My goodness, Heraklia, you have not been unduly provocative at all! I'm only suggesting, my dear, that to assign Claudius the honor or blame for starting the war between Caesar and Pompey is to be a tad naive. There was indeed a war party. It was not, however, totally arrayed against Caesar; a good part of it was arrayed against Pompey, and another portion, I am sure, was neutral, that is ready to leap to whichever side looked like a winner. War profiteers know where to find the profits!

In my current cynical state of mind, I am not prepared to defend any side's "principles" in this war. (Have I ever, I ask sheepishly?) This was a war between warlords; the Republic was an unfortunate victim. I do not for a moment believe that either Caesar or Pompey negotiated in good faith. Both men sowed fear in the hearts of Senators who preferred the status quo, hence the decisive vote for disarmament.

Caesar's march and decision to cross the Rubicon cannot be characterized as necessities forced on him by circumstances. I'm not suggesting that he could have walked unescorted to Rome. I am suggesting that he could have chosen to remain in Gaul with his legions. He would have had the upper hand militarily there, for he would have had ample time to prepare defenses against an expeditionary force sent to "relieve" him of his position. In terms of the political debate, wouldn't he have found the high ground had he stayed put?

By marching on Rome, Caesar essentially changed the question in debate from "What are we going to do about Caesar?" to "Who will command the Republic?" His action changed the question. Perhaps he was uncomfortable with the initial one? His personality preferred the second: choose Caesar or choose Pompey, then we will decide the answer by war.