Were Cassius and Brutus Right? An Alternate History Discussion.

[aelf]

If you are refering to Augustus' 'emperorship': that only got institutionalized very gradually over time (and would always be subject to challenge by emperors-to-be). Octavian ruled by a less conspicuous accumulation of functions than Caesar did, taking into account 'the will of the senate' - if not legally, than de facto (something which emperors who ignored the senate would always pay the price for by being labelled a 'bad emperor' for posterity).

His formal accumulation of functions into one office was institutionalisation. It continued to evolve from there, but that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Whether the senate was paid lip-service or not is not the point. The point is that he did it, albeit learning from the mistakes of his predecessors.

 

[Agent327]

Your conclusion is correct, but the point is Octavian never 'institutionalized' any formal accumulation; it was precisely his careful accumulation of functions that made him primus inter pares or princeps. As said, it was only gradually, over time that the emperorship became a formal function. De facto became de jure, legally speaking; Octavian set the precedent for his successors. (The succession was precisely the weak link in the whole emperorship.)

 

[aelf]

Your conclusion is correct, but the point is Octavian never 'institutionalized' any formal accumulation; it was precisely his careful accumulation of functions that made him primus inter pares or princeps. As said, it was only gradually, over time that the emperorship became a formal function. De facto became de jure, legally speaking; Octavian set the precedent for his successors. (The succession was precisely the weak link in the whole emperorship.)

I know you're a German scholar and possibly Latin, Greek and what-have-you, but here's the definition of the English word "institutionalise" according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

in·sti·tu·tion
* Pronunciation: \ˌin(t)-stə-ˈtü-shən, -ˈtyü-\
* Function: noun
* Date: 14th century

1 : an act of instituting : establishment
2 a : a significant practice, relationship, or organization in a society or culture <the institution of marriage>; also : something or someone firmly associated with a place or thing <she has become an institution in the theater> b : an established organization or corporation (as a bank or university) especially of a public character; also : asylum 4

I'm not interested in a pointless debate about what the meaning is, so I'm just going to go by that. If he accumulated offices into a single effective office and made it the practice, then he institutionalised it.

Similarly, some modern dictators are supposedly elected leaders who rule by decree. But calling their systems de facto dictatorships is kinda daft. The political world is after all fluid one.

 

[Atticus]

The question is not whether Caesar was tyrant, I think, but rather whether he was tyrant and murdered for that reason. Even that is only sufficient reason, not necessary, but I suppose this is only justifiable motive that can be come up with.

So Caesar's brutality in the Gaul and Iberia don't weight, because that wasn't why the conspirators killed him.

Caesar surely did obtain his power with unlawful methods, but I think that can be justified if the preceding government is bad enough: that's the exact reason how his assassination is justified! So if you say that murder of Caesar was rightful because he was tyrant, you can't say that the unlawfulness of his rise to the power per se is the thing that justifies the murder.

EDIT: I must add that this question is pretty much like alternative history questions in my opinion, not significant in any way, but perhaps fun or revealing. It seems sympathy is the thing that matters here most, and it seems answers and sympathies on this question correlate pretty heavily with the political left/right division.

 

[Agent327]

I'm not interested in a pointless debate about what the meaning is, so I'm just going to go by that. If he accumulated offices into a single effective office and made it the practice, then he institutionalised it.

Well, Caesar was already dictator for life. I don't think he would have accepted the taboo title of King of the Romans, but they were probably afraid that he might have done what Octavian later did and institutionalise his 'office'.

Here's the point: that 'office' you mention didn't exist. Augustus was the first 'emperor', but that was not his title; Caesar Augustus was. As the name Caesar was adopted by his successors, it eventually became synonym with emperor. Had the succession of Augustus failed in any way, there would have been no emperor and no office; it is precisely the succession that made it an institution, i.e. this happened over time. I'm not argueing definition here, but historical process.

 

[aelf]

Here's the point: that 'office' you mention didn't exist. Augustus was the first 'emperor', but that was not his title; Caesar Augustus was. As the name Caesar was adopted by his successors, it eventually became synonym with emperor.

Durr, where exactly did I say "emperor"? I even referred to it as 'office', note the punctuation.

