The Rubicon is not crossed

Anaxagoras

Banned
He doesn't really have any other option except to go home and accept being prosecuted by Cato the Younger for his illegal actions during his time as consul. This would quite possibly lead to Caesar's exile and the ruination of his career.
 
yeah ... crossing Rubicon was pretty much the only direction he could take, which wouldn't instantly demote him to the dustbin of history and has-beens. He was forced by cercumstances to an degree that you, would have to move the POD at least some amount back for stopping the crossing at all, say by killing some of the most agatonistic elements in the Senate, so they can get to a peaceful argeement everyone can accept (even if no one is exactly thrilled by said argeement)
 
There were a few options options, even in the week before:

Cicero was negotiating a deal amongst Pompeius and Caesar. But he failed finally, because Cato, Marcellus and others were too stubborn and could convince Pompeius to not agree.

Caesars demand to apply for consulship in absence, was not fully new or impossible at all. But Caesar had proven as a consul 10 years ago, that he was not willing to respect the senate. He would probably start again the usual tactics of the Populares via the comitia. And it is a safe guess, that he later would not have been satisfied with the proconsulship of Cyprus. Despite Pompeius' new law, that forbids proconsulships until 5 years after consul/praetor in Rome. So I can understand Cato to a certain extent.

One option discussed was, that Caesar gets the Illyricum as a single province and Pompeius goes back to Spain. Still a dangerous option for Caesar with just 1 legion rest. Also dangerous for the senate, because Caesar would perhaps start political games again, conquer the entire Illyricum and maybe Dacia. At the end, the situation would be very similar.

Another option would have been, that Caesar disbands his legions and march with tenthousands of roman citizens to Rome. Here he could delay the trial against him, manipulate the comitia with his veterans, manipulate or avoid the trial at all and get consul again. A pretty dangerous path. But an approved method of the Populares.

Some books of modern historians with a bit different view to the late republic, showing some options, are:

David Shotter, The Fall of the Roman Republic, 2005
Erich S. Gruen, The Last Generation of the Roman Republic, 1995

The mother of all questions is: was Montesquieu right, when he wrote "Without Caesar and Pompeius, two other guys would have ruined the (almost dead) republic". Some modern historians are willing to disagree, lately. Did the decline of the republic cause the civil war or vice versa? This question is asked again after about 200 years of mutual agreement amongst historians. And especially Gruen has some damn good arguments.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that a Republic works only within a (relative) small territory. As soon as you expand you have to appoint someone to rule those territory for you. Once appointed the "governor" is free to exploit his "fiefdom" and if he is returning and has to fear prosecution by political enemies (and who has no such) he will try to secure himself as good as possible. Seizing power is the easy way to do this. An Imperium (monarchy) is easier - you also get your fief, exploit it and you know exactly whom to bribe to keep your wealth (the imperator) - in a democracy its dificult to bribe enough men with enough money and keep enough for oneself ;)

The "republican" idea is dead once the republic becomes too big to have an easy communication with your colonies.
 
Fully argeed ... the republic death spiral started, IMHO, at latest with Gaius Marius' shinannigans on the consuleship post (specially post Cimbrian) ... probably allready when Gracchus (either of them) were making noise.
 
The "republican" idea is dead once the republic becomes too big to have an easy communication with your colonies.

Communication was an issue, especially looking to the roman system, where a senate as a collective is supposed to rule the state. But that does not mean, that other republican government systems would not have been able to deal with the issue of communication and distance way better. The trick is, to draft a republican system which is scalable and acceptable for the romans. Perhaps a mission impossible.

It is just hard to draft a POD, where roman aristocracy would accept an alternate republican system, e.g. one with more buerocracy and therefore more classes involved into government, perhaps more local control and finally more division of powers, instead of trusting in annuity, collegiality and the coherence of the senatorial class alone.

I have just read "Werner Dalheim, Gewalt und Herrschaft - Das provinziale Herrschaftssystem der römischen Republik". He shows clearly the helplessness of the roman senate after conquering the first 2 provinces Sicilia and Sardinia. For about 4 years Sicilia was more or less ungoverned, until the senate invented 238 BC the system of proconsulship, with the annexation of Sardinia. Perhaps the first nail into the republican coffin. If not Romulus and Remus, which stands for the roman mindset in general, was the first nail, and Rome was doomed to fail from the very beginning.

The romans had alternatives 241/238 BC, as Dalheim points out, e.g. the italian system of socii, client kingdoms, and others. In the next two centuries the romans kept on tinkering with different government systems, starting shortly later with Cisalpina and Illyricum, which was organized fully differently than Sicilia and Sardinia at the beginning (no proconsul). Spain was a big mess, too. And the show goes on and becomes even more weird in the East with Greece and Asia.

