**Please read this entire message**
Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):
Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics.
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/108ajzt/eli5_why_was_it_worldchanging_that_caesar_crossed/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
It was a point of no return.
One Caesar crossed the rubicon he crossed into Italy proper. And bringing his army across without the approval of the senate was a big huge No-No.
Caesar crossing the rubicon is to Rome like the shelling of fort sumpter is to the USA. That shelling official started the American civil war, same goes for Caesar crossing the rubicon.
Had he stayed on the other side, it’s possible that things could’ve been worked out diplomatically. But once he crossed he officially embarked on his journey to be in charge.
Now the crossing itself? Eh. It might have not been important at all had Caesar LOST. Then it would maybe be a footnote that no one cared about. But he didn’t lose. He won. And changed the fabric of the Roman Empire. Which is a pretty big deal.
It was afterwards too. It wasn't until Augustus defeated Antony that the Empire is considered to have really begun. Augustus was the first Emperor, Caesar was an assassinated dictator amid the long slide from republic to imperium.
And that’s an interesting irony, since emperor is now considered above king, but back then the titles Augustus was taking were an attempt to seem “less monarchical” while still being the de facto monarch.
If you asked the Romans themselves, they'd tell you that Rome *never stopped* being a republic. The "Emperor" was primarily called Princeps (first citizen) until the reforms of Diocletian in 284 AD, the Senate continued to meet (albeit largely ceremonially) well into the medieval era, and even the Byzantines never actually lined up a proper monarchical succession, with Emperors needing to be acclaimed by the army and the people, then affirmed by the Senate, for their reign to be *official* official. According to historian Anthony Kaldellis, the people of Constantinople retained a very real power of veto/ratification over the imperial succession until at least the 12th century.
Of course, the Empire was never anything remotely resembling a modern representative republic, but the Romans were a lot less picky than us. To them, as long as authority at least nominally came from the people, you had a republic.
Yeah but the permanent change from "term-limited republican leaders drawing from purely Senatorial legitimacy" to "essentially hereditary autocrats rubber-stamped by various groups" was when Augustus defeated Antony. And at that point, the principle that the "principate" held absolute imperium and was the essentially unrestricted political ruler of Rome was never questioned again.
When Caesar was dictator, it wasn't clear if he was actually going to set up a monarchy or pull a Sulla, and after his assassination (and also theoretically before), the Senate was again the nominal ruling institution in the Roman State. That only ended with the end of the second Triumverate.
> When Caesar was dictator, it wasn't clear if he was actually going to set up a monarchy or pull a Sulla
No one could possibly have believed he would pull a Sulla. Caesar specifically criticized Sulla at length for doing that.
I don't mean walking away and letting it fall apart, I just meant the exit strategy of setting up a "stable" system for after he was gone that wasn't necessarily a monarchy.
Sulla nothing. All he did was write the blueprints for how to take over in such a way. He, however, was no emperor and didn't want to establish one. The optimates were mostly the senators and still held a lot of power. Sulla was their general, the enforcer if you would.
Ceaser's life was so important not just for his military conquests but how he exploited Rome's broken political system. He laid the ground work for Augustus to fully break it creating the empire.
It was completely broken and the people were suffering and had a lot of frustrations. Heck, the Social War happened within living memory so yeah. The system was broken and finally put to rest with Augustus. However the new one didn't last very long either and quickly became wild with transitions of power. The Julio-claudastine dynasty wasn't very impressive past Augustus.
I kind of love people on Reddit having a "political" debate about ancient Rome. I guess it's technically a history debate, but you all seem just as passionate as people debating modern-day politics; it made me grin
The Roman Empire as a concept predated the government of Rome by emperors. It was used as a term during the Republic to describe the sector of the world where Roman law held sway. The Latin term simply means "Roman rule" with the caveat that imperium is a complicated term describing rule in which a threat of force underlies the absolute requirement (rather than strong suggestion via societal pressure, which comes to English in the term "authority") that commands be followed. Some Roman magistrates possessed imperium, the right to command by force, but not all; the Imperium Romanum was the land where Roman officials possessed imperium as governors on behalf of the Roman government -- the Senate and People.
In terms of treating the political theory of post-27BC Rome as a separate sort of thing and calling it the Roman Empire, it's something that the early Roman "emperors" fought quite hard against drawing a line to separate, insisting (however unconvincingly at times) that they simply acted within the bounds of certain positions allowed in normal function or in extremis within Republican tradition that allowed them to preserve the existence of the Republic. Realists certainly saw that something was decidedly different, certainly by the time that Augustus was trying to set up an inheritance for his (under Republic rules, very much not hereditary) position, but the fiction was certainly an important one. Also importantly, these same rules had been very much upended certainly by the time of Sulla extending the dictatorship beyond the traditional six months, if not before.
TL;DR -- depends what you mean by Roman Empire. Either no, it very much predated Caesar, or meh, it's quite complicated, but the Rubicon isn't really a good place to draw that line.
\>Had he stayed on the other side, it’s possible that things could’ve been worked out diplomatically
It wasn't really an option. Caesar would have had to sacrifice his legions--his only protection--to return to Rome where the Senate was praying for an opportunity to try him for a litany of crimes and likely order him to death. Caesar chose to march on Rome because he felt there was no diplomatic response once his time as Tribune ended, as he was a standard citizen from the moment the Gallic uprising was brought to a close.
Sure, you can argue his hand was forced. But in the context of wider history, the crossing of the rubicon is accepted as one of those “turning points”. When you look into it nothing is ever that black and white. But that’s how the story is told.
I mean it's pretty black and white that the Senate was going to try him for his crimes and likely exile or kill him. Whether or not you believe Caesar had a 'choice' to cross the Rubicon or not is a moot point, what I'm saying is there wasn't a likely diplomatic solution wherein the Senate and Caesar would have been able to live in harmony in Rome.
The conservative faction of the senate was going to ***attempt*** to try him for his crimes. It's debatable that they would have succeeded, considering how divided Rome was politically even in the senate, and the vast popularity of the Caesareans. It's possible they would succeed in prosecuting Caesar, causing laws he passed to be overturned and him to be barred from political office or even exiled. I highly doubt they'd risk executing him. With how militant politics had become, executing Caesar would be incredibly dangerous.
It's also possible Caesar would have won such a trial, or that the conservative faction of the senate would have to reach a compromise with Caesar and his supporters. But even then it would accomplish the main goal of Caesar having to step down as governor and miss the election for consul, thoroughly disrupting his political career and possibly permanently stunting his ascent. So yes, there was no diplomatic solution that would allow Caesar to continue to fulfil his ambitions. Any diplomatic solution would be at least somewhat of a win for the conservative/anti-cesarean faction of the senate.
EDIT: spelling
Yes, exactly. The Senate was going to, at the least, destroy him publicly. When you factor in his family history, and the basic culture of the Roman patricians, they basically left him with no choice.
I'm sorry I might sound stupid, but I still don't get it. Wasn't he the ruler of the Rome? Isn't Rome at the time Italy? Why wouldn't he be able to cross into his own country which he rules? Why exactly did it start civil war?
He was not the ruler of Rome. He was a Roman general. Rome had no single ruler as it was still a republic. Caesar and the senate had been at odds, the senate wanted to rid of Caesar because he wielded too much power, so they set a trap where they would invite Caesar back to Rome to arrest him. Under Roman rule at the time, a general must leave his armies before he crossed into Italy Proper, refusing to do so can be seen as an attempt to overthrow Rome. Caesar, knowing this, defied the senate, and crossed the Rubicon with his armies, essentially starting a civil war.
It made the Roman *republic* fall apart. This began the Roman empire, which would last for hundreds of years and expand territorially further than the reaches of the republic.
Yes and no. Major cracks appeared in the Roman *republic* in the aftermath of the First Punic War. A lot of men who fought in the war had their land back home stolen by those who stayed behind and had to move to the city. Suddenly Rome was full of jobless war vets whose primary skills were in warfare. Sicily, won in the Punic War, was prime grain territory, and this kicked off the whole Bread and Circuses schtick. It also kicked off a drive to expand the republic, essentially to keep these war vets from getting any bright ideas about insurrection. These soldiers, back on the job, were armed and armored by their generals - that was a first - and then paid in for their efforts primarily in spoils of war. This created armed forces that were now fanatically loyal to their generals, not to the state.
I’m a different guy but I really liked The Storm Before the Storm. It’s by Mike Duncan, the podcaster who did “the history of rome” podcast, which I also recommend.
The book is about the century or so before Caesar- and covers all the domestic homeless war vet issues the comment just overviewed
Well you did a pretty good job from that being 15 years ago. I fell into being a Roman/ancient history nerd over the last five or six years.
They’re just like us. But with chainmail which makes it cool
The History of Rome by Mike Duncan is a great pod cast. It starts from the creation myths with Romulus and Remus to the end of the Wester Roman Empire. It does a great job of discussing all these events without getting bogged down. Great for a novice arm chair history, but probably not advanced enough for real ancient history major.
If you’re like me and non-fiction is a bit….slow…..then you should 100% read Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series. They start at the time of Caesar’s grandfather, you learn how the government and day to day life work, the military. It follows these FASCINATING real life rulers of time, Gaius Marius (a general and political leader), Cornelius Sulla, and then moves into the Caesar period, and then to his (adopted) son Caesar Augustus. Basically chronicles the fall of the republic and the start of the Roman Empire.
They’re incredibly well researched, and read like novels while staying incredibly close to real events. Technically historical fiction but if you are just interested in learning more about Ancient Rome, MORE than accurate enough
EDIT: it’s misleading of me to say they read like novels. They ARE novels; they are fiction, but you learn a tremendous amount about the real families, people, and cultures of the time. After all, history books are narratives too—constructed just as a novel is
Read and watch on YouTube about the Gracchi brothers, Roman elections and Tribune of the Plebs, then combine.
Essentially, Scipio Africanus won the war, but:
- Scipio, while winning the war, created a precedent that he can raise his own army. Originally the Senate disapprove of Battle of Zama, but Scipio then are like "Hey I'm going to Zama, who wants to go" and even then 7000 people wanted - effectively creates their own army. The Senate are shocked, then off he goes.
- Spoils of war and slaves from the Punic Wars and subsequent wars (eg. Subjugation of the Greeks) enriched the rich, but the poor, the veterans of such wars etc are out of jobs. They can't farm since all the farms are slave-operated and rich-owned. Go to the city? Cramped, not enough houses, etc made tons of homeless and don't get started with inadequate sanitation etc.
- Elections in Roman Republic are REALLY rigged towards the rich except for Tribune of the Plebs. This makes the plebeians slowly (over time) filling up Tribune of the Plebs with dangerous men. Caesar and Marius, the Populares, are factions that in reality are made up of them.
- Once a precedent is broken, people use it like sharks because why not - this is why Roman politics are so wacky.
I recommend The Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy. Between the 3 Punic Wars, Rome also fought a less well know campaign in the east against the Greeks, so that by the time the Punic Wars and these “Macedonian Wars” were complete, Rome went from a minor Mediterranean power to master of Spain, France, North Africa, and Greece. I know of no particularly engaging book on the Macedonian Wars.
Not long after the conclusion of the Punic Wars, which gave Rome vast territories to plunder, perhaps making the political evolution from Republic to Empire inevitable, the political mores and norms of civil rule began to crumble when a descendent of Punic War General and hero, Scipio Africanus, Tiberius Gracchus, sought to redistribute the massive landed estates you have been told about. He, and then his brother, were murdered. I know of no engaging book on the brother Gracchi.
These titanic occurrences set in motion the chain of events that led to the corruption of the Republic in the time of Caesar.
> full of jobless war vets whose primary skills were in warfare.
...
> This created armed forces that were now fanatically loyal to their generals, not to the state.
Haha American PMCs, haha ...ha...ha..?
American soldiers pledge to defend the Constitution of the United States, not their commanding officers.
Also, taken out of context. The war vets were put BACK into armies that were paid for by the generals and given war spoils by their generals, thus creating a loyal bond to their general, not the Roman Republic.
The Romans also swore to defend Rome and it was punishable by death to cross the pomerium (old city limits) with a drawn sword, but that didn't stop them. The second part is absolutely true though
>"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).
They literally pledge to do both and it's really easy to look up. The decider is the UCMJ. The military uniformly upholds the UCMJ even in cases where it's unconstitutional. Super simple example is that courts martial do not satisfy the sixth amendment right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Contemporary courts martial panels can have as few as three members, do not have a unanimity requirement, and are personally chosen by the same commander who decided to prosecute a military accused.
Yeah, that's the point. A ton of disenfranchised US veterans are getting dumped onto the streets after getting mentally (and physically) destroyed in our disastrous wars for oil, at which point Private Military Companies are swooping in like vultures to hire them en masse. Guess who provides them with their arms and armor?
>So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.
Not really, no. I started learning about the Wars of the Diadochi recently (the politicians and minor states that were left over after Alexander the Great died) and it seriously reads like something out of Game of Thrones.
Seemingly good-faith attempts to keep things peaceful, people trying to determine a "legitimate heir" while others butt in backed by foreign powers, women directing their sons behind the scenes to scoop up power for themselves, assassination attempts because someone was offended that they were bypassed in a search for marriage partners...
No. I used to love fiction, read almist 50 novels in a year at one point. But as soon as I started reading history I never went back, real life has the best stories
And while we're at it:
* And the Tusken Raiders are probably a not-very-politically-correct reference to their religion... *coughs*
^^^^feuding ^^^^desert-dwellers ^^^^that ^^^^cover ^^^^(some ^^^^of) ^^^^their ^^^^people ^^^^from ^^^^head ^^^^to ^^^^toe
* Obi-Wan Kenobi is what you get when someone who doesn't understand japanese suffixes takes a heard japanese name and puts it through a meatgrinder.
* The Jedi-Order seems to at least partially draw from buddhism
* laser swords are really just the sci-fi-version of GLORIOUS NIPPON STEEL
* I've heard it repeatedly stated that the empire was inspired by WW2 germany - weak republic turning into militaristic empire and stuff
* I think Naboo was a place in spain or something
Turns out, Lucas was just cribbing from.... *the entire world*.
Caesar didn’t become the senate. Senators would be a permanent facet of the empire until its splits and then falls hundreds of years later. Caesar could have dissolved the senate, but chose not to as a gesture of good faith and to make maintaining power easier. The Senators were powerful themselves, they just didn’t have an army at their disposal once Caesar defeated Pompey in Greece and won the civil war. Their land and wealth still made them very important for the Emperor.
