The History Book Club discussion
This topic is about
Caesar
ROMAN EMPIRE -THE HISTORY...
>
WE ARE OPEN - CAESAR - WEEK TWO - March 5th - March 11th - Chapter Two: Caesar’s Childhood and Chapter Three: The First Dictator - (pages 30 - 60) ~ No Spoilers, Please
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
The second week's reading assignment is:
WEEK TWO - March 5th - March 11th -> 2. Caesar’s Childhood and 3. The First Dictator (30-60)
Chapter Overview and Summary:
Chapter 2. Caesar’s Childhood
Roman children
This chapter gives a general overview of what life was like for an upper class child in Rome. There is also a discussion of the Social War, which pitted Roman citizens against people in allied cities, who didn’t have the same privileges as Romans.
Chapter 3. The First Dictator
Marius and Sulla
This chapter deals with Sulla’s takeover of Rome and his dictatorship.
Mod
Roman army attacking a city
Discussion Topics for Chapter II:
1. What do you think of the depiction of upper class Roman childhood?
2. Do you think the seeds of the downfall of the Republic were sown by the upheaval of the Social War, by Marius’ unprecedented successive consulships and by the bitter conflict between Marius and Sulla?
Discussion Topics for Chapter III:
1. Why did Marius and Cinna want to make Caesar Flamen Dialis? He would never have been able to be consul and lead an army, and you’d think Marius would want that for his nephew.
2. Do you think Marius was mostly at fault for strife between him and Sulla? Perhaps if he hadn’t been so intent on a seventh consulship he wouldn’t have usurped Sulla’s command against Mithridates and Sulla wouldn’t have invaded Rome.
Vicki wrote: " II. 2. Do you think the seeds of the downfall of the Republic were sown by the upheaval of the Social War, by Marius’ unprecedented successive consulships and by the bitter conflict between Marius and Sulla"Yes, certainly, but I think the rise of military strongmen like Marius and Sulla was needed because the 'amateurs' of the republic were not able to fend off the bigger external and internal threats that arose as Rome expanded. How can you devise a grand strategy or manage a thorough military reform in 1 (consular) year?
A previous crisis, the invasion by Hannibal during the second punic war, was only resolved thanks to the unprecedented powers handed to the Scipios . But according to Wikipedia: Upon his triumphant return, Scipio Africanus refused to accept demands for him to become perpetual consul and dictator. For his self-restraint in putting the good of the republic ahead of his own gain, Scipio was praised by Livy for showing uncommon greatness of mind—an example conspicuously not emulated by Marius or Sulla.
So, yes Marius and Sulla are to blame but they seem to be merely symptoms. There was a deeper problem in the Roman republican system. Every crisis required bending and breaking of rules and reshaping power balances. If all these strongmen keep chipping at the foundation, eventually the structure will collapse.
Mod
Caius Julius Caesar grew up during the Social Wars. The Social wars, I think, was the beginning of the fraying of the Republic. I can't blame the other Italian cities/towns for wanting Roman citizenship. They were shouldering the burdens of Rome and getting none of the benefits. So that ends and here comes Marius and Sulla and there goes more of the Roman republican system. I also think that when Julius refused to divorce his wife at Sulla's command and lived, it gave him a taste of power.
Mod
Vicki wrote: "The Social War was really stupid. All that fighting and death, and the allies got what they wanted in the first place, Roman citizenship."Isn't this Social War an interesting example of the famous Roman "divide and conquer" approach. Giving privileges and rewards to loyal Italians, to help them defeat the disloyal ones. They applied this strategy countless times in their dealings with various barbarians. Always rewarding one tribe and punishing another.
Only this time, something was different. The loyal Italians were duly rewarded but the disloyal Italians were not punished, they also obtained citizenship. Was this a loophole, a mistake or intentional? Perhaps the original peace terms were changed to respond to the grave crisis unfolding in Asia, were Mithridates had just massacred 80,000 Romans (the chronology suggests some kind of link).
So what do we have now in the 1st century BC? A superpower that has beaten off its main rival in the (known) world a couple of generations ago and reigns on the battlefield. However, inequality is steadily rising and urgent reforms are blocked by the political elite that is dominated by military-(agro-)industrial interests. A narcissistic populist leader emerges but has to break all the rules to effect meaningful change. Do you think this narrative sounds a bit familiar?
