Aside from Caesar's attempt to become Emperor...

Was there any other examples of such a man (or woman) gaining enough power to attempt overthrowing a Senate or Confederation in order to replace it with an autocratic form of government? I am preparing for a debate in my Government/Politics class where I play a role of an anti-federalist denouncing the role of Presidency. I thought Caesar's attempt to become emperor was a perfect example of the people forgetting the role of the Senate and wishing to crown a man as their emperor. There has to be another example of such events occurring throughout history and was wondering if this forum knew of any?

Thanks :beam:

Can't think of an example in antiquity, but some in more recent times. Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler did manage to more or less legally come to power and then replace a republican system with a dictatorship.

Charles I.

Read Paine's writings, definitely.

People wanted to make George Washington President for life...

Robspierre enjoyed a good period of dominance before being consumed by the Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximilien_Robespierre

There were the Greek Cities that supported Sparta's bid to dominate Greece from the tyranny of Athens.

Also: Emperor Palpatine.

The civil war that took place when Caesar was in his late teens ended up with Sulla as dictator. He fought the war against Marius (of Marian reforms fame).

Edit: Just thought I would add, there is no consensus if Caesar ever meant to set up a permanent dictatorship along the lines of Augustus so calling it an attempt to become Emperor is misleading. He was simply a dictator, which had happened several times in Romes history, and may have eventually relinquished power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenebrous

The civil war that took place when Caesar was in his late teens ended up with Sulla as dictator. He fought the war against Marius (of Marian reforms fame).

Edit: Just thought I would add, there is no consensus if Caesar ever meant to set up a permanent dictatorship along the lines of Augustus so calling it an attempt to become Emperor is misleading. He was simply a dictator, which had happened several times in Romes history, and may have eventually relinquished power.

---

:2thumbsup:

This is true, let us not simplify history. Caesar was a traditional Roman in most ways, even if (like Sulla, Marius, the Gracchii and Scipio Africanus) he sometimes used untraditional means. Let us not ascribe him motives he might not have had.

Edited to add
Pasted from "When was Rome doomed"-thread where I originally posted it.

End of Res Publica Romana is something I have done a lot of research in, and can say for certain what caused, but remember that the end of The Republic was not the end of Rome.

Rome's constitution was made for a city state, like hundreds of others around the Med at this time. It could not cope with empire.

Problem was by and large the senate.

Manpower in Italy and thus the potential pool of recruits for the legions was dwindling, badly because the smallholders were away warring all the time. Before they had been able to war some months, then return to their farms, Cincinnatus is an example in point. As Rome gained overseas provinces it had to keep soldiers in the field year-round and they could thus not till their land. This went fallow and was to some extent taken over by magnates who tilled it using slaves. Not the Latifundia system, this was not invented yet, nor did smallholders ever disappear entirely from Italy as some ancient writers ascertain in their rethorics. For they recognised the problem as well.

One of the Scipii (I forget which) considered proposing agrarian reform in 140 bc, but was dissuaded byt his friends. Thus Tiberius Gracchus was the one to propose it in 133 bc- and pay the price. It is important to note that he proposed it as a Plebejian Tribue and to the people, just as his brother Gaius did 10 years later when he continued and even radicalised Tiberius' policy of agrarian reform and curbing senatorial power. He too paid the price, but these two had taught the people that it had power. And at this point the Plebs of Rome was numerous and volatile- it would become worse. Note that the Senate (who would loose use of Ager Publicus) resisted agrarian reforms intensely, just as they did enfranchisment (? Giving citizenship) of Italy, leading to the Social War.

Now to another, seemingly unrelated, subject. The Cursus Honorum, as Rome got more and more provinces and riches poured to Rome(Roman aristocrats) making a name for yourself- as was necessary in politics- became more and more expensive. Building projects, Gladiatorial games and free grain became a necessity. To name an example Caesar was deep in dept to Crassus from this. This means that the aristocrats greed became larger, they needed money if they were to make a name for themselves, and they could only pay back those debts by propraetorship or proconsulship, which would allow them to skim the incomes from the province. Even honest men were caught in this trap, for all of them had generations of great men and expectations on their shoulders, they HAD to climb Cursus Honorum and do great things. Competetion thus became more and more intense and ruthless, end more and more expencive. Catilinia was a point in case, he failed and was so indebted that he had basically no other choice then try a coup. Now, remember this if you please.

