Ex-Caesar.

[Gaius Octavius]

Not to encroach on the 'Caesar-Personality' thread, I thought that this dreaded 'what if' thread might shed some light on members' thinking.

 

I feel that the Republic, the Senate in particular, and the 'better people' had become so corrupted, i.e., self seeking, selfish, and money and land grubbing, that another, perhaps a less capable man, would have made an end of the Republic.

[CiceroD]

Not to encroach on the 'Caesar-Personality' thread, I thought that this dreaded 'what if' thread might shed some light on members' thinking.

 

I feel that the Republic, the Senate in particular, and the 'better people' had become so corrupted, i.e., self seeking, selfish, and money and land grubbing, that another, perhaps a less capable man, would have made an end of the Republic.

 

Well Catilina certainly could have, and almost did (Arguementative?). I personally feel for whatever faults Caesar had (Yes I know they were numerous!) that Catilina was certainly a Lesser Man.

 

What do you guys think?

[caldrail]

Given that the republic was becoming unable to contain individual initiative, then after the civil wars it was almost certain that someone would rise to become dictator/emperor/monarch - whatever title you want to call it. Autocratic rule was unpopular with senior romans. It meant they couldn't share in power for one thing. So unless the individual rising to the fore was powerful enough and popular enough, then the civil wars would have continued, or some very bloody intrigue at the very least. For that reason, I agree that the republic was doomed by its own failure, and sooner or later autocratic rule was going to replace the roman oligarchy. As later history shows, a lesser man simply led to another power struggle and continued instability.

[Ursus]

Regardless of the alleged corruption and vice of Late Republic society, I simply feel the structure of a city-state government was ill suited to govern an empire spanning three continents. Since thoughtful evolution seemed to be impossible under the face of conservative opposition, it was left to a strong man to dictate change.

 

Who the particular strong man would be was the only question. For the record it was not in fact Caesar who ended the Republic - if he had any great plans for the reorganization of the empire, they died with him on the Senate floor. It was his more cerebral successor who laid the socio-political framework for the governance of the empire.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

Well Catilina certainly could have, and almost did (Arguementative?). I personally feel for whatever faults Caesar had (Yes I know they were numerous!) that Catilina was certainly a Lesser Man.

 

What do you guys think?

 

I personaly think that Catilina was a better man than you give him credit for, we all know the stories of his depravity and his desire to bring down the state but how much of this was really true or was it just fabrications by Cicero who hated and feared Catilina more than any other Roman, Cicero hounded Catilina's every move and had a helping hand in blocking any attempt Catilina made to further his own political career.

 

I'm not saying the decision of rebellion that Catilina took was the right one, but he was definately forced into it, a similar situation to Caesar and the Civil War, great men, proud Romans like these two will not simply take a step down and admit defeat, they will see their beliefs out to the bitter end because in thier eyes it's the right thing to do.

 

Years after Catilina's death even Cicero who hated him showed his respect for the man.

 

"He had many things about him which served to allure men to the gratification of their passions; he had also many things which acted as incentives to industry and toil. The vices of lust raged in him; but at the same time he was conspicuous for great energy and military skill. Nor do I believe that there ever existed so strange a prodigy upon the earth, made up in such a manner of the most various, and different and inconsistent studies and desires."

 

From Cicero's Pro Caelio

Edited March 10, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[Gaius Octavius]

Years after Catilina's death even Cicero who hated him showed his respect for the man.

 

"He had many things about him which served to allure men to the gratification of their passions; he had also many things which acted as incentives to industry and toil. The vices of lust raged in him; but at the same time he was conspicuous for great energy and military skill. Nor do I believe that there ever existed so strange a prodigy upon the earth, made up in such a manner of the most various, and different and inconsistent studies and desires."

 

From Cicero's Pro Caelio

 

Seems like a bit of rhetoric. I praise him while I damn him.

[Gaius Paulinus Maximus]

 

Years after Catilina's death even Cicero who hated him showed his respect for the man.

 

"He had many things about him which served to allure men to the gratification of their passions; he had also many things which acted as incentives to industry and toil. The vices of lust raged in him; but at the same time he was conspicuous for great energy and military skill. Nor do I believe that there ever existed so strange a prodigy upon the earth, made up in such a manner of the most various, and different and inconsistent studies and desires."

