Yes, this was another great article with lots of food for thought, and here is another great article on this same subject, that deserves cross posting here.
Thanks for the link, I will definitely check it out when I have time! I feel like screaming at my fully indoctrinated nurse daughter, that after this deliberate purposeful inhumane vaccine experiment on the world’s population including children and pregnant women and after living through the past 4 years I will never ever trust the medical establishment ever again! The clinical trials wrought death and destruction to the participants and this was hidden from us so they KNEW their vaccines were toxic but pushed them out on the world anyway! For profit and for depopulation, the largest human trial experiment in history! Words fail me.
Yes, this was another great article with lots of food for thought, and here is another great article on this same subject, that deserves cross posting here.
I'd argue Caesar did indeed want a crown later when he had won, his behaviour when in power is rather heavy-handed, as he made executive decisions all on his own and treated the Senate as little more than a bunch of bickering old men, which with their attempt to replace the Roman people in the fields and public-work jobs with slaves, their continued refusal to negotiate with him, their continued stupidity about the only one I kind of like is Cicero whom I think you did something of a disservice to by calling him a slumlord. That being said, the Senate was delusional and stupid, and thought they could treat Caesar as badly as they had the Scipio brothers, they were mistaken. The Scipiones were too docile, Caesar was not.
"... when I referred to the Scipiones I meant Africanus and his brilliant brother Lucius."
As did I as well. And by laurels I meant that no one else in all history could admit to have defeated someone who was arguably one of the greatest, if not the greatest military leaders in all history.
But as great as Scipio Africanus' victory over Hannibal at the battle of Zama was, Scipio's success was to the greatest part due to his having studied and replicated Hannibal's own tactics, and in particular for having brought over (or bought over) into Roman service Hannibal's Numidian cavalry.
Respect - but even chariness - for Cicero might be warranted also for the fact that he was referred to as a 'new man,' someone who had risen to relatively high status and influence through sheer determination and/or skill. He was not from one of the patrician families, being the provenance of the entire Senatorial class. If I recall correctly, he wasn't even originally from Rome (I can't recall where he was from; I'd need to look it up). It could therefore be expected that he would have cultivated relationships with people that would have been able to materially assist and/or enable him to demonstrate and exercise his legal prowess in order to boost him and further his career, and a reciprocal advantage would have been obtained by these slumlords and shady characters Cicero frequented from Cicero's patronage vis-a-vis the Senate.
"the only one I kind of like is Cicero whom I think you did something of a disservice to by calling him a slumlord."
I concur: Cicero seems a forceful character and a great intellect as well as a great orator. But I believe Harrison was not referring to Cicero directly as a slumlord but to some of the less savoury characters he associated with.
"In fact, Caesar was no bloodthirsty Sulla, and he didn’t want to be king. He was only a tyrant in the eyes of those who couldn’t compete."
Although Sulla strong-armed the Senators (by making good on the threat of killing them if and when they didn't comply) into declaring him Dictator, after the bloody pogroms and elimination of all his rivals and detractors, in the only case of voluntary retirement in all of history that I can remember, Sulla did in fact retire from the Dictatorship.
On the other hand, while Caesar was notable (or promoted himself) for the clemency he demonstrated to his rivals, it may very well simply be aspersion, but it was also said that Julius Caesar, after his return to Rome and before his assassination, caused many a scandal among the Senators and incited fear that he intended to reinstate the monarchy, naturally with him as king.
His popularity at its peak after assuming absolute power, the populace wanted the title Caesar rex (literally 'king') for Caesar. Two tribunes overruled the petition, angering the crowd, and in retaliation to this violation of his honor, as Caesar claimed the Tribunes had done, Caesar had them removed from office and throw out of the Senate. This all brought back memories of the bad old days when Rome was dominated by foreign powers, a period that culminated in the brutal reign by the Etruscan monarch Tarquinius, who went by the byname Superbus, meaning arrogant. (Tarquinius was overthrown in a plot lead by Lucius Junius Brutus, the ancestor of the Decimus Brutus among the eventual assassins of Caesar.) The situation was not helped in that Caesar had the infuriating habit of wearing the attire of a monarch, including red footwear (which was an abhorred custom practiced by foreign regents), and this would all have provoked and given impetus to the conspiracy that culminated in his assassination.
