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

quote:

---

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

---

The eastern Med actually did pretty damn well under both the Byzantines and the various Islamic dynasties that followed. It wasn't until the Ottomans took control that the area really started sliding into a backwater.

In Julius Caesar's rule, near end of the Republic, one thing was certain. The internal chaos of the previous 60 - 70 years had to end. The Republic had been torn apart by ambitious populists, Caesar included, and competing generals with client armies presented a threat to the Republic too great to be allowed to continue.

Julius Caesar thought that by assuming the dictatorship he would be the one to restore order, but we should remember to view Caesar two ways: as a representative of the problem (he used force and a client army to gain power), and, ultimately, a failure, despite the many things he did right in the cause of his own glory. The man was a true genius and force of nature. But he was not thorough enough in his grasp of power. He left too many enemies unaddressed, assuming they could be led by him. It would be inaccurate to describe Julius Caesar's reign as a time of stability. The Republic remained unstable under his watch, and his assassination was a result.

Was it a good thing? I say, grudgingly, that it was. Though I admire Caesar personally, I know that Rome was better off in time. Augustus Caesar came to power after yet another civil war, and this time, the right guy was on the throne. His rule saw the longest period of continuous peace in Roman history, and it couldn't have come a moment too soon. The Republic formally died with the ascension of Augustus, but in truth, the Republic was dead for decades prior. A half-republic/half-empire wasn't working for most of the first century B.C. The chaos had to end, and Augustus was the one who realized what it would take to restore order. Unlike Caesar, he put full effort into his tyranny, without disguising it as something it was not. That was what was needed at the time, not Julius Caesar's contradictory fantasy of maintaining the Republic via single rule.

quote:

---

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

---

Salads too

quote:

---

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.

---

Caesar had little choice but to take the path he did. Roman politics had degenerated to the point that Caesar faced prosecution by his enemies once he laid down his imperium. That course was started by Marius and Sulla. They let the genie out and it wasn't going back in the Republican bottle. Cato and the rest of the Republicans would not agree to any peace or truce with Caesar. They attacked Pompey whenever he tried to avoid civil war.

Caesar tried to reform the Republic while saving it. He recognized that Rome was now a world power and wanted the Senate and assemblies to reflect that fact. There was probably little he could do as the republic was too far gone as Plato's cycle of governments was proven to be true once again.