6 ms·

> Ceasar was a ruler for the people. ...or as we'd say today, a typical "populist". I don't think there were any genuinely "good guys" among the Roman politica

> Ceasar was a ruler for the people. ...or as we'd say today, a typical "populist". I don't think there were any genuinely "good guys" among the Roman political elite just by process of natural selection. Politics in Rome was a cut-throat business, and much closer to an oligarchy or mafia state than what we understand today as a "republican democracy". I have no doubt that Caesar only had his own political advancement in mind with the ultimate goal to become an autocratic ruler when he pretended to care about the "people". PS: all my own opinions of course, formed by reading the usual sources :)

toyg 3y ago
> Caesar only had his own political advancement in mind with the ultimate goal to become an autocratic ruler when he pretended to care about the "people". Oh, exactly like 90% of modern politicians then...
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > exactly like 90% of modern politicians Roman politics, one could even say culture, had a fundamental flaw in equating military competence with political savvy. (Our modern analog is commercial and governance.) Sulla and Marius and Pompey and Caesar personally raised armies, legitimately and then otherwise. This gave every Roman commander a practical veto unthinkable in modern politics.
  - joycian 3y ago
    Actually, I think it could be said that Pompey did it illegitimately before he did it legitimately (legitimately meaning: with the support of the sitting government in Rome), raising troops in support of Sulla's invasion force. Of course, legitimacy is a bit strange in the Sulla-Marius years.
willcipriano 3y ago
To start ask what is populism? From Google: > a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. I find the more educated you are (read: elite) the less you like populism. Funny that.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Populism is a mixed term. But historically, it involves using majoritarianism to accumulate power and defeat systemic checks. It’s successful in the short run and damning in the long. Explaining to a starving orphan (or more pointedly: veteran legionnaire) that they can’t have food because of the constitutional system of consular veto is basically unwinnable, which is why that situation is checkmate: if you fight for principles you’re heartless, and if you fight for what seems right you must become a dictator. Roman politics, by the late Republic, has reached this level of gridlock and imbalance where the only factions were a conservative establishment unwilling to accept any change and a populist wing populated with strongmen. Put another way, Sulla and Caesar failed where Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR succeeded.
  - willcipriano 3y ago
    The "norms of the Republic" were constantly violated to enrich the elites of Rome, it was only when Ceasar violated them for the people was it a problem. It's a tale as old as time, sort of like low interest rates, it's a party until wages start to tick up then all of the sudden we have to do something about all this inflation.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > The "norms of the Republic" were constantly violated to enrich the elites of Rome, it was only when Ceasar violated them for the people was it a problem There are high norms and low norms. (My terminology.) Low norms range from basic corruption to which sexual orientation is in vogue. High norms subvert how power is wielded. Equating these two is page one of populism. (You have a broad point in that crossing the Rubicon was a generational affair by Caesar’s point. But nobody was happy about it when Sulla did it either.) > until wages start to tick up then all of the sudden we have to do something about all this inflation This cannot be a serious reading of the data. Wages rose precipitously for a decade [1]. Even during the pandemic, while wages rose and stimulus reigned, measured inflation was low as were rates. When inflation started rising, rates remained low because the Fed thought it transitory. It’s only when it surged that the FOMC stepped in. The Fed was not only fine but thrilled with rising real wages. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/
ysavir 3y ago
As another "fan" of Caesar, I agree with this take. There's much to be appreciated about Caesar when looking at his strategies, tactics, politicking, etc. He was absolutely brilliant. But that was all born on the backs of using and abusing people (sometimes Roman, sometimes the people Romans conquered). This isn't unique to him and is just emblematic of Rome at the time, and its attitude towards itself, towards conquering, and towards non-Romans. To appreciate Caesar requires a certain amount of separating the artist from the art, and knowing that the good he did was more a means to and end rather than an end in-and-of itself.
- meowface 3y ago
  Were there any famous or powerful Romans we might consider more liberal/progressive by modern standards? People who didn't believe in wantonly enslaving and plundering and conquering, or exploiting populist rhetoric, or otherwise abusing people. People who made reforms without ulterior motives (or at least with benevolence and empathy as some of the genuine motives). (One can argue there aren't many powerful people like that even in modern times, but I can at least think of a few. Just wondering about Roman history, though.)
  - ysavir 3y ago
    I thought the Gracchi brothers[0] might be an example of what you're looking for, but a quick skim of the wikipedia page (it's been almost two decades since I read their history properly) suggests that even they weren't examples of this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi_brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi_brothers
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> don't think there were any genuinely "good guys" among the Roman political elite just by process of natural selection Cicero comes pretty close. Would also note that Sulla, despite being awful, eventually gave up the title of dictator after enacting constitutional reforms. (Naturally, the killing his political opponents bit backfired.)
- argentier 3y ago
  Cicero invented the conspiracy of Catiline, had Roman citizens put to death without trial, and was a warrior on the side of the oligarchy (the Optimates) all his life, despite the fact that they despised him. Sulla was a reactionary mass murderer. In the end, through Caesar, the Populares won, despite decades of political killings on behalf of the Optimates to defend their theft of public land.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Cicero invented the conspiracy of Catiline The “extent of the exaggeration is unclear and still debated; most classicists agree that the conspiracy occurred as broadly described – rather than being a Machiavellian invention of Cicero's – but concede that its actual threat to the republic was exaggerated for Cicero's benefit and to heighten later dramatic narratives” [1]. Think: Giuliani invoking 9/11 at every turn of conversation. > had Roman citizens put to death without trial The Senate let him by passing the SCU [2]. He was quelling a rebellion and Rome had no jails. Again, not unblemished good guy, but given the circumstances, within the shadow of doubt. > literally appointed and was a warrior on the side of the oligarchy (the Optimates) all his life This is a callous reading of his policy views. He advocated for stability. He wasn’t Roman patrician elite, and had experienced what political instability in Rome meant in the countryside. He had loose alignment with Rome’s conservatives, but in a pragmatic way, and was on good terms with Caesar and even Octavian. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catilinarian_conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catilinarian_conspiracy [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum
    - 3y ago
AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
[dead]
rsynnott 3y ago
> ...or as we'd say today, a typical "populist". Or indeed, as they'd have said then, kind of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimates_and_populares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimates_and_populares (Populares weren't always populists, but they were inclined to be, and Caesar was both)

toyg 3y ago

> Caesar only had his own political advancement in mind with the ultimate goal to become an autocratic ruler when he pretended to care about the "people". Oh, exactly like 90% of modern politicians then...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> exactly like 90% of modern politicians Roman politics, one could even say culture, had a fundamental flaw in equating military competence with political savvy. (Our modern analog is commercial and governance.) Sulla and Marius and Pompey and Caesar personally raised armies, legitimately and then otherwise. This gave every Roman commander a practical veto unthinkable in modern politics.
- joycian 3y ago
  Actually, I think it could be said that Pompey did it illegitimately before he did it legitimately (legitimately meaning: with the support of the sitting government in Rome), raising troops in support of Sulla's invasion force. Of course, legitimacy is a bit strange in the Sulla-Marius years.

willcipriano 3y ago

To start ask what is populism? From Google: > a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups. I find the more educated you are (read: elite) the less you like populism. Funny that.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Populism is a mixed term. But historically, it involves using majoritarianism to accumulate power and defeat systemic checks. It’s successful in the short run and damning in the long. Explaining to a starving orphan (or more pointedly: veteran legionnaire) that they can’t have food because of the constitutional system of consular veto is basically unwinnable, which is why that situation is checkmate: if you fight for principles you’re heartless, and if you fight for what seems right you must become a dictator. Roman politics, by the late Republic, has reached this level of gridlock and imbalance where the only factions were a conservative establishment unwilling to accept any change and a populist wing populated with strongmen. Put another way, Sulla and Caesar failed where Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR succeeded.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  The "norms of the Republic" were constantly violated to enrich the elites of Rome, it was only when Ceasar violated them for the people was it a problem. It's a tale as old as time, sort of like low interest rates, it's a party until wages start to tick up then all of the sudden we have to do something about all this inflation.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > The "norms of the Republic" were constantly violated to enrich the elites of Rome, it was only when Ceasar violated them for the people was it a problem There are high norms and low norms. (My terminology.) Low norms range from basic corruption to which sexual orientation is in vogue. High norms subvert how power is wielded. Equating these two is page one of populism. (You have a broad point in that crossing the Rubicon was a generational affair by Caesar’s point. But nobody was happy about it when Sulla did it either.) > until wages start to tick up then all of the sudden we have to do something about all this inflation This cannot be a serious reading of the data. Wages rose precipitously for a decade [1]. Even during the pandemic, while wages rose and stimulus reigned, measured inflation was low as were rates. When inflation started rising, rates remained low because the Fed thought it transitory. It’s only when it surged that the FOMC stepped in. The Fed was not only fine but thrilled with rising real wages. [1] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/ https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N/

ysavir 3y ago

As another "fan" of Caesar, I agree with this take. There's much to be appreciated about Caesar when looking at his strategies, tactics, politicking, etc. He was absolutely brilliant. But that was all born on the backs of using and abusing people (sometimes Roman, sometimes the people Romans conquered). This isn't unique to him and is just emblematic of Rome at the time, and its attitude towards itself, towards conquering, and towards non-Romans. To appreciate Caesar requires a certain amount of separating the artist from the art, and knowing that the good he did was more a means to and end rather than an end in-and-of itself.

meowface 3y ago
Were there any famous or powerful Romans we might consider more liberal/progressive by modern standards? People who didn't believe in wantonly enslaving and plundering and conquering, or exploiting populist rhetoric, or otherwise abusing people. People who made reforms without ulterior motives (or at least with benevolence and empathy as some of the genuine motives). (One can argue there aren't many powerful people like that even in modern times, but I can at least think of a few. Just wondering about Roman history, though.)
- ysavir 3y ago
  I thought the Gracchi brothers[0] might be an example of what you're looking for, but a quick skim of the wikipedia page (it's been almost two decades since I read their history properly) suggests that even they weren't examples of this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi_brothers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi_brothers

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> don't think there were any genuinely "good guys" among the Roman political elite just by process of natural selection Cicero comes pretty close. Would also note that Sulla, despite being awful, eventually gave up the title of dictator after enacting constitutional reforms. (Naturally, the killing his political opponents bit backfired.)

argentier 3y ago
Cicero invented the conspiracy of Catiline, had Roman citizens put to death without trial, and was a warrior on the side of the oligarchy (the Optimates) all his life, despite the fact that they despised him. Sulla was a reactionary mass murderer. In the end, through Caesar, the Populares won, despite decades of political killings on behalf of the Optimates to defend their theft of public land.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Cicero invented the conspiracy of Catiline The “extent of the exaggeration is unclear and still debated; most classicists agree that the conspiracy occurred as broadly described – rather than being a Machiavellian invention of Cicero's – but concede that its actual threat to the republic was exaggerated for Cicero's benefit and to heighten later dramatic narratives” [1]. Think: Giuliani invoking 9/11 at every turn of conversation. > had Roman citizens put to death without trial The Senate let him by passing the SCU [2]. He was quelling a rebellion and Rome had no jails. Again, not unblemished good guy, but given the circumstances, within the shadow of doubt. > literally appointed and was a warrior on the side of the oligarchy (the Optimates) all his life This is a callous reading of his policy views. He advocated for stability. He wasn’t Roman patrician elite, and had experienced what political instability in Rome meant in the countryside. He had loose alignment with Rome’s conservatives, but in a pragmatic way, and was on good terms with Caesar and even Octavian. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catilinarian_conspiracy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catilinarian_conspiracy [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum
  - 3y ago

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago

[dead]

rsynnott 3y ago

> ...or as we'd say today, a typical "populist". Or indeed, as they'd have said then, kind of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimates_and_populares https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimates_and_populares (Populares weren't always populists, but they were inclined to be, and Caesar was both)