Ask A Historian

[JuliaL]

---

The point is that the documentation is not reliable.  It tells a one-sided story for the benefit of the upper classes.  The Roman Civil Wars of the first century BC need to be put into context. 

Rome emerged from the Second Punic War c 205 BC as the dominant power in the Western Med.  They managed to get through that entire war - which they very nearly lost - without deviating from their standard military recruitment system.  Based on personal wealth, Roman infantry were classed into one of three groups:  Hastati, Principes and Triarii.  Without worrying too much about the differences between them these were drawn from the independent farmer class and had to pay for their own equipment.  Towards the end of the 2d Punic War the Romans got entangled with Greece and Phillip V of Macedon.  Needing allies, the Romans joined the city of Pergamum as well as the Aetolian League.  A series of 4 wars were fought in the first half of the 2d century BC culminating with the sacking of Corinth in 148.  Also in 148 the Romans finished off Carthage and the conclusion of these two wars led to the introduction of massive numbers of slaves in Italy.  The senatorial class, barred by law from business ventures, began buying up the individual holdings of middle class Roman farmers who relocated to the city and became the basis of the urban mob.  The senators combined their plots into plantations called Latifundia and staffed them with slave labor.  Meanwhile the Roman military system was being starved of its recruits as the farmers quickly pissed their money away and could no longer sustain themselves in the appropriate "classes." 

Civil strife grew, everyone has heard the story of the Gracchi brothers who struggled for land reform and were effectively murdered by the senate who liked their land.....(some things never change.)

The situation deteriorated until 105 when two Roman armies were crushed by the Cimbri and Teutones.  The loss of these two armies left the Romans looking for soldiers and finding that the cupboard was bare.  Luckily, the Cimbri and Teutones did not invade Italy which gave the Romans time and Gaius Marius stepped forward to reorganize the army.  In effect, he did away with the old system and recruited soldiers from the urban mob.  Since they could not afford to buy their equipment the state provided it.  He also provided pay for the soldiers and the opportunity for spoils of war was yet another inducement.  The ranks filled.  But these were not citizen soldiers who fought the campaign and then went back to their farms.  They remained under arms as a standing army for the duration of their enlistment.  And, they could get very attached to their commander, especially if he was successful in the plunder department.

So the bulwark of the republican state which the senate idolized was gone.  Within 20 years both Cornelius Sulla and Marius had marched their armies on Rome itself to settle political disputes among themselves. The republic was a dead man walking.  In 73 the Third Servile War broke out (Spartacus) and the Romans suddenly discovered that the mechanism they had devised to keep troublesome armies out of Rome had a serious flaw.  Pompey was fighting in Spain.  Lucullus in Asia Minor. And there was no usable body of troops in Italy.  Watching the slaves rout several forces, Marcus Licinius Crassus raised several legions at his own expense and, after a few fits and starts, crushed Spartacus in 71.  In 59, Crassus, Pompey and Caesar formed the first triumvirate which was essentially a government within a government and had Caesar elected consul.  In 58 he began his campaign in Gaul.

Crassus was killed fighting the Parthians in 53 which was the end of the triumvirate and the senate seduced Pompey over to their side leaving Caesar as the champion of the people.
Caesar defeated Pompey at Pharsalus before being murdered by the senate in 44.  Octavian, as Caesar's heir, Agrippa as his military commander and Mark Antony eventually stopped fighting one another long enough to defeat the senatorial party again at Phillipi and then had a long falling out.  But the senatorial party was crushed at this time.  They were a non factor and when Octavian/Agrippa defeated Antony at Actium the senate meekly made Octavian emperor ( in effect) and had their lips surgically attached to his ass. 

So, the political squabbling of the first century BC had resulted in the crushing of senatorial influence.  Augustus ruled by maintaining the fiction of the republic and that was good enough for the senators.  But everyone knew who was in charge. 

---

This long, drawn out struggle for supremacy left the senators pining for the old days of the republic and I suspect this is what we are seeing in the writing of Suetonius and Tacitus.  The Julio-Claudian dynasty was gone and it was safe to work them over while extolling the alleged virtue of the republic.  But the Roman republic was mainly a sham set up to benefit the senatorial and equestrian classes and what we see is that the population as a whole was quite content with the new order even if the senators who wrote the books were not.  So one cannot simply look at a couple of passages in some books about two emperors and think that was all that was involved.  Hopefully you see that this was a multi-century series of political events and a little bit...okay a lot of....nostalgia for what the senators thought they could get back by simply mouthing the word "republic."

Was not going to happen.

Mesmerizing---Thank you again.
Professionally, I was always focused on the very near, 0.00015" is very different from 0.00011" so I get a bit lost in the big picture spanning hundreds of years and dozens of major players.  I don't know if you'd call this sin, but I recently read a(n) historical novel on the personal and political interaction between Claudius and Herod Agrippa.  Of course I know the dialog was made up.  What I can't tell is if the reputable sources aren't similarly fictional. I do remember the '60s and rankle a bit at how 'hippie' and 'hacker' have morphed in popular culture.
What I gather you are doing is examining enough, at least nominally, wide ranging and independent sources to construct a plausible scenario of what the actual events were.
I'll buy that.

Grammar Nazism is a friendless pastime.

Isn't that supposed to be "Grammar National Socialism is a friendless pastime?"