MM covers the tribune issue in chapter 9. Caesar's removal of Flavus and Marullus was high-handed, but here's some of the background. First, they were the ones who removed the diadem from Caesar's statue, imprisoning a suspect and allegedly being called "Brutuses" in response. They explained their actions in a contio, "stressing that Caesar himself had no desire for kingship". MM notes that Caesar should have had no problem with this, but still their actions "could be seen as invidious" and self-aggrandizing. Then came the unknown party calling Caesar rex, to which he replied that his name wasn't Rex but Caesar. Flavus and Marullus then initiated a prosecution against the man/man. This angered Caesar even more, with Dio saying he was outraged that F&M were stirring up "party strife against him."
MM notes that Caesar "still took no official action against the tribunes until they escalated the confrontation by posting an edict in which they declared that they were being denied the freedom to speak openly on behalf of the res publica." Through their continued raising of this issue with speeches and prosecutions, they essentially "turned Caesar's efforts at a recusatio regni into evidence of affectatio regni."
MM: "they had acted in a way that left Caesar with no good choices." Doing nothing would allow the tribunican prosecution to go forward, "inevitably with much further public ventilation of the inflammatory topic of regnum - a dangerous subject which the Dictator repeatedly showed he preferred to suppress." Cracking down would just reinforce the charge of tyranny.
Caesar even accused F&M of placing the diadem themselves, which strikes me as plausible given their insincere use of Caesar's own position as justification for their actions, even though they bore him no love. Their operation strikes me as an example of the title of my article: "Cross the Rubicon / Go ahead and stop us. We dare you."
Your elaboration and expansions are genuinely illuminating. Your reasoning utilizing explicitly formulated statements and direct quotations from the protagonists juxtaposed against those I made and to which you are responding reveals just how piddling my descriptions really are. Yours are cogent and scholarly, while mine seem like the petty gossip of village tattlers.
This plainly demonstrates why you can, and why you should write your own Substack, if this needed to be demonstrated at all, which I doubt. Accordingly it confirms that I am correct insofar as my assessment that I should not write my own Substack. I can't thank you enough(*) for going out of your way and taking time to honor me and my menial comments by engaging with them.
(*) I'm certain that were I to purchase a subscription, it would go some way in showing my gratitude. I'm genuinely mortified and sorry and I have to confess that I simply can't afford a paid subscription, even while I consider the fees scandalously too miserly for the erudition of your thinking and the quality of your writing.
Don't sweat it! Your comment wasn't nearly as menial and gossipy as you say. ;) And if I were you I'd reconsider - starting a Substack is a great idea!
It's disgraceful that gentile peoples, who should know better, would exchange their perfectly appropriate and rightful Roman polytheist religions, the splendour of Geek Mythology and the effulgence of Mithraism, for the squalid Hebraic superstition cult of debased Judaism that is Christianity.
Be that as it may I'm more than a little inclined to think that this exploit of Diocletian's was still a bit too over-the-top to have been in the best possible taste.
The current political scene is certainly worrisome.
I'm not up on the life of Caesar, but I have no doubt that such a successful man would have his detractors and enemies. Don't they all?
And making good people look like criminals is perhaps one of the most pernicious tricks a psychopath can play on the general public. We MUST teach ourselves to tell fact from fiction in this world. The fiction comes hot and heavy, that's for sure.
The civil war in Rome didn't end the Empire, it just signaled its end, not too long afterwards, by way of "divine intervention". History repeats. The current impasse and Western "senatorial" hubris won't end the modern empire through war, as many expect, but it probably does signal its end, just like Rome, and in the same fashion. Oh, and today, "Rome" is about 3k miles to the West.
"The civil war in Rome didn't end the Empire, ..."
Rome was still a Republic - and not an Empire - at the time and in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, although it was moribund. The Civil War, and Caesar's capture of unparalleled power with his victory over Pompey (the Senate had instructed Pompey to defend Italy against Caesar), therefore, signified the demoralization and undermining of the Republic's Senate, but not it's dissolution. Caesar tolerated and allowed the Senate to remain in an official capacity, but the Senate's status had all but been reduced to one of ceremonial significance and not much else, and the scope of its power and influence was demoted only to the plotting and execution of intrigues (as Julius himself discovers, albeit too late, during the Ides of March, 44 BC)
Not even with the ascension, reign, and passing of Octavian/Caesar Augustus, Gaius Julius' allegedly appointed heir, could Rome be formally declared an Empire, even though it may actually have been one in practical terms. As far as I know (but I invite anyone to disabuse me of this if 'm wrong) there was no official declaration of transition from defunct Republic to Empire. Arguably, the Empire can be recognized even if not formerly ratified during the incumbency of Tiberius (Caesar Augustus' heir).
