Jump to content
UNRV Ancient Roman Empire Forums

who be duh bad guy, Cato or Caesar?


frankq

Recommended Posts

It's clear that Mommsen blindly idolized Caesar and anachronistically considered him something like a heroic liberal leader of the late XIX Century.

 

Exactly. Mommsen's idolatry has had a tremendously pernicious influence on the understanding of the Roman republic, and it was borne of an ideology that was very much in keeping with the rising tide of totalitarianism in the first half of the 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's clear that Mommsen blindly idolized Caesar and anachronistically considered him something like a heroic liberal leader of the late XIX Century.

 

Exactly. Mommsen's idolatry has had a tremendously pernicious influence on the understanding of the Roman republic, and it was borne of an ideology that was very much in keeping with the rising tide of totalitarianism in the first half of the 20th century.

 

 

Well, on that note, while Caesar browsing, I found this:

 

http://www.annourbis.com/JuliusCaesar/

 

It's very well written. And researched. And frigging biased to the highest degree. Fans of Caesar will love it. Our own Cato Ohii will be appalled. I can't help but feel the author was on a total Mommsen high.

 

I have never run into this link and website before, I think its new, but the tone and style doesn't seem recent. Check out his take on the agrarian law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, on that note, while Caesar browsing, I found this:

 

http://www.annourbis.com/JuliusCaesar/

 

It's very well written. And researched. And frigging biased to the highest degree. Fans of Caesar will love it. Our own Cato Ohii will be appalled. I can't help but feel the author was on a total Mommsen high.

 

I have never run into this link and website before, I think its new, but the tone and style doesn't seem recent. Check out his take on the agrarian law.

Salve, F!

 

MPC does a lot of research and analysis for his posts. The least we can do is read them carefully.

Love is blind, and you don

Edited by ASCLEPIADES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Cato be duh bad guy.

End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cato be duh bad guy.

End of story.

While I'm not a fan of Cato and his 20 odd cronies you have to put him/them in context. The political system had become so polarized by factions it had become relatively difficult to govern and a dissenting voice is necessary to check dominance. Was Cato part of the problem? Yes. Was he the cause of the problem? No. His significance in the grand scheme of things is overestimated thanks to men like Cicero. Cato IMO is over-lauded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define bad?

who's opinion is it anyway on what is bad.

I suppose in their own eyes both Cato and Caesar thought what they were doing was right but law at the time says that Caesar broke it. Yet as M. Porcius Cato and Primus Pilus gives evidence for Caesar is depicted as duh good guy. I think it would be impossible to know becasuse for opinions sake, it is your choice based on all the factual evidence (not opinions (hard to come by but y'know)).

 

vtc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His significance in the grand scheme of things is overestimated thanks to men like Cicero.

 

Our chief contemporary source for Cato's significance isn't Cicero, but Caesar's own partisan Sallust, who held Cato in much esteem despite detesting Cato's nominal allies. In contrast, Cicero wrote less about Cato than did Sallust, and Cicero's attitude towards Cato ran hot and cold, depending on whether Cato was helping Cicero or hindering him at the time.

 

Ironically, one of the people who most helped catapult Cato to fame was Caesar, whose Anti-Cato was published right after Cato's death and while Sallust was writing his own histories. Thereafter, everyone who opposed Caesar, the Julio-Claudians, or whatever emperor was around, looked back to Cato as the Cassandra of the republic and a model Stoic. In one respect, a similar relation holds between the American founders and George III--if the role of king had not existed, there would have been no role for the republican revolutionaries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...