Next step towards destruction was taken by Marius, he did not in fact professionalise the army as has been often ascertained, the average service time remained 6-7 years as it had been through all 2nd century BC. What he did was enroll everyone without considering the limits on income. Others had in fact done this to some extent, but he got a massive wave of volunteers who suddenly saw prospects for land when service was over. Rural Plebs, not urban, made up Marius' new army and indeed it was loyal only to him.

This brings us to good old Sulla, senate gave him command against Mithidrates of Pontus, and he wanted it cause Asia was very rich- much loot- People gave command to Marius, so Sulla used his army, made on the new model and loyal only to him, to march on Rome itself!!! and enforce the Senate's decision.
Marians took power while he was gone and repressed his followers and he exacted bloody revenge when he returned, with HIS army- loyal only to him, gained dictatorship, whith his army, gave them land and reformed some laws, etc. he then resigned and died.

The one to learn all these lessons, about the power of the people and the power of a private army was Gaius Julius Caesar, intelligent and ambitious, he used all the lessons learned by looking at Gracchii, marius, Sulla, and he gained absolute power. The Republic was dead.

But what killed it?

As should be evident, the depletion of recruits caused by the Senate's reluctance to agrarian reform and enfranchisment of Italy led to the recruiting of private armies that were loyal only to their general as only he could reward them sufficiently with land. This was one "branch of the cause".

Ambitious patricians had to spend more and more as the competetion in Cursus Honorum and provincial commands grew more intense. At the end people like Sulla and Caesar were willing to do anything, genocide, turning on Rome itself, proscriptions in Rome... to gain power, fame and a name. The Senate's stubborn resistance to reforms handed these ambitious men the ultimate tool, private armies, and with them, they killed Res Publica Romana.

All of this, recruitment for legions and the Cursus Honorum, as well as the way conquered land was shared was part of the constitution of Rome, the CITY STATE constitution that could not cope with empire and the riches it brought while taking the soldiers from the land.

You will notice that Caeasar mostly did what others had and followed Cursus Honorum, only by becoming Dictator for more than half a year did he deviate more than his predecessors.

Hope that helped.
In case you wish to learn more and in more detail, here is some literature on the matter.

Badian, E.: Roman Imperialism in The Late Republic, Oxford, 1968.
Beard, Mary & Crawford, Michael: Rome in The Late Republic, London, 1999.
(a) Brunt, Peter: Social Conflicts in the Roman Republic, London, 1971.
(b): Italian Manpower, Oxford, 1971,
Harris, W. V.: War and Imperialism in Republican Rome, 327- 70 BC, Oxford, 1979.

As Tenebrous says, Sulla is the other obvious Roman example. Sulla was appointed dictator for the purpose of 'fixing the state', so to speak, although he resigned his office when he thought the task had been achieved.

Also in the Roman context, there are examples of attempts to overthrow the government (eg. the conspiracy of Catilina - although it is doubtful that he wanted to set up an autocracy). There is also at least one example of an 'autocracy' led by a small group (the second triumvirate).

And of course don't forget Augustus, the only truly successful Roman self-made autocrat.

I am sure there are heaps of examples from the ancient non-Roman context, but there are others than me who know much more about such things.

Syllas' dictatorship, the Triumvirate, Caesars' aspirations of autocracy are just the external signs of a deep social pathogeny prevalent in the Res Publica ...

Through conquest unification was established between the highly advanced and complexe eastern economies and the more traditionalist Italian ones.

Under free trade the Italian markets could not respond to the economic challenge of the overtly antagonistic east ... steadily and under the overwhelming flow of goods coming from the periphery the Roman producer class (and especially the small/medium scale agriculturers ) began to disintegrate and its members were pushed into proletarian status.

this social shift (=masses of nouveaux-pauvres) was the underlying cause of all the major civil strife that followed. The citizen-soldiers were replaced by professionals hired from the plebeian masses by influential leaders. clientelle relationships became the order of the day-more and more ideas of civic duty and devotion to the impersonal State ( Res Publica) were substituted by personified allegiances and authorities... civil wars , violence, crime , political assassinations, corruption, radicalism, war economy or even Caesar or Augustus were the mere after-effects of this social/political disintegration ...

