Would Caesar have crossed the Rubicon, if Sulla had not marched on Rome earlier

[Lawnmowerman]

The thought of a Roman general marching on Rome herself was horrific and almost unthinkable to the majority of her population. Yet in 88BC Sulla broke with convention and marched his army on Rome, an action so unethical that only one other officer agreed to accompany him on the expedition.

So without the precedent set by Sulla would Caesar have marched his army on Rome???

 

[Caesarmagnus]

It's a pointless question, because if Sulla hadn't marched on Rome then a huge amount of history would have been altered anyway, and the same circumstances would never have arisen probably.

Sulla certainly set the precedent anyway.

 

[Pillbox city]

I voted yes.

 

[jalidi]

If it hadn't happened before then Caesar was going to set the precedent as Sulla did.

 

[attila006]

No. Caesar only marched on Rome because he was prevented from running as consul in absentia, which meant he would be open to prosecution for violating the numerous laws he had during his pro-consulship, such as starting wars without the Senate's authority, which he was flagrantly guilty of. These laws were the Lex Cornelia, done by Sulla after he was appointed dictator after marching on Rome himself.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

No. Caesar only marched on Rome because he was prevented from running as consul in absentia, which meant he would be open to prosecution for violating the numerous laws he had during his pro-consulship, such as starting wars without the Senate's authority, which he was flagrantly guilty of. These laws were the Lex Cornelia, done by Sulla after he was appointed dictator after marching on Rome himself.

In Ancient Rome people prosecuted their enemies on supposed treason charges all the time, even when they weren't guilty. It's worth noting that Caesar hadn't really done anything other generals and politicians of the time hadn't done. It would have been petty and ridiculous if he'd been forced into exile. Some of the laws he was supposed to have broken, like daring to conduct business while his colleague was skywatching in an attempt to shut down the government (or rather, to create grounds for a future treason prosecution) are patently absurd. It just shows how problematic the late Republic had become, to the point you couldn't achieve any real progress or change without potentially committing treason.

 

[okamido]

I believe that Caesar was who he was, because of Sulla.

 

[AlpinLuke]

It's evident that Caesar followed Sulla.

Anyway, for accuracy, to cross the Rubicon is a matter, to march on Rome [to attack the "pomerium"] is an other matter ...

The Rubicon is a little river 300km north of Rome and it represented a kind of natural border for the region surrounding Rome. It wasn't the Urbe, it was the limit of the Gaul [Cisalpine Gaul] and "Italy", meaning the Roman Province.

It was prohibited to cross it to generals with their armies [legions] because it limited a kind of safety belt around the Urbe.

When the Roman Republic asked to Caesar to leave his army in the Gaul and to go to Rome, he thought that the Senate wanted to declare the Populares illegal and he didn't trust the powerful families in the city who were against him. He decided to stay with his army.

Avoiding the historical disputes about the accurate identification of the Rubicon, it's clear that Caesar, crossing it with 11 legions was declaring his intention to challenge the Republic, no way.

The main point is that Rome [the Urbe] was able to deploy only two legions. The power of the generals was again too great for the Republican institution.

 

[AlpinLuke]

In other words, without Sulla doing that, Roman history would have been different and Caesar would have been a general, important as we want, just a general.

If Sulla didn't march on Rome meant that the Republic was enough strong to avoid that, so it's improbable that such a powerful Republic would haven't found a way to control Caesar and his army in Gaul.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

Avoiding the historical disputes about the accurate identification of the Rubicon, it's clear that Caesar, crossing it with 11 legions was declaring his intention to challenge the Republic, no way.

The main point is that Rome [the Urbe] was able to deploy only two legions. The power of the generals was again too great for the Republican institution.

Actually that's far from clear, and we had some (long) threads on this fairly recently, clearing up these sorts of misconceptions. Firstly, Pompey had well over 2 legions at his disposal (more like 4-6), and that's just within Italy. But focusing on the core issue, it's pretty clear Caesar's motivation was anything but to "challenge the republic", in fact the guy went out of his way to try and achieve a compromise. It was his enemies who effectively forced a Civil War. A lot of the actions taken against Caesar were plainly illegal, and demonstrative of how unfunctional the republic had become. If Caesar had his way, he'd have stood for consul, and then probably gone to fight another war (perhaps in Parthia). I think it's abundantly clear he was going out of his way to try and avoid a civil war.

