13 ms·

What was the impact of Julius Caesar’s murder?

161 points by diodorus 4y ago

baron816 4y ago
Isn’t it strange that we still look upon the Roman Empire favorably? The basis of it was chattel slavery and genocide. They deserve to be in the same bucket as Nazi Germany.
- d0mine 4y ago
  Is there any reason to believe that it is more cruel than its contemporaries?
- andrewstuart 4y ago
  It was really much worse, relatively speaking.
lisper 4y ago
This article filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge of Roman history, in particular, the significant role Augustus played in cementing the dictatorship established by Julius. The parallels between what happened in Rome 2000 years ago and what is happening in the U.S. today are getting really scary.
- zabzonk 4y ago
  > The parallels between what happened in Rome 2000 years ago and what is happening in the U.S. today such as please? trump as tiberius i can kind of see. biden is claudius?
  - usrusr 4y ago
    I read it with a slightly wider scope for "today": when you have reached the point where you need to include the middle initial to tell presidents apart you aren't that far from just incrementing a counter...
    - mongol 4y ago
      Indeed. Even from the outside I can see similarities with family dynasties in the political elites. We have the Kennedys, Bush, Clintons, and who knows what will become of the Trump family going forward.
      - simonh 4y ago
        Clunck-click with every trip hopefully. Edit: British humour. Started as car seat belt promotion videos, but now used to refer to someone being in prison.
    - dustincoates 4y ago
      If that were true, Jeb! or Hillary would be president right now. As it stands, the Clinton and Bush names are not winning anyone office right now, and the most prominent Kennedy politician right now is arguably an anti-vax conspiracy theorist.
    - chrononaut 4y ago
      This was basically the case from the start, ala John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
  - prewett 4y ago
    Not OP, but I see the situation more as 100 years before Caesar. You had competing interests but inability (unwillingness?) to compromise. Various people tried increasingly heavy-handed solutions, including the populist Gracchi brothers, and then Sulla entering Rome with his legions (forbidden) three years of military dictatorship--after which he resigned and went home. We seem to be at the potential start of that process. The morals/ethics of the coastal elites from the rural population have diverged to the point where, with Social Justice (differing from social justice) they may not be compatible, but both sides are trying to enforce their morality on the other. (Although I think the push for change is essentially from the coasts and the rural morality is on an offensive-defense.) So you get the rise of populist Trump and the far right to oppose the push from the far left. Trump isn't equivalent to anyone in Rome, but the situation has a similar flavor. (Also, the situation described by Plato in the Republic, where he says democracy results in chaos, causing people to want a dictator to restore order, although we have not got there yet.)
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      > inability (unwillingness?) to compromise. I think the basic story of the late Republic is one of a political-economy which needed to change but which could not. Romes successes had rewritten the fundamental realities of its means and relations of production but the political system gave an effective veto power to people who refused to see this and instead wished to blame cultural changes and a decline in traditional virtue for the troubles. This delusion was a borderline mental illness. These people loved Rome's martial history and wanted to keep armies in the field as much as anyone, yet opposed opening the cavalry to non-yeomen despite the deleterious impacts it had on the rural upper class and the decreasing ability of the Romans to field these kind of patriotic cavalry. These people benefited in multitude ways from the influx of slave labor. But they resisted any effort to enfranchise now underemployed Romans, settling instead to doll them grain. Even as this destroyed the These people leveraged their neighbor Italians to win profitable war after profitable war and resisted giving them the privileges of citizenship until forced at the point of a spear. And all the while, any type of reform which had the aesthetic of appearing against traditional Roman virtue was resisted entirely by the traditional aristocrats. Until of course Marius, many of whose reforms were so practical that not even a nostalgia trip like Sulla could bring himself to turn them all back. I think the moral of the fall of Rome is not about a lack of compromise but about what happens when your political system ceases to be able to address the fundamental issues that are undermining it. The end of the Poland-Lithuania is another such example.
  - lisper 4y ago
    Well, it's obviously not an exact replay with a one-to-one mapping of today's characters onto those of 2000 years ago. I guess I'd map Trump onto Caesar (though he seems more like a Mussolini than a Caesar -- funny how Italy seems to breed dictators), his defeat in 2020 onto Caesar's assassination, with the concomitant premature sigh of relief breathed by the proponents of democracy, and DeSantis, if he wins in '24, as Augustus. From TFA: "The third impact was the realisation of a new reality. Caesar’s teenage adopted son took over where his father had left off. The power of a popular name to motivate soldiers and the poor left his killers amazed." I would not be surprised to see an analogous sentence being written ten years from now, something like, "DeSantis took over where Trump had left off. The power of MAGA ideology to motivate a large portion of the public left the Democrats amazed (and permanently out of power)."
    - IAmGraydon 4y ago
      This is all quite a stretch. Trump's defeat is akin to Caesar's assassination? He lost the election. Trump's supporters are the opposite of proponents of democracy, despite their delusions convincing them otherwise.
      - latency-guy2 4y ago
        Democracy isn't when only Democrats win either, and yet we have people like Stacy Abrams. Either way, I find this comparison of ancient Rome to modern politics ridiculous. Just thought I'd slam in here with a jab.
  - twelve40 4y ago
