Did Caesar Want to Be King?

[livius drusus]

Inspired by bey's post here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?p=159797#post159797), I figure it's high time we had a nice, speculative romp through Julius Caesar's intentions and the might-have-beens of the late Roman Republic.

I'll get the ball rolling by saying that although I don't think Caesar wanted to be king per se, I do think he realized that the Republican structure would not hold under the pressure of territorial expansion. Remember, the Republic Caesar saw was the one of Marius and Sulla tearing the city apart, of Pompey being granted generalships of unprecedented reach and power only to get the political shaft from the Patrician faction (Optimates) once he disbanded his army, of uncontrolled corruption and shockingly inept administration.

I think Caesar thought the exigencies of contemporary Roman administration required a stable, strong executive, a role the Republican system was created to replace, not support. I also think that if Suetonius (check chapters 76-80 (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html)) is even a quarter accurate, Caesar really was just a leetle bit too willing to accept all the ridiculously lavish honors that unctuous, back-stabbing (literally!) senate bestowed upon him. (Plutarch agrees (http://www.bartleby.com/12/10.html), btw.)

At the same time, I definitely think the Optimates pushed Caesar by constantly fucking with him. Seriously, there was never a time when they weren't looking to screw him over one way or another, so in order to protect himself and accomplish his hugely ambitious personal and political goals, he ended up taking extreme actions which he might not otherwise have done.

So did Caesar want to be the first emperor of Rome? Not exactly, but he did want to redefine the "first among equals" role to a point so far past the traditional Republican standard that he might as well have been sporting a diadem.

Would the Republic have survived if Caesar's enemies had given him a damn break every now and again? In name only, imo, because by 44BC the reality of empire was undeniable; there was simply no way the Republic could administer it effectively, and Caesar knew it.

[BDS]

"You all did see that on the Lupercal I thrice presented him a kingly crown, which he did thrice refuse. Was this ambition?" - Marc Anthony

[livius drusus]

Yes, if the offers and refusals were intentionally staged just so Caesar could be seen rejecting kingship. Ambition does not require the title; the power alone might just suffice.

[BDS]

Antony: "These many, then, shall die; their names are prick'd."

BDS: And livius?

Antony: "She shall not live; look, with a spot I damn her."

[livius drusus]

Don't believe a word Antony says. I'm firmly convinced he bribed Shakespeare to make himself look good and Caesar look like a tool.

Oh, and your name is prick'd.
:caesar2:

[BDS]

Unfortunately, my knowledge of Caesar is limited to the Shakespeare play.

However, although Marc Antony may not have actually prick'd your name, it reminds me of a story. When I was in high school, and my younger brothers and sisters were younger yet, my older brother brought his girlfriend home from college. For some reason lost in the mists of memory, we all hated her. So we formed the "Maggie Death Army" (her name was Maggie), and plotted ways to get rid of her.

The only actual activity of the Maggie Death Army (if we don't include sitting around an plotting humorous attacks on Maggie) was giving her "The Black Spot". If you've ever read "Treasure Island", you know that the Black Spot is a Piratical death sentence, and to be properly given it must be written in ink on the ripped-out page of a Bible. I'm happy to report that we gave Maggie the Black Spot properly, and that she and my brother split up.

Had Maggie ever read Treasure Island? We'll never know.

p.s. We never actually killed Maggie.

[Veritas]

Caesar: Forsooth, my friend Marcus Antonius, thou lookest like a sexpot with a high sex drive.

Marc Antony: Verrily, I thank thee. How's the time machine coming along, Caesar my old chum, sorry, I mean, Ave!

Caesar: Nearly done. Give it a few days and you'll be able to fast forward a few thousand years and give scarletpeaches a damn good seeing to.

Marc Antony: Good, she looks like a filthy minx from what I've seen on the interweb.

[BDS]

This thread suddenly takes an anti-intellectual turn! Livius may never get her serious discussion!

Pretty funny, Scarlet! I especially like the "Forsooth".

[Veritas]

I believe Caesar wanted the power but not the title, as it would scare people into thinking, "Ay up, we've got a power-mad dog, here."

I also think he allowed himself to be assassinated. No, seriously. His epilepsy was affecting him more and more and a 'noble' death could be achieved this way rather than gibbering on the floor and being publically humiliated during one of his seizures.

[mountain_hare]

Caesar could have called himself the 7th sheep from the right, that didn't change the fact that he was the dictator of Rome by the end of his rule.

[Carnivale Ed]

Maybe this is backwards logic, but isn't the best evidence of Caesar's intentions, his assassination? Most of the accounts of his life I've read have been written many years after his death and engage in a great deal of supposition. The assassins, on the other hand, were Caesar's contemporaries and their act is a matter of record - if we consider them logical/rational beings, doesn't that mean Caesar must have been planning on changing his name to Rex?

