10 ms·

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 populu

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.
  - roundandround 4y ago
    The paper ends with the claim that the conspirators destroyed the republic but as you said it was already dead. Given that countries like the US like to draw parallels to Rome, I think it is an important message that normal people dont accept the late society with a consolidating dictator as a republic. Killing Caesar was a noble act, but it apparently required killing his adoptive son too. We can only learn from history if we listen to it without falling into a Stockholm syndrome like a scholar that specializes in one of the monsters.
    - californiadreem 4y ago
      Nobility implies sacrifice. Cassius, Brutus, et. al sacrificed nothing except the hard-fought stability and foundational reform that Caesar was in the process of providing. If honor can be accorded to jealous rentiers guarding latifundia and Old Money engaging in institutional revanchism, then yes, America should learn from history and what happens to tyrants given time. As far as hamfisted comparisons between Trump to Caesar go, Trump is no Caesar. He lacks gall, youth, tribute, loyalty, and competence. The only connection he has is the theatricality of those that floundered in the wake of Caesar & Augustus.
      - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
        > Cassius, Brutus, et. al sacrificed nothing Bedsides their standing, wealth and lives?
- staunch 4y ago
  > The Roman Republic was dead when Caesar won the civil war The Republic had been in trouble for a long time. IMHO it officially died as soon as the First Triumvirate was created. Rome was in complete control of just three people for many years. Pompey was the leading figure of the First Triumvirate, so arguably he deserves more blame than even Caesar for the downfall. The fact that more senators chose him over Caesar says very little about how truly republican any of them were by that point. The war between Caesar's party and Pompey's party was really just a battle for who would be Dictator for life. Neither of them had any intention of handing real power back, because they could honestly tell themselves it was unlikely to fall into any better hands. Had he won, Pompey would have continued to (through military threats) control the Senate the same way he had for many years prior to the civil war.
- coliveira 4y ago
  The US is in the same situation, except that it is not a personal dictatorship. It has a two-party dictatorship, and what unites them is the unwavering support for the foreign imperialism. Any party/candidate that breaks with the foreign imperialism will be labeled an enemy of the state. In this sense, democracy is dead in America too since the cold war.
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > what unites them is the unwavering support for the foreign imperialism This is a dated political model.
  - shipman05 4y ago
    Having foreign policy you disagree with does not make America non-democratic. There are many areas in which the American government doesn't seem to represent the will of the people, but military spending and interventionism are broadly popular. Now, if you want to argue that people have been duped into holding beliefs contrary to their own best interests, I think you could make a strong argument. But that's not the same thing as saying that the government doesn't reflect the beliefs they DO hold.
    - coliveira 4y ago
      The US is the place where the tail wags the dog. The wealthy minorities that are interested in war (for financial reasons or otherwise) put billions into pro-war public support. So it is difficult to say if this is something that the population really wants or if they're being duped into accepting.
staunch 4y ago
> Julius Caesar's civil war with Pompey was neither long nor protracted... Compared to what? It was nearly two years just for the portion with Pompey. > .. and never actually involved the populus of Italy, let alone Rome. Of course it did involve a great many people from Italy and a great many Romans. > Pompey's Macedonian strategy ultimately failed as soon as it was contested. It failed after very nearly succeeding multiple times and after months of skirmishes, sieges, storming of cities, back-and-forth trench warfare on huge scale, and marches with counter-marches. It was a slugfest between the largest and most modern forces of the day.
- californiadreem 4y ago
  >Compared to what? It was nearly two years just for the portion with Pompey. The period prior to Caesar (i.e. Marius, Sulla, and Catalinean period, etc.) and the post-Caesarian civil wars? >Of course it did involve a great many people from Italy and a great many Romans. Show me a serious battle in Italy or a battle in Rome that resulted in serious destruction or disruption to the operations of Rome and the Italic peoples as a result of Caesar's civil war. Corfinium? Brundisium? It's nothing. > It failed after very nearly succeeding multiple times and after months of skirmishes, sieges, storming of cities, back-and-forth trench warfare on huge scale, and marches and counter-marches. It was a slug fest between large forces. It was a handful of battles and sieges. It's nothing compared to other campaigns. It's hard to believe that you're not actively being disingenuous rather than incidentally illiterate in regards to the broader historical context.
  - staunch 4y ago
    > Show me a serious battle in Italy or a battle in Rome that resulted in serious destruction as a result of Caesar's civil war. The people fighting in Spain, Greece, and Africa were largely Italian Romans or non-Italian Romans or allies. Caesar and Pompey were Italian Romans. It was in every way a civil war of Romans. What difference does it make that, for logistical reasons, the battles took place outside of Italy proper? > It was a handful of battles and sieges. It's nothing compared to other campaigns. Greece was the hardest campaign of Caesar's life. For the first time, he was fighting a complete military peer that had more resources, more soldiers, and more money. Pompey even had important Gallic leaders and Caesar's #2 (Labienus) leading a much larger cavalry force. Pompey's army matched and beat Caesar's in siege warfare. Caesar almost lost multiple times and was beaten and in retreat when he turned around to fight and win at Pharsalus. Had Pompey avoided a full scale engagement, it's very likely that he would have won.

