ye gods, it doth amaze me

Yesterday's Intellectual Devotional entry was on Julius Caesar, and said in part:

Caesar was declared dictator by the Senate in the midst of his civil war with Pompey. It was a time of crisis, and the leader was thought to require decisive, emergency powers. But the emergency never passed. The Republic was not to be restored.

Caesar ruled as dictator, but he was largely careful to maintain the appearance of consulting the Senate -- stacked with his supporters -- and respecting the government's traditions.

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?

Comments

[Samuel McConnell]

Wow, yeah...sounds just like the prequel Star Wars movies!

[ErkDude]

I think we woulda been better off with Julius....

[Mander]

He was having a civil war with a man (Pompey) or a city (Pompeii)?

History is a huge cycle destined to repeat itself. Because our Great Dictator never bothered to study, we're repeating ourselves.

[justme]

"A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

From The Declaration of Independence.

I just realized something entirely freaky! As you know, the above statement was written about George III of England. So I thought I'd be cute and put George the 43rd in Roman numerals, too. Guess what it comes out as?

George XLIII.

King George III supersized?

Of course, I'm going to feel silly if everyone already realized this and I'm the last to know ...

[R]

Scary? oh my yes. We certainly are doomed to repeat history--I don't see us learning anything any time soon.

[CHV]

>>>Wow, yeah...sounds just like the prequel Star Wars movies!

Yeah, because George Lucas structured much of Episodes I-III after Roman history.

But as for parallels to Bush, once again, just thank God for the 22nd Amendment to the constitution - something the ancient Romans never had.

[Craig Steffen]

Because our Great Dictator never bothered to study, we're repeating ourselves.

No, but Karl Rove and Dick Cheney did, and they knew exactly what they were doing when they pushed through all that really nasty legislation in late 2001 and 2002. Fortunately, it sounds like the Democrats are going to try to undo at least some of the damage.

[djc664]

While your analogy is generally accurate, I think it is also important to consider that after the death of Caesar for those reasons you mentioned, Augustus Caesar (Formally Octavian) rose to the leadership in a matter of years (having being named Caesar's Heir by Last Will & Testament) and began Pax Romana - 200+ years of general peace and prosperity for all of Rome.

Sometimes history sorts itself out. I suppose of the other comments are true, we can look forward to a Ewok celebration in 2008!

[jo]

If you think that's scary... after Caesar was stabbed to death by tyrannicides in 44 BCE, he left as his heir the young Octavian, later known as Augustus. Octavian went on to base his entire political career on the promise the restoration of the Republic to the people. He became the first Roman Emperor, pretty much by 31 BCE-- didn't take too long.

Ostensibly he pursued this restoration goal diligently, taking on the modest title of "Princeps", meaning "first citizen [among many]", and made many changes to the government that he said would, and seemed like they would, "restore the Republic." In fact, what he did was re-organise the administration of the Roman domains into a monarchist empire.

So, while he never claimed the title officially, it was Augustus who was truly the first Roman Emperor. And the kicker is, he did it without anyone, at the time, really realising what was happening. Acting in the name of protecting liberty and the Roman tradition, he in fact subverted the very nature of both. Sound familiar?

The strange thing, though, is that Augustus' imperialist reorganisation actually *did* bring about the end of the Civil Wars that had been plaguing Rome for the last 60-70 years... the Augustan Era was known as the Golden Age of Rome. Art, trade, prosperity in general flowed freely from Augustus' monarchy.

One of his central philosophies was "let he who wishes for peace, prepare for war." To that end, he ensured that during his tenure, the Romans were almost constantly at war with an outside people. (Sound familiar?) By doing this, he ensured that his own people enjoyed a lasting peace; their anger and frustration and energies were focussed so heavily on carrying war against The Other, that they lived in greater harmony amongst themselves. The Us vs. Them tactc in a nutshell.

