So why did the Patricians/Nobiles support Caesar

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6629

There, Cato gives us evidence that "the struggle of the orders" was a more myth than reality before Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.

So WHY did the Nobiles support Caesar?

[M. Porcius Cato]

http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6629

There, Cato gives us evidence that "the struggle of the orders" was a more myth than reality before Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon.

So WHY did the Nobiles support Caesar?

 

The "struggle of the orders" is a term that is typically used for the expansion of civil rights for plebs during the early republic. I don't think that's a myth at all--it's just not appropriate for the era of Cicero.

 

Why did (some) nobiles support Caesar? Probably for the same reason that Caesar supported Pompey--attaching oneself to a rising star isn't a bad career move (though it is terribly unimaginative).

[Gaius Octavius]

Why did (some) nobiles support Caesar? Probably for the same reason that Caesar supported Pompey--attaching oneself to a rising star isn't a bad career move (though it is terribly unimaginative).

 

Would you hold the same for Cicero? If I recall, he couldn't decide which side to stay with, and that is what really led to his end. Didn't Augustus actually admire him?

Edited May 17, 2008 by Gaius Octavius

[Maty]

Another reason - Caesar learned his politics from Crassus, who knew all about financing the careers of up-and-coming youngsters in order to create a loyal following in the senate. After his early Gallic campaigns Caesar was immensely wealthy, and he used a lot of this money in political 'grants', which were deeply appreciated by the not-necessarily-rich young aristos such as Curio and Mark Antony who were among his followers. Somewhere Cicero remarks that young senators criticizing Caesar were likely to find Balbus (Caesar's agent in Rome) waiting at the senate door to reclaim his loan. Not that many would be critical, as Romans had a keen sense of honour, and one simply did not bad-mouth someone who had done you the favour of a large interest-free loan.

 

Re Cicero - I don't think he ever particularly considered joining Caesar after Caesar launched his coup. However, he was also deeply unimpressed with Pompey and the illegal actions of his followers which drove Caesar to war. I suspect he would have cheerfully called a plague upon both their houses. Remember also that Dolabella, father of Cicero's latest grandchild (born in May that year, I recall) was with Caesar, which at least would make Cicero pause before joining the other side.

Edited May 20, 2008 by Maty

[WotWotius]

Re Cicero - I don't think he ever particularly considered joining Caesar after Caesar launched his coup. However, he was also deeply unimpressed with Pompey and the illegal actions of his followers which drove Caesar to war. I suspect he would have cheerfully called a plague upon both their houses. Remember also that Dolabella, father of Cicero's latest grandchild (born in May that year, I recall) was with Caesar, which at least would make Cicero pause before joining the other side.

 

I think the only reason why Cicero was not invited to assassinate Caesar was more to do with his personal affiliation with the dictator - the two did seem to get on in this respect. As Cicero greeted Caesar's assassination with delight, I also do not believe Cicero would have ever joined Caesar on a political level.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

Re Cicero - I don't think he ever particularly considered joining Caesar after Caesar launched his coup. However, he was also deeply unimpressed with Pompey and the illegal actions of his followers which drove Caesar to war. I suspect he would have cheerfully called a plague upon both their houses. Remember also that Dolabella, father of Cicero's latest grandchild (born in May that year, I recall) was with Caesar, which at least would make Cicero pause before joining the other side.

 

I think the only reason why Cicero was not invited to assassinate Caesar was more to do with his personal affiliation with the dictator - the two did seem to get on in this respect. As Cicero greeted Caesar's assassination with delight, I also do not believe Cicero would have ever joined Caesar on a political level.

 

I remember Cicero defended the Triumvirate on one occasion. I think Cicero was quite interested in advancing his own career too no?

[Maty]

Cicero defended various characters affiliated with the triumvirate - Vatinus being a prime example. However, he was semi-retired at this point and he was 'invited' to do this small favour for the triumvirs, with the implication that his health and property as well as his career would suffer if he did not. This did not make him feel any more favourably inclined to Pompey or Caesar.

