Did Caesar Ultimately

[Caesar CXXXVII]

Lots of people put forward odd theories about why the west collapsed. Tree felling may have been a contributing factor, but not a major cause. There were other such factors, such as the silting up of harbours, lead poisoning, etc. All of them on their own couldn't bring down the west, but together these factors added to the wests woes. Just a few more straws on the camels bacjk as it were.

 

 

Agreed .

 

There is no such thing as one cause brought the empire down . The Western Empire did not in 476 just like that . It was a long process .

[M. Porcius Cato]

Lots of people put forward odd theories about why the west collapsed. Tree felling may have been a contributing factor, but not a major cause. There were other such factors, such as the silting up of harbours, lead poisoning, etc. All of them on their own couldn't bring down the west, but together these factors added to the wests woes. Just a few more straws on the camels bacjk as it were.

 

I agree that it's impossible to pick out just one event as the cause of the fall of the state (whether the republic or the whole Roman empire). But surely everyone agrees that some of the 'straws' on the proverbial camel's back were just straw-sized (like harbor silt) whereas others were more the size of logs (e.g., the invasion of the Germanic tribes). Moreover, Pertinax, I think, has made a convincing argument that lead poisoning isn't even straw-sized.

[Julius Ratus]

M. Porcius Cato -- To bring this whole digression back to its original topic. My (working) thesis is that the Hannibalic War did not cause the fall of the republic; the Gracchi did not cause the fall of the republic; it was caused chiefly by the long civil wars that lasted from Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon to Octavian's victory at Antium, which were themselves partially an outcome of Sulla's reactionary politics paradoxically weakening the authority of the senate and thereby leaving it vulnerable to Caesar's talent and lust for power.

 

 

 

I agree with you that the Hannibalic War is way to early. Personally, I would push the date a bit back for the Republic's decline, back to the Marian-Sullan Civil Wars. Like you said, Sulla's policies weakened the Senate, and I don't think it ever fully recovered.

 

While the Gracchi did not end the Republic, it was a precursor for things to come. Furthermore, I would add the Spartacus revolt and the Social War to the causes that weakened the Republic to the point of collapse. Maybe add Sertorius as well. The Republic had been rotting for a long time. If Caesar killed the Republic, he stabbed a man with leprosy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

While the Gracchi did not end the Republic, it was a precursor for things to come. Furthermore, I would add the Spartacus revolt and the Social War to the causes that weakened the Republic to the point of collapse. Maybe add Sertorius as well. The Republic had been rotting for a long time. If Caesar killed the Republic, he stabbed a man with leprosy.

 

I'd call these growing pains. By fits and starts, the republic was becoming more inclusive of plebs and Italians, more alert to the costs of rapine in the provinces, and more conscious of her own history and its laws. If Caesar were really a populare as he liked to believe, then the man jumped on a galloping horse, ran into the ground, and shot it in the head. But that's just my opinion.

[Gnaeus]

I've been searching through the topics for a while and haven't seen a topic discussing this.

 

In my oppinion Gaius Julius Caesar ultimatly signed the Empires death warrant. My reason for this is that:

 

Towards the end of the empire, the emperors became increasingly scared of being overthrown by a popular general and often due to this fear had the most promising generals killed.Therefore if Caesar hadn't overthrown the republic, the generals would not have been hunted down as traitors but have been given consulships in which to expand the empire and bring Roman rule to barbarian nations; also as a republic, in my oppinion Rome would have been in a better position to deal with invading hordes.

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

I disagree in the sense that the roman republic was already declining and the senate could not govern an empire effectively so my view is Caesar was not a savior but he did allow the Roman empire to become stronger under one ruler than with a bunch of arguing senators.