Ides of March: Caesar's Death Good or Bad?

Caesar was tGOAT. Don't be such a puss

quote:

---

Fun to analyze.

---

Nahhhh

quote:

---

Pretty sure it's the reason why Trump is doing so well in the primaries.

---

he had better watch out for Brutus Sanders

I don't know about the republic, but sure was a good move for high school English teachers.

quote:

---

I dunno. Probably would've been better off as a republic. Perhaps if more citizens were involved with the government, taxation would've been reined in to incentivize growth. Then again, the Roman republic was never exactly a democracy anyway. Rule by elites vs rule by one elite.

---

There's something familiar about this.

Best not to waste too much time thinking about this kinda shite. Like a wise man once said, those who obsess over history are doomed to repeat it.

quote:

---

There were some successful emperors and some unsuccessful. The immediate successor to Julius was Augustus, so that turned out well. In the long run, Did Rome suffer for being an empire? Honestly how much of a difference it made. Rome lasted as an empire for hundreds of years in the west and another 1400 years in the east, so I won't say it's lifespan was shortened. Would a citizen's or peasant's life differ much under and emperor vs republic? Would Christianity have spread differently? Would rome's economy have changed that much? Would the slave trade have decreased and encouraged innovation?

I dunno. Probably would've been better off as a republic. Perhaps if more citizens were involved with the government, taxation would've been reined in to incentivize growth. Then again, the Roman republic was never exactly a democracy anyway. Rule by elites vs rule by one elite

---

It's also important to remember that, at the time, Caesar was seen as really just yet another in a long line of extremely ambitious men who had bent the power of the state - republican though it supposedly was - to suit their political desires. The Gracchi brothers, Gaius Marius, Sulla, Carbo, Crassus, Pompeii, etc., etc. He was just a little bit more cunning and a little bit more talented than the rest.

Probably the more momentous decision in ensuring the ultimate demise of the empire was Marcus Aurelius' breaking with Antonine and Julio-Claudian tradition and nominating his own son to be his heir. Commodus was a trainwreck even during Aurelius' reign, and Marcus Aurelius knew that. He still couldn't help himself. The third century AD is not possible without that fatal mistake. That was the final move that led to the Severans, away from enlightened despotism, and into full-on military dictatorship.

We could use a little Pax Romana in that part of the world. It's been downhill for Africa and the Eastern Med since. Augustus>> Julius

First off the reason for the assassination was to "save the Republic", but all it did was seal the fate of the republic as they knew it. In reality the Republic the assassins were hoping to be restored had died hundreds of years before. By the time Caesar died Rome had endured at least 3 civil wars in 40 years. The Republic was already dead and in actuality it was a fight for who would hold the power in Rome. The Death of Caesar only brought on two more Civil Wars as Antony and Octavian fought the assassins and then fought against each other for power.

It must also be remembered that Rome didn't see themselves as an Empire. They did not refer to the rulers as Emperors like we do. We get the name Emperor from the Roman Imperator which was the title for any Roman given total Imperium (rule of the military) During the years of what we call the Roman Empire, the Romans continued to see their gov. as a Republic with an Executive officer. They did not being referring to it as an Empire till the 300's AD.