Origins of Caesar\'s 10th legion

[Narukami]

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