Did Cato or Julius Caesar cause the Civil War in 49 BC
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Today's question is about who was more responsible for the Civil War beginning in Jaunaru 49 BC - specifically Cato or Caesar, but we also consider others as well and speculate on what might have happend - or would not have happened - had Crassus still been alive.
The Senate began DESTROYING the Roman Republic when they murdered reformers Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, for their own selfish/greedy ends. Sulla was the man who strangled the Republic and stole its last breath when he implemented the proscriptions. Julius Caesar chose not to follow Sulla's example, showing mercy, uncharateristic for the time, for which he was asssssinated. One only needs to remember Pompey being confronted with senators arguing about spoils before the battle of Pharsalus and demanding Pompey attack. Pompey hesitated knowing Caesar was brilliant when it came to maneuver and tactics. It was the senators, Cato's especially, which forced Pompey to fight and lose. After the assassination, Octavian learned how to deal with the Senate and their elites on their own terms. .
I love this analysis. Without an expansionist outlet to send senators to provinces, how else could the senate’s worst impulses have been held in check (while still preserving a republic)? Through the tribunals? A new branch of government? I feel like we still haven’t really answered this with modern constitutions
What I've come to realise about the collapse of the Republic is how much of it came down to a division between the Senate and the people of Rome within the Senatus Populsque Romanus.
As in... who is the res publica? Is it the people? Or the aristocracy? Marius and Caesar thought the former, Sulla and Cato thought the former.
It's all well and good waxing about the 'tragic fall' of the 'free' Republic when we only have accounts of this supposedly great system from the senatorial elite.
After the Punic and Greek Wars, these plutocrats created a small wealthy clique that blocked many attempts to reform the state in a way that would provide for the poor and veterans. Their greedy unwillingness to compromise made peaceful revolution impossible, so violent revolution inevitable.
Sulla fought against populist tyranny that was destroying the republican system sulla was better than marius
It must also be considered that Sulla's proscription came about as a result of two attempts by his enemies to remove him from the position that was rightfully his, which also included a proscription against Sulla's allies.
Learned how to deal with the senators. Proscription.
My question answered! Thank you!
The Goldy fest continues, happy Aurumelia one and all.
All of these men had egos too big for the Republic to survive.
The Republic had big problems before Caesar was even born in 100 BC. When Roman politics called for murder of the Gracchi brothers in 133 BC and 121 BC, the Republic crossed a line that they would never return. Political violence and murder was now accepted.
There were problems because military service required Rome to have armies abroad more frequently and for longer periods. Soldiers had to be property owning citizens. Yet when the Legions returned from campaign, they found their farms were sold off. They and their families were now homeless.
"Thank you for your service!"
The political and violent feuding between Gaius Marius and Sulla. Romans killing Romans. Sulla's bloody dictatorship with all the proscriptions.
Numidian King Jugurtha had a war with Rome in 112-106 BC. He famously bribed Roman Senators to make decisions that favored him and not Rome or her allies.
It all happened before Caesar had an inkling of any power. Julius Caesar's war with the Gauls began in 58 BC. He crossed the Rubicon in 49 BC.
The Republic was rotten to it's core. The stable and functioning Republic that saw through the Second Punic War was long since dead before Caesar was even a blip on the political radar.
@@Warmaker01 I'd say the Republic was doomed the moment Rome became an empire-beating war machine. You would need major political, social and economic reforms to keep power and wealth from making the whole system crash to one side as it did.
I doubt the Gracchi, if they had lived and been given leeway could ever achieve this.
Historically we see that when the money and potential power is spread wider, nations tend to be more stable. This was possible in Western Europe because of a modern economic system and a strong middle class that in some cases did raise arms to demand reforms. No such thing really happened in Rome. The Principate was a hotfix that lasted for a while until the third century and the shift to the East and the Byzantine continuation.
How fascinating, an early version of Trump Derangement Syndrome goes terribly wrong.
You’re obsessed
BTW, if you know your history, you know Caesar was a hero
An early trumpist Maga cult destroys a republic.
@@VivaCristoRei9a hero? A hero that left Rome an autocracy? Only a fascist would call a man who enslaved a million people a hero.
@@victorhiggins2118 A million enslaved and another million slaughtered. Many Frenchmen idolize him today though. 😄
I especially like your last sentence: "This is human history, people don't often get what they expect." I think it's a good lesson from history that we should all take in mind when we look at the current world that we are living in.