    > such as please? trump as tiberius i can kind of see. biden is claudius? my money is on hunter biden as the future augustus ))) has military experience? check. likes to party? check! feels like 44BC all over again.
- pelagicAustral 4y ago
  Alea iacta est
- californiadreem 4y ago
  The Founding Fathers of the United States were directly inspired by the Roman Republic. The notion that the Republic would ultimately devolve (or evolve, given your perspective) into Empire was not a foreign notion to them. I don't necessarily think that they understood the extent to which the acquisition of land, power, and resources by corporations might mimic the destructive influence of the latifundia of the late Roman Republic, but still the end result will likely be the same: land reform by a populare (i.e. Peace, Land, Bread). Under the Julian land reform program, Caesar proposed to: * Distribute public lands to poor and landless citizens: Caesar proposed to distribute public lands to poor and landless citizens, who would be allowed to cultivate the land in exchange for paying a small rent to the state. * Restrict the size of private estates: Caesar proposed to limit the amount of land that could be held by any one individual, in order to prevent the accumulation of vast estates by the wealthy elite. This would help to ensure that there was enough land available for small farmers and other citizens. * Create colonies for veterans and landless citizens: Caesar proposed to create new colonies in Italy and other parts of the Roman world, where veterans and landless citizens could be settled and given land to cultivate. Given the current crises in housing, climate, self-confidence, and employment amongst the proles, a similar platform is likely to emerge. Unfortunately, given the same stridency in those with wealth and status, similar obstacles are also likely to prevent the pressure valve of nihilistic desperation from being released, with likely destructive results.
  - peterfirefly 4y ago
    > Restrict the size of private estates: Caesar proposed to limit the amount of land that could be held by any one individual, in order to prevent the accumulation of vast estates by the wealthy elite. And would he have given up his Spanish silver mines? > This would help to ensure that there was enough land available for small farmers and other citizens. It would also -- totally coincidentally -- ensure that the competing powerful families would not remain strong enough to threaten Caesar but I'm sure that wasn't his intention. Caesar was an honourable man, after all.
    - californiadreem 4y ago
      Yet another entrant to the Roman whataboutism parade. Sure. You win. Whatever. Caesar was a ruthless plutocrat that so-everly unjustly denuded those poor, poor Roman Opimates of their fortunes and prestige to prevent them from opposing Rex Caesar by giving land to the poor and veterans, reforming the calendar, spending endless years on military campaigns to expand Rome's wealth, and granting citizenship to non-Italics, then letting everyone who hated him come back if they wouldn't try to kill him. I hear Cato the Younger quite virtuously hated Mondays. Dies Lunae delendae sunt. etc. etc.
- MagicMoonlight 4y ago
  Lmao we can’t go one thread without an american making it about trump
cowpig 4y ago
> The murder of Caesar marked the beginning of a long and protracted civil war I don't see how you can look at the events leading up to the murder of Julius Caesar as anything but a civil war. He literally led roman armies into battle against roman armies controlled by opposing political interests. > The death of Caesar did not provoke the end of the Republic The amount of political power concentrated in the single dictator-for-life changed dramatically after this. If you want to call a system in which one person has dictatorial power a republic because they will lose that dictatorial power via assassination or revolt if they are awful enough at their job for long enough (e.g. Nero) then basically anything is a republic.
- ithkuil 4y ago
  But since he "won" one would have expected that to mean peace from that point on, except he hasn't really won since eventually he got himself killed. Like many things, it's all about perspectives, long term vs short term focus, counterfactuals, and an occasional dose of contrarianism, which always fueled the attempt of essayists to raise above the noise (by being noisier)
  - thom 4y ago
    If there's one thing the entirety of Roman history tells us, it's that managing succession is incredibly difficult. It was by no means the rule that someone 'winning' meant things were about to get peaceful (or at least, not until they'd killed off all their rivals, siblings, or whoever else they chose to proscribe).
    - ithkuil 4y ago
      Which is why modern democracy must be treasured for all its faults.
- californiadreem 4y ago
  Long and protracted is possibly the salient phrase. Julius Caesar's civil war with Pompey was neither long nor protracted and never actually involved the populus of Italy, let alone Rome. Pompey abandoned Italy effectively as soon as Caesar entered Italy. Pompey's Macedonian strategy ultimately failed as soon as it was contested. Sure, there were the Spanish interludes, but beyond the Senate's abdication of Italy, Caesar was extremely forgiving to his opponents, the institutions of the Republic continued, and ultimately the struggles never reached Italy proper until after his death. So I can definitely see why the author might emphasize the continued violence of the second Triumvirate ahead of the breaking up of the first.
michalu 4y ago
For those who only know the story of Brutus (the leader of assassins whom apparently Caesar didn't expect to be his traitor) there was another Brutus the most famous one in Rome who in the early times of Rome, when it was still a kingdom, killed a tyrant and that put down the foundation of roman republic. This guys, Lucius Junius Brutus, was a hero of the republic and his killing of then king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus regarded as a great, inspiring act. Romans according to legends swore to never have a king again. For that reason there was never a king in the empire but an emperor who was not de jure a king, he just held all the leading political functions at once :). So these assassins who killed Caesar saw themselves as heroes, they didn't think they'll be regarded as criminals and condemned but expected to be the saviours of the republic and remembered for ages to come. Later in the revolutionary years, when e.g. french republicans were slaying king they too looked up to the legend of the very first Brutus and saw themselves not merely assassins but heroes of the people. In the case of the very first Brutus, they swore to kill the king after he raped and killed one of his companions wife, one can definitely argue he was a heroic figure. In the case of latter wannabe Brutuses it's very clear they aimed for power consciously or subconsciously hiding behind ideals. The subsequent genocides and thefts of property like in the case of French revolution or Lenin's who even died of syphilis are just too obvious.
