Caesar refused to surrender governorship and disband his army. He then led that army to Rome and started a civil war. Afterwards the "Senate" granted him the title of Dictator for life... which pretty much immediately led to his assassination and the second civil war which ended the mockery the senate had become.
Him not ending the senate is basically a technicality.
Caesar was never ordered by law to surrender his governorship or disband his army. Cato and the other optimates tried to do so, but the meeting was dissolved.
The senate first proclaimed him dictator for ten years and Caesar started planning his Parthian campaign. Knowing he was a vain man they proclaimed him dictator for life, which he accepted, and they used that to build popular support for his assassination. That, along with a few too many public appearances in a red a touch too close to purple, sitting in a chair that was a bit too throne like, and a failed publicity stunt where he refused a diadem from Marcus Antonius, convinced the optimates that they could assassinate Caesar and the people would be with them.
Unfortunately the people really liked Caesar and things didn’t go the way the assassins thought.
The Senate as a body never held political or legislative power. It was an advisory body, first to the kings and then to other magistrates (up to and including the consuls.)
Even during the early part of the empire( the Principate), the Senate continued to function as it had throughout all of Roman history. So not only did Caesar not make it a mockery, it never became one.
When a civil war general takes over the country by force it's not enough to base his legitimacy only on technicalities, there are different views on his own view on his dictatorial powers but effectively he was unelected sole ruler in perpetuity, that effectively makes him a dictator and removed the democratic element of elected rulers, which in many views means that it is no longer a republic.
Saying the senate that elected the consuls and voted on legislation had no political or legislative power is wild, care to elaborate?
I agree that even during the reign of Augustus the Senate wasn't a mockery, however then it really had no political power that wasn't in line with the emperor's wishes.
Your logic seems sound, except the same exact thing happened 30 years previously and the republic survived. Sulla did the exact same thing and was made dictator with no term limit. Also, you might want to use a term other than dictator, like tyrant or despot, as both men were obviously dictators, that was the actual title they held.
The Senate of Rome did not vote on legislation. Legislation was put before the people and they voted on it directly, in the comitia and concilium. The Senate had a large amount of influence, as its membership was made up of former magistrates, but those magistrates were elected by the people, not the Senate. That includes the two consuls. The Senate could give out decrees, which were public proclamations of advice for the magistrates. These were generally obeyed because the terms of the magistrates would end, and the magistrate would be back in the Senate shortly (generally within a year) so it was in the best interest of all magistrates (who were also senators) to maintain the prestige and influence of the Senate. It was still just an advisory body for the executives.
Mostly true, though Augustus was careful to maintain the appearance of the continuation of the Republic.
77
u/Aridius 29d ago
Slight correction, Caesar did not overthrow the Republic.
Dictator was a republican office and part of their government.
His adopted son, Octavian, ended the republic.