Some Roman political questions during the time of Julius Caesar.

[Derfasciti]

Hello guys.

I've been reading Rubicon by Tom Holland and it details the Roman Republic and its ultimate demise. It's a great read but it seems that i've gotten pretty confused over all the political intrigue and i'm not exactly sure why things happened as they did. I tried looking at wikipedia for a bit but it doesen't seem to help me much. It's a bit discordant and my questions might range over a couple decades and aren't necessarilly in chronological order so please bare with any ambiguities on my part.

1: Firstly, after Pompey's conquest of the Middle East, his organization of the Middle East and the land that was supposed to be given to his troops was never accepted, even after he disbanded his legions. Why? It just doesen't make sense. Did he do something illegal during all of this (the book seemed to imply that he did) or were they just jealous or scared of him?

2: Why was Cato so staunchly against Caesar and Pompey and then the Triumvirate? Were there policy differences or pure power politics?

3: What role did Cicero play in all of this and the political fighting of these decades?

4: How exactly was the Triumvirate able to effectively "control public business?"

5: I've read that Caesar was accused of several illegal doings while running for office and while in various offices, and i'm assuming these are in part the reason he had so much senatorial opposition. Is this true and if so, what did he do?

6: What faction(s) were present within the senate in Ancient Rome (but in particular Caesar's time) and what interest(s) did they often represent.

7: Considering I've yet to see much info on 6 within this book, if there weren't any major policy differences why was there so much conflict within the Roman government at all?

Thanks very much for any help you can offer. I'm sure i'll find some more questions to ask but this should help me out a good bit. :2thumbsup:

[shlin28]

I don't know the answers to most of the questions, but I think I understand some of them... if I am wrong please correct me :book:

4. Because the supporters, influence, cash and popularity of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus combined means that they will always have a majority in the Senate and other public meetings, allowing them to pass through laws they needed and place their followers into positions of power, further cementing their power.

6. There are no particular factions like parties in the modern world, they were more like loose alliances. But there were two distinct semi-factions that followed semi-roughly the same ideals: the popularis who wants to be popular and thus support laws that can help the common people, like a liberal :clown:, and the optimates (or boni), who are more concerned with securing their own power in the Senate, like conservatives :clown:

7. Because everyone wants more power than others :shame:

[WarMachine187]

1.I read somewhere that roman legions hated living in the east and in africa and stuff and that they only were given land in italia once they finished their service.I think that policy changed after the beginning of the second triumvir,seeing as each trumvir hed sway over huge regions and most likely anthony and lepidus would have rathered give them in their province than ship out to italia for prolly two reaspns,1.i bet antony and lepidus needed every last legion possible so just in case they of an emergency or for a bid for power they could easy get theyr soldiers back,2.land was prolly very scarce in italy seeing as sextus pompey controlled sicily lepidus wouldnt have been able to send his soldiers to italy it would have been to much of a risk and plus octavian needed the extra farming land to harvest as much food as possible seeing as no grain was coming to rome frome africa.Every extra legionare was an extra mouth to feed.

2:Cato opposed caeser and the triumvirs becuase there alliance,their power,and what they could do,and what they were doing undermined the senate.Cato was known for being an old fashioned roman who had strong feelings against tyrants and thats what he saw the triumvirs as.

3: cicero too believed in the power the senate and refused an offer from julius caeser to join be a fourth member of the triumvirate.being one of the most powerful senators, many senators tryna climb the polital ladder took aim at cicero.For example Clodius,who passed a law declaring that any roman who had exucuted a roman citizen without trial would be exiled.this law was directly aimed at cicero because,he had had a big falling out with clodius and he had been in charge of exucuting romans during the cataline conspiracy.Appealing for help from pompey and others without any avail,he was exiled.to greece i think.After retuning to rome,defending his friend milo, he stepped right into the middle of pompey and caesers melee.In the civil war he rolled wit pompey and lost.Papa Caeser pardoned him and old cicero prayed the republic would be revived.After the assasination of caeser,Cicero and anthony were the leaders in rome.To make a long story short his urging to make antony an enemy of state backfired and him and all his people were rounded up and treated to a good ole fashioned beheading!