(OK, I know there's an implicit assumption there ... )

[livius drusus]

I believe Caesar wanted the power but not the title, as it would scare people into thinking, "Ay up, we've got a power-mad dog, here."

I think you're right, but he wasn't very good at hiding the power-mad dog stuff what with his allowing statues of him to be inscribed "the undefeatable god" and whatnot. Now Octavian, otoh, had that down pat. He was a full-on emperor for 40 years and managed to massage it so the senate took it and liked it.

I also think he allowed himself to be assassinated. No, seriously. His epilepsy was affecting him more and more and a 'noble' death could be achieved this way rather than gibbering on the floor and being publically humiliated during one of his seizures.

I don't know if the epilepsy was that bad, and I'm not sure I'd agree that he allowed himself to be assassinated consciously, but he was certainly a little careless about his personal protection and he was heard to say the day before that his ideal death would be "a sudden one".

Caesar could have called himself the 7th sheep from the right, that didn't change the fact that he was the dictator of Rome by the end of his rule.

He was dictator of Rome long before the end. Dictator was a Republican role, and not inherently regal. The Romans realized in times of duress the consular and magistrative system might be ineffectual, so they allowed for a supreme executive to be declared by the senate.

Of course, by the time Caesar got the job, Sulla had already made a mockery of the original Republican intent. Caesar put the nail in the coffin when he got himself appointed "dictator for life".

[livius drusus]

Maybe this is backwards logic, but isn't the best evidence of Caesar's intentions, his assassination? Most of the accounts of his life I've read have been written many years after his death and engage in a great deal of supposition. The assassins, on the other hand, were Caesar's contemporaries and their act is a matter of record - if we consider them logical/rational beings, doesn't that mean Caesar must have been planning on changing his name to Rex?

He he... Well, naw, they could have been mistaken about that final step. I think they wanted him dead because of the reality of his power, not the potential that it would turn into Parthian-style kingship. The kingship thing had big symbolic PR value, but I think they found his control of Rome intolerable tyranny no matter what he chose to call himself.

[fragment]

I think they found his control of Rome intolerable tyranny no matter what he chose to call himself.Did they kill him to oppose tyranny or in an attempt to protect their own interests and advance their own ambitions?

[livius drusus]

I think an argument could be made for both, really, especially since there were so many senators involved in the plot. It's hard to say because we don't have a whole lot to go on, but I imagine Brutus, for example, would have had a much brighter future as a favorite of Caesar's than as his assassin.

Also, individual advancing ambition and interest was expected and proper in senatorial society, witness the cursus honorum, colonial governorships and the clientage system. I think it would be fair to say that for the assassins, Caesar's hogging all the good stuff was inextricable woven with why they thought him a tyrant. A fair enough assessment, imo, given their societal premises.

[Carnivale Ed]

I think they wanted him dead because of the reality of his power, not the potential that it would turn into Parthian-style kingship. The kingship thing had big symbolic PR value, but I think they found his control of Rome intolerable tyranny no matter what he chose to call himself.
OK, you took me really literally. I just meant that the actions of the assassins imply that Caesar was probably not interested in maintaining the Republic (or the status quo?) in any meaningful way. Whether he was king in name or not, I think, is immaterial.

[livius drusus]

Ohh... I see. Sorry about that. :blushes: Well, I would say the actions of the assassins imply they thought Caesar was not interested in mainting the Republic in any meaningful way.

Then again, what do the pre-slaughterhouse actions of the assassins imply, namely, all the outlandish honors they lavished on Caesar?

[Carnivale Ed]

Ohh... I see. Sorry about that. :blushes: Well, I would say the actions of the assassins imply they thought Caesar was not interested in mainting the Republic in any meaningful way.
That's certainly the most reasonable supposition. The implicit assumption I mentioned above, though, was what fragment was getting at - that the senators weren't acting in their own self-interests (which, of course, they probably were).

Then again, what do the pre-slaughterhouse actions of the assassins imply, namely, all the outlandish honors they lavished on Caesar?
Saddam Hussein used to be the darling of American politicians. Cynical people praise other people, regardless of what they really think/know, when they think they can gain mileage out of doing so. Caesar was a bright, shining star for the senators to hitch their wagon to.

[livius drusus]

That's certainly the most reasonable supposition. The implicit assumption I mentioned above, though, was what fragment was getting at - that the senators weren't acting in their own self-interests (which, of course, they probably were).

And the implicit assumption in that is that acting in one's own self-interest and acting for the good of the Republic are two entirely separate motivations. Senatorial Roman culture interwove the two very closely, I think, which is why Caesar himself could well have rationalized his power as perfectly in concert with the expectations of a patrician senator.

Saddam Hussein used to be the darling of American politicians. Cynical people praise other people, regardless of what they really think/know, when they think they can gain mileage out of doing so.

So you think your basic sychophancy was behind the senatorial honors?