"... it just signaled its end, not too long afterwards, by way of "divine intervention"."
I don't know what you mean by "divine intervention." In any case, there is much reason to argue in favor of the Marian Reforms - conceived and executed by Gaius Marius, who was Julius' uncle - and the eventual transformation of the formerly citizen's militia into a professional standing army as instrumental in the over-extension, exhaustion, and eventual collapse of almost this entire Ancient Roman chapter of Western Civilization.
"History repeats. The current impasse and Western "senatorial" hubris won't end the modern empire through war, as many expect, but it probably does signal its end, just like Rome, and in the same fashion."
Yes, very true. And all the more so when this is juxtaposed with the modern empire's obligatory foundation on large, resource-exhausting standing armies (which happen also to be completely unconstitutional, in the case of the U.S. of A., and therefore completely illegal).
I never do discount Realpolitik, it's what makes the world go round. But human civilization has a repeating tendency to devolve into extreme corruption and dysfunction, characterized by lies, big and small, being the common political and social currency. At the zenith of such, there seems to be a repeating tendency for the introduction of some kind of natural cataclysmic event(s).
Thanks for the links. I'll soon dive in and read them.
I fully concur with your premise: the authority and influence exerted by the great terrestrial and celestial powers are the most fundamental drivers of all events on Earth and in the heavens. Their intervention in human affairs is inexorable, and can indeed be cataclysmic. That the human species is even here still is simply the consequence of all human history having played out during a rather atypical period of geological quiescence. When these processes and natural cycles resume their more usual rates of activity - with more evidence of the return accruing daily - then at the very least our technological society will be destroyed, and perhaps even us entirely as well.
Did either of you read the article? The article implies that the civil war ultimately led to the "fall of Rome" which was an empire at that time. It was in that context that I said "the civil war in Rome didn't end the Empire, it just signaled its end".
My bad then! Must have been my own extrapolation that I projected backwards! Anyway, seems to me that after Caesar, everything in Rome went downhill pretty fast, the alleged ensuing 200 years of "peace" notwithstanding. I strongly suspect that the years after Caesar were expanded significantly by later historians with an agenda.
"The article implies that the civil war ultimately led to the "fall of Rome" which was an empire at that time."
Rome was NOT an empire at that time. There was no Roman Empire, because Rome was still a Republic, both during and in the aftermath of the Civil War (between the faction headed by Pompey for the Senate, opposing Caesar). Look it up and confirm it to yourself.
To be familiar with the history of the Romans is probably something I will never become.
But they were not the only "great civilization" in this universe. I am sure there are many others also worth studying, though perhaps with even more difficulty in getting one's facts straight.
Great analysis once someone ignores the fact that putin and trump are as much part of the new world order as is the current davos crew. All conflicts just pure theater to keep the masses distracted and the fake propaganda paradigm alive for those that don't dare to divert too far from the programming.
I enjoyed reading this very much, gave me lots of food for thought.
Yes, this was another great article with lots of food for thought, and here is another great article on this same subject, that deserves cross posting here.
https://josephsansone.substack.com/p/zombie-republic
I will also cross post this article to that stack, since they are so related.
Thanks for the link, I will definitely check it out when I have time! I feel like screaming at my fully indoctrinated nurse daughter, that after this deliberate purposeful inhumane vaccine experiment on the world’s population including children and pregnant women and after living through the past 4 years I will never ever trust the medical establishment ever again! The clinical trials wrought death and destruction to the participants and this was hidden from us so they KNEW their vaccines were toxic but pushed them out on the world anyway! For profit and for depopulation, the largest human trial experiment in history! Words fail me.
Yes, this was another great article with lots of food for thought, and here is another great article on this same subject, that deserves cross posting here.
https://josephsansone.substack.com/p/zombie-republic
I will also cross post this article to that stack, since they are so related.
