If Rome detested kings and if the mob loved it when Julius Caesar denied crown then why was Rome so willing to accept later caesars as such absolute dictators? Did the senate seem untrustworthy after the assassination of Julius Caesar? Would the Roman Empire have had so many dictators had the Senate let Julius Caesar rule for his natural life?
>senatorial elite was gone (killed)
>res publica doesn't mean democracy
>de jure the senate was still in charge (early Empire)
>aristocracy in late republic was a kleptocracy unable to rule the provinces
>plebs
Read a book instead of wiki.
>>848137
Late Roman Empires weren't dictators. They had dictatorial powers which is not the same in pre-modern minds. It was Augustus' idea to detach the powers from the offices ("honores"). Also the senate renewed this powers regularly so the Patricians didn't get pissed and were able to play their power games still.
Check this one out:
http://www.amazon.de/Politics-Society-Imperial-Aloys-Winterling/dp/1405179694
>>848137
>why was Rome so willing to accept later Caesars as such absolute dictators?
as previous anon mentioned, the republican facade was still in place at first. Also, if you've even just listened to the Dan Carlin series, you'd know that by Octavian's time Rome had finished the roller coaster of civil war and proscriptions and triumvirates. Someone who would make the killing stop and bring stability was welcome.
>>848143
People who say "read a book" should automatically be disqualified from the discussion for unnecessary condescension.
The solution to your personal insecurities will never be trying to make others feel 'beneath' you somehow. Either rely on your argument to stand on its own, or don't bother making one. If you have to punctuate it with "jesus you're so stupid" undertones, then what you're saying isn't substantial enough and you need to work on it before it flies out of your mouth next time.
This fucking generation, I swear.
>>848203
It wasn't meant to be condescending at all. Well and I got fairly good notes on my undergrade courses on Rome so I don't really feel insecure about them at all (so there might be some projecting going on in your post actually). It's just to public history/wiki tends to oversimplify things and/or uses anachronistic terms like OP did ("dictatorship"; "absolute" etc.) Also the 2nd post was mine too so I made a specific recommendation.
>Either rely on your argument to stand on its own, or don't bother making one
Well meh this is not how historical science operate.
>>848214
It is, actually. It's history. It's already happened. It's you repeating facts to someone. Surprisingly enough, you don't have to sound like a prick when you do it.
Must be a real shocker, I know.
>>848237
Point is any historical argument has to stand on a empirical foundation and it must take into account what previous research it relies on (and what theory and method was used to examine "the fact").
Right now you are the one being condescending and toxic as fuck btw.
>It's history. It's already happened.
History is not "what happened". What happened is "the past". History is humans writing about the past and trying to make sense out of it.
>>848170
>Dan Carlin
>just a 4 year history degree
Thanks, but no thanks.
[spoilers on his]I prefer John Green[/spoilers on his]
>>848203
I agree with this sentiment. This board is for discussion, not merely lording over others and trying to /thread as soon as one one finds something the other person doesn't know.
I hate people who use their knowledge as a status symbol instead of a tool to educate.
>>848303
This board is supposed to be for high level discourse too. If you haven't made a tiny effort (i.e. read a book) to get answers to your questions you can't expect to get spoon-fed everything.
>>848252
>A war happened in 1640 between X and Y countries, fighting over Z resource.
>THEY ATTACKED US OVER OIL, OH MY GOD READ A FUCKING BOOK
Two completely different things, one of which qualifies for "stop and think about what you're saying" while the other is just "this is what happened. form your OWN opinion about it."
Just because YOUR rhetoric is tainted with bias doesn't mean that this is how history as a whole is approached. It's just YOU tainting your own bullshit with a biased opinion and then accusing everyone else of being stupid for not thinking the way you do.
>>848372
You can redirect someone to a wikipedia article and berate them for not even trying a google search before asking a question, but trying to /thread using a book that you happened to have read is mostly just the lording over I was talking about. If threads were ended as soon as someone pointed out a book another anon hadn't read then there would be no discussion.
Use "higher level discussion" as an excuse against blatant shitposting, not honest but ignorant anons looking for some answers to fill in a few gaps in their knowledge of a topic. If you can't be bothered to post your knowledge about the topic then don't post at all.
>>848372
Stating facts impartially is not "spoon-feeding".
>>848422
And neither is answering questions on a board specifically designed to explore a certain topic. If you don't feel like "spoon-feeding" your "knowledge" to someone in the form of an answer to their genuine question, then don't post at all.
