04-10-2010, 09:57 PM
I don't believe Julius Caesar was a worthless upstart, nor do I think that Augustus was. But the Julii were not considered one of the great families,although undeniably patrician. And Augustus' biological father had been the first man in his family to join the Senate. So I don't say that these men were worthless upstarts;only that they may not have been considered on par with the Junii or the Cornelii or families of that nature. Perhaps I do draw class lines too clear-cut(at least among patricians) but I still feel the great families were very aware of their ancestry and importance to the Republic and may have resented being in second place behind the Emperor(though perhaps less so once Tiberius came to power,he being descended from the Claudii).
I also don't argue with the fact that a few revolts may have been inspired by republican ideals. When Caligula was murdered(by another Cassius), the Senate did indeed debate over restoring the Republic, but then argued amongst itself over who would rule and so lost any chance it did have(and they never had support of the Praetorians or army for that matter). So I can't deny that some amount of Republicanism survived. But the fact that the entire senate never did support such a move suggests to me that most of the senate wasn't particularly interested in restoring the Republic,or at least was more interested in self-preservation.
I also didn't say that Imperial Senators had no power, only that it was depended on the Emperor. Men who could command armies and provinces were of course powerful and important men. But they had more freedom under the Republic and though the power may only been temporary(as on a year-by-year basis) they still had no one above them, though they could be forced to submit the the Roman populace(as at the beginning of the Second Punic War).
Finally, Cornutus probably did identify heroes of republicanism, but I believe he was also comparing people to Nero. Who better to offset the terror and excess of Nero than a man who died for his republican beliefs? And Brutus calling Cassius "the Last of the Romans" may have had many reasons;to eulogize a fellow defender of republican ideals, to commemorate a brave man, to contrast him with his enemies(Octavian and Antony) or maybe just because Cassius was Brutus' brother-in-law and out of familial respect called him by that epithet. I can never deny that those two were fighting for the Republic. But I still think that all those men who followed their example were individuals,and that on the whole the Senate was not that concerned with the Republic after the establishment of the Principate.
I also don't argue with the fact that a few revolts may have been inspired by republican ideals. When Caligula was murdered(by another Cassius), the Senate did indeed debate over restoring the Republic, but then argued amongst itself over who would rule and so lost any chance it did have(and they never had support of the Praetorians or army for that matter). So I can't deny that some amount of Republicanism survived. But the fact that the entire senate never did support such a move suggests to me that most of the senate wasn't particularly interested in restoring the Republic,or at least was more interested in self-preservation.
I also didn't say that Imperial Senators had no power, only that it was depended on the Emperor. Men who could command armies and provinces were of course powerful and important men. But they had more freedom under the Republic and though the power may only been temporary(as on a year-by-year basis) they still had no one above them, though they could be forced to submit the the Roman populace(as at the beginning of the Second Punic War).
Finally, Cornutus probably did identify heroes of republicanism, but I believe he was also comparing people to Nero. Who better to offset the terror and excess of Nero than a man who died for his republican beliefs? And Brutus calling Cassius "the Last of the Romans" may have had many reasons;to eulogize a fellow defender of republican ideals, to commemorate a brave man, to contrast him with his enemies(Octavian and Antony) or maybe just because Cassius was Brutus' brother-in-law and out of familial respect called him by that epithet. I can never deny that those two were fighting for the Republic. But I still think that all those men who followed their example were individuals,and that on the whole the Senate was not that concerned with the Republic after the establishment of the Principate.
Aurelius Falco (Tony Butara)
