Rome In A Day (Or 30 seconds . . . )

[Triggerhappy]

This is an idea that came to mind after rereading the comments in the Extra History thread. In particular the discussion about YouTube channels like EC and Crash Course trying to condense down complex historical topics to make them more accessible.

This seems like a meaningful topic because, quite honestly, history is not a subject that everyone can or should devote the majority of their limited spare time to studying. It's a discipline for the passionate just like most other intellectual or artistic fields. But like all of those fields everybody really should have a good solid foundation of the basics.

So I think it's important to ask how effectively these condensed packets of history can convey important ideas and context about the past.

Personally I rather like history but I'll be the first to admit it isn't a deep passion or the foundation of my higher education (Engineers Represent Yo ). Maybe it would be fair to say that, like a lot of internet intellectuals growing up in the age of google and wikipedia, I like history more than I have the time or passion for an in depth reading of the same.

And since that outlook isn't going to disappear from the general population anytime soon I have decided to try and examine just how much a layman (that's me) can pick up from one of these simple digestible sources designed to make me seem just a smidge less ignorant.

In my hands is a Christmas gift that I had nearly forgotten about until yesterday, a flat 160 page brown cardboard covered book measuring 7.5x12 inches titled thusly :

30 - Second Ancient Rome : The 50 most important achievements of a timeless Civilization, each explained in half a minute.

Edited by Doctor Mathew Nicholls, associate professor of history, University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK.



He seems legit.

Additional Contributors :
-Doctor Luke Houghton, University of Reading, UK. Teaching Fellow.
-Doctor Ailsa Hunt, Fitzwillian College, Cambridge, UK. Lecturer in the Classics.
-Professor Peter Kruschwitz, University of Reading, UK. Head of Classics of Research.
-Doctor Dunstan Lowe, University of Reading, UK. Lecturer in Latin Literature
-Professor Annalisa Marzano, University of Reading, UK. Head of Department of Economic History. Board of Italian History.
-Doctor Susanne Turner, Curator of the Museum of Classical Archaeology UK(?)

Who claim their intention to be : "Ably and enthusiastically take on the challenge of bringing to vivid life the very best and worst of this ambitious, inventive, cultured, and at times brutal and licentious episode in western history."

Sounds encouraging so far!

So obviously I cannot simply copy and paste the articles from this book as that would almost certainly be copyright infringement, and that would be terrible! It also defeats the purpose of this exercise.

Instead, each of my posts will be written after reading one of the articles in its entirety, at which point I will regurgitate what I have learned like the annoying know it all kid in sixth grade. (What a jerk!) And it will be open season to rate and nitpick whether I have provided an adequate 'man off the street summary' of the given topic.

Sound good?

Good!

First Entry will be up sometime today.

 

[Triggerhappy]

Introduction :

So I said that my next post would be the first article. I lied. But only because the book lied first!

The title promises to explain each topic in thirty seconds but the introduction explains that each page is divided into a 3 second summary, a 30 second history, and 3 minute 'excavation' left as food for thought. That's 3 minutes and 33 seconds I have to spend on each article! You had one job book!

But I digress. The introduction continues to explain that the books is divided into the following chapters :

Land & State
People & Society
Roman Life
Language & Literature
Thought & Belief
Architecture, Monuments & Art
Buildings & Technology


Each chapters also opens with a glossary of relevant terms which I will convey at the start of each section.

Timeline :

The introduction page is also preceded by a condensed timeline of Roman History from 753 BCE to 476 CE.

The Major Landmarks Provided :

April 21st 753 BCE - The 'ostensible' foundation date of Rome but one that mostly matches with archaeological evidence.

509 BCE - Formation of the Roman Republic. Expulsion of the last Kings of Rome and construction of the Republican Constitution.

5th - 3rd Century BCE - Rome Expands to occupy most of modern Italy.

264 - 146 BCE - A series of three massive wars against Carthage. Victory secured Rome's dominance of the Mediterranean.

133 - 44 BCE - The Republic starts struggling to keep a lid on political ambition and the inequality of power that it was supposed to prevent.

60 - 53 BCE - First Triumvirate, an alliance of Rome's great political figures : Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus.

