0
We do not know whether Caesar wanted to save the republic or, as his assassins thought, wanted to become a king. If the former was the case, it is difficult to assess whether his reforms would have been enough and we do not know whether Caesar would have changed their course because some of them came in the context of protracted civil war. What would have mattered the most, had Caesar not been killed, would have been his charisma and enormous popularity among the Roman people.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
If not for Julius Caesar would the Roman Republic have given way to the Roman Empire?
Okay, your question needs a twofold answer. First of all the Roman republic and the Roman empire were different entities. The Republic was/is a form of government; an empire is a large holding of some sort. The two are not identical. And no, Julius Caesar did not bring down the Roman republic. The republic had been dying or even considered dead since at least the time of the first triumvirate. Caesar merely was fortunate enough to take advantage of the opportunities that opened up for him.
Why did Julius Caesar not invade Ireland?
Caesar had enough to cope with in insuring his supremacy in Gaul.
What was one of julius Caesar's achievements?
He fought battles, subdued provinces, defeated internal enemies, but then so had plenty of others who had won most of the empire. Fabius Maximus got Maximus - the Greatest, while Pompey and even Alexander only got Magnus - the Great. It might have been the greatest problem of all of stabilising the Roman state however he wasn't smart enough how to work it out. He improved on Sulla's attempt, but by making himself dictator for life, had no enduring solution and it naturally fell apart when his life was ended. Solving that main problem was left to Augustus. His accomplisment was rather one of public relations. Post mortem, he was raised amongst the gods. He didn't get Great or Greatest, he simply got Caesar - he became the image of a successful and divine ruler - so successfully was this presented that subsequent rulers wanted the trademark name of Caesar. Augustus, his adopted son, took the name Caesar, as did the subsequent emperors. We even find this down to the Czar of Russia and Kaiser of Germany (both corruptions of Caesar). Even though Caesar is a jocular catch name for Baldy (baldness ran in his family, and although Caesar meant 'fine head of hair' it was a joke) later important people all were quite anxious for the title because of the aura of success, invicibility and divine right.
How did the roman senate feel about Augustus Caesar?
Before Augustus the Republic was in bad shape (rather violent). First JuliusCaesar started reforms to fix problems, but he was murdered. Then when Augustus came to run Rome, he was in charge for his life. He carried out reforms to fix the government and announced restoration of peace to desperate people of Rome. He was a legitimate ruler, who was fair and effective, and he wasn't power hungry. He was helpful at acting on the citizen's best interests. He brought centuries of peace and prosperity to last after his death.
When did roman republic become a dictatorship?
The Roman Republic never became a dictatorship. The republic fell and was replaced by 503 year of rule by emperors which was established by Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, in 27 BC. The emperors were absolute rulers. Julius Caesar had himself appointed dictator for life in 44 BC. However, the term dictator was very different in Roman times. The dictator was an extraordinary officer of state with extraordinary powers who was appointed by senatorial decree to deal with emergencies. Therefore, Caesar's appointment did not amount to dictatorship was we understand it nowadays. What was different about Caesar's appointment was that it was as Dictator for Life, a position that no other Roman dictator had ever been offered, it implies a change in the timbre of the office. It was unusual and threatening enough to one group of Senators that it led to Caesar's assassination.
Who was the king before Caesar?
Julius Caesar was NOT a king, Rome had been a republic for several hundred years. Before that, it had been ruled by kings, and after Caesar's murder it soon switched to emperors (for the first decades there were 2 then 3 rulers at the same time, but then they decided 1 emperor was enough!).
If not for Julius Caesar would the Roman Republic have given way to the Roman Empire?
Okay, your question needs a twofold answer. First of all the Roman republic and the Roman empire were different entities. The Republic was/is a form of government; an empire is a large holding of some sort. The two are not identical. And no, Julius Caesar did not bring down the Roman republic. The republic had been dying or even considered dead since at least the time of the first triumvirate. Caesar merely was fortunate enough to take advantage of the opportunities that opened up for him.
Why did Julius Caesar not invade Ireland?