 

[AlpinLuke]

Actually that's far from clear, and we had some (long) threads on this fairly recently, clearing up these sorts of misconceptions. Firstly, Pompey had well over 2 legions at his disposal (more like 4-6), and that's just within Italy. But focusing on the core issue, it's pretty clear Caesar's motivation was anything but to "challenge the republic", in fact the guy went out of his way to try and achieve a compromise. It was his enemies who effectively forced a Civil War. A lot of the actions taken against Caesar were plainly illegal, and demonstrative of how unfunctional the republic had become. If Caesar had his way, he'd have stood for consul, and then probably gone to fight another war (perhaps in Parthia). I think it's abundantly clear he was going out of his way to try and avoid a civil war.

The modern conceptualization of "civil war" is not exactly what they thought in that time.

The decadence of the Roman Republican institutions created the context which allowed Caesar to do what he did.

Did he challenge the Republic? Was he looking for a compromise?

He was a general and also a politician, a "compromise" for a politician can exist only if victorious. Caesar was facing the Republic.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

The modern conceptualization of "civil war" is not exactly what they thought in that time.

The decadence of the Roman Republican institutions created the context which allowed Caesar to do what he did.

Did he challenge the Republic? Was he looking for a compromise?

He was a general and also a politician, a "compromise" for a politician can exist only if victorious. Caesar was facing the Republic.

None of that really answers anything I said.

 

[Fishslap]

The thought of a Roman general marching on Rome herself was horrific and almost unthinkable to the majority of her population. Yet in 88BC Sulla broke with convention and marched his army on Rome, an action so unethical that only one other officer agreed to accompany him on the expedition.

So without the precedent set by Sulla would Caesar have marched his army on Rome???

I`m not sure Caesar was given much of a choice really. If he had abandoned his post as governor of Transalpine Gaul and returned to Rome like the Senate was demanding he would almost certainly have been killed after some form of show trial. So his options were to oppose Pompeii or get thrown of the Tarpeiian Rock basically. And the best bet for opposing Pompeii was to rush him the way Caesar did to prevent him from being able to rally legions in Italy.
Sulla`s march on Rome, although severely provoked by Marius, was in many ways far more odious. Sulla`s aim was to conquer the city for himself and his brutal optimate dictatorship while Caesar`s was simply to dislodge Pompeii from Italy and force him out into the provinces. That the Senate decided to follow Pompeii is another issue, but I`m sure this would have surprised even Caesar at the time.

So I would definitely say that he would have marched on Rome if the situation had been the same, even if Sulla`s precedent hadn`t been set. But then the situation would almost certainly not have been the same so it`s a slightly contrived question. From the end of the Social Wars I consider Rome to be more or less at permanent civil war that only ended when Augustus defeated Anthony. Sulla`s march on Rome was one event in that war and it escalated the whole thing tremendously. But it didn`t start there despite how dramatic it was. Sulla was also caught up in a process he didn`t fully understand, just as Caesar was later. His answer was to consolidate power and kill anyone who opposed him. Caesar`s was to consolidate power and pretend he could be friends with everyone.
I`m not quite sure which I think is the most ridiculous.

 

[Lawnmowerman]

Did Caesar face an officers revolt, when he marched on Rome as Sulla had done.

Only one officer followed Sulla to Rome, the rest refused. How did Sulla cope with this?? Did he have to promote a large amount of Optio's?? Or does officers in this sense refer only to high borne Romans and not the common Centurions??? Did it even happen??? I wouldn't put it part Roman historians to record that only one officer marched on Rome with him to discredit Sulla.

 

[attila006]

Did Caesar face an officers revolt, when he marched on Rome as Sulla had done.

Only one officer followed Sulla to Rome, the rest refused. How did Sulla cope with this?? Did he have to promote a large amount of Optio's?? Or does officers in this sense refer only to high borne Romans and not the common Centurions??? Did it even happen??? I wouldn't put it part Roman historians to record that only one officer marched on Rome with him to discredit Sulla.

The officers in reference to Sulla weren't centurions, but tribunes and legates. Sulla's centurions were actually known for being extremely loyal, many of them would commit assassinations and murders on his request and would be elevated to senatorial rank when he widened the Senate from 300 to 600 during his dictatorship.

 

[Lowell2]

without Sulla, Pompey probably wouldn't have risen to power (the laws allowing Pompey to be a general without being council were initiated by Sulla and Sulla gave him his first chance at power). So the Pompey/Caesar conflict might never have come into place. Cicero might never have been the spokesman of the "good men" and who knows what anyone would have done regarding Cato, but he would certainly have had less opportunity for whipping up the "boni".

The horrors of the Sulla dictatorship were a certain precedent.

Caesar was brilliant enough and had family connections that he likely would have been council, general and "first man in Rome" -- but likely more like his uncle Marius before the rift between Marius and Sulla. He may have instituted reforms, but likely these would have been within the Senate and not in a Dictatorship. The Republic probably would have gone on some years longer (and if reformed, might have survived in lieu of the Empire).

 

[Lawnmowerman]

The officers in reference to Sulla weren't centurions, but tribunes and legates.

I thought that must be the case, as without his Centurions I don't think his army could've functioned.

 

[AlpinLuke]

None of that really answers anything I said.

I would restart form a more proper consideration of the matter of fact that the Senate had the intention to declare Caesar enemy of the Republic, if he didn't leave the command of his forces in Gaul, [the Senate, not this or that tribune].

The point is that Caesar was moving war to that Republic, the one which escaped from Rome before of the arrival of the General [in this Pompey didn't show a great sense of Republic, in the sense of public thing, but he showed a quite private conception of power].

In fact, Caesar chased Pompey, he didn't concentrate his forces and his efforts on Rome [since he wanted to dismantle the power of the opponent ... and where was the large majority of the Senators? So where was the Senate, for real?].

And when Caesar proposed to the Senators who remained in Rome, to build a kind of "improved" Republic, those Senators dodges the opportunity, substantially still fearing the power of Pompey [again, where was the real Senate?].

Caesar was mainly interested in the civitas, in controlling the Urbe to gain the control of the civitas. The Republic was the form of the institutions of the civitas in that moment, but that Republic wasn't the support Caesar was thinking to [his attempt to exclude a large part of the Senate restarting with a little group of Senators is a clear move: imagine to do this same today, it would be a Revolution, when not a coup].

 

[attila006]

The most heinous of the treason laws broken by Caesar during his proconsulship were those enacted by Sulla, specifically the ones that prevented him from personally declaring war on another without prior approval of the Senate (done to prevent Triumph seeking generals from starting wars on their own, exactly what Caesar was). Caesar was abundantly guilty of this, in any trial he would be found guilty and exiled, which is what his political enemies planned to do. To prevent it, he needed to be elected consul again, in order to push specific legislation through during that year that would legalize everything he had previously done, to make him untouchable. His enemies knew he planned on doing that, which is why they didn't let him run for consul in absentia, he had to surrender his army. Had he done so, as a private citizen, and without Crassus (dead) and Pompeius (sided with the Optimates), Caesar might not have enough clout to guarantee winning the election or avoiding a quick trial.

Now backtracking a bit, if Sulla didn't march on Rome, it would mean Marius would have gotten his way at having Sulla removed from command of the Mithridatic War. Supposing Marius actually survived the war, health wise, and was victorious, it still would have meant an entrenched Senate split between Optimates and Populares. Meaning another spark most likely have started a Civil War, Rome was do for one.

But Pompeius and Crassus were Sulla's lieutenants, which is why they prospered. Both of them were crucial to Caesar's rise to power. He never would have been given the Pro-consulship to fight in Gaul, nor had it extended, if not for the Triumvirate.

 

[AlpinLuke]

The most heinous of the treason laws broken by Caesar during his proconsulship were those enacted by Sulla, specifically the ones that prevented him from personally declaring war on another without prior approval of the Senate (done to prevent Triumph seeking generals from starting wars on their own, exactly what Caesar was). Caesar was abundantly guilty of this, in any trial he would be found guilty and exiled, which is what his political enemies planned to do. To prevent it, he needed to be elected consul again, in order to push specific legislation through during that year that would legalize everything he had previously done, to make him untouchable. His enemies knew he planned on doing that, which is why they didn't let him run for consul in absentia, he had to surrender his army. Had he done so, as a private citizen, and without Crassus (dead) and Pompeius (sided with the Optimates), Caesar might not have enough clout to guarantee winning the election or avoiding a quick trial.

Now backtracking a bit, if Sulla didn't march on Rome, it would mean Marius would have gotten his way at having Sulla removed from command of the Mithridatic War. Supposing Marius actually survived the war, health wise, and was victorious, it still would have meant an entrenched Senate split between Optimates and Populares. Meaning another spark most likely have started a Civil War, Rome was do for one.

But Pompeius and Crassus were Sulla's lieutenants, which is why they prospered. Both of them were crucial to Caesar's rise to power. He never would have been given the Pro-consulship to fight in Gaul, nor had it extended, if not for the Triumvirate.

Anyway it's curious to remind that Caesar survived, with all probability, to the fury of Sulla thanks to influential friends [overall, I would say, Cornelia and her husband Lepido] and that Sulla himself wasn't that glad to have left him live ...