March 15th, 44 BCE - Assassination of Julius Caesar by resentful Roman senators. Causes (or perpetuated a preexisting?) a civil war

31 BCE - 14 CE - Reign of Augusts, First Emperor of Rome, and consolidation of power from the Republic into the Empire.

31 BCE - 68 CE - Dynasty of Emperors Augustus, Tiberius, Caligula, Claudia, and Nero.

68 - 97 CE - Flavian Dynasty : Vaspasian, Titus, and Domitian.

98 - 117 CE - Reign of Trajan - 'Best Emperor' of Rome and the man under which the Empire reached its furthest geographical extent.

96 - 192 CE - Adoptive Emperor Period - Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, and Commodus all ascended to the station of Emperor by adoption rather than by hereditary succession.

193 - 235 CE - The Severan Dynasty - African Emperors who came to power after (another) Civil war.

235 - 284 CE - Third Century Crisis - Multiple short lived emperors. Severe inflation. Plagues. Invasion. Rebellions.

293 - 313 CE - Tetrarchy - Put into place by Diocletian a system of rule by four emperors

306 - 337 CE - Rule of Constantine - First Christian Emperor. Founded Byzantium/Constantinople as the Eastern Capital.

September 4th 476 CE - End date of the Western Roman Empire although the Eastern/Byzantine Empire continued as a direct successor all the way to 1453.

 

[CV12Hornet]

Oh, that's a good start. A lot of popular histories don't make the Eastern/Western Empire distinction.

 

[Triggerhappy]

Glossary of Terms*

Aeneid : The Roman founding myth written by the celebrated Poet Virgil. The Story of a Trojan Prince Aeneas who flees Troy for Italy and founds the city of Rome.

Auctoritas : A term that roughly means 'charisma' or cult of personality forming a base of power outside of official channels.

Consul : The top officials of the Republic elected in pairs to one year terms in order to keep one another in check.

Dacia : Cited in present day Romania. Conquered by Trajan. Source of metal ore for the Empire.

Gaul : Region centered on modern day France and Western Germany conquered by Julius Caesar and remained with the Empire until its dissolution.

Iberia : The Iberian Peninsula. Modern Spain and Portugal. Conquered during the Punic wars and divided into the provinces of Roman Hispania.

Imperator : An honorary title given by victorious troops to their commander. Became a standard part of an Emperor's full title.

Latium : The central area of Italy where Rome was founded.

Republic, Plato's : Plato's 4th Century BCE philosophical dissertation on justice and the ideal government. People remember it for coining the term 'Philosopher Kings'.

plebeian order/plebs : The non-patrician (filthy commoners) class of Rome who did not wield political power. Eventually gained representation in 287 BCE after a prolonged period of struggle and unrest.

Punic Wars : A series of three enormous wars between Rome and Carthage (situated in North Africa) fought from the 3rd to 2nd Century BCE. Ended in Roman victory and the destruction of Carthage in 146 BCE.

Princeps : "First Citizen" a phrase referring to the position of Emperor.

Principate : The system of Emperors established by Augustus.

Saeptimontium : A religious festival involving the 'seven hills' of Rome although Rome actually has over a dozen hills and seven represented weren't always strictly the most important.

Rubicon River : A river marking the 1st century BCE border of Italy. Caesar declared a civil war by crossing it with his legion.

Army Terms and Composition :

The Roman Army varied in size and composition over the time of the Kingdom/Republic/Empire but Empire usually fielded around 30 Legions each with a core fighting strength of ten 480 man 'cohorts' including the double strength 'first cohort' of Legionaries.

The legionary was the 'standard' Roman citizen soldier, a somewhat flexible heavy infantryman, who was supported by a number of non citizen auxiliary troops and a wing of mounted cavalry.

Cavalry : Horse mounted troops.

Cohort : A roman 'battalion' consisting of four hundred and eighty men. There were six centuries to a cohort.

Century : A roman 'company' of eighty men lead by a centurion. There were ten Contubernium to a century.

Contubernium : A 'tent group'. A roman 'squad' of eight men overseen by a decanus (Basically a Roman sergeant?).

Gladius : A double edged short sword of the Roman Legions. Replaced in the later Empire by a longer sword called the Spatha.

Legionary : A flexible Roman 'Heavy Infantryman' who made up the core strength of the legions.

Pilum (pl. Pila) : Iron tipped wooden Javeline's carried by Roman Legonaries as thrown weapons. Each soldier got two. (Also a bit of a letdown Boss in Xenosaga Episode III alongside his partner Scutum.)