- californiadreem 4y ago
  Lucretia, according to sources including Livy, explicitly wasn't killed. She specifically stayed alive so that she could live to tell Brutus et. al of Tarquinus's rape.
- orwin 4y ago
  You know that's not what happened during the French revolution, right? Like, at all. Most representatives wanted to keep it alive after he was captured in Varennes. They wanted an English-style monarchy, with a stronger parlement If he had not conspired against France with the Hapsburgs, and let letters proving he was actively participating in the war effort to trap and kill his own citizens (or rather subjects), the representatives would just have kept him under house arrest until the end of the Austrian, Prussian, Spanish, Italian and English aggression (they had no casus belli BTW, maybe the Austrian could justify one, but this was an illegal aggression, I refute the name of first coalition war). And had he not done it, 'la montagne' would not have taken control of the parlement, Paris' sans culottes would not have been radicalized as much, there would have been less deaths in province. Also, he was one of the investigator of foreign aggression, so less war, less death on the battlefield. Also, had the pope kept his army in his pants, other Italian and Iberic Nations would have too, and at most the cardinals would have taken an haircut (given the amount they stole, it was only right), and most catholic churches would suffer as much as protestant temple : nothing. I don't know how you draw parallel between Caesar assassination and Louis XVI lawful execution.
jbandela1 4y ago
For me one of the most interesting hypotheticals is that at the time of his death Julius was preparing for an invasion of Parthia. Crassus had failed before him and Marc Antony would fail after him, and that probably contributed in o his fall as much as anything. Augustus saw these lessons and wisely decided not to risk an invasion of Parthia and instead reached a negotiated settlement. It would be about 150 years before Trajan lead a successful invasion of Parthia. With regards to Julius, Alexander was his idol, and I am sure he would have loved to emulate him in conquering the lands of the Persian Empire (now ruled by Parthia). Julius was also one of the great generals of history and it would have been interesting to see how it would have gone. A Roman Empire extending East into the heartland of the old Persian Empire would have been interesting. It might have led to actual direct contact between the Roman and Chinese Han courts.
- djur 4y ago
  I don't see any viable way for Julius Caesar to succeed in Parthia. Compared to the Gauls, Parthia was far more politically cohesive, had better trained and equipped soldiers, and presented more logistical difficulties (Antony benefited a lot from having Cleopatra's support and still failed). Fighting a long and grueling war like that so far away from Rome would have meant leaving his domestic political situation in the hands of his allies -- and he didn't really have anybody capable he could trust to do that.
  - jbandela1 4y ago
    Parthia did have a weakness in that the Parthians were seen as interlopers by the Persians whom they ruled over. The Sassanians who followed them were far more unified as they were actually Persian and able to claim the heritage of the Achaemenids(the Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius, etc). In addition, the Parthian capitals were fairly far West. Trajan was able able to successfully invade Parthia. My guess would be that Julius was a good enough general to successfully invade Parthia, like Trajan and extract some concessions. The big question is if he could have actually conquered Persia. This is one instance where the centralization of Persia may have been able to play into his hands. If you look at Alexander’s conquest after a few decisive victories in pitched battles, he was able to conquer Persia. Same with the later Muslim conquest of Persia, where decisive pitched battles delivered large chunks of Persian territories to the Muslims. So while definitely not easy, I don’t think it was impossible, and Julius was one of the greatest generals of Antiquity, so it certainly would have been interesting to see if he could have done it.
AlbertCory 4y ago
There's an interesting book about how things were headed south long before the events everyone knows about: https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic-ebook/dp/B01N9ZJXZJ/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic...
fatneckbeard 4y ago
it's almost like assassinating people doesn't solve problems.
- DubiousPusher 4y ago
  Ecept for all the times it does. Not advocating it but repression in fact works. Romam reactionaries maintianed their wealth and influence for several hundred years by stabbing anyone who challenged it.
  - akira2501 4y ago
    That's not "solving problems." That's simply "maintaining the status quo in the face of opposition."
    - DubiousPusher 4y ago
      Except if you see "the problem" as ingrate agitators, it very much is "solving problems". I'm not making a moral argument for political violence. But we live in an era with a peculiar recent history and we tell ourselves a progressive story of hope, triumph of justice, rule of law and non-violence based on that recent history. But if we look more broadly at history, we see powers which endure a long time on oppression and occasional mild reform or compromise. It tells a different story which I think we should be congizant of and which should make us guard more jealously democracy and less certain of its security in moral rightnes. People can take power and dominate you, your family and everyone you know. And the "moral arch of history" will fuck itself off for 1000 years with only a sting of martyrs to its credit.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
