G J Caesar's 'Honourable' Enemies

[Favonius Cornelius]

According to Richard Holland (Augustus: Godfather of Europe) Cassius and Brutus stayed in the east with 17 Legions whilst Italy was torn apart by the fighting between Antony, Octavian, Generals representing the Senate and Optimates. Despite 17 Legions being more than adequate to win victory.

So what were they doing in the east that was so important?

 

They could probably have spared some of those 17 legions, but not all legions necessarily are fight worthy (looks good on paper...er papyrus), and a bulk would still be needed to stand down the Parthians under any situation.

[theilian]

I'm sure I'm hardly the person to suggest this. But I think it's mistake to apply modern moral/interpretation to time that's two millenia ago. Nevertheless, we will continue to do so and how each generation viewed them in the last 2000 years is itself quite interesting.

 

In a way, their individual virtues and faults are not the paramount importance in our judgement. They rather became bigger than what they were and came to symbolize bigger picture - monarchy vs republicanism, order vs chaos, progress vs conservatism, practicality vs principles, etc.

So when Europe had kings, Caesar was of course to admired. It didn't matter how he achieved the power and whether the power itself was justified. Chrisitianity was also favorable to Caesar, whose empire was thought to be God's chosen medium of spreading the faith.

But when monarchy was to be demolished, the heroes of Roman republic were to be inspiration. it doesn't really matter what kind of 'republic' it was. In more modern times, Caesar is viewed more favorably thanks to social issues, but yet victims of dictatorship will again be less sympathetic to Caesar, and probably it has not much to do with Caesar's individual qualities.

 

I am hardly knowledgeable about Roman history (but I'm willing to learn), but it seems to me the compromise reached after Caesar's death was in a way established also in the way Romans viewed the struggle. Of course, Caesar was to be worshipped, yet Romans (at least aristocrats who wrote history or left literature) were soon longing for the good old days of Republic when there was no emperor to grovel at. So I think both Caesar and Cato/Brutus became heroes while Mark Antony, like sacrificial lamb, came to become the villain whether deservedly or not.

[TaylorS]

I'm sure I'm hardly the person to suggest this. But I think it's mistake to apply modern moral/interpretation to time that's two millenia ago. Nevertheless, we will continue to do so and how each generation viewed them in the last 2000 years is itself quite interesting.

 

In a way, their individual virtues and faults are not the paramount importance in our judgement. They rather became bigger than what they were and came to symbolize bigger picture - monarchy vs republicanism, order vs chaos, progress vs conservatism, practicality vs principles, etc.

So when Europe had kings, Caesar was of course to admired. It didn't matter how he achieved the power and whether the power itself was justified. Chrisitianity was also favorable to Caesar, whose empire was thought to be God's chosen medium of spreading the faith.

But when monarchy was to be demolished, the heroes of Roman republic were to be inspiration. it doesn't really matter what kind of 'republic' it was. In more modern times, Caesar is viewed more favorably thanks to social issues, but yet victims of dictatorship will again be less sympathetic to Caesar, and probably it has not much to do with Caesar's individual qualities.

 

I am hardly knowledgeable about Roman history (but I'm willing to learn), but it seems to me the compromise reached after Caesar's death was in a way established also in the way Romans viewed the struggle. Of course, Caesar was to be worshipped, yet Romans (at least aristocrats who wrote history or left literature) were soon longing for the good old days of Republic when there was no emperor to grovel at. So I think both Caesar and Cato/Brutus became heroes while Mark Antony, like sacrificial lamb, came to become the villain whether deservedly or not.

 

I totally agree, we shouldn't idealize or vilify people and institutions of the past based on modern moral and ideological beliefs. The Roman Republic was basically a plutocratic oligarchy with a democratic facade, those who idealize the Republic seem to only notice the democratic facade. Those who idealize the populist strongmen forget that they were simply using the mob to enhance thier own power.

[M. Porcius Cato]

I'm sure I'm hardly the person to suggest this. But I think it's mistake to apply modern moral/interpretation to time that's two millenia ago.

 

Why? If you discovered that a wife murdered her husband to support her lover with his inheritance, you'd condemn the deed even if it occurred two years ago, would you not? If it occurred 20, 200, or 2000 years ago, what's the difference? I think the real mistake is write off the past as being beyond moral judgment. Would you really want people to celebrate Hitler in 2000 years? That's the logical consequence of this relativism.

Edited January 27, 2007 by M. Porcius Cato

[spittle]

"Christianity was also favourable to Caesar, whose empire was thought to be Gods chosen medium of spreading the faith" ?

Julius Caesar a fan of Christianity?

 

MPC. Good point on time warping judgement for genocide. Could Napoleon come under this heading?

[Mosquito]

The whole question or topic is terribly stupid.

It has never been a matter of honour on either side.

 

We just got a struggle for power between one great individuality, an outstaning man, extremly intelliget and able who was aiming to get full power and the clique of aristocracy, often interesting characters but usually a mediocre people who wanted to keep their privilages and power.

There are no good guys and no bad guys. Some people just like to use notions like honour and good for their own interests.

[spittle]

I disagree that Caesar was 'aiming to get full power'. He was pushed into a corner.

 

And the whole episode as been considered a matter of honour since at least as far back as when Shakespear wrote of it. Its even quoted in modern movies when phrases such as 'Brutus too was an honourable man...' are used to express ambiguities in motive.

[Caesar CXXXVII]

There are no good guys and no bad guys.

 

When it comes to republican Rome , you are right . Besides , "Good" and "bad" are subjective (my English) .

Mummius was good for Rome but bad for Corinthus , Caesar was good for his soldiers but bad for the Gauls , Cato the Censor was good for himself but bad for the Scipio's , the Scipio's were good for Rome but bad for Carthage , Ronald Reagan was ...well that's my point .

 

 

P.S. - If you are a "Liberator" than Caesar is pure evile , if you are a "Caesarian" than the "Liberators" are stupid

[Gaius Octavius]

The notion that this monster--and I'm being generous by not mentioning the Queen's more outrageous personal perversities

 

Aside from the alleged pirate affair, please expand.

 

In any event, a persons personal proclivities need have nothing to do with his public actions. The Roman government needed reforming if it was to control its empire. Caesar was the man of the hour.

 

If personal proclivities are the gage, then Brutus was a usurer - which was not an honorable business for a Senator.

 

-----------------------------------

 

Tyrant, dictator, monarch, etc., are certainly undemocratic, but not in opposition to 'liberty'.

Edited January 28, 2007 by Gaius Octavius