Had the succession of Augustus failed in any way, there would have been no emperor and no office; it is precisely the succession that made it an institution, i.e. this happened over time. I'm not argueing definition here, but historical process.

I think you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

 

[frekk]

Here's the point: that 'office' you mention didn't exist. Augustus was the first 'emperor', but that was not his title; Caesar Augustus was. As the name Caesar was adopted by his successors, it eventually became synonym with emperor. Had the succession of Augustus failed in any way, there would have been no emperor and no office; it is precisely the succession that made it an institution, i.e. this happened over time. I'm not argueing definition here, but historical process.

Sure it existed. There are such things as hereditary offices you know. Comes and Dux were adminstrative offices that became hereditary during the very late empire, for instance.

 

[RalofTyr]

If they won, would Brutus and Craissius fight it out for control of the Republic? If so, then few things would change.

If Oct. and M.A. didn't win, then the Ptolomies may not be under Roman rule. As it was Mark Anthony's desire to be emperor that he involved Cleopatra.

If Brutus and Crassius kept the Republic as, "Business as usual", then, there would be no Romans in Judea and no one to crucify Jesus. Without a solid Empire or Romans to martyr Christ, would there be Christianity today?

 

[Dachs]

If Brutus and Crassius kept the Republic as, "Business as usual", then, there would be no Romans in Judea and no one to crucify Jesus.

Considering how volatile the region was, with the Roman 'Eastern Settlement' of Pompey rapidly coming under fire from military opponents such as the Ptolemaioi and from the Pahlavan (the latter of which overran the entirety of the Levant before Antony's general Publius Ventidius Bassus came in and won the Battle of Cyrrhestica, reversing the situation), I doubt the Romans' central government, whatever it was, would have been able to resist establishing a more direct control over the region, for security purposes. The loose network of client kingdoms that obtained there originally was far too weak to resist a serious military push by either of those formidable opponents.

 

[Agent327]

If they won, would Brutus and Craissius fight it out for control of the Republic? If so, then few things would change.

If Oct. and M.A. didn't win, then the Ptolomies may not be under Roman rule. As it was Mark Anthony's desire to be emperor that he involved Cleopatra.

If Brutus and Crassius kept the Republic as, "Business as usual", then, there would be no Romans in Judea and no one to crucify Jesus. Without a solid Empire or Romans to martyr Christ, would there be Christianity today?

Brutus and Cassius, as it turned out, weren't really major players. Would have been more interesting to see what would have happened if Caesar hadn't been murdered in 44 BC, as (see previous post) he was planning a major campaign against the Parthian empire (or Pahlava). Would he really have done better than Crassus?

 

[Dachs]

Brutus and Cassius, as it turned out, weren't really major players. Would have been more interesting to see what would have happened if Caesar hadn't been murdered in 44 BC, as (see previous post) he was planning a major campaign against the Parthian empire (or Pahlava).

Dacia was to come first, as I alluded earlier in the thread.

Would he really have done better than Crassus?

That's the thing, isn't it? With genial men like Caesar involved, it's difficult at best to try to determine the course of any given military campaign. Had he conquered the great Dacian Empire and continue on to fight the Pahlavan (assuming, of course, that fighting the Dacians' extremely unruly Sauromatai neighbors wouldn't have absorbed his energies), would he have performed against this, more formidable opponent - led by other able men such as Pacorus and Barzapharnes - with a better record than his triumviral partner and his own lieutenant, Antony? Considering that the great Roman logistical reforms of the first century were still decades off, and that the Romans had not yet developed an effective consistent countermeasure for field engagements against Pahlava heavy cavalry archers on open terrain (in mountains they at least had the practice of having defeated the horsemen of Pontos and especially the Hai, the latter of whom had been bested by the great Lucullus despite greatly superior numbers), I would shy from any assertion that Caesar could have destroyed the empire of Arshak in its entirety, but perhaps he would have been the man to make those changes. Who the hell knows, it's bloody impossible dealing with alternate history with geniuses in the way.

 

[Agent327]

Damn those bloody geniuses!

Dacia was to come first, as I alluded earlier in the thread.

Yes, I know; it just seemed more interesting as althist to mention the intended Parthian campaign.