4: shlin hit that one on the nail

5: not sure

6: what shlin said

7:not really policy differances,more like idealistic differances.Take the grachuss brothers for example,it wasnt their policies but there ideals that got them in trouble.The optimates were the old fashioned group.they were slaves to the original brutus' model of rome.they firmly believed that only the original familias should have power and they disliked all the new ideas and people being brought along into the fray.And that is why they ultimately lost.not their policies,or hunger for power,but the fresh new ideals of another man,the swift need for change from the old political system that saw rome constantly at conflict with itself.And that my friend is what brought the birth of the republic.

Your questions are very good.for a better look into catos life i think plutarch made somethin on him.hope i helped.

[CountArach]

1. The Senators were jealous of Pompey's power and acknowledging his victory and ratifying it would mean that they recognised that Pompey was a greater power than themselves. He did not do anything illegal that I can think of.

2. Cato was one of the ultra-conservatives in the Senate (Optimates), whereas Caesar was a Populares, who used the people for their own power. Pompey was, at this time, closer to the Populares than the Optimates, though later in his life this would change. When it came to giving a death sentence to Catallus, Caesar was the only dissenting voice who stood against Cato and Cicero - this was something that Cato never really forgave him for.

3. Cicero was a chief political figure because he proposed an alliance between the Equines and the Patricians, which would have cemented political power. He saw Pompey as a chief way of achieving this, given that Pompey had no strong loyalty to either side. Given that Cicero was such a great speaker and held so much respect all of the other Senators were trying to court his support, especially Caesar (Caesar gave Cicero's son or nephew a role in his armies). Right through to his death he was motivated by trying to use the two uppermost social classes to hold onto power and avert civil war. Obviously he failed.

4. Right throughout the entire period at least one of them held the consulship (A couple of times two of them did, Crassus and Pompey). Together they had leverage on almost everyone in the Senate, meaning they could push for more and more power and larger governorships. This in turn gave them more money and glory, which in turn provided them with even more leverage. Eventually they came to dominate all but a small portion of Roman political life.

5. There were a couple of illegalities that were perpetrated by Caesar. The one thing that sticks out in my mind was Bibulus (An Optimates and Caesar's co-consul) declaring the entirety of their consulship to be a time of religious observation. This meant that neither of them was allowed to take any action, and indeed they had to stay at home the entire time. Caesar simply ignored this and went about his business. This annoyed a lot of people and was entirely illegal. Further, when Caesar crossed the Rubicon, he was in direct violation of the various decrees of the Senate. He was hence legally responsible for the war.

6. The Optimates argued for the status-quo, particularly the maintenance of Patrician power. Sulla could be thought of as the greatest example of their wishes put in place. The Populares preferred the use of the Tribunes of the Plebians, and were altogether far more populist. They argued for land reform and a greater grain dole. Marius and the Gracchi was pretty much the heroes of the Populares. However, it should be noticed that they were still largely a conservative group, it is just that they had different means of achieving these. Caesar was a Populares because his Uncle was Marius, meaning he was largely exposed to their politics from a young age.

7. Ultimately, it all comes back to personal power.

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask :bow:

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Not looking at what has been said before, just going with what I know.

1:There were a number of reasons, chief among them that the conservative elements of the Senate, inclding Cato, were opposed to Pompey's 'special commands' and his attitude. They believed that he was undermining the unwritten laws of Rome (theMos Maiorum I think). His commands were technically unconstitutional, but he pushed them through the Plebian Assembly. His command in Spain, his command against the Pirates, his Consulship and his stripping power from Lucullus were acheived in this manner. Lucullus was a friend to many conservatives and thus they would grant his humiliator nothing. Its more complex than that but that's some reasons.

2:Cato, as mentioned was a supporter of the 'old ways' and a conservative when it came to politics. Both Pompey (to begin with) and Caesar were known as Populares, and tried to push through laws that would be beneficial to the majority of Romans rather than the Senate. He was also opposed to long-term commands, Caesar in Gaul, and any number of Pompey's commands. They were also scared f the political power that Caesar, Pompey and Crassus could amass amongst themselves, and resented the fact that they could pretty much get what they wanted from the Government.

3:Cicero was a vacillator. He hovered between Caesar and the senatorial faction led by Cato. He detested Caesar (who in later years he owed money to), but was a great friend to Pompey. He did what he could to avert the civil war that followed.