jmyeet 4y ago
Recommendation: the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin [1]. He has a series on the Kings of Ancient Persia and an episode on Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Dan talks about this concept a lot. In his words, who invented the light bulb doesn't matter. If someone didn't do it someone else would. But what is far more interesting are these turning points in history that could've completely changed the course of civilization. What if Alexander the Great hadn't died? Dan mentions one of the Kings of Persia was responsible for rebuilding the Temple of Solomon without which Judaism may well have died out. Then we may not have had it, Christianity or Islam. What would the world be like then? Persia came very close to conquering Greece. Roman culture and development was heavily influenced by Greece. The entire of European history turned on that moment. Or the Mongols who turned back from conquering Europe to choose a new Khan. It's fun to theorize about these events but the best we can do is guess as to the immediate aftermath. The ripple effets mean modern history would be completely unrecognizable. [1]: https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/
thom 4y ago
The late Republic is one of the most fascinating periods of history you can study, not least because the sources are so rich (albeit largely written by a bunch of self-aggrandizing aristocrats or their lackeys). But Caesar was largely a symptom of its decline and everyone can choose the seeds of destruction according to their tastes. Was it the First Slave Revolt, the Gracchi, the Social War, Marius, Sulla, the triumvirate, the optimates? Was it the lack of a common enemy after the sacks of Carthage and Corinth? Was it the unresolved tensions left over from the Conflict of Orders? Probably all of them, and you're just left to marvel, as Polybius did, that the Romans had a system that held the competing tensions in some sort of balance for as long as it did. The angle I've most enjoyed lately is applying the framework from Robin Markwica's "Logic of Affect" to many of the figures in the build up to the civil war. Erich Gruen's "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" is also very interesting, in that he portrays most Republican institutions (and even Caesar and Pompey's relationship) functioning quite well fairly late on. The entire standoff seemed so unnecessary and avoidable, but there's too much power and prestige at stake by the end for anybody to budge. Were I to point the finger at one man it would be Cato the Younger, but as I say, it's all personal taste at this point.
- raducu 4y ago
  But the main reason was slave work that enabled the obscene accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few. Exactly what is happening today with slave wage, acces to AI/automation, discretionary not applying laws(labor laws?) for some players, massive tax evasion schemes for the 1%, printing money discretionary for the 1%, monopolies on comerce, state monopoly on comerce via tight monetary controls(China), treating homes as "investments", control of the media.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    This time around it will be different though.
- arpowers 4y ago
  Cato the younger for forcing Caesar to cross the Rubicon?
chernevik 4y ago
Yes, Caesar's death opened the field for Octavian. But Octavian was such a political genius that we can easily imagine him assuming dictatorial power after Caesar no matter how long the latter lived, and institutionalizing in substantially the same form.
shp0ngle 4y ago
(ignore this comment)
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > Julius Caesar was neither the first nor the last leader to be assassinated in Roman history, but his is the only death that still reverberates. The context is Roman leaders, of which Christ isn’t one. Don’t go looking for unnecessary offense.
  - shp0ngle 4y ago
    Hah. I will delete the comment, the header was out if context
- mongol 4y ago
  You are thinking of the death of Jesus? Yes you have a point. He was a leader in Roman history, even though he was not a Roman leader
optimalsolver 4y ago
A gold coin celebrating the assassination of Julius Caesar recently sold for 3 million USD: https://www.reddit.com/r/Gold/comments/jl1wls/an_ultrarare_coin_celebrating_julius_caesars/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Gold/comments/jl1wls/an_ultrarare_c...
VLM 4y ago
Their cultural technology grew to allow them to concentrate power beyond a stable level, result, turmoil. Even the most powerful guy in the civilization could get assassinated.
hackandthink 4y ago
"The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome" by Michael Parenti is worth reading. Though I don't agree with it, I can't stand this cruel imperialist. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37811.The_Assassination_of_Julius_Caesar https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37811.The_Assassination_...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
sdenton4 4y ago
Young Caesar 2000 When I was twelve years old They put me on the throne When I was twelve years old They made me king From the ocean south of here to the northern hemisphere They gave me everything. Now I'm thirteen And no one takes me seriously Now I'm thirteen And they're trying to take away control I don't know how stupid You all think I am But as sure as flowers grow along the western wall Heads are gonna roll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84em5RxWbh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84em5RxWbh0
steponlego 4y ago
It solidifed the transformation from Republic to Empire, much like Trump's arrest will complete America's transformation from Republic to Empire.
- dontwearitout 4y ago
  ...what?
  - steponlego 4y ago
    Read it again, makes perfect sense. Hope you're enjoying these times too!
shash 4y ago
Surprised that nobody's mentioned Mike Duncan's Storm before the Storm[1] in this... The problems of the Republic go back a century before Caesar, at the very least. Another series I really liked (it's a fictionalisation, but still) was Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome[2]. [1] https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/mike-duncan/the-storm-before-the-storm/9781610397216/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/mike-duncan/the-st... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Rome