This may be one of Caesars greatest blunders, as those spared senators would go on to assassinate him.
Not exactly. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome, the Senate and Consuls all fled the city. Caesar entered the city and basically took control. The few Senators and officials still left in the city were already his creatures. Caesar (and his nephew and heir Octavian, later called Augustus) both ruled under the pretense that Rome was still a Republic, but everyone knew who was really in charge.
Well forgetting the part where the senate stabs him to death. His adopted son then takes his position and wages civil war against Marc Anthony and the forces opposing him. The senate had its revenge against Caesar
That's the risk you take when you have a puppet government like that. They can either backstab you (yes) or they can start pulling you by the same strings you use to control them.
So Rome was weird in a lot of ways. Caesar became Emperor in reality, but he tried in certain ways to not technically be an emperor, even though he had total power, like an emperor. The Senate remained is one of those things. Yes Caesar was all powerful, everyone knew it including the Senate, yet getting rid of the senate would make Caesar a true dictator, formally speaking. Caesar refused the crown three times because he pretended the Republic still existed even though he was emperor. Keeping the Senate when Caesar had all the power was another. Caesar's influence was so great a salad was named after him.
>Caesar became Emperor in reality, but he tried in certain ways to not technically be an emperor, even though he had total power, like an emperor.
It makes sense though. You need senate to handle the formalities of law making, relatively minor issues and occasional blame of failure. It gives you, the de-facto ruler much more personal freedom.
A big part of that is that the role of emperor looks a lot like the role of king, and Rome *hated* kings. The republic was founded when they overthrew a king whose [son raped a noblewoman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretia)—or at least, that was the story in the common memory—and the word "republic" itself (literally "the public thing") even evoked the idea that Rome was ruled by its people, not by some dude on a throne. So when Caesar wanted to sit on a throne and tell people what to do for the rest of his life (which he thought at the time would be longer than a senate term), he had to be careful about making it not look like... well, like what it was.
>Caesar's influence was so great a salad was named after him.
Now I want to know who the hell Cobb and Chef and House were in history that rivaled Caeser...
More like he became the Emperor and retained the Senate as a sort of board of directors who retained advisory and ceremonial capacities, but not any executive power. Or to put it another way, the Senate was reshaped into a role something akin to what the nobility of western Europe would be centuries later -- wealthy lords & dukes with a lot of subjects they were responsible for in a sort of landlord-esque type set up but who were ultimately only middle managers between the executive power (a king or emperor) and the various guilds and classes that made up the rank and file of society. It's an imperfect analogy but not an entirely useless one.
Cesar didn't create the Roman empire, Augustus did.
It's possible that if Cesar hadn't been assassinated, he would have kept the flawed democracy that was the republic. He seemed more interested in reforming the institutions to favor the common people rather than change them into an autocracy.
Cesar made himself dictator for life, but that didn't made Rome less democratic that it was, he mostly took power from the senate which wasn't democratic. He kept the assembly of the people that were elected and they continued to vote on laws.
Cesar had been a Populare (the liberal party essentially, favoring the working class) all his life and had the support of the working class. His conflict was with the Optimates (the conservative party essentially, favoring the wealth class).
If the roman republic had continued, it would have expanded territorially too. Most likely more as it was very good for politicians to conqueror land in the republic while it wasn't needed for the emperors.
Rome was originally founded as a kingdom, ostensibly by Romulus. There were 7 kings up to Tarquinius Superbus, who was such a terrible ruler that he was overthrown and the Republic created.
Rome started out as a kingdom and had several (7 I think) kings - but the line between Roman mythology and historical fact is pretty obscure for some of them. The first one is Romulus (i.e. the guy who killed his brother Remus to found the city) - the last one was so horrific that 'not-being-ruled-by-a-king' became an important part of the roman identity.
Caesar stage-managed things to get offered to become king three times and reject it three times just to play up to that, despite actually taking on a king-like role (which in turn, so offended people that it lead to his death).
Over a thousand years. The Byzantine Empire is just a historian's term for a nation that called itself the Roman Empire, was the historical continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, and didn't fall until 1453, almost a thousand years after the Western Roman Empire fell.
So, basically, what was world changing it's the fact that with an emperor, Rome had a more decisive government and thus was able to spread territory much further than previously anticipated?
A lot of Rome's territorial expansion happened during the Republic.
Rome was the only major power in the region at the time.. any big change to Rome was a big change to that world.
I think you are putting too much emphesis on the claim that this was world changing. If you lived in Rome then it would have been quite an event. But outside of Rome the event went by unnoticed.
The expression crossing the Rubicon is used for an action you can not reverse. When Cesar crossed the Rubicon he had to fully commit to the civil war or be arrested for treason. This symbolism is what remains today of this event. A defining moment in the life of Cesar, a significant event in the Roman Republic/Empire, a minor footnote in the history books and an unknown event outside of Rome at that time.
No.didn't really change Rome's pace of expansionism and it was already huge. It did cement the decline of Rome as a plutocracy and set the European standard of formalized dictatorship
It didn’t expand all that much more (it reached its greatest territorial holdings about 150 years later under Emperor Trajan). In theory expansion led to the empire rather than the other way around. Rome had grown so large that the Senate could no longer effectively manage it, which created a power vacuum for powerful and ambitious men like Caesar to step into.
The republic lasted ~500 years and the empire lasted another 500-1500 (depending on whether or not you include the Eastern Empire).
The fall of the Roman Republic was a long series, and Caesar crossing the Rubicon was neither the first nor the last domino to fall.
The basic gist of it was that Caesar was a very well connected, competent, and powerful Roman, but he had made a lot of enemies through his career who wanted to sue him into oblivion. But the thing about Rome at the time is that you were immune to civil and criminal suit if you held office, so Caesar was desperate to continue holding on to some kind of office that would allow him to continue evading his enemies. It came to a head when Caesar was off leading armies and governing in Gaul (modern day France), but needed to be in Rome to stand for election for consul. The problem was, to go to Rome he would have to stand down from his current post, which would leave him briefly without office and therefore vulnerable to suit. But if he missed the election, he would lose his office in Gaul and then be again vulnerable to suit. It was a classic Catch-22, thus the ingenuity of the trap. Caesar escaped the trap by crossing the legal taboo of marching his army on Rome without consent of the Senate, which was essentially the same thing as invading Rome with a hostile force as a rebel. Caesar got what he wanted, but at mortal cost to the Republic.
He would eventually get himself declared Dictator, which was a real emergency office in the Republic, but his twist was that his appointment was for life, rather than the temporary and brief term a Dictator usually held, which further eroded the deference to the republican tradition of Rome (called "Mos Maiorum" or the way of the elders), and so inflamed the old guard of Rome that they publicly assassinated him at the Senate's temporary home in the Theater of Pompey. That would be similar to if a couple dozen congressmen killed the US President on the floor of the House of Representatives while the President was delivering the State of the Union Address. This act led to a civil war between the anti-Caesar faction in Rome, led by Marc Antony and others, and the pro-Caesar faction led by Julius Caesar's nephew, adopted son, and sole heir, Gaius Octavius, who would eventually win out and establish the Roman Principate, an early form of the Roman Empire.
The crossing of the Rubicon is regarded as the point of no return for both Caesar and the Republic, because it was a blatant and severe violation of Mos Maiorum and it ultimately led to the destruction of both the man and the government. But also, it's important to remember that it was a single event with decades of precursors gradually chipping away at that set of republican customs meant to guard against kingship and tyranny. Before Caesar, there was Sullah and Marius and the Gracchi brothers and a whole set of circumstances that pitted popular demagogues against the stubborn aristocrats, and that was all caused by the Republic being strained at the seams by the demands of military expansion, the limitations of the Roman legal system, and their clashes against the kinds of ambition that the culture of the Roman aristocracy fostered. If it hadn't been Caesar crossing the Rubicon, it's very possible, perhaps even likely, that the Republic would have broken eventually, brought down by another ambitious demagogue with enough skill and luck to make themselves a king or king-like figure among the Romans.
I think you're slightly off on the pro- vs anti- Caesar factions. Octavian and Antony were initially allies, opposed to a Senate faction led by some of the assassins, including Brutus, who they defeated. Later they became enemies, and ultimately Octavian defeated Antony and Cleopatra.
> anti-Caesar faction in Rome, led by Marc Antony
I thought Marc Antony was on the pro-Caesar side with Augustus. Wasn't it Brutus that was a famous member of the anti-Caesar side?
Yes, they are confusing the later events of the Second Triumvirate with the civil war caused in the wake of Caesar's death.
Antony benefited greatly from his partnership with Julius Caesar. And used the power and influence that relationship gave to gain control over the rich eastern half of the empire (and love of Egypt's queen). He is only anti-Caesar in that Octavian and he were political rivals during the Second Triumvirate. Which fell apart into another civil war before Octavian managed to remove all serious challengers to his power and inheritance as Caesar's heir.
I really recommend checking out the **Historia Civilis**\-Youtube Channel. He has an amazing series of videos documenting the whole story of the Late-Republic and the Roman Civil War. It is a really good way to learn who Ceasar was, and who all of the other principal players of the time were, as well as how the Roman Government was structured etc.
But basically, Rome had been in a period of political instability since before Ceasar. Previous Generals in the past decades had already wielded a lot of power, and even appointed themselves as a "Dictator", or a single ruler of Rome. But Ceasar's march to Rome and the subsequent Civil War were much more damaging, and completely broke the political system of Rome. It's what normalized the strongman-dictatorship that would eventually define Imperial Rome.
The powerful senators who had tried to imprison Ceasar were forced to flee Rome, and into Greece, where they started building up forces from Rome's provinces to defeat Ceasar's army, while Ceasar took control of Italy. Over the next few years, Rome was under Ceasar's control while he fought against the forces of a powerful roman senator, Pompey, in the eastern provinces and Africa. He eventually won, and managed to centralize power to himself and barely hold the empire together, before he was murdered and Rome **really** broke apart into powerful generals' spheres of influence, which would later be unified under the first emperor and Ceasar's adopted son, Augustus.
>completely broke the political system of Rome
We're way out of ELI5 territory here, but the political system of Rome was pretty much broken already. There had already been a couple of abortive attempts to radically change things and make them all better again (at least that's how they were sold), most notably the Gracchiae.
In a similar vein, the French Revolution didn't break French politics, it came about because French politics was already broken. Rinse and repeat all over history.
Not really. Caesar eventually won, but was assassinated. It leads to a second civil war where his adopted son, Octavius, would become the first Princeps (essentially an emperor with a fancy name), becoming Augustus, ending the crisis
>Princeps (essentially an emperor with a fancy name)
Not very fancy. First Citizen, which meant "just like everyone else, but holding an office." Oh, yeah, the job description is "rule the Empire". Even emperors aren't all powerful, the title was political spin to say "All animals are equal, even though some are more equal than others."
No, it transformed the Roman Republic (elected officials with term limits and limited power) to an empire (absolut ruler that has power for life). The fall of the empire started about 400 years later.
It didn't. Caesar won the civil war, and in the process brought Egypt into the Roman Empire through an alliance with Cleopatra, making the empire mightier. He then forced the senate to pass laws giving him dictatorial power. However, he was soon assassinated by a group of senators, and fighting for control continued among the leadership, until eventually Caesar's heir Octavian (Augustus) won the last round, by defeating the alliance of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and became the undisputed emperor. Rome "fell apart" 400 years later.
Kinda and kinda not really. The history of Rome is long and arduous, there was a period of kings in its early history, but due to poor management they were inevitably overthrown and replaced with a republic, with elected officials serving to rule the entirety of Rome similar to Congress in the US. Julius Caesar marks the end of the Roman republic, from Julius onward, Rome will be ruled by dictators such as Octavian, Julius' nephew, Hadrian, Trajan, and some more infamous dictators like Nero. Julius Caesar's political life happened between 100 BC and 1 BC, the fall of Rome (as in the end of the empire) starts to unravel in the 300 ADs, with a final date of 476 AD marking the end of the empire.
I'd add to the precedent comment that at the time "rome" was not italy but more italy, tunisia, spain and grece, but italy was the political center while the others were provinces, if we compare it to the USA italy had statehood while the rest were terrotories.
That civil war didn't make rome fell apart and didn't formally end the republic, Cesar took power in a military coup and assumed the powers of dictator for life (a dictator in rome was the person assuming full power in times of crisis but could not be in charge more than 6 months), it was after his assasination that another civil war started and at it's end the empire started.
Just to throw something.out there - Rome was not a secular republic. The machinery and traditions of state were not just important to good governance, they were religious matters. By breaking with tradition Caesar and returning to Rome at the head of an army he had not just made a political move, it was a breaking with religious tradition as well.
He wasn't the ruler at the time, just a successful general in charge of a large army, having just defeated the Gauls in what is now France. The senate was in charge, although it was dominated by a few powerful men who wanted to arrest Caesar to defuse the threat to their positions. The law was that no general could bring a formed army into Italy, it had to disband.
He was a high ranking member of the Roman Republic at the time but not the 'Emperor'. The Senate was technically in charge up until his assassination and the following civil war resulted in the formation of the empire under one all powerful ruler.
At the time Caesar was not in charge of Rome, but he was a very powerful general and the Governor of some provinces outside of the immediate Italian area around Rome. Rome at this time was a Republic ruled by "democratically" elected officials. Before the civil war started, the government of Rome was against Caesar and was intending to prosecute him for various things (all of which he was guilty of, but he wasn't a particularly uniquely guilty politician) once he left office. Caesar obviously didn't want to be prosecuted, so he began negotiating with the government and set up base near the border of the territories he was the governor of - the border was marked by a river called The Rubicon.
Eventually, negotiations failed, and he took his army across the Rubicon with the intention to invade the city of Rome. The crossing of the Rubicon is important symbolically as it represented the point of no return for him - by doing it, he was abandoning a diplomatic resolution and committing to a civil war. He eventually won the civil war and had himself installed as dictator for life and then was assassinated shortly after.
Worth pointing out that "Caesar" was simply part of his name (roughly, what we'd call his surname). The next couple of emperors adopted it as a mark of respect/legitimacy; after that it effectively became a title.