 

From Cicero's Pro Caelio

 

Seems like a bit of rhetoric. I praise him while I damn him.

 

It does seem a bit two-faced doesn't it?

 

Maybe deep down inside Cicero was a little bit jealous and fearful of Catilina, he was everything Cicero was not, he was a strong able military man, he was charismatic, and he was a man that other men would follow, all these attributes could well take him to the top of the cursus honorum which would certainly affect Cicero's standing in the senate, so maybe Cicero used his own form of self-preservation and set out to destroy Catiline career in order to prolong his own.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Gaius Paulinus Maximus

[caldrail]

Regardless of the alleged corruption and vice of Late Republic society, I simply feel the structure of a city-state government was ill suited to govern an empire spanning three continents. Since thoughtful evolution seemed to be impossible under the face of conservative opposition, it was left to a strong man to dictate change.

 

Who the particular strong man would be was the only question. For the record it was not in fact Caesar who ended the Republic - if he had any great plans for the reorganization of the empire, they died with him on the Senate floor. It was his more cerebral successor who laid the socio-political framework for the governance of the empire.

 

Pardon? Caesar was not a man to pass on a chance of being the man in charge. He was a born autocrat. Would he settle for a years consulship? Well... no... he didn't did he? Even when a consul the joke was that it was the year of the consulship of Caesar and Caesar. The other guy never stood a chance By becoming dictator for ten years he set a new precedent, and by becoming dictator for life had set aside one of the most important taboo's of Rome, that no man would be king. You can argue about the title, but effectively thats what Caesar had become. He didn't destroy the republic, but he did create the precedent for empire.

[Gaius Octavius]

Caldrail may have some reason on his side in the above post. But: A 'born' autocrat? Wasn't his co-consul (Bibulus?) always looking for omens rather than doing some work (another reason why the Republic had to go)? It seems to me that if the institutions of the Republic were working, there might not have arisen a Caesar. Or a need for a Caesar.

 

 

"Given that the republic was becoming unable to contain individual initiative, then after the civil wars it was almost certain that someone would rise to become dictator/emperor/monarch - whatever title you want to call it. Autocratic rule was unpopular with senior romans. It meant they couldn't share in power for one thing. So unless the individual rising to the fore was powerful enough and popular enough, then the civil wars would have continued, or some very bloody intrigue at the very least. For that reason, I agree that the republic was doomed by its own failure, and sooner or later autocratic rule was going to replace the roman oligarchy. As later history shows, a lesser man simply led to another power struggle and continued instability."-----Caldrail.

Edited March 11, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[caldrail]

The senate tried to stop Caesar in his tracks by ordering him to relinquish command of his army. Truth is, Caesar had star quality and was going to rise to the top come what may, or at least die trying. Don't forget, Caesar had achieved a huge popularity with the plebs, and that stood for a great deal in roman politics. The republican institutions were still working - they just weren't enough to contain Caesar. You could argue that these institutions weren't working very well - some people have - but the state was still functioning. Caesar became a powerful political force that the republic simply wasn't able or willing to deal with. It depends on how you see the senates response. Were they too petrified of caesars support? Were they unwilling to break ranks and demand changes against Caesar? Were some senators already choosing which side of the fence to fall on? Although many senators would have condemned Caesar in loud vitriolic speeches, I think many were thinking ahead and playing safe. Thats not a fault of the republic as such, rather the survival instinct of many men who preferred a life of ease and status as opposed to a life sentence.

 

My point is that this situation would have arisen at some point, Caesar or not. There wasn't any need for Caesar anyway, but that wasn't going to stop him. In effect, Caesar rocked the boat to suit himself.

Edited March 16, 2007 by caldrail

[Ursus]

Pardon? Caesar was not a man to pass on a chance of being the man in charge. He was a born autocrat. Would he settle for a years consulship? Well... no... he didn't did he? Even when a consul the joke was that it was the year of the consulship of Caesar and Caesar. The other guy never stood a chance By becoming dictator for ten years he set a new precedent, and by becoming dictator for life had set aside one of the most important taboo's of Rome, that no man would be king. You can argue about the title, but effectively thats what Caesar had become. He didn't destroy the republic, but he did create the precedent for empire.