161 points by diodorus 4y ago

Isn’t it strange that we still look upon the Roman Empire favorably? The basis of it was chattel slavery and genocide. They deserve to be in the same bucket as Nazi Germany.

d0mine 4y ago
Is there any reason to believe that it is more cruel than its contemporaries?
andrewstuart 4y ago
It was really much worse, relatively speaking.

lisper 4y ago

This article filled in a lot of gaps in my knowledge of Roman history, in particular, the significant role Augustus played in cementing the dictatorship established by Julius. The parallels between what happened in Rome 2000 years ago and what is happening in the U.S. today are getting really scary.

zabzonk 4y ago
> The parallels between what happened in Rome 2000 years ago and what is happening in the U.S. today such as please? trump as tiberius i can kind of see. biden is claudius?
- usrusr 4y ago
  I read it with a slightly wider scope for "today": when you have reached the point where you need to include the middle initial to tell presidents apart you aren't that far from just incrementing a counter...
  - mongol 4y ago
    Indeed. Even from the outside I can see similarities with family dynasties in the political elites. We have the Kennedys, Bush, Clintons, and who knows what will become of the Trump family going forward.
    - simonh 4y ago
      Clunck-click with every trip hopefully. Edit: British humour. Started as car seat belt promotion videos, but now used to refer to someone being in prison.
  - dustincoates 4y ago
    If that were true, Jeb! or Hillary would be president right now. As it stands, the Clinton and Bush names are not winning anyone office right now, and the most prominent Kennedy politician right now is arguably an anti-vax conspiracy theorist.
  - chrononaut 4y ago
    This was basically the case from the start, ala John Adams and John Quincy Adams.
- prewett 4y ago
  Not OP, but I see the situation more as 100 years before Caesar. You had competing interests but inability (unwillingness?) to compromise. Various people tried increasingly heavy-handed solutions, including the populist Gracchi brothers, and then Sulla entering Rome with his legions (forbidden) three years of military dictatorship--after which he resigned and went home. We seem to be at the potential start of that process. The morals/ethics of the coastal elites from the rural population have diverged to the point where, with Social Justice (differing from social justice) they may not be compatible, but both sides are trying to enforce their morality on the other. (Although I think the push for change is essentially from the coasts and the rural morality is on an offensive-defense.) So you get the rise of populist Trump and the far right to oppose the push from the far left. Trump isn't equivalent to anyone in Rome, but the situation has a similar flavor. (Also, the situation described by Plato in the Republic, where he says democracy results in chaos, causing people to want a dictator to restore order, although we have not got there yet.)
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    > inability (unwillingness?) to compromise. I think the basic story of the late Republic is one of a political-economy which needed to change but which could not. Romes successes had rewritten the fundamental realities of its means and relations of production but the political system gave an effective veto power to people who refused to see this and instead wished to blame cultural changes and a decline in traditional virtue for the troubles. This delusion was a borderline mental illness. These people loved Rome's martial history and wanted to keep armies in the field as much as anyone, yet opposed opening the cavalry to non-yeomen despite the deleterious impacts it had on the rural upper class and the decreasing ability of the Romans to field these kind of patriotic cavalry. These people benefited in multitude ways from the influx of slave labor. But they resisted any effort to enfranchise now underemployed Romans, settling instead to doll them grain. Even as this destroyed the These people leveraged their neighbor Italians to win profitable war after profitable war and resisted giving them the privileges of citizenship until forced at the point of a spear. And all the while, any type of reform which had the aesthetic of appearing against traditional Roman virtue was resisted entirely by the traditional aristocrats. Until of course Marius, many of whose reforms were so practical that not even a nostalgia trip like Sulla could bring himself to turn them all back. I think the moral of the fall of Rome is not about a lack of compromise but about what happens when your political system ceases to be able to address the fundamental issues that are undermining it. The end of the Poland-Lithuania is another such example.
- lisper 4y ago
  Well, it's obviously not an exact replay with a one-to-one mapping of today's characters onto those of 2000 years ago. I guess I'd map Trump onto Caesar (though he seems more like a Mussolini than a Caesar -- funny how Italy seems to breed dictators), his defeat in 2020 onto Caesar's assassination, with the concomitant premature sigh of relief breathed by the proponents of democracy, and DeSantis, if he wins in '24, as Augustus. From TFA: "The third impact was the realisation of a new reality. Caesar’s teenage adopted son took over where his father had left off. The power of a popular name to motivate soldiers and the poor left his killers amazed." I would not be surprised to see an analogous sentence being written ten years from now, something like, "DeSantis took over where Trump had left off. The power of MAGA ideology to motivate a large portion of the public left the Democrats amazed (and permanently out of power)."
  - IAmGraydon 4y ago
    This is all quite a stretch. Trump's defeat is akin to Caesar's assassination? He lost the election. Trump's supporters are the opposite of proponents of democracy, despite their delusions convincing them otherwise.
    - latency-guy2 4y ago
      Democracy isn't when only Democrats win either, and yet we have people like Stacy Abrams. Either way, I find this comparison of ancient Rome to modern politics ridiculous. Just thought I'd slam in here with a jab.
- twelve40 4y ago
  > such as please? trump as tiberius i can kind of see. biden is claudius? my money is on hunter biden as the future augustus ))) has military experience? check. likes to party? check! feels like 44BC all over again.
pelagicAustral 4y ago
Alea iacta est
californiadreem 4y ago
The Founding Fathers of the United States were directly inspired by the Roman Republic. The notion that the Republic would ultimately devolve (or evolve, given your perspective) into Empire was not a foreign notion to them. I don't necessarily think that they understood the extent to which the acquisition of land, power, and resources by corporations might mimic the destructive influence of the latifundia of the late Roman Republic, but still the end result will likely be the same: land reform by a populare (i.e. Peace, Land, Bread). Under the Julian land reform program, Caesar proposed to: * Distribute public lands to poor and landless citizens: Caesar proposed to distribute public lands to poor and landless citizens, who would be allowed to cultivate the land in exchange for paying a small rent to the state. * Restrict the size of private estates: Caesar proposed to limit the amount of land that could be held by any one individual, in order to prevent the accumulation of vast estates by the wealthy elite. This would help to ensure that there was enough land available for small farmers and other citizens. * Create colonies for veterans and landless citizens: Caesar proposed to create new colonies in Italy and other parts of the Roman world, where veterans and landless citizens could be settled and given land to cultivate. Given the current crises in housing, climate, self-confidence, and employment amongst the proles, a similar platform is likely to emerge. Unfortunately, given the same stridency in those with wealth and status, similar obstacles are also likely to prevent the pressure valve of nihilistic desperation from being released, with likely destructive results.
- peterfirefly 4y ago
  > Restrict the size of private estates: Caesar proposed to limit the amount of land that could be held by any one individual, in order to prevent the accumulation of vast estates by the wealthy elite. And would he have given up his Spanish silver mines? > This would help to ensure that there was enough land available for small farmers and other citizens. It would also -- totally coincidentally -- ensure that the competing powerful families would not remain strong enough to threaten Caesar but I'm sure that wasn't his intention. Caesar was an honourable man, after all.
  - californiadreem 4y ago
    Yet another entrant to the Roman whataboutism parade. Sure. You win. Whatever. Caesar was a ruthless plutocrat that so-everly unjustly denuded those poor, poor Roman Opimates of their fortunes and prestige to prevent them from opposing Rex Caesar by giving land to the poor and veterans, reforming the calendar, spending endless years on military campaigns to expand Rome's wealth, and granting citizenship to non-Italics, then letting everyone who hated him come back if they wouldn't try to kill him. I hear Cato the Younger quite virtuously hated Mondays. Dies Lunae delendae sunt. etc. etc.
MagicMoonlight 4y ago
Lmao we can’t go one thread without an american making it about trump

