M. Porcius Cato Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 OK, suppose the Liberators were in fact guilty as you charge them, and they had gone on to declare Cassius dictator for life, to pass a retroactive law declaring all his previous actions legal, and then had proceeded to proscribe Antony, Pansa, Hirtius, etc. If young Octavius had then led a conspiracy to kill Cassius, would you say that Cassius did not deserve to die? Would you say that Octavius had acted illegally? I wouldn't. I'd say that Octavius acted exactly as the Lex Valeria required, and that it is theoretically impossible to fulfill the Lex Valeria under these circumstances without also violating the 12 Tables etc. 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? Nothing, they didn't deserve it. So let's drop the "Caesar the Merciful" charade, shall we? 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. So let's drop the "Caesar the Merciful" charade, shall we? It wasn't a charade it was documented. Beaten once and you will receive, beaten twice and you'll pay the price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASCLEPIADES Posted September 22, 2007 Report Share Posted September 22, 2007 OK, suppose the Liberators were in fact guilty as you charge them, and they had gone on to declare Cassius dictator for life, to pass a retroactive law declaring all his previous actions legal, and then had proceeded to proscribe Antony, Pansa, Hirtius, etc. If young Octavius had then led a conspiracy to kill Cassius, would you say that Cassius did not deserve to die? Would you say that Octavius had acted illegally? I wouldn't. I'd say that Octavius acted exactly as the Lex Valeria required, and that it is theoretically impossible to fulfill the Lex Valeria under these circumstances without also violating the 12 Tables etc. A what-if scenario? I would say you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs and you can't overthrow any regime without breaking a number of laws, then and now, as true for Caesar and Brutus as for Cromwell and Washington. Otherwise, we would be applying a double-standard; that is politics, not law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 It wasn't a charade it was documented. Beaten once and you will receive, beaten twice and you'll pay the price. How many times were Ahenobarbus, Cato, and Scipio defeated? Once, once, and .... once. Nevertheless, Caesar the Merciful was so proud of his victories over them that he included placards depicting their defeat in his triumph. Caesar's mercy was a charade -- and what's worse, he was even a coward about owning up to his thirst for blood. At Thapsus, he claimed to have had an incredibly well-timed epileptic fit that prevented him from restraining his men from killing FIRST-TIME surrendering troops. If you ask me, this excuse stinks to high-heaven--sort of like Caesar's excuse not to rise for the Senate... because he had diarrhea. What a poor sickly fellow that Caesar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 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? If you speak of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, Consul in 32 BC(?), he was pardoned by Caesar and joined with the assassins. He was pardoned by Antony, and then sided with Octavian. He died shortly after Actium. Pompey was killed by the Egyptians, not Caesar. Labienus died in battle in Spain. Cato and Scipio killed themselves. Anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 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 If you speak of Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus, Consul in 32 BC(?), he was pardoned by Caesar and joined with the assassins. No, I mean his father L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and you're missing the point of my question. The point is that Caesar--unlike Sulla and Marius--had no need for a blood bath in Rome because Caesar's blood bath occurred outside Rome. The fact is that Caesar's civil wars killed far more of the experienced leadership of the Roman republic than the massacres and proscriptions of Sulla and Marius. Caesar's monarchy was achieved, not because he paid off his rivals and won them over through his mercy, but because his rivals were killed in the course of the civil war, a fact which Caesar celebrated in his triumph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) It wasn't a charade it was documented. Beaten once and you will receive, beaten twice and you'll pay the price. How many times were Ahenobarbus, Cato, and Scipio defeated? Once, once, and .... once So you're saying none of these individuals were at Pharsalus? A quick wiki search..."After first reducing Caesar's army at the battle of Dyrrhachium (where Cato commanded the port), the army led by Pompey was ultimately defeated by Caesar in the battle of Pharsalus (48 BC). Cato and Metellus Scipio, however, did not concede defeat and escaped to the province of Africa to continue resistance from Utica." Edited September 23, 2007 by P.Clodius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 So you're saying none of these individuals were at Pharsalus? No, I'm saying that your "once pardoned, twice killed" rule doesn't (and can't) apply to most of the folks on my original list. In