Guest Puducu Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hi, Can someone please help me? I need to know good and bad points about Julius Caesar. It is for a school project and i need bullet points. I have searched websites and have a lot of information about him but cannot determine if he was good or bad. Please help thank you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pantagathus Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Hi,Can someone please help me? I need to know good and bad points about Julius Caesar. It is for a school project and i need bullet points. I have searched websites and have a lot of information about him but cannot determine if he was good or bad. Please help thank you The obvious point of the exercise is for the teacher to acertain what you think based on what you've read. Everybody has a varied opinion of Caesar as you will find in any thread here that discusses the man. So what do you think? If you think you don't clearly know one way or the other than say that with examples Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 I'll write your esay for you. "Caesar rocked!" A+ score for you if you use that. Cato might write "Caesar stunk!" D- score if you use that. Seriously, dig around the forums after reading the Caesar entry on the main page and you'll get a good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) In my opinion, Julius Caesar was bad. (1) He attempted a cover-up of the Catilnarian conspiracy by opposing a trial for the accused. His motivation may have been to hide his own foreknowledge of the traitors' plans (being an intimate of those involved). Moreover, his recommendation of exile for the accused would have let the traitors join Catiline on the fields of war, where they could have passed valuable information to their rebel comrades. (2) While consul, he had M. Porcius Cato arrested merely for voicing his opposition to Caesar's hare-brained schemes. The move was so extraordinarily illegal that the whole Senate refused to meet until Cato's release. (3) In Spain and in Gaul, Caesar betrayed the interests of Roman allies by sacking their towns and enslaving Roman friends. His motivation in both cases was merely to run up a body count so he could celebrate a triumphal parade in Rome. His campaign in Gaul (where he mercilessly slaughtered and enslaved perhaps a million or more tax-paying trading partners of Rome) finally led to the threat of prosecution for his illegal crossing into German territory. (4) Rather than face prosecution like an honorable Roman or even go into temporary exile (as Cicero had once done), Caesar waged war against the Republic by illegally crossing the Rubicon with the 13th legion. Taking Rome essentially by surprise, he confiscated the entire Roman treasury for his own personal use. (5) The Civil War he launched wiped out the cream of the Roman Senate and their best generals, including Pompey and Caesar's best officer Labienus (who refused to join Caesar in his traitorous mission). (6) Once victorious over all his old enemies, he had himself declared a DICTATOR FOR LIFE. In this role, he immediately cancelled all elections for lower offices, abolished the power of the tribunes (who were the representatives of the people of Rome), and personally selected Yes-Men for the office of consul (which had been the highest-ranking elected position in the old Republic). Laying the precedent for future serfdom (and anticipating Stalin's Berlin Wall), he forced 20 - 40 year old Italian civilians to remain in Italy, and he attempted to wipe out the wealth of his political opponents by cancelling debts owed to them. (7) As dictator, Caesar seemed to lose all touch with reality. He had his face plastered over all the coins (a previously illegal act). He forced Romans to build him a palace, to carry an ivory statue of him at religious ceremonies, to place another statue of him within the great Quirinal temple with the inscription "To the Invincible God," and to place still another statue of him beside the statues of the (deposed) kings of Rome. All the time he did this, he ostentatiously refused to allow anyone to call him King, and he sent out goon-squads to arrest anyone who made the mistake of recognizing that Caesar had robbed all Romans of their liberty. By the way, if you plagiarize any of this, you'll get an automatic F. Plus, I haven't mentioned a single good thing Caesar did (dying, for example), so good luck finding that on your own. Edited January 23, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 HAHAHA, welcome back Cato. I shall compose a substantial response to this in due course. Work is ruining my ability counter optimate propaganda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLavius Valerius Constantinus Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Well if you decide to portay Caesar in a bad light, just pick a random topic about Caesar and you will pages of posts belong to Cato expressing his ideas/reasons of why he hates Caesar. So Cato is your best source for the anti-Caesar 'movement'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 HAHAHA, welcome back Cato. I just needed the right invitation... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankq Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Abolished the power of the tribunes? Caesar stripped Gaius Epidius Marcellus and Lucius Caesetius Flavius of their power as tribunes but I recall no law that he officially abolished the tribunes' powers like Sulla did. If you argue that his act was tantamount to the same thing, true. As someone pro-Caesar, this one act was something I can never forgive him for and it sadly sealed his own doom. It was a bad move and it showed he was losing it. But a complete abolition would have turned Rome upside down. A note to Puduc: stay with this thread you started. You can learn much by what I'm sure will follow. Some help, do a little research on Cato the Younger, one of Caesar's prime enemies. If Caesar had been smart he would have Cato whacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 (edited) Hi, Can someone please help me? I need to know good and bad points about Julius Caesar. It is for a school project and i need bullet points. I have searched websites and have a lot of information about him but cannot determine if he was good or bad. Please help thank you I can help you, if you want good advice don't take Cato's post seriously , he gets emotional whenever you mention Caesar. Has something to do with a dictatorship complex or maybe more personal then that, more like an love complex if there is such a thing. Anyway to guarantee yourself an "A" just go to the "Greatest Roman Figure" thread, look at my posts and take all the info you need. To avoid getting an "F" grade please avoid Cato's posts. Caesar has no bad points, you can take my word for it. HAIL