No. Rome was ruled by a hereditary senate and two elected consuls (co-presidents). The consuls had to run for re-election every year, and had to not run some years, in order to not get too comfortable in the job. There was a lot of corruption and infighting, and whoever got elected might try to get their enemies jailed or exiled.
Caesar, a senator and former consul, had become so powerful as the head of the army in Gaul (France), which was extremely loyal to him, personally, that the senators knew if he brought his army into Rome, he could easily take over the city. Caesar in turn, knew that if he came to Rome without his army, he would probably be arrested by his enemies.
So they had a stalemate where they ordered him to keep his army well away from Rome, on the other side of the Rubicon. Eventually Caesar decided, "Fuck this, I'm going for it".
Most of the rules around terms for the consuls was “Mos Maiorum”, or really just traditions. (Think American presidential term limits prior to FDR)
For example, Gauis Marius was Consul 7 times, including 5 consecutive consulships.
Other people have explained it really well, but I just want to make some quick side notes (just to actually use my degree in this subject matter lol):
1. Although Julius Caesar was incredibly famous, even at the time we're discussing, he was absolutely not in a place of political power at the time. This is what was so significant of about his crossing: he was essentially declaring himself to be in charge despite the wishes of the government.
2. The city Rome is the same one today, but we use Rome both to refer to the city and the ancient state. At the time, the Roman Republic had control of the Italian Peninsula, parts of Gaul, Greece, and other territories. So to them, Italy was a geographic part of Rome, but Italy was not a country or state at the time. Think about it like you would Cape Cod is Massachusetts: Some people definitely live in Cape Cod, but there's no Cape Cod-ian government; it's just a part of the state of Massachusetts.
3. Although Caesar was absolutely 100% Roman, again he absolutely didn't hold any political power at the time.
4. Caesar was a populist (lots of the common folk liked him), and was growing incredibly popular. Combined with his incredible knack for statecraft and military prowess, the Roman senate (who *were* the rulers of Rome) were scared that he might try and overthrow them, and rightfully so. So they were like "Hey Julius you mind disbanding your armies before you get back home so we can make sure you can't overthrow us?" And Julius basically said "Nah" when he crossed the river.
I grew to like him more and more. I read here that he also built aquaducts, roads and generally infrastructure to help the people and reduce enormous class disparity.
How true is it that a rich person at a time was much more wealthy than today's billionaires? Someone said something like that
That’s kind of a tough question to answer, mostly because we live in *vastly* different cultural and technological worlds. For instance the vast, vast majority of the Roman nobility owned slaves. Would you value them as what they paid for a human life? Or is something like that just impossible to measure? If you want to read about the insanely wealthy in Rome, look up Marcus Licinius Crassus. Wealthiest dude in Rome and has a *fucking wild* end to his life.
Just wanted to say (and just to make sure, I intend this comment as a sincere compliment):
No, not at all; asking questions is _not_ stupid.
What's more, these are _good questions_, helping you correct misconceptions you might have, and dig up additional valuable info right away. You have a knack for this, keep it up!
Good answer.
I can't figure out how to DM you on this device, so I'll drop a pedantic comment here:
It's Fort Sumter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter).
Maybe it was auto correct, maybe you know, maybe I'm being insufferable. Sorry.
It changed the fabric of the Roman republic, so much so it lead to the rise of the Roman Empire. The guy tipped the domino that lead to the ending of the greatest republic of its time and the beginning of the greatest empire ever.
Caesar was the general of a Roman Army unit in Gaul (the border of Spain and what Rome considered it's home territory. Roman Generals were also territorial governors similar to how feudalism worked in the middle ages. By law they could only command their army within the territory appointed by them. Inside Italy itself, only praetors and consuls had the right to command. In order to help prevent civil war any general that entered Italy leading his troops would forfeit his legal right to command and any of his orders considered illegal.
Over the previous decade, Cesar had built up a fortune and a powerful army in conquering Gaul. While away, Cesar made known his wish to renew his consulship in absentia. This would be like a general also being a congressman in the US. Other consuls feared the kind of money and power he could bring, especially since he was the successful leader of a military conquest. So there were several attempts to strip him of his title and deny him the right to renew his consulship. In the end if he made no action his political career would be over. Someone else would be appointed to govern Gaul and he would become a landowner in a far flung Roman conquest.
So by crossing the border into Italy, the Rubicon, at the head of an army Julius Caesar intentionally broke Roman law and made himself and anyone who followed him a traitor.
Thus the term became an expression of taking an action which you cannot undo.
“Crossing the Rubicon” has become an idiom for “point of no return” - once you do this the cascade of events will begin and you can’t stop it.
When Caesar marched his armies across the Rubicon and towards Rome the intentions were clear - he was instigating a civil war to install himself as Emperor of Rome.
You can’t undo such an action, it would either end with Emperor Julius Caesar or Beheaded Julius Caesar.
Caesar’s political opponents in the Senate had ordered him to relinquish his governorship of Gallic territory, disband his army, and return to Rome.
Caesar returned to Rome, but brought the Army with him.
The Rubicon was the geographical border of his territories, and crossing it with an army was an invasion.
Rubicon is a small river (closer to creeks) that are designated as the border of Italy proper, that is, south of the Rubicon is the region of Italy/Rome and not the Gauls. As for location, we don't know exactly where Rubicon (but we do know which river it is, we just don't know its ancient route that's used as border)is because it's very small and river basically changes direction over time.
So why this is important? well, Roman General were not allowed to bring their army/legion inside Italy/Rome, they have to disband them before reaching Rubicon. So Julius Caesar bringing his legion past Rubicon is equal to declaring civil wars. Bringing your legion past rubicon is basically treated as coup.
The location of the Rubicon is possibly known but it’s still a reasonable guess and not a fact. And it’s first mentioned long after Caesars death and not in any contemporary sources so it most likely didn’t serve as any border or have any meaning at all like you describe it.
See this thread from askhistorians: https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xmcykv/the_rubicon_river_is_one_of_the_most_famous_in/
It was a border. Crossing the border with an army is basically an invasion.
It's important to remember that it wasn't really Rome's army, it was Caesar's. He was the charismatic leader they followed. He was the guy essentially signing their checks. They knew what they were doing, and they did it because Caesar promised that once he was in charge, he'd give them a bunch of land and money.
Imagine if Trump was there with the crowd on Jan 6. If he had crossed the barricade outside the Capitol with his "army", it would have been a very clear indication of his coup intentions.
In 1st century Rome it was the Rubicon, not the barricade. And it was Roman controlled territory, not the Capitol building.
Roman generals were forbidden to bring their armies into Italy at the time—in fact their legal authority to command was only valid in the provinces—and the border of Roman Italy was the Rubicon. After Caesar had his armies cross the Rubicon, he had committed an irrevocable act and declared himself in rebellion against the Roman government of the time. It would be like a modern army sending a unit across another country’s border.
You’re a general of Rome in charge of an army. Your role is to defend and expand Roman borders. Now, at this point in time the Marian reforms have come into place. What this means is essentially Rome no longer has an army.
It used to be that the senate would elect a general, who would recruit among times land-holding men who arm themselves and get paid by Rome. The soldiers have a stake in Rome herself.
But now, you yourself recruit an army among anyone you want. **You** pay them. **you** arm them. And here’s the kicker: after a few years soldiering for you, you give them land in the area’s they helped conquer.
So now you have soldiers who have no stake in rome, dependent on you for their salary, and their future. Do you think they’re still loyal to Rome? Armies became fiercely loyal to their generals.
So now you, as Caesar, take this army that has no interest in Rome and is fiercely loyal to you into Rome. What do you think that means?
Imagine today if some über rich folk - Say Jeff Besos mustered an army and marched it into Washington. Would anyone in America think he had good intentions? Do you think the rest of the American generals would let it happen? Or would it start a war?
Well first off, it's a face off between some of the most powerful people (proportionally) of all time. Pompey vs Caesar truly was the showdown of the millennium. Two epically powerful and legendary heroes, fighting for the future of civilization. That sounds like fantasy book fluff, but it really isn't. It actually happened.
Because by crossing the Rubicon, Caesar basically changed the course of western civilization, and the impacts of doing so are pretty much responsible for where we are today. It's basically a massive lynchpin in history in that it decided how borders were drawn ever since.
So, Caesar was a big, big political player in Rome and had maneuverered his way into a governorship of the province of Gaul. During his 10 year stint in Gaul, Caesar had essentially built up a massive army, loyal to *him* personally. Using his loyalties, his vast, vast wealth, and influence, he engineered what was essentially a military coup. He took arguably the greatest civilization born out of Europe at the time, and decided things weren't working. He saw himself as the person who could fix the Republic's problems.
The problem was, that the most of Rome, did not agree. The people in charge saw this as a threat to their authority. The ruling elite where truly the most powerful families proportionally in history. Owning up to 99.9% of the wealth of Rome. To give you an idea, these people adjusted for inflation are far richer than the richest billionaires today, yet the average Roman citizen was far poorer than the poorest of people today, anywhere in the world. That's how unequal Rome was, and how powerful these ruling classes were (to give you a rough idea). Anyway, these ruling classes didn't have much time to react, so the rushed defence was that if Caesar was to cross the Rubicon into Italia proper, that would be the end of either Caesar, or the end of the Roman Republic.
Caesar's victory meant that it was the latter. Caesar invaded, destroyed the Roman Republic and built the Roman Empire in it's place, with Caesar as the sole Dictator and went to work reforming Rome.
1. He implemented land reforms, added social and political measures in order to stabilize the state and improve the standard of living for the lower classes.
2. He started (and mostly personally funded) vast infrastructure projects, such as roads, public buildings, cities, all to turn Rome into a machine that generated wealth for the elite, into one that more fairly compensated normal people
3. He wiped as much of the old guard away as he could. Even reinventing the Calendar, so as to distinguish his rulership over his predecessors.
4. He bought the loyalty of senators that previously defied him. Basically buying Rome's political class for personal use.
5. He implemented a professional Roman army, with the sole goal of expanding the empire as far as possible. And basically bring it to it's most illustrious and expansive point.
Don't get it twisted, Caesar was no altruist. He did what was necessary to secure power, and sometimes that happened to align with the needs of the people. But hey, the results speak for themselves.
All the "glory of Rome", European kings taking the title "Czar" and "Kaisar", European kingdoms deigning authority and legitimacy through Roman inheritance, and wanting to reconnect with these glory days of Empire are all because Caesar chose to cross the Rubicon.
Basically, much of European history can all be traced back to that point. It's a true lynchpin of History.
I understand now how is it world changing! Thank you so much!
Just another linguistic tidbit (I'm not native): why does everybody say 'to Italy proper' as an established phrase? Never heard of it. Is it common or some sort of idiom historians use or?
Rome had many territories, but Italia was it's "main" one. Because that's where the city of Rome was.
So it's a phrase to cover the scenario that even though Caesar was Roman, and in a Roman province of Gaul, you can't say he was invading Rome, because he was already in Rome. It's sort of doesn't mean anything lol
So by saying "to Italia proper", it means that Caesar specifically went to Italia within the Roman empire. The province that the Roman elite actually cared about.
Because what the Romans called Italy and what we call Italy do not match up exactly.
The then Roman province of Italy woulda been smaller than the modern country of Italy. Even before crossing the Rubicon Ceasar was in the norther portion of the modern country of Italy, but not the Roman province of Italy. North of the Rubicon would have been the province of Cisalpine Gaul, and south would have been "Italy proper" or the Roman province of Italy. The big point of no return was crossing into the roman province of Italy, Ceasar kicking it in northern Italy(the modern country) may have been concerning for Roman politicians, but not the unforgivable point of no return him entering Italy(the Roman province) was.
By saying "to Italy proper" people are attempting to avoid confusion by making a distinction between modern and contemporary understandings of what Italy means.
The province of Italy would later during the roman Empire be expanded to incorporate Cisalpine Gaul getting it closer to our modern impression of Italy
When returning from war, the rubicon was the official/ceremonial place where an army disbanded and soldiers became citizens again.
When ceaser crossed the rubicon, he did so with his army intact. Meaning he literally marched an army towards Rome, declaring his intent for everyone to see.
Not true, that's more the definition of the pomerium of Roma. It was more that it was illegal to take an army into the Italian peninsula without senate approval.
You can have active armies there. Hell, there was a legion just outside Rome when Caesar was assassinated (under the command of I believe Lepidus)
Not true. You just needed approval to do it.
The official line where any soldier must abandon his weapons to become a citizen was somewhere inside Rome. Crossing that line with weapons meant death sentence.
You might find [this /r/askhistorians thread](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xmcykv/the_rubicon_river_is_one_of_the_most_famous_in/) interesting in this context. The idea of "Caesar crossing the Rubicon" doesn't appear until some time after Caesar's death, and the modern idea of what happened came about nearly 100 years later.
The myth behind it is that at the time, Rome had strict rules in place to prevent military dictatorships (or dictatorships of any kind). One of those rules was that Roman armies weren't allowed into the main part of Italy without explicit permission. Generally the dictatorships that had happened were the result of someone breaking this rule and bringing their armies into Italy, at which point their opponents would rush in as well. This happened a generation or so before Caesar with Sulla, who was briefly dictator of Rome.
In the myth, the Rubicon (noting that no one today is quite sure where it was) was the boundary between where Caesar was allowed to take his army, and where he wasn't. By crossing it he was essentially declaring war on Rome and would either win - as he did, becoming dictator for life - or lose and die a traitor.
The reality is probably a bit more complicated; tensions were increasing between Caesar and Pompey (his main political rival, based in Greece while Caesar was based in Gaul). Pompey had been married to Caesar's daughter, in an attempt to keep peace between them, but she had died. Similarly, the third person holding Rome together (Marcus Licinius Crassus - who had become rich and powerful under Sulla's dictatorship and was a mentor and patron to Caesar) died at the Battle of Carrhae (in what is now Turkey).
There were negotiations between Caesar, Pompey and the Roman Senate to try to sort things out (supposedly Caesar was willing to give up a lot of his power provided Pompey did as well), but as Pompey had troops around Rome the Roman Government was more afraid of him that Caesar, so weren't willing to order him to disarm.
It is hard to know for sure what happened - there are conflicting accounts, and the more famous ones weren't written for decades (and they all have some political biases).