Scutum : The big rectangular shields used by legionaries to turtle. (The other half of a letdown boss-fight in Xenosaga Episode III)

*As interpreted by 'common man Triggerhappy'

 

[Triggerhappy]

And finally my first proper summary!

Land & State : Foundation

Time to Read 2:17.2

So kind of like the USA has its fables of the Founding Fathers and the British have Arthurian legends that mix history with mythology. Romans also celebrated a strongly mythologized and highly fictionalized foundation legend.

Rome is said to have been founded by twin sons, Romulus and Remus, of the god Mars and the mortal Princess Rhea Silvia of Alba Longa. These sons were deliberately abandoned at birth by a jealous relative but saved by miraculous intervention, nursed by a wolf, and found by a Sheppherd and his wife who raised them as their own.

The twins grew into young men, and upon discovering their descent, decided to found a city. While quarreling about the exact location Romulus killed his brother Remus, and like a dick, unapologetically named the new city after himself (probably also after picking Remus's spot because his brother was actually right .) . . . Judging by all the references to civil wars in the timeline section I am beginning to sense a pattern.

The myth actually has many different iterations, some of them tracing the twin's mortal descent back to Aeneas, (who you may remember for his small role in a forgettable flick called the Illiad), a prince of Troy who after escaping the sacking of the city slummed around the Mediterranean before winding up in Italy.

Despite being more improbable (and frankly metal) than most superhero origins the date that the myths give for Rome's founding actually seems to stack up pretty well with archeological evidence pointing to progenitor human settlements in the area around Rome as early as the 10th and 9th centuries BCE.

 

[Triggerhappy]

Entry two!

Land and State : Site of Rome

Time to Read 3:27.2

The City that built the Empire got itself off to a good start by being founded in choice geographical territory (Remus was right!). Its location at a fording point along the ocean navigable Tiber River and at the intersection of several major land routes as well made Rome a natural trading location The surrounding hills also offered natural defenses from invaders via sharply eroded cliffs.

Rome is sometimes called a City of Seven Hills, although there were actually over a dozen , and Archaeologists have found evidence that the city probably formed as clustered hilltop villages gradually grew together to form the districts of a larger city.

These hills or 'montes' retained their own unique character and purpose in Roman life, sort of like the different boroughs of New York today, and often specialized in some way culturally, economically, religiously, or politically. (Incidentally the whole seven hills thing got exported to a lot of places selling themselves as 'great cities' and might be the Seven Headed Beast of Revelations).

Some time around the 6th century BCE, before Rome changed its name to the Republic Formerly Known as the Kingdom of Rome, Rome was well on its way to being the city known in the Republic and Imperial Eras when its 5th King Tarquinnus Priscus oversaw the draining of the marshland between the hills.

This provided more space for the city districts to spread out and mingle together and allowed the construction of the large public areas that ancient Rome has become known for. (And is the source of their SB/SV nickname 'psychopathic swamp hicks')

 

[Triggerhappy]

Entry Three

Land and State : Republican Government

Time to Read 2:45.2

So just like Star Wars, the Roman Republic had a prequel, the Kingdom of Rome, and like the Star Wars prequels it sucked bad enough that nobody wanted to relive it ever again. After overthrowing their last Etruscan King Tarquinius Superbus (No relation to Rictus Erectus) after his son raped a matron of Rome, the people of Rome, thoroughly turned off by the idea of autocratic rule, established their Republican government.

The Republic's main goal was to ensure that political power could never be concentrated enough for a single man to crown himself King. (Hint, this also ended like the Prequel Trilogy.) At the top of the Republican Hierarchy there were two magistrates called the consuls with theoretically identical authority. Ideally they were kept in check by one another and their limited one year terms of office.

Beneath the Consuls were the senators and various local committees and magistrates, and positions such as the censors who specified who could be on the voter rolls, all of whom served fixed terms, that served to further divide up the power of the Roman state and keep much of it out of any one person's hands for too long.

In theory anyways.

It was through the Republican system that Rome won its wars with Carthage and vastly expanded Roman territory. It was also under the Republican system that the Plebian's managed to win some measure of representation in the Roman senate (It's probably there fault everything went down hill. Filthy commoners! )

But the Republic fell victim to its own success. Success on military campaigns, operations further afield, and governance of the outlying Roman territories began to inspire power grabs from ambitious generals with the personal loyalty of their soldiers who served with them on campaign.

