RomanArmyTalk

Quote:So they were part of the Helvetii? Allied with them..?

We don't know. They were wandering, and they were at the wrong place at the wrong time - and they suffered dearly for trusting Caesar.

Quote:Surely Cato would be as unlikely a source of true information where Caesar was concerned as any?

We can not verify his interpretation of the news, but at least it is a bit of information that (a) goes back to the Proceedings of the Senate, (b) is not tainted by Caesarian propaganda, © fits the larger picture.

(a) We do not know how the Senate obtained its intelligence, but what is clear is that Cato's interpretation was not found incredible. Other senators must have agreed with it, otherwise, there would be no discussion and, hence, no remark in our sources.

(b) Speaks for itself. Same can be said of Dio, whose History is partly based on Caesar himself, but also on other sources, which he uses where he finds Caesar incredible (e.g., the capitulation of Alesia and Caesar's second invasion of Germania).

© Caesar admits - no: he boasts - that he destroyed the Eburones, another tribe in the northern part of Gallia Belgica. Caesar's merciless behavior towards the Tencteri and Usipetes fits the picture.

I wonder if Cato and the other Senators would have been less concerned about the "war crimes" of Caesar if Caesar had taken the side of the Patricians more often then that of the People?

That Caesar wanted to buy back the Public Lands misappropriated by members of the Senate and redistribute it among the people did not endear him with his fellow aristocrats.

That Cato disliked Caesar both personally and politically no doubt has some bearing on this.

It is always dangerous to apply current standards to past, or in this case, ancient behavior, and Jona has been rigorous in avoiding doing just that.

That being said suppose Caesar had been tried and exiled or otherwise punished in such a way that his political and military days were finished before he crossed the Rubicon. Would the Republic have continued?

I doubt that it would have. Someone, Pompey or Crassus or someone else would have taken power and the Republic would have fallen. Caesar's conduct while Dictator indicates, to me at least, that he did have the best interests of the people in mind.

The unbridled greed of the Senators and their fellow Patricians were as much the cause of the Republic's fall as was Caesar.

:?

Narukami

That is my opinion Dave.

That Caesar was opposed by the Patricians as you point out, is the point of my understanding, and support for Caesar....only as far as viewing this from the perspectives of those times goes...
I would probably not vote for someone these days with his credentials....

But Caesar did far more than sack cities in Spain, he introduced laws and reforms that promoted less antagonism between creditors and debtors, to name just one thing....

But getting back to the point of this thread, and my reason for mentioning his time in Spain, he raised several cohorts which he used to subdue
the peninsula, and perhaps this was part of the core of his Tenth legion?

Indeed Gaius, if Caesar was standing for office today I'm not certain I would vote for him either.

On the other hand...

I am reminded of this (just to hijack this thread a tad bit more...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso

:wink:

Narukami

notes:
There is more than one Tenth Legion.
Dando-Collins is not writing well-researched HISTORY.
A recent description of one of his books by OxBow Booksellers
described his work [url:3e4fg62i]http://www.oxbowbooks.com/bookinfo.cfm/ID/83258[/url]
I look at most of his work as nice historical fiction, but others
may disagree. :lol:

Quote: I look at most of his work as nice historical fiction, but others may disagree. :lol:

Bookshop owners, for example disagree. Over here, it's sold as non-fiction.

I'm in the middle of reading that myself! Actually quite a plausible interpretation......not sure why there is such a hoo-haw over his not having foot notes....He lists all his reference sources at the back of the book......... :?

And a damned good read to boot!

Because that's a normal academic thing to do if you're proposing a new interpretation of the evidence. The idea is that the academic allows others to check what is his new idea and exactly what references they rest on and so verify the new theory.
Simply listing books in the back is nice for further reading, but not the same. That's basically saying: "See, this is my theory and there is some stuff I didn't think of myself, but I'm not going to tell you what's originally mine and what's not. What's not mine can be found spread in bits and pieces over the pages of this pile of books." In short: useless for the aforementioned purpose.

Quote:I wonder if Cato and the other Senators would have been less concerned about the "war crimes" of Caesar if Caesar had taken the side of the Patricians more often then that of the People?

I think it has nothing to do with the Patricians. They were irrelevant since the Lex Hortensia of 287. I think you mean the optimates, the politicians who sought legitimacy through the Senate, as opposed to those who sought legitimacy through the People's Assembly, the populares (more...). Caesar indeed preferred the latter tactic, but when it suited him, he used the first one. Compare Pompey: he started with the optimate tactic (he was an adherent of Sulla), was for a while a popularis (restoring tribunician powers), and returned to the optimate tactic (in his conflict with Caesar).