cowpig 4y ago

> The murder of Caesar marked the beginning of a long and protracted civil war I don't see how you can look at the events leading up to the murder of Julius Caesar as anything but a civil war. He literally led roman armies into battle against roman armies controlled by opposing political interests. > The death of Caesar did not provoke the end of the Republic The amount of political power concentrated in the single dictator-for-life changed dramatically after this. If you want to call a system in which one person has dictatorial power a republic because they will lose that dictatorial power via assassination or revolt if they are awful enough at their job for long enough (e.g. Nero) then basically anything is a republic.

ithkuil 4y ago
But since he "won" one would have expected that to mean peace from that point on, except he hasn't really won since eventually he got himself killed. Like many things, it's all about perspectives, long term vs short term focus, counterfactuals, and an occasional dose of contrarianism, which always fueled the attempt of essayists to raise above the noise (by being noisier)
- thom 4y ago
  If there's one thing the entirety of Roman history tells us, it's that managing succession is incredibly difficult. It was by no means the rule that someone 'winning' meant things were about to get peaceful (or at least, not until they'd killed off all their rivals, siblings, or whoever else they chose to proscribe).
  - ithkuil 4y ago
    Which is why modern democracy must be treasured for all its faults.
californiadreem 4y ago
Long and protracted is possibly the salient phrase. Julius Caesar's civil war with Pompey was neither long nor protracted and never actually involved the populus of Italy, let alone Rome. Pompey abandoned Italy effectively as soon as Caesar entered Italy. Pompey's Macedonian strategy ultimately failed as soon as it was contested. Sure, there were the Spanish interludes, but beyond the Senate's abdication of Italy, Caesar was extremely forgiving to his opponents, the institutions of the Republic continued, and ultimately the struggles never reached Italy proper until after his death. So I can definitely see why the author might emphasize the continued violence of the second Triumvirate ahead of the breaking up of the first.

michalu 4y ago

For those who only know the story of Brutus (the leader of assassins whom apparently Caesar didn't expect to be his traitor) there was another Brutus the most famous one in Rome who in the early times of Rome, when it was still a kingdom, killed a tyrant and that put down the foundation of roman republic. This guys, Lucius Junius Brutus, was a hero of the republic and his killing of then king Lucius Tarquinius Superbus regarded as a great, inspiring act. Romans according to legends swore to never have a king again. For that reason there was never a king in the empire but an emperor who was not de jure a king, he just held all the leading political functions at once :). So these assassins who killed Caesar saw themselves as heroes, they didn't think they'll be regarded as criminals and condemned but expected to be the saviours of the republic and remembered for ages to come. Later in the revolutionary years, when e.g. french republicans were slaying king they too looked up to the legend of the very first Brutus and saw themselves not merely assassins but heroes of the people. In the case of the very first Brutus, they swore to kill the king after he raped and killed one of his companions wife, one can definitely argue he was a heroic figure. In the case of latter wannabe Brutuses it's very clear they aimed for power consciously or subconsciously hiding behind ideals. The subsequent genocides and thefts of property like in the case of French revolution or Lenin's who even died of syphilis are just too obvious.