Caesar had enough to cope with in insuring his supremacy in Gaul.
Was Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play a real threat to the roman republic?
I am not sure that Shakespeare takes sides on this one. His focus is on Brutus particularly, so it is Brutus's perception that Caesar was such a threat which matters. The historical question is vexed and centres around two questions: whether the republic was doomed no matter what Caesar did and whether the empire wasn't in fact a better system than the republic anyway. Brutus, as portrayed by Shakespeare, was such a wholehearted supporter of the republic that he would not countenance any suggestion that there was a better system or that it was destined to fail. That Caesar's actions historically robbed the republic of its authority cannot be doubted, and that would have been good enough for Brutus to consider him a threat. However, Shakespeare relies on the audience's general knowledge of Roman history to fill in those details. He does show Caesar as incredibly vain and arrogant, just the kind of person that would make a tyrannical dictator, but not whether he was in fact a tyrant.
Who felt the reforms on the church England didn't go far enough?
puritans
What was the main challenge of the Lone Star Republic?
The Lone Star Republic, Texas, faced issues of possible invasion by Mexico and a distinct lack of resources to maintain a large army. Texas at the time simply did not have enough of a population to do so but being annexed by the US gave them an army.
Not BLANK itself were dim enough to conceal their purposes fill in the blank Julies Caesar?
Firstly: its Julius Caesar. Secondly: the missing word in this quote from Julius Caesar is "Erebus".
What was one of julius Caesar's achievements?
He fought battles, subdued provinces, defeated internal enemies, but then so had plenty of others who had won most of the empire. Fabius Maximus got Maximus - the Greatest, while Pompey and even Alexander only got Magnus - the Great. It might have been the greatest problem of all of stabilising the Roman state however he wasn't smart enough how to work it out. He improved on Sulla's attempt, but by making himself dictator for life, had no enduring solution and it naturally fell apart when his life was ended. Solving that main problem was left to Augustus. His accomplisment was rather one of public relations. Post mortem, he was raised amongst the gods. He didn't get Great or Greatest, he simply got Caesar - he became the image of a successful and divine ruler - so successfully was this presented that subsequent rulers wanted the trademark name of Caesar. Augustus, his adopted son, took the name Caesar, as did the subsequent emperors. We even find this down to the Czar of Russia and Kaiser of Germany (both corruptions of Caesar). Even though Caesar is a jocular catch name for Baldy (baldness ran in his family, and although Caesar meant 'fine head of hair' it was a joke) later important people all were quite anxious for the title because of the aura of success, invicibility and divine right.
How did the roman senate feel about Augustus Caesar?
Before Augustus the Republic was in bad shape (rather violent). First JuliusCaesar started reforms to fix problems, but he was murdered. Then when Augustus came to run Rome, he was in charge for his life. He carried out reforms to fix the government and announced restoration of peace to desperate people of Rome. He was a legitimate ruler, who was fair and effective, and he wasn't power hungry. He was helpful at acting on the citizen's best interests. He brought centuries of peace and prosperity to last after his death.
When did roman republic become a dictatorship?
The Roman Republic never became a dictatorship. The republic fell and was replaced by 503 year of rule by emperors which was established by Augustus, the first Roman Emperor, in 27 BC. The emperors were absolute rulers. Julius Caesar had himself appointed dictator for life in 44 BC. However, the term dictator was very different in Roman times. The dictator was an extraordinary officer of state with extraordinary powers who was appointed by senatorial decree to deal with emergencies. Therefore, Caesar's appointment did not amount to dictatorship was we understand it nowadays. What was different about Caesar's appointment was that it was as Dictator for Life, a position that no other Roman dictator had ever been offered, it implies a change in the timbre of the office. It was unusual and threatening enough to one group of Senators that it led to Caesar's assassination.
Is there enough water in Czech Republic?
Yes, there is, absolutely.
How did brutus and Cassius fail to adapt themselves after Caesar death?
he failed because he didnt provide enough information on why they killed Caesar and left the crowd in questions.
