Why is Julius Caesar's favorite civic Representation? Not that it really has much of an effect on the game, but it seems to be incorrect. While the Roman Empire certainly, upon its founding, embodied somewhat of a representative-bureaucratic government, Julius Caesar represented the epitome of representation. His actions and rule over Rome, although short lived, brought the end of any reminiscence of a republican government employing representation. The Senate still "functioned" and government officials continued to do their duties, but they were appointed by Caesar and had no true power. Perhaps it was the only suitable option for Caesar's favorite civic out of all of the civics? What do you think?
Julius Caesar - Representation?
- Thread starter Americane
- Start date
cleverhandle
King
No idea about the Roman history, but "epitome" is the opposite of what you want. How about "antithesis" instead?Americane said:
drkodos
Emperor
Agreed.
Bureaucracy might be a better fit since he solidified and centralized the Republic's bureaucracy.
Bureaucracy might be a better fit since he solidified and centralized the Republic's bureaucracy.
Bast
Protector of Cats
How about police state since he was known as the Roman dictator?
Falcon02
General
Not sure "police state" would be quite applicable either, the emperors were dictators but
according to Dictionary.com
Police State - a nation in which the police, esp. a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.
Given the "Mob rule" of Rome this really isn't applicable, Roman Emporers really were able to maintain their power by keeping the mob happy. That's a big reason for the Coloseum and Public Baths built by the Emporers. The only suppression that I'm aware off was primarily between politicians taking out rivals.
Though I think a big reason why Representation is Caesar's favoriate Civic was that the Civic is appropriate for Rome in general, given that Rome's rise to power came during the height of the Republic. While the Empire grew during and after Caesar's rule Rome was already established as one of the most powerful nations in the region, if not the most powerful in the region.
So Representation is characteristic of Rome, however there are really no leaderheads from the pre-emperor period that are commonly recognized. As such they went with a civic which matched Rome but not neccisarily the Leaderhead.
according to Dictionary.com
Police State - a nation in which the police, esp. a secret police, summarily suppresses any social, economic, or political act that conflicts with governmental policy.
Given the "Mob rule" of Rome this really isn't applicable, Roman Emporers really were able to maintain their power by keeping the mob happy. That's a big reason for the Coloseum and Public Baths built by the Emporers. The only suppression that I'm aware off was primarily between politicians taking out rivals.
Though I think a big reason why Representation is Caesar's favoriate Civic was that the Civic is appropriate for Rome in general, given that Rome's rise to power came during the height of the Republic. While the Empire grew during and after Caesar's rule Rome was already established as one of the most powerful nations in the region, if not the most powerful in the region.
So Representation is characteristic of Rome, however there are really no leaderheads from the pre-emperor period that are commonly recognized. As such they went with a civic which matched Rome but not neccisarily the Leaderhead.
the oob
Retired PTBS host
Americane said:
Simple: the senate 'represented' Caesar, so Caesar likes 'representation'.
That's a good one. I think it is kind of funny as well that Caesar favors Representation, considering he destroyed it. Like putting Andrew Jackson on the American $20 despite the fact he destroyed the American banking system in his administration. Or FDR's mercantilism civic--did they change that? That makes no sense to me.
I can post some more...but I'm going to mod this out later.
Another case of looking at history with a tainted modern view. "Dictator" did not carry the negative connotation in Roman times as it does today, and when Caesar was proclaimed dictator for life, it was considered a great thing to the people of Rome. Of course many members of the Senate, including the infamous Brutus took exception.Bast said:
I'm a university student in history and specialize in Rome. You'll have to trust me that Representation is the correct civic, as I'll save you all a long winded answer that you may not want to read anyways. There's plenty of information out there for those interested though.
I mostly blame Shakespeare for the modern perception of Julius and Augustus. His plays cast them as villains, and placed Brutus and Mark Antony/Cleopatra as the heroes. Absurd.
Nilmerf said:
During the Republic, wasn't a dictator appointed only in times of crisis? And his term was usually only six months if I'm not mistaken. Caesar being appointed dictator for life could represent the real fall of the Republic, depending on perception. And I don't think that Caesar and Octavian are widely viewed as villains; most people, even though they know very little about them, think of some image of a great general or a great leader (which I think they were, only because they are so fascinating). I think the Police State suggestion was trying to get a closer fit for Caesar's "favorite" civic out of the available choices. I don't see a great fit fot him, which is why I think that Representation is the best choice. Is there another reason that you think Representation is the correct civic?
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Caesar did not intentially seek out to destroy the Roman Republic, though his actions certainly sowed the seeds that brought about its end.
Caesar was, for the bulk of his life, committed to Republican governance and did what he could to work within that system. He was, however, an exceptionally talented man, and thus was opposed--often unfairly--by others, some motivated mainly by jealousy (Drusus), some through absolute opposition to any change whatsoever (Cato). Caesar could see that a government initially designed to run a city-state needed to change in order to run an empire, but many opposed him and his proposed reforms. So he resorted to force in order to put his changes in place, but he still considered himself a Republican.
You might see it as a case of "do as I say, not as I do".
