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.
It skips the entirety of Caesar's earlier political career and how he became so important to Roman politics. Dude essentially became the third triumver by mediating between the powerful Pompey and Crassus and turned that ability to shift between the two, who fucking hated each other, into political capitol with which to propel him into power. If he was a less ruthless or clever politician, he'd have been a footnote hanger on to Crassus while everyone learns about the clashes between Crassus and Pompey. Crassus is a vastly more important figure in Roman politics than people give him credit for. Caesar, at a number of points, essentially held the republic together preventing crassus and pompey from going at each other like Marius and Sulla (or Caesar and Pompey later I guess)
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.
Caesar was, by all accounts, particularly ruthless in his disregard for Roman tradition, which is why he got knifed. He didn't, like his predecessors or fellows or his successors care to provide the appearance of a functioning republic, he wanted to be the leader of Rome. Sulla, Pompey, Augustus were all scrupulous in avoiding the appearance of taking regal powers and abolishing the power of the senate, while Caesar trampled all over senatorial rights
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.
he 100 percent thirsted for power. Which, to be fair, all Roman aristocrats did. He, however, went about securing that power in some VERY unorthodox and, to the Romans, alarming ways, and this is why even a number of his allies helped kill him.
Empire and Expansion
Time to Read : 2:03.18
Over roughly a millenium Rome grew from hilltop villages to an Empire with holdings that stretched from Britain to Egypt. Like a shounen protagonist experiencing power creep Rome's early years were spent defeating and 'befriending' local rivals within Italy, the Etruscans, Latines, and Sabines, before moving out of their starting area around the 5th Centure BCE and onto the big leagues battling it out with mediteranean rivals, the Carthaginians in the Punic Wars (3rd and 2nd century BCE)*, and the Gauls (finally brought to heal be Caesar in the 1st Century BCE) in what would eventually become modern Germany.
The waves of Roman expansion eventually saw their territory grow to a size where it became difficult and unwieldly to administer, wealth pouring in from the provinces drove corruption which only exacerbated the increasingly shaky loyalties of the Roman armies to the central state of Rome. This resulted in civil war and a slowing of expansion. The Imperial state under Augustus managed to get the engine of conquest going against, and he and his successor continued the expansion of the Empire until Trajan's reign during the early 2nd centure BCE. After Trajan's last major conquests the borders of the Empire reached their maximum extent before beginning a prolonged gradual decline until final collapse in the 5th Centure CE.
'To spare the Conquered but war down the proud' was the the divine inspiration of Rome as described by the Poet Virgil. Not to say that the Roman poets and chroniclers didn't love them some snark and self critique. The Roman writer Tacitus especially wrote scathing rebukes to the corruption of Rome juxtaposed against the rugged manliness of the barbarians outside the gates. 'to plunder, slaughter, and robbery they give the false name of empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace' words written by Tacitus and then artfully stuffed into the mouth of Scottish Warlord Calgacus. Proving once again that history is not written by the victors . . . it's written by the historians
* The side bar mentions, among others, Scipio Africanus, the Roman General who defeated Hanibal and ended the second punic war. (He's my bet for protagonist in a shounen/fantasy strategy jRPG centering on ancient Rome with Hanibal as his rival.
)
Actually there is an argument to be made that the romans were too successful and wealth choked them. Specifically the wealth made the rich too rich and they stole the land from the 'middle class' farmers who were the backbone of the Roman legion, causing the Roman legion's numbers to collapse, which prompted the Marian reforms.
The Roman Legions
Time to Read : 1:59.38
All right, here's the good stuff, men in skirts, getting it done!
In the early days the armies of Rome were drawn from those wealthy citizens who could afford arms and armor and to take time away from their lands to serve on campaign. This, naturally, made war a pursuit of the societal elite, good for keeping power in the hands of the aristocracy, not so great for growing the army. Under the Politician and General Gaius Marius the Roman military system was reformed by removing the wealth qualification and upping the base salary of soldiers. This permitted soldiering to become a career of choice for poorer citizens, growing the size and expertise of the legions in the process. However, this expansion of recruitment also saw the loyalty of the armies shift from the state (or political system?) of Rome to the individual general who were responsible for their pay. Thus becoming fuel for all of those previoulsy mentioned civil wars. (Go team Remus!)
The Legions had a thing for standardization, althoug those standards changed over the centuries. The stereotypical Roman legion was comprised of about 5200 men divided into ten cohors of six centuries with each century (actually 80 men) formed from ten eight man contubernia. Additionally the legions would employ auxiliary troops as light infantry, archers, and cavalry, drawn from allied non-Romans awarded citizenship at the end of their military service. The senior staff of the legion, the legate and his prefects, tended to be men of political status but the 'centurions' who filled the roll of 'NCOs' were often career soldiers promoted from the ranks.
