on the battle of Pharsals, or something along those lines. Another possibilty and a theory I have been working on is how the challenges on Rome from their rivals, most importantly the Saminites and other Italian tribes, Carthage, Macedonia, and Antochius whom all caused Rome to go to war and thus were conquered and expanded Roman holdings and power which made it harder for a republic to operate such a large empire. So the main point of this is how the expanding power of Rome led to its downfall as a new form of government was needed. Ive said my part, look forward to rebuttles

 

 

I wish you were one of my students! This is a good conceptual answer, but you need to give it a bit more weight yet. You are right to an extent but don't forget certain other key points. Firstly the resistance of the boni (or optimates as they might better be called at the end of the Republic) to all forms of reform: this dogmatic stance meant that revolution became the inevitable outcome. If you will not reform then huge dramatic change eventually takes place (eatern europe iron curtain etc!). Secondly the reforms of Marius which had the side effect of giving Rome a dangerous army in that it was more loyal to its general than to Rome, witness the marches of Sulla and Caesar. Finally it may be (and this really is just a thought) that the system of patronage did a lot to destabilise the upper echelons of society. Try reading a book by Epstein called "personal enmity in roman politics". Add that lot to the increasing pressures caused by the expansion of empire and the corrupting effect of all that wealth and you have a rounded picture of the fall of the republic

 

Hope that helps!

[Ursus]

I for one don't see the Republic as some shining vision of purity and virtue. Consider provincials who were denied access to the Roman ruling circles by the ultra-conservative oligarchy, or who were taxed to death by Republican publicani. The figurative death of the Republic and the literal death of many of its oligarchic families in the civil wars were probably the greatest sighs of relief they ever knew. It was only with the death of the Republic and many of its leading families that Italians and provincials had a real stake in matters of the empire. This turned Rome from the stronghold of a parasitic clique of families into the center of a broader ideal, a collaboration between the leading classes of Rome and the provincials. Indeed, the distinction between Romans and provincials became gradually meaningless, at least in the upper classes.

 

I also don't consider the Republic a lean, efficient military machine. The Cicilian pirates ruled the Mediterranean and humiliated Rome before Pompeii finally showed what the Roman state could do when its resources were combined under a strong warlord.

 

To be blunt, the Principate saved the Empire. Republican sympathizers bemoan the loss of collegial magistrates to effective one man rule, but it seems to be forgotten that the one man rule was supported by an incredibly expanded base of junior officials from all over the empire. Furthermore, one man rule was open to people outside of Rome, something unthinkable in the Republic.

 

But I suppose this is an old argument that will never be resolved.

 

On the more specific and initial topic of whether or not Caesar set into motion the forces that toppled the empire, I believe others have adequately echoed my own sentiments. However, I'd like to stress only the political unity of the Empire fell. The cultural realities of the empire evolved and endured in some fashion, an empire that Caesar helped set in motion.

 

Ave Caesar.

[sullafelix]

I for one don't see the Republic as some shining vision of purity and virtue. Consider provincials who were denied access to the Roman ruling circles by the ultra-conservative oligarchy, or who were taxed to death by Republican publicani. The figurative death of the Republic and the literal death of many of its oligarchic families in the civil wars were probably the greatest sighs of relief they ever knew. It was only with the death of the Republic and many of its leading families that Italians and provincials had a real stake in matters of the empire. This turned Rome from the stronghold of a parasitic clique of families into the center of a broader ideal, a collaboration between the leading classes of Rome and the provincials. Indeed, the distinction between Romans and provincials became gradually meaningless, at least in the upper classes.

 

I also don't consider the Republic a lean, efficient military machine. The Cicilian pirates ruled the Mediterranean and humiliated Rome before Pompeii finally showed what the Roman state could do when its resources were combined under a strong warlord.

 

To be blunt, the Principate saved the Empire. Republican sympathizers bemoan the loss of collegial magistrates to effective one man rule, but it seems to be forgotten that the one man rule was supported by an incredibly expanded base of junior officials from all over the empire. Furthermore, one man rule was open to people outside of Rome, something unthinkable in the Republic.

 

But I suppose this is an old argument that will never be resolved.

 

On the more specific and initial topic of whether or not Caesar set into motion the forces that toppled the empire, I believe others have adequately echoed my own sentiments. However, I'd like to stress only the political unity of the Empire fell. The cultural realities of the empire evolved and endured in some fashion, an empire that Caesar helped set in motion.

 

Ave Caesar.

