15 ms·

> 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 Ca

by 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.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  The institutions continued. The institutions continued under Augustus, too. But that's like saying that China and Venezuela are democracies because they have elections. The Roman Republic was dead when Caesar won the civil war. The trappings remained, but the Republic was dead. (Seriously, could the people - or even the Senate - have voted Julius Caesar out? No, Caesar was there because of his armies, not because of the popular vote. So it wasn't a republic. In a republic, you can lose elections and be out of power.)
  - cdogl 4y ago
    Tell that to the PRC.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      I am telling that to the PRC.
  - thom 4y ago
    Caesar was pretty popular, and ignoring that ignores many of the dynamics (reaching back to Marius at least, but really all the way to the Conflict of the Orders) that actually governed Roman politics. At the time he came to power, Rome was ruled by an oligarchy, and many of the instruments of political representation for the people had been co-opted by the aristocracy. Not to say his intentions were at all pure, but neither were those of any of his contemporaries.
  - californiadreem 4y ago
    If inability to remove the Consul (or Dictator) via from office via elections is what qualifies as the death of the Republic, then it died with Marius, Sulla, or Pompey. Laying the death at Caesar's feet is ridiculous. Caesar was popular. He was murdered by a coalition of unpopular and disaffected Pompeiians and noveau riche both enabled by Caesar's clemency and largess. He was accorded his honors, powers, and cult status legally. If your notion that a Republic isn't a Republic because popular representatives can't be voted out (because the people don't want to vote them out), then Republics and Democracies don't exist at all and all you have is rhetoric.
boomboomsubban 4y ago
Their argument isn't that the republic continued on into the empire, but that it was already dead to other things. For example, if a system where an unelected triumvirate holds all the political power is a republic, basically anything is a republic.
- chasil 4y ago
  The definition of a republic is itself a nebulous thing. One definition is simply a government that does not have a king. Another is the lack of inherited office. The triumvirates appear to have satisfied both of these simple requirements.
User23 4y ago
> 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. Arguably the protracted civil war goes back to Sulla.
akira2501 4y ago
> He literally led roman armies into battle against roman armies controlled by opposing political interests. Yes, but he had offered a truce to the senate before it came to that. What he wanted was to extend is governorship in Gaul. This would have given him legal protection from his enemies in the senate and kept him somewhat distanced from roman politics for the duration. The senate pressed for this outcome. They got more than they bargained for.

by cowpig 4y ago

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.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
The institutions continued. The institutions continued under Augustus, too. But that's like saying that China and Venezuela are democracies because they have elections. The Roman Republic was dead when Caesar won the civil war. The trappings remained, but the Republic was dead. (Seriously, could the people - or even the Senate - have voted Julius Caesar out? No, Caesar was there because of his armies, not because of the popular vote. So it wasn't a republic. In a republic, you can lose elections and be out of power.)
- cdogl 4y ago
  Tell that to the PRC.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    I am telling that to the PRC.
- thom 4y ago
  Caesar was pretty popular, and ignoring that ignores many of the dynamics (reaching back to Marius at least, but really all the way to the Conflict of the Orders) that actually governed Roman politics. At the time he came to power, Rome was ruled by an oligarchy, and many of the instruments of political representation for the people had been co-opted by the aristocracy. Not to say his intentions were at all pure, but neither were those of any of his contemporaries.
- californiadreem 4y ago
  If inability to remove the Consul (or Dictator) via from office via elections is what qualifies as the death of the Republic, then it died with Marius, Sulla, or Pompey. Laying the death at Caesar's feet is ridiculous. Caesar was popular. He was murdered by a coalition of unpopular and disaffected Pompeiians and noveau riche both enabled by Caesar's clemency and largess. He was accorded his honors, powers, and cult status legally. If your notion that a Republic isn't a Republic because popular representatives can't be voted out (because the people don't want to vote them out), then Republics and Democracies don't exist at all and all you have is rhetoric.

boomboomsubban 4y ago

Their argument isn't that the republic continued on into the empire, but that it was already dead to other things. For example, if a system where an unelected triumvirate holds all the political power is a republic, basically anything is a republic.

chasil 4y ago
The definition of a republic is itself a nebulous thing. One definition is simply a government that does not have a king. Another is the lack of inherited office. The triumvirates appear to have satisfied both of these simple requirements.

User23 4y ago

> 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. Arguably the protracted civil war goes back to Sulla.

akira2501 4y ago

> He literally led roman armies into battle against roman armies controlled by opposing political interests. Yes, but he had offered a truce to the senate before it came to that. What he wanted was to extend is governorship in Gaul. This would have given him legal protection from his enemies in the senate and kept him somewhat distanced from roman politics for the duration. The senate pressed for this outcome. They got more than they bargained for.