 

 

Caesar became dictator for life and ... passed a few moderate reforms. Perhaps he would have done more legislation had he not been unkindly assassinated, but it is a moot point.

 

The person who actually laid down the social, political, military and religious framework of the Empire that would last for the next 300 years was Augustus. Caesar helped take a sledgehammer to the Republic, but it was Octavian (and his two ministers) that actually built something enduring from the rubble.

[caldrail]

Well naturally given he was the 'winner'. But any of the big players, Pompey, Crassus, Antony, etc - who had come out on top would have done similarly. There's no way of knowing if Augustus was actually a better ruler because its not possible to compare them, although we might make a few educated guesses. No, you're wrong. Augustus cemented his own position but Caesar made autocracy acceptable to the masses, and he may have taken Sulla's episode as a precedent. It wasn't Augustus taking Rome and changing it to an empire - Rome was already changing. There was a shift in roman politics which had begun decades earlier. Sulla, rightly or wrongly, had attempted to stem the tide and put Rome back where he felt it should be. He retired voluntarily, which means he meant what he said even if he did prosper as a result. Caesar wanted the top slot. Absolute ambition, with the talent and balls to go for it. Augustus followed in his footsteps to some extent, but then many of the important rivals had gone by that stage. Eventually only Antony was left and his affair with Cleopatra wasn't acceptable to influential men, hence Augustus was able to represent himself as the face of acceptable roman leadership. naturally Augustus exploited that. You say he created the empire. No. The empire created itself once autocracy was in place. Remember that Augustus failed completely to ensure the succession. Rome never did have any constitutional method of determining rulership once the old republic was pushed aside for personal gain. In fact, Augustus was sweet-talking the senate into allowing him to rule. He succeeded, but I notice he was never 100% sure of his footing. This was all new, and Augustus was keen to avoid making the same mistakes as his predecessor. I do not believe Augustus ever intended to create an empire. He wanted to rule, and made sure he did, but his main motivation in trying to ensure a peaceful succession was to prevent the whole roman edifice crumbling into more chaos and anarchy of a civil war.

[The Augusta]

Remember that Augustus failed completely to ensure the succession. Rome never did have any constitutional method of determining rulership once the old republic was pushed aside for personal gain. In fact, Augustus was sweet-talking the senate into allowing him to rule. He succeeded, but I notice he was never 100% sure of his footing. This was all new, and Augustus was keen to avoid making the same mistakes as his predecessor. I do not believe Augustus ever intended to create an empire. He wanted to rule, and made sure he did, but his main motivation in trying to ensure a peaceful succession was to prevent the whole roman edifice crumbling into more chaos and anarchy of a civil war.

 

This does not take account of the accidents that affected his policy. His intentions were very clear on the 'succession' - Gaius and Lucius as 'Princeps Iuventutis' etc. were the designated and recognised heirs to the Principate. Augustus can hardly be held responsible for the intervention of fate in this. When he commended Tiberius to the Senate in his will he was also doing his best to ensure the succession, and he forced Tiberius to adopt Germanicus as 'the next in line'. The fact that fate intervened yet again with the death of Germanicus in no way reflects on the succession policy of the first Princeps. His immediate successors were all of one dynasty - how does that equate with failure? (I mean failure in the policy here, not failure in the choice of men - again, something Augustus could not control from the walls of his mausoleum.) I am not sure what you mean, Caldrail, by saying that Rome never did have any constitutional method of determining rulership once the old republic was pushed aside for personal gain. Was it entirely unconstitutional that Augustus commended Tiberius to the senators for them to endorse his position or otherwise? They had endorsed Augustus in his position, after all.

 

When you say that the Principate was new and therefore in an experimental stage, I agree with you entirely, and we do know that there was dissension - the plot of 23BC; perhaps other plots in 2BC and 7AD. The fact that Augustus emerged from these unscathed says a lot about the nature of his autocracy.

 

I think we should also avoid the term 'creating an empire'. Rome, as you rightly say, already had an 'empire' - it is much clearer to speak of Augustus' political innovation as the Principate. However, I can't agree with you that he did not want to reinforce the Principate/Monarchy (whatever term we wish to use) for future generations. The settlement of 23BC made the Principate a legal institution; the conferring of the tribunicia potestas and maius imperium on, first, Agrippa and then Tiberius was a clear indication of his intentions. In both cases these men were designated as his 'co-regent' and in the event of his death would have been the natural choice to succeed him. What more could he do to 'ensure the succession'?