 

Not sure I really agree with the thrust of your statement Praetor Urbanus

 

Whilst undoubtedly the principate saved the empire I think it a little unfair to decry the parasitic families of the republic as though they did not continue on in the empire. After all the rich continued to be rich and the poor contiued to struggle. The end of the Republic can't be implied to be some kind of victory except for the ambition of one man. That the empire lasted is equally no surprise, after all the army, as created under the republic kept things going nicely.

 

One man rule? Most certainly and very autocratic you only have to look at the letters of Pliny the Younger to see that at the beginning of the second century even quite trivial matters were still referred to the emperor. Administration may have been done by junior official but I would have thought that it was reasonable to say thatthe emperor ruled nonetheless.

 

Can't the case for the empire being strengthened by provincials can be used by either those for or against? OK some of the foreign emperors were very good, Septimius Severus is my favourite (not I might add for his ability), and there were others who were better. However, later on when we get to the third century anarchy we start to see that the problem with provincials was precisely that they did not have this great cultural heritage that held the republic up to be something sacred along with all its offices and customs and the whole empire destabilised and came perilously close to collapse with everyone putting themselves before the good of the empire, proving that the imperial systems was just as open to subversion and corruption as the republican.

 

I agree with completely that we are too quick to talk about the decline of Rome and that we should perhaps talk more about its transformation into the medieval period.

 

 

Just a thought

Sullafelix

Edited November 27, 2005 by sullafelix

[Ursus]

Well certainly the Roman and Italian Senators were not always eager to accept provincials as their peers, but the opposition to new blood was not as iron clad as it had been in the Republic. Most probably because many of the Italian Senators were themselves new men in a sense, having gained their positions with the extermination of many leading Roman families during the civil war. It was also precarious to argue against more provincials in government when a provincial managed to be elected imperator by the armies.

 

Yes, the Roman Empire was a function of the rich, but it was a function of the rich throughout the empire rather than solely at Rome. Roman law enshrined the property rights of the provincial notables, who were very much free to become Senators and Equestrians. The Empire was a contract between the imperial government and the local notables for mutual profit. The Republic was much more one sided in its imperial administration, outside of Italy at least.

 

And my point was that yes, while there was one man rule, the strong man in charge was assisted ably by many junior officers. The expanded Equestrian and Senatorial base resulting from the influx of rich provincials gave the emperors a pool of talent from which to gather imperial functionaries, e.g., Africans could serve as governors of Britain.

 

I agree there was an instability in the imperial system, mostly resulting from the procedures regarding the transfer of power from one Princeps to the next. However, when we look at the revolts and the civil wars, it seems like most of them were contesting a Princeps or candidate for Princeps with one of their own. The revolt was not against imperial rule itself, but who should lead it, showing the provincial elite had a stake in the imperial order. However, as you say the Crisis of the Third Century was a bit different.

[tribunician power]

Blaming the oligarchy for the fall of the republic must be something they teach you guys in college. I myself have no formal training on the subject, so I draw my conclusions for myself.

 

The oligarchy had the most training and education in the form of politics, law, and philosophy. Would opening the senate up to the populares help anything? I doubt it. The populares were represented in the senate as much as should have been allowed with the system that was already in place. Had they more power, the oligarchy would have been murdered in masses, sending the republic into certain mayhem.

 

The common man in America today has very little say in American politics. The American voting system is a choice merely between two forms of evil and trust me when I say milliions of people CAN be wrong. I assure you that even in present day democracies there is a "nobility" and for the average man from humble beginnings it is near impossible to attain. Of course there are some "Ciceros" but most men who achieve great power were born with some power.

 

Everyone speaks of the "resistance to change" from the oligarchy but the truth is that there was no change being proposed with the exception of Caesar's change which consisted of seizing the power for himself in the name of the people who's shoulders beared his weight but not his dream. I cannot realize Caesar as a chmpion of the people nor as a true believer of his own platform.

 

The honest truth is that the republic was not a functional form of government, similar to a socialistic economy, both appeared to be fine ideas on paper. The powerful generals, bad treatment of the underclass and the spoiled nobility were mere symptoms, and the fall was inevitable.

 

On the question of whether Caesar caused the fall of the empire, well I am going to be vague and non committal. I will say that just as with colonies of ants, societies of people mature and adjust as a whole. Early stages of countries or empires tend to be very enterprising and warring, taking what they can and giving nothing back. As the state ages their former policies slow down as they solidify their borders, attempt to create lasting alliances and turn their eyes toward inward change. They eventually let slip their defenses. This is a cycle that you can track with some consistency through time. Not to say that some countries have not, through new leadership, regressed this trend but it is one theory i put stock in.