The Republic was not willing to offer up so much power to any one man, the position of dictator did exist elevate an autocrat in time of emergency but it carried a time limit and significant cultural momentum to step down peacefully at the end of the precipitating crisis, but ambition is a powerful motivator and the Republic, like many governments, outstripped its founding principles, thus setting the stage for Julius Caesar.

 

[stratigo]

Entry Three

Land and State : Republican Government

Time to Read 2:45.2

So just like Star Wars, the Roman Republic had a prequel, the Kingdom of Rome, and like the Star Wars prequels it sucked bad enough that nobody wanted to relive it ever again. After overthrowing their last Etruscan King Tarquinius Superbus (No relation to Rictus Erectus) after his son raped a matron of Rome, the people of Rome, thoroughly turned off by the idea of autocratic rule, established their Republican government.

The Republic's main goal was to ensure that political power could never be concentrated enough for a single man to crown himself King. (Hint, this also ended like the Prequel Trilogy.) At the top of the Republican Hierarchy there were two magistrates called the consuls with theoretically identical authority. Ideally they were kept in check by one another and their limited one year terms of office.

Beneath the Consuls were the senators and various local committees and magistrates, and positions such as the censors who specified who could be on the voter rolls, all of whom served fixed terms, that served to further divide up the power of the Roman state and keep much of it out of any one person's hands for too long.

In theory anyways.

It was through the Republican system that Rome won its wars with Carthage and vastly expanded Roman territory. It was also under the Republican system that the Plebian's managed to win some measure of representation in the Roman senate (It's probably there fault everything went down hill. Filthy commoners! )

But the Republic fell victim to its own success. Success on military campaigns, operations further afield, and governance of the outlying Roman territories began to inspire power grabs from ambitious generals with the personal loyalty of their soldiers who served with them on campaign.

The Republic was not willing to offer up so much power to any one man, the position of dictator did exist elevate an autocrat in time of emergency but it carried a time limit and significant cultural momentum to step down peacefully at the end of the precipitating crisis, but ambition is a powerful motivator and the Republic, like many governments, outstripped its founding principles, thus setting the stage for Julius Caesar.

Click to shrink...

There's a lot wrong here. First, the senate has rather limited powers in its own right. Specifically the senate was made up of magistrates and former magistrates. It wasn't an elected body.

The plebeian patrician divide of the roman kingdom and early republic is not well understood and, suffice to say, plebeians were very much not commoners by the roman census

It wasn't an inability to control roman generals that caused the breakdown of the republic but the inability of the roman state to maintain an army under the levy system because of the breakdown of the middle class (rough term)farmer that had made up the bulk of the roman army

 

[Triggerhappy]

There's a lot wrong here. First, the senate has rather limited powers in its own right. Specifically the senate was made up of magistrates and former magistrates. It wasn't an elected body.

The plebeian patrician divide of the roman kingdom and early republic is not well understood and, suffice to say, plebeians were very much not commoners by the roman census

It wasn't an inability to control roman generals that caused the breakdown of the republic but the inability of the roman state to maintain an army under the levy system because of the breakdown of the middle class (rough term)farmer that had made up the bulk of the roman army

Click to shrink...

This is what I was hoping for!

And yeah, the section was really cramming a lot into very little space. It feels like the transition from Kingdom to Republic and From Republic to Empire really needed to be separate subjects instead of kind of being jammed together into one page.

I've also been very carefully avoiding the use of outside knowledge sources or trying to contextualize in within what little I already know about the Roman Empire, since I think that would defeat the purpose of this exercise.

Continue?

 

[stratigo]

This is what I was hoping for!

And yeah, the section was really cramming a lot into very little space. It feels like the transition from Kingdom to Republic and From Republic to Empire really needed to be separate subjects instead of kind of being jammed together into one page.

I've also been very carefully avoiding the use of outside knowledge sources or trying to contextualize in within what little I already know about the Roman Empire, since I think that would defeat the purpose of this exercise.

Continue?

Click to shrink...

XD Continue?

I mean the transition of kingdom to republic has VERY little textual sources. The rape of Lucretia is pretty apocryphal. I am not sure if archaeology has discovered much definite about the period either.

 

[Triggerhappy]

I meant should I continue?

Your post is exactly the sort of response I was hoping forn

 

[stratigo]

I meant should I continue?