I thought the childhood of upper class Romans was interesting. Your whole life would rely on your family's status, which is why names were so important. There were a few things that surprised me in Chapter II. The fact that when a baby was born into a high class family, the father would decide if the child was to be accepted or not and I feel like in some cases the mother wouldn't have had a choice (though Goldsworthy suggests she would have). I was reading on PBS that the children who were not picked would have been exposed and abandoned (http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/emp...). Another strange thing that surprised me was that girls from these families would be named the same and just numbered off from there. That sounds so wrong to the modern ear. I could see how Caesar would have been well prepared for the career he was going to be leading in the future. As boys were raised to be in public life, yet I could see how these boys would be under a lot of stress and possibly have a lot of anxiety. They were expected to do well for the sake of their families honor rather than just themselves. There was a lot more to lose if they failed. He would have been well educated in languages and I thought the emphasis on public speaking was interesting as well. I could have used so more practice with that in my own education. He was also well trained militarily and I thought it was interesting that this was done for the public to view. Growing up in constant view of the public well prepared Caesar to know how to fashion his image, be comfortable speaking in front of people, and how to make a favorable reputation.
Those are my thoughts regarding the childhood of a upper class Roman. I would love to learn more about Caesar's mother, Aurelia, and learn more of the influence she had on her son's life.
Boris wrote: "Vicki wrote: "The Social War was really stupid. All that fighting and death, and the allies got what they wanted in the first place, Roman citizenship."Isn't this Social War an interesting exampl..."
Hi Boris! I really like your analysis of the Social War. I don't have too much of a background in military history of Rome, but I could see how giving the disloyal Italians citizenship as an intentional move. I feel like Rome would see this as a way to gain their loyalty which was more important than creating more anger by punishing them.
Boris wrote: "So what do we have now in the 1st century BC? A superpower that has beaten off its main rival in the (known) world a couple of generations ago and reigns on the battlefield. However, inequality is ..."Sounds very familiar. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it and we can see it being repeated.
Allison wrote: "Boris wrote: "Hi Boris! I really like your analysis of the Social War. I don't have too much of a background in military history of Rome, but I could see how giving the disloyal Italians citizenship as an intentional move. I feel like Rome would see this as a way to gain their loyalty which was more important than creating more anger by punishing them.."You could be right and it certainly worked for Rome. On the other hand, rewarding the disloyal Italians would set a bad precedent, it would signal that it pays to rise up against Rome! This is not the Roman way. So, I believe there has to be a good reason for it. It could be that it was impossible to manage granting citizenship only to loyal Italians because they could not distinguish between the factions. Or it could be that they needed to extinguish resistance quickly and completely to respond to the crisis in the east, and it was an emergency situation. I doubt that they suddenly turned all soft and friendly to their erstwhile enemies, I see very few examples of that in Roman history...
Mod
You wouldn't be the first to compare the U.S. with Rome, Boris. There are even a couple of books that do just that. Although they were written Before Trump.
Vicki wrote: "You wouldn't be the first to compare the U.S. with Rome, Boris. There are even a couple of books that do just that. Although they were written Before Trump. "Ha Ha. I was comparing to 18th century France (yes, France was a superpower once). With Robespierre in the role of Gracchus and Napoleon Bonaparte as a faithful reincarnation of Julius Caesar - including the military genius, the charm, the affairs, the outsider status, the title of consul and their burning ambition.
Mod
Mod
Mod
I don't think anyone can figure out the logic with that one, Vicki. 16 was an adult back then. Maybe they saw something in Caesar that worried them, so they acted to contain him.
Vicki wrote: "Obviously, you were too subtle for my stuck-in-the-present brain, Boris. Your analogy is right on and even more apt."No, you were right of course, there are certainly similarities with today. But as a non-US citizen, I am extra careful not to step on anyone's toes.
