There’s a great book called “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbons, who was a liberal, that details a lot of information about Rome’s currency debasement.

I’ve been trying to figure out which side Caesar was on. His actions seem to have prolonged Rome by several hundred years - 400 to 1500+, depending how it’s looked at - but is that a good thing, bad thing, what were the other consequences of what he did?

He almost seems like he might have been playing a Nixon gambit, but where the fallout from the failure of it lost a lot more control.

There’s a great book called “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbons, who was a liberal, that details a lot of information about Rome’s currency debasement.

I’ve been trying to figure out which side Caesar was on. His actions seem to have prolonged Rome by several hundred years - 400 to 1500+, depending how it’s looked at - but is that a good thing, bad thing, what were the other consequences of what he did?

There’s a great book called “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire” by Gibbons, who was a liberal, that details a lot of information about Rome’s currency debasement.