Cimon, noting how one might describe Caesar as a conservative old-Roman, noted how differently the Triumvirs and the survivors of the Civil War saw politics. Unlike Caesar, who had always worked within traditional forms, Not so Octavian. Not so Antony. Not even Lepidus. They were new Romans with a new way of seeing the ultimate prize of political competition.

I think what makes the whole last century of the Republic so fascinating is to watch this happening, and we have enough sources that you can FEEL it happening. The diminution of those willing to put the Republic's advantage ahead of their own; the wealth pouring in (NOT just from the Punic Wars, but I suppose that did put Rome rather in the position of the U.S. after the fall of the USSR - a superpower without a real peer); and more.

I spent the whole weekend revamping my Caesar site (which needs a new home, as its original home when *phhhhhfffffffttt* without notice two weeks ago). I read and re-read it, and having written it largely in 2001, brought 5 more years' reading and discussions here with ya'll, which resulted in some major revamping. Again and again, I found myself cursing the fact that Rome had developed to the point that any new idea, reform, new way of doing things to match the changes that had happened since the last Punic War, usually resulted in that person being very dead. From Tiberius Gracchus on, if you had a reforming idea that might win the gratitude of your fellows, and thus might win you more clients, more clout, and a higher position, the knee-jerk reaction was "no!" not for the merits of the reform, but because no man was permitted to stand above his jealous fellows. Again and again, necessary reforms - making some provision for the soldiers, permitting Roman citizenship to the allies, trying to halt the corruption of provincial governors and their extortions, adding new blood to the Senate, reforming the currency, WHATEVER - was stopped in its tracks just because of this pernicious competition that had become all-consuming for those in power. They say power corrupts - certainly we see in our own Republic that those who have power are more and more determined not to share it or to give it up, and the devil take the hindmost. A very Roman dilemma.

My admiration for Caesar's trying to work within the forms of government he had inherited - and which, I suspect, he reverenced like most Romans of his day - makes it all a very sad story. If I could find even one man in his opposition I could truly admire, it would be different - but I can't. I personally hold Cato as responsible for the death of the Republic as any man - he reminds me of the Fire Eaters in the Deep South just before the Civil War, full of sound and fury but helping push towards catastrophe because of his inability to think anew and compromise.

And in summary, my final realization was - how very much, from Cicero on down, these men thought (as we think of our Constitution) that it was perfect and should never be tampered with. They disliked change, they were deeply suspicious of any reforms which contradicted the mos maoirum. And in a changing world of increased Empire, the irresistable force and the immovable object - well, Caesar was only the last in a long line of Romans who showed that trying to change by compromising with the system got you killed.

No wonder Octavian threw out the book and started thinking anew, but also was wise enough to cloak change in tradition.