...but certainly by Caesar's own account the quantity of killing and enslavement amounted to genocide. Caesar's claims to have killed or enslaved hundreds of thousands of people out of a region which probably only had a total population of perhaps 5m. 15/xx
-
Näytä tämä ketju
-
Anyway, so Caesar butchers people who weren't even enemies of Rome for political gain for 10 years until 49, when his command is set to be up. Since that would make him liable for prosecution for all of the crimes he did, he decides to overthrow the republic instead. 16/xx
1 vastaus 12 uudelleentwiittausta 165 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
That precipitates a civil war which really doesn't end until almost 14 years after Caesar's death (he dies in 44). It turns out to be an *exceptionally* bad time, for everyone. 17/xx
1 vastaus 7 uudelleentwiittausta 157 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Almost every Roman prominent at the time of Caesar's crossing of the Rubicon in 49 is dead by the end of the conflict in 31, nearly all of them dying violently. While Caesar himself makes a great show of his clemency (he even prints it on coins)...18/xx
1 vastaus 3 uudelleentwiittausta 152 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
...and tends to pardon captured opponents, a lot of his enemies - Gnaeus Pompey, Cato the Younger, Metellus Scipio, etc. are either killed in battle, commit suicide rather than be captured, or (in Pompey's case) are assassinated (in a misguided effort to curry favor). 19/xx
1 vastaus 3 uudelleentwiittausta 130 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
But Caesar makes effectively no plans on how to institutionalize his rule on victory - he instead ends up offending the senate and too openly toys with being king (Seut. Caes. 79; Plut. Caes. 61), which leads to his assassination. 20/xx
1 vastaus 3 uudelleentwiittausta 135 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
To be clear, Caesar was fairly popular, but Caesar being king was not - the crowds cheered when he made a show of refusing the crown (one rather assumes, given the episode, he had wanted them to cheer that he accept it, but they did not, Plut. Caes. 61.5-10). 21/xx
2 vastausta 6 uudelleentwiittausta 141 tykkäystäNäytä tämä ketju -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
So you’d reject the interpretation that Caesar was a genuine populare (who also saw fit to help himself)?
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @dhmontgomery
You mean a true popularis (as in a politician in the pattern of the Gracchi)? He had that reputation and certainly some of his reforms fit the mold very well. He did a big partial-debt-forgiveness, for instance.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @dhmontgomery
But he also reduced the ranks of those receiving state grain, and set in place sumptuary laws to limit displays of wealth by the commons (but exempting the elite). He was certainly willing to dunk on the Senate a lot.
2 vastausta 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
So while I think he was almost certainly ideologically popularis, in his actual actions, he's a lot less consistent. I don't get the sense he had a plan or a program the way the Gracchi did (or Octavian, for that matter). His politics seem scatter-shot.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @dhmontgomery
Maybe if he had more time a coherent program would have emerged. But overall I don't see him as a 'policy guy' as it were. He clearly has no plan for institutionalizing his system of rule once it is clear the people won't tolerate a Hellenistic style king.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys -
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.