SPQR -------> social pact between classes.

CONQUESTS (=deregulation of the pact)

EMPIRE------> new attempt for peace and unity

Lenin. In Russia there was a short period of democracy between the resign of Russian King (Tzar) and the Proletariat dictatorship.

Take a good long look at Chinese and Japanese history.

Did we lose track of the topic? I think the question was whether there were any individuals who attempted to overthrow government in ancient times, not what were the social causes of them seeking to do so.

Does anyone know any non-Roman examples?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Urg

Did we lose track of the topic? I think the question was whether there were any individuals who attempted to overthrow government in ancient times, not what were the social causes of them seeking to do so.

Does anyone know any non-Roman examples?

---

Any Greek Tyrant, pretty much. Augustus is a trope really, so are Tiberius and Caligula. Good, despotic, evil. The three follow the pattern in Greek narratives, including Caligula's murder. This is why we must be suspicious of the surviving narrative (though it was also an self-fullfilling prophecy to some extent.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARCHIPPOS

Syllas' dictatorship, the Triumvirate, Caesars' aspirations of autocracy are just the external signs of a deep social pathogeny prevalent in the Res Publica ...

---

Late Republic.

Also, I present Agathocles...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agathocles

Best known for his Hail-Mary strategy of invading North Africa after losing all of Sicily to Carthage, winning a few battles, but ultimately getting defeated and fleeing back to Syracuse.

And somehow, he came out the winner in the end and got Carthage to give him back most of Sicily... XD

Also known for using the pretext of instituting a democratic government in Syracuse but killing all his rivals, becoming a tyrant, but reinstituting democracy in Syracuse at the end of the day. He also outlawed his sons from succeding him to boot.

Interesting guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin

Was there any other examples of such a man (or woman) gaining enough power to attempt overthrowing a Senate or Confederation in order to replace it with an autocratic form of government? I am preparing for a debate in my Government/Politics class where I play a role of an anti-federalist denouncing the role of Presidency. I thought Caesar's attempt to become emperor was a perfect example of the people forgetting the role of the Senate and wishing to crown a man as their emperor. There has to be another example of such events occurring throughout history and was wondering if this forum knew of any?

Thanks :beam:

---

First of all, Caesar did NOT try to become Emperor - at least not as you describe it. Yes, you could argue that he was Emperor by virtue of having been acclaimed Imperator by his troops, but all that really meant was commander and it did not have the powers that we associate with it. The chief executives of the Roman Empire only really started to frequently refer to themselves as imperatores in the middle principate (ca. 100-300 AD) and did so because of the way it highlighted their military power, which by then was the defining mark of an Emperor.

Going by Meier's very good analysis of Caesar's life, I would say that Caesar probably didn't give a crap what title or position he had as long as it allowed him to carry out his plans and policies without being blocked by the Senate. Titles such as dictator were not vanities to him, but merely a means of operating within a system which wanted to obstruct him at every turn.

But getting to your original question, Sulla is the most obvious precedent for Caesar, which is really quite ironic given the way Caesar as a young man idolized Sulla's chief rival Marius. Sulla provides the precedent for long-term dictatorship (his lasted 5 years) and also was probably the inspiration for Caesar's famed clemency (albeit by being an example of an extremely inclement person).

Pompey also should not be forgotten, as he received at least two extraordinary commands during his career which were dictatorship in all but name. When dealing with the pirates (iirc) he was given absolute power in any Roman territory which was 50 miles or less from the coast. Given that Rome had not yet conquered Gaul, this gave him absolute power over probably 70-80% of the Empire. Then in 52 in the wake of the Murder of Clodius he was made "sole consul" which most of his contemporaries tacitly acknowledged to be little more than dictator with another title.