Your post is exactly the sort of response I was hoping forn

Click to shrink...

Oh, I mean sure, continue. .

 

[Triggerhappy]

So yeah, a whole year since I did this (haha it was a year of paralyzing depression! rofl: . . . ) In the interest of fighting back against the apathy and lethary which I feel is throwing a wrench into my life imma continue where I left off!

The next page is dedicated not to a particular topic, but to a particular man, Julius Caesar, who I think I remember watching a play about, or buying a pizza from, or something.

Julius Caesar

Time to Read 4:55.7 (I was eating lunch while I read )

The first half of the article provides a brief timeline.

100 BCE - Caesar is born to the Aristocratic Iulii family

70-60s BCE - Caesar the social climber taking out loans to hold lavish parties and games

62 BCE - Achieves the Rank of Prateor in Rome and then Governor in Spain, wins a military Triumph* but forfeits it in order to run for Consul

59 BCE - Elected Consul along with Crassus and Pompey - 'First Triumvirate'

58-51 BCE - Conquest of Gaul, Caesar seeks to return to Gaul on his terms.

49 BCE - Caesar crosses the Rubicon, an act of defiance against Rome leading to war.

48 BCE - Defeats Pompey (I though we were friends - Pompey) before Pursuing him to Egypt and murdering the hell out of him. Begins alliance with Cleopatra.

46 BCE - Caesar returns to Rome where he assumes a state of almost autocratic rule, complete with the standard dictatorial fruit salad of honors and awards.

44 BCE - Fed up senators do unto Caesar as he did unto Pompey and murder the hell out of him.

Caesar is one of the defining figure of Rome and one of the stand out figures of history. So much so that his very name came to mean 'ruler' in the form of the Russian 'Czar' and the German 'Kaiser'. Caesar lived an eventful life, with military exploits in his youth, including kidnapping by Pirates (who he eventually ran down and crucified) and participating in a civil war. Like virtually all early Roman figures, Caesar leveraged his military career into a jumping off point for political success. In his political life he relentlessly challenged Republican boundaries possibly as a prelude for his later actions.

Between politicking and military success Caesar won himself the governorship of Spain and then the consulship in Rome beside Pompey and Crassus where he pursued a populist agenda which was at odds with the traditional political structure of the senatioral aristocracy. Needless to say his populist stances, personal charisma, and skill at presenting himself, for instance Caesar penned many works specifically to shape both contemporary opinion and his posterity, lead to him seeking and gaining more power than the Republic was willing to give

In 49 BCE Caesar was ordered to stand down his armies but refused, instead crossing the Rubicon into Rome and thus starting (another) civil war. Needless to say, since Caesar is the one everyone remembers fondly, he won his civil war after several campaigns and a daliance with another historical figure and city building simulator, Cleopatra of Egypt. However Caesars luck and skill finally ran out and rule was cut short in 44 BCE leaving it up to his great-Nephew and heir Augustus to secure his posterity.

* Understandably this book (almost booklet really) is going to skimp on a lot of details to fit things into about 50 odd mini-essays but I feel like there's something significant here that's not being adequately explained.

 

[Alane1]

Entry Three

Land and State : Republican Government

Time to Read 2:45.2

So just like Star Wars, the Roman Republic had a prequel, the Kingdom of Rome, and like the Star Wars prequels it sucked bad enough that nobody wanted to relive it ever again. After overthrowing their last Etruscan King Tarquinius Superbus (No relation to Rictus Erectus) after his son raped a matron of Rome, the people of Rome, thoroughly turned off by the idea of autocratic rule, established their Republican government.

The Republic's main goal was to ensure that political power could never be concentrated enough for a single man to crown himself King. (Hint, this also ended like the Prequel Trilogy.) At the top of the Republican Hierarchy there were two magistrates called the consuls with theoretically identical authority. Ideally they were kept in check by one another and their limited one year terms of office.

Beneath the Consuls were the senators and various local committees and magistrates, and positions such as the censors who specified who could be on the voter rolls, all of whom served fixed terms, that served to further divide up the power of the Roman state and keep much of it out of any one person's hands for too long.

In theory anyways.

It was through the Republican system that Rome won its wars with Carthage and vastly expanded Roman territory. It was also under the Republican system that the Plebian's managed to win some measure of representation in the Roman senate (It's probably there fault everything went down hill. Filthy commoners! )

But the Republic fell victim to its own success. Success on military campaigns, operations further afield, and governance of the outlying Roman territories began to inspire power grabs from ambitious generals with the personal loyalty of their soldiers who served with them on campaign.

