The Roman Revolution

[Nephele]

The French author Henry de Montepelant saw this period as a model for understanding the politics of power.

Can you give us any more information on monsieur Montepelant?

Google search of this name matchs no documents.

(I mean, if this is not a joke).

 

Could he mean Henri Guy de Maupassant? Although, I'm not aware of any Roman connection there.

 

-- Nephele

[Formosus Viriustus]

Or maybe Henry de Montherlant ?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_de_Montherlant

 

Matrons of ancient Rome would regard the modern woman with much suspicion, I believe.

 

-- Nephele

 

Modern women regard the modern woman with much suspicion, I believe.

 

F rmosus

[sylla]

Joke or not (who cares?):

The historian and author Ronald Syme (The Roman Revolution) viewed the period from Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon until Augustus Caesar's victory not as two independent civil wars but as a unified Revolution...

The Caesarian War was a conflict between two former partners that were unable to continue sharing the rule of the already subjugated Roman Republic; as it was inherited by Pompey's sons, technically it continued even after the idus of March (as long as Sextus Pompey was still active) mixing itself with ulterior conflicts.

The War(s) after Caesar's death were actually a series of at least three related but independent conflicts;

- the Perusine War,

- the Triumvirs versus the Liberatores,

- the final match between Anthony and Octavius.

...which saw one oligarchy being replaced by another.

The Roman Republic was indeed an aristocratic oligarchy, even if with prominent democratic features that cannot be ignored.

On the other hand, the rule of Caesar, Augustus and their successors was an unqualified monarchy, not an oligarchy.

Edited May 21, 2009 by sylla