 

I will probably take some heat for this one and welcome the rebuttals.

Edited November 27, 2005 by tribunician power

[Virgil61]

Blaming the oligarchy for the fall of the republic must be something they teach you guys in college. I myself have no formal training on the subject, so I draw my conclusions for myself.

 

 

[Ursus]

I will probably take some heat for this one and welcome the rebuttals.

 

 

I don't quite agree with your opinion, but I'm only going to give you "heat" over two things:

 

1) Your opening paragraph makes some questionable assumptions and is a tad condescending. That attitude is not going to win respect, much less friendship.

 

2) I'd prefer if we kept modern day politics out of these threads as much as possible. They have a way of degenerating quite quickly. Commentary on modern politics, even if it does have Roman history as a pretext, would be best made on the Afterhours lounge.

 

Cheers and Joy.

 

-- Ursus

[tribunician power]

…

 

 

Ok, I'll bite.

 

College instruction or not, the history of the Republic isn't just a history of military conquest, it's also a history of social tension between populares and optimates long before the rise of JC.

 

Read up on the Struggle of the Orders in an informative article on this site. Amongst other struggles, in the 5th century the populares even threatened to leave Rome due to the abuses of the optimates. It’s ironic you chose the name “tribunican power” since the powers of a tribune were concessions wrestled from the Senate by the populares. Even the right to inter-marry with optimates had to be won. The lex Hortensia-- making plebisites the rule of law for all-- was the culmination of the struggle.

 

The Gracchi and the populares reforms they championed against the Senate happened almost a century before the assassination of JC. Their murder helped lay the groundwork for further polarization between the classes contributed to the upheavals that followed. The civil wars between the Marian and Sullan factions were grounded in differences in the two orders as well. Even the supporters of Catiline were predominately, or probably all, members of the lower class. The populares weren't just represented by Caesar, tribunes such as Clodius had put forth reforms resisted by the Senate. The Senate's solution, unlike those of the previous years, wasn't compromise but hunkering down into the status quo

 

These aren't just things taught in College "lurnin", they're a part of the history of Rome and the solid basis for the criticisms of the optimates. Even most pro-optimates would concede the struggle for change was present and proposals for reform in relief of the populars were frequent.

 

 

I did not say that there were not struggles between the classes nor did I say that the populares were being treated as well as they should have been. I said that their republican system appeared good on paper but was incapable of dealing with these problems and that was not the fault of the optimates. Furthermore I was speaking more specifically of the optimates in power just prior to the fall. It is impossible to change a government already in effect without violence or the threat there of. I must ask you though, if you believed the goals of the Catilline conspiracists to be logical solutions for easing the burden on the populares.

 

You mentioned Clodius, he was a known criminal put into power merely to cause problems between the senate and the people in order to strengthen Julius Caesar's support with the populares. This is what the optimates were supposed to work with? Clodius later used violence aginst the senate and was murdered. Did the optimates ever have a chance to reform is my question. The oligarchy was supposed to stop one day, after seeing how vicious the populares were becoming, and relinquish the senate to people who thirsted for their blood. I think you missed the point of my statements. I suppose your jab with the "lurnin" punchline shows you may consider yourself an optimate. Oh and I guess we'll ignore the fact that the tribunes, after the position was "wrestled" from the senate was still commonly held by men of senatorial rank (who were adopted to a lower class family for eligibility) yet were still voted in by the people.

 

 

I will probably take some heat for this one and welcome the rebuttals.

 

 

I don't quite agree with your opinion, but I'm only going to give you "heat" over two things:

 

1) Your opening paragraph makes some questionable assumptions and is a tad condescending. That attitude is not going to win respect, much less friendship.

 

2) I'd prefer if we kept modern day politics out of these threads as much as possible. They have a way of degenerating quite quickly. Commentary on modern politics, even if it does have Roman history as a pretext, would be best made on the Afterhours lounge.

 

Cheers and Joy.

 

-- Ursus

My opening paragraph was just to say that I am alone on this subject with respect to my opinion and I do however realize that my fellow forum contributors all tend to have recieved formal training. I naturally thought perhaps this was a topic taught predominantly from one mindset. As for winning respect or freindship, well, every good discussion needs an antagonist. As for the modern politics I was merely showing that there are trends in politics that never change and refering me to an afterhours lounge I find quite condescending.

Edited November 28, 2005 by tribunician power