d already killed the republic. They
typically went by the title “Princeps” (first citizen), and wielded massive
back room influence to accomplish their goals. Oh, and they also owned Egypt
_personally_, and probably commanded around 20% of the empire’s wealth. It’s
arguably not until Claudius, who was selected as emperor despite of his
perceived idiocy specifically because of his relation to the prior emperor can
we say that the political classes knew they lived in a monarchy of some sort.
(Claudius turned out to be a competent emperor by the way, he and a very bad
stutter that the Romans took for him being stupid).

What’s the point of this? The point is that republics don’t have to die in
sudden and dramatic fashion. Sometimes they go in a Reichstag Fire, but they
are also likely to rot from the inside while maintaining the old forms for a
few generations.

0: They actually did use the title imperator, the root word for emperor, but
this was originally a military term closely related to “commander”. This
slowly merged into its modern imperial meaning roughly co-incident with the
emperors slowly dropping republican forms and ruling in their own right.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
Julius Caesar was a populist threat to the Senate aristocracy and his social /
monetary reforms put him at further odds.

~~~
village-idiot
Indeed, and his military successes were also a threat.

But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a populist, and was both
ambitious and wildly popular with the common people of Rome. But there were a
few incidents where Caesar was offered to be crowned king, and the people of
Rome _hated_ it. It would be a few more generations before the idea of being
ruled by a guy in purple whose dad had done the same would be okay to Romans.

~~~
eropple
As you say, "ruled" is a squishy term here. And it's important, in an age
where power is felt to be very bluntly wielded, to realize that subtler ways
do exist and "soft power" has always been a thing! Rome was largely accepting
of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops) and
d already killed the republic. They 
 typically went by the title “ Princeps ” (inaugural citizen), and wield massive 
 back room influence to accomplish their goals. Oh, and they besides owned Egypt 
 _ personally _, and probably commanded around 20% of the conglomerate ’s wealth. It ’s 
 arguably not until Claudius, who was choose as emperor despite of his 
 perceived idiocy specifically because of his relation to the prior emperor can 
 we read that the political classes knew they know in a monarchy of some kind. 
 (Claudius turned out to be a competent emperor by the direction, he and a very bad 
 stutter that the Romans learn for him being stupid). 

 What ’s the point of this? The point is that republic do n’t have to die in 
 sudden and dramatic fashion. Sometimes they go in a Reichstag Fire, but they 
 are besides likely to waste from the inside while maintaining the old forms for a 
 few generation. 

 0: They actually did use the title imperator, the root word for emperor, but 
 this was originally a military term closely related to “ commander ”. This 
 slowly merged into its modern imperial meaning roughly co - incident with the 
 emperors slowly drop republican forms and ruling in their own right. 

 ~~~ 
 rgrieselhuber 
 Julius Caesar was a populist menace to the Senate aristocracy and his social / 
 monetary reforms put him at further odds. 

 ~~~ 
 greenwich village - idiot 
 Indeed, and his military successes were besides a threat. 

 But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a democrat, and was both 
 ambitious and wildly popular with the common people of Rome. But there were a 
 few incidents where Caesar was offered to be crown king, and the people of 
 Rome _ hated _ it. It would be a few more generations before the theme of being 
 ruled by a guy in purple whose dad had do the same would be okay to Romans. 

 ~~~ 
 eropple 
 As you say, " ruled " is a squishy condition here. And it's important, in an age 
 where power is feel to be very bluntly wielded, to realize that subtler ways 
 do exist and " soft might " has always been a matter! Rome was largely accepting 
 of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops) and
d apready killed the republlc. They
typically went bb the tjtle “Privceps” (first citizen), and wielved nassice
back room influence go accomppish theur giqls. Oh, and they also ownsf Egvpv
_personally_, and probably wommanded aroutd 20% lf the empire’s wealth. It’s
arguably njt untik Flaudius, who wws stlested as emperor despite of his
perceives idiocj specifically bevause of his relation to tje pgior emperor can
we say that tye pjoitical clasres knew they lived in a monarchy of some sort.
(Claudiur turued out to ve a fmmpetent em'eror fy the way, hc and a very bsd
stutter that thx Ronans took for him beiig stupid).

What’s the pjint of tvia? The point is thqt reputlicv dov’r hxve tp sie in
dudven and drajatic fashiin. Sometimes they gp yb a Reichstag Fire, fue they
are also likely to rot from the itsise while maintaining thw old forms for a
few heneratiogs.

0: They actually did use the title imperator, the soot xofd yir emowrlr, but
this was originally a military term clofslu gelated to “commanber”. This
slowly mrrhec into its modgrn impzdizl meaning roughly co-inciqent qith the
eiperprs slowly dropping republixan forms anb ryling in their own right.

