P.Clodius Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 - Liberatores acts were criminal, period. Which acts? By killing Caesar, the Liberators were honoring the Lex Valeria de Provocatione of 509. Even if that person was a dictator? I don't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 - Liberatores acts were criminal, period. Which acts? By killing Caesar, the Liberators were honoring the Lex Valeria de Provocatione of 509. Even if that person was a dictator? I don't think so. From a purely legal standpoint, I would think PC is right, regarding the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general and the special Dictator's prerogatives of being sine provocatione and even irresponsible (for the case of Caesar's abdication), not to mention the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI) and the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers). Accusing the other side without charging your own would be a good example of double-standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 By killing Caesar, the Liberators were honoring the Lex Valeria de Provocatione of 509. Even if that person was a dictator? I don't think so. Why not? There can't have been an exception in the Lex Valeria for dictators, given that the dictatorship (which was only supposed to last 6 months anyway) was created after the Lex Valeria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 From a purely legal standpoint, I would think PC is right, regarding the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general and the special Dictator's prerogatives of being sine provocatione and even irresponsible (for the case of Caesar's abdication), not to mention the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI) and the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers). You're missing a word or something here--this sentence is gibberish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 From a purely legal standpoint, I would think PC is right, regarding the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general and the special Dictator's prerogatives of being sine provocatione and even irresponsible (for the case of Caesar's abdication), not to mention the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI) and the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers). You're missing a word or something here--this sentence is gibberish. Are we in school? Do we get grades? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 From a purely legal standpoint, I would think PC is right, regarding the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general and the special Dictator's prerogatives of being sine provocatione and even irresponsible (for the case of Caesar's abdication), not to mention the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI) and the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers). You're missing a word or something here--this sentence is gibberish. Are we in school? Do we get grades? No, but if I don't understand what the heck you're saying, then I can't respond. Do you think this rule applies only in school? Do you need a grade to apply this basic element of communication? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 From a purely legal standpoint, I would think PC is right, regarding the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general and the special Dictator's prerogatives of being sine provocatione and even irresponsible (for the case of Caesar's abdication), not to mention the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI) and the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers). You're missing a word or something here--this sentence is gibberish. Are we in school? Do we get grades? No, but if I don't understand what the heck you're saying, then I can't respond. Do you think this rule applies only in school? Do you need a grade to apply this basic element of communication? He's saying you're wrong and political murder is not justified, especially one who's appointments should not fall under the law you cited. Dictator, one who talks and everyone listens. Legally appointed I might add! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 He's saying you're wrong and political murder is not justified, especially one who's appointments should not fall under the law you cited. Dictator, one who talks and everyone listens. Legally appointed I might add! Legally appointed to an office that didn't exist, you should add. There simply was no office of "dictator in perpetuum", which was simply a synonym of rex. By the lex Valeria, everyone who participated in this scam should have been hurled from the Tarpeian Rock, their property confiscated, and a proper ritual conducted to clean Rome of its Caesarian miasma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrippina of the Julii Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 If I may, I am only a humble under-graduate (an old one but nevertheless only a student) I would like to comment here. If we look at it from a modern perspective, nobody 'deserves' to die. However, Caesar broke the law. He deserved at the least to be arrested and tried. For the conspirators to take the law into their hands, literally, was wrong. But look at the alternative. The republic had become too powerful and was becoming more powerful by the year. Is it possible to be the ruler of the world and remain a republic? For how long can a democracy over the entire known world survive before it topples under the ambition of the 'upper' classes. Remembering that the idea of kingship was developing in other parts of the empire. And that Rome was an empire, even if it called itself a republic. How does the empire manage with the leadership of the empire changing every year? It was inevitable that the empire would need an emperor and yes, that emperor became Nero, Galba, Vitellius and Caligula but it also became Vespasian and Hadrian and (heaven forbid) Tiberius (for his sins). Any kingdom has its weak as well as its strong rulers so England had John and the Prince Regent, but it also produced the two