# What's the Big Deal About Caesar? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [September 7, 2021, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-big-deal-about-caesar/950279 "2021-09-07T23:12:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GreenWyvern](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/greenwyvern/32/2834_2.png) [@GreenWyvern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreenWyvern)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2021, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-big-deal-about-caesar/950279/41 "2021-09-08T18:51:57Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > While that settlement was eventually pushed out politically and the remaining “Danes” were either assimilated or killed off in events like the St. Brice’s Day Massacre (in which Anglo-Saxon King Æthelred “the Unready” ordered the mass execution of every Dane found within the Kingdom of England.) The St Brice’s Day massacre certainly didn’t have a significant effect, since after that massacre the Danes conquered the Saxon part of England – twice! Once under Sweyn Forkbeard and once under his son Cnut the Great. The ‘Kingdom of England’ under Æthelred didn’t include the Danish parts of England. Both times the Saxons regained control, mainly due to Danish internal conflicts. Harthacnut (the son of Cnut), a subsequent Danish king of England, was apparently content to leave the whole of England to his Saxon half-brother Edward the Confessor on his death. The Danelaw – parts of England ruled according to Danish rather than Saxon law, whoever was in charge – only ended with the Norman invasion. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2021, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-big-deal-about-caesar/950279/42 "2021-09-08T18:54:48Z")
It’s unlikely any one incident had a significant effect, which also is not what I claimed. Lots of incidents over long periods of time can change nations, though. ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2021, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-big-deal-about-caesar/950279/43 "2021-09-08T19:17:31Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’m not even sure how much the Ancient Roman Republic would ever be classified as a truly representative government at any point to be honest. We know obviously that in the early Republic it wasn’t even close to anything we’d recognize as democratic in a legal sense; the Patrician class were the only ones who could hold Consulships and Senate seats. With the creation of the Tribunes began a long, 200+ year process of rebalance between the Patricians and the Plebs, but even that is hard to identify as a purely democratic revolution. It was never close to a 20th century liberal democracy, and was (as with plenty of 20th century liberal democracies) heavily dominated by a rich elite, who had power far beyond their numbers. But it absolutely was a representative system of government, and the biggest that had existed up to that point, and would exist for a millennia or so afterwards. The people’s assemblies had genuine legislative power, and were genuinely representative bodies that all free male Romans were eligible to take part in them. At the height of the republic, after the social wars, that meant 100,000s of people, far more than any other equivalent representative that would exist for centuries (admittedly you could argue that it was _too large_ for ancient society to support and was one of the reasons for the collapse of the republic). ---
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2021, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-big-deal-about-caesar/950279/44 "2021-09-08T19:53:32Z")
> [@GreenWyvern](#): > > Pompey was a lifetime supporter of the the Optimates party. He was not a reformer. He was ‘doing his darndest’ to keep the elite in power. He ultimately sided with them to oppose Ceasar he also did plenty of dallying with the populares too (he was one of the triumvas with Ceasar and Crassus, both solidly populares.) Also its anachronistic to think of populares and optimates as modern political parties with a raft of opposing polices, they are just labels applied to the sides of the conflict. And he absolutely supported several reforms, his reason for joining the Triumvirate was ensure reform land was carried out (which ensured the loyalty of his veterans as a convenient side effect, but it was definitely a reform). He also spearheaded other reforms to the political system including restoring the powers of the tribune of the plebs. He was no champion of democracy and liberty, and maybe he’d have set himself up as autocrat if he’d defeated Caesar, but Pompey and plenty of others saw the flaws in the republic but did not see it as dead in the water. They were actively trying to reform it so it could survive. > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > If you doubt that the Republic had become corrupt and unpopular, I suggest that you read up on the history of civil conflict in the Republic during the whole century before Caesar’s assassination - the Gracchi brothers, Marius, Sulla, Catiline, the Populares and the Optimates, and the widespread grievances among ordinary people against the Republican government. It was definitely corrupt and it (or the massive inequality associated with it) was definitely unpopular in some quarters. But that doesn’t mean its collapse was inevitable and hence it was “good thing” it was toppled by a skilled ruler (or pair of rulers in Caesar and then Augustus). Caesar deciding to start a civil war and collapse the roman republic made the collapse inevitable. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-big-deal-about-caesar/950279.md?page=2)