Talk:Constitutional reforms of Julius Caesar

[Untitled]
No need to capitalise "reforms" in the title.--Wetman (talk) 04:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Constitutional reforms of Julius Caesar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080829134354/http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/SAL/texts/misc/romancon.html to http://www.uah.edu/student_life/organizations/SAL/texts/misc/romancon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Topicality
Currently the article is just a repetition of what Caesar was doing during the civil wars and before his death. That is not really about his constitutional reforms. A major rework of the article is needed. Ifly6 (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm now increasingly convinced that the basically do not exist. Certainly sv, JSTOR returns a whopping zero results with Google Scholar returning masses of unrelated events. Most HQRS instead say that Caesar didn't have any constitutional visions: Meier 1995 p 6 ¶ Modern scholars... have sought to evade the fatal alternative by crediting Caesar with a superior statesmanly vision and a genuine cause, in order to be able to assume that he acted from higher motives: that he was standing up for Rome, Italy, and the peoples of the empire against a blinkered, self-seeking and superannuated Senate, or that he wished to create a just and effective system of government and fundamentally renew the structure of the Roman empire. ¶ If this was so, Caesar said nothing about it... and no other evidence can be cited in support of such a view. On the contrary, it is clear that no one knew anything of it. None of the groupings in the civil war was moved by any such objective considerations.; Badian sv "Iulius Caesar, C. (2)" in OCD4 However, he had no plans for basic social and constitutional reform. The extraordinary honours heaped upon him by the Senate, nearly all of which he accepted, merely grafted him as an ill-fitting head on to the body of the traditional structure, creating an abyss between him and his fellow nobiles, whose co-operation he needed for the functioning and the survival of the system.; Gardner in Companion to Julius Caesar (2009) p 65 [T]here is nothing to indicate that Caesar had formulated any definite plans either for his own future in the government of Rome, or for changes to the Republican constitution itself.; Flower 2010 p 163 We have plenty of evidence for Caesar's own views about contemporary events, but not much indication of his opinion of the past or of his proposed solutions for the future of Rome.; Syme 1939 p 55 As his acts and his writings reveal him, Caesar stands out as a realist and an opportunist. In the short time at his disposal he can hardly have made plans for a long future or laid the foundation of a consistent government. Ifly6 (talk) 22:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There were many reforms Julius Caesar did, but this article is ambiguous and lacking at best. I agree that the article needs to be reworked with better references.
 * See: https://www.cato.org/commentary/progressives-beware-julius-caesars-fate
 * https://www.worldhistory.org/article/112/caesar-as-dictator-his-impact-on-the-city-of-rome/
 * https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/julius-caesar/
 * Here is a good JSTOR reference for you:
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/3288647 2601:245:C100:5E5C:BC41:9360:451F:2B73 (talk) 20:05, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * All those links are unreliable or obsolete nonsense. Your "good" Jstor reference is from 1925 and casts its discussion as entirely speculative. The claims that Caesar had some sort of plan are, moreover, internally inconsistent when it claims both that Caesar's doubling of the magistracies was a temporary expedient and also something worth interpreting for long-term clues. It cannot be both. The whole line of enquiry is an interpretation rejected by modern scholarship which has (finally) moved out from under the shadow of Mommsen. WP:AGEMATTERS. Ifly6 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)