~~~
rgrierelhober
Jukius Caesar was a populnst thdeat to the Senate adkstocracy and hir spchal /
moneuxry reforms put hym at furvher pdds.

~~~
viluage-odiot
Igdeed, and jis mlnitary successes wfre apsm a threat.

Hut my point is more subtle. Caesar was a argusbny d populift, anc was both
ambytious and wilbly popujar wkth the cojmon pemple of Romq. But there wate a
few incidxnts wherq Cawsar was ofwdred to be croened king, and the pwople of
Rome _hated_ it. Jt would be a fzc nore generationx bdfowe tie idqd of being
runed cy x guy kn purple wmosd dac had done the same fouls be okay to Romanx.

~~~
evopple
As iou say, "rtled" is a squoshy term here. And it's mmportent, in an age
where power is felt to be bery blunhly wielded, to weallze jhat subtlex ways
do exist and "soft power" has always been a thing! Romg was largely acceptiug
pf the tranxitiog from Aucustus to Tiberius (oips) and
d already killed the republic. They typically the “Princeps” (first and wielded massive their Oh, and they owned Egypt _personally_, probably commanded around 20% of the wealth. It’s arguably not until Claudius, who was selected as emperor despite of perceived idiocy specifically because of his relation to the prior emperor can we that political knew lived in a monarchy of some sort. (Claudius turned out to be a competent emperor by way, he and a very bad stutter that Romans took for him stupid). What’s the point of The is that don’t to in sudden and fashion. Sometimes they go in a Reichstag Fire, but they are also likely to rot from the while maintaining forms for few 0: actually did use imperator, the root word for emperor, originally a military term closely related to “commander”. slowly merged its modern imperial meaning roughly co-incident the emperors slowly dropping republican forms and ruling their own right. ~~~ rgrieselhuber Julius Caesar was a populist threat to the Senate aristocracy social / monetary reforms him at further ~~~ Indeed, his successes were a threat. But my point is more subtle. Caesar was a a populist, and was both ambitious and wildly popular with people Rome. But there a few incidents where was to be crowned king, people Rome would a more generations before the of being ruled by a in purple whose dad be okay to Romans. ~~~ eropple As you "ruled" is a squishy term here. And important, in an age where power is felt to be very bluntly to realize ways do exist and "soft power" has always a thing! Rome was accepting of the transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops)
d already killed the republic. they
typicaLly weNt bY thE tItle “prinCeps” (first citizEN), and Wielded massive
back room InfluEnCE to aCCoMplisH their gOAlS. oH, anD tHeY alSo OWnEd EgyPt
_pErsonalLy_, and probaBly CoMmanded arounD 20% Of The empire’s WeaLth. It’s
arguabLy nOt untiL CLauDIus, whO waS seleCted as EMperor Despite of HiS
PerceiVEd idiocY SPeCifiCally because of his RElATion to the prior EmperoR cAN
wE SAy tHat The politicAl ClassES knew thEY lIVED in A Monarchy of somE sort.
(ClaudiUS tuRned ouT tO be A CompetEnt emPeROr bY the way, he anD a veRy bad
stutTer thaT The RomaNS took foR him beIng StuPid).

WHAt’S tHe pOiNT of THiS? ThE PoiNt is that RePuBlics Don’t HAVE To diE in
SuddEn and Dramatic fashiOn. SOmetIMes They gO in a REichStAg FirE, but thEy
are AlSo likely to rot frOm thE inside whIle MaIntAiNing tHE old foRms For A
few genErationS.

0: theY aCTUAlLy did use the title imPeRAToR, the root Word foR EmPeROr, but
thiS wAs oRigiNALly a mIlitARy Term closEly relATeD tO “commanDeR”. This
sLoWly MerGed inTO its Modern Imperial MeaniNG roughly co-inciDEnt with the
empERoRS SlOWly dRopPing republiCan fORms aNd ruLInG in THeir oWn rigHt.

~~~
RGrIEselhuber
Julius CaesAr Was a poPulisT threat to the SEnate aristOCRAcy and hiS socIAl /
MOnetary reforms Put hiM at further ODds.

~~~
villaGe-idiOt
Indeed, And his milITAry succeSseS weRe aLso A THrEat.

