Not a subscriber so can’t read, but when I see Caesar hit the front page, I upvote.
I think we can’t stress the story of Caesar enough in our era of demagoguery. A look into Rome at the time paints a picture of Caesar, like a lot of populists we’ve seen since 2015, wasn’t actually wrong about a lot of his complaints. The senate was a corrupt, spoiled, bunch who only cared so much for the Republican because it provided them a ton of power within a very powerful polity; and it was there’s the way a child thinks his parents back yard is theirs.
They believed themselves entitled to enrichment on the backs of plebs and to top that off it was still a very real political idea (and movement) that Rome allowing the peasants both political power bringing them into the legions was a grave mistake that desperately needed undone (similar, but to a much greater extent, than the ultraconservatives who think giving the vote to women and African Americans is a grave mistake.)
So it was easy for Caesar to point at these senators and say all of these things, because they were true. It’s analogous to the way someone like Trump or Bernie Sanders used sound byte rhetoric to play up peoples emotions. The promises they made (whether or not they believe in them is irrelevant) are second to emotions running high.
That Caesar may not have cared about the plebs is irrelevant, indeed it could have all been a personal vendetta dating back to the prescriptions imposed on him and his mother after Sulla took power.
Sorry for this rant, I’ve spent the last few years thinking about this and how to better tell the story in a way that fits nicely with current times and trends. I believe when the story of Caesar is told it usually plays up the tragedy of Brutus or Caesar, both of whom were what were consider tyrants today, when there’s a very real political message that is very important we understand today.
I was listening to Dan Snow's History Hit podcast [0] where there was a guest episode on oligarchs & oligarchy in general. They mentioned Caesar because he was also an oligarch, like most of the other generals/Senators of Rome. Jeff Winters also wrote a book on this topic [1].
Caesar threatened the oligarchs of Rome by crossing the Rubicon with his legions which was heavily frowned upon by the others. Caesar threatened their power structure for sure and likely led to his death.
I’d say it takes two to tango. Caesar didn’t cross the Rubicon with his legions because he was a mustache twirling villain. He did so because the Roman senators (rightly) feared any man who commanded the respect of a large portion of the legions. Caesar has just pacified one Romes oldest fears, the Gauls, and the people loved him for it. He was told to disband his legions and return to face the senate, a move which certainly mean death, so he did what anyone who wanted to keep living: he invaded.
I really wouldn’t say Caesar’s death had anything to do with oligarchs. Sure he threaten their business interests but what he did was so much worse in their eyes. Remember Rome was built on overthrowing a tyrant, the Senators believed any man who refused to disband his army was an aspiring King and aspiring kings can’t be allowed to live.
Of course Caesar was an aspiring king after the Rubicon, whether he was before will be debates too the end of time, having triumphs where he tested how king like he could act to his subjects (Mike Duncan has an episode on this where he says, “the Roman’s could learn to love autoarchy, but they wouldn’t accept monarchy.)
> That Caesar may not have cared about the plebs is irrelevant, indeed it could have all been a personal vendetta dating back to the prescriptions imposed on him and his mother after Sulla took power.
No doubt he rode the waves of populism, but I wouldn't write off entirely that he actually did care, on some level, about the poorer class. He did grow up in that world himself (of course he came from a rich family, but his mother raised him in Subura, a poor part of Rome, where her business was), and when he first returned to Rome after Sulla was out of the picture he chose (well, probably had to, not having money) to live in the same place he grew up. I'm speculating, but it seems likely that rubbing shoulders with the lower class for most of his formative years suggests his later advocacy for their advancement in society may be somewhat genuine.
Yeah that’s why I said it was irrelevant. I think he did have sympathies with the plebs. Maybe not born out of a wholesome desire to make their lives better (although he probably thought it couldn’t hurt) I’d say it was born out of the fact that he related to them.
The Senators looked down on him too and thought he was an annoying upstart and the nephew of a “radical” who had the audacity to want to win wars more than he cared about who’s grandfather was supposedly one of Romulus’ initial men. I think he did care, for sure, like I think a lot of populists actually care.
But I don’t think he, nor a majority of populists, are honest to the masses they get to do their beck and call.
If we want to go full throttle with the analogues to today, Ceasers journal entries would be read out loud in the public forum where large crowds gathered to hear it (as good a tweet as you can get). He specifically tried to reach the plebs.
Of course. Plebs are focused on working the land etc they don’t have time for a full education into the political machinery of Rome they would need to understand in order to grasp the nuances of the problems of their day. So they outsource their grievances to a guy from that world who says he knows how to fix all their problems, it’s easy even, if it weren’t for the pesky Senators.
This is exactly like what we’ve seen in recent years (really it’s been seen time and time again.) I tried to leave out any names or obvious events other than to explain the rhetorical behavior they usually share.
I will say that it doesn’t take an ignorant person to fall victim to populism. I initially went head first into Bernie as “my guy” (not that I’m some genius, mind you.) Coming from a lower middle class white family he basically told me everything I wanted to hear in 2016.
It’s easy identifying a given problem but one thing I’ve come to try and understand is that if I ever have an idea that seems simple, it’s best to try and figure out why it is it hasn’t been solved yet. For any given issue (be it enterprise or political) there have probably been incredibly intelligent people, smarter than me for sure, who’ve tried to solve it and were unable to.
The implication is that it’s easy to say universal healthcare, student loan amnesty, and stimulus checks for all. It’s harder to say ‘but if we give stimulus checks, we might cause inflation’, or ‘universal healthcare might cost a few trillion a year, and I’m not sure how we can finance that’.
Stroking the plebs is not a new thing. Trump exists for this reason, AOC literally strokes the left with every tweet, so does Bernie.
Also, it’s easy to say free college for everyone. Especially when you know that the students who will actually need their college paid for won’t be going because the price of tuition is only one factor in why people decide against college. I would say Bernie definitely understands this nuance, but it doesn’t make for a nice soundbite and kinda seems like subsidizing college for those who would have went regardless.
No I definitely added a clause stating their true desires were irrelevant. Just that’s it’s easy to get yourself a powerbase by making sweeping promises that play at emotions. It’s not so easy to actually enact the needed change and occasionally it is impossible. If they’re the especially ugly type Populists can then use them as proof that the engrained powers are working against the people.
The only reason I mentioned my own believes was because I used to consider myself fairly well educated, having been a huge history nerd my entire life alongside the CS stuff we all do here, and yet I didn’t even realize Bernie was a populist until after Trump was president and the election was over.
It’s easy to get sweeper up in emotions, that’s my point.
i think i agree, populist messaging can be a dangerous weapon in the wrong hands... on the other hand, i wonder how else politics of change can work without it?
it seems very hard to get a message through when theres such a huge low-pass filter... maybe there are other ways?
> The senate was a corrupt, spoiled, bunch who only cared so much for the Republican because it provided them a ton of power within a very powerful polity; and it was there’s the way a child thinks his parents back yard is theirs.
It's a story as old as time. 1,500 years later down the road it's the Medici, nobility, and Signoria of the "Republic" of Florence.
I think we can’t stress the story of Caesar enough in our era of demagoguery. A look into Rome at the time paints a picture of Caesar, like a lot of populists we’ve seen since 2015, wasn’t actually wrong about a lot of his complaints. The senate was a corrupt, spoiled, bunch who only cared so much for the Republican because it provided them a ton of power within a very powerful polity; and it was there’s the way a child thinks his parents back yard is theirs.
They believed themselves entitled to enrichment on the backs of plebs and to top that off it was still a very real political idea (and movement) that Rome allowing the peasants both political power bringing them into the legions was a grave mistake that desperately needed undone (similar, but to a much greater extent, than the ultraconservatives who think giving the vote to women and African Americans is a grave mistake.)
So it was easy for Caesar to point at these senators and say all of these things, because they were true. It’s analogous to the way someone like Trump or Bernie Sanders used sound byte rhetoric to play up peoples emotions. The promises they made (whether or not they believe in them is irrelevant) are second to emotions running high.
That Caesar may not have cared about the plebs is irrelevant, indeed it could have all been a personal vendetta dating back to the prescriptions imposed on him and his mother after Sulla took power.
Sorry for this rant, I’ve spent the last few years thinking about this and how to better tell the story in a way that fits nicely with current times and trends. I believe when the story of Caesar is told it usually plays up the tragedy of Brutus or Caesar, both of whom were what were consider tyrants today, when there’s a very real political message that is very important we understand today.