The Roman Senate had several problems/faults that were facing it; it was a body designed to rule a city being used to rule the Mediterranean. But for whatever reason (Meier suggests a very good one which I won't go into here), the Roman citizens failed to notice this problem and so insisted on conservatively maintaining the government as it had always been, despite the fact that, from our point of view, it clearly wasn't working anymore. Also, in a heavily family-oriented culture such as this, the deeds and accomplishments of ancestors weighed heavily on the minds of politicians and so the pressure to achieve great things, almost regardless of the means necessary to do so, was INCREDIBLY intense for young men entering politics. Another flaw was the lack of a written constitution, which meant that most of the functions of the various magistrates were governed by tradition, which could easily be broken if one was determined enough. Last of the issues that jump to my mind is that the way the Senate handled people who upstaged them had changed: in the early and middle Republic, there were several extremely accomplished politicians who outshone the rest of the senate (Scipio Africanus, for example), but at the time, the way the senate handled these people was to accord them honors and then gradually reabsorb them back into the fold. During the late Republic, this approach changes, and the Senate instead begins reacting with hostility to those who outshine them.

All of these things, and I'm sure many more which I'm forgetting, contributed to the transformation of Rome from representative government to monarchy. To blame any one figure, even one such as Caesar who shines so vividly in the modern imagination, is to fail to understand the extreme complexity of the problems facing the Republic. Caesar undoubtedly played a role, but he was far from instrumental: if he hadn't done what he did, someone else would have. -M

Pericles.
He didn't really try and change Athens into Monarchy country,but he was practically a dictator during his time.

I can't think of anymore whos not yet mentioned.

There's hundred's of examples of this throughout world history - including several in the last 50 years - when you include "coups". Mugabe might be a typical modern example of a populist revolt, voluntarily assigning one man autocratic powers that then turns into a tyranny.

Henry VIII could be a fun argument also, although quite complex if you only have a short time to speak in.

If you are more interested in ancient times, as others have mentioned, read up on just about any Greek tyrants. A good example might be Pisistratus [sp]. A more culturally revealing example could be Herodotus' description of Darius I's rise to power in Achaemenid Persia however.

I would point out though that posting such questions on the EB forum, might appear to be a shortcut fromvdoing the hard graft, but will never be a good substitute for your own research and understanding. :no: So go do some :book: !

The problem of the senate from Sulla's dictatorship up to Caesar's rebellion, was that the roman elite where greedy and where not administrating the conquered lands adequately. There are various episodes of Provincial governors getting rich during their terms as Proconsuls. Caears being the nephew of Caius Marius was watched with suspicion, even his associations with the plebes, after all Caesar was a popularis. When he conquered Gaul, he was a very rich and powerful man, having at least five veteran legions under his command. Senators like Cato, who hated Caesar, maybe because he was intelligent and a charismatic leader, wanted him to face charges in the Senate against the illegal war in Gaul. After all when he crossed the Rubicon he became a Roman rebel. Eventually the Senate {those faithful to his agenda} bestowed on him the title of Dictator for life, a more simple title for Rex, as the Romans hated that title. During his dictatorship Caesar went in doing things wright, as they should be, but the greedy Senators wanted him dead, not because they loved the Republic, but because they hated Caesar for what he was and what he has done. We can never tell if he would had accepted the tittle of Emperor, maybe as he has done before, he would had accepted it only if offered to him by the people of Rome, but not imposing it him self.

In the end Caius Julius Caesar Octavianus would rise to became the most powerful man in Rome and this was inevitable, Rome was no more a regional super power but a world power.

Cheers.

Wow, thanks a lot for all of your answers. :beam: There's a lot of good examples I can use.

Let me offer my view: if there was no Caesar, then someone else like Pompey would become Despot formally or not. Pompey alas was already kingmaker in the Senate and had a degree of power which influential figures like Scipio Africanus would never dream of or achieve during their time.

... If not we have the examples of the later Octavian-Anthony duumvirate, and prior to them Sulla and Marius. After the Gracchan disorders everyone was only concerned with individual enrichment and power grabbing, and the Senate faded into irrelevance forever. So much that the Republic could not be theoretically restored later lest someone else would wrestle power and become Princeps by the force of arms, an ever present threat.

It is a fact that the Princeps himself could do and say things which the worst Kings of Rome never could without reaching a limit or deposition, so the absence of a formal kingly honour was merely the hypocrisy of the many who long ceased to be fit or willing to have anything else than unbridled Despotism as their deserved head. Rome during the Monarchy had a super-personal reach, as the creation of the Comitia Centuriata and the prior existence of Curiate gatherings show us, but the difference between them and the later Senate is that the Senate was merely a relic, whereas the need for the Comitiae as a moderator and advisory body was real; no representative institutions were created during the Empire, contrarily to the Monarchy.

