The truth is that the Roman Republic named its years by the names of the two consuls who were ruling that year. The two consuls were kind of like co-presidents. So 50 BC was actually "the year of Paullus and Marcellus". In theory always equal, though they would tend to share power by swapping out one month each.

I explain this because of another fun fact. In 59 BC Julius Caesar and Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus were elected consul, "the year of Caesar and Bibulus". But in March that year, Caesar's supporters assaulted Bibulus and forced him to back down from a significant policy. After that he retreated from public and was barely seen all year. It became known as "the year of Julius and Caesar".

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

But in March that year, Caesar’s supporters assaulted Bibulus and forced him to back down from a significant policy.

The full story of the Consulship was pretty significant. Bibulus repeatedly obstructed a popular bill to resettle retired soldiers on private lands, paid for with state taxes.

Bibulus's obstruction tactics - combined with his vocal disgust for democratic rule - grew more perfunctory as his position degraded. By the end of his term, he was simply shouting from his Villa that nothing the Republic did counted because he was "watching for Omens".

Just a chronic unmitigated hater. The Rand Paul of his era.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There are certainly arguments that can be made criticising both sides, but Caesar's actions were blatantly unconstitutional. Completely disregarding vetos by a tribune of the plebs, drumming up violent mobs to prevent his political rivals exerting their lawful powers. Completely ignoring a rival's use of lawful powers when he did make use of it… And that's just the stuff he did specifically in relation to Bibulus, before all the other illegal stuff that led to the Civil War and the eventual end of the Republic.

Caesar was a populist. His policies themselves might or might not have been genuinely good ones. Personally, looking back from the perspective of an entirely different world over 2000 years later I'm inclined to think I like them. But that cannot justify the incredible abuse of power he resorted to go pass them.

Incidentally, one of those other later things he did was convinced the Senate to let him run for consul again without resigning his proconsulship , specifically because he was immune from being prosecuted for his crimes as long as he was proconsul or consul. And he knew full well that he was guilty of crimes and would be tried for them if he resigned as proconsul and returned to Rome as a citizen. Essentially, he was abusing the immunity provided by the office to protect himself from being prosecuted for crimes. Reminds you of anyone?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Caesar’s actions were blatantly unconstitutional

Bibulus's were blatantly anti-democratic.

Caesar was a populist. His policies themselves might or might not have been genuinely good ones.

But Rome was - ostensibly - a Republic. His policies weren't the issue. What stood at issue was the inability of the Republican mode of government to affect changes in policy through debate and legislation. A single intransigent Consul claimed the right to bottle up a reform indefinitely based on his personal whims.

This obstructionism was what ultimately broke the Republic as an institution. It rendered civil governance impossible and caused irreparable harm to numerous constituents, as a result. The civil war that followed was merely an extension of the violence imposed on lay Romans by the state under Bibulus.

And he knew full well that he was guilty of crimes and would be tried for them if he resigned as proconsul

The joke of it was the reflexive Roman adherence to a constitution that prohibited prosecution of consuls. Similarly, the obstructionism of Bibulus was only possible through consular powers that undermined popular governance. Both Bibulus and Caeser fell victim to the backlash, as mobs of Civilians and then Senators turned out to rectify what civil procedure failed to achieve.

Essentially, he was abusing the immunity

An immunity that did not spare him from getting repeatedly shanked in the Senate. Rather than facing civil justice, he submitted himself to vigilante violence.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Bibulus's were blatantly anti-democratic.

You'll note that I did not, at any point, suggest that this was a matter of "Bibulus good, Caesar bad". Because "Bibulus good" is far from the truth. Any reference to whether Bibulus's actions were themselves justified is irrelevant.

Everything else you said I basically agree with. The Roman institutions were fundamentally flawed. It was corrupt as hell, ruled for the elite to an extent that even the worst modern democracies would find shocking (famously, Caesar basically bought both his consulships straight-up, and that wasn't even criminal), and reform had become basically impossible.

Rather than facing civil justice, he submitted himself to vigilante violence.

Unfortunately because of the rules of your instance, and the instance this Community is in (that even theoretical references to supporting violence, even if it is legally-justified violence, will get you banned), I am forbidden from sharing my feelings in this matter.

I just viewed your earlier comment as an apologia for Caesar's behaviour (I apologise if you didn't intend that) and wanted to correct the record on that.

[–] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Meanwhile, Caesar was the one to eventually make it an empire instead. Kind of funny.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Ask the Gauls what kind of country they were living in, ten years prior.