Viswanathan K's Thoughts

How does a democracy transform into one-man rule? In an age where strongmen are increasingly the norm (US, China, Russia, India, Turkey etc), this question is more than just academic. We’re told to learn from history, so let’s turn to ancient Rome. How did ancient Rome change from a Republic into a monarchy? That’s the question physicist Sean Carroll asks historian Edward Watts in his podcast . If you thought, “Simple. Julius Caesar took over, and that was that”, you’d be wrong. The institutions that governed Rome had been there for centuries, and they wouldn’t have gone out easily. Let Watts explain how things really played out. Caesar knew that the existing institutions were well entrenched, which is why he never wanted to become the emperor. All he wanted was a guarantee that he wouldn’t be prosecuted for his crimes from his earlier term as Consul. But could he trust any promises by the Senate? What if they went back on their word? The Senate, on the other hand, didn’t ap...

Refer to my previous blog to see how Julius Caesar got eyeball to eyeball with Rome. Based on Simon Baker’s Ancient Rome , the questions were: would Caesar topple the government? Or could a compromise be worked out? The Senate turned to Pompey the Great for help, and granted him sole consulship. It meant that the earlier alliance between Pompey and Caesar was now broken. Meanwhile, spotting the opportunity created by the Roman v/s Roman standoff, the Gauls revolted. Caesar responded with lightning speed. He rode back to Gaul and with his usual ruthless, single-minded, tactical genius as a general, put down the revolt. And then he returned to the outskirts of Italy again. Caesar offered a deal: since he was not eligible to stand for consul again until 10 years from his first tenure, he asked that his tenure in Gaul be extended. Upon his return, he would then stand for consul again. The people’s assemblies OK’ed the legislation: his popularity after the Gaul conquest was sky ...

Refer to my previous blog for the backdrop to what follows, taken from Simon Baker’s Ancient Rome . Pompey the Great was a general whose military brilliance was there to see during his campaigns. He appointed kings here, and struck peace treaties there. Upon his return to Rome, the Senate was terrified: would he and his army seize absolute power? But Pompey had no such ambition. He disbanded his army; but he asked the Senate to ratify the treaties he had signed; and that his soldiers be awarded plots of land. The Senate was in a quandary: “To agree to these terms would be to acknowledge the preeminence of Pompey in the republic. It would confirm that he had won the personal loyalty both of the Roman army and of kings, potentates and peoples in the east.” So they stalled and avoided making a decision. Pompey and his disbanded army were bitter. The decision to not make a decision would haunt the senators soon. Julius Caesar, a high born senator, was a “suave and debonair p...