Cato. He was a puppet for the patrician class but he was a zealous, willing one. Absent Cato Caesar is just a powerful and popular politician. But popularity is fickle.
I believe every morning you wake up screaming HOLD THE LINE!!
The Republic was probably doomed in the long run, but these two forces, Ceasar and Cato accelerated it.
I'm biased, Cato was responsible
Personally I blame Cato. But that is mostly because Cato seems to be a self righteous jerk while Caesar seems like he would be a fun guy to have dinner with and hear him tell his stories about Conquering Gaul
The old I have a beer with that guy politics lol respect
Just found your channel. I read your Caesar and Philip and Alexander books! Thank you for your work, I loved them.
Oh, and the divine Julius can do no wrong.
Caesar did cross the Rubicon
True, but one could argue that factions within the senate forced his hand. The point being that this is not a one sided issue.
Dunno, but i'm pretty sure some deluded smart arse will frame it around current US politics.
I mean they both did. Julius crossed the Rubicon, something that turned decimius, his good friend and number 2, against him. Julius ambition to become a king was also on display in the final weeks leading up to his death. Cato on the other hand could've kept things from escalating but wouldn't compromise an inch.
Cato was intentionally obstructing any legislation proposed to payout and settle retiring legionaries for no other purpose than not allowing those who proposed what had been a perfunctory formality vote to gain the honor of having provided those legions with their final pay outs and settlement. It was a disgusting move by an absolute POS who put his own ambitions above honoring the senates obligations to the army.
This was purely a power move these votes had never been challenged prior to Cato and the military was scandalized by it. He quite literally alienated every single active legionary with that one single stroke , from there it was only a mater of time before the solders themselves sacked Rome simply to get paid out for their life time of service. Cesar knowing this had virtually no choice other options than to march on Rome himself , had he not done so the legions of Gaul would have mutineed and entered northern Italy as a looting sacking raping mob that would have had to be put down like rabid dogs by other legions who also knew Cato could interfere their own mustering out because of Cato jealousy of their generals potential future political power from having done so.
This is the most sensible take of what happened I have heard. They just didn't want Caesar to run for Counsel again. While Caesar was single handedly destroying all of Rome's enemies in Gaul, Pompey and the rest of the criminals in the Senate were murdering innocent people in the streets to keep their cartel going. They didn't want Caesar back because they were afraid he was going to arrest & punish them for all the crimes they had been committing.
*Consul
Bring back your cat
I can recommend some further reading: Robert Morstein-Marx, Julius Caesar and the Roman People (2021). Its focus is on Caesar's relationship with the common Roman people and I appreciated the author gently bonking the reader over the head with 'don't be blinded by hindsight'.
The most important things I took away are that the sources are, predictably, pretty biased towards the aristocracy whose opinion of Caesar was disdainful to begin with; that lifelong hateboners seem to run in the Porcii Catones family; and that this weird image of Caesar as a wannabe monarch (that later people sure as heck love to project whatever they want onto) is simply not there in the contemporary sources and mostly stems from the later sources whose Rome had already been a monarchy for 150+ years. Gaius Caesar is many things, but the current definition of a dictator (there are good reasons I italicize the Roman title when writing about this) he never had the chance to be, and neither would he want to, in my opinion.
Apparently, squandering a perfectly good tool for the Herculean task of restoring stability after decades of needless bloodshed - one who had escaped Sulla's murderous wrath by the skin of his teeth, had stuck his neck out to oppose the execution of citizens in the Catalinarian matter, and had gone out of his way to spare the lives of fellow Romans in the civil war when they were captured - was a price the senators who joined the conspiracy against Caesar considered worth paying for the sake of not letting him get any more credit for actually getting things done. Cato made this envious contrarianism his entire life's work and was willing to drag everyone else down with him.
Marcus Porcius Cato was entirely at fault.
Cato and Cicero, the bonniest of the Boni, were like the rest of the sacred fathers, sleazy slumlords and land thieves. There is much to despise about GJC: the Thanos like near genocide of Gaul, on self serving grounds. Think both Gulf Wars. But he was a Marian to the last. So he tried to create a fairer society, for the Romans. He should have written Anti-Sulla because that’s the ghost he was fighting.