I'd argue Caesar did indeed want a crown later when he had won, his behaviour when in power is rather heavy-handed, as he made executive decisions all on his own and treated the Senate as little more than a bunch of bickering old men, which with their attempt to replace the Roman people in the fields and public-work jobs with slaves, their continued refusal to negotiate with him, their continued stupidity about the only one I kind of like is Cicero whom I think you did something of a disservice to by calling him a slumlord. That being said, the Senate was delusional and stupid, and thought they could treat Caesar as badly as they had the Scipio brothers, they were mistaken. The Scipiones were too docile, Caesar was not.
"The Scipiones were too docile, Caesar was not."
Perhaps the Scipiones could rest on their family's laurels, while Caesar was on the make.
To an extent, but when I referred to the Scipiones I meant Africanus and his brilliant brother Lucius.
"... when I referred to the Scipiones I meant Africanus and his brilliant brother Lucius."
As did I as well. And by laurels I meant that no one else in all history could admit to have defeated someone who was arguably one of the greatest, if not the greatest military leaders in all history.
But as great as Scipio Africanus' victory over Hannibal at the battle of Zama was, Scipio's success was to the greatest part due to his having studied and replicated Hannibal's own tactics, and in particular for having brought over (or bought over) into Roman service Hannibal's Numidian cavalry.
Very true
Respect - but even chariness - for Cicero might be warranted also for the fact that he was referred to as a 'new man,' someone who had risen to relatively high status and influence through sheer determination and/or skill. He was not from one of the patrician families, being the provenance of the entire Senatorial class. If I recall correctly, he wasn't even originally from Rome (I can't recall where he was from; I'd need to look it up). It could therefore be expected that he would have cultivated relationships with people that would have been able to materially assist and/or enable him to demonstrate and exercise his legal prowess in order to boost him and further his career, and a reciprocal advantage would have been obtained by these slumlords and shady characters Cicero frequented from Cicero's patronage vis-a-vis the Senate.
Well said
Excellent points, thanks for expressing them.
"the only one I kind of like is Cicero whom I think you did something of a disservice to by calling him a slumlord."
I concur: Cicero seems a forceful character and a great intellect as well as a great orator. But I believe Harrison was not referring to Cicero directly as a slumlord but to some of the less savoury characters he associated with.
Fair point and your correction is appreciated.
"In fact, Caesar was no bloodthirsty Sulla, and he didn’t want to be king. He was only a tyrant in the eyes of those who couldn’t compete."
Although Sulla strong-armed the Senators (by making good on the threat of killing them if and when they didn't comply) into declaring him Dictator, after the bloody pogroms and elimination of all his rivals and detractors, in the only case of voluntary retirement in all of history that I can remember, Sulla did in fact retire from the Dictatorship.
On the other hand, while Caesar was notable (or promoted himself) for the clemency he demonstrated to his rivals, it may very well simply be aspersion, but it was also said that Julius Caesar, after his return to Rome and before his assassination, caused many a scandal among the Senators and incited fear that he intended to reinstate the monarchy, naturally with him as king.
His popularity at its peak after assuming absolute power, the populace wanted the title Caesar rex (literally 'king') for Caesar. Two tribunes overruled the petition, angering the crowd, and in retaliation to this violation of his honor, as Caesar claimed the Tribunes had done, Caesar had them removed from office and throw out of the Senate. This all brought back memories of the bad old days when Rome was dominated by foreign powers, a period that culminated in the brutal reign by the Etruscan monarch Tarquinius, who went by the byname Superbus, meaning arrogant. (Tarquinius was overthrown in a plot lead by Lucius Junius Brutus, the ancestor of the Decimus Brutus among the eventual assassins of Caesar.) The situation was not helped in that Caesar had the infuriating habit of wearing the attire of a monarch, including red footwear (which was an abhorred custom practiced by foreign regents), and this would all have provoked and given impetus to the conspiracy that culminated in his assassination.