Each legion was designated by a name and number and possessed a regimental history of awards and honors meant to build spirit de corps among its members and also, along with the latin language and strictly delineated system of authority, meant to facilitate romanization of the soldiers who woudl go on to earn citizenship and participate in Roman society.
This, uh, well, is mostly nonsense. Okay, so the earliest roman legions were made up very much not of the social elite, back when plebian and patrician were still a thing.
The entire roman census was tied to your military service, and the men who were viable for it. The wealthiest would, of course, lead it and provide the cavalry, but if you know roman military history, you'll also note that roman cavalry were never particularly praiseworthy. The actual MEAT of the legion, the legionaire, would be from, roughly, a middle class small land holder with a farm consisting of his immediate family and maybe a few slaves. Often they worked state owned public land given over to the cultivation of said small farmer so that he could afford to equip himself. The Romans census could and did know roughly who was eligible for what position in the Roman military and had a vastly higher percentage of its able bodied men eligible for military service than any of their contemporaries. This is why the Romans could adsorb defeat after defeat at the hands of Pyrrhus and Hannibal and raise a new army not too long afterwards. Carhtage loses an army and it is devastated. The Macedonian kingdom loses and army and the majority of its available troops are gone. Rome loses and army and they raise a new one finding the people eligible for it.
However with success came land and slaves, and the Roman agriculture shifted from small family plus a couple slaves into plantations where one rich roman would have dozens of slaves work the fields for him, regularly illegally sizing small holder's land and public land, but since the class that could afford plantations also furnished things like judges and tax collectors and other important bureaucratic positions, they got away with it. This, ultimately, meant that the elligible body of Roman males increasingly shrunk. And this was the supreme issue the Gracchi brothers fought against. Ultimately individual Romans could no longer afford to equip themselves on a large enough scale that Rome could raise vast armies for Campaign. So Roman generals started simply buying their soldier's shit for them, and Marius codified this practice into law.
The Roman republic before the decay of the small holder could raise a larger percentage of its eligible population to war than the Roman empire could at any point, albeit the Roman empire grew so large that the ultimate number of soldiers could still be larger, and since they were a semi standing force they would be available consistently as opposed to a citizen levy.
Rome also utilized allies and clients to fight their wars to drastic degree, and most of Italy weren't citizens until the social wars (which Marius fought)
Citizenship
Time to Read : 2:08.50
Roman Citizens the 'Civis Romani' were the movers and shakers of Rome. Well, not all of them obviously, but it was a major precondition. A (male) Citizen was granted certain legal rights. The right to vote (suffragium) the right to conduct business (comercium) and the right to marry (conubium). In return they were obliged to pay taxes and serve in the armies of Rome.
Citizens also had the right to sue other citizens and to stand trial if accussed, and, at least in the first centure BCE (it doesn't say anything about before or after) a citizens body was considered 'inviolate' and they could not be beaten or put to death. Violation of this last piece of legal standing riled the people of Rome against the Governor Gaius Verres of Sicile far more than accusations of corruption and embezzlement.
Roman citizenship was obviously highly coveted, by latins and barabarians alike. But birth citizenship was limited to male offspring of a legal marriage between citizen parents. Women and freed slaves enjoyed similar guarantees of some legal rights, but they were more limited than those of full male citizens.
In the year 90BCE Rome's Italian allies went to war to win the right to be recognized, also, as full citizens of Rome and in 88BCE this 'Social War' ended in Rome extending full citizenship to their fellow latins. However, not long after, the Republic became the Empire under the rule of the Princeps. While Citizenship and many of its priveliges, including the right to vote, were retained, Roman citizenship was fundamentally different from then on.
It's important to be very specific when talking about voting in Rome. Roman citizens didn't cast individual ballots. They voted based on a number of systems, the most important were the geographcial 'tribes' and the census ordos based on wealth. Romans organized into voting blocks and each block had 1 vote. For example there were just 4 'tribes' in the actual city of Rome itself (if I am recalling this correctly), and the very bottom Roman census ordo, the proleteriate, had a single collective vote for the entirety of its population. Oh and once a simple majority was reached, the law was passed and voting occurred in order of prominence, so poor romans effectively never got to vote and the wealthiest romans dominated the political establishment. It's also why you wanted to be higher on the social ladder or live on a big manor in the country (Roman senators 'tribes' were never within the city of rome. They were always outlying agricultural lands, and oh yeah, guess what, you had to be able to get to ROme to vote as a Tribe, and guess who could easily do that? The aristocrats.)