Still, Caesar never had himself crowned king, which he easily could have done, so that's something.
As for becoming a dictator, that was entirely legal within Roman laws and its constitution; in times of crisis, other leaders of Rome, such as Sulla, had also been appointed dictator, so that wasn't unusual and in and of itself did not and would not destroy the Republic. In fact, there are parallels between ancient Rome and modern Turkey in this regard, but I digress.
To me, it's Augustus for whom Representation makes no sense as a favoured civic. While Julius often forgave his rivals and tried to bring them back into "his" government, Augustus had his opponents proscribed, exiled, and so on. He took Julius' changes to their logical conclusion: an empire, in that day and age, could not be run properly by a republican government that was often paralyzed by internal power struggles that frequently broke out into civil wars. Under Augustus, the Roman Republic truly came to an end, the Senate little more than a rump to carry out the emperor's wishes. Still, Augustus was smart enough to pay plenty of lip service to the Roman Republic, so I guess that's where his favoured civic comes from--but Police State or Bureaucracy would make more sense for him.
Caesar was, for the bulk of his life, committed to Republican governance and did what he could to work within that system. He was, however, an exceptionally talented man, and thus was opposed--often unfairly--by others, some motivated mainly by jealousy (Drusus), some through absolute opposition to any change whatsoever (Cato). Caesar could see that a government initially designed to run a city-state needed to change in order to run an empire, but many opposed him and his proposed reforms. So he resorted to force in order to put his changes in place, but he still considered himself a Republican.
You might see it as a case of "do as I say, not as I do".
Still, Caesar never had himself crowned king, which he easily could have done, so that's something. As for becoming a dictator, that was entirely legal within Roman laws and its constitution; in times of crisis, other leaders of Rome, such as Sulla, had also been appointed dictator, so that wasn't unusual and in and of itself did not and would not destroy the Republic. In fact, there are parallels between ancient Rome and modern Turkey in this regard, but I digress.
To me, it's Augustus for whom Representation makes no sense as a favoured civic. While Julius often forgave his rivals and tried to bring them back into "his" government, Augustus had his opponents proscribed, exiled, and so on. He took Julius' changes to their logical conclusion: an empire, in that day and age, could not be run properly by a republican government that was often paralyzed by internal power struggles that frequently broke out into civil wars. Under Augustus, the Roman Republic truly came to an end, the Senate little more than a rump to carry out the emperor's wishes. Still, Augustus was smart enough to pay plenty of lip service to the Roman Republic, so I guess that's where his favoured civic comes from--but Police State or Bureaucracy would make more sense for him.
I was aware of most of that, especially Sulla--he was in for 5 years before restoring the Republic, if I'm not mistaken. And as for Caesar crowning himself king...didn't he walk around in purple robes? In Rome, I believe, that is essentially the same thing, as purple symbolized nobility and royalty.
Many people of the Patrician class wore purple togas, or at least purple stripes down their togas. And Sisiutil, I see your point and agree with you. I have a question for you, just because I can't remember this, did the Romans swear to kill any king after Tarquin the Proud? And that was one reason no one wanted to be referred to as "rex?"
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
Not unless you consider corpses to be pollution.Bjorn190 said:
Americane, I don't remember that part of my Roman history well enough to say for sure--but I think by the time of the Republic that the phrase "there are no kings in Rome" was pretty popular and indicates a similar sentiment.
Caesar's tendency towards clemency for his enemies always struck me as evidence of his Republican sentiments--even, perhaps, sentimentality. Absolutist rulers, as a rule, do not tolerate dissent. Augustus obviously considered his predecessor's propensity for forgiveness to be a fault, as he rarely if ever indulged in it himself.
drkodos
Emperor
Sisiutil said:Not unless you consider corpses to be pollution.
Americane, I don't remember that part of my Roman history well enough to say for sure--but I think by the time of the Republic that the phrase "there are no kings in Rome" was pretty popular and indicates a similar sentiment.
Caesar's tendency towards clemency for his enemies always struck me as evidence of his Republican sentiments--even, perhaps, sentimentality. Absolutist rulers, as a rule, do not tolerate dissent. Augustus obviously considered his predecessor's propensity for forgiveness to be a fault, as he rarely if ever indulged in it himself.
I do not recall any clemency toward the Cilician pirates that kidnapped him.
SpartanEvolved
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2006
- Messages
- 84
Something else that bothers me in the Civilopedia about Julius and Augustus. Both entires say they were the first Roman Emperors. Technically, Augustus was the first, but Julius was essentially the de facto emperor.
I don't think Augustus ever had ambitions of restoring the republic. After Actium, he saw that the only way to create peace within Rome was a powerful, unwavering central authority. He allowed the Senate and select Assemblies to continue to operate, but they effectually accomplished nothing, and had no power to do so. However, hereditary rule wouldn't be the way I would describe the system he implemented. The order of succession was a big problem for Rome, and Augustus failed in firmly establishing this policy because his heirs kept dying. He had no other option than to hand the Empire to Tiberius. The term I would use would be dynasties, the Flavio-Julian, etc.
Similar threads