In general, if I look at history (with my amateur eyes), there seem to be few 'superpowers' that enjoy more than 200 years of political stability. By the time of Caesar, Rome has only recently become a regional superpower and is already heading to revolution. They would see another revolution/crisis in the 3rd century and then another one in the 5th century. The great Chinese dynasties, the Muslim Caliphates, the various Persian Empires, the Mongols, the Ottomans, and the British Empire all struggled to remain a superpower for longer than 2 centuries. By this count, the US still has about a century to go....
Vicki wrote: "I still can't wrap my head around why Marius and Cinna would want to make Caesar flamen dialis. You would think Marius in particular would want his nephew to follow in his footsteps and have succes..."Yes, it is a mystery to me too. But whether it was a trick to contain him or a stunt to accelerate his career, I don't think they would have done if he had not shown some signs of extraordinary talent.
I have two more thoughts on the subject. One is that the Patrician elite was quite small; only a fraction of the Roman population could afford the private tutors and other necessities to be part of the elite. So, these great men would certainly have heard about Caesar and with all the upheavals, there were perhaps not too many candidates.
The second is that we cannot really be sure of the societal role of these high priests. Are they more like today's bishops or like modern pop stars that can entertain a large crowd? If it is the second, then Caesar's combination of extrovert charm, creativity and seriousness would be very alluring and his election to the office could be compared to the way European countries select a young pop star to represent them at the Eurovision song festival ;-)
The elite was indeed quite small. It reminded me of the European upper classes and how they raised their children until the turn of the 20th century with private teachers, military training, and self-assurance. I wondered why Caesar would want such a job as flamen dialis with all its restrictions. There must have been more pleasant jobs on the roadmap to consul, I guess. Or maybe Caesar thought this kind of self-sacrifice should distinguish him of all the other men of his age?
Mod
I thought I would share this with you: I heard an interview with screenwriter and producer of the hugely successful "Vikings" series Michael Hirst on the last episode of the BBC History Extra podcast (Mar 8). Apparently, he is teaming up with Martin Scorcese for a series on "the Caesars". The series will focus on the young Julius Caesar. According to Mr. Hirst we have never seen an accurate depiction of the young ruler on screen.So, in a few months, when millions of people are watching this series, you can impress all your non-historically inclined friends with your excellent understanding of the restrictions of the flamen dialis and the obstacles in the cursus honorum and other details!
Mod
Sulla’s proscriptions sound brutal. I wonder what effect this had on the younger generation who were observing their father/mothers in everyday life. It conjures up images of heads on spikes everywhere, and bodies floating in the Tiber. Also, the revelation that people were falsely adding names to the proscription lists to legitimise murder... must have been a scary time to be a Roman citizen! Quite remarkable that Caesar’s head didn’t end up on a spike, seeing as he was not only caught while on the run, but also refusing orders from Sulla!
Mod
I was kind of amused that Caesar had to be saved by his mother (pg 59.) She appealed to the Vestal Virgins for help. They must have been a powerful bunch.
A little behind, but getting caught up. As for the childhood of the upper class citizens, at first being upper class, you’d think that would have an easier time, but it was interesting to read that they had to get past an initial “inspection” after they are born to see if they will be kept to begin with. It is a lot to live up to, especially if your family’s name carried great weight. It is quite the burden to be placed on someone at a young age, despite being prepped to make on the role, I can’t imagine what it must have been like trying to live up to that and not be the one ruin that. It also makes wonder at what length would they go to keep that power and status, if it is ingrained in them at young age.
Discussion Topics for Chapter II:1. What do you think of the depiction of upper class Roman childhood?
- I would think that their view on child rearing was sensible enough. You raise your children to become successful adults and that's not by babying them until they're 18 years old. Children were also married at a very young age, so it makes sense that children were taught from a young age useful skills that would aid them into adulthood.
2. Do you think the seeds of the downfall of the Republic were sown by the upheaval of the Social War, by Marius’ unprecedented successive consulships' and by the bitter conflict between Marius and Sulla?
- The downfall had many factors to it, but conflict will always be the biggest component. Both men were brilliant, but unable to see was truly better for the people.
Discussion Topics for Chapter III:
1. Why did Marius and Cinna want to make Caesar Flamen Dialis? He would never have been able to be consul and lead an army, and you’d think Marius would want that for his nephew.