Social Class and Status
Time to Read : 1:43.32
In Rome all men were not created equal. And that's without counting the men who were disadvantaged by being slaves or women. Slavery was regarded as a form of 'social death' and even a wildly successful freedman could never shake off the stigma of his past servitude. But beyond this, citizens were also divided into a rigidly enforced heirarchy of pleibians and patricians, and the patrician class itself was further divided into equestrian and senatorial orders.
While the pleibians were most numerous, and had some political voice through the office of the Tribune of the Plebs, power was primarily concentrated in the hands of the Patricians, the senate in particular, who were denoted by their dress. The ubiquitous toga envisioned by popular history was a form of attire reserved for the ruling elite.
In order to qualify for Patrician status a citizen had to prove a minimum worth. 400,000 sesterces to qualify for Equestrian and a whopping 1,000,000 to qualify for the senatorial class. With wealth being one of the primary requirements, movement between the classes was, while difficult, not impossible on the scale of multiple generations, and the first member of a family to reach the senate was referred to as 'novus homo' or new man to denote the accomplishment. Marcus Tullius Cicero and Gaius Marius were two famous new men who made their mark as an orator and military commander respectively.
Edit : Forgot to mention before, but in addition to the Tribune of the Plebs many lower ranking Roman citizens interacted with the wealthy and the rulers of Rome through the practice of salutacio, a daily ritual of paying respect at the home of ones patron. In exchange for political and financial aid to less advantaged citizens, wealthy Romans developed networks of loyal clients.
Ummm, plebians could be senators. The Crisis of the Ordos solved most of the issues tween plebians and patricians and plebians won the right to hold most of the offices, plus their special offices, in the republic, effectively eliminating the divide, though having patrician blood was still prestigious, and the patricians retained a handful of posts, but, honestly, none of them were as prominent as the tribune of the plebs.
That's the trick ain't it. The 30 Second series of books are sort of spotty since each page is essentially just a gist outline of a topic. This is already bad enough for things that can, sort of, be distilled down into a single idea. It's even sketchier when discussing something as complicated as social class, over multiple centuries, and millions of square miles. There's no way for it to be anything more than a vague generatlization.
I can get this, but why is it only talking about a class divide that specifically didn't last into the well documented periods of the republic or into the empire while cutting the specific classes that actually did matter. I mean, equites and senators were CENSUS ranks, specifically the highest ones. Those denominations were the important ones for most of the republic, much more than the patrician pleb divide which, again, came to a head with the crisis of the orders
It should perhaps be noted while the difference between Patricians and Plebeians was a matter of birth it is also true that many patrician clans tended to have Plebeian branches some of which were more famous than the noble branch of the clan.
There were two classes of noble in ancient Rome the the highest noble class were the patricians which was a strictly hereditary caste in which birth was determined by not property but purely by birth, even in the early empire you could not buy your way into the Patrician class though the emperor could raise you into it.
The second and lower noble orderm the equestrian order had a membership was determined by a property threshold, which was 40,000 denarii in the late republic but was raised to 100,000 denarii by Augestus Caesar. Augestius Caesar also created a subclass of the equites or rather formalized a preexisting a subclass of the equestrian order, the senatorial elite in which membership was restricted to those who had the wealth of 250,000 denarii which would be the the pay of 1,100 legionaries.
Also because being a patrician was a matter of birth there were poor patrician clans that fell into obscurity but still existed even as the their Plebeian Branches grew powerful and wealthy.
The highest class in rome was the senatorial class, which was determined only partly by property values, and was not long held a monopoly by the patricians. Roman offices came with senatorial membership, so as roman offices were increasingly opened up, plebians were increasingly allowed into the senate.
Ultimately Plebian and Patrician came to mean very little in the Roman Republic as an indicator of class. It's a mistake that so many people make that my teeth grind. Extra credits characterized the Gracchi as men of the people because of their plebian background, when they were members of one of the most prominent Roman senatorial families at the time.
Also, frankly, we only know the shit later romans made up about the conflicts between plebs and patricians, and they were all writing from the perspective of a Rome where those conflicts were solved. Any contemporary sources of the conflict went up in smoke with the rest of Rome when the Gauls sacked the city, or otherwise was lost to time.
I mean, part of the reason Augustus succeeded is that he kept the trappings of the Republic. He never called himself Emperor, even if he effectively was. So to a certain degree, he couldn't make things more official. I forget when, exactly, it stopped, but the polite fiction of Rome still being a Republic and the Emperor the First Citizen existed for quite a while.
Well actually he did call himself emperor. Imperator specifically. The word didn't mean then what it does now, and it means now what it does cause of how Augustus and the other emperors used it. What he DIDN'T use was Rex, the hated title of king. And no Roman emperor used that title. The primary title of emperors during the Dominate would be Augustus by the by. I wonder why emperor become the term for a supreme ruler in modern parlance and not something like August.