californiadreem 4y ago
Lucretia, according to sources including Livy, explicitly wasn't killed. She specifically stayed alive so that she could live to tell Brutus et. al of Tarquinus's rape.
orwin 4y ago
You know that's not what happened during the French revolution, right? Like, at all. Most representatives wanted to keep it alive after he was captured in Varennes. They wanted an English-style monarchy, with a stronger parlement If he had not conspired against France with the Hapsburgs, and let letters proving he was actively participating in the war effort to trap and kill his own citizens (or rather subjects), the representatives would just have kept him under house arrest until the end of the Austrian, Prussian, Spanish, Italian and English aggression (they had no casus belli BTW, maybe the Austrian could justify one, but this was an illegal aggression, I refute the name of first coalition war). And had he not done it, 'la montagne' would not have taken control of the parlement, Paris' sans culottes would not have been radicalized as much, there would have been less deaths in province. Also, he was one of the investigator of foreign aggression, so less war, less death on the battlefield. Also, had the pope kept his army in his pants, other Italian and Iberic Nations would have too, and at most the cardinals would have taken an haircut (given the amount they stole, it was only right), and most catholic churches would suffer as much as protestant temple : nothing. I don't know how you draw parallel between Caesar assassination and Louis XVI lawful execution.

jbandela1 4y ago

For me one of the most interesting hypotheticals is that at the time of his death Julius was preparing for an invasion of Parthia. Crassus had failed before him and Marc Antony would fail after him, and that probably contributed in o his fall as much as anything. Augustus saw these lessons and wisely decided not to risk an invasion of Parthia and instead reached a negotiated settlement. It would be about 150 years before Trajan lead a successful invasion of Parthia. With regards to Julius, Alexander was his idol, and I am sure he would have loved to emulate him in conquering the lands of the Persian Empire (now ruled by Parthia). Julius was also one of the great generals of history and it would have been interesting to see how it would have gone. A Roman Empire extending East into the heartland of the old Persian Empire would have been interesting. It might have led to actual direct contact between the Roman and Chinese Han courts.

djur 4y ago
I don't see any viable way for Julius Caesar to succeed in Parthia. Compared to the Gauls, Parthia was far more politically cohesive, had better trained and equipped soldiers, and presented more logistical difficulties (Antony benefited a lot from having Cleopatra's support and still failed). Fighting a long and grueling war like that so far away from Rome would have meant leaving his domestic political situation in the hands of his allies -- and he didn't really have anybody capable he could trust to do that.
- jbandela1 4y ago
  Parthia did have a weakness in that the Parthians were seen as interlopers by the Persians whom they ruled over. The Sassanians who followed them were far more unified as they were actually Persian and able to claim the heritage of the Achaemenids(the Persian Empire of Cyrus, Darius, etc). In addition, the Parthian capitals were fairly far West. Trajan was able able to successfully invade Parthia. My guess would be that Julius was a good enough general to successfully invade Parthia, like Trajan and extract some concessions. The big question is if he could have actually conquered Persia. This is one instance where the centralization of Persia may have been able to play into his hands. If you look at Alexander’s conquest after a few decisive victories in pitched battles, he was able to conquer Persia. Same with the later Muslim conquest of Persia, where decisive pitched battles delivered large chunks of Persian territories to the Muslims. So while definitely not easy, I don’t think it was impossible, and Julius was one of the greatest generals of Antiquity, so it certainly would have been interesting to see if he could have done it.

AlbertCory 4y ago

There's an interesting book about how things were headed south long before the events everyone knows about: https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic-ebook/dp/B01N9ZJXZJ/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-Republic...

fatneckbeard 4y ago

it's almost like assassinating people doesn't solve problems.

DubiousPusher 4y ago
Ecept for all the times it does. Not advocating it but repression in fact works. Romam reactionaries maintianed their wealth and influence for several hundred years by stabbing anyone who challenged it.
- akira2501 4y ago
  That's not "solving problems." That's simply "maintaining the status quo in the face of opposition."
  - DubiousPusher 4y ago
    Except if you see "the problem" as ingrate agitators, it very much is "solving problems". I'm not making a moral argument for political violence. But we live in an era with a peculiar recent history and we tell ourselves a progressive story of hope, triumph of justice, rule of law and non-violence based on that recent history. But if we look more broadly at history, we see powers which endure a long time on oppression and occasional mild reform or compromise. It tells a different story which I think we should be congizant of and which should make us guard more jealously democracy and less certain of its security in moral rightnes. People can take power and dominate you, your family and everyone you know. And the "moral arch of history" will fuck itself off for 1000 years with only a sting of martyrs to its credit.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