Elizabeths. Caesar merely 'cracked the egg' as it were and the omelette that was the Empire was made. He deserved to be tried and to be given the opportunity to explain himself. Maybe be would have said what I have said above, maybe he would have claimed that he (whether through ambition or not) deserved to be the emperor. But until modern man learned how to participate in the governing of his society, it was right that the governance of the old societies had to be in the hands of the select few. Maybe I don't entirely disagree with lifetime rule to the right person. Look at the odd people that democracy has allowed to rule our modern societies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 However, Caesar broke the law. He deserved at the least to be arrested and tried. If we're talking as late as 23 Jan 49, I agree. After 14 Feb 49, however, Caesar had crossed the line that divides criminal from enemy commander. For the conspirators to take the law into their hands, literally, was wrong. Once the State has been usurped in a putsch, there is no way to apply the laws of the state to punish the usurper. Over the course of history, how many dictators have been brought to trial by their own governments? Off hand, I can think of none. Once Caesar was de facto king, he was immune from prosecution under the law, an immunity that he had successfully cultivated ever since his illegal behavior as consul, when he forced legislation through the assemblies by means of armed violence. Is it possible to be the ruler of the world and remain a republic? It depends entirely on how you want to rule the world. Rome successfully unified all Italy without toppling the republic, and without toppling the Republic, Rome successfully managed Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Narbo, Spain, Africa, Illyricum, the Peloponnesos, the Achaea, Asia, and Cypurs. Many of these acquisitions were associated with short-lived growing pains, but the republican constitution proved sufficiently supple to manage their governance through an ingenious set of constitutional mechanisms that allowed for gradual incorporation into the heart of the Roman system. Nothing in any of this required monarchy. For 500 years, Rome ate monarchs for breakfast, and Roman citizens could (and did!) tell these Hellenistic potentates, "I am a Roman, and you are just a king." How does the empire manage with the leadership of the empire changing every year? The republic did not manage its imperial possessions centrally. They were managed by autonomous proconsuls, and thus the yearly change of consul had virtually no effect in the provinces. Maybe I don't entirely disagree with lifetime rule to the right person. Look at the odd people that democracy has allowed to rule our modern societies. The nice thing about limited office is that odd people leave more quickly and can do less damage. More importantly, the notion of hereditary office is particularly obnoxious and unjustified, because you get a Tiberius, Commodus, and Caracalla for every Augustus, Aurelius, and Severus, and even to get to an Aurelius, you have to pass through all the worthless Didii Juliani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaius Octavius Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 (edited) If the Senate was so democratic, law abiding, and strong, why did it look to Pompey for salvation? Why didn't it look to one of its own - Cato, and gods forbid, the waffling Cicero? Remember: "The Law is an ass." Had people not broken the law in the U.S., we would still have slavery; women couldn't vote; and union members would still be machine gunned by the state and private armies. The Senate was the king; it broke the law. The common man was rabble. The state existed for the benifit of the 'good families". Elections in the 'democratic' assemblies? They were fixed by, and for the 'good men'. Edited September 22, 2007 by Gaius Octavius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 In the long run, the assassins did more harm to the Republic than good. At Pharsalus, Caesar demonstrated that his way was the new way. I would venture as far as to say that from Sulla on a military dictator was inevitable. What made Caesar different from Sulla and Uncle Marius is that he did not initiate a blood bath upon taking power. Instead he had the policia of climentia. Instead of killing opponents, he bought them off and forgave them. The two chief assassins, Brutus and Cassius, were both men he had spared. The next military dictators, Antony and Octavian, saw that they had little choice but to kill their opponents, because if they let them live, there would have been another Brutus and Cassius amongst them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 What made Caesar different from Sulla and Uncle Marius is that he did not initiate a blood bath upon taking power. Instead he had the policia of climentia. Instead of killing opponents, he bought them off and forgave them. When he bought them off, how much did Caesar pay Ahenobarbus, Pompey, Scipio, Cato, and Labienus? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 What made Caesar different from Sulla and Uncle Marius is that he did not initiate a blood bath upon taking power. Instead he had the policia of climentia. Instead of killing opponents, he bought them off and forgave them. When he bought them off, how much did Caesar pay Ahenobarbus, Pompey, Scipio, Cato, and Labienus? Nothing, they didn't deserve it. They were traitors to the roman people and only served themselves for their personal enrichment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 (edited) Sorry for the gibberish, my bad. I do think PC is right, because of: -the provisions for the protection of Roman Magistratus Majores in general. -the special Dictator's prerogatives. - the elementary life protection given to any unconvicted Roman citizen by the Lex Duodecim Tabularum (Tabula IX sec. VI). - the legal provisions for the designation of Judices and executioners (including the penalties for usurpers). Edited September 22, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts