- This topic has 3 voices and 13 replies.
-
Posts
-
What do you think are the reasons for the fall of Julius Caesar?I think it's rather simple: he was very popular and he went against the Senate. Both of these are what the Senate feared the most.Whenever I think of the reasons for the fall of a big leader, my first reaction is to blame it on arrogance, megalomania, or just pure evil. I don't think J. Caesar was guilty of any of those. Some say he wanted to be king of Rome, but an argument against that could be that the Senate only claimed he wanted to be king of Rome (anti-Caesar propaganda?).I'm sure there are more complicated reasons for his fall (like it coincided with the fall of the Republic) but I think on a personal level, it's for the reasons I mentioned.
Simple, he was too powerful and too populist. I have read that his book the Conquest of Gaul was written as a series of propaganda pieces he sent back to Rome to keep his name in the news, as it were. Successful generals were also the most popular Romans. More than most peoples, Romans equated military success with the ability to rule.
Yes, but wasn't he only powerful because he was popular? At that time if the Senate did anything against Caesar, there would have been civil violence against them. In your opinion who started the civil war between Pompey and Caesar? I blame the Senate for instigating it.
He was powerful because he had the backing of the six or seven legions in Gaul that were loyal to him personally and not the state. Popularity in Rome was icing on the cake. Late Republican Rome was very much a might makes right type of society and he had the might. It was hard for anyone to argue with the man who controlled the most combat experienced Legions of the Republic.
In your opinion who started the civil war between Pompey and Caesar? I blame the Senate for instigating it.
I think that the war was Julius Caesar's decision, but one which he chose rather than to die as a private citizen when he crossed the Rubicon with his army. After that, I think war was inevitable.
Exactly where is the Rubicon? That is one river that cannot be pinpointed.Personally, I think if it had not been Ceasar challenging the state it would have been Pompey. Pompey's ego was at least as large as Caesar's. They both thought they could govern the state better than the Republican form of government was able to. Caesar just did it first.
Exactly where is the Rubicon? That is one river that cannot be pinpointed.
You just made me try to find it on Google Maps.....and to my dismay I couldn't find it either. 🙁 Wikipedia says that the location of the Rubicon was lost for some time and that it was not until the 1990s that it was confirmed to be the Fiumicino River. Also, it's a really minor river so it's naturally harder to find.
Personally, I think if it had not been Ceasar challenging the state it would have been Pompey. Pompey's ego was at least as large as Caesar's. They both thought they could govern the state better than the Republican form of government was able to. Caesar just did it first.
It didn't seem to me that Caesar's main intention was to govern Rome from the beginning. After the formation of the triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and after Caesar went off on his Gallic campaign, those in power in Rome (the conservatives) decided they no longer liked Caesar and left him with few choices. Caesar had to know that Rome was a perilous place for Romans in power and that if he did not march on the city and take it over, he was a dead man. Did he have to become dictator once he conquered? I don't know for sure, but if he left his political enemies with too much wiggle room he would have been destroyed.
Exactly where is the Rubicon? That is one river that cannot be pinpointed.
You just made me try to find it on Google Maps.....and to my dismay I couldn't find it either. 🙁 Wikipedia says that the location of the Rubicon was lost for some time and that it was not until the 1990s that it was confirmed to be the Fiumicino River. Also, it's a really minor river so it's naturally harder to find.
Personally, I think if it had not been Ceasar challenging the state it would have been Pompey. Pompey's ego was at least as large as Caesar's. They both thought they could govern the state better than the Republican form of government was able to. Caesar just did it first.
It didn't seem to me that Caesar's main intention was to govern Rome from the beginning. After the formation of the triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus, and after Caesar went off on his Gallic campaign, those in power in Rome (the conservatives) decided they no longer liked Caesar and left him with few choices. Caesar had to know that Rome was a perilous place for Romans in power and that if he did not march on the city and take it over, he was a dead man. Did he have to become dictator once he conquered? I don't know for sure, but if he left his political enemies with too much wiggle room he would have been destroyed.
They think that is the Rubicon, they cannot actually confirm it because no ancient source says exactly where it was. The ID of the Fiumicino is supposition at best. It does sound better when they say they know where the Rubicon is though.Caesar went to Gaul by choice to gain the fame and glory that came with successful conquest. I found the cite for my statement that the Caesar's Gallic War was domestic propaganda. It is in the introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of the Sandford translation of the Caesar's Conquest of Gaul. The books were written for his own glorification and to keep his name in the minds of the people at home.
They think that is the Rubicon, they cannot actually confirm it because no ancient source says exactly where it was. The ID of the Fiumicino is supposition at best. It does sound better when they say they know where the Rubicon is though.
True, it may involve some supposition, but it has been agreed upon by different scholars and confirmed using multiple sources from ancient texts as well as other evidence regarding the practicalities of the matter. Further, in my experience much of ancient history is gained through similar kinds of supposition, so unless there are some significant holes in the research I would imagine it's taken to be settled...even though settled things are sometimes revised with the discovery of totally new evidence.
Caesar went to Gaul by choice to gain the fame and glory that came with successful conquest. I found the cite for my statement that the Caesar's Gallic War was domestic propaganda. It is in the introduction to the Penguin Classics edition of the Sandford translation of the Caesar's Conquest of Gaul. The books were written for his own glorification and to keep his name in the minds of the people at home.
Yes, I don't disagree that Caesar's authority was derived from his military command and that his fame and glory were achieved when he publicized his feats. But did he do that with domination of Rome in mind? I would doubt it seeing how the Republic had been in place for hundreds of years up to that point. With that said, I'm not sure what his ambitions were had he been able to return to Rome freely without facing Pompey's army or the wrath of his political enemies.
I have to ask you tongue-in-cheek if you are referring to consensus on the location of the Rubicon? Consensus means a bunch of folks agree but it does not make it a fact. There is general consensus on GW too, but that does not mean it is happening. I am more than happy to go along with the suspected ID of the Rubicon for now, there has not been a better alternative pointed out. Actually, I kind of like the idea of it being unknown better. Gives it a little bit more mystery.I am pretty certain that Caesar did not go to Gaul with thoughts of usurping power from the Senate. I am more than willing to bet that if their had not been others vying for power Caesar would not have made a grab in the first place. Unfortunately he won so he tends to get the short end from some historians. It is clear from the conquest of Gaul that he was a gifted commander, so it is more than possible that he really wanted to safeguard the Republic and has actually just been maligned in history and we don't know any better, there is no reason that could not be true and we just don't know because the sources are so few. Despite all we know about Rome there is even more we do not know and can never know.
I have to ask you tongue-in-cheek if you are referring to consensus on the location of the Rubicon? Consensus means a bunch of folks agree but it does not make it a fact. There is general consensus on GW too, but that does not mean it is happening. I am more than happy to go along with the suspected ID of the Rubicon for now, there has not been a better alternative pointed out. Actually, I kind of like the idea of it being unknown better. Gives it a little bit more mystery.
I seem to be missing something here that you might be taking for granted. Is there much disagreement over the location of the Rubicon? From what you are saying it sounds like there is. Because I am unfamiliar with competing theories on the location, or even objections to the main theory, I presumed that the conclusion regarding the Fiumicino was not really a matter of dispute and could be taken as fact. If there are competing theories or major objections by scholars to the Fiumicino, then I guess we really don't know for certain where it is. I do think that consensus on certain points of history by scholars who have spent their lives studying an issue can be taken as true when there are no serious competing theories. "Consensus" on GW is different, however, because it's not really a consensus at all; there are competing views offered by scientists. If 100% of scientists were united in their conclusions regarding GW, and the conclusions were based squarely on science and not on politics, then I would think that we should take them as fact.
Consensus means everyone agrees, not necessarily that they are right.As to the Rubicon and its identification, it is not a huge disagreement. It's actual location is actually fairly irrelevant when considering the history. It represented no more than a notional line in the sand and to my knowledge there is some debate as to whether there was actually a prohibition on "crossing the Rubicon" at all. I will try to dig up some more references online to the river and it's significance. I have a few books at home that talk about it and I will try to cite those tonight. (I will tell my wife I am doing homework ;D, which I have to do also.) Right now I am at work and so will have some time for a little research.BTW, you are burning the midnight oil aren't you, it is 0900 over here?
I cant find a cite for the Roman Law that forbade crossing the Rubicon with a legion. All I have been able to find are vague references to an “Ancient Roman Law”. I will have to do more research.
Actually, that's interesting – I didn't know that the law existed, but it obviously makes sense why Julius Caesar couldn't cross it with his army in tow. I had presumed that it was something like he was warned in that one instance not to do so. Yes, I realize the location of the Rubicon is largely irrelevant (unless some scholar is using it as part of a larger thesis about Roman politics) and it's of course better known nowadays for what it represents. On a related note, there are a few phrases that I want to memorize so that I can use them in conversations or lectures, such as “Alea iacta est”. Speaking of, maybe I'll start that up in another thread…. Oh, and yeah burning the midnight oil I was...I'm guessing you're 7 hours ahead of CST?
