PDA

View Full Version : CAESAR A Tyrant True Or False



wisdompuma
February 9th, 2007, 02:43 PM
"...Julius caesar was not a tyrant but an unofficial dictator intent on reform with in Rome..." Ronald syme.[/B]
Caesar was cast as a tyrant because of the augustan literary line used by Octavian to cast himself as the saviour of Rome from the evil control of caesar. What are your thoughts, was he a tyrant? or was he a dictator intent on reform?

Monk
February 10th, 2007, 10:37 AM
What are your thoughts, was he a tyrant? or was he a dictator intent on reform?

Depends on how you define "tyrant". If by tyrant you mean a ruler with absolute power who excercises that power with ruthless disregard for the plight of his citizens, then no. Everything I have read indicates he was more of a dictator in that he had absolute power and control, but initiated many reforms that improved the lives of Roman citizens.

wisdompuma
February 10th, 2007, 09:53 PM
Well by the word tyrant i use it in a contextual way, tyrant or REX in this period of history was a particularly disfavoured word because of caesar predecessors sulla, marius etc. Rex in this time period meant evil ruler intent only of self gain through the misery of others.

FruitandNut
February 11th, 2007, 01:30 AM
Caesar was hardly a goody, ask Pompey/Pompeii, Vercingetorix, the Southern German tribes, and the Brits, and many more. His rise and his rule were surrounded and supported by wars and suppression of any liberty that was not totally under his control.

Caesar tended to be 'good' to those who acquiesced to his rule and dictats. It this way he is more reminiscent of the likes of Napoleon, Saddam, or Mohammed.

What fuelled Caesar's success was a ruthless and calculating ambition to rise from the bottom and stay there. When 'weak'/relatively weak, he was prepared to compromise, when in power he realised that he needed the support of powerful and influential others. By the 'Ides of March' he had in many ways lost that particular plot.

Vercingetorix
May 17th, 2007, 10:41 AM
Caesar was hardly a goody, ask Pompey/Pompeii, Vercingetorix, the Southern German tribes, and the Brits, and many more. His rise and his rule were surrounded and supported by wars and suppression of any liberty that was not totally under his control.

Caesar tended to be 'good' to those who acquiesced to his rule and dictats. It this way he is more reminiscent of the likes of Napoleon, Saddam, or Mohammed.

What fuelled Caesar's success was a ruthless and calculating ambition to rise from the bottom and stay there. When 'weak'/relatively weak, he was prepared to compromise, when in power he realised that he needed the support of powerful and influential others. By the 'Ides of March' he had in many ways lost that particular plot.

You are absolutely correct. The man was a beast! Simply rotten to the core.:knuppel2:

eliotitus
May 17th, 2007, 10:55 AM
History is defined by the survivors, we will never truly know or have an unbiased perspective because no such thing exists. He did good and he did bad just as everyone does, that at least we do know.

phrique
May 17th, 2007, 11:16 AM
"...Julius caesar was not a tyrant but an unofficial dictator intent on reform with in Rome..." Ronald syme.[/B]
Caesar was cast as a tyrant because of the augustan literary line used by Octavian to cast himself as the saviour of Rome from the evil control of caesar. What are your thoughts, was he a tyrant? or was he a dictator intent on reform?

I don't see how the bolded part could possibly be correct unless I'm misreading what you're saying. Augustus (Octavian) didn't want to appear as a savior from Caesar at all, in fact he played up his status as Julius Caesar's adopted son in order to gain approval for his own rise to power and would eventually adopt the title Caesar himself.

Am I misunderstanding what you were saying there?

Squatch347
May 17th, 2007, 04:10 PM
You stole my thunder Phrique, good point.

Doublethink
May 23rd, 2007, 03:38 AM
As with all arguments there is two sides to the story,

If I lived in Rome under Ceasar I would probably be very happy, Rome's empire was expanding, slaves are comming to the city all of the time, so I can have cheap labour. I have the protection of Rome (the whole if you attack a Roman then the whole might of Rome will come down upon you) and and the empire is expanding I can travel further without worry.

If i lived anywere else, then he is EVIL, he takes land without care for the people that live there. He has an army which is for the most part unbeatable, I would imagine that he has killed people I know or are connected to me one way or another. Also I would have to live in fear that this guy (as I would not have that much info) may come and take my home away.

My opinion after looking at the two sides, is that the idea of Rome is a selfish one, "we want to rule the world and we will take it". They may have had been more developed than the "barbarian" countries but that is no reason to invade them. Although I must be fair, to say that only bad things came from the Romans invading the world would be wrong. I am from England, we have been permantly changed by Roman invasion and probably for the better. I was raised Roman Catholic which defined my education which was a good one. Rome changed the world, and in my opinion for the better.

Caesar was a major part in the development or Rome and in my opinon was fully in the role of Emperor, which is good to his people and evil to everyone else.

FruitandNut
May 23rd, 2007, 04:46 AM
I tend to agree that in terms or culture and technology there were many benefits (bene, as in Latin for good). Like you I was, at least in part, educated within a Catholic ethos; and the academic content was high.
Roman technological advancement did however come to a grinding halt - largely down to it's mathematical system.

Set against this however, are the likes of the slave galleys, and mines; and the most blood soaked patch of turf, known as the Colloseum.