The Decemvir Claudius briefly assumed a despotic position during the 5th century BCE.
Marcus Manlius Capitolinus was a popular aristocrat who sought a kind of maius imperium early 4th century BCE but failed and was executed.
Marius and Sulla both turned the city upside down, Catiline also sought but failed to attain some sort of autocratic position.
I believe Kleomenes tried in Sparta.
Peisistratos was a well known tyrant of Athens, Polycrates IIRC tyrannized in Samos, Syracuse was ruled by a long string of tyrants, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tenebrous

The civil war that took place when Caesar was in his late teens ended up with Sulla as dictator. He fought the war against Marius (of Marian reforms fame).

Edit: Just thought I would add, there is no consensus if Caesar ever meant to set up a permanent dictatorship along the lines of Augustus so calling it an attempt to become Emperor is misleading. He was simply a dictator, which had happened several times in Romes history, and may have eventually relinquished power.

---

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there record of Caesar being crowned 3 times in the main forum area? He was crowned then it was supposedly removed then put back on 3 times. This suggests that he may have been trying to become king. Maybe the ppl didn't react very well so he removed the crown. Maybe he was showing he could become king if he wanted and was proving that he didn't want that title. Maybe he was simply leading up to a later point where he would be crowned. Testing the waters so to speak. Perhaps if he hadn't died so early he could have been king/emperor in the end. Octavius may never have had the chance. Especially if Caesar survived long enough for Caesarion to grow up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there record of Caesar being crowned 3 times in the main forum area? He was crowned then it was supposedly removed then put back on 3 times. This suggests that he may have been trying to become king. Maybe the ppl didn't react very well so he removed the crown. Maybe he was showing he could become king if he wanted and was proving that he didn't want that title. Maybe he was simply leading up to a later point where he would be crowned. Testing the waters so to speak. Perhaps if he hadn't died so early he could have been king/emperor in the end. Octavius may never have had the chance. Especially if Caesar survived long enough for Caesarion to grow up.

---

I was under the impression that Caesar was offered the crown (repeatedly), but that he specifically rejected (repeatedly) it and had it placed on Jupiter's statue on the Capitoline Hill to signify that Rome only had one king.

How about Saddam Hussein and Slobadon Milosevic?

Of course there's Putin. How about Castro too?

Quote:

---

How about Saddam Hussein and Slobadon Milosevic?

Of course there's Putin. How about Castro too?

---

Given that Kevin's participating in a recreation of a debate going on in the late 18th century, we should probably confine our answers to people who lived before that time period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The General

I was under the impression that Caesar was offered the crown (repeatedly), but that he specifically rejected (repeatedly) it and had it placed on Jupiter's statue on the Capitoline Hill to signify that Rome only had one king.

---

Agreed. Pretty much everyone agrees that this was a staged event since it seems unlikely that Marc Antony would just HAPPEN to have a crown on him while he was running in the Lupercalia. However, from there it is interpreted in several different ways. One school of thought is that Caesar arranged for Antony to do it so that he could test the waters for declaring himself King. This is generally the way ancient historians (and probably Caesar's contemporaries) interpreted it. It's also been suggested that Caesar had no knowledge of it and that Antony himself planned to do it either to make Caesar look bad by suggesting that he was being considered a king or because he genuinely thought that Caesar should be king. I think the most likely explanation though is that the Roman people were getting worried that Caesar would declare himself King and so Caesar arranged for Antony to offer him the crown so that he could publicly refuse it and thus dispel those notions. If this was his plan, it backfired somewhat, as people generally interpreted it as him testing the waters for monarchy. -M

There are various versions of the story of Caesar and the crown, Wiki actually has an ok article on the subject.

I was going to mention Sulla, but everyone else here beat me to it.

Washington was already mentioned, but thankfully, he quite fit the Roman ideal. (Putting his power aside willingly)

There's also Oliver Cromwell, dunno if that was mentioned before.

Uh, the debate is over. Thanks for your help :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kevin

Uh, the debate is over. Thanks for your help :2thumbsup:

---

You won the debate of course? With all our help =p