Julius Caesar Good Or Bad

[ben41193]

First please excuse any spelling mistakes im only 12. . As i was doing research for a book i planed to write on the roman empire i discoverd that ceaser was a very deciteful and scamming man.this gave me the idea for my new book julios caeser friend or foe to the roman empire. what do you think was he good or bad for the roman empire.

[pompeius magnus]

Look at a thread about the virtue of his march on Rome started by myself, it should help.

[ben41193]

im not saying he was not a great man im asking if he was a good or bad thing for the romans

[Primus Pilus]

It's a complex question that requires more than a simple yes or no. We've discussed it several threads some in depth.. some not... but here is the one PM referred to

 

Caesar, Liberator or Tyrant

[ben41193]

thanks

[P.Clodius]

Caesar was Great. No ifs or buts. Envision a Churchill/FDR/U.S Grant/Patton/Henry V/Alexander, and you have Caesar!

[Lost_Warrior]

I love Caesar. No doubt in my mind that he would've made a great emporer (and that Brutus and Cassius had only their own power in mind when they murdered him)

[longbow]

Ceaser was good for Rome,the people loved him.

Good luck with your book.

L

[Ursus]

Most of Caesar's reforms (apotheosis aside) seem to have been reasonable and fairly restrained.

 

If he had not been assassinated, who knows. Maybe he would have become every bit the Oriental tyrant his dectractors claimed he was. Who is to say? But looking at the record, I'd say he was at least marginally better than the provincial Oligarchy he replaced. At least he was a man who could get things done.

 

Certainly his military exploits are legendary, his writings a classic, and his very life a powerful icon of inspiration.

[Pyrrhus]

I love Caesar. No doubt in my mind that he would've made a great emporer (and that Brutus and Cassius had only their own power in mind when they murdered him)

Although there is a strong argument that for Brutus at least, the murder of Caesar was a last ditch attempt at saving the Republic his ancestors had started so many decades before.

[Lost_Warrior]

But what kind of man would kill his own friend? It was time for change. Caesar saw that.

[Jimbow]

But what kind of man would kill his own friend?

 

 

The good of the State always took precedence over friendship. Besides, maybe Brutus no longer regarded Caesar as a friend, but an enemy of Rome and its values. More so if he felt Caesar wanted to be king.

 

Jim.

[Augur]

Ceaser was good for Rome,the people loved him.

 

L

 

I too am an admirer of Caesar, but is your suggestion here that Caesar was good for Rome BECAUSE the people loved him? If so, that seems a very slippery slope. Why slippery? Ever take a close look at the ecstatic masses cheering Hitler and Mussolini in their hay days? Or at the weeping, grief stricken crowds trampling each other to death at Stalin's funeral? These monsters were unquestionably, catastrophically "bad" for their countries, but they were deeply loved and admired by their citizens, or at least most of them. (An older woman I knew in Kazakhstan insists she still loves Stalin even though her father was murdered by Stalin). Love may be a "many splendored thing" but when applied to leaders, and especially tyrants, being "loved" is usually a matter of, for the easily impressed: charm; for the pragmatic: bribes and ill-gotten gains; for the faint of heart: terror; for the gullible: a good press agent; and, of course: killing everyone else who may disagree. Tragically, being good often has little, sometimes nothing to do with it.

 

Caesar was loved and was obviously a damned talented and remarkable fellow. About whether he was

[P.Clodius]

Caesar was no Hitler or Stalin. It is easy for us to draw those comparisons in retrospect. I too make this mistake quite often by falling into the Democrat/Populares, Republican/Optimates trap. Fact is the Roman political factions cannot be compared with modern ones. Caesar was no Hitler simply because of his pleasant and optimistic nature. He saw his political opponents as possible future converts, and did indeed succeed in swaying many to his cause. Politically shrewed, yes. Maniac, no way!!

[Lost_Warrior]

The only thing Brutus and Cassius had to lose by the loss of the republic was their power. Caesar's reforms helped many, and his conquests helped make what would later become the Roman Empire so great. And besides, at this point the Republic was no longer effective. As soon as Brutus and Cassius had killed Caesar, they threw Rome into a bloody civil war (fighting for their own power) so did they really care about Rome?