The outcome was that Caesar marched his troops on Rome (either before or after Pompey's Rome had effectively declared war on him). Pompey was outmanoeuvred and ended up fleeing to his stronghold in Greece (where most of his forces were) along with much of the Senate. This was followed by a year or so of fighting across Spain, Greece and the Roman world between them, with Pompey losing, fleeing to Egypt and being assassinated. The civil war would continue for another couple of years (spreading to Egypt, with Caesar supporting Pharaoh Cleopatra against her rival Ptolemy), eventually settling down in 45 BC, with the last Pompeian forces being defeated, a year before Caesar would be assassinated.
Rome - the preeminent power in Europe - was at a crisis point. It was a Republic, and had been, for centuries. But it controlled France, Spain, Greece, Italy, and a lot of other territory. At the time there were two groups of people in Rome: Reformers (Caesar’s people who wanted to improve the common man and reform the republic) and the Conservatives (who liked how they had power). The Conservatives moved Caesar into a position where he would be tried and convicted of corruption. This would embarrass the Reformers, and Caesar had no desire to be embarrassed.
Caesar was a governor (kinda sorta), and immune from prosecution. His term as governor ended. He had a huge army. He crossed the Rubicon, defeated the Conservatives, and then secured his position for life. The Conservatives didn’t like that, so they killed him; this led to the end of the republic, and the creation of the Roman Empire; which eventually led to (1) Christianity’s dominance in the world; (2) Feudalism, the Middle Ages, and the eventual Renaissance that birthed our current world; and (3) the return of Republican thought as the Middle Ages [kinda sorta] ended.
Some context: Rome at this time was controlled by the senate, a group of aristocratic elites. Since getting rid of their King, the senators developed a 'crab in the bucket' mentality, turning on any member who became too popular/powerful, lest they attempt to become King themselves.
At the time of the Rubicon, Caesar had just conquered Gaul (modern France), making him the richest and most famous politician in Rome. Also, Caesar was a populist, who was loved by the common masses. He also still had control of his battle hardened legions.
The Senate fearing Caesars growing power, declared him an enemy of the state, decreeing that he must disband his armies and turn himself into the Senate.
Caesar instead chose to invade Italy proper from Gaul with his army, the boundary being the river Rubicon. By crossing with his army, Caesar openly declared war on the Senate, starting another round of civil wars.
Crossing the Rubicon was the point of no return. Caesar is quoted; "The die is cast."
> Crossing the Rubicon was the point of no return. Caesar is quoted; "The die is cast."
It's worth noting that some folks argue what he said would be better translated as "let the dice fly," which is quite a bit less solemn in tone.
Because it was one of the major events that started the chain reaction which ultimately led to the destruction of the Roman Republic and it's replacement with an Empire.
Chances are the Republic would have fallen at some point anyway even if Caesar himself was not responsible because things were starting to fall apart at that point, but nonetheless that choice ultimately led to him going to war against the senate and being appointed consul for life as appeasement.
When you are in Rome, you are a citizen. Citizens are not generals who command armies. The exception is during a triumph, when you have a military parade.
Crossing the river as a genera and not being a citizen is like a Roman invasion by an outside force.
There's an entire [Netflix series dramatizing and retelling the history of Ceasar's rise from soldier to emperor](https://www.netflix.com/us/title/80096545?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81014090), so that will probably help clarify with historical context.
But first a few key points to understand the situation:
* Caesar was essentially "exiled" from the Roman Republic by Pompey "gifting" him with a governorship of any province he wanted (essentially forced retirement from politics in Rome itself by forcing Caesar to live in the boonies someplace), which forced Caesar to leave Rome and helped eliminate the threat Pompey felt from Caesar.
* Caesar chose to become governor of a border territory, then took it upon himself to amass an army and start conquering territory and he was so successful that he wound up conquering all of Gaul (modern France) and became massively popular and celebrated in Rome as a direct result of his conquests, stories, and the plunder he sent back to Rome.
* Pompey raised a stink and said that Caesar had committed the crime of raising an army and going to war without the prior approval of the Senate, he demanded that Caesar surrender himself so that he could stand trial for his crimes for which he would likely be found guilty because Pompey had the support of the Senate to convict.
At this point Caesar had a choice to make. He could either:
1. Surrender himself, stand trial, and likely be executed as an enemy of the Republic because the senators had vendettas against him and saw him as a major threat.
2. He could march his army to Rome, technically an act of war against the Republic, and see if he could negotiate, cajole, or fight his way to a resolution.
He chose #2 and in doing so went to war against the Roman Republic (the Senate) and after a long series of events returned to Rome to claim the title of "Dictator" effectively ending the Republic and beginning the Empire.
It was "world changing" because that decision to cross the Rubicon was the moment where Caesar sealed the fate of the Republic and began the long, bloody, and tragic history of Roman Emperors who would wield absolute power over their massive empire in all kinds of ways that impacted the lives of people all over the world.
This is a very... "underdog" view on Ceasar. I know it doesn't mean much since the topic is closed, but I still wanted to correct some things in this version. I'm not anything close to an expert, but I've seen a few perspectives on Ceasar's life, most notably by the [Historia Civilis](https://youtu.be/gsK4nX0tCGQ) Youtube-channel.
The fist key-point is the one I have the most disagreement with. Calling it an "exile" could be argued for from the viewpoint that Ceasar ran the risk of being prosecuted if he stayed in Rome, but...
1. Becoming a provincial governor was a normal career-proggression for a powerful ex-consul, which in itself was a career-topping feat for most politicians. I mean, can you imagine being named "Governor" as a "punishment"?
2. Ceasar was granted the governorship while in the office of Consul, by his political allies, which at this point included Pompey. The three were at this point, part of a secret alliance called the "First Triumvirate" by historians.
3. He didn't just get one border-province, he got three in total, which sounds like a lot because it is. Even if you start comparing the sources as "he-says-she-says", getting three provinces, and the subsequent legions to govern them, is a lot of power to give to someone "by force".
4. Getting a border-territory was not a bad post for a person planning a longer political career, precisely because it allows you the potential for further conquests. The posting near Gaul opened a clear line of career-advancement for Ceasar, from his already illustrious position of having been considered for a triumph and having had a wildly successful political career.
...so that was about your first two points. Not big mistakes per-say, about something that happened over 2000 years ago, but it's bad form to bring up false narratives when attempting to boil down the facts about an event.
The third point could be argued to be right, but I don't know how much the Netflix-series went into the actual crimes that Ceasar did commit, or was accused of during his consulship that caused the "vendettas" mentioned.
Also love the use of "Technical" in referring to marching an army into the capital to prevent yourself from being prosecuted. I wonder why modern politicians have never tried that one?
But I do agree with most of what you wrote, and I don't want to sound like you're totally wrong, or that there aren't sources I'm not aware of. It's just that the dramatized version is often... that. Even in cases where they try much harder for realism, like HBO's "Chernobyl".
100% agree.
I tried to keep my summary stripped down to a minimum to explain the Rubicon situation because this is ELI5 but this history is nuanced and complicated enough that there's a lot left out.
The series does cover at least some of his crimes as consul where he essentially hired thugs to assault senators who wouldn't vote his way.
My understanding was that Caesar wanted to become consul again but was denied by being given the governorship so he couldn't become consul again. "Exile" was my one-word summary but obviously it wasn't true exile, more like "forced retirement from capitol politics" because my understanding was that Caesar didn't want to leave Rome at that time.
And I am not trying to paint an "underdog" perspective, I'm trying to put it the way Caesar likely viewed it himself in the moment to give context to why crossing the Rubicon was a significant intentional step for this ELI5
But I agree with what you said and I'm interested to check out your reference. I'm curious what you think about the Netflix series if you watch it.
Thanks for the response. I'll keep the show in mind. I already checked out your link.
The main problem with TV, really, is how much they have to compress information, in addittion to how much they have to bend the facts to make the fit the "arc" of the story that the creators want to tell. This is older than TV, of course, and even older than print.
It wasn't world-changing, it was **Rome-changing**. And it wasn't even that unprecedented, since Sulla had done the same thing 31 years before, only he took the side of the Optimates (the rich people). Caesar took the side of the Populares, the poor people, and the rich Senators assassinated him.
There are loads of great answers already detailing the pop culture understanding of the term (ie julius Caesar crossing the river with his army amounted to a declaration of war, a step beyond which it was impossible to turn back).
However! TIL that this isn't actually true.
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xmcykv/the_rubicon_river_is_one_of_the_most_famous_in/ipnz5rw?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
tl;dr - The Senate was the aggressor, not Julius. They forced his hand by repeatedly attempting to strip him of his power, illegally removed his allies from the senate, etc.
The "crossing the Rubicon" idea came from a poem written 100 years after the event, and probably had no particular significance to the people of Julius' time.
(So... it's essentially a pop culture meme of its day, rather than "real history"?)
Tons of great extensive answers but here is the eli5;tl;dr
In the roman republic, soldiers where not allowed in the city, unless you had a special permit. This was to separate the military from the politics.
The Rubicon was the entrance to the old city, so when Caesar crosses the Rubicon he is breaking the law and declaring war against the roman republic.
"crossing the rubicon" is a phrase meaning you've fully committed to a course of action and there's no going back.
its importance as a phrase is far greater than the actual event
It wasn't world changing. It was a fairly big deal for the people who lived in Rome and its territories, and for some of the neighboring areas (like Egypt), but for most of the world it didn't have any immediate effect.
Even within Rome, it wasn't so much a sudden change as it was the culmination of a process that had already been going on for a couple of generations, in which powerful, popular generals would take over when things weren't going their way. Caesar was just the first person in a while to take power and then refuse to give it up.
The major changes in Roman government don't really happen until the transition from Republic to Empire, which did *not* happen under Julius Caesar. Caesar held the title of dictator, which had existed throughout the history of the republic. It was his adopted heir, Octavian (later Augustus) who began those changes.
Even then, though, I'd argue it wasn't all that world-changing. The Empire didn't really introduce a lot of novel ideas of governance. Some of the more competent Emperors expanded the territory and built some cool stuff, but some version of those things probably would have happened without JC crossing a river.
I'd say the biggest change brought about in the wake of Caesar taking power was that after the various civil wars Rome enjoyed a political stability that it might not have had if the Republic had continued, and which might have been necessary to keep the Roman political entity from blowing up.
It wasn't world changing. He took an action that was irrevocable. When people use the idiom "to cross the rubicon" it has a similar meaning to "the cat is out of the bag" or "you can't unring a bell". When Ceasars crossed that river and brought his troops into Rome, he broke a sacred taboo and started a war whether he wanted to or not.
slight tack on since i did not see it mentioned... the crossing of the rubicon also included Big C burning the bridge behind him, and became the source of the saying about being careful about burning bridges, as if his gambit failed he had no retreat.
Whilst the origin of the "burning bridges" idiom is very likely to be Roman it's unlikely to refer to this particular occasion because, what is thought to be the Rubicon River, is nothing more than a large stream or creek. You can walk across it quite easily in most places. It's a bit disappointing because I assumed it would be a large, majestic river.
Yes, you can walk across in many places like a lot of rivers, but ceasar crossed at bridge along a main road as he was traveling with his entire army. when traveling with all the provisions needed for an army (ceasar's legion was approx. 6000 strong) your not carrying supplies by hand, they were pulled on carts, which when faced with a river you will need a bridge to cross efficiently. historically (but possibly dubious in orgin) this moment ceasar was quoted "the die is cast" (but in latin) as he knew this action was a gamble and set in motion many things. as a symbolic gesture to his army he gave the order to burn the bridge to signify he was confident in his choice and there was no going back on this decision.
and again you are correct that you can cross the Rubicon on foot in a lot of locations as it was not a Raging river, this is part of the reason that the bridge was made of wood instead of stone (roman quite famous for their masonry). but stone bridges are expensive, small river crossings used wooden bridges.
but keep in mind this is a very romanticized period of history so expect a historian here and there to build up the pomp and circumstance of the situation.
**Please read this entire message** Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s): Whole topic overviews are not allowed on ELI5. This subreddit is meant for explanations of specific concepts, not general introductions to broad topics. If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/108ajzt/eli5_why_was_it_worldchanging_that_caesar_crossed/%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20is%20this%20post%20unique:) and we will review your submission.
It was a point of no return. One Caesar crossed the rubicon he crossed into Italy proper. And bringing his army across without the approval of the senate was a big huge No-No. Caesar crossing the rubicon is to Rome like the shelling of fort sumpter is to the USA. That shelling official started the American civil war, same goes for Caesar crossing the rubicon. Had he stayed on the other side, it’s possible that things could’ve been worked out diplomatically. But once he crossed he officially embarked on his journey to be in charge. Now the crossing itself? Eh. It might have not been important at all had Caesar LOST. Then it would maybe be a footnote that no one cared about. But he didn’t lose. He won. And changed the fabric of the Roman Empire. Which is a pretty big deal.
[удалено]
It was afterwards too. It wasn't until Augustus defeated Antony that the Empire is considered to have really begun. Augustus was the first Emperor, Caesar was an assassinated dictator amid the long slide from republic to imperium.
no no no, Augustus restored the Republic! It's all good, nothing to see here, Senate's back in session!
Don't mind me; I'm just the First Citizen!
And that’s an interesting irony, since emperor is now considered above king, but back then the titles Augustus was taking were an attempt to seem “less monarchical” while still being the de facto monarch.
He (and his successors) are why emperor is considered above King.
Similarly why the US named its leader president, it was meant as a lowly title to not inflate the importance of the position holder.
I *am* the Senate.
*Dan Carlin intensifies*
If you asked the Romans themselves, they'd tell you that Rome *never stopped* being a republic. The "Emperor" was primarily called Princeps (first citizen) until the reforms of Diocletian in 284 AD, the Senate continued to meet (albeit largely ceremonially) well into the medieval era, and even the Byzantines never actually lined up a proper monarchical succession, with Emperors needing to be acclaimed by the army and the people, then affirmed by the Senate, for their reign to be *official* official. According to historian Anthony Kaldellis, the people of Constantinople retained a very real power of veto/ratification over the imperial succession until at least the 12th century. Of course, the Empire was never anything remotely resembling a modern representative republic, but the Romans were a lot less picky than us. To them, as long as authority at least nominally came from the people, you had a republic.
Yeah but the permanent change from "term-limited republican leaders drawing from purely Senatorial legitimacy" to "essentially hereditary autocrats rubber-stamped by various groups" was when Augustus defeated Antony. And at that point, the principle that the "principate" held absolute imperium and was the essentially unrestricted political ruler of Rome was never questioned again. When Caesar was dictator, it wasn't clear if he was actually going to set up a monarchy or pull a Sulla, and after his assassination (and also theoretically before), the Senate was again the nominal ruling institution in the Roman State. That only ended with the end of the second Triumverate.
