LibriumArcana.Games

I've been thinking about the civil war between the forces of Julius and Octavian Caesar, and the republicans represented by Brutus.

On the one hand, you have Caesar: dictator and Imperator, tyrant, but also popular with the people.

On the other hand you have the Senate, composed entirely of wealthy patrician families, aka rich old white dudes.

All of this comes to a head at the Battle of Phillipi.

Now, question: who do you root for? Brutus, who betrayed Caesar but did so because he loved the Republic? Or Caesar (at this point, Octavian), who has a bold new vision for Rome?

Secondary question: at what point do you suppose the Roman Republic was doomed, and at what point do you suppose the rot began? History is not one of my strong suits (lit student FTW) but I dimly recall some attempt at reforms that were made before Gaius Julius Caesar's time, which were aimed at helping the plebes but which the Senate quashed.

It's even more complex than that Stofsk. At the time before Ceaser the Senate was run by a triumvate alliance which was led by the sucessful general Pompeii. In the past couple generations there had already been a military dictatior who seized power and ruthlessly murdered a good deal of his enemies in the Senatioral class. The Republic was engaged in a multi-generatioral cycle of civil war, dictatiorship and instablity.

My personal belief is the death stroke of the Republic was in the broad daylight murders of the reformist Grache brothers by rival Senators and their clients. These murders were never punished and therefore ligitmatized open factional violence in the republic between members of the Senate class. It is in my opinion a tribute to the strength of the system that it was able to carry on for several generations after that before finially falling into darkness. But it was still a zombie.

Ceaser may have just been the guy who realized this and decided to just put the damn dead shambler to rest. Or he may have been just another greedy opporutist. It is interesting to note; Ceaser's murderers with the expection of Brutus were all enemies of his that he pardoned and forgave. Basically his own sense of mercy killed him. His nephew Augestus ruthlessly purged every single one of his enemies and died of old age in his bed...

Ruthlessness is not always a vice and mercy not always a virtue is something you should take away from Roman history.

The situation certainly wasn't helped by the Marian reforms, which took the loyalty of the armies from the Senate and gave it to the generals. Interestingly enough Caius Marius was a staunch republican and was one of the primary agressors against Sulla, who was one of the previous dictators that Magi mentions.

On top of this a lot of the Italian cities were beginning to have problems with Roman rule as well, which caused a few problems of their own. Rome was boiling beneath the surface at this point in time.

Overall, I'd agree with Magi, the broad daylight murder of opposition with no consequences was a big part of what led to the demise of the Republic, to answer the second question. As to the first, it's hard to say. Many of the Julio-Claudian emperors were fucking insane psychopaths (which I would argue is chiefly Augustus' fault with his ruthless termination of opposition). But on the other hand the Republic was pretty clearly on it's last legs. I think I would support the Republic because while it would probably collapse shortly after, it would leave a LOT of opportunity in the area for a new city to rise to power.

Also just something of note, there were a number of senators who were not from ridiculously wealthy old families and many of the 'new blood' senators were looked rather favourably upon.[/i]

The Republic doomed itself. The Senate as it was not really suited to running an Empire, which showed itself the constant upheavals and factional fighting. Every attempt at reform was met with murderous resistance, as frigid has mentioned. Considering that soldiers had become dependent on their generals for their pay and retirmement benefits, some kind of military coup seemed inevitable.

Personally I root for Caesar, whether we're talking about Gaius Julius Caesar or Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus Augustus. I think that Augustus did a pretty good job running the Empire, and I think that the succession might've been a good deal less psycho if he'd had and raised his own children as successors (although being a bit less thorough at eliminating opposition would probably have helped as well).

While I am not by any means a history student my Latin class mentions this time period and apparently Brutus' armies were the lesser force. He was so strapped for men that people like Horace (yes, the poet) were given high command positions very early in their service (Horace ended up commanding a legion, and relatively soon after joining the army).

