In HBO’s Rome, JC claimed that crossing the Rubicon and appointing himself dictator were within his rights. True or not, what were his stated reasons?
Caesar made the argument that his opponents in the Senate were using their Senatorial power to persecute him, and not acting in the best interest of the Republic, and that, by threatening the Tribunes and making their actions on his behalf illegal, the Senate was acting unconstitutionally.
So, marching on Rome was neccesary, he argued, to save the Republic and his reputation, both of which were being harmed by the actions of his enemies.
The Senate was giving Pompey all sorts of goodies and perks, (consul without having to run for office, that sort of thing) and refusing Caeser the same benefits. Caesar couldn’t stand for the inequity.
Sometimes I wonder what would have happend if Julia (Caesar’s daughter and Pompey’s wife) hadn’t died in childbirth at a young age…I bet between them, Caesar and Pompey would have ruled the world.
Two heads cannot wear one crown.
Something flavorless added to the wine…? :dubious:
Is there a consensus among historians as to who had the moral/legal high ground here?
Neither side did. They were both angling for power. The reactionaries wanted to continue an increasingly ineffective system that put power in the hands of a few old families; Caesar and others were interested in a more consolidated power structure that had the flexibility to meet the needs of a growing empire, but, of course, only if that power was in their hands.
He had an army backing him up. That’s all the justification he needed. Are YOU gonna argue with an army?
Right. The joke is that Julius Caesar wanted to put more power in the hands of the people, so long as those people had the name Caesar.
Not entirely true. For a time, the Empire had four emporers. Two Augustuses (Augusti?) and two Ceasars, a sort of “Vice Emporer”. Each pair had authority over a seperate portion of the empire (ie: the Western empire centered around Rome, and the Eastern empire centered around Byzantium, IIRC). Generally the Augustus would run things in his capital, and he’d dispatch the Ceasar to deal with things like leading large armies in battle. All in all, it worked really well.
For about one generation. When it came time to start choosing heirs, things sorta fell apart, and after the shooting stopped, Constantine became Augustus, being the only candidate left standing.
To be fair, there were an awful number of people running around named “Ceasar” throughout history, though from what I understand, it was initially something that happened when you BECAME the Emporer, and eventually became a TITLE for Emporer (hence the Russian title of “Czar”).
I guess it’s kinda like if we started having every US President adopt the name “George”.
Julius was the first Caesar to hold power. Octavian (who became Augustsus) took the name as an adopted son. Tiberius took the name from Augustus as a stepson. Caligula took it from Tiberius as an adopted son. Claudius and Nero followed suit. It eventually synonymous with “emperor,” but it started as a dynastic family name.
But didn’t Caesar at least use his power, however gained, for the benefit of the people?
Also, in pre-Emperor times, there were two triumvirates viz. Caesar, Pompey & Crassus (First Triumvirate 60 BC) and Octavian, Antony & Lepidus (Second Triumvirate 43 BC).
Some were more equal than others in these uneasy alliances.
Umm…no.
He was assassinated before he could do all that much.
“All that much” specifically excluding setting the political structure of the Western World ringing like a bell, I mean. :rolleyes:
I suspect that the trimverates is probably what Raguleader was referring to. There was no time that Rome had four “Emperors” (that I’m aware of). Octavian eventually became the first Emperor and the Senate gave him the title of “Augustus” at that time.
Nope, I’m refererring to the Tetrarchy that reigned from 293CE to 313CE. Like I said, it didn’t last long. After the smoke had settled from the very short lived second Tetrarchy, Constantine was the Emporer.
Ok, I stand corrected. This was a bit of Roman HistoryI was unaware of. Thank you.
Some close to original* texts:
Plutarch in his Life of Caesar written about 100 years after the events in question says that when Lentlus refused Caesar’s (fairly reasonable under the circumstances) compromise, he “drove Antony and Curio out of the senate-house with insults, by which he afforded Caesar the most plausible pretence that could be, and one which he could readily use to inflame the soldiers, by showing them two persons of such repute and authority who were forced to escape in a hired carriage in the dress of slaves.”
Suetonius writing in the 12 Caesars about 150 years after the events says that Caesars excuse was that he wanted to prevent Civil War –that the Counsuls were taking away the Veto of the Tribunes and ignoring the Commons (but he offers many more realistic reasons GJC did it)
Suetonius, The Lives of the Caesars, The Life of Julius Caesar Ch.30
*Livy wrote about these events within a few decades (>60years) of them happening – but much of his work is lost. Informed speculation by Historians only: – Suetonieus and Plutarch are believed to use him as a source.
But also note that Rome had been going through one civil war after another for decades before Caesar made himself dictator. And Caesar’s death didn’t stop the civil wars, they sparked new ones…the second Triumvirate against the “Republicans”, then the Triumvirs against each other until Octavian gained total power. And Octavian’s reign put an end to the civil wars and this is what put the final nail in the coffin of republicanism. If Octavian had been an ineffective ruler then the strife would have continued until Rome either tore itself apart or someone else took power.
But the Romans were cursed with the brilliant Augustus, who legitimized rule by emperor. And very few emperors for the next ~500 years had anything even close to the abilities of Augustus. A more ineffective first emperor who didn’t accumulate so much power into the office might have made the later Caligulas and Neros easier to get rid of.
Actually, he accomplished a number of reforms in his time as person in power. See, for example, the list of efforts found in the section sub-titled, “Aftermath of the Civil War” in the Wikipedia article on Julius Caesar.
Actually, he crossed the Rubicon with only one legion. He would have been quickly quashed if his enemies had known this, but they assumed he had more legions with him.