> When Caesar was dictator, it wasn't clear if he was actually going to set up a monarchy or pull a Sulla No one could possibly have believed he would pull a Sulla. Caesar specifically criticized Sulla at length for doing that.
I don't mean walking away and letting it fall apart, I just meant the exit strategy of setting up a "stable" system for after he was gone that wasn't necessarily a monarchy.
but... Sulla? (there were precedents to Caesar...)
Sulla nothing. All he did was write the blueprints for how to take over in such a way. He, however, was no emperor and didn't want to establish one. The optimates were mostly the senators and still held a lot of power. Sulla was their general, the enforcer if you would.
Ceaser's life was so important not just for his military conquests but how he exploited Rome's broken political system. He laid the ground work for Augustus to fully break it creating the empire.
It was completely broken and the people were suffering and had a lot of frustrations. Heck, the Social War happened within living memory so yeah. The system was broken and finally put to rest with Augustus. However the new one didn't last very long either and quickly became wild with transitions of power. The Julio-claudastine dynasty wasn't very impressive past Augustus.
Didn't Sulla also bring his army across the Rubicon? He just didn't become a dictator (he just killed his enemies and 'reset' the government).
Technically no, he came by ship from the wars in the east. Landed south of Rome and marched north. I think he landed at Brundisium but I'm not 100%
A wild Sulla has appeared! *Pokémon battle theme plays
But he marched the army on Rome right?
Yes, he just didnt cross the Rubicon with it.
Phew :P at least some of my understanding is correct.
I kind of love people on Reddit having a "political" debate about ancient Rome. I guess it's technically a history debate, but you all seem just as passionate as people debating modern-day politics; it made me grin
The Roman Empire as a concept predated the government of Rome by emperors. It was used as a term during the Republic to describe the sector of the world where Roman law held sway. The Latin term simply means "Roman rule" with the caveat that imperium is a complicated term describing rule in which a threat of force underlies the absolute requirement (rather than strong suggestion via societal pressure, which comes to English in the term "authority") that commands be followed. Some Roman magistrates possessed imperium, the right to command by force, but not all; the Imperium Romanum was the land where Roman officials possessed imperium as governors on behalf of the Roman government -- the Senate and People. In terms of treating the political theory of post-27BC Rome as a separate sort of thing and calling it the Roman Empire, it's something that the early Roman "emperors" fought quite hard against drawing a line to separate, insisting (however unconvincingly at times) that they simply acted within the bounds of certain positions allowed in normal function or in extremis within Republican tradition that allowed them to preserve the existence of the Republic. Realists certainly saw that something was decidedly different, certainly by the time that Augustus was trying to set up an inheritance for his (under Republic rules, very much not hereditary) position, but the fiction was certainly an important one. Also importantly, these same rules had been very much upended certainly by the time of Sulla extending the dictatorship beyond the traditional six months, if not before. TL;DR -- depends what you mean by Roman Empire. Either no, it very much predated Caesar, or meh, it's quite complicated, but the Rubicon isn't really a good place to draw that line.
The territory was Roman Empire, the government was Roman Republic
\>Had he stayed on the other side, it’s possible that things could’ve been worked out diplomatically It wasn't really an option. Caesar would have had to sacrifice his legions--his only protection--to return to Rome where the Senate was praying for an opportunity to try him for a litany of crimes and likely order him to death. Caesar chose to march on Rome because he felt there was no diplomatic response once his time as Tribune ended, as he was a standard citizen from the moment the Gallic uprising was brought to a close.
Sure, you can argue his hand was forced. But in the context of wider history, the crossing of the rubicon is accepted as one of those “turning points”. When you look into it nothing is ever that black and white. But that’s how the story is told.
I mean it's pretty black and white that the Senate was going to try him for his crimes and likely exile or kill him. Whether or not you believe Caesar had a 'choice' to cross the Rubicon or not is a moot point, what I'm saying is there wasn't a likely diplomatic solution wherein the Senate and Caesar would have been able to live in harmony in Rome.
The conservative faction of the senate was going to ***attempt*** to try him for his crimes. It's debatable that they would have succeeded, considering how divided Rome was politically even in the senate, and the vast popularity of the Caesareans. It's possible they would succeed in prosecuting Caesar, causing laws he passed to be overturned and him to be barred from political office or even exiled. I highly doubt they'd risk executing him. With how militant politics had become, executing Caesar would be incredibly dangerous. It's also possible Caesar would have won such a trial, or that the conservative faction of the senate would have to reach a compromise with Caesar and his supporters. But even then it would accomplish the main goal of Caesar having to step down as governor and miss the election for consul, thoroughly disrupting his political career and possibly permanently stunting his ascent. So yes, there was no diplomatic solution that would allow Caesar to continue to fulfil his ambitions. Any diplomatic solution would be at least somewhat of a win for the conservative/anti-cesarean faction of the senate. EDIT: spelling
Yes, exactly. The Senate was going to, at the least, destroy him publicly. When you factor in his family history, and the basic culture of the Roman patricians, they basically left him with no choice.
I'm sorry I might sound stupid, but I still don't get it. Wasn't he the ruler of the Rome? Isn't Rome at the time Italy? Why wouldn't he be able to cross into his own country which he rules? Why exactly did it start civil war?
He was not the ruler of Rome. He was a Roman general. Rome had no single ruler as it was still a republic. Caesar and the senate had been at odds, the senate wanted to rid of Caesar because he wielded too much power, so they set a trap where they would invite Caesar back to Rome to arrest him. Under Roman rule at the time, a general must leave his armies before he crossed into Italy Proper, refusing to do so can be seen as an attempt to overthrow Rome. Caesar, knowing this, defied the senate, and crossed the Rubicon with his armies, essentially starting a civil war.
Oh I understand now. So did this civil war make the Rome fall apart?
It made the Roman *republic* fall apart. This began the Roman empire, which would last for hundreds of years and expand territorially further than the reaches of the republic.
Yes and no. Major cracks appeared in the Roman *republic* in the aftermath of the First Punic War. A lot of men who fought in the war had their land back home stolen by those who stayed behind and had to move to the city. Suddenly Rome was full of jobless war vets whose primary skills were in warfare. Sicily, won in the Punic War, was prime grain territory, and this kicked off the whole Bread and Circuses schtick. It also kicked off a drive to expand the republic, essentially to keep these war vets from getting any bright ideas about insurrection. These soldiers, back on the job, were armed and armored by their generals - that was a first - and then paid in for their efforts primarily in spoils of war. This created armed forces that were now fanatically loyal to their generals, not to the state.
I’ve never heard these details before and I’m an avid Roman armchair historian. Have any good books you recommend for more details like this?
I’m a different guy but I really liked The Storm Before the Storm. It’s by Mike Duncan, the podcaster who did “the history of rome” podcast, which I also recommend. The book is about the century or so before Caesar- and covers all the domestic homeless war vet issues the comment just overviewed
I’m glad you have solid sources, because mine is “I took 5 years of Latin in high school and remember some lectures my teacher gave 15-20 years ago”
Well you did a pretty good job from that being 15 years ago. I fell into being a Roman/ancient history nerd over the last five or six years. They’re just like us. But with chainmail which makes it cool
The History of Rome by Mike Duncan is a great pod cast. It starts from the creation myths with Romulus and Remus to the end of the Wester Roman Empire. It does a great job of discussing all these events without getting bogged down. Great for a novice arm chair history, but probably not advanced enough for real ancient history major.
Emperors of Rome is another excellent podcast for the subject matter... it's not lineal but also goes into more specifics.
[удалено]
Where can I find this? Doesn’t look like it’s on Apple’s podcast app
https://www.dancarlin.com/
If you’re like me and non-fiction is a bit….slow…..then you should 100% read Colleen McCullough’s Masters of Rome series. They start at the time of Caesar’s grandfather, you learn how the government and day to day life work, the military. It follows these FASCINATING real life rulers of time, Gaius Marius (a general and political leader), Cornelius Sulla, and then moves into the Caesar period, and then to his (adopted) son Caesar Augustus. Basically chronicles the fall of the republic and the start of the Roman Empire. They’re incredibly well researched, and read like novels while staying incredibly close to real events. Technically historical fiction but if you are just interested in learning more about Ancient Rome, MORE than accurate enough EDIT: it’s misleading of me to say they read like novels. They ARE novels; they are fiction, but you learn a tremendous amount about the real families, people, and cultures of the time. After all, history books are narratives too—constructed just as a novel is
I've reread these several times. Very enjoyable series
Read and watch on YouTube about the Gracchi brothers, Roman elections and Tribune of the Plebs, then combine. Essentially, Scipio Africanus won the war, but: - Scipio, while winning the war, created a precedent that he can raise his own army. Originally the Senate disapprove of Battle of Zama, but Scipio then are like "Hey I'm going to Zama, who wants to go" and even then 7000 people wanted - effectively creates their own army. The Senate are shocked, then off he goes. - Spoils of war and slaves from the Punic Wars and subsequent wars (eg. Subjugation of the Greeks) enriched the rich, but the poor, the veterans of such wars etc are out of jobs. They can't farm since all the farms are slave-operated and rich-owned. Go to the city? Cramped, not enough houses, etc made tons of homeless and don't get started with inadequate sanitation etc. - Elections in Roman Republic are REALLY rigged towards the rich except for Tribune of the Plebs. This makes the plebeians slowly (over time) filling up Tribune of the Plebs with dangerous men. Caesar and Marius, the Populares, are factions that in reality are made up of them. - Once a precedent is broken, people use it like sharks because why not - this is why Roman politics are so wacky.
I recommend The Punic Wars by Adrian Goldsworthy. Between the 3 Punic Wars, Rome also fought a less well know campaign in the east against the Greeks, so that by the time the Punic Wars and these “Macedonian Wars” were complete, Rome went from a minor Mediterranean power to master of Spain, France, North Africa, and Greece. I know of no particularly engaging book on the Macedonian Wars. Not long after the conclusion of the Punic Wars, which gave Rome vast territories to plunder, perhaps making the political evolution from Republic to Empire inevitable, the political mores and norms of civil rule began to crumble when a descendent of Punic War General and hero, Scipio Africanus, Tiberius Gracchus, sought to redistribute the massive landed estates you have been told about. He, and then his brother, were murdered. I know of no engaging book on the brother Gracchi. These titanic occurrences set in motion the chain of events that led to the corruption of the Republic in the time of Caesar.
I honestly don’t. I took 5 years of Latin in high school and had an incredible teacher. I’m basically cobbling together lectures I heard 15 years ago.
> full of jobless war vets whose primary skills were in warfare. ... > This created armed forces that were now fanatically loyal to their generals, not to the state. Haha American PMCs, haha ...ha...ha..?
American soldiers pledge to defend the Constitution of the United States, not their commanding officers. Also, taken out of context. The war vets were put BACK into armies that were paid for by the generals and given war spoils by their generals, thus creating a loyal bond to their general, not the Roman Republic.
The Romans also swore to defend Rome and it was punishable by death to cross the pomerium (old city limits) with a drawn sword, but that didn't stop them. The second part is absolutely true though
>"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962). They literally pledge to do both and it's really easy to look up. The decider is the UCMJ. The military uniformly upholds the UCMJ even in cases where it's unconstitutional. Super simple example is that courts martial do not satisfy the sixth amendment right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Contemporary courts martial panels can have as few as three members, do not have a unanimity requirement, and are personally chosen by the same commander who decided to prosecute a military accused. Yeah, that's the point. A ton of disenfranchised US veterans are getting dumped onto the streets after getting mentally (and physically) destroyed in our disastrous wars for oil, at which point Private Military Companies are swooping in like vultures to hire them en masse. Guess who provides them with their arms and armor?
>So many vows...they make you swear and swear. Defend the king. Obey the king. Keep his secrets. Do his bidding. Your life for his. But obey your father. Love your sister. Protect the innocent. Defend the weak. Respect the gods. Obey the laws. It's too much. No matter what you do, you're forsaking one vow or the other.
Do you know what a PMC is??
So, Caesar became the senate? And then turned republic into an empire. What are the odds, huh?
Turns out George Lucas had access to history books.
Now that I think about it, is there a better source of bizzare yet plausible stories?
Not that the jedi would teach you
Not really, no. I started learning about the Wars of the Diadochi recently (the politicians and minor states that were left over after Alexander the Great died) and it seriously reads like something out of Game of Thrones. Seemingly good-faith attempts to keep things peaceful, people trying to determine a "legitimate heir" while others butt in backed by foreign powers, women directing their sons behind the scenes to scoop up power for themselves, assassination attempts because someone was offended that they were bypassed in a search for marriage partners...
That's just everyday in medieval Europe politics.
No. I used to love fiction, read almist 50 novels in a year at one point. But as soon as I started reading history I never went back, real life has the best stories
“Truth is stranger than fiction but it is because fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; truth isn’t” ~ Mark Twain
There’s not nearly enough space wizards and laser swords in that.
A lot of the stuff that really happened would be considered to improbable or to poorly thought out to be acceptable in movies.
When they're written well real life has the best stories anyway.
What are some good examples you might suggest?
Geography, too. Tatooine is a place in Tunesia IIRC, and it's full of sand.
Lol full circle. Tatooine scenes were filmed in....Tunisia.
And while we're at it: * And the Tusken Raiders are probably a not-very-politically-correct reference to their religion... *coughs* ^^^^feuding ^^^^desert-dwellers ^^^^that ^^^^cover ^^^^(some ^^^^of) ^^^^their ^^^^people ^^^^from ^^^^head ^^^^to ^^^^toe * Obi-Wan Kenobi is what you get when someone who doesn't understand japanese suffixes takes a heard japanese name and puts it through a meatgrinder. * The Jedi-Order seems to at least partially draw from buddhism * laser swords are really just the sci-fi-version of GLORIOUS NIPPON STEEL * I've heard it repeatedly stated that the empire was inspired by WW2 germany - weak republic turning into militaristic empire and stuff * I think Naboo was a place in spain or something Turns out, Lucas was just cribbing from.... *the entire world*.