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.
- roundandround 4y ago
  The paper ends with the claim that the conspirators destroyed the republic but as you said it was already dead. Given that countries like the US like to draw parallels to Rome, I think it is an important message that normal people dont accept the late society with a consolidating dictator as a republic. Killing Caesar was a noble act, but it apparently required killing his adoptive son too. We can only learn from history if we listen to it without falling into a Stockholm syndrome like a scholar that specializes in one of the monsters.
  - californiadreem 4y ago
    Nobility implies sacrifice. Cassius, Brutus, et. al sacrificed nothing except the hard-fought stability and foundational reform that Caesar was in the process of providing. If honor can be accorded to jealous rentiers guarding latifundia and Old Money engaging in institutional revanchism, then yes, America should learn from history and what happens to tyrants given time. As far as hamfisted comparisons between Trump to Caesar go, Trump is no Caesar. He lacks gall, youth, tribute, loyalty, and competence. The only connection he has is the theatricality of those that floundered in the wake of Caesar & Augustus.
    - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
      > Cassius, Brutus, et. al sacrificed nothing Bedsides their standing, wealth and lives?
staunch 4y ago
> The Roman Republic was dead when Caesar won the civil war The Republic had been in trouble for a long time. IMHO it officially died as soon as the First Triumvirate was created. Rome was in complete control of just three people for many years. Pompey was the leading figure of the First Triumvirate, so arguably he deserves more blame than even Caesar for the downfall. The fact that more senators chose him over Caesar says very little about how truly republican any of them were by that point. The war between Caesar's party and Pompey's party was really just a battle for who would be Dictator for life. Neither of them had any intention of handing real power back, because they could honestly tell themselves it was unlikely to fall into any better hands. Had he won, Pompey would have continued to (through military threats) control the Senate the same way he had for many years prior to the civil war.
coliveira 4y ago
The US is in the same situation, except that it is not a personal dictatorship. It has a two-party dictatorship, and what unites them is the unwavering support for the foreign imperialism. Any party/candidate that breaks with the foreign imperialism will be labeled an enemy of the state. In this sense, democracy is dead in America too since the cold war.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > what unites them is the unwavering support for the foreign imperialism This is a dated political model.
- shipman05 4y ago
  Having foreign policy you disagree with does not make America non-democratic. There are many areas in which the American government doesn't seem to represent the will of the people, but military spending and interventionism are broadly popular. Now, if you want to argue that people have been duped into holding beliefs contrary to their own best interests, I think you could make a strong argument. But that's not the same thing as saying that the government doesn't reflect the beliefs they DO hold.
  - coliveira 4y ago
    The US is the place where the tail wags the dog. The wealthy minorities that are interested in war (for financial reasons or otherwise) put billions into pro-war public support. So it is difficult to say if this is something that the population really wants or if they're being duped into accepting.

staunch 4y ago

> Julius Caesar's civil war with Pompey was neither long nor protracted... Compared to what? It was nearly two years just for the portion with Pompey. > .. and never actually involved the populus of Italy, let alone Rome. Of course it did involve a great many people from Italy and a great many Romans. > Pompey's Macedonian strategy ultimately failed as soon as it was contested. It failed after very nearly succeeding multiple times and after months of skirmishes, sieges, storming of cities, back-and-forth trench warfare on huge scale, and marches with counter-marches. It was a slugfest between the largest and most modern forces of the day.

californiadreem 4y ago
>Compared to what? It was nearly two years just for the portion with Pompey. The period prior to Caesar (i.e. Marius, Sulla, and Catalinean period, etc.) and the post-Caesarian civil wars? >Of course it did involve a great many people from Italy and a great many Romans. Show me a serious battle in Italy or a battle in Rome that resulted in serious destruction or disruption to the operations of Rome and the Italic peoples as a result of Caesar's civil war. Corfinium? Brundisium? It's nothing. > It failed after very nearly succeeding multiple times and after months of skirmishes, sieges, storming of cities, back-and-forth trench warfare on huge scale, and marches and counter-marches. It was a slug fest between large forces. It was a handful of battles and sieges. It's nothing compared to other campaigns. It's hard to believe that you're not actively being disingenuous rather than incidentally illiterate in regards to the broader historical context.
- staunch 4y ago
  > Show me a serious battle in Italy or a battle in Rome that resulted in serious destruction as a result of Caesar's civil war. The people fighting in Spain, Greece, and Africa were largely Italian Romans or non-Italian Romans or allies. Caesar and Pompey were Italian Romans. It was in every way a civil war of Romans. What difference does it make that, for logistical reasons, the battles took place outside of Italy proper? > It was a handful of battles and sieges. It's nothing compared to other campaigns. Greece was the hardest campaign of Caesar's life. For the first time, he was fighting a complete military peer that had more resources, more soldiers, and more money. Pompey even had important Gallic leaders and Caesar's #2 (Labienus) leading a much larger cavalry force. Pompey's army matched and beat Caesar's in siege warfare. Caesar almost lost multiple times and was beaten and in retreat when he turned around to fight and win at Pharsalus. Had Pompey avoided a full scale engagement, it's very likely that he would have won.