Since these are the kinds of things I would hear about as a citizen it would make sense to back the side most likely to win, which is Caesar's.

frigidmagi wrote:My personal belief is the death stroke of the Republic was in the broad daylight murders of the reformist Grache brothers by rival Senators and their clients.

They're the blokes I was vaguely talking about, but whose names I had forgotten.

Ruthlessness is not always a vice and mercy not always a virtue is something you should take away from Roman history.

It's a hard thing for me to see.

Quote:
Ruthlessness is not always a vice and mercy not always a virtue is something you should take away from Roman history.

It's a hard thing for me to see.

Consider this, because of Ceaser's mercy many more died in yet another round of preventable civil war. Ceaser's somewhat moderate autocrat rule was replaced by a more totalian version ran by Augestus (Augestus wasn't even a bad man, he was simply reacting to what had happened in his life). That in turn led into the insanity of the Judeo-Caldian Emperors.

I don't know what Ceaser had intended but I'm pretty sure that wasn't it.

Now ask,what if someone had been ruthlessness enough to punish the Grachee brother's murderers?

Within our republics Stosfk the system is set up to ensure that ruthlessness at least at that level is unneeded. Losing doesn't mean death it isn't even going to last very long, you can come back next election. But when the system begins breaking down, ruthlessness may be required to repair it and remove the dangerous elements threatening it.

frigidmagi wrote:

Quote:
Ruthlessness is not always a vice and mercy not always a virtue is something you should take away from Roman history.

It's a hard thing for me to see.

Consider this, because of Ceaser's mercy many more died in yet another round of preventable civil war. Ceaser's somewhat moderate autocrat rule was replaced by a more totalian version ran by Augestus (Augestus wasn't even a bad man, he was simply reacting to what had happened in his life). That in turn led into the insanity of the Judeo-Caldian Emperors.

But was it Caesar's fault that the men he pardoned ended up murdering him on the senate floor? He at least had the moral high ground by being merciful (for all the good it did him).

I can see where you're going with this though. As for Augustus being a good man, yes. He regretted the death of Cicero, who was one of his opponents. The story I heard was that late in life, he came across one of his grandsons reading Cicero's work, and the child hid the document because he thought Augustus would be upset he was reading something of his former enemy. Augustus apparently took the document, read it to the child, and praised Cicero as somebody who was very wise and loved his country.

Now ask,what if someone had been ruthlessness enough to punish the Grachee brother's murderers?

A particularly brazen crime like that deserves punishment.

Within our republics Stosfk the system is set up to ensure that ruthlessness at least at that level is unneeded. Losing doesn't mean death it isn't even going to last very long, you can come back next election. But when the system begins breaking down, ruthlessness may be required to repair it and remove the dangerous elements threatening it.

Maybe I'm just a big ol' pile of sugar.

(PS Aus isn't a Republic. Liz is on our coins still GOD SAVE THE QUEEN)

Australia is about has much a monarchy as my apartment is.

But was it Caesar's fault that the men he pardoned ended up murdering him on the senate floor? He at least had the moral high ground by being merciful (for all the good it did him).

Bluntly, if he had at the very least exiled them they wouldn't have been there to stab him to death hey?

A particularly brazen crime like that deserves punishment.

To punish those Senators would have required a willingness to fight a fight with the wealthy, vain, powerful and self-indulgent and knowing that such a fight would have meant resorting to knives. Most just hid or ran.

frigidmagi wrote:Australia is about has much a monarchy as my apartment is.

A man's home is his castle.

But was it Caesar's fault that the men he pardoned ended up murdering him on the senate floor? He at least had the moral high ground by being merciful (for all the good it did him).

Bluntly, if he had at the very least exiled them they wouldn't have been there to stab him to death hey?

Maybe that thought ran through his mind just before he died at their hands?

To punish those Senators would have required a willingness to fight a fight with the wealthy, vain, powerful and self-indulgent and knowing that such a fight would have meant resorting to knives. Most just hid or ran.

From my perspective, it's not something that is even open to consideration, it's demanded.