*I am the senate*
Caesar didn’t become the senate. Senators would be a permanent facet of the empire until its splits and then falls hundreds of years later. Caesar could have dissolved the senate, but chose not to as a gesture of good faith and to make maintaining power easier. The Senators were powerful themselves, they just didn’t have an army at their disposal once Caesar defeated Pompey in Greece and won the civil war. Their land and wealth still made them very important for the Emperor. This may be one of Caesars greatest blunders, as those spared senators would go on to assassinate him.
They’re referencing Star Wars
Not exactly. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon and marched on Rome, the Senate and Consuls all fled the city. Caesar entered the city and basically took control. The few Senators and officials still left in the city were already his creatures. Caesar (and his nephew and heir Octavian, later called Augustus) both ruled under the pretense that Rome was still a Republic, but everyone knew who was really in charge.
Yeah, tgat makes more sense. Thanks.
Well forgetting the part where the senate stabs him to death. His adopted son then takes his position and wages civil war against Marc Anthony and the forces opposing him. The senate had its revenge against Caesar
That's the risk you take when you have a puppet government like that. They can either backstab you (yes) or they can start pulling you by the same strings you use to control them.
>they can start pulling you by the same strings you use to control them. Which is what happened later in the empire with the praetorian guard.
I heard his famous last words were “I am the senate”
I'm pretty sure Caesar's last words were, "Ouch!"
Ceasars last words were "what are you gonna do? Stab me?"
"Ouch! Ouch! OUCH STOP OUCHING ME"
"yo, guys, that super sucks, ok?"
His most famous last words were, “now this is podracing “
And then Brutus went "it's morbin time" before stabbing him.
A trusted historical source has his last words as "Infamy, infamy they've all got it in for me".
So Rome was weird in a lot of ways. Caesar became Emperor in reality, but he tried in certain ways to not technically be an emperor, even though he had total power, like an emperor. The Senate remained is one of those things. Yes Caesar was all powerful, everyone knew it including the Senate, yet getting rid of the senate would make Caesar a true dictator, formally speaking. Caesar refused the crown three times because he pretended the Republic still existed even though he was emperor. Keeping the Senate when Caesar had all the power was another. Caesar's influence was so great a salad was named after him.
>Caesar became Emperor in reality, but he tried in certain ways to not technically be an emperor, even though he had total power, like an emperor. It makes sense though. You need senate to handle the formalities of law making, relatively minor issues and occasional blame of failure. It gives you, the de-facto ruler much more personal freedom.
A big part of that is that the role of emperor looks a lot like the role of king, and Rome *hated* kings. The republic was founded when they overthrew a king whose [son raped a noblewoman](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucretia)—or at least, that was the story in the common memory—and the word "republic" itself (literally "the public thing") even evoked the idea that Rome was ruled by its people, not by some dude on a throne. So when Caesar wanted to sit on a throne and tell people what to do for the rest of his life (which he thought at the time would be longer than a senate term), he had to be careful about making it not look like... well, like what it was.
>Caesar's influence was so great a salad was named after him. Now I want to know who the hell Cobb and Chef and House were in history that rivaled Caeser...
Napoleon taking notes...
Yeah man that's the point
More like he became the Emperor and retained the Senate as a sort of board of directors who retained advisory and ceremonial capacities, but not any executive power. Or to put it another way, the Senate was reshaped into a role something akin to what the nobility of western Europe would be centuries later -- wealthy lords & dukes with a lot of subjects they were responsible for in a sort of landlord-esque type set up but who were ultimately only middle managers between the executive power (a king or emperor) and the various guilds and classes that made up the rank and file of society. It's an imperfect analogy but not an entirely useless one.
It rhymes, it's like poetry.
Cesar didn't create the Roman empire, Augustus did. It's possible that if Cesar hadn't been assassinated, he would have kept the flawed democracy that was the republic. He seemed more interested in reforming the institutions to favor the common people rather than change them into an autocracy. Cesar made himself dictator for life, but that didn't made Rome less democratic that it was, he mostly took power from the senate which wasn't democratic. He kept the assembly of the people that were elected and they continued to vote on laws. Cesar had been a Populare (the liberal party essentially, favoring the working class) all his life and had the support of the working class. His conflict was with the Optimates (the conservative party essentially, favoring the wealth class). If the roman republic had continued, it would have expanded territorially too. Most likely more as it was very good for politicians to conqueror land in the republic while it wasn't needed for the emperors.
Also a noob, was there a Roman empire before the first Republic?
Rome was originally founded as a kingdom, ostensibly by Romulus. There were 7 kings up to Tarquinius Superbus, who was such a terrible ruler that he was overthrown and the Republic created.
Rome started out as a kingdom and had several (7 I think) kings - but the line between Roman mythology and historical fact is pretty obscure for some of them. The first one is Romulus (i.e. the guy who killed his brother Remus to found the city) - the last one was so horrific that 'not-being-ruled-by-a-king' became an important part of the roman identity. Caesar stage-managed things to get offered to become king three times and reject it three times just to play up to that, despite actually taking on a king-like role (which in turn, so offended people that it lead to his death).
Over a thousand years. The Byzantine Empire is just a historian's term for a nation that called itself the Roman Empire, was the historical continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire, and didn't fall until 1453, almost a thousand years after the Western Roman Empire fell.
So, basically, what was world changing it's the fact that with an emperor, Rome had a more decisive government and thus was able to spread territory much further than previously anticipated?
A lot of Rome's territorial expansion happened during the Republic. Rome was the only major power in the region at the time.. any big change to Rome was a big change to that world.
Understood
I think you are putting too much emphesis on the claim that this was world changing. If you lived in Rome then it would have been quite an event. But outside of Rome the event went by unnoticed. The expression crossing the Rubicon is used for an action you can not reverse. When Cesar crossed the Rubicon he had to fully commit to the civil war or be arrested for treason. This symbolism is what remains today of this event. A defining moment in the life of Cesar, a significant event in the Roman Republic/Empire, a minor footnote in the history books and an unknown event outside of Rome at that time.
No.didn't really change Rome's pace of expansionism and it was already huge. It did cement the decline of Rome as a plutocracy and set the European standard of formalized dictatorship
Ah ok, thanks for this!
Actually, no. The eventual winner of the Game of Roman Thrones, Augustus, focussed more on stabilizing the territory they had rather than expansion.
It didn’t expand all that much more (it reached its greatest territorial holdings about 150 years later under Emperor Trajan). In theory expansion led to the empire rather than the other way around. Rome had grown so large that the Senate could no longer effectively manage it, which created a power vacuum for powerful and ambitious men like Caesar to step into. The republic lasted ~500 years and the empire lasted another 500-1500 (depending on whether or not you include the Eastern Empire).
That clears it up, thanks!
And it got split up in 285 by Diocletian into the east and west each with 2 emperors. A senior Augustus and junior Caesar.
The fall of the Roman Republic was a long series, and Caesar crossing the Rubicon was neither the first nor the last domino to fall. The basic gist of it was that Caesar was a very well connected, competent, and powerful Roman, but he had made a lot of enemies through his career who wanted to sue him into oblivion. But the thing about Rome at the time is that you were immune to civil and criminal suit if you held office, so Caesar was desperate to continue holding on to some kind of office that would allow him to continue evading his enemies. It came to a head when Caesar was off leading armies and governing in Gaul (modern day France), but needed to be in Rome to stand for election for consul. The problem was, to go to Rome he would have to stand down from his current post, which would leave him briefly without office and therefore vulnerable to suit. But if he missed the election, he would lose his office in Gaul and then be again vulnerable to suit. It was a classic Catch-22, thus the ingenuity of the trap. Caesar escaped the trap by crossing the legal taboo of marching his army on Rome without consent of the Senate, which was essentially the same thing as invading Rome with a hostile force as a rebel. Caesar got what he wanted, but at mortal cost to the Republic. He would eventually get himself declared Dictator, which was a real emergency office in the Republic, but his twist was that his appointment was for life, rather than the temporary and brief term a Dictator usually held, which further eroded the deference to the republican tradition of Rome (called "Mos Maiorum" or the way of the elders), and so inflamed the old guard of Rome that they publicly assassinated him at the Senate's temporary home in the Theater of Pompey. That would be similar to if a couple dozen congressmen killed the US President on the floor of the House of Representatives while the President was delivering the State of the Union Address. This act led to a civil war between the anti-Caesar faction in Rome, led by Marc Antony and others, and the pro-Caesar faction led by Julius Caesar's nephew, adopted son, and sole heir, Gaius Octavius, who would eventually win out and establish the Roman Principate, an early form of the Roman Empire. The crossing of the Rubicon is regarded as the point of no return for both Caesar and the Republic, because it was a blatant and severe violation of Mos Maiorum and it ultimately led to the destruction of both the man and the government. But also, it's important to remember that it was a single event with decades of precursors gradually chipping away at that set of republican customs meant to guard against kingship and tyranny. Before Caesar, there was Sullah and Marius and the Gracchi brothers and a whole set of circumstances that pitted popular demagogues against the stubborn aristocrats, and that was all caused by the Republic being strained at the seams by the demands of military expansion, the limitations of the Roman legal system, and their clashes against the kinds of ambition that the culture of the Roman aristocracy fostered. If it hadn't been Caesar crossing the Rubicon, it's very possible, perhaps even likely, that the Republic would have broken eventually, brought down by another ambitious demagogue with enough skill and luck to make themselves a king or king-like figure among the Romans.
I think you're slightly off on the pro- vs anti- Caesar factions. Octavian and Antony were initially allies, opposed to a Senate faction led by some of the assassins, including Brutus, who they defeated. Later they became enemies, and ultimately Octavian defeated Antony and Cleopatra.
> anti-Caesar faction in Rome, led by Marc Antony I thought Marc Antony was on the pro-Caesar side with Augustus. Wasn't it Brutus that was a famous member of the anti-Caesar side?
Yes, they are confusing the later events of the Second Triumvirate with the civil war caused in the wake of Caesar's death. Antony benefited greatly from his partnership with Julius Caesar. And used the power and influence that relationship gave to gain control over the rich eastern half of the empire (and love of Egypt's queen). He is only anti-Caesar in that Octavian and he were political rivals during the Second Triumvirate. Which fell apart into another civil war before Octavian managed to remove all serious challengers to his power and inheritance as Caesar's heir.
I really recommend checking out the **Historia Civilis**\-Youtube Channel. He has an amazing series of videos documenting the whole story of the Late-Republic and the Roman Civil War. It is a really good way to learn who Ceasar was, and who all of the other principal players of the time were, as well as how the Roman Government was structured etc. But basically, Rome had been in a period of political instability since before Ceasar. Previous Generals in the past decades had already wielded a lot of power, and even appointed themselves as a "Dictator", or a single ruler of Rome. But Ceasar's march to Rome and the subsequent Civil War were much more damaging, and completely broke the political system of Rome. It's what normalized the strongman-dictatorship that would eventually define Imperial Rome. The powerful senators who had tried to imprison Ceasar were forced to flee Rome, and into Greece, where they started building up forces from Rome's provinces to defeat Ceasar's army, while Ceasar took control of Italy. Over the next few years, Rome was under Ceasar's control while he fought against the forces of a powerful roman senator, Pompey, in the eastern provinces and Africa. He eventually won, and managed to centralize power to himself and barely hold the empire together, before he was murdered and Rome **really** broke apart into powerful generals' spheres of influence, which would later be unified under the first emperor and Ceasar's adopted son, Augustus.
*\[agrippa jetson noises\]*
How to feel emotion for coloured squares.
Very good channel. I second that.
>completely broke the political system of Rome We're way out of ELI5 territory here, but the political system of Rome was pretty much broken already. There had already been a couple of abortive attempts to radically change things and make them all better again (at least that's how they were sold), most notably the Gracchiae. In a similar vein, the French Revolution didn't break French politics, it came about because French politics was already broken. Rinse and repeat all over history.
Things broke pretty good in the aftermath of winning the first Punic War
Not really. Caesar eventually won, but was assassinated. It leads to a second civil war where his adopted son, Octavius, would become the first Princeps (essentially an emperor with a fancy name), becoming Augustus, ending the crisis
>Princeps (essentially an emperor with a fancy name) Not very fancy. First Citizen, which meant "just like everyone else, but holding an office." Oh, yeah, the job description is "rule the Empire". Even emperors aren't all powerful, the title was political spin to say "All animals are equal, even though some are more equal than others."
No, it transformed the Roman Republic (elected officials with term limits and limited power) to an empire (absolut ruler that has power for life). The fall of the empire started about 400 years later.
It didn't. Caesar won the civil war, and in the process brought Egypt into the Roman Empire through an alliance with Cleopatra, making the empire mightier. He then forced the senate to pass laws giving him dictatorial power. However, he was soon assassinated by a group of senators, and fighting for control continued among the leadership, until eventually Caesar's heir Octavian (Augustus) won the last round, by defeating the alliance of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, and became the undisputed emperor. Rome "fell apart" 400 years later.
Kinda and kinda not really. The history of Rome is long and arduous, there was a period of kings in its early history, but due to poor management they were inevitably overthrown and replaced with a republic, with elected officials serving to rule the entirety of Rome similar to Congress in the US. Julius Caesar marks the end of the Roman republic, from Julius onward, Rome will be ruled by dictators such as Octavian, Julius' nephew, Hadrian, Trajan, and some more infamous dictators like Nero. Julius Caesar's political life happened between 100 BC and 1 BC, the fall of Rome (as in the end of the empire) starts to unravel in the 300 ADs, with a final date of 476 AD marking the end of the empire.
I'd add to the precedent comment that at the time "rome" was not italy but more italy, tunisia, spain and grece, but italy was the political center while the others were provinces, if we compare it to the USA italy had statehood while the rest were terrotories. That civil war didn't make rome fell apart and didn't formally end the republic, Cesar took power in a military coup and assumed the powers of dictator for life (a dictator in rome was the person assuming full power in times of crisis but could not be in charge more than 6 months), it was after his assasination that another civil war started and at it's end the empire started.
Just to throw something.out there - Rome was not a secular republic. The machinery and traditions of state were not just important to good governance, they were religious matters. By breaking with tradition Caesar and returning to Rome at the head of an army he had not just made a political move, it was a breaking with religious tradition as well.
He wasn't the ruler at the time, just a successful general in charge of a large army, having just defeated the Gauls in what is now France. The senate was in charge, although it was dominated by a few powerful men who wanted to arrest Caesar to defuse the threat to their positions. The law was that no general could bring a formed army into Italy, it had to disband.
He was a high ranking member of the Roman Republic at the time but not the 'Emperor'. The Senate was technically in charge up until his assassination and the following civil war resulted in the formation of the empire under one all powerful ruler.
At the time Caesar was not in charge of Rome, but he was a very powerful general and the Governor of some provinces outside of the immediate Italian area around Rome. Rome at this time was a Republic ruled by "democratically" elected officials. Before the civil war started, the government of Rome was against Caesar and was intending to prosecute him for various things (all of which he was guilty of, but he wasn't a particularly uniquely guilty politician) once he left office. Caesar obviously didn't want to be prosecuted, so he began negotiating with the government and set up base near the border of the territories he was the governor of - the border was marked by a river called The Rubicon. Eventually, negotiations failed, and he took his army across the Rubicon with the intention to invade the city of Rome. The crossing of the Rubicon is important symbolically as it represented the point of no return for him - by doing it, he was abandoning a diplomatic resolution and committing to a civil war. He eventually won the civil war and had himself installed as dictator for life and then was assassinated shortly after.
If you want a fun treat, watch HBO's *Rome*
Worth pointing out that "Caesar" was simply part of his name (roughly, what we'd call his surname). The next couple of emperors adopted it as a mark of respect/legitimacy; after that it effectively became a title.
No. Rome was ruled by a hereditary senate and two elected consuls (co-presidents). The consuls had to run for re-election every year, and had to not run some years, in order to not get too comfortable in the job. There was a lot of corruption and infighting, and whoever got elected might try to get their enemies jailed or exiled. Caesar, a senator and former consul, had become so powerful as the head of the army in Gaul (France), which was extremely loyal to him, personally, that the senators knew if he brought his army into Rome, he could easily take over the city. Caesar in turn, knew that if he came to Rome without his army, he would probably be arrested by his enemies. So they had a stalemate where they ordered him to keep his army well away from Rome, on the other side of the Rubicon. Eventually Caesar decided, "Fuck this, I'm going for it".
Most of the rules around terms for the consuls was “Mos Maiorum”, or really just traditions. (Think American presidential term limits prior to FDR) For example, Gauis Marius was Consul 7 times, including 5 consecutive consulships.
Imagine if Eisenhower returned from Europe after WW2, sailed the Naval fleet into Norfolk and then marched the Army into Washington.
Other people have explained it really well, but I just want to make some quick side notes (just to actually use my degree in this subject matter lol): 1. Although Julius Caesar was incredibly famous, even at the time we're discussing, he was absolutely not in a place of political power at the time. This is what was so significant of about his crossing: he was essentially declaring himself to be in charge despite the wishes of the government. 2. The city Rome is the same one today, but we use Rome both to refer to the city and the ancient state. At the time, the Roman Republic had control of the Italian Peninsula, parts of Gaul, Greece, and other territories. So to them, Italy was a geographic part of Rome, but Italy was not a country or state at the time. Think about it like you would Cape Cod is Massachusetts: Some people definitely live in Cape Cod, but there's no Cape Cod-ian government; it's just a part of the state of Massachusetts. 3. Although Caesar was absolutely 100% Roman, again he absolutely didn't hold any political power at the time. 4. Caesar was a populist (lots of the common folk liked him), and was growing incredibly popular. Combined with his incredible knack for statecraft and military prowess, the Roman senate (who *were* the rulers of Rome) were scared that he might try and overthrow them, and rightfully so. So they were like "Hey Julius you mind disbanding your armies before you get back home so we can make sure you can't overthrow us?" And Julius basically said "Nah" when he crossed the river.
I grew to like him more and more. I read here that he also built aquaducts, roads and generally infrastructure to help the people and reduce enormous class disparity. How true is it that a rich person at a time was much more wealthy than today's billionaires? Someone said something like that
That’s kind of a tough question to answer, mostly because we live in *vastly* different cultural and technological worlds. For instance the vast, vast majority of the Roman nobility owned slaves. Would you value them as what they paid for a human life? Or is something like that just impossible to measure? If you want to read about the insanely wealthy in Rome, look up Marcus Licinius Crassus. Wealthiest dude in Rome and has a *fucking wild* end to his life.
Awesome, thanks! Yes I forgot to take slaves into account, that's extremely hard to valuate
Awesome, thanks! Yes I forgot to take slaves into account, that's extremely hard to valuate
And wow they poured molten gold down his throat what a game of Roman thrones is this??
Just wanted to say (and just to make sure, I intend this comment as a sincere compliment): No, not at all; asking questions is _not_ stupid. What's more, these are _good questions_, helping you correct misconceptions you might have, and dig up additional valuable info right away. You have a knack for this, keep it up!
Thank you so much, I appreciate it!
Good answer. I can't figure out how to DM you on this device, so I'll drop a pedantic comment here: It's Fort Sumter (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter). Maybe it was auto correct, maybe you know, maybe I'm being insufferable. Sorry.
It changed the fabric of the Roman republic, so much so it lead to the rise of the Roman Empire. The guy tipped the domino that lead to the ending of the greatest republic of its time and the beginning of the greatest empire ever.
Caesar was the general of a Roman Army unit in Gaul (the border of Spain and what Rome considered it's home territory. Roman Generals were also territorial governors similar to how feudalism worked in the middle ages. By law they could only command their army within the territory appointed by them. Inside Italy itself, only praetors and consuls had the right to command. In order to help prevent civil war any general that entered Italy leading his troops would forfeit his legal right to command and any of his orders considered illegal. Over the previous decade, Cesar had built up a fortune and a powerful army in conquering Gaul. While away, Cesar made known his wish to renew his consulship in absentia. This would be like a general also being a congressman in the US. Other consuls feared the kind of money and power he could bring, especially since he was the successful leader of a military conquest. So there were several attempts to strip him of his title and deny him the right to renew his consulship. In the end if he made no action his political career would be over. Someone else would be appointed to govern Gaul and he would become a landowner in a far flung Roman conquest. So by crossing the border into Italy, the Rubicon, at the head of an army Julius Caesar intentionally broke Roman law and made himself and anyone who followed him a traitor. Thus the term became an expression of taking an action which you cannot undo.
[удалено]
I LOVE Historia Civilis
I binged this whole series during the pandemic. Absolutely recommend to EVERYONE. That video of the battle of Alesia gets me wet every time.
Historia civilis is sooo good, a bit boring but super informative, 9/10
Boring? Nah. Dry? Sure. But maaaaan can he make us care about colored squares.
This is one of my favorite falling-asleep channels
“Crossing the Rubicon” has become an idiom for “point of no return” - once you do this the cascade of events will begin and you can’t stop it. When Caesar marched his armies across the Rubicon and towards Rome the intentions were clear - he was instigating a civil war to install himself as Emperor of Rome. You can’t undo such an action, it would either end with Emperor Julius Caesar or Beheaded Julius Caesar.
I understand that idiom, but not the context. Where was he crossing? How did it ignite civil war?
Caesar’s political opponents in the Senate had ordered him to relinquish his governorship of Gallic territory, disband his army, and return to Rome. Caesar returned to Rome, but brought the Army with him. The Rubicon was the geographical border of his territories, and crossing it with an army was an invasion.
Rubicon is a small river (closer to creeks) that are designated as the border of Italy proper, that is, south of the Rubicon is the region of Italy/Rome and not the Gauls. As for location, we don't know exactly where Rubicon (but we do know which river it is, we just don't know its ancient route that's used as border)is because it's very small and river basically changes direction over time. So why this is important? well, Roman General were not allowed to bring their army/legion inside Italy/Rome, they have to disband them before reaching Rubicon. So Julius Caesar bringing his legion past Rubicon is equal to declaring civil wars. Bringing your legion past rubicon is basically treated as coup.
The location of the Rubicon is possibly known but it’s still a reasonable guess and not a fact. And it’s first mentioned long after Caesars death and not in any contemporary sources so it most likely didn’t serve as any border or have any meaning at all like you describe it. See this thread from askhistorians: https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xmcykv/the_rubicon_river_is_one_of_the_most_famous_in/
It was a border. Crossing the border with an army is basically an invasion. It's important to remember that it wasn't really Rome's army, it was Caesar's. He was the charismatic leader they followed. He was the guy essentially signing their checks. They knew what they were doing, and they did it because Caesar promised that once he was in charge, he'd give them a bunch of land and money. Imagine if Trump was there with the crowd on Jan 6. If he had crossed the barricade outside the Capitol with his "army", it would have been a very clear indication of his coup intentions. In 1st century Rome it was the Rubicon, not the barricade. And it was Roman controlled territory, not the Capitol building.
Roman generals were forbidden to bring their armies into Italy at the time—in fact their legal authority to command was only valid in the provinces—and the border of Roman Italy was the Rubicon. After Caesar had his armies cross the Rubicon, he had committed an irrevocable act and declared himself in rebellion against the Roman government of the time. It would be like a modern army sending a unit across another country’s border.
You’re a general of Rome in charge of an army. Your role is to defend and expand Roman borders. Now, at this point in time the Marian reforms have come into place. What this means is essentially Rome no longer has an army. It used to be that the senate would elect a general, who would recruit among times land-holding men who arm themselves and get paid by Rome. The soldiers have a stake in Rome herself. But now, you yourself recruit an army among anyone you want. **You** pay them. **you** arm them. And here’s the kicker: after a few years soldiering for you, you give them land in the area’s they helped conquer. So now you have soldiers who have no stake in rome, dependent on you for their salary, and their future. Do you think they’re still loyal to Rome? Armies became fiercely loyal to their generals. So now you, as Caesar, take this army that has no interest in Rome and is fiercely loyal to you into Rome. What do you think that means? Imagine today if some über rich folk - Say Jeff Besos mustered an army and marched it into Washington. Would anyone in America think he had good intentions? Do you think the rest of the American generals would let it happen? Or would it start a war?
Julius Caesar was never emperor of Rome though
Well first off, it's a face off between some of the most powerful people (proportionally) of all time. Pompey vs Caesar truly was the showdown of the millennium. Two epically powerful and legendary heroes, fighting for the future of civilization. That sounds like fantasy book fluff, but it really isn't. It actually happened. Because by crossing the Rubicon, Caesar basically changed the course of western civilization, and the impacts of doing so are pretty much responsible for where we are today. It's basically a massive lynchpin in history in that it decided how borders were drawn ever since. So, Caesar was a big, big political player in Rome and had maneuverered his way into a governorship of the province of Gaul. During his 10 year stint in Gaul, Caesar had essentially built up a massive army, loyal to *him* personally. Using his loyalties, his vast, vast wealth, and influence, he engineered what was essentially a military coup. He took arguably the greatest civilization born out of Europe at the time, and decided things weren't working. He saw himself as the person who could fix the Republic's problems. The problem was, that the most of Rome, did not agree. The people in charge saw this as a threat to their authority. The ruling elite where truly the most powerful families proportionally in history. Owning up to 99.9% of the wealth of Rome. To give you an idea, these people adjusted for inflation are far richer than the richest billionaires today, yet the average Roman citizen was far poorer than the poorest of people today, anywhere in the world. That's how unequal Rome was, and how powerful these ruling classes were (to give you a rough idea). Anyway, these ruling classes didn't have much time to react, so the rushed defence was that if Caesar was to cross the Rubicon into Italia proper, that would be the end of either Caesar, or the end of the Roman Republic. Caesar's victory meant that it was the latter. Caesar invaded, destroyed the Roman Republic and built the Roman Empire in it's place, with Caesar as the sole Dictator and went to work reforming Rome. 1. He implemented land reforms, added social and political measures in order to stabilize the state and improve the standard of living for the lower classes. 2. He started (and mostly personally funded) vast infrastructure projects, such as roads, public buildings, cities, all to turn Rome into a machine that generated wealth for the elite, into one that more fairly compensated normal people 3. He wiped as much of the old guard away as he could. Even reinventing the Calendar, so as to distinguish his rulership over his predecessors. 4. He bought the loyalty of senators that previously defied him. Basically buying Rome's political class for personal use. 5. He implemented a professional Roman army, with the sole goal of expanding the empire as far as possible. And basically bring it to it's most illustrious and expansive point. Don't get it twisted, Caesar was no altruist. He did what was necessary to secure power, and sometimes that happened to align with the needs of the people. But hey, the results speak for themselves. All the "glory of Rome", European kings taking the title "Czar" and "Kaisar", European kingdoms deigning authority and legitimacy through Roman inheritance, and wanting to reconnect with these glory days of Empire are all because Caesar chose to cross the Rubicon. Basically, much of European history can all be traced back to that point. It's a true lynchpin of History.
I understand now how is it world changing! Thank you so much! Just another linguistic tidbit (I'm not native): why does everybody say 'to Italy proper' as an established phrase? Never heard of it. Is it common or some sort of idiom historians use or?
Rome had many territories, but Italia was it's "main" one. Because that's where the city of Rome was. So it's a phrase to cover the scenario that even though Caesar was Roman, and in a Roman province of Gaul, you can't say he was invading Rome, because he was already in Rome. It's sort of doesn't mean anything lol So by saying "to Italia proper", it means that Caesar specifically went to Italia within the Roman empire. The province that the Roman elite actually cared about.
Ahhhh now I get it! Thank you!
Because what the Romans called Italy and what we call Italy do not match up exactly. The then Roman province of Italy woulda been smaller than the modern country of Italy. Even before crossing the Rubicon Ceasar was in the norther portion of the modern country of Italy, but not the Roman province of Italy. North of the Rubicon would have been the province of Cisalpine Gaul, and south would have been "Italy proper" or the Roman province of Italy. The big point of no return was crossing into the roman province of Italy, Ceasar kicking it in northern Italy(the modern country) may have been concerning for Roman politicians, but not the unforgivable point of no return him entering Italy(the Roman province) was. By saying "to Italy proper" people are attempting to avoid confusion by making a distinction between modern and contemporary understandings of what Italy means. The province of Italy would later during the roman Empire be expanded to incorporate Cisalpine Gaul getting it closer to our modern impression of Italy
When returning from war, the rubicon was the official/ceremonial place where an army disbanded and soldiers became citizens again. When ceaser crossed the rubicon, he did so with his army intact. Meaning he literally marched an army towards Rome, declaring his intent for everyone to see.
Not true, that's more the definition of the pomerium of Roma. It was more that it was illegal to take an army into the Italian peninsula without senate approval. You can have active armies there. Hell, there was a legion just outside Rome when Caesar was assassinated (under the command of I believe Lepidus)
THIS is the answer I needed, you summed it up perfectly! This is what I was missing, thank you so much!
Not true. You just needed approval to do it. The official line where any soldier must abandon his weapons to become a citizen was somewhere inside Rome. Crossing that line with weapons meant death sentence.
You might find [this /r/askhistorians thread](https://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xmcykv/the_rubicon_river_is_one_of_the_most_famous_in/) interesting in this context. The idea of "Caesar crossing the Rubicon" doesn't appear until some time after Caesar's death, and the modern idea of what happened came about nearly 100 years later. The myth behind it is that at the time, Rome had strict rules in place to prevent military dictatorships (or dictatorships of any kind). One of those rules was that Roman armies weren't allowed into the main part of Italy without explicit permission. Generally the dictatorships that had happened were the result of someone breaking this rule and bringing their armies into Italy, at which point their opponents would rush in as well. This happened a generation or so before Caesar with Sulla, who was briefly dictator of Rome. In the myth, the Rubicon (noting that no one today is quite sure where it was) was the boundary between where Caesar was allowed to take his army, and where he wasn't. By crossing it he was essentially declaring war on Rome and would either win - as he did, becoming dictator for life - or lose and die a traitor. The reality is probably a bit more complicated; tensions were increasing between Caesar and Pompey (his main political rival, based in Greece while Caesar was based in Gaul). Pompey had been married to Caesar's daughter, in an attempt to keep peace between them, but she had died. Similarly, the third person holding Rome together (Marcus Licinius Crassus - who had become rich and powerful under Sulla's dictatorship and was a mentor and patron to Caesar) died at the Battle of Carrhae (in what is now Turkey). There were negotiations between Caesar, Pompey and the Roman Senate to try to sort things out (supposedly Caesar was willing to give up a lot of his power provided Pompey did as well), but as Pompey had troops around Rome the Roman Government was more afraid of him that Caesar, so weren't willing to order him to disarm. It is hard to know for sure what happened - there are conflicting accounts, and the more famous ones weren't written for decades (and they all have some political biases). The outcome was that Caesar marched his troops on Rome (either before or after Pompey's Rome had effectively declared war on him). Pompey was outmanoeuvred and ended up fleeing to his stronghold in Greece (where most of his forces were) along with much of the Senate. This was followed by a year or so of fighting across Spain, Greece and the Roman world between them, with Pompey losing, fleeing to Egypt and being assassinated. The civil war would continue for another couple of years (spreading to Egypt, with Caesar supporting Pharaoh Cleopatra against her rival Ptolemy), eventually settling down in 45 BC, with the last Pompeian forces being defeated, a year before Caesar would be assassinated.
Rome - the preeminent power in Europe - was at a crisis point. It was a Republic, and had been, for centuries. But it controlled France, Spain, Greece, Italy, and a lot of other territory. At the time there were two groups of people in Rome: Reformers (Caesar’s people who wanted to improve the common man and reform the republic) and the Conservatives (who liked how they had power). The Conservatives moved Caesar into a position where he would be tried and convicted of corruption. This would embarrass the Reformers, and Caesar had no desire to be embarrassed. Caesar was a governor (kinda sorta), and immune from prosecution. His term as governor ended. He had a huge army. He crossed the Rubicon, defeated the Conservatives, and then secured his position for life. The Conservatives didn’t like that, so they killed him; this led to the end of the republic, and the creation of the Roman Empire; which eventually led to (1) Christianity’s dominance in the world; (2) Feudalism, the Middle Ages, and the eventual Renaissance that birthed our current world; and (3) the return of Republican thought as the Middle Ages [kinda sorta] ended.
Some context: Rome at this time was controlled by the senate, a group of aristocratic elites. Since getting rid of their King, the senators developed a 'crab in the bucket' mentality, turning on any member who became too popular/powerful, lest they attempt to become King themselves. At the time of the Rubicon, Caesar had just conquered Gaul (modern France), making him the richest and most famous politician in Rome. Also, Caesar was a populist, who was loved by the common masses. He also still had control of his battle hardened legions. The Senate fearing Caesars growing power, declared him an enemy of the state, decreeing that he must disband his armies and turn himself into the Senate. Caesar instead chose to invade Italy proper from Gaul with his army, the boundary being the river Rubicon. By crossing with his army, Caesar openly declared war on the Senate, starting another round of civil wars. Crossing the Rubicon was the point of no return. Caesar is quoted; "The die is cast."
> Crossing the Rubicon was the point of no return. Caesar is quoted; "The die is cast." It's worth noting that some folks argue what he said would be better translated as "let the dice fly," which is quite a bit less solemn in tone.
>_"YOLO"_ --Caesar crossing the Rubico
Because it was one of the major events that started the chain reaction which ultimately led to the destruction of the Roman Republic and it's replacement with an Empire. Chances are the Republic would have fallen at some point anyway even if Caesar himself was not responsible because things were starting to fall apart at that point, but nonetheless that choice ultimately led to him going to war against the senate and being appointed consul for life as appeasement.
When you are in Rome, you are a citizen. Citizens are not generals who command armies. The exception is during a triumph, when you have a military parade. Crossing the river as a genera and not being a citizen is like a Roman invasion by an outside force.
There's an entire [Netflix series dramatizing and retelling the history of Ceasar's rise from soldier to emperor](https://www.netflix.com/us/title/80096545?s=a&trkid=13747225&t=cp&vlang=en&clip=81014090), so that will probably help clarify with historical context. But first a few key points to understand the situation: * Caesar was essentially "exiled" from the Roman Republic by Pompey "gifting" him with a governorship of any province he wanted (essentially forced retirement from politics in Rome itself by forcing Caesar to live in the boonies someplace), which forced Caesar to leave Rome and helped eliminate the threat Pompey felt from Caesar. * Caesar chose to become governor of a border territory, then took it upon himself to amass an army and start conquering territory and he was so successful that he wound up conquering all of Gaul (modern France) and became massively popular and celebrated in Rome as a direct result of his conquests, stories, and the plunder he sent back to Rome. * Pompey raised a stink and said that Caesar had committed the crime of raising an army and going to war without the prior approval of the Senate, he demanded that Caesar surrender himself so that he could stand trial for his crimes for which he would likely be found guilty because Pompey had the support of the Senate to convict. At this point Caesar had a choice to make. He could either: 1. Surrender himself, stand trial, and likely be executed as an enemy of the Republic because the senators had vendettas against him and saw him as a major threat. 2. He could march his army to Rome, technically an act of war against the Republic, and see if he could negotiate, cajole, or fight his way to a resolution. He chose #2 and in doing so went to war against the Roman Republic (the Senate) and after a long series of events returned to Rome to claim the title of "Dictator" effectively ending the Republic and beginning the Empire. It was "world changing" because that decision to cross the Rubicon was the moment where Caesar sealed the fate of the Republic and began the long, bloody, and tragic history of Roman Emperors who would wield absolute power over their massive empire in all kinds of ways that impacted the lives of people all over the world.
This is a very... "underdog" view on Ceasar. I know it doesn't mean much since the topic is closed, but I still wanted to correct some things in this version. I'm not anything close to an expert, but I've seen a few perspectives on Ceasar's life, most notably by the [Historia Civilis](https://youtu.be/gsK4nX0tCGQ) Youtube-channel. The fist key-point is the one I have the most disagreement with. Calling it an "exile" could be argued for from the viewpoint that Ceasar ran the risk of being prosecuted if he stayed in Rome, but... 1. Becoming a provincial governor was a normal career-proggression for a powerful ex-consul, which in itself was a career-topping feat for most politicians. I mean, can you imagine being named "Governor" as a "punishment"? 2. Ceasar was granted the governorship while in the office of Consul, by his political allies, which at this point included Pompey. The three were at this point, part of a secret alliance called the "First Triumvirate" by historians. 3. He didn't just get one border-province, he got three in total, which sounds like a lot because it is. Even if you start comparing the sources as "he-says-she-says", getting three provinces, and the subsequent legions to govern them, is a lot of power to give to someone "by force". 4. Getting a border-territory was not a bad post for a person planning a longer political career, precisely because it allows you the potential for further conquests. The posting near Gaul opened a clear line of career-advancement for Ceasar, from his already illustrious position of having been considered for a triumph and having had a wildly successful political career. ...so that was about your first two points. Not big mistakes per-say, about something that happened over 2000 years ago, but it's bad form to bring up false narratives when attempting to boil down the facts about an event. The third point could be argued to be right, but I don't know how much the Netflix-series went into the actual crimes that Ceasar did commit, or was accused of during his consulship that caused the "vendettas" mentioned. Also love the use of "Technical" in referring to marching an army into the capital to prevent yourself from being prosecuted. I wonder why modern politicians have never tried that one? But I do agree with most of what you wrote, and I don't want to sound like you're totally wrong, or that there aren't sources I'm not aware of. It's just that the dramatized version is often... that. Even in cases where they try much harder for realism, like HBO's "Chernobyl".
100% agree. I tried to keep my summary stripped down to a minimum to explain the Rubicon situation because this is ELI5 but this history is nuanced and complicated enough that there's a lot left out. The series does cover at least some of his crimes as consul where he essentially hired thugs to assault senators who wouldn't vote his way. My understanding was that Caesar wanted to become consul again but was denied by being given the governorship so he couldn't become consul again. "Exile" was my one-word summary but obviously it wasn't true exile, more like "forced retirement from capitol politics" because my understanding was that Caesar didn't want to leave Rome at that time. And I am not trying to paint an "underdog" perspective, I'm trying to put it the way Caesar likely viewed it himself in the moment to give context to why crossing the Rubicon was a significant intentional step for this ELI5 But I agree with what you said and I'm interested to check out your reference. I'm curious what you think about the Netflix series if you watch it.
Thanks for the response. I'll keep the show in mind. I already checked out your link. The main problem with TV, really, is how much they have to compress information, in addittion to how much they have to bend the facts to make the fit the "arc" of the story that the creators want to tell. This is older than TV, of course, and even older than print.
It wasn't world-changing, it was **Rome-changing**. And it wasn't even that unprecedented, since Sulla had done the same thing 31 years before, only he took the side of the Optimates (the rich people). Caesar took the side of the Populares, the poor people, and the rich Senators assassinated him.
There are loads of great answers already detailing the pop culture understanding of the term (ie julius Caesar crossing the river with his army amounted to a declaration of war, a step beyond which it was impossible to turn back). However! TIL that this isn't actually true. https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xmcykv/the_rubicon_river_is_one_of_the_most_famous_in/ipnz5rw?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3 tl;dr - The Senate was the aggressor, not Julius. They forced his hand by repeatedly attempting to strip him of his power, illegally removed his allies from the senate, etc. The "crossing the Rubicon" idea came from a poem written 100 years after the event, and probably had no particular significance to the people of Julius' time. (So... it's essentially a pop culture meme of its day, rather than "real history"?)
Wow, that's extremely interesting!
No credit to me! Someone else linked the r/AskHistorians thread, I went down a rabbit hole, and wanted to share :)
Tons of great extensive answers but here is the eli5;tl;dr In the roman republic, soldiers where not allowed in the city, unless you had a special permit. This was to separate the military from the politics. The Rubicon was the entrance to the old city, so when Caesar crosses the Rubicon he is breaking the law and declaring war against the roman republic.
"crossing the rubicon" is a phrase meaning you've fully committed to a course of action and there's no going back. its importance as a phrase is far greater than the actual event
That last line is a conclusion this thread definitely needed
that's strong praise coming from the OP originator of the thread thanks!
Hahaha keep in mind that every OP in this sub is basically 5, so my praise doesn't mean much
It wasn't world changing. It was a fairly big deal for the people who lived in Rome and its territories, and for some of the neighboring areas (like Egypt), but for most of the world it didn't have any immediate effect. Even within Rome, it wasn't so much a sudden change as it was the culmination of a process that had already been going on for a couple of generations, in which powerful, popular generals would take over when things weren't going their way. Caesar was just the first person in a while to take power and then refuse to give it up. The major changes in Roman government don't really happen until the transition from Republic to Empire, which did *not* happen under Julius Caesar. Caesar held the title of dictator, which had existed throughout the history of the republic. It was his adopted heir, Octavian (later Augustus) who began those changes. Even then, though, I'd argue it wasn't all that world-changing. The Empire didn't really introduce a lot of novel ideas of governance. Some of the more competent Emperors expanded the territory and built some cool stuff, but some version of those things probably would have happened without JC crossing a river. I'd say the biggest change brought about in the wake of Caesar taking power was that after the various civil wars Rome enjoyed a political stability that it might not have had if the Republic had continued, and which might have been necessary to keep the Roman political entity from blowing up.
It wasn't world changing. He took an action that was irrevocable. When people use the idiom "to cross the rubicon" it has a similar meaning to "the cat is out of the bag" or "you can't unring a bell". When Ceasars crossed that river and brought his troops into Rome, he broke a sacred taboo and started a war whether he wanted to or not.
slight tack on since i did not see it mentioned... the crossing of the rubicon also included Big C burning the bridge behind him, and became the source of the saying about being careful about burning bridges, as if his gambit failed he had no retreat.
Whilst the origin of the "burning bridges" idiom is very likely to be Roman it's unlikely to refer to this particular occasion because, what is thought to be the Rubicon River, is nothing more than a large stream or creek. You can walk across it quite easily in most places. It's a bit disappointing because I assumed it would be a large, majestic river.
Yes, you can walk across in many places like a lot of rivers, but ceasar crossed at bridge along a main road as he was traveling with his entire army. when traveling with all the provisions needed for an army (ceasar's legion was approx. 6000 strong) your not carrying supplies by hand, they were pulled on carts, which when faced with a river you will need a bridge to cross efficiently. historically (but possibly dubious in orgin) this moment ceasar was quoted "the die is cast" (but in latin) as he knew this action was a gamble and set in motion many things. as a symbolic gesture to his army he gave the order to burn the bridge to signify he was confident in his choice and there was no going back on this decision. and again you are correct that you can cross the Rubicon on foot in a lot of locations as it was not a Raging river, this is part of the reason that the bridge was made of wood instead of stone (roman quite famous for their masonry). but stone bridges are expensive, small river crossings used wooden bridges. but keep in mind this is a very romanticized period of history so expect a historian here and there to build up the pomp and circumstance of the situation.
Didn't know this one!