In today's morals, I wonder what people would think of that: is it better to bring peace to your own country, through constant warfare and harassment of your neighbours, keeping them weak so that they cannot threaten you (and therefore also building a great and glorious empire for your state), or do you allow your own nation to founder under constant civil war and discord, making it weak and divisive, making it a juicy target for those same enemies, many of whom might be tempted to take a piece out of you, if not destroy you altogether?

I'm (obviously) a Classical historian, and let me tell you, guys, it's amazing how much of the world's classical history is an exact mirror -- it's uncanny -- of what is going on in today's world. We're literally engaged in some of the exact same battles and moral quagmires that played out during the Greek and Roman eras. If anyone's ever read Thucydides, you'll know what I mean.

I wish our leaders studied history more. There are so many other solutions to the problems that haven't been tried yet, but it seems that yet again, we're going to go down the same old path.. even though we already know where that leads.

[Plainsong]

Yes, he had a precedent though, and that was Sulla, who actually did relenquish his title. What amazes me though was that his assasins only thought as far as step one, not to step two three or four. They got ride of Caesar.... ok, then what? Ooops, we didn't think that far.

And that left the door wide open for Octavianus.

Yeah, that sounds even more eerily appicable to today. Bush, like the ultra-conservatives who got rid of Caesar, doesn't see past the next step.

[VeronicaRobinson]

The world and all those singers, actors and political nut-jobs that seem to think THEIR voice will make a difference, also seem to be, to the casual observer, single-minded. (and really, if their voice was going to make a difference, it would have before now. he was RE-elected. remember?)

You all realize of course that things could be MUCH worse. Can you still say you hate the president and not get shot or just disappear? Last time I checked, you could.

I just found out from one of our good friends that his job is being ripped from him by the corporate office. Why? They are moving it to another country because the labor is cheaper. They asked if he wanted to go because he'd be making the same amount of money he does here and he'd live like a king. Those they hire in that country would make SIGNIFICANTLY less. Need an exact calculations? He makes...let's say $15 to $20 an hour. Those that they hire will make less than minimum wage.

It's a trend that is spreading at an alarming rate. Huge corporations send their work to other countries. When you call customer service, you speak to someone who learned English two days before they got you on the phone. Lines the big guy's pockets and keeps his drunk wife driving a Bentley.

My point? The president and his yes-men aren't the only one's fucking up this country.

[HighOnPoker]

Let's be fair, Wil. I'm not Bush supporter (quite the opposite), but at least our nation has term limits, so Bush's "emergency powers" will not allow him to remain dictator.

[MatildaZQ]

"Caesar ruled as dictator, but he was largely careful to maintain the appearance of consulting the Senate -- stacked with his supporters -- and respecting the government's traditions."

Well, this second part doesn't sound so familiar . . .

I reread The Once and Future King recently, and I was entirely weirded out by the eerie familiar of Wart's experience living as an ant.

[Spartica]

Does sound familiar Hugo Chavez is having himself declared dictator for life. Yeah, I know what your refering to Wil' but don't worry we have a Democracy and despite our disagreements over Iraq and the (FRs of the Middle East) that is supported by no less than 90% of our population. FDR was just as stubborn, when all were ready to admit defeat after Pearl Harbor he lifted them up with his stubborn dictatorial ways, thankfully. As far as the analogy of our president being compared to a dictator of ancient history. One big thing that always has to happen to create dictatorship from democracy and that is one must create an army that is loyal to him and him alone. Julius Caesar/Personal army, Hitler/SA/SS, Saddam/Fedayeen, Chavez/military. It's really hard to judge history or its figures by modern standards. Democracy and a sense of self determination didn't really exist back then. Intent is everything!, What was Caesars intent? was it much like Alexander the Greats? or self serving like Nero's? He didn't live long enough to let it be known. It is interesting that he was loved so much, immediately his executioners were hunted and killed, that every leader after him was referred to as Caesar which came to mean "King of Kings" which would lead to another conflict with somebody else who wanted that title.

