Brutus

[Marcus_Aurelius]

I totally agree with you about Brutus being 'indecisive'!But you have to know that Octavian suffered quite a bitter defeat at 1st Philippi.

[Felix Marcellus]

I totally agree with you about Brutus being 'indecisive'!But you have to know that Octavian suffered quite a bitter defeat at 1st Philippi.

14368[/snapback]

 

And I totally disagree with you that Brutus was one of Caesar's favorite officers. He served under Pompey. That would kind of make him Caesar's enemy. ONly after the Civil War did Caesar befriend him.

 

Just a little more research Zelea. Just a little more.

[Marcus_Aurelius]

Sometimes I have to disagree with myself too.'Kai su teknon?'

[Incitatus]

Brutus was just trying to get rid off, what he thought was a power mad man. He like a lot of Romans did not want a King. I think hae was wrong to do this but his motives were right.

[Quintus Artemis Sertorius]

I thought I once read somewhere that there was a great deal of cajoling and persuading, and almost outright threatening involved in getting Brutus to do his part in killing Ceasar. If I'm not mistaken, Brutus wasn't so keen on doing any actual blood spilling. I'm still not convinced that Brutus was anything more than a mediocre kind of man with a hunger for gold and a questionable spine.

[Tobias]

I'd agree with that. He was perhaps inspired not just by Cassius but by the idea that he'd be doing what one of his ancestors, Lucius Junius Brutus, had done; ridding Rome of a king. Although i would disagree that caesar wanted to be king of rome, that was no doubt how Brutus saw it.

[Ursus]

I don't think there is anything wrong with killing a Caesar, but there is something wrong with not having a plan after the deed.

 

Oh, I think the general plan was to pray to the gods that things would go back to "normal", that time would stand still, and that the ineffectual Republic would continue under its delusions. That had been pretty much the master plan of Roman conservatives for generations.

 

 

That is why killing a man of vision like Caesar was a crime. Dante was right to put Brutus and Cassius on the lowest level of hell.

[Incitatus]

I agree with Ursus about how they hoped that eveything would go bak to normal. Brutus was then killed by Octavian (later Augustus).

[M. Porcius Cato]

Cicero said it best. The liberators had the courage of men, but the foresight of children.

[Germanicus]

quote]Cicero said it best. The liberators had the courage of men, but the foresight of children.

 

Some courage....what was it 12 armed men to one unarmed ? Sorry, had to say it.

[Tobias]

Some courage....what was it 12 armed men to one unarmed ? Sorry, had to say it.

 

I'm glad somebody did. Brutus and the other conspirators do not deserve any thanks or feting for their deed.

 

One thing about Brutus; Wasn't he supposed to have a knack for making and managing money? Which is why, when he was Appius Cladius' quaestor in Cilicia, he helped to totally financially strip the province through his money lending. Of course, at the time this was illegal (no senator could participate in financial ventures unconnected with property i believe), but Brutus made a pretty penny out of it anyway. More to Brutus then a promising young senator, eh?

Edited December 24, 2005 by Tobias

[M. Porcius Cato]

Some courage....what was it 12 armed men to one unarmed ? Sorry, had to say it.

 

I'm glad somebody did. Brutus and the other conspirators do not deserve any thanks or feting for their deed.

 

One thing about Brutus; Wasn't he supposed to have a knack for making and managing money? Which is why, when he was Appius Cladius' quaestor in Cilicia, he helped to totally financially strip the province through his money lending.

 

What's the evidence?

 

 

Of course, at the time this was illegal (no senator could participate in financial ventures unconnected with property i believe), but Brutus made a pretty penny out of it anyway.

No, the law concerned not engaging in sea trade, but I know of no law making money-lending illegal. If it were illegal, the law should have been abolished. Economies without money-lending are invariably backward and stagnant.

[P.Clodius]

What's the evidence?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/037575895...glance&n=283155

[Tobias]

What's the evidence?

 

The governor of Cilicia immediately after Appius Cladius and his quaestor, Brutus, was Marcus Tullius Cicero. He wrote a series of letters speaking of the corruption which Brutus and the Governor had participated in; his own evidence included the state of the legions in Cilicia; Very under strength, ill equipped and in a state of complete poverty, which all pointed to the garnishing of the legion's money. As well, there would be a flood of informers everywhere dying to inform the Great Advocate of the corrupt lending practices which had occurred.

No, the law concerned not engaging in sea trade, but I know of no law making money-lending illegal. If it were illegal, the law should have been abolished. Economies without money-lending are invariably backward and stagnant.

 

Brutus' methods reeked of Extortion. I believe one of his main methods occurred similarly to this: The Governor would threaten to send his army to camp in a random town in Cilicia. Brutus would arrive in said town and subtly suggest that a "gift" of, say, 100 talents, to the governor would help to send the army elsewhere. After this was suggested, the firm of Matinius et Scaptius (Brutus' front) would lend the town the bribe money. The governor would pocket this money, and Brutus would make even more for lending the money. Of course, Brutus denied this (as you would), but i believe at the time it was a rather given fact that Brutus and Appius Cladius had participated in these schemes. It lead to Appius Cladius being tried; although he was acquitted.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I've ordered the book on Cicero, and I look forward to learning about the primary evidence in favor of the claims against Brutus. Disentangling Brutus' role from Appius Claudius' is obviously the critical issue here, and there's nothing in your posts that manage to do this. Again, it's merely another argument of guilt-by-association.

 

However, even if all the claims were true, they in no way argue that Caesar was right to usurp life-long dictatorial powers, and so my opinion remains that Caesar deserved death and his assassins deserve our praise. Sic semper tyrannis!