The Republic was not willing to offer up so much power to any one man, the position of dictator did exist elevate an autocrat in time of emergency but it carried a time limit and significant cultural momentum to step down peacefully at the end of the precipitating crisis, but ambition is a powerful motivator and the Republic, like many governments, outstripped its founding principles, thus setting the stage for Julius Caesar.

Click to shrink...

Hmm from what is little is known the Kings of Rome were vetted by the senate but elected by the people's Assembly which meant the king's drew their support from the people rather then the senate which some historians believe gives more credence to there perhaps being some truth in that some sort of scandal allowed for the senate to get away with expelling the last king.

Also during the republican period laws were passed and officials elected by the various of four public assemblies who voted by blocks rather than by individuals and also did not have the power to propose or modify laws only pass or reject them.

 

[Mopman43]

* Understandably this book (almost booklet really) is going to skimp on a lot of details to fit things into about 50 odd mini-essays but I feel like there's something significant here that's not being adequately explained.

Click to shrink...

A Triumph was basically a military parade. You march through the gates of Rome with your men, prisoners of war, treasures you took, etc, riding high on a chariot as everyone acknowledges you as The Shit. Very prestigious, and in Rome, prestige was everything.

 

[Hykal94]

A Triumph was basically a military parade. You march through the gates of Rome with your men, prisoners of war, treasures you took, etc, riding high on a chariot as everyone acknowledges you as The Shit. Very prestigious, and in Rome, prestige was everything.

Click to shrink...

Don't forget the slave whispering into your ear that "you are but mortal" bit.

 

[Mopman43]

Don't forget the slave whispering into your ear that "you are but mortal" bit.

Click to shrink...

I thought that was Marcus Aurelius?

 

[Hykal94]

I thought that was Marcus Aurelius?

Click to shrink...

No? Pretty sure it's a thing anyone with triumphs. I believe the Byzantine triumphs was basically the same minus the chariot.

Paging @Old Spice Guy

 

[Alane1]

Also Rome had a variety of military honors such as the grass crown which was the highest and rarest honor as it was was rewarded only to a general, commander, or officer who saved a legion or the entire army and could only be rewarded by the legion who would make the crown from materials on site.

The civil crown made of woven oak leaves which was rewarded only to a citizen who saved another citizen by slaying a enemy on a spot held by the enemy on the same day and the citizen saved had to admit it, it was the second highest honor a citizen could gain.

There was the gold crown rewarded to Centurions and some principales who slew a enemy in single combat and held the ground to the end of battle and the naval crown which was rewarded to the first man who boarded a enemy ship.

The Mural Crown which was rewarded to the first man to scale the enemy wall or fortress and raise the standard of the attacking army and the Camp crown to the first solder who penetrated into a enemy camp or field.

Then you had the Crown of the Preserver which sounds like something out of a game which was rewarded to those who saved any of the citzens and allies which would be presented to the solder by the citizens he saved saved who would be then exacted to have reverence towards the solder like a father and treat him like a parent.

I thought that was Marcus Aurelius?

Click to shrink...

Hykal94 would be correct It was something done during miltary triumphs.

 

[Old Spice Guy]

No? Pretty sure it's a thing anyone with triumphs. I believe the Byzantine triumphs was basically the same minus the chariot.

Paging @Old Spice Guy

Click to shrink...

I'm going to answer this in two parts.

First, vis the slave reminding the general of mortality. This comes from the writings of Tertulian in the second century AD but we have no ancient sources that really corroborate it in that exact form. The idea behind it however is something that we have strong consensus on. When a general enjoyed a triumph he became a quasi-divine figure (this would explain the reticence of many Emperors to permit them); thus it is accepted that there would be a public reminder that the general wasn't divine in general (merely for the purposes of the celebration) in the immediate aftermath. Thus the memento mori did form an important part of the ceremony, but the slave whispering was most likely not how it was done.

Second, Belisarius had the last Roman triumph and he did make use of a chariot, drawn by four horses. Byzantium certainly had military celebrations, but they weren't Triumphs. I'll dig out more sources for it and edit this post or make a new post about it later if anyone is interested.