[Raven's Ice]

the only question that truly remains is: Who's Brutus?

[XenoPhage]

OK! OK! *sigh*

I bought it. Started yesterday with "Alphabet" ... Really interesting stuff. I have no idea that the Egyptians essentially kick started literacy... :)

[justme]

Not to derail us, but moving jobs offshore has been happening for a long time. Just ask anyone in the automobile or textiles industry. That doesn't mean it's okay or good for the country, and I'm sorry about your friend Veronica, but we're at the bottom of that slippery slope, not the top.

[jo]

VeronicaRobinson,

Alarming trend- why alarming? It's supply and demand, pure and simple, the very fundamental concept of capitalism. Even Ayn Rand of Atlas Shrugged fame, evangelist of capitalism in the 50s and 60s, claimed that "Buy American is un-American." She supported the outsourcing of American jobs. Capitalism and free market is the American way-- so what's the problem?

I hardly think that one ought to measure the efficacy of their government by whether they can complain about the president and *not* get shot. I think those standards are a little ... low.

[Icelander]

It does sound eerily familiar.

Didn't Lucas make a movie about this?

[Spartica]

I have to make another comment on this interesting analogy. I'm surprised you didn't bring up the resemblance between Crassus and Bush. Since, Crassus the third leg in the Caesar, Pompey, Crassus trio. Who stupidly followed the parthians(modern day Iranians) into the dessert to make his name in war. Him and his many legions stupidly thought the parthians were in retreat, but were meet with a deadly surprise in the Parthian Shot, were archers turn around on there horse and shot you going aswell as coming. Your title could have been George George George of the D.C. Jungle look out for that ....Parthian Shot. That has so much relavance even today. It was one of the few men who survived the parthians that ultimately assassinated Julius Caesar as one of his guards, Irony gotta love it. Julius Caesar always thought it would be Pompey or Crassus that would get him but it was one of crassus body guards amongst others that killed him, From death I strike at thee.

[Plainsong]

I'll add that Caesar was by all accounts a genious, something Bush wouldn't know much about. He reminds me more of Caepio Brutus.

Crassus was right about the Parthians having the gold, wrong about the war strategy. This is where Caesar pwned all, in his strategies.

Caesar almost got mired down in his own vietnam/iraq situation in Alexandria.....almost. If the Pompeys, Caesars, Scipios were suddenly brought from the dead, it wouldn't take them long at all to see the strategical problems. Only the weaponry has changed.

[CarolP]

If by eerily you mean alarmingly, then yes.

[Erwin Blonk]

"and really, if their voice was going to make a difference, it would have before now. he was RE-elected. remember?"

With a landslide victory... eh, I mean by a small margin. Probably many presidents have been elected by small margins in winner-takes-all elections.
The problem is that someone representing half to voters gets all the power, creating something as close as you can get to a dictator while still being a democracy (yeah, Putin, I know, but a democracy that kills and imprisons opposition in not a democracy - in the US it gets ugly, opposition is akin to being a traitor, but not that violent).
And everytime the other camp in this 2-party-system (which is nearly a 1-party-system) wins it, things are being changed.

More to the point: strong leaders full of willpower, never to be diverted from their course: it sounds so good, so sexy even. Lemmings are also unstoppable, they know where to find food, you can't stop them, they are animals of principle.

Sticking with your principles is not as great as it sounds. It's the tempting easy road because it requires less thinking.

In the animal world it is never the enforcer that leads the pack, always the negotiator. The human is an exception to that, they seem to prefer the enforcer. 'You are with us or you are against us'. With us or against us.... doesn't get any easier. Simple-minded fools. Funny thing is, we stand to go extinct before most other animals.

[Belina]

I get chills just thinking about a lot of the historical comparisons.

[Mewfymewf]

Yes, it does sound eerily familiar. Like that recent episode of Stargate with Carter getting trapped in that alternate dimension. tee-hee?