CAESAR!!! Edited January 23, 2006 by tflex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skarr Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 While Caesar was certainly no modern suave kind of politician, he did believe in the ancient laws of Rome and he held its rites sacred, especially those concerning a man's status, his dignitas. In his case, he believed that he had the absolute right to the highest offices that Rome had to offer to his family. He was, after all, a Julius, one of the most ancient patrician families. Caesar's family also had almost divine attributes, with speculation that the Julius name was based on the sons of Iulus, who was Aeneas's son, with Aphrodite being his grand mother. The common people were superstitious and probably expected celebrations and feasts, an excuse to take the day off, feast, drink and relax from the drudgery of daily living. I'm sure that the Roman peace was largely a question of keeping the mob in constant check through a daily diet of free entertainment - chariot races, gladiatorial combat, mime shows, free baths, parks and libraries, etc. etc. The Roman citizen wanted not only bread for free but also wanted some entertainment. Caesar bribed his way to the top and he had some powerful backers like Crassus, who provided him with a stiff bankroll. It was Caesar's charm, his way with people and his powerful oratory, his empathy with the common people that he knew well, having grown up in the Subura, that ultimately distinguished from his other less worthy opponents at the time. In other words, no one could deny Caesar anything. If Caesar wanted something, he had it. He was truly a man with God like influence in Rome and a glance, a nod, a look from Caesar was enough to set people off. Caesar, for his part, did indulge the public in his later years, wearing elaborate robes and while he may have thought that he was merely pandering to them, many of his enemies saw this as a legitimate act of treason. To desire kingship was an offence punishable by death or exile, if it could be proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Anyway to guarantee yourself an "A" just go to the "Greatest Roman Figure" thread, look at my posts and take all the info you need. To avoid getting an "F" grade please avoid Cato's posts. Caesar has no bad points, you can take my word for it. HAIL CAESAR!!! Actually, since the partisans of Caesar haven't any arguments for his greatness (except chanting "Hail Caesar"), your grade would probably be better served by at least listing all anti- arguments like I did (you'd get at least 1/2 credit) than by listing the tiresome propaganda that is forever bandied about by the friends of dictatorship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tflex Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Actually, since the partisans of Caesar haven't any arguments for his greatness (except chanting "Hail Caesar"), your grade would probably be better served by at least listing all anti- arguments like I did (you'd get at least 1/2 credit) than by listing the tiresome propaganda that is forever bandied about by the friends of dictatorship. I have made many arguments to confirm Caesar's greatness, and I will do so again when I finish work. I will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Caesar is the greatest once and for all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Abolished the power of the tribunes? Caesar stripped Gaius Epidius Marcellus and Lucius Caesetius Flavius of their power as tribunes but I recall no law that he officially abolished the tribunes' powers like Sulla did. If you argue that his act was tantamount to the same thing, true. As someone pro-Caesar, this one act was something I can never forgive him for and it sadly sealed his own doom. It was a bad move and it showed he was losing it. But a complete abolition would have turned Rome upside down. He placed his laws above the veto power of the tribunes, thereby abolishing the ultimate tribunician power. In doing this (among his many other crimes against freedom and humanity), Caesar put the lie to the claim that he was a friend of the people. Caesar loved only two things--power and the sound of slaves singing his praise. If Caesar had been smart he would have Cato whacked. Actually, Caesar was far too smart to have Cato whacked--by murdering Cato, Caesar would have consigned himself to the dustbin of history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankq Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 He placed his laws above the veto power of the tribunes, thereby abolishing the ultimate tribunician power. In doing this (among his many other crimes against freedom and humanity), Caesar put the lie to the claim that he was a friend of the people. Caesar loved only two things--power and the sound of slaves singing his praise. Though he unforgivably placed his law above the tribunes, this was not a permanent and legal abolition of tribunician power. That it set a bad precedent for the future is undeniable and (I'm sorry to say this, I'm very pro-Caesar) the act justifiably sealed his doom. In so doing he had to be removed and his mistakes were fortunately used as a lesson when Octavian climbed to power. But had he gone so far as to abolish it as Sulla had done would have been too bold a move even for his position as dictator. Indeed, it was this callous act that signaled Cassius and crew that the time to act was ripe. The question is, would he have gone as far as Sulla had he survived? Actually, Caesar was far too smart to have Cato whacked--by murdering Cato, Caesar would have consigned himself to the dustbin of history. I dunno about the dustbin but yes, he was too smart for that. If I had been in Caesar's place, I would have had Cato whacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil61 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 ...Actually, since the partisans of Caesar haven't any arguments for his greatness (except chanting "Hail Caesar"), your grade would probably be better served by at least listing all anti- arguments like I did (you'd get at least 1/2 credit) than by listing the tiresome propaganda that is forever bandied about by the friends of dictatorship. You're wrong to make blanket statements like the first sentence above. I and a few others have made arguments with factual content on the postive aspects of Caesar and you know it, feel free to use the search function. You may not agree with them or support the interpretation but just calling the arguments absent is garbage. Painting anyone who defends Caesar part of the 'friends of dictatorship' in the hinted at larger sense of also linking their support to the regimes of Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin is just hyperbole on your part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.