- Possibly in order to groom him from a young age. His youth prevented him from most of what was expected from someone much older, but it allowed him to be trained and mentored. I think Marius may have wanted this for his nephew in order too keep his eye on him. Advancement for his nephew may also mean advancement for him as well.
2. Do you think Marius was mostly at fault for strife between him and Sulla? Perhaps if he hadn’t been so intent on a seventh consulship he wouldn’t have usurped Sulla’s command against Mithridates and Sulla wouldn’t have invaded Rome.
- Quite possibly. Greed and power for oneself are terrible components in the strive for advancement.
Mod
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adoptio... for more details.
Not withstanding the political intrigues of the day most interesting was, to me, the way youth were raised giving an insight as to the values of the adults and the expectations of the youth. And young Caesar and his comtemparies had to prepare and seemed to have to be able and ready to fight and risk life to live in his society.
Good morning (it is after midnight, 17 March 2018 here on America's east coast). I started the book on 15 March (but didn't record it on GR until 16 March), and I have to admit it's actually fascinating. Caesar was cocky and arrogant but had a pretty good heart, I thought. Life was brutal in ancient Rome, and with a lot of help, self-confidence and luck, he got through childhood as the man history has come to know.Jim
Mod
For the week of March 5th - March 11th, we are reading chapters 2 and 3 of Caesar: Life of a Colossus by Adrian Goldsworthy.
The second week's reading assignment is:
WEEK TWO - March 5th - March 11th -> 2. Caesar’s Childhood and 3. The First Dictator (30-60)
We will open up a thread for each week's reading. Please make sure to post in the particular thread dedicated to those specific chapters and page numbers to avoid spoilers. We will also open up supplemental threads as we did for other spotlighted books.
This book was kicked off February 26th.
We look forward to your participation. Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders and other noted on line booksellers do have copies of the book and shipment can be expedited. The book can also be obtained easily at your local library, or on your Kindle.
There is no rush and we are thrilled to have you join us. It is never too late to get started and/or to post.
Vicki Cline will be moderating this selection.
Welcome,
~Vicki
TO ALWAYS SEE ALL WEEKS' THREADS SELECT VIEW ALL
REMEMBER NO SPOILERS ON THE WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREADS - ON EACH WEEKLY NON SPOILER THREAD - WE ONLY DISCUSS THE PAGES ASSIGNED OR THE PAGES WHICH WERE COVERED IN PREVIOUS WEEKS. IF YOU GO AHEAD OR WANT TO ENGAGE IN MORE EXPANSIVE DISCUSSION - POST THOSE COMMENTS IN ONE OF THE SPOILER THREADS. THESE CHAPTERS HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION SO WHEN IN DOUBT CHECK WITH THE CHAPTER OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY TO RECALL WHETHER YOUR COMMENTS ARE ASSIGNMENT SPECIFIC. EXAMPLES OF SPOILER THREADS ARE THE GLOSSARY, THE BIBLIOGRAPHY, THE INTRODUCTION AND THE BOOK AS A WHOLE THREADS.
Notes:
It is always a tremendous help when you quote specifically from the book itself and reference the chapter and page numbers when responding. The text itself helps folks know what you are referencing and makes things clear.
Citations
If an author or book is mentioned other than the book and author being discussed, citations must be included according to our guidelines. Also, when citing other sources, please provide credit where credit is due and/or the link. There is no need to re-cite the author and the book we are discussing however.
Here is the link to the thread titled Mechanics of the Board which will help you with the citations and how to do them.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Also, the citation thread: (for Unreasonable Men - look at examples)
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Introduction Thread
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Table of Contents and Syllabus
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Glossary
Remember there is a glossary thread where ancillary information is placed by the moderator. This is also a thread where additional information can be placed by the group members regarding the subject matter being discussed.
Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Bibliography
There is a Bibliography where books cited in the text are posted with proper citations and reviews. We also post the books that the author may have used in his research or in her notes. Please also feel free to add to the Bibliography thread any related books, etc with proper citations or other books either non fiction or historical fiction that relate to the subject matter of the book itself. No self promotion, please.
Here is the link:
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Book as a Whole and Final Thoughts - Spoiler Thread
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Link: