60th book of 2020. ** If Caesar hadn’t crossed the rubicon, would it matter? **
As an upstanding member of western civilization, one cannot help but pick up fragments of Caesar’s story. It’s easy to think that Caesar was the person who brought about a step-change in Roman politics, from the initial years of republic to the later millennium of empire that only fell with Constantinople.
But after reading this book, I’m not sure why Caesar is considered such a pivotal figure in history. Were you to put Pompey or Cicero in his place, the result may have been the same, with the only substantial difference being the names on the board rather than the board itself. Even if Caesar lost the civil war, the wheels of history seem perfectly content to grind forward towards empire with a different leading cast.
When Caesar was 18, Sulla had already given the Roman republic a three year taste of dictatorship, gifting the remaining republic with the aftermath of a purge, constitutional reform, and substantially strengthened military. During the time of the first triumvirate, Pompey had already enjoyed enough military success to warp Roman political fabric, and after the Gallic wars Cato had made clear his intent to prosecute Caesar if he were to lose the immunity brought by his position as proconsul. I struggle to think what I would have done differently in Caesar’s position when debating to cross the Rubicon, even with the gift of hindsight.
So with something akin to regret and mercy, Caesar went from victory to victory, further eroding institutions of the republic as he went. By the time he was assassinated, all precedent for truly republican government had been lost, and the second civil war was enough to ensure that the stability of empire was preferable to the chaos of republic. if anything it reminds me of Iraqi democracy since 2003, and serves as the first example of how representative government can succumb to the forces of entropy.