4: The Triumvirate could 'control public business through sheer influence. At its formation Crassus and Pompey were popular heroes, and both were extremely rich into the bargain. Caesar was the senior Consul at the time and later attained his 'colleagues' hero status. I believe Count Arach is wrong in saying they held consecutive consulships, however they were all proconsular governors of provinces at some point (although Pompey managed to stay in Rome and govern by proxy).

5:CA is entirely correct. His activities weren't illegal in themselves, but as all public business was supposed to be suspended while Bibulus watched the skies, hence all laws and decrees issued in this time were illegal. Also when he finally crossed the Rubicon this was in itself illegal.

6:There weren't so much factions as vaguely aligned groups that shared ideals. Mainly Populares, Optimates and neutrals (including Octavian's step-father Phillipus...). These have already been mentioned.

7:Personal power and influence.

Hope this helps.

[CountArach]

4: The Triumvirate could 'control public business through sheer influence. At its formation Crassus and Pompey were popular heroes, and both were extremely rich into the bargain. Caesar was the senior Consul at the time and later attained his 'colleagues' hero status. I believe Count Arach is wrong in saying they held consecutive consulships, however they were all proconsular governors of provinces at some point (although Pompey managed to stay in Rome and govern by proxy).
My bad, I meant to say that either them or one of their pawns.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

Yeah that's true...

Damned money and power...

/fist shake

[Mount Suribachi]

If you really want to go in-depth and study the characters and the "system", I suggest you read the Masters Of Rome series by Colleen McCullogh. Probly the best historical fiction I have ever read (Conn Iggulden it is not ~;) ) Of course she has to use a bit of artistic license to fill in the blanks, but after you have waded through all 6 books your understanding of the Late Republic will be greatly enhanced.

[Gaius Scribonius Curio]

I completely agree with Mt Suribachi. I actually own all 7 books!!! :embarassed: However while it is as historically accurate as fiction is ever going to get, it is still fiction.

I'm actually reading Caesar by Adrian Goldsworthy atm. That gives a very good insight into the period.

[Mount Suribachi]

I actually found Caesar somewhat disapointing. After reading Rubicon and the McCullogh series, it didn't actually tell me anything I didn't already know :book:

I read it whilst I was walking Hadrians Wall last year, and I still wasn't inspired by it :embarassed:

[Pannonian]

1. If Pompey gets to pass his proposals, he gets a large number of clients indebted to him, giving him leverage to become an even more dominant political power than he already was. Politics in republican depended heavily on patron-client relationships, and a patron who could get the largest number of clients and their dependents out for the vote, or otherwise influence the electoral process, would hold the most political power.

2. Cato styled himself as an ultra-conservative, in the manner of his ancestor. He opposed anything that deviated from the established system, hence he hated Pompey. He may have had a personal animosity against Caesar as well - Caesar spoke up for Catiline, and had an affair with his sister Servilia (the mother of Marcus Brutus).

3. Not much, to be honest. He saw himself as holding the centre ground in all the disputes between the classes, but in reality he had little influence with anyone significant, and was little more than small fry in the politics of the time.

4. Caesar was the executive, especially after he drove Bibulus out of public business. Crassus and Pompey provided enough money and clients to either bribe or beat everyone into submission.

5. Bibulus was elected as the anti-Caesar, and spent his term doing nothing but opposing Caesar. The two consuls were supposed to cooperate for their actions to be valid - the collegiate system meant each had a veto on the other's actions, so as to prevent too much power from being concentrated in a single man's hands. Bibulus kept issuing various forms of vetos, but Caesar kept ignoring them and carried on doing what he was doing. Constitutionally, just about everything Caesar did during his consulship was thus illegal.

6. The factions can be simplified as the optimates (the best men) and the populares (the populists), with the former representing the interests of the aristocrats and the latter the masses. However, this breaks down into personal relationships as well, as within each were people competing for their own primacy, while there were crossovers between the factions where people interconnected. There weren't any organised parties as such in republican Rome.

7. There was a ladder to be climbed in politics, and plenty of politicians, but only 2 places at the top each year. With every politician aiming to top the ladder, and to top the achievements of their own clan, and with so many of them, there was naturally a great deal of conflict, even if they didn't offer much difference in policy. Indeed, policy rarely played a part in republican politics - the patron-client networks usually decided elections.

If you want to know more about the details of politics in the late Roman republic, I recommend Cicero's letters. You'll need to know the broad political structures to really understand them, but he goes into more detail than any history textbook will do, as well as give a better feel of the political life of those times.