Did Julius Caesar deserve to die?

[Gaius Octavius]

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? (What is particularly wrong with that?) How did he know? (How do you know otherwise?) There were no polls in the ancient world, except one--the ballot. (Which was easily fixed.) 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 (or the Senate) 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; (Again, how do you know?) he had the love of his army, and he figured that that was all that mattered.

 

You are doing what we all do; we pick and chose our sources according to our biases.

Edited September 30, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[P.Clodius]

How do you know that the majority of plebeians wanted Caesar?

By the adoration shown at his funeral. How many people rioted when Cato died?

Because Plutarch told you so?

Hmmm...This source is good enough for your information on Cato. Cherry picking again?

There were no polls in the ancient world, except one--the ballot.

You mean that system of voting blocks that was heavily weighted in favour of the 'haves'?

Yet Caesar instead had himself declared dictator for life...

By the Senate, therefore it was legally binding.

Edited September 30, 2007 by P.Clodius

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve, Amici.

 

I think we all have seen in our extensive selection of admittedly biased source's quotations plenty of evidence that Roman people's preferences about Caesar, Patrician and plebeian alike, were extremely divided.

 

On the other hand, even with (possibly) huge popular support, there was simply no legal chance for longlife consulship, dictatorship or autocracy.

[M. Porcius Cato]

There were no polls in the ancient world, except one--the ballot. (Which was easily fixed.)

 

There were numerous safeguards to assure that the ballot wasn't fixed, so your claim that the ballot was easily fixed comes out of thin air. Besides, it's totally disingenuous to argue simultaneously that Caesar was elected because he was popular AND to argue that Caesar could not be elected because the system was stacked against him. You can't have it both ways. Either Caesar was popular enough to get elected in the first place and thus--if he remained popular after killing most of his enemies in the civil wars--had nothing to fear from another election, OR Caesar was PART of the political machine that stacked the deck against outsiders and thus--again--had no reason to fear elections once he had supreme power.

 

Is too much to expect even the most elementary logic from Caesar's cheerleaders? Have you never asked yourself just once why--if Caesar were so popular--he quit running for office and (indisputably) accepted this unheard-of office dictator in perpetuum? If you have even the slightest sense of sincere sympathies for the populares, doesn't this betrayal of the sovereignty of the people send shivers down your spine? For a populare, this defense of Caesar's dictatorship is pure, shameless hypocrisy.

[Gaius Octavius]

There were no polls in the ancient world, except one--the ballot. (Which was easily fixed.)

 

There were numerous safeguards to assure that the ballot wasn't fixed, so your claim that the ballot was easily fixed comes out of thin air. (And, so you say. I can't cite anything, but this is a generally held position.) Besides, it's totally disingenuous to argue simultaneously that Caesar was elected because he was popular AND to argue that Caesar could not be elected because the system was stacked against him. You can't have it both ways. (Don't recall this argument.) Either Caesar was popular enough to get elected in the first place and thus--if he remained popular after killing most of his enemies in the civil wars--had nothing to fear from another election, OR Caesar was PART of the political machine that stacked the deck against outsiders (Thus, the election could be fixed!) and thus--again--had no reason to fear elections once he had supreme power.

 

Is too much to expect even the most elementary logic from Caesar's cheerleaders? (I really do hate to say this, but your logic seems to fail here.) Have you never asked yourself just once why--if Caesar were so popular--he quit running for office and (indisputably) accepted this unheard-of office dictator in perpetuum? If you have even the slightest sense of sincere sympathies for the populares, doesn't this betrayal of the sovereignty of the people (or the sovereignty of the Senate) send shivers down your spine? For a populare (Thank you for the gratuitous 'compliment'.), this defense of Caesar's dictatorship is pure, shameless hypocrisy.

 

According to your general argument, prior to Caesar's crossing the Rubicon, all was well in Rome. The Senate held the 'populares' in high esteem. It didn't have a contract with Pompey. Cicero wasn't playing it safe. And, the Senate wasn't corrupt. Senators didn't practice usury and trade through their agents.

 

Perilous times demanded action - Caesar was the man of the hour. The 'liberators' had their own pockets in mind and by no means whatsoever the common good nor the state's well being.

Edited October 1, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[P.Clodius]

There were no polls in the ancient world, except one--the ballot. (Which was easily fixed.)

So true, so true..."Cato gathered a great fund to carry by bribery the election of Bibulus...." Syme. Chi ching...I wonder how much he shelled out?

[Gaius Octavius]

If Caesar were a criminal, why would monarchs call themselves kaisers, czars, czarina, or Caesars? I believe that the Turks initially adopted that title. Why not Brutus? Cassius? Why would a monarch want to have a criminal's name amongst his/her titles? At least one of them would have been smart enough to catch on. How about Sulla, as Kosmo suggests?

 

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

 

Didn't Bibulus spend his time looking for omens in order to foil Caesar's reforms?

Edited October 1, 2007 by Gaius Octavius

[P.Clodius]

Didn't Bibulus spend his time looking for omens in order to foil Caesar's reforms?

Yes he did, although the sources don't say it, doubtless that was Cato's brainwave!

[Gaius Octavius]

I am pretty sure that at least one of the sources does. Can't cite it because I read that stuff before most of the people on the Forum were born. Alzheimer's, perhaps.

[ASCLEPIADES]

Salve iterum!

 

Restricting ourselves to the legal standpoint, we may look for precedents to Caesar's position.

 

As LC Sulla was never prosecuted, the best analogy might be the second group of Decemvirs, especially the two most notorious, Appius Claudius and Sp. Oppius, perpetrators of a temporarily successful coup d'etat at CCCV AUC / 449 BC ( Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita, Libri III, Ch. LIII-LVIII ):

 

- a decree was passed for them to resign office;

- when they were captured, the Senate instructed its envoys to protect them from the popular rage;

- they were both prosecuted with the due process of law, and both had a thorough defence;

- they were convicted and condemned to prison time (not to death)

- A. Claudius even made a futile attempt to appeal the sentence.

 

Admittedly, both of them suffered suicide on prison, but that is another story.

Edited October 1, 2007 by ASCLEPIADES

[M. Porcius Cato]

So true, so true..."Cato gathered a great fund to carry by bribery the election of Bibulus...." Syme.

 

I've already reviewed the PRIMARY source literature on this topic for you, and it's clear that Syme is mistaken (gasp! yes, it's possible for secondary sources to be mistaken). Why don't you go back to claiming that Cato eats babies? Or at least come up with some new falsehood to spread around the fora like viruses in a nursery.

 

More broadly, it's quite instructive that an indifference to facts (or the inability to retain them) so strongly predisposes one to support for Caesar.

[P.Clodius]

So true, so true..."Cato gathered a great fund to carry by bribery the election of Bibulus...." Syme.

I've already reviewed the PRIMARY source literature on this topic for you,

Yes you have, and your adherence to such smacks of a fundamentalists adherence to scripture whom you're so quick to condemn!

...and it's clear that Syme is mistaken (gasp! yes, it's possible for secondary sources to be mistaken).

Sure its possible. "Cato was not averse to sponsoring grain laws, thereby outbidding his opponents, or to indulging in bribery, if this could bring supporters into power." Gruen. Another mistake? Are these noted and often quoted scholars less qualified than you to interpret events? How qualified is a primary source that is 100+ years removed from events?

Why don't you go back to claiming that Cato eats babies?

No that was your claim in the Ambitus thread!

Or at least come up with some new falsehood to spread around the fora like viruses in a nursery.

No thanks, I'll leave the chronic revisionism to you.

More broadly, it's quite instructive that an indifference to facts (or the inability to retain them)....

A personal insult, how surprising. Well not really, your record of abrasiveness on these boards has been noted by other members...Such a statement smacks of elitism, perhaps those three letters after your name have gone to your head?

[M. Porcius Cato]

...and it's clear that Syme is mistaken (gasp! yes, it's possible for secondary sources to be mistaken).

Sure its possible. "Cato was not averse to sponsoring grain laws, thereby outbidding his opponents, or to indulging in bribery, if this could bring supporters into power." Gruen. Another mistake? Are these noted and often quoted scholars less qualified than you to interpret events? How qualified is a primary source that is 100+ years removed from events?

 

I don't think that Gruen and Syme are less qualified, just mistaken. There are seven different primary sources that described the campaign of Bibulus, and none of them claim that Cato engaged in bribery. The lack of an historical source cannot be overcome by any number of scholarly credentials. The quality of an historical claim is directly proportional to the evidence on which it is based, and claims that are made on the basis of zero evidence have zero credibility.

 

BTW, I'm happy to be proven wrong about anyone's indifference to facts (or ability to retain them). But when I go to the trouble of finding, citing, and linking to a dozen or more primary sources and the result is greeted with a causal scoff and a failure to return with any new information whatever, you can bet that my 'abrasiveness' is not caused by a lack of kindness but by exasperation at the failure to reciprocate the exchange of information. Presumably, it's the exchange of information that distinguishes this forum from a "debating society."

[P.Clodius]

...and it's clear that Syme is mistaken (gasp! yes, it's possible for secondary sources to be mistaken).

Sure its possible. "Cato was not averse to sponsoring grain laws, thereby outbidding his opponents, or to indulging in bribery, if this could bring supporters into power." Gruen. Another mistake? Are these noted and often quoted scholars less qualified than you to interpret events? How qualified is a primary source that is 100+ years removed from events?

 

I don't think that Gruen and Syme are less qualified, just mistaken. There are seven different primary sources that described the campaign of Bibulus, and none of them claim that Cato engaged in bribery. The lack of an historical source cannot be overcome by any number of scholarly credentials. The quality of an historical claim is directly proportional to the evidence on which it is based, and claims that are made on the basis of zero evidence have zero credibility.

 

BTW, I'm happy to be proven wrong about anyone's indifference to facts (or ability to retain them). But when I go to the trouble of finding, citing, and linking to a dozen or more primary sources and the result is greeted with a causal scoff and a failure to return with any new information whatever, you can bet that my 'abrasiveness' is not caused by a lack of kindness but by exasperation at the failure to reciprocate the exchange of information. Presumably, it's the exchange of information that distinguishes this forum from a "debating society."

I guess I should go back to my primary source studies..!

Edited October 1, 2007 by P.Clodius

[Gaius Octavius]

My Dear MPC:

 

You do an excellent and valuable job researching and presenting information. You are an asset and a credit to this Forum. That said, if it ever comes to a point where you or I leave the Forum, just PM me and I will be gone. I have not closed my PM to you as you have yours to me. I only wanted to ask you if you wanted to be on my jokes list.

 

Did Caesar Deserve to Die is a subjective question. When one presents a question, it need not be sourced. P.C. presented as much sourcing as you did. Because it was modern, does not make it fallacious. Cassius Dio's writings are questioned, yet they are ancient. Subjective means opinion. After much reading one comes to conclusions, i.e., Hannibal wasted his time and wasn't so great a captain. Does one have to source every claim for it to be valid? What if the source is wrong? I didn't tell you that your economics stank to the high heavens, no matter your charts, in the Gasoline Bet thread. To be rude, I hope that you don't teach eco.

 

I've drunk much too much wine so I'll leave off.

 

I really do like you.

 

Tom