 

[Bullmoose]

59 BCE - Elected Consul along with Crassus and Pompey - 'First Triumvirate'

Click to shrink...

Unlike the Second Triumvirate(Octavius, Antony, and Lepidus), the first was an unofficial, secret alliance based on mutual benefit between Crassus, Pompey and Caesar. It wasn't an official or known government position. It was a secret agreement, as each member made deals with the others to leverage their collective resources for their own benefits.

58-51 BCE - Conquest of Gaul, Caesar seeks to return to Gaul on his terms.

Click to shrink...

Funnily enough, Caesar seems to have actually planned to make his conquests in one of his other provinces, Illyria. Originally he was assigned Cisalpine Gaul(roughly northern Italy to the alps) and Illyria(roughly the coastal balkans) to govern after his consulship. Following the unexpected death of the previous governor of Transalpine Gaul(Southern France along the Mediterranean coast), Caesar was given that as well. It was a bit of a fluke that he was a position to involve himself in Gaul at all, and even then, he seems to have still planned to focus on Illyria as he had most of his legions stationed closer to there until he saw opportunity in the migration of the Helvetii.

49 BCE - Caesar crosses the Rubicon, an act of defiance against Rome leading to war.

Click to shrink...

Missing here is whole lot of the why and how Caesar came to his decision to march against Cato, Pompey and their faction. What series of events caused the Triumvirate to break? How did Crassus die? How Julia, the daughter of Caesar and the wife of Pompey died giving birth along with her child? Plus the politicking of Cato's faction and the insecurity Pompey the Great must have felt as Caesar seemed to challenge his title as the greatest roman alive. Also, I personally don't consider Cato or Pompey to be Rome or the Senate. They were just a powerful faction therein.

48 BCE - Defeats Pompey (I though we were friends - Pompey) before Pursuing him to Egypt and murdering the hell out of him. Begins alliance with Cleopatra.

Click to shrink...

Caesar didn't murder Pompey. The Pharaoh of Egypt Ptolemy XIII(Cleopatra's younger brother/husband, who she was in conflict with) had him killed when he arrived seeking aid. By the accounts we have, Caesar was not at all happy about Pompey being murdered.

46 BCE - Caesar returns to Rome where he assumes a state of almost autocratic rule, complete with the standard dictatorial fruit salad of honors and awards.

Click to shrink...

There was a whole lot more civil war after Pompey though.

44 BCE - Fed up senators do unto Caesar as he did unto Pompey and murder the hell out of him.

Click to shrink...

The conspiracy included not just ornery catonians. It actually included prominent men who had sided with Caesar in the war, including former officers of his like Decimus Brutus. Marcus Brutus, another assassin(arelative of Decimus), was the one that found fame in Shakespeare.

Caesar is one of the defining figure of Rome and one of the stand out figures of history. So much so that his very name came to mean 'ruler' in the form of the Russian 'Czar' and the German 'Kaiser'. Caesar lived an eventful life, with military exploits in his youth, including kidnapping by Pirates (who he eventually ran down and crucified) and participating in a civil war. Like virtually all early Roman figures, Caesar leveraged his military career into a jumping off point for political success. In his political life he relentlessly challenged Republican boundaries possibly as a prelude for his later actions.

Between politicking and military success Caesar won himself the governorship of Spain and then the consulship in Rome beside Pompey and Crassus where he pursued a populist agenda which was at odds with the traditional political structure of the senatioral aristocracy. Needless to say his populist stances, personal charisma, and skill at presenting himself, for instance Caesar penned many works specifically to shape both contemporary opinion and his posterity, lead to him seeking and gaining more power than the Republic was willing to give

In 49 BCE Caesar was ordered to stand down his armies but refused, instead crossing the Rubicon into Rome and thus starting (another) civil war. Needless to say, since Caesar is the one everyone remembers fondly, he won his civil war after several campaigns and a daliance with another historical figure and city building simulator, Cleopatra of Egypt. However Caesars luck and skill finally ran out and rule was cut short in 44 BCE leaving it up to his great-Nephew and heir Augustus to secure his posterity.

* Understandably this book (almost booklet really) is going to skimp on a lot of details to fit things into about 50 odd mini-essays but I feel like there's something significant here that's not being adequately explained.

Click to shrink...