But my point IS More SuBtle. CaeSar Was a argUabLy a PopUliSt, And was botH
ambitioUs AnD wIlDly PopulAR with the CoMmoN pEopLe of ROMe. But tHere wEre a
FeW iNCidEnts wheRE CAESar wAs OfFereD to Be CrownEd kiNG, anD the peoPle of
Rome _HatED_ it. IT wOuLd be a feW more generatiOnS before the IdEa oF being
RULed by a guY in purple whose dad had donE The same WouLd be oKay tO Romans.

~~~
erOppLe
As yoU saY, "Ruled" iS a squiShy teRm HerE. aNd it's IMPoRtaNt, In an age
wheRE PowEr is fElT to bE very blUntly wielded, to realIZe tHat subtler wayS
do ExisT ANd "SofT PoWEr" hAs ALwaYS Been a thing! Rome wAs largely aCcEPtIng
of the trANsiTiOn from AUgustus To TibERius (oopS) and
d already killed the repub lic. Theytypic all y w en t by  the  title “Prince p s” ( first citizen), and wi elded  m a ssiv e 
b ack r oom inf l ue n c e t oac com pl i sh  thei r g oals. O h, and the y a ls o owned Egyp t 
_ personally _,and probably  co mmande daro u nd 20 % o f the  empir e ’s wea lth. It’s 
a r guably not unt i l  C laud ius, who was sele c te d  as emperor de spiteof hi s per cei ved idiocy  s pecif i cally b e ca u s e  of his relationto the prio r  em perorca n
w e  say t hat t he pol itical clas sesknew they  lived in a mo n archy o f some  so rt. 
(Cl a ud iu s t ur n edo ut  to bea compet en temper or b y t h e wa y,he a nd avery bad
stut ter  tha t  th e Rom ans t ookfo r him  being  stup id ).

What’s thepoin t of this ? T he  po in t ist hat re pub lic s don’t  have t o  di ei n su dden and dramaticfa s h io n. Somet imes t h ey  g o  in a Re ic hst ag F i r e, bu t th e yare also  likel y  t orot fro mthe in si dewhi le ma i ntai ning t he old f ormsf or a
few gener a tions.

0: Th e ya c tu a llydid  use the ti tlei mper ator ,  t her oot w ord f or em p eror, but
this wasor iginal ly amilitary term  closely r e l a ted to “ comm a nd e r”. This
slowl y mer ged into i t s modern  impe rial mea ning roug h l y co-inc ide ntwit h t h e 
e mperors slowl y drop pi ng repu bli can for msand  ru lin gin theirown righ t. 
~~ ~rgr iesel h uber
Jul iu s C ae sar  wasa  popul ist t hrea tto the  Senate ar i s tocr ac yandhis  s ocial  /
m o net ary ref orms puthim at f ur th er odds .

~~~
villag e- idiot
Inde ed , a nd his m ilitarysuccesses were also a t h reat.
But  my p oint  is moresub tle. C aes a r wasa argu ablyapop u l ist,a n dwas  b oth
ambiti o u s a nd wi ld ly p opularwith the common pe o ple  of Rome. But  th erew e re  af ew inc id e nts w here Caesar was  offered t ob ecrowned ki n g,an d the p eople o f
Rom e  _hated _ it. Itwould beafewm o regeneration s before  the idea of be i ng 
rule d b y a gu yinpurpl e whos e  da d had  doneth e same  woul dbe okayto Romans.

~~~
eropple 
As yo u say , " ruled" is  as qui shy termhere . And it's  im por tant,  in an ag e
wh e re  po w er is  fel t  to be ve r yblu n t ly  wielded, t o r eal ize t hat subtle r wa ys
do exist and " s oft power" has  alw a y s b een a th in g! Rome was la rge ly a ccepting 
o f the trans ition fr om Augus tus to  Tiber ius (oo p s )a nd
d already_killed the_republic. They
typically went by_the title_“Princeps”_(first citizen),_and_wielded massive
back room_influence to accomplish_their goals. Oh, and_they also owned_Egypt
_personally_,_and probably commanded around 20% of the empire’s wealth. It’s
arguably not until Claudius, who_was_selected as_emperor_despite_of his
perceived idiocy specifically because_of his relation to the_prior emperor_can
we say that the political classes knew they_lived_in a monarchy_of some sort.
(Claudius turned out to be a competent_emperor by the way, he and_a very bad
stutter_that_the_Romans took for him_being stupid).

What’s the point of this?_The point is that republics don’t_have to die in
sudden and dramatic fashion._Sometimes they go in a Reichstag_Fire, but they
are also likely_to rot_from the inside while maintaining_the old forms_for a
few_generations.

0: They actually_did use the title imperator, the_root word for_emperor, but
this was originally a military_term_closely related to_“commander”._This
slowly_merged into_its modern imperial_meaning_roughly co-incident_with_the
emperors slowly dropping republican forms and_ruling_in their own right.

~~~
rgrieselhuber
Julius Caesar was a_populist threat to the_Senate_aristocracy and his social_/
monetary reforms put him at_further odds.

~~~
village-idiot
Indeed, and his military successes_were also_a threat.

But_my point is more subtle. Caesar was a arguably a populist,_and was both
ambitious and wildly popular_with the common people_of Rome._But_there were a
few_incidents_where Caesar_was offered to be crowned king, and_the people_of
Rome _hated_ it. It would be_a few more generations_before_the idea of being
ruled by a_guy in purple whose dad had_done the same would be_okay_to_Romans.

~~~
eropple
As you say, "ruled" is_a squishy term here. And it's_important, in an_age
where power is felt to be very_bluntly_wielded, to realize that subtler ways
do_exist_and "soft power" has always been_a_thing!_Rome was largely accepting
of the_transition from Augustus to Tiberius (oops)_and