So I personally agree, that the roman republic was almost dead in the first century BC. One important reason was their fully inappropriate system of province-government, which finally stroke back to Rome itself. And the Rubicon is pretty much too late, in order to start a POD which rescues whatever kind of republic. But, as mentioned above, some very prestigious historians liked to disagree lately.
 
Last edited:
Another option would have been, that Caesar disbands his legions and march with tenthousands of roman citizens to Rome. Here he could delay the trial against him, manipulate the comitia with his veterans, manipulate or avoid the trial at all and get consul again. A pretty dangerous path. But an approved method of the Populares.

...

The mother of all questions is: was Montesquieu right, when he wrote "Without Caesar and Pompeius, two other guys would have ruined the (almost dead) republic". Some modern historians are willing to disagree, lately. Did the decline of the republic cause the civil war or vice versa? This question is asked again after about 200 years of mutual agreement amongst historians. And especially Gruen has some damn good arguments.

Interesting proposal, and definitely the right question. Mind you, I mean "interesting" also in the Chinese proverb's sense - it's not something that will foster stability.
 
Caesar had two real options at this stage in his life.

I). Leave his army where the law commanded and go home, there to be prosecuted, most likely sent into exile or even executed, and ruined either way.

II). Bring his army with him into Rome in a direct violation of the laws of the Republic, thereby throwing his defiance in the faces of the Senate and declaring his intention to fight for what he had gained.

He chose option II, as many a man in his position would.
 
Caesar had two real options at this stage in his life.

I). Leave his army where the law commanded and go home, there to be prosecuted, most likely sent into exile or even executed, and ruined either way.

While his political opponents were questionable, they at least wanted to dress themselves up as defenders of tradition, which would mean that Execution wouldn't be considered ... only question would be how far away from Rome he would be exiled to
 
While his political opponents were questionable, they at least wanted to dress themselves up as defenders of tradition, which would mean that Execution wouldn't be considered ... only question would be how far away from Rome he would be exiled to

I doubt, this would happen, if Caesar really goes to Rome without legions. The silent and peaceful times of Clodius Pulcher or Catalina were just a child's birthday party, compared to what Caesar would do with Rome. Before any court convicts Caesar, Rome would be covered with blood.

Either Caesar can avoid to get convicted or even accused, or this option ends in a civil war, too. Just a few months later.
 
Caesar returns to Rome without his troops. He is arrested, put on trial, and sentenced to exile in some faraway land, never to see Rome again. Before he leaves the city, he is assassinated by unknown assailants. The outrage building in the streets at his conviction erupts upon his death. His supporters and those of his enemies engage in outright civil warfare, and soon the whole Republic is taken up by the conflict.

Depending upon the outcome of the war, the Roman Republic may persist, but it will be a long, bloody experience.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Before any court convicts Caesar, Rome would be covered with blood.

But Rome was now under Pompey's direct control, and Pompey no longer had any need for Caesar. Crassus was dead, so Pompey no longer needed Caesar to provide balance in a triumvirate that no longer existed. The death of Julia had terminated any family connection between Caesar and Pompey. Indeed, the only obstacle to Pompey's complete control of the Republic was now Caesar. If Caesar was brought onto the dock, Pompey would a) make sure Caesar is found guilty and exiled to some backwater on the Black Sea and b) make sure his soldiers keep order in the city while the trial takes place.
 
But Rome was now under Pompey's direct control, ...

I would not call it direct control. There was no such thing like direct control in the republic except dictatorship. Pompeius was rather carefully playing the game. Comparable to Augustus' later approach. And Pompeius himself had no official office at this point of time. However 2 Optimates were Consul in this year.

The Optimates already violated the constitution heavily via throwing two caesarian tribunes out of the city. So the risk was very high, that they would be willing to prohibit the calling of the comitia by all means.

I guess, for Caesar the point of no return was reached, when the optimates blocked the tribunes. This showed Caesar clearly, that a political solution, how reckless and illegal it would have been, would be extreme risky and lead to a civil war anyways.
 
Last edited:
If for for some reason Caesar thought Pompey's position too strong to challenge, could he have taken his army to create a kingdom for himself in Gaul?
 
If for for some reason Caesar thought Pompey's position too strong to challenge, could he have taken his army to create a kingdom for himself in Gaul?

No! Caesar was interested in dignitas et auctoritas. There is no such thing in Gaul. So King of Gaul would have been a terrible downgrade even compared to a proconsul.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
No! Caesar was interested in dignitas et auctoritas. There is no such thing in Gaul. So King of Gaul would have been a terrible downgrade even compared to a proconsul.

When passing through a pathetic village of ignorant and illiterate people on the way to Spain (IIRC), Caesar reprimanded some of his officers who made fun of the people, saying that he'd rather be the first man in that village than be the second man in Rome.

Of course, this was almost certainly just rhetoric, a way of saying that he was determined to be the first man in Rome. and was not willing to settle for anything else. Still, what you said made me think of it.
 
Last edited:
Top