Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CrossXFir3 t1_ixecvpe wrote

Reply to comment by xlDirteDeedslx in TIL nearly 60 senators were part of the conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar, but he was stabbed 23 times, with only 1 wound being fatal. Caesar ultimately died at the base of the statue of his former rival, Pompey the Great. by axonable

Ehh I'm not so sure about that. He actively worked with one of the greediest capitalists of all time. His partner for many years, Crassus, started a fire dept that would respond to fires by offering to put it out if you sold him the property at a dirt rate price. And if you refused, he'd go to your neighbor and do the same knowing the fire would spread. Better to get something than nothing if it burnt down. Caesar just seized on the power of the masses. Promise people everything and they'll vote for you. And when he was in power, he didn't really do a whole lot of what he said. He did basically the minimum.

In fact, how Caesar acted was exactly why the electoral college exists. Populism as an idea is often brought back to him. I'm as progressive as it gets, but he used progressive ideals and promises to earn power and renown and by all appearances didn't really intend on fully going through with it.

6

corran132 t1_ixel1sv wrote

Crassus was a bastard, no arguments about that. Caesar too.

With that said, I would argue that even Caesar's minimum was a damn site more than the senate would have done had he not seized power. As an example, this was a senate that was so calcified that they refused to consider the matter of confirming Pompei's conquests- conquests that had already happened, mind you- because they were afraid Pompei would gain too much power. The senatorial faction that he faced had- multiple times- eschewed public order and common decency to kill agents acting for the people of Rome. Who had refused to consider the idea of Italian citizenship until the rest of the peninsula was literally in revolt.

The lesson most people take from Caesar is the one you are saying, 'beware of populists', and I get it. That is a reasonable lesson to take away. But I think there is a second lesson. Because the 'Republic', at that time, was anything but. The way the voting worked, lower class Romans had little say, and yet less once you account for the votes sold under Roman Patronage (sell your vote to a senator for a stipend, because slaves were doing all the work they would normally do). The tribune of the plebs, the office meant to ensure the lower classes had some say, had effectively been gutted. Income inequality was insane, and the senate was inactive.

So yes, people listened to someone who told them what they wanted to hear and followed him into proto-empire. But what, exactly, did they give up? A political voice they had already sold to keep food on the table? This, to me, is that second lesson- at a certain level of political malaise, the people will begin looking for someone- anyone- who can offer them a better way.

10

CrossXFir3 t1_ixem73d wrote

I don't disagree with that, but I think intentions matter. And from what I can see, the intention was to trick the masses into giving him power personally. I think what he did caused damage to progressive movements for literal millennia.

2

corran132 t1_ixeopr8 wrote

I can see where you are coming from, but I'm afraid I don't agree with your conclusion.

I can't see the republic lasting more than another generation, with or without Caesar. Given that, and given that he did do the bare minimum and was a capable administrator, I do give him a modicum of credit.

Besides which, I think conservatives are always going to find someone to blame. If not Caesar, then it would have been those dastardly Gracchi, nothing but populist rabble rousers with their proto-commie ideals. People are always going to use/pervert history to fit their agenda. As an example, the third Riche literally held up Frederic the Great as the idea Aryan man, despite him being a homosexual Francophile. (And yes, I know I just Godwin'd myself)

I'm not trying to pretend he was some great altruist, or paragon of virtue- god knows he wasn't. And I think your reading of history is valid. Just that I am far more sympathetic to his position, given the realities of the roman Senate in his day, and the way that the established order has always presented the version of history that is most favorable to them.

9

EuphyDuphy t1_ixfpg2d wrote

Just chiming in to say this was a very interesting thread to read :)

6

Stratafyre t1_ixmsy9v wrote

I just wanna echo this sentiment! Great discussion.

1

laconicflow t1_ixgi9wb wrote

But let's say he'd done everything he said he'd do, and still became dictator for life, and then he died. Now Rome's lost its enlightened despot and its Republic. If the senate sucks, you can elect different senators easier than killing an emperor you don't like.

I mean, this was 2000 years ago, I'm impressed there was ever any kind of Republic at all, the poor getting fucked over was standard for that time, wasn't it?

2

xlDirteDeedslx t1_ixkas48 wrote

He did loads to help the people and Roman soldiers as well. Sure mainly did it to gain broad appeal and power but I'd rather someone help me in their own self interest when I'm poor and starving than not help me it all. If you study Caesar's military and political campaigns you quickly begin to see he was a straight up genius. The Senate tried to quash anyone who gained too much popularity and power because it threatened their stranglehold on grift from the state. I personally thing Caesar would have kept the Senate and Rome in many ways if he wasn't killed. I also wish he could have finished his Parthia campaign, world history would be better for it.

1