One major thing in your summation is the assumption that Caesar always craved and planned to be made dictator. Like his fellow roman aristocrats, Caesar sought Auctoritas. And he sought to win glory and prominence. The culture of the Roman Aristocracy was engineered towards this pursuit. Families would vie for power and prominence against other families through office and achievement. However, I don't see much evidence that Caesar wanted to cross the rubicon and start a civil war all along.

His main concern was his loss of Imperium after his term as governor of his three provinces ended. One aspect of Imperium, the authority a holder of government office is given, was that it provided an office holder immunity from prosecution by other Romans while in office. Caesar, like virtually every other contemporary Roman(including Cato and his faction) engaged in rampant bribery(among other shady things) in order to win both his consulship and the offices sought by his various allies. Without his imperium, Caesar feared(with good reason) that he would be prosecuted as soon as he was out of office by Cato or one of his other enemies. There had been an agreement made between him and Pompey, and this was even inscribed on a tablet and deposited in the temple of Vesta if I remember correctly(or possible another temple), that was supposed to be sacrosanct. This tablet was a legal exception allowing Caesar to run for office(Consul in this case) in abestentia while still being governor. Thus he could keep immunity from prosecution, serve another term as consul, and then get another term governing a province( I believe he wanted Illyria again. Perhaps to proceed with his original plans later on).

Regardless, Pompey had this tablet removed and nullified after he broke with Caesar. Meaning as soon as Caesar's term as governor was up, he was more or less fucked without a guy like Pompey as his ally. Despite numerous attempts by Caesar to negotiate a settlement with Pompey, an agreement could not be reached. Caesar was left with the choice of either surrendering to Pompey, Cato and their faction, or using the loyal veterans under him to march against his enemies. Caesar did what I imagine most other Roman senators would do in his position. He fought.

 

[Mopman43]

Caesar didn't murder Pompey. The Pharaoh of Egypt Ptolemy XIII(Cleopatra's younger brother/husband, who she was in conflict with) had him killed when he arrived seeking aid. By the accounts we have, Caesar was not at all happy about Pompey being murdered.

Click to shrink...

Its worth mentioning- for the benefit of OP given that his booklet doesn't seem to have mentioned this- but Julius was not Augustus. When Julius Caesar came to power, one of the most prominent facets of his time in Rome is that he publicly forgave basically all of his enemies; he granted clemency, bestowed gifts, didn't chop anybody's heads off or anything. If anything, given the Ides of March, there is an argument to be made that he was too merciful.

 

[Bullmoose]

Its worth mentioning- for the benefit of OP given that his booklet doesn't seem to have mentioned this- but Julius was not Augustus. When Julius Caesar came to power, one of the most prominent facets of his time in Rome is that he publicly forgave basically all of his enemies; he granted clemency, bestowed gifts, didn't chop anybody's heads off or anything. If anything, given the Ides of March, there is an argument to be made that he was too merciful.

Click to shrink...

This. There are stories of Caesar's soldier ignoring his orders to show clemency after they realized many of the men that they were fighting had already been forgiven and released multiple times by Caesar(this was in North Africa I think). Even if it had nothing to do with Caesar having a kind heart or whatever, forgiving his former enemies, showing mercy, and demonstrating his superiority over them was a pretty huge political statement. The fact that Caesar never was able to do this with Pompey or Cato seems to have greatly upset him for one reason or another. But yea, he could either have forgiven less people or at least have kept a sufficient bodyguard around him.

Augustus seemed to take that lesson to heart.

 

[Alane1]

It should be noted however that many of the people involved in the conspiracy were not on the other side of the civil war but were trusted associates of Caesar, men who had been his most trusted generals were among those insinuated the conspiracy to kill him in the first place.

 

[Triggerhappy]

Caesar didn't murder Pompey. The Pharaoh of Egypt Ptolemy XIII(Cleopatra's younger brother/husband, who she was in conflict with) had him killed when he arrived seeking aid. By the accounts we have, Caesar was not at all happy about Pompey being murdered.

Click to shrink...

I just want to make it clear that the book never claimed Caesar murdered or executed Pompey. I'd rather suspected his death had not been deliberate on the part of Caesar in any case. Rather that came from me writing from ignorance what I think the average layman would take away from the three paragraph summary.

The same with the assumption that Caesar thirsted for power. In the absence of an explanation that was the take I ended up going with. Though a look at broader history it seems that Caesar just succeeded so hard that he had no choice but to keep up the momentum against mounting opposition.