particular, Caesar didn't have a chance to pardon Ahenobarbus, Cato and Scipio a second time: Ahenobarbus died fighting at Pharsalus and couldn't be pardoned; Cato never surrendered to Caesar and couldn't be pardoned; and after losing at Pharsalus, Scipio was driven into the sea outside Thapsus and couldn't be pardoned. The same is true of Pompey, who being killed by the Egyptian cat-worshippers, also couldn't be pardoned. Again, all of this points to the broader issue here: Caesar didn't kill rivals in Rome like Sulla because most all his rivals died in the civil wars outside Rome. Thus, the notion that Caesar somehow won over his rivals by largesse and forgiveness is just wrong: the only difference between Sulla and Caesar is where their enemies met their end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 (edited) Thus, the notion that Caesar somehow won over his rivals by largesse and forgiveness is just wrong... Wiki on Clementia; "In Roman mythology, Clementia was the goddess of forgiveness and mercy. She was deified as a celebrated virtue of Julius Caesar, who was famed for his forbearance. In 44 BC, a temple was consecrated to her by the Roman Senate. Within this temple stood a cult statute of Caesar and Clementia clasping hands. The was headwear to express Clementia, a crown made of oak leaves, which Caesar is frequently imaged as wearing. Caesar was considered to have this virtue. In a letter to his friend Atticus, Cicero is discussing Caesar's clementia: "You will say they are frightened. I dare say they are, but Ill be bound they're more frightened of Pompey than of Caesar. They are delighted with his artful clemency and fear the other's wrath." Again in For Deistarus Cicero dicusses Caesar's virtue of Clementia. "Yes, you, Gaius Caesar, are the only conqueror in 34 whose hour of triumph none save combatants have fallen. We, free men born in freedom's fairest clime, so far from finding you a tyrant, have seen in you a leader of unbounded mercy in the day of victory. There is not much information surrounding Clementia's cult; it would seem that she was merely an abstraction of a particular virtue, one that was revered in conjunction with revering Caesar and the Roman state. " Edited September 23, 2007 by P.Clodius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I'm sure the Sullans thought Sulla was a swell guy too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.Clodius Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 I'm sure the Sullans thought Sulla was a swell guy too. Cicero was a Sullan, or Caesarian perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Ratus Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 No, I mean his father L. Domitius Ahenobarbus, and you're missing the point of my question. The point is that Caesar--unlike Sulla and Marius--had no need for a blood bath in Rome because Caesar's blood bath occurred outside Rome. The fact is that Caesar's civil wars killed far more of the experienced leadership of the Roman republic than the massacres and proscriptions of Sulla and Marius. Caesar's monarchy was achieved, not because he paid off his rivals and won them over through his mercy, but because his rivals were killed in the course of the civil war, a fact which Caesar celebrated in his triumph. I get your point. Marius and Sulla butchered unarmed men in thier beds and on the streets. Caesar killed armed soldiers on the battlefield, and pardoned them after their surrender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurion89 Posted September 23, 2007 Report Share Posted September 23, 2007 Me and a friend were debating this. I don't think so becasue he did so much for Rome. Expanded the empire, settled disputes. But my friend thinks he hurt Rome. He was becoming a dictator and the coins, statues and dictating style show it. What do you think? No, I don't think he did deserve to die. We have to remember that the majority of Plebians wanted him. Who made up most of the people. Caesar was their man, their hero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Porcius Cato Posted September 30, 2007 Report Share Posted September 30, 2007 We have to remember that the majority of Plebians wanted him. Who made up most of the people. How do you know that the majority of plebeians wanted Caesar? Because Plutarch told you so? How did he know? There were no polls in the ancient world, except one--the ballot. So if the majority of plebeians wanted Caesar, then Caesar had no reason to fear being defeated in election. Yet Caesar instead had himself declared dictator for life, thereby depriving the people of any chance to express their opinion one way or the other. Now if Caesar were really so popular with the people, as opposed to being a contemptible populare poseur, why -- at the summit of his power -- didn't he give the people a chance to express themselves? Why did he arrest their tribunes? Why did he appoint their magistrates? Why did he act--not like a man of the people, winning one election after another as Marius did--but like an ordinary Hellenistic tyrant? I'll tell you why--Caesar didn't have the love of the people; he had the love of his army, and he figured that that was all that mattered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts