Caesar, Augustus, Constantine: Which man had the most enduring world significance?

[Childress]

Caesar, the lover of Cleopatra, was clearly the most charismatic of the three. He has been the subject of countless history books, films, and novels and he would lend his name to Kaisers, Tsars, as well as, several Islamic rulers. Boundlessly ambitious, he left his mark; as a commander of men, he was unequaled during his era. But was the destroyer of the Republic equal to his enormous fame? His political heirs would establish the Principate but republican government in Rome was already beginning to totter during his lifetime. Caesar's most important feat- this essay submits- was the conquest of Gaul, the territories he conquered there were to remain under Roman rule for five centuries. That single accomplishment ensured the security of the Empire by deterring attacks from the north as well as forming the important province that later became France.

Augustus, the true founder of the Roman Empire, realized that the political chaos following the murder of Caesar could not continue, he sensed citizens were wearied with the unending turmoil and factions.  As long as the facade of a republic continued they were, over time, became content with a benevolent dictator. Although ruthless during his struggle to the top, Augustus was surprisingly conciliatory once he achieved power. A wizard of symbolism and political imagery, he reorganized the government allowing (mostly) internal peace and prosperity for two centuries. Augustus' military ability, though not of the caliber of Caesar or Alexander, has been underestimated; his conquests were extensive and enduring. As a founder, he might be compared with George Washington but his influence was considerably larger given the enormous importance of the Roman Empire in world history.

The 4th-century emperor, Constantine, reunited the Roman Empire under his rule after a series of civil wars. He would play a major role in the establishment of Christianity, his decrees enabled a persecuted sect to become the official state religion (1). His policies in that arena would prove to be game-changing, but there's more. He rebuilt the city of Byzantium, renamed Constantinople, which became one of the great cities of the world.  More significantly, he introduced laws that made certain occupations hereditary and restricted farmers to their lands; thus he may be considered one of the fathers of feudalism.

1- It appears the spiritual aspect of Christianity completely eluded Constantine; he was ruthless and cruel. For reasons unclear, he had his wife and son executed.

Edited March 16, 2021 by Childress

[Childress]

Last year, the Ancient History site ranked the Top 10 Roman emperors. They did award Augustus #1, properly I think. However, their list stressed military and cultural achievements rather than millennial resonance. 
https://www.ancienthistorylists.com/rom ... ient-rome/

For what it's worth, here's my ranking:
1- Augustus
2- Constantine (A close call)
3- Caesar

[caldrail]

I will contest a few points.

His political heirs would establish the Principate but republican government in Rome was already beginning to totter during his lifetime.

Totter? Oh, another 'Fall of the Republic' thing. I think you're wrong about that. The Republic didn't go anywhere. Augustus propped it up, albeit with him as its guiding light. It would migrate toward monarchy over the next two hundred years.

Augustus, the true founder of the Roman Empire, realized that the political chaos following the murder of Caesar could not continue, he sensed citizens were wearied with the unending turmoil and factions.  As long as the facade of a republic continued they were, over time, became content with a benevolent dictator.

Roman politics always had some chaos involved. In fact, despite his control and reforms, it remained chaotic. For seven years he had to veto the Senate to stop them attacking each other in quarrels over votes and so forth. He relented shortly before he died. As for the plebs, they loved factions. The winning chariot team was headline news each and every time for hundreds of years.

Now, this 'facade' thing?  That only works if you try to depict Augustus as a dictator/tyrant (which I see you have). Dio thought similarly, and probably unfairly. But remember that Augustus did not invent anything new in politics - he said as much. Further, he claimed, with some justification, that he had no more power than anyone else, just more authority. What Augustus was trying to do was restore the Republic to some semblance of peaceful engagement (he would urge senators to get involved in decision making - no passengers at the helm) but with leadership that had been sadly lacking during the late republican era.

In other words, the Republic did not end, but changed the manner of its government. After all, the Roman state was called SPQR to the very end. Senate and People of Rome? An odd name for an autocratic empire don't you think? If there was any facade, it was later in the Principate, when monarchial leanings were becoming the norm.

People like Caligula were a little different. They did not relate well to the idea of civic duty, so important in republican politics, and were more concerned with their personal power. In fact, Caligula is recorded as having to ask the Senate for permission to stage games. That from a guy who wanted to set up a throne in Alexandria where the Senate could not legally go.

[Childress]

The Republic didn't go anywhere. Augustus propped it up

Republic light? Or simply  Primus inter pares? On second thought, calling Augustus a "Dictator" was unjust.

A (very) simplistic summation of the three cited in the OP:
Constantine was a thug with a vision
Augustus raised cunning to the highest art of statesmanship
Caesar was a rockstar

Edited March 17, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

You might like to know that the public wanted Augustus to become Dictator like Julius Caesar. He refused. He was accused by some senators of being a Dictator anyway and why doesn't he just admit it? He refused. Technically the post of Dictator had been abolished by Marc Antony after Caesar's death (in republican politics it was an emergency post giving someone powers to command for six months or until the emergency was over. Caesar was unique in becoming Dictator Perpetuo). A control freak, but not really a tyrant.

