Selection of Threads from a Piazza DiscussionThread: In many respects, Caesar's career mirrors that of Sulla: both illegally march on Rome; both engage in civil war; both serve as dictator; both make significant changes in governance, including increasing the size of the senate. Why does Sulla live to retire and dieof natural causes whereas Caesar is literally stabbed in the back by his fellow senators?This thread will be open until 9am on Tuesday, April 9.#discussions #retiringcaesarAK: interesting thing, I think, to note is that even though Caesar appeases the mob to some extent through his actions and Sulla doesn't necessarily it is the Senate, not the mob, that murdersCaesar. If I am to recall correctly, Sulla is a Optimate for the most part while we see that Caesar has several populist tendencies - land reform, citizenship, etc - even goes so far as to attempt reducing the power of the senate. There in lies the interesting thing - Sulla is supportive of the Senate, and Caesar is for the most part supports the populous. This discrepancy is key to the differing outcomes of the two dictators. It is often noted that the Senate often wield more power than they should, or that they abuse their power, under Caesars rule perhaps they felt threatened; perhaps the issue is less about the people and monarchy, and more about the Senate and their grasp on power.An interesting side note is that Caesar minted money with his face on it, which I read was a placein which the images of god's were often put - something I'm sure wasn't very popular with the populous. Also, as comedian Dave Chappelle once put it, there is something very psychologically subtle to having a dictators face on your money. He(or she) is every where, in everything you do... almost as if that person is everywhere watching everything you do - something I'm sure would have been unsettling to most Romans. Stephanie P. Craven 5 months ago @Victor -- Yes, you're absolutely right to draw out the distinction that it is the Senate -- the very people we have spent the last few weeks of accusing ofbeing incompetent, greedy, and selfish -- and not the people who kill Caesar.As to the minting... the Chappelle comment is pretty dead-on in light of how the Caesars are going to express their presence throughout the Roman world using portraiture, including coinage.("Render unto Caesar...") On the other hand, I should note that Roman coinage before this was done by individual magistrates and changed regularly, even over the course of a year because themagistrates could put whatever they wanted on the coins. You can imagine the confusion... We should emphasize that although the tradition was to put gods on coins, in the Greek East, startingwith Ptolemy I of Egypt, kings had been putting themselves on coins for years. Yes, they were also being worshiped as gods in the East, but this means that there's also a precedent for putting the current ruler on (much as Queen Elizabeth II is on money in the British Dominion); so Caesar's motives for putting himself on a coin may have had to do with dealing with confusion regarding coins: making them easily identifiable, and certifying to the viewer that this was anofficially weighed, officially sanctioned coin made of the correct metal. [No, you don't have to know this...] Reply to this followup discussionResolved Unresolved JJ 5 months ago Sulla's motivations for being dictator and marching on Rome were limited. He merely wanted to restore Rome to its traditional ways, and get out of the bad light that being dictator shed on him. He didn't want to chance gaining too much negative attention while being dictator so he resorted to getting in quick and fixing the things he wanted fixed and getting out assoon as possible. Caesar, on the other hand, even before he was considering marching on Rome, wanted to preserve his power at all costs and he wanted to avoid persecution. This evasion from judgement and his desire for preserved power continually escalated until he came ot the conclusion that he had to march on Rome to preserve his political career. Sulla wanted to make a few minor changes for the sake of Rome and Caesar wanted to preserve his own power and did not give it up, which was the reason for his eventual murder. L J 5 months ago Didn't Sulla march on Rome in order to save his political career as well? But the difference seems to be that he considered it saved and his work done after a year of dictatorship. What was the motivation for Caesar dragging his rule out for so long? Was it, as you argued, because he was power hungry from the start? Or would someone else venture to argue differently? AF 5 months ago Caesar was definitely power hungry. But that passion for power was not the only reason that Caesar wanted perpetual rule. He had such a big head that he actually believed no one else was capable of ruling the state, at least as well as he could. No doubt he was also concerned about what would happen to him if he set down his rule, as he would surely be prosecuted. But I think that the same trait that made Caesar believe he was the only person capable of ruling also gave him a false sense of security, and that while he held this limitless power, he felt invincible. RK 5 months ago While I do believe Caesar was power hungry from the start, I don't believe he ever had the intention or expected to become dictator from the beginning. However, as he began to rise and power and became a populist gaining the support of the people I believe his hunger for power increased. His later desire to defeat Pompey and the eventual defeat of Pompey fueled his desire for power. As he saw his ability to gain support from the senate as well as the people he continued to strive for more power, essentially one-upping those who had ruled before him. L J 5 months ago @ AndrewSo perhaps his flaw was that he felt the need to micromanage people, and the fact that Senators were conspiring against him slipped his radar.VLi 5 months ago I agree with Jeremy that Caesar's hunger for power led to his downfall, he wasin the spotlight way too long and made plenty of enemies. But I also think the senate played a huge part in it as well. It seems that a lot of powerful men in Rome who underestimated the senate ended up getting killed, take the Gracchus brothers for example. I think his biggest mistake was showing disrespect to the Senate and other public offices, not to mention his comments about the Republic. I don't doubt