[Arduumresgestasscriber]

Cicero defended various characters affiliated with the triumvirate - Vatinus being a prime example. However, he was semi-retired at this point and he was 'invited' to do this small favour for the triumvirs, with the implication that his health and property as well as his career would suffer if he did not. This did not make him feel any more favourably inclined to Pompey or Caesar.

 

No but it showed that he was more of a flipflopping "politician" than we would think most of the time, doesn't it?

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cicero defended various characters affiliated with the triumvirate - Vatinus being a prime example. However, he was semi-retired at this point and he was 'invited' to do this small favour for the triumvirs, with the implication that his health and property as well as his career would suffer if he did not. This did not make him feel any more favourably inclined to Pompey or Caesar.

No but it showed that he was more of a flipflopping "politician" than we would think most of the time, doesn't it?

 

No, it doesn't. You can't judge a person's character from his actions under duress. Cicero 'flipflopped' because he was threatened. Curio 'flipflopped' because he was bribed. Don't you think these circumstances suggest that there is a world of difference between their two characters? Not everyone in the republic was a Cato who would literally stand up to an armed mob throwing stones and tell them all to shod off.

[docoflove1974]

No but it showed that he was more of a flipflopping "politician" than we would think most of the time, doesn't it?

 

No, it doesn't. You can't judge a person's character from his actions under duress. Cicero 'flipflopped' because he was threatened. Curio 'flipflopped' because he was bribed. Don't you think these circumstances suggest that there is a world of difference between their two characters? Not everyone in the republic was a Cato who would literally stand up to an armed mob throwing stones and tell them all to shod off.

 

To take this a step further, I think this is exemplary of modern politics. Politicians 'flip flop' for various reasons; perhaps physical threats aren't as prevalent nowadays, but career assassinations are. Politics is about the same, in that sense.

[M. Porcius Cato]

No but it showed that he was more of a flipflopping "politician" than we would think most of the time, doesn't it?

No, it doesn't. You can't judge a person's character from his actions under duress. Cicero 'flipflopped' because he was threatened. Curio 'flipflopped' because he was bribed. Don't you think these circumstances suggest that there is a world of difference between their two characters? Not everyone in the republic was a Cato who would literally stand up to an armed mob throwing stones and tell them all to shod off.

To take this a step further, I think this is exemplary of modern politics. Politicians 'flip flop' for various reasons; perhaps physical threats aren't as prevalent nowadays, but career assassinations are. Politics is about the same, in that sense.

 

Maybe, but there is a very palpable difference between assassination and career "assassination". Opponents of Caesar were actually assassinated--even after their careers had been. One, an opponent of Caesar living in exile, was summoned back to Rome thanks to the intervention of Cicero. Caesar ostentatiously pardoned the fellow--then had him murdered en route to Rome. In that climate, Cicero's compliance with force shouldn't be put in the same category as those opportunists who went out of their way to help Caesar after realizing that Pompey's star had fallen.

[docoflove1974]

Maybe, but there is a very palpable difference between assassination and career "assassination". Opponents of Caesar were actually assassinated--even after their careers had been. One, an opponent of Caesar living in exile, was summoned back to Rome thanks to the intervention of Cicero. Caesar ostentatiously pardoned the fellow--then had him murdered en route to Rome. In that climate, Cicero's compliance with force shouldn't be put in the same category as those opportunists who went out of their way to help Caesar after realizing that Pompey's star had fallen.

 

Quite true, and I didn't mean to put them on exactly the same plane.

[Maty]

To put Cicero's 'flipflopping' into perspective. Here's from one of his letters to Atticus (Ad Att 2.18)

 

'I have no heart to write any more about politics. I am disgusted with myself, and its agony to write. I'm trying to stand my ground and keep my self respect amid universal servility, but with less courage than I would wish considering my past record. Caesar is being very liberal towards me ...'

 

There's lots more in this vein. And don't forget that finally Cicero refused to take it any more and stood up quite magnificently to Mark Antony - and paid for it with his life.

[Primus Pilus]

There's lots more in this vein. And don't forget that finally Cicero refused to take it any more and stood up quite magnificently to Mark Antony - and paid for it with his life.

 

True indeed, but of course in this case he thought he had the support of Octavian as a buffer. Little did he know that his stance would be met with a rather callous indifference by the young man he helped establish.