Caesar was a bright, shining star for the senators to hitch their wagon to.

Literally (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Julius*.html), as it turned out. ;)

Actually, in all seriousness Caesar packed the senate with his men. The conspirators were only a small group, so I can't really pin the ass-kissing honors on them specifically, although they certainly played along.

[Clutch Munny]

Probably shouldn't overlook the Egyptophobe element, too. Julius had a child with Cleopatra, so his formalized kingship would raise the prospect of an eventual Helleno-Egyptian claim to the throne.

Also, I think it's very dubious to infer the correctness of any charge against someone from the fact that they were assassinated. Trotsky was assassinated, but that doesn't suggest that he really was being financed by Churchill (as Stalin had it bruited about).

[Carnivale Ed]

Also, I think it's very dubious to infer the correctness of any charge against someone from the fact that they were assassinated. Trotsky was assassinated, but that doesn't suggest that he really was being financed by Churchill (as Stalin had it bruited about).
Right, but we have better sources about this matter. I was just suggesting that the fact of his assassination was at least as relevant, given the natures of other sources we might use, in divining Caesar's intentions.

[fragment]

And the implicit assumption in that is that acting in one's own self-interest and acting for the good of the Republic are two entirely separate motivations. Senatorial Roman culture interwove the two very closely, I think, which is why Caesar himself could well have rationalized his power as perfectly in concert with the expectations of a patrician senator.While I can see that people might perceive this as an implicit assumption behind my question, I was not intending to introduce what I agree is an incorrect dichotomy. It is still possible that one factor was vastly more important than the other though, which is why I asked the question. As you suggest, "Both" is a reasonable answer... I'm not really familiar enough with the events of the assassination to judge myself.

[Clutch Munny]

Also, I think it's very dubious to infer the correctness of any charge against someone from the fact that they were assassinated. Trotsky was assassinated, but that doesn't suggest that he really was being financed by Churchill (as Stalin had it bruited about).
Right, but we have better sources about this matter. I was just suggesting that the fact of his assassination was at least as relevant, given the natures of other sources we might use, in divining Caesar's intentions.

Right, there's better supporting evidence for the charge in this case. But it's the supporting evidence far more than the fact of the assassination that speaks to the charge.

I think liv's stretching a bit, too, to say that "the actions of the assassins imply they thought Caesar was not interested in maintaining the Republic in any meaningful way" -- basically, for reasons of the sort she canvasses, but which can be extended substantially. Each conspirator may well have seen Julius' prestige and power as infringing on his own, in ways that varied from one to the next, and which need not have implicated Julius' actually becoming king. And each, as liv observes, may have had more than one motivation.

A cooperative action does not imply (and rarely involves, one might argue) a single motivation from the cooperators; so I don't think it even follows that the conspirators had a single perception of Julius' aspirations, still less that those perceptions were correct.

[Godwhacker]

Im no expert in this area, but I do know a bit of Shakespeare, being a fan of his works. I always wondered, and maybe some of you can answer this, how accurate is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, not obviously, in terms of the dialogue, but more in the events and the main players' actions, etc?

I know in many of Shakespeare's works, particularly those dealing with the English Monarchy, that facts were quite twisted to suit the views and tastes of his Tudor masters. For example, there have been whole books written about how Richard III was not the man depicted by the Shakespeare play of the same name.

[Veritas]

Plus, Shakespearean 'geography' was laughable - one only need read the Scottish Play to realise that.

[Leesifer]

I'm going to say it - MACBETH. There said it!

[Veritas]

You've done it now. Only Titus Pullo can save us.

THIRTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENTH!!!

[Leesifer]

Don't start me off on TP again.

I definitely need to read up a lot more on this. I read Robert Graves' "I Claudius" a very long time ago and that's it Rome-wise reading for me.

[Veritas]

Try Suetonius's Twelve Caesars. :D

I mentioned him to someone I know - I hesitate to use the word 'friend' when describing such stupidity - and she said, "Who's Sue Tonious?"

[livius drusus]

I always wondered, and maybe some of you can answer this, how accurate is Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, not obviously, in terms of the dialogue, but more in the events and the main players' actions, etc?

It's time-compressed, so events which irl took place years apart happen at the same time in the play. Caesar's triumph was in 46 BC and the Lupercalia celebration where Antony offered him a crown in 44 BC, but Shakespeare sort of blends them into one.

Same with the post-assassination timeline. The battle of Phillipi and the route of the assassins' forces wasn't until 42 BC, and there were all kinds of battles won and lost on both sides before then, as well as internal struggles between Octavian, Antony and Lepidus.

I haven't read the play since high school, so I'd have to reread it to tell you anything more, but if you're in the mood, you should read Plutarch's Life of Caesar (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Caesar*.html) which was Shakespeare's source. There's the ghost in it and everything. :lilghost:

[Veritas]

Wow, Liv - you know everything!:smitten: