Caesar On Hbo's Rome

[Guest mattlreese]

I have a question about Rome on HBO. It seems to me that the show is painting a picture that Caesar was not the crazy tyrant I once thought. The picture they paint is that Caesar is actually an excellent leader who thinks of all the people, not just the rich, or some other small group, when he makes decisions. He brings in Gauls in to the Senate for example, creating a true representative body. However the show does point out that he is power crazy as well and things he is a god.

 

Is the show historically accurate? Were the conspirators really more afraid of losing power themselves, rather then restoring the republic as the show seems?

[Ursus]

There is not necessarily a dichotomy between the conspirators

[Favonius Cornelius]

In all my readings I never once felt Caesar was a crazy tyrant. Corrupt in some ways perhaps, but always calculated, aways thoughtful. I think 'Rome' did a fantastic job of him.

[M. Porcius Cato]

In all my readings I never once felt Caesar was a crazy tyrant. Corrupt in some ways perhaps, but always calculated, aways thoughtful. I think 'Rome' did a fantastic job of him.

 

I'm as opposed to Caesar as my namesake, and I don't think he was a crazy tyrant either. A hypocrite, an adulterer, a power-luster, a killer, a dictator, and a disaster for the Republic--absolutely. Epileptic and severely depressed in the end, probably--but not crazy. I also think 'Rome' did a fabulous job of him, and I was ALMOST sorry to see him killed.

[Neos Dionysos]

The Senate was more of a disaster for the Republic, Caesar made reforms and changes that were decades overdue to help allievate the problems. The Senate wanted to keep the Status Quo, money and power in thier hands, when this was really straining the Republic and hurting her, the Gracchi tried to fix this and agains change the status quo, they were killed for it. Caesar followed in a sense the same way. He was loved by the people notfor just his victories but because he set forth laws and reforms that benifited the people not the aristocracy. The Senate, unable to accept changes went to drastic measures to ensure things stayed the same, so they are the ones who forced an end to the Republic in my eyes. Does this change the fact that Caesar wanted to be another Alexander? That we was a very notorius womanizer? A killer of hundreds of thousands of people both men-at-arms and civilians? No... but even if Caesar had not come along, someone else would have and we still would have had the Principate and the Empire because the Republic was dying for a century before Caesar was even born.

[M. Porcius Cato]

The Senate was more of a disaster for the Republic, Caesar made reforms and changes that were decades overdue to help allievate the problems. The Senate wanted to keep the Status Quo, money and power in thier hands, when this was really straining the Republic and hurting her, the Gracchi tried to fix this and agains change the status quo, they were killed for it. Caesar followed in a sense the same way. He was loved by the people notfor just his victories but because he set forth laws and reforms that benifited the people not the aristocracy. The Senate, unable to accept changes went to drastic measures to ensure things stayed the same, so they are the ones who forced an end to the Republic in my eyes. Does this change the fact that Caesar wanted to be another Alexander? That we was a very notorius womanizer? A killer of hundreds of thousands of people both men-at-arms and civilians? No... but even if Caesar had not come along, someone else would have and we still would have had the Principate and the Empire because the Republic was dying for a century before Caesar was even born.

 

Does no one tire of this old tale of progressive Caesar fighting alone for badly-needed reforms? Does no one yawn at this yarn of an evil Senate, one full of aristocrats who no doubt eat poor babies for fun and profit? Why who needs Frank Capra? We've already got "Mr. Caesar Goes to Rome"!

 

Think about this for a second. When exactly did Julius Caesar make these supposedly people-loving reforms? After he had himself appointed DICTATOR FOR LIFE. If Julius Caesar were really such the darling of the people, why couldn't he run for office like everyone else? If the people loved Caesar for his reforms, why didn't they elect more allies for Caesar? If Julius Caesar were really so concerned about the enfranchisement of the plebs, why did he have to hand-pick their representatives in the Senate, the tribunes? If the Senate were really such an opponent of the rights of the people and so willing to subvert their own laws, why didn't they abolish the veto power of the tribunes? If these laws of Julius Caesar were really the products of progressive thinking and superior political acumen, why were they ignored by his loyal allies? And if Caesar were not responsible for the death of the Republic and the Republic were dying for a century before Caesar was even born, why was the Republic --like a Phoenix--able to recover time and time again, only to die decisively once Julius Caesar came along?

 

Isn't it possible that Julius Caesar simply used the poor, like a pimp uses his whores, to get what he wanted--viz., absolute power and everlasting fame? He got what he wanted. Must we endlessly repeat his propaganda?

[Neos Dionysos]

The Senate was more of a disaster for the Republic, Caesar made reforms and changes that were decades overdue to help allievate the problems. The Senate wanted to keep the Status Quo, money and power in thier hands, when this was really straining the Republic and hurting her, the Gracchi tried to fix this and agains change the status quo, they were killed for it. Caesar followed in a sense the same way. He was loved by the people notfor just his victories but because he set forth laws and reforms that benifited the people not the aristocracy. The Senate, unable to accept changes went to drastic measures to ensure things stayed the same, so they are the ones who forced an end to the Republic in my eyes. Does this change the fact that Caesar wanted to be another Alexander? That we was a very notorius womanizer? A killer of hundreds of thousands of people both men-at-arms and civilians? No... but even if Caesar had not come along, someone else would have and we still would have had the Principate and the Empire because the Republic was dying for a century before Caesar was even born.

 

Does no one tire of this old tale of progressive Caesar fighting alone for badly-needed reforms? Does no one yawn at this yarn of an evil Senate, one full of aristocrats who no doubt eat poor babies for fun and profit? Why who needs Frank Capra? We've already got "Mr. Caesar Goes to Rome"!

 

Think about this for a second. When exactly did Julius Caesar make these supposedly people-loving reforms? After he had himself appointed DICTATOR FOR LIFE. If Julius Caesar were really such the darling of the people, why couldn't he run for office like everyone else? If the people loved Caesar for his reforms, why didn't they elect more allies for Caesar? If Julius Caesar were really so concerned about the enfranchisement of the plebs, why did he have to hand-pick their representatives in the Senate, the tribunes? If the Senate were really such an opponent of the rights of the people and so willing to subvert their own laws, why didn't they abolish the veto power of the tribunes? If these laws of Julius Caesar were really the products of progressive thinking and superior political acumen, why were they ignored by his loyal allies? And if Caesar were not responsible for the death of the Republic and the Republic were dying for a century before Caesar was even born, why was the Republic --like a Phoenix--able to recover time and time again, only to die decisively once Julius Caesar came along?

 

Isn't it possible that Julius Caesar simply used the poor, like a pimp uses his whores, to get what he wanted--viz., absolute power and everlasting fame? He got what he wanted. Must we endlessly repeat his propaganda?

 

 

I never said he did it for the love of the people or the Republic. He was simply opportunistic. I am not repeating propaganda that he was some perfect, plebian loving man only out for the betterment of Rome, he was human and he was a 'true' Roman. A corrupt, greedy, arrogant, military strategist who used problems apparent in the current system to set himself up above the rest and acsend to a position of complete power and control. Now, what better way to make yourself look legitmate and loved by the people than giving them what they wanted? Don't assume I am toting "Caesar is the hero of the people!!" because I am not. The laws were ignored for so long because as I said the Senate wanted nothing more than to continue the status quo, hardline conservative thinkers unwilling to change or make reforms which might affect thier own land holdings, monetary value or position of power and influence. Recover time and time again? It was dying for a century and it was given enough medication to keep it going. Kinda a major illness, you can keep taking the proper medication and help yourself but once it becomes terminal no help in the world can save it. The Republic recovered because men who saw the problems or saw an iminent collaspe made the very bare minimum in changes to make sure the system continued. Using a band-aid to cover a rupertured artery is hardly what I consider a recovery, more like a delay.

[Primus Pilus]

Two threads of Caesar vs. Cato and the Optimates is enough.

[Ursus]

If a legion of Populares commanded by Caesar fought a Legion of Optimates commanded by Cato ---

 

... oh, never mind.

[M. Porcius Cato]

If a legion of Populares commanded by Caesar fought a Legion of Optimates commanded by Cato ---

 

... oh, never mind.

 

 

ROFL

[aquila]

The Senate was more of a disaster for the Republic, Caesar made reforms and changes that were decades overdue to help allievate the problems. The Senate wanted to keep the Status Quo, money and power in thier hands, when this was really straining the Republic and hurting her, the Gracchi tried to fix this and agains change the status quo, they were killed for it. Caesar followed in a sense the same way. He was loved by the people notfor just his victories but because he set forth laws and reforms that benifited the people not the aristocracy. The Senate, unable to accept changes went to drastic measures to ensure things stayed the same, so they are the ones who forced an end to the Republic in my eyes. Does this change the fact that Caesar wanted to be another Alexander? That we was a very notorius womanizer? A killer of hundreds of thousands of people both men-at-arms and civilians? No... but even if Caesar had not come along, someone else would have and we still would have had the Principate and the Empire because the Republic was dying for a century before Caesar was even born.

 

Does no one tire of this old tale of progressive Caesar fighting alone for badly-needed reforms? Does no one yawn at this yarn of an evil Senate, one full of aristocrats who no doubt eat poor babies for fun and profit? Why who needs Frank Capra? We've already got "Mr. Caesar Goes to Rome"!

 

Think about this for a second. When exactly did Julius Caesar make these supposedly people-loving reforms? After he had himself appointed DICTATOR FOR LIFE. If Julius Caesar were really such the darling of the people, why couldn't he run for office like everyone else? If the people loved Caesar for his reforms, why didn't they elect more allies for Caesar? If Julius Caesar were really so concerned about the enfranchisement of the plebs, why did he have to hand-pick their representatives in the Senate, the tribunes? If the Senate were really such an opponent of the rights of the people and so willing to subvert their own laws, why didn't they abolish the veto power of the tribunes? If these laws of Julius Caesar were really the products of progressive thinking and superior political acumen, why were they ignored by his loyal allies? And if Caesar were not responsible for the death of the Republic and the Republic were dying for a century before Caesar was even born, why was the Republic --like a Phoenix--able to recover time and time again, only to die decisively once Julius Caesar came along?

