Of course Napoleon III spearheaded French industrial development, taking a few ideas from the nonrevolutionary left, but can’t the same be said about all nations that industrialised in the mid-19th century? American industrial development at the same time couldn’t be described as Caesarist, but had many of the same characteristics (vaguely monopolist rails, improvement of city hygiene systems, beginning of the modern administrative bureaucracy).
Yes using state power to spur industrial policy isn’t exclusive to Caesarism but using authoritarian means is extremely useful. It’s what they had to adopt even if they weren’t authoritarian countries to maintain geopolitical competitiveness with the countries that did. But the point of the article is that the essence of Caesarism is this style of government in conjunction with authoritarianism and romanticism, it’s only all three that get you there.
I disagree with this statement that Octavian/Augustus started out with nothing. He was more or less born a prince, part of the ruling family. Julius Caesar himself was born into an elite aristocratic bloodline, and was the nephew of Marius, a previous Roman dictator. Marius's wife, Julia, was the aunt of Julius Caesar.
/
"Augustus took all sympathisers and people who had worked with his adoptive father and organised them into a tight cohesive faction with which he propelled himself from nowhere, "
"Augustus took all sympathisers and people who had worked with his adoptive father and organised them into a tight cohesive faction with which he propelled himself from nowhere, "
"Augustus took all sympathisers and people who had worked with his adoptive father and organised them into a tight cohesive faction with which he propelled himself from nowhere, to Dux, and finally princeps, ending the republic and creating an empire which constitutionally would remain modelled on his regime for hundreds of years [1]. Louis-Napoleon wrote a book [2] in which he outlined the essence of his father’s ideas and wrote a compelling apologia for his necessity within world history as well as a manifesto for returning France to greatness. He failed to take the country by force so was exiled, but returned after the 1848 revolution and won the country by populism, seizing the opportunity of the chaos of the second republic to decisively win the December election, after which he created the second empire and once again by populism ratified it by plebiscite, becoming emperor of the French."
Octavian and Mark Antony were natural leaders for the disaffected military veterans of Julius Caesar to cluster around, after the assassination of Julius Caesar.
The most important project a Caesarist government could engage in is eugenics.
Endorse
Of course Napoleon III spearheaded French industrial development, taking a few ideas from the nonrevolutionary left, but can’t the same be said about all nations that industrialised in the mid-19th century? American industrial development at the same time couldn’t be described as Caesarist, but had many of the same characteristics (vaguely monopolist rails, improvement of city hygiene systems, beginning of the modern administrative bureaucracy).
Yes using state power to spur industrial policy isn’t exclusive to Caesarism but using authoritarian means is extremely useful. It’s what they had to adopt even if they weren’t authoritarian countries to maintain geopolitical competitiveness with the countries that did. But the point of the article is that the essence of Caesarism is this style of government in conjunction with authoritarianism and romanticism, it’s only all three that get you there.
I disagree with this statement that Octavian/Augustus started out with nothing. He was more or less born a prince, part of the ruling family. Julius Caesar himself was born into an elite aristocratic bloodline, and was the nephew of Marius, a previous Roman dictator. Marius's wife, Julia, was the aunt of Julius Caesar.
/
"Augustus took all sympathisers and people who had worked with his adoptive father and organised them into a tight cohesive faction with which he propelled himself from nowhere, "
I didn’t say anywhere that Augustus started from nowhere, all four of the figures discussed came from relatively high up in society.
"Augustus took all sympathisers and people who had worked with his adoptive father and organised them into a tight cohesive faction with which he propelled himself from nowhere, "
It's a direct quote
Ah well I meant more that in terms of power, not from being a porn.
Overall it was an excellent essay and I restacked. Well done!
Start of this paragraph:
/
"Augustus took all sympathisers and people who had worked with his adoptive father and organised them into a tight cohesive faction with which he propelled himself from nowhere, to Dux, and finally princeps, ending the republic and creating an empire which constitutionally would remain modelled on his regime for hundreds of years [1]. Louis-Napoleon wrote a book [2] in which he outlined the essence of his father’s ideas and wrote a compelling apologia for his necessity within world history as well as a manifesto for returning France to greatness. He failed to take the country by force so was exiled, but returned after the 1848 revolution and won the country by populism, seizing the opportunity of the chaos of the second republic to decisively win the December election, after which he created the second empire and once again by populism ratified it by plebiscite, becoming emperor of the French."
Octavian and Mark Antony were natural leaders for the disaffected military veterans of Julius Caesar to cluster around, after the assassination of Julius Caesar.