MM covers the tribune issue in chapter 9. Caesar's removal of Flavus and Marullus was high-handed, but here's some of the background. First, they were the ones who removed the diadem from Caesar's statue, imprisoning a suspect and allegedly being called "Brutuses" in response. They explained their actions in a contio, "stressing that Caesar himself had no desire for kingship". MM notes that Caesar should have had no problem with this, but still their actions "could be seen as invidious" and self-aggrandizing. Then came the unknown party calling Caesar rex, to which he replied that his name wasn't Rex but Caesar. Flavus and Marullus then initiated a prosecution against the man/man. This angered Caesar even more, with Dio saying he was outraged that F&M were stirring up "party strife against him."
MM notes that Caesar "still took no official action against the tribunes until they escalated the confrontation by posting an edict in which they declared that they were being denied the freedom to speak openly on behalf of the res publica." Through their continued raising of this issue with speeches and prosecutions, they essentially "turned Caesar's efforts at a recusatio regni into evidence of affectatio regni."
MM: "they had acted in a way that left Caesar with no good choices." Doing nothing would allow the tribunican prosecution to go forward, "inevitably with much further public ventilation of the inflammatory topic of regnum - a dangerous subject which the Dictator repeatedly showed he preferred to suppress." Cracking down would just reinforce the charge of tyranny.
Caesar even accused F&M of placing the diadem themselves, which strikes me as plausible given their insincere use of Caesar's own position as justification for their actions, even though they bore him no love. Their operation strikes me as an example of the title of my article: "Cross the Rubicon / Go ahead and stop us. We dare you."
Your elaboration and expansions are genuinely illuminating. Your reasoning utilizing explicitly formulated statements and direct quotations from the protagonists juxtaposed against those I made and to which you are responding reveals just how piddling my descriptions really are. Yours are cogent and scholarly, while mine seem like the petty gossip of village tattlers.
This plainly demonstrates why you can, and why you should write your own Substack, if this needed to be demonstrated at all, which I doubt. Accordingly it confirms that I am correct insofar as my assessment that I should not write my own Substack. I can't thank you enough(*) for going out of your way and taking time to honor me and my menial comments by engaging with them.
(*) I'm certain that were I to purchase a subscription, it would go some way in showing my gratitude. I'm genuinely mortified and sorry and I have to confess that I simply can't afford a paid subscription, even while I consider the fees scandalously too miserly for the erudition of your thinking and the quality of your writing.
Don't sweat it! Your comment wasn't nearly as menial and gossipy as you say. ;) And if I were you I'd reconsider - starting a Substack is a great idea!
Diocletian famously retired, after slaughtering thousands of Christians, to his garden in Illyricum.
Outrageous, isn't it?
It's disgraceful that gentile peoples, who should know better, would exchange their perfectly appropriate and rightful Roman polytheist religions, the splendour of Geek Mythology and the effulgence of Mithraism, for the squalid Hebraic superstition cult of debased Judaism that is Christianity.
Be that as it may I'm more than a little inclined to think that this exploit of Diocletian's was still a bit too over-the-top to have been in the best possible taste.
A very intelligent article, well done.
The current political scene is certainly worrisome.
I'm not up on the life of Caesar, but I have no doubt that such a successful man would have his detractors and enemies. Don't they all?
And making good people look like criminals is perhaps one of the most pernicious tricks a psychopath can play on the general public. We MUST teach ourselves to tell fact from fiction in this world. The fiction comes hot and heavy, that's for sure.
The civil war in Rome didn't end the Empire, it just signaled its end, not too long afterwards, by way of "divine intervention". History repeats. The current impasse and Western "senatorial" hubris won't end the modern empire through war, as many expect, but it probably does signal its end, just like Rome, and in the same fashion. Oh, and today, "Rome" is about 3k miles to the West.
"The civil war in Rome didn't end the Empire, ..."
Rome was still a Republic - and not an Empire - at the time and in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, although it was moribund. The Civil War, and Caesar's capture of unparalleled power with his victory over Pompey (the Senate had instructed Pompey to defend Italy against Caesar), therefore, signified the demoralization and undermining of the Republic's Senate, but not it's dissolution. Caesar tolerated and allowed the Senate to remain in an official capacity, but the Senate's status had all but been reduced to one of ceremonial significance and not much else, and the scope of its power and influence was demoted only to the plotting and execution of intrigues (as Julius himself discovers, albeit too late, during the Ides of March, 44 BC)
Not even with the ascension, reign, and passing of Octavian/Caesar Augustus, Gaius Julius' allegedly appointed heir, could Rome be formally declared an Empire, even though it may actually have been one in practical terms. As far as I know (but I invite anyone to disabuse me of this if 'm wrong) there was no official declaration of transition from defunct Republic to Empire. Arguably, the Empire can be recognized even if not formerly ratified during the incumbency of Tiberius (Caesar Augustus' heir).