 

Isn't it possible that Julius Caesar simply used the poor, like a pimp uses his whores, to get what he wanted--viz., absolute power and everlasting fame? He got what he wanted. Must we endlessly repeat his propaganda?

 

 

Might I add a smidge of Ciceronian equivocation to this one ? I do feel that painting Caesar as one thing or

the other is a little limiting.

 

To tick off the questions above, then : Caesar couldn't run for office again because as soon as he lost legal

immunity on his return from his military command he'd be hauled before the courts, where the optimates

reckoned they could have him condemned and exiled, or at least humiliated; Caesar was unwilling to take

that kind of insult, and if you were in his calligae you would've reacted the same way. If he had been put

in front of a court his supporters on the street would have been sucked into violent clashes with the gangs

controlled by the optimates and the very public loss of life and property damage might well have harmed

or destroyed his judiciously cultivated reputation as a man who cared for his fellow cititzens, thereby killing

the public support he wanted to counter the optimates' deeper pockets. Far better to kill on a battlefield, where there are very few onlookers to question your version of events and the winner writes the history.

 

Why didn't the people elect more allies and why did he have to hand-pick tribunes ? Be fair : both sides

bought elections, and the optimates seem to have got there long before Caesar was born by putting up a dupe to oppose Gracchus. At the end of the day elections were won by spending power, both cash-in-hand

and through patrician pressure on clients in the lower classes.

 

Why didn't the Senate simply abolish the tribunes' veto power ? Well, it was strictly speaking an advisory body which could only issue advice and Sulla's abolition was reversed by Crassus and Pompeius, apparently to enormous acclaim. It's one thing to bribe and intimidate voters on a complex land distribution law which most wouldn't or couldn't have read, but to remove tribunes' right to veto - or rather their right to protect plebs against the oligarchy, as they'd have seen it - you need overwhelming force and you need to keep the sword poised forever; in short, a militant timocracy. Given that the optimate alliance was a fragmented and ever-shifting circle of competing families rather than a united party they could only have been kept together by another Sulla; an optimate dictator for life.

 

As for Caesar's loyal allies abandoning his thinking, they were allied to him because he was a winner and a

man who could bestow important favours on him, not because they shared his politics; the idea that Marcus

Antonius was his friend because they were both pleb-loving freedom fighters is almost as laughable as the

idea that the plebs should be grateful to the optimates for illegally holding vast tracts of public land. More

to the point is that the eventual winner - Octavianus and the new regime which grew around him - made a

virtue of upholding Caesar's acts; Octavianus was simply more astute than Caesar, who seems not to have

grasped that fellow aristocrats would feel insulted rather than grateful that he'd spared their lives.

 

And finally the Phoenix analogy. The Republic was indeed resilient; it could and might easily have buckled

many times in the past, not least during the Gracchan troubles, during the Hannibalic war, and during the

secessions of the plebs in the very early days, but at those times there was probably very little consensus

on what should replace the old system, and the fault lines (land distribution and the disruptions after the

Social War were the long term keys to Caesar's ascent) weren't as obvious. If, when you leave the army,

you can return to your family smallholding and make some kind of living then big city politics and politicians

don't affect you much; if your land's torched in war and your family drifts into the city to try to feed itself

while you're away, leaving the land to be claimed by those who have the money and the slaves to work it

- and a complaisant legal system to keep it when you return - then you become voting fodder for amoral

patricians, whether they claim to be populists or devout Republicans. Rust takes time to do its damage;

rather than ask why the Republic stood for so long, ask why, if it was as strong and pure as some maintain it was, was it never revived ?

[M. Porcius Cato]

To tick off the questions above, then ...

 

I'm SO eager to respond, but our wise and virtuous moderator says this thread isn't the place. So, welcome Aquila, and please do post a new thread defending Caesar, as I'm more than happy to take up the cause of the prosecution. Alternatively, you might begin by defending Caesar's conduct in Gaul (under the Gallic Wars thread), which is the issue on which the rest of your points rests.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Yes, follow Cato's advice, but I like to point out to you his screen name is

"Cato," if you know what I mean . Politics is politics.

[Primus Pilus]

To tick off the questions above, then ...

 

I'm SO eager to respond, but our wise and virtuous moderator says this thread isn't the place. So, welcome Aquila, and please do post a new thread defending Caesar, as I'm more than happy to take up the cause of the prosecution. Alternatively, you might begin by defending Caesar's conduct in Gaul (under the Gallic Wars thread), which is the issue on which the rest of your points rests.

 

Feel free Cato.. the other threads have died down... I just didn't want to see the same argument/debate/discussion taking place in three different places.