 

Just my two penn'orth...

Edited March 17, 2007 by The Augusta

[M. Porcius Cato]

Remember that Augustus failed completely to ensure the succession. Rome never did have any constitutional method of determining rulership once the old republic was pushed aside for personal gain. In fact, Augustus was sweet-talking the senate into allowing him to rule. He succeeded, but I notice he was never 100% sure of his footing. This was all new, and Augustus was keen to avoid making the same mistakes as his predecessor.

This does not take account of the accidents that affected his policy. His intentions were very clear on the 'succession' - Gaius and Lucius as 'Princeps Iuventutis' etc. were the designated and recognised heirs to the Principate. Augustus can hardly be held responsible for the intervention of fate in this.

I agree with caldrail and think Augustus is very much responsible for failing to establish a constitutional mechanism of succession.

 

Fate was not the problem. No responsible leader would set up a situation where the entire government--and only protection against civil war and anarchy--depends entirely on the health and fitness of two young men, let alone two who are frequently exposed to danger. Augustus' policy put an insane hope over reason, and Augustus has rightly been called to task for this utterly irresponsible behavior.

 

Moreover, the insanity of it all generalizes to the whole system of monarchy, where the demise of short-lived royal houses (and they are ALL short-lived) inevitably leads to crisis, often civil war and anarchy. The only sane alternative is one where succession is determined by a mechanism that is independent, legal, open to newcomers, and responsive in some manner to the aspirants' record of successful magistracy.

Edited March 17, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[The Augusta]

Fate was not the problem. No responsible leader would set up a situation where the entire government--and only protection against civil war and anarchy--depends entirely on the health and fitness of two young men, let alone two who are frequently exposed to danger. Augustus' policy put an insane hope over reason, and Augustus has rightly been called to task for this utterly irresponsible behavior.

 

I cannot agree with this. Had Augustus died while the boys were young, their father, who was Augustus' co-regent, would have acted as regent until they were old enough to enter public life. After Agrippa's death, Tiberius would have acted as regent - he was given Tribunician Power shortly before he took it into his head to abandon Augustus and withdraw to Rhodes. And during his 'exile' or whatever we wish to call it in Rhodes, he still held the tribunician power until 1BC. Had anything happened to Augustus in that time, the senate could not have ignored the fact that Tiberius was so designated. None of us know what would have happened had that been the case, but we are talking about Augustus' actual plans - not how they eventually turned out years after his death. Tiberius' trib. pot. officially ended in 1BC, but the year after, Gaius allowed him to return to Rome - by which time, Gaius was 21 years old and had already held his first command (unsuccessful as it was). And how insane was Augustus to trust in a 21 year old? He had his own example to follow for that - and Gaius had at least been brought up under the Principate and taught the arts of imperial government - Augustus had had to work it out for himself. Plus, the fact that civil war did not break out at the accession of Tiberius, Gaius, Claudius or Nero, shows that Augustus was not that short-sighted after all. Whatever his achievements during his lifetime he could not legislate from beyond the grave, and he did what he could to ensure a smooth succession process within the limits he had to work with.

 

Moreover, the insanity of it all generalizes to the whole system of monarchy, where the demise of short-lived royal houses (and they are ALL short-lived) inevitably leads to crisis, often civil war and anarchy. The only sane alternative is one where succession is determined by a mechanism that is independent, legal, open to newcomers, and responsive in some manner to the aspirants' record of successful magistracy.

 

And here we have the crux of the matter. This view is argued from a distinctly anti-monarchical, republican stance. It is a very good point, however, that history has proved to be correct more often than not. However, I am not sure exactly what you mean by ALL royal houses being short-lived. By what comparison? Our own Plantagenet house ruled England from 1139 to 1399, and even then when it split into Lancaster and York, they were still Plantagenets. So, one could say that the Plantagent royal house ruled England from 1139 to 1485 (with the death of Richard III) a total of 346 years. I don't call that short-lived by any standards. Why, it's only about 150 years short of the Roman Republic! The Republic lasted around 500 years, as did the western empire, both systems have things to commend them, both have things to avoid.