"... it just signaled its end, not too long afterwards, by way of "divine intervention"."
I don't know what you mean by "divine intervention." In any case, there is much reason to argue in favor of the Marian Reforms - conceived and executed by Gaius Marius, who was Julius' uncle - and the eventual transformation of the formerly citizen's militia into a professional standing army as instrumental in the over-extension, exhaustion, and eventual collapse of almost this entire Ancient Roman chapter of Western Civilization.
"History repeats. The current impasse and Western "senatorial" hubris won't end the modern empire through war, as many expect, but it probably does signal its end, just like Rome, and in the same fashion."
Yes, very true. And all the more so when this is juxtaposed with the modern empire's obligatory foundation on large, resource-exhausting standing armies (which happen also to be completely unconstitutional, in the case of the U.S. of A., and therefore completely illegal).
I don't know what you mean by "divine intervention."
The likely circa 540AD cometary ablation of Western Europe.
Interesting. Do say more.
But please, both then as now, do not discount Realpolitik.
I never do discount Realpolitik, it's what makes the world go round. But human civilization has a repeating tendency to devolve into extreme corruption and dysfunction, characterized by lies, big and small, being the common political and social currency. At the zenith of such, there seems to be a repeating tendency for the introduction of some kind of natural cataclysmic event(s).
https://academic.oup.com/astrogeo/article/45/1/1.23/229520
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanic_winter_of_536
https://www.medieval.eu/double-volcanic-event-ad-536-ad-540/
Note that volcanic eruptions are associated with cometary passes/impacts
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168632106800271
Thanks for the links. I'll soon dive in and read them.
I fully concur with your premise: the authority and influence exerted by the great terrestrial and celestial powers are the most fundamental drivers of all events on Earth and in the heavens. Their intervention in human affairs is inexorable, and can indeed be cataclysmic. That the human species is even here still is simply the consequence of all human history having played out during a rather atypical period of geological quiescence. When these processes and natural cycles resume their more usual rates of activity - with more evidence of the return accruing daily - then at the very least our technological society will be destroyed, and perhaps even us entirely as well.
Actually, the Civil War ended the Republic and BEGAN the Empire.
Did either of you read the article? The article implies that the civil war ultimately led to the "fall of Rome" which was an empire at that time. It was in that context that I said "the civil war in Rome didn't end the Empire, it just signaled its end".
Just want to clarify that I didn't mean to imply that. I just had in mind the Republic.
My bad then! Must have been my own extrapolation that I projected backwards! Anyway, seems to me that after Caesar, everything in Rome went downhill pretty fast, the alleged ensuing 200 years of "peace" notwithstanding. I strongly suspect that the years after Caesar were expanded significantly by later historians with an agenda.
No problem. I didn't make it clear.
"The article implies that the civil war ultimately led to the "fall of Rome" which was an empire at that time."
Rome was NOT an empire at that time. There was no Roman Empire, because Rome was still a Republic, both during and in the aftermath of the Civil War (between the faction headed by Pompey for the Senate, opposing Caesar). Look it up and confirm it to yourself.
I mean that Rome was an Empire at the time of its "fall".
Ah yes, quite right! It most certainly was, and that now finally makes me understand your corollary as well.
Apologies for the misunderstanding.
NP, it was easy to misinterpret what I said.
I stand quietly amazed to see you comment here!
To be familiar with the history of the Romans is probably something I will never become.
But they were not the only "great civilization" in this universe. I am sure there are many others also worth studying, though perhaps with even more difficulty in getting one's facts straight.
Great analysis once someone ignores the fact that putin and trump are as much part of the new world order as is the current davos crew. All conflicts just pure theater to keep the masses distracted and the fake propaganda paradigm alive for those that don't dare to divert too far from the programming.
Like Bulls in a China Shop
The stupid... mentally deranged... incompetent and unelected...
https://fritzfreud.substack.com/p/like-bulls-in-a-china-shop