[Childress]

Re: Caesar the rockstar. How popular was he? His military victories, dear to Romans, were skilfully promoted via his dispatches from the front. Ordinary citizens adored him but the Senate, not so much, although he did ally with Pompey and Crassus. Despite his power grabs, that body would posthumously grant him the title Divine Julius, making him the first historical Roman to be deified. But Caesar's support was essentially based on the common people, the disenfranchised (peregrines, for example), and, above all, his veterans. For many he died a martyr, hence his grieving funeral.

When [Caesar's father-in-law] Piso brought Caesar's body into the Forum, a huge number of armed men gathered to guard it. It was laid with lavish pomp and cries of mourning on the rostra, whereupon wailing and lamentation arose again for a long time, and the armed men clashed their weapons, and very soon people began to change their minds about the amnesty.
-Livius.org

Pure delirium. I submit his charisma has endured to the present day.

[caldrail]

His reputation has, a success for his self-promotion. His popularity with the Roman masses may well have less to do with the persistence of this reputation than the fact he bonked Cleopatra and got assassinated later. An early dramatic death often seals the deal with history.

By the way, Caesar was given divine honours while he was still alive, including a statue which bore the title 'Demigod'. Caesar ordered the offending title removed. Nonetheless the common people were convinced that Caesar was a god, essentially the origin of the Imperial Cult. 

[Childress]

20 hours ago, caldrail said:

His popularity with the Roman masses may well have less to do with the persistence of this reputation than the fact he bonked Cleopatra and got assassinated later. An early dramatic death often seals the deal with history.

Caesar's career strikingly parallels that of John Kennedy; both were notoriously promiscuous (1) and both "bonked" the most glamourous women of their era, Cleopatra and Marylin Monroe. Their rise was due to military exploits: Caesar's conquest of Gaul and Kennedy's heroism during the Pacific War. Both men were assassinated, in dramatic fashion, followed by lavish and emotional funerals.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

Their rise was due to military exploits: Caesar's conquest of Gaul ...

I can well understand why you think so. But that view isn't entirely true. Caesar was deliberately contentious from the start with every intention of rising to the fore. Indeed, Suetonius underlines that by alluding to omens of his later greatness. His rise to prominence was fuelled by some very heavy financial loans as much as political or military action, and the major motive for his conquest of Gaul was to exploit the tribal conflicts and gain enough booty to pay off his debts. He visits to Britain were done for three reasons - to gain kudos for being the first there, to quell any support for rebellious Gallic tribes, and most importantly, to find the silver he'd heard about. Cicero tells us in his letters that Caesar didn't find any.

[Childress]

Caesar's alleged trysts with the King of Bithynia caused wagging tongues. Were the rumors true? It's unknowable at this distance of time but the gossip was, indeed, persistent. Until the arrival of Christianity, homosexuality in Rome was generally ho-hum provided the practitioner did not play the passive role. That was the very accusation brought by the gossipy historian, Suetonius, who claimed Caesar would wear a ladies’ outfit to please the king. The verdict: Given the source, unlikely, but the hearsays stick to him like flypaper.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

Roman attitudes to sex were different than today. It wasn't that Caesar had an affair - it was the accusation that he was the passive partner (suspicion of which revolves around the expectation that the King, being senior, was the active partner). Passive sex between men was acting out the role of a woman, something the Roman saw as effeminate and unmanly. The active partner, even with another man, was simply doing what nature designed him to do, thus it wasn't thought of as wrong in any way.

There was an interesting case regarding a legionary called Trebonius, who was subject to attempted seduction by an officer related to Gaius Marius. The officer tried all sorts of inducements for the soldier to become his passive partner but Trebonius always refused. Then, finally, Trebonius was summoned to the officers quarters and an attempted rape took place resulting in the officers death. Trebonius was already isolated because other legionaries thought he was the officer's pet, but now he was under threat of punishment for murder. Marius returned to camp to find his relative dead. Trebonius was arrested and put on military trial. He answered the charges as best he could, but in the end, Marius decided to let him off because he had acted honourably.

 

[Childress]

There was an interesting case regarding a legionary called Trebonius, who was subject to attempted seduction by an officer related to Gaius Marius.

Was that the same Trebonius who was one of the conspirators and executed following the assassination of Caesar?

If Caesar was indeed bisexual (doubtful) or homosexual (preposterous) he has company among some modern commanders. Baron von Steuben, an adept commander during the Revolutionary War, was prosecuted for his homosexuality. Washington was fully aware of his sexual proclivities. In a dispatch: “He appears to be much of a gentleman and as far as I have had an opportunity of judging, a man of military knowledge, and acquainted with the world.”

Perhaps, the most eminent example is Frederick the Great who, as a commander, richly deserves the title "Great".  Rumors of his homosexuality were rampant but never conclusively proved.  Macauley wrote that Frederick was prone to "vices from which history averts her eyes, and which even Satire blushes to name." Keep in mind, the great historian was a product of the strait-laced Victorian era.

And let us not pass over Hadrian, he merits a thread on his own. In contrast to Caesar, his propensities were not in doubt.

Edited March 22, 2021 by Childress

[caldrail]

Gaius Trebonius - Wikipedia

Trial of Trebonius - Wikipedia

As you can see, different people.

 

[Childress]

As you can see, different people.

Yikes. Of course, Marius was born in the 2nd century BC, thus no possible connection. I'm reading that the other Trebonius (no praenomen?) figured in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar.

Edited March 23, 2021 by Childress