I think no one blamed Caesar for playing the popular card. Any politician did that, even people who preferred the optimate strategy (e.g., Cato and Cicero). It was a tool, and -since the consulship of Crassus and Pompey- it was perfectly legitimate.

What mattered, I think, is that Caesar was so outrageously popular that, from the very start of his career, he appeared to be destabilizing the system. An inner tension between two ways to establish legitimacy was fine -it had been OK since Scipio Aemilianus- but there had to be a balance. Caesar threatened this.

He does say it is more of a detective work as opposed to a strict reading of the sources.....I suppose depending which rules you adhere to, you can dispute almost any theory proposed by man, regardless of the sources.....
I will have to read a few of the sources he lists and decide my self if he is speaking hoaky or not... :? )

Quote:He does say it is more of a detective work as opposed to a strict reading of the sources ...

I was browsing in search of Jona's quote (no luck -- it sounds vaguely Hegelian, but I cannot confirm), and I came across a nice quote from the British historian Dame Veronica Wedgwood:

"The poet, the dramatist, the novelist are free to exercise their imagination as widely as they choose. But the historian may not be allowed so long a tether. He must fulfill his function as creative artist only within very rigid limits."

Mr Dando-Collins take note.

Yes, but getting back to caesar, I don't think I have said anything you have proved incorrect, or that you even disagree with.....apparently...giving Jona's answer to Dave... :?

have you looked there?

livius.org

Yes, in fact I was going to quote apiece from it earlier....but lost it.... :x

Quote:

Narukami:2un0wjlt Wrote:I wonder if Cato and the other Senators would have been less concerned about the "war crimes" of Caesar if Caesar had taken the side of the Patricians more often then that of the People?

What mattered, I think, is that Caesar was so outrageously popular that, from the very start of his career, he appeared to be destabilizing the system. An inner tension between two ways to establish legitimacy was fine -it had been OK since Scipio Aemilianus- but there had to be a balance. Caesar threatened this.

Points fairly taken Jona -- your command of the source material is much better than my own.

Unfortunately I am not at home with easy access to my copy of Parenti's Assassination of Julius Caesar, because I do believe the economics of this struggle are an important factor as well.

You are quite correct, Caesar was much better at "gaming the system" (to use a modern turn of phrase) than were his opponents who were no slouches themselves. They were, many of them, accomplished politicians, but Caesar clearly our maneuvered them.

Of course it is impossible to know Caesar's true motivations (power hungry megalomaniac or champion of the people) and even if he had left an explicit statement could we really trust it?

Be that as it may, I still believe that land reform was a major component to this struggle. Perhaps Caesar cared not a wit for the people but simply used them as a stick with which to beat his opponents in the Senate. Or perhaps he believed that Rome was "the mob" and their economic enfeeblement would result in the enfeeblement of Rome. Again we can never know for certain but the romantic in me would like to think the better of Caesar in this case. (Yes I know, not a very rigorous position for a historian to take -- my apologies for that. :oops: )

Again, if we look at Caesar's conduct while Dictator the laws he had enacted were, generally speaking, good for the people and good for Rome.

With the possible exception of Cato I doubt very seriously that any of Caesar's opponents cared one bit about how many Celts or Gauls or Germans Caesar's legions killed. However they did care very much how many acres he give to the Roman people and how much he encroached upon their "rights" as they perceived them (or privileges as we might see them). Thus they would use any means to stop Caesar, including killing him themselves.

Likewise, I think the "natural tension of the system" that you mentioned Jona had become so out of balance that even if Caesar had not lived to cross the Rubicon the system would have crashed anyway. The "fall of the Republic" was, by this point, inevitable. Greed, unbridled greed was destroying the Republic. It has, to my reading of history, destroyed every empire, and (dare I say it) continues to do so today.

Of course the results without Caesar would no doubt have been very different. The first Emperor of the Roman World might well have been someone other than Octavian.

Then again, as accomplished and shrewed a politician as Julius Caesar was, Octavian was even more so.

Now I will admit that I am swimming in waters far deeper than I usually venture into here on the Forum, so I will tread water for a while and try to catch my breath.

Say...is that a shark I see...?

:? wink:

Narukami