Caesar obviously too avoid consequences for his unlawful actions.
Cato. And then Cato some more.
I've heard (I can be wrong) that an agreement between Caesar and Pompey was close to happen, Caesar would have one province and one legion. Pompey would have even agreed already but Cato turned down. And they cornered Caesar, at that time this people would rather die than face he humiliation of the exile. Strange to say this, but in the Roman world, Caesar was kind of forced to take action. And this story I've heard was on the Historia Civilis channel.
Actually, thought it was kind of crazy of Cato and various Senatorial partisans to act in ways that precipitated a crisis and possibly backed Caesar into a corner. At the end of the day, Caesar had at least eight veteran legions that helped conquer Gaul. Surprised they didn't adopt a more sophisticated, diplomatic tact, to separate Caesar from such armies, that were beholden to him. As mentioned in the video, was probably best to let Caesar run for office, to make it possible to press for a disbanding of his armies.
Caesar was offering compromises all along to avert a civil war. Mutual disarmament with Pompey, giving up all but one of his provinces and a single legion (which Cato scuppered). Even offering a compromise peace when it looked like he had Pompey trapped in Italy. It’s true that Pompey, for whom the Senate had been bending and breaking all sorts of rules for deserves a lot of the blame too. More broadly though, the Optimate faction setting the groundwork to declare Caesar an outlaw really did it (which, of course, would likely ultimately end like falls of other great reformers in death for Caesar and many of his faction supporters/clients). Caesar really had little choice at that point but to cast the die.
A major factor would be what charges and penalties would Caesar face if he left his army in Gaul and returned by himself to Rome. He was a populist and a Marian; things that were not safe to be. Based on the Senate's past history, I think they would have killed him. His army was his only safety, and he brought it with him.
It was neither cato or caesar, but the sitting consul and his fellow Opitmates ex-consuls who started it. You overstate Cato's role. He was never more than a Praetor and a mouthpiece. He was never a decision maker for his side.
The senate should’ve made a law that generals couldn’t pay the troops.
Caesar was the immediate instigator; Cato did turn the Senate against him, probably out of spite and jealousy, and it's true that generations of corruption and dictatorship had pretty much rotted the moral fabric of the republic long before Caesar arrived on the scene. But there is still no way to argue around the fact that it was Caius Julius Caesar who ordered his troops across that river and ignited a civil war that caused thousands of deaths for no other reason than that he couldn't stand the idea of losing his political power. And, in the words of Mike Duncan, I don't think there is anything very admirable about that.
Never understood why Cato pushed it so far. It’s like he really thought Caesar wouldn’t do what he did. Or maybe he thought if Caesar did the senate could win but they hadn’t prepared at all.
I’m still eagerly awaiting the “who was better between Alexander and Caesar” question.
Didn't Cato's wife sleep with Caesar and then Caesar's mistress was Cato's half sister Servilia.. sometimes you need one person in charge Caesar was that.
I blame Vorenus. He was supposed to be with Ceasar that day but he left to confront his cheating wife.
Caesar offered many times to amicably solve the issue including surrendering his legions if Pompeii also did. This was ultimately a clash of classes between the optimates and populares.
The Optimates, in making peaceful revolution impossible, made violent revolution inevitable.
@@Onezy05 optimates and populares are the same class
There was no class warfare in Rome. All the contenders were senators, from the same economic and social class. It was personalities inflamed by vested interests...and probably, as mentioned, memories of Sulla and miscalculation the implications of their actions by Pompey and Cato.
@@makk143 But from what I understand, they REPRESENTED the interests of different classes.
Cato, it was never about the Republic
The best shorty discussion yet!❤
Caesar said no way I’m #2
I blame Papa John.
I would like a video about human sacrifice in Roman culture and for how long and for how long is suspicious to have lasted really
I think the last documented case of the Romans performing human sacrifice was immediately after the outcome of the battle of Cannae was made known in Rome. So, Polybius probably mentions it or Livy.
Cato
Cato OF COURSE. Caesar EARNED his consulship after conquering Gaul. That’s how the Roman system worked at that time. His supposed “crimes” during his first consulship were horseshit. If the senate would have done its job, Caesar would not gone to the people’s assembly a la the grachi brothers.
Sulla when he marched his legions into Rome and began whacking his enemies