jmyeet 4y ago

Recommendation: the Hardcore History podcast by Dan Carlin [1]. He has a series on the Kings of Ancient Persia and an episode on Caesar's conquest of Gaul. Dan talks about this concept a lot. In his words, who invented the light bulb doesn't matter. If someone didn't do it someone else would. But what is far more interesting are these turning points in history that could've completely changed the course of civilization. What if Alexander the Great hadn't died? Dan mentions one of the Kings of Persia was responsible for rebuilding the Temple of Solomon without which Judaism may well have died out. Then we may not have had it, Christianity or Islam. What would the world be like then? Persia came very close to conquering Greece. Roman culture and development was heavily influenced by Greece. The entire of European history turned on that moment. Or the Mongols who turned back from conquering Europe to choose a new Khan. It's fun to theorize about these events but the best we can do is guess as to the immediate aftermath. The ripple effets mean modern history would be completely unrecognizable. [1]: https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/ https://www.dancarlin.com/hardcore-history-series/

thom 4y ago

The late Republic is one of the most fascinating periods of history you can study, not least because the sources are so rich (albeit largely written by a bunch of self-aggrandizing aristocrats or their lackeys). But Caesar was largely a symptom of its decline and everyone can choose the seeds of destruction according to their tastes. Was it the First Slave Revolt, the Gracchi, the Social War, Marius, Sulla, the triumvirate, the optimates? Was it the lack of a common enemy after the sacks of Carthage and Corinth? Was it the unresolved tensions left over from the Conflict of Orders? Probably all of them, and you're just left to marvel, as Polybius did, that the Romans had a system that held the competing tensions in some sort of balance for as long as it did. The angle I've most enjoyed lately is applying the framework from Robin Markwica's "Logic of Affect" to many of the figures in the build up to the civil war. Erich Gruen's "The Last Generation of the Roman Republic" is also very interesting, in that he portrays most Republican institutions (and even Caesar and Pompey's relationship) functioning quite well fairly late on. The entire standoff seemed so unnecessary and avoidable, but there's too much power and prestige at stake by the end for anybody to budge. Were I to point the finger at one man it would be Cato the Younger, but as I say, it's all personal taste at this point.

raducu 4y ago
But the main reason was slave work that enabled the obscene accumulation of wealth in the hands of so few. Exactly what is happening today with slave wage, acces to AI/automation, discretionary not applying laws(labor laws?) for some players, massive tax evasion schemes for the 1%, printing money discretionary for the 1%, monopolies on comerce, state monopoly on comerce via tight monetary controls(China), treating homes as "investments", control of the media.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  This time around it will be different though.
arpowers 4y ago
Cato the younger for forcing Caesar to cross the Rubicon?

chernevik 4y ago

Yes, Caesar's death opened the field for Octavian. But Octavian was such a political genius that we can easily imagine him assuming dictatorial power after Caesar no matter how long the latter lived, and institutionalizing in substantially the same form.

shp0ngle 4y ago

(ignore this comment)

ceejayoz 4y ago
> Julius Caesar was neither the first nor the last leader to be assassinated in Roman history, but his is the only death that still reverberates. The context is Roman leaders, of which Christ isn’t one. Don’t go looking for unnecessary offense.
- shp0ngle 4y ago
  Hah. I will delete the comment, the header was out if context
mongol 4y ago
You are thinking of the death of Jesus? Yes you have a point. He was a leader in Roman history, even though he was not a Roman leader

optimalsolver 4y ago

A gold coin celebrating the assassination of Julius Caesar recently sold for 3 million USD: https://www.reddit.com/r/Gold/comments/jl1wls/an_ultrarare_coin_celebrating_julius_caesars/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Gold/comments/jl1wls/an_ultrarare_c...

VLM 4y ago

Their cultural technology grew to allow them to concentrate power beyond a stable level, result, turmoil. Even the most powerful guy in the civilization could get assassinated.

hackandthink 4y ago

"The Assassination of Julius Caesar: A People's History of Ancient Rome" by Michael Parenti is worth reading. Though I don't agree with it, I can't stand this cruel imperialist. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37811.The_Assassination_of_Julius_Caesar https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37811.The_Assassination_...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

sdenton4 4y ago

Young Caesar 2000 When I was twelve years old They put me on the throne When I was twelve years old They made me king From the ocean south of here to the northern hemisphere They gave me everything. Now I'm thirteen And no one takes me seriously Now I'm thirteen And they're trying to take away control I don't know how stupid You all think I am But as sure as flowers grow along the western wall Heads are gonna roll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84em5RxWbh0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84em5RxWbh0

steponlego 4y ago

It solidifed the transformation from Republic to Empire, much like Trump's arrest will complete America's transformation from Republic to Empire.

dontwearitout 4y ago
...what?
- steponlego 4y ago
  Read it again, makes perfect sense. Hope you're enjoying these times too!

shash 4y ago

Surprised that nobody's mentioned Mike Duncan's Storm before the Storm[1] in this... The problems of the Republic go back a century before Caesar, at the very least. Another series I really liked (it's a fictionalisation, but still) was Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome[2]. [1] https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/mike-duncan/the-storm-before-the-storm/9781610397216/ https://www.publicaffairsbooks.com/titles/mike-duncan/the-st... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Rome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masters_of_Rome