>>848454
I think you linked to the wrong post.
>>848372
> board is for high level discourse too
>too, as in 'as well' or 'also'
> person asks a question you deem entry level
> your knowledge level is not on my own and therefore I may speak to you as if you are an autist
If you don't want to answer entry level questions, don't go into a thread with an entry level question as the OP, and if for whatever reason you just cannot resist the urge to do so, at least have the decency to answer with some fucking grace
>>848477
(Linked to my own post, expanding on a thought)
>>848498
When I do that I start with (continued).
>>848505
I'll do that in the future.
>>848495
>I may speak to you as if you are an autist
Actually not stating where OP is coming from is autistic as fuck. It's impossible to respond to him in a meaningful way if he doesn't lay down on what his knowledge is based upon.
>>848549
Tact.
>>848561
>4chan
>tact
I'll admit I may have spent too much time on /tv/.
>>848137
Because it had been 500 years since the kings.
Five Hundred Years.
>>848412
No offense but you should check out Luckmann/Berger or some basic stuff one Post-Structuralism.
>A war happened in 1640 between X and Y countries, fighting over Z resource.
You can say this and it makes sense but only in a pretty tight framework of assumed knowledge. For example there are historians (Herfried Münkler) who state that WWI+WWII could be described as one big war with changing intensity in different areas of the world.
>fighting over Z resource
Causality itself can never be proven. Statements about historical causalities are always theory-laden.
>>848549
He got insulted, linked to a book, and condescended to about another historians research.
>answers
>>848584
>>senatorial elite was gone (killed)
>res publica doesn't mean democracy
>de jure the senate was still in charge (early Empire)
>aristocracy in late republic was a kleptocracy unable to rule the provinces
>plebs
>Late Roman Empires weren't dictators. They had dictatorial powers which is not the same in pre-modern minds. It was Augustus' idea to detach the powers from the offices ("honores"). Also the senate renewed this powers regularly so the Patricians didn't get pissed and were able to play their power games still.
>the republican facade was still in place at first
>>848584
>He got insulted
No.
>>848581
You missed his point entirely.
This happened on this date over this cause. Form your own opinion.
vs.
This happened on this date, because I personally believe that [opinion about my own interpretation of what a word means] and [bias laden conclusion].
If it's tainted with an opinion, it becomes rhetoric. And rhetoric =/= historical fact. Its someones interpretation of the event rather than the facts of the event itself. History is set fact, the events happened and everyone has a different view of it. But the challenge to each academic subject is forming your OWN opinion of it, rather than learning to mimic others. Your opinion isn't automatically above reproach because it's yours, and no one is required to share your opinion of what happened. They should get the straight facts, unbiased, so they can form their OWN opinion. And if they end up agreeing with you, it's because your opinions happened to align. Not because he learned how to parrot yours back to you for fear of being called "stupid", "ignorant", "childish", or being accused of requiring "spoon-feeding" (akin to a baby).
>>848604
>only fact in post
>word actually means this because i say so
>opinion about state of government
>opinion about what aristocracy was and wasnt able to do
>vague reference to a very important contributing factor
>insult about OP being unlearned and relying on wikipedia instead of reading the same books as you
This doesn't qualify as an answer.
>>848203
B A S E D A N O N
T
F
O
Pic related is the truth.
>>848599
Exactly. Augustus had full consular imperium with tribunician powers throughout his political life, but rarely held office or title.
>>848636
>implying the res publica is a democracy
>implying Augustus or later Caesars were dictatores
>implying you contributed anything of content to this thread
Mate those are the most prominent answers in todays historiography to OPs question. You are welcome to prove me wrong
>History is set fact, the events happened and everyone has a different view of it.
Leopold von Ranke just called, he wants his opinion back,
>>848691
There they go again.
Because it was supposed to be temporary (dictator originally meant to rule in periods of crisis and catastrophes without checks)
>>848564
/tv/ is by far the worst board I have ever frequented.
This thread is getting too meta.
>>848170
By Octavian's time, corruption in the Senate was still rampant which is why in the first place the people were so willing to accept dictatorships from the likes of Sulla and Caesar.
>>848170
>Someone who would make the killing stop and bring stability was welcome.
>be Octavian
>bring Rome to civil war and kill off your triumvirate allies
>See guize I brought stability and peace!
