|
Post by RaceWright on Jan 12, 2004 15:34:21 GMT -5
This may be deemed a splice of a history thread, but as a great fan of the late Roman Republic, and a great fan of Julius Caesar (not to mention others) I think it is time the ageless questions of Roman politics were mused and parused (or however you spell) So whoever has anything to say about Pompey, Octavian, Crassus, Brutus, Caesar himself please type away.
|
|
|
Post by ToriTelfer on Jan 12, 2004 18:40:59 GMT -5
Race, you are such a cheater!!! if you use this as 'evidence' in your essay next week i'll kill you!!!
cato was greater than Caesar btw....
|
|
|
Post by DavidRojas on Jan 12, 2004 20:47:25 GMT -5
Heehee. With my vote I formed an "E" shape with the results. ;D Errm... but anyway... I voted "Maybe." First of all, it was murder, and I do not think you really can be justified for that. Plus I thought Caesar was a neat guy. However, I can understand why Brutus, et al., wanted Caesar gone. What made the Republic of Rome great was just that: it was a republic. Although Rome was falling, a dictatorship, as noble-minded as I would like to think Caesar was, is, in principle, a dangerous form of government, leading to corruption, blah, blah, blah. Not being at all knowledgeable about history (a good portion of what I know about Rome is from Shakespeare ), all that was just my opinion on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Jan 12, 2004 23:14:46 GMT -5
Cato was not the greater man as I proved beyond all shadow of a doubt with my arguements. Dont forget that we had many many arguemtents, of different natures, which all stood up (that I can remember) while you only had one.
Latin Proverb: Male Verum Examinat Omnis Corruptus Iudex
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Jan 13, 2004 13:44:28 GMT -5
Would it induce more discussion if I opened the thread to Hannibal, Cato, and Napoleon??
What does anyone think of Napoleon? Are you like Beethoven or like Marshal Ney?
|
|
|
Post by ToriTelfer on Jan 14, 2004 17:25:46 GMT -5
Cato was not the greater man as I proved beyond all shadow of a doubt with my arguements. ummmmm........i recall the judges saying it was a weak team defending a strong case vs. a strong team defending a weak case....or something to that effect...and we never really defined greatness; in moral greatness Cato was definately tOpS. i stand firm.
|
|
|
Post by DavidRojas on Jan 14, 2004 19:10:47 GMT -5
(What on earth are you discussing?)
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Jan 15, 2004 0:10:46 GMT -5
Very well, David Rojas I envoke your mighty name, tell us the meaning of greatness (an impartial one, not one won over by large contributions on Tori's part, afterall there is nothing so mighty that money cannot capture it)
David Rojas, or whoever else wants to say, what is greatness?
|
|
|
Post by MarySchuhriemen on Jan 18, 2004 18:27:31 GMT -5
Brutus said he was ambitious and Brutus was an honerable man I liked reading about Caesar, and I think that he was a great guy. I voted "absolutely not"
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Jan 21, 2004 1:51:13 GMT -5
wooohoooo, alright, true historians agree, Brutus should not have killed Caesar.
|
|
|
Post by StephenColbert on Feb 7, 2004 16:07:01 GMT -5
I got a haircut today
Caesar with a number 3
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Feb 19, 2004 15:53:27 GMT -5
Brutus was quite definitely right to kill Ceasar. Ceasar wanted to take over Rome, and was quite willing to destroy every ancient institution that stood in his way to do it. It was Brutus' civic duty to stop someone who was willing to tear down the entire civic fabric of Rome just for the sake of power.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 19, 2004 16:28:38 GMT -5
ah but what was Brutus saving? Rome? the Republic? Brutus was not acting in the best interests of the people, but rather in the best intrests of the Senate. The Senate had ceased to function for the people, but instead was corrupt, gready and incomepitent (sp??)
Julius Caesar was a genius, if anyone doubts this they have no read the literature. Julius Caesar had instituted reforms, benefitting the people, reforms that showed two things, first a solution to the problem at the moment, and secondly it moved the people away from problems that Caesar foresaw in the future. Julius Caesar not only knew how to solve problems in the present, but also how to avoid future ones.
At the time that Julius Caesar was killed, (not the immediate, he was more concerned with a knife) he was planning several measures to feed the people of Rome. Included in these plans were a winter harbor at Ostia, removing the rocks in the harbor, and a canal dug through Greece at Corinth. All these things were designed to bring more food into Rome, thus lowering the price for the common person.
Furthermore, he was planning an invasion of the only two worthy enemies Rome had left, Parthia and Germany. Julius Caesar was a more than capable general, and while war is always uncertain, I do not believe he would have come up short. Should his campaign been successful then Rome two things would have happened, first Rome would have had more wealth brought in, benefitting the people. Secondly the borders of the empire would have been pushed out, and Germany (which was ever a thorn in Rome's side for other emperors) would have been subdued. No other Roman Imperator (save maybe Germanicus and his brother Nero (not the emperor) were capable enough men to conquer Germany
|
|
MattBeifuss
CHARGEd
The infamous Spitt?n Iggy
Posts: 122
|
Post by MattBeifuss on Feb 19, 2004 17:17:14 GMT -5
ah but what was Brutus saving? Rome? the Republic? Brutus was not acting in the best interests of the people, but rather in the best intrests of the Senate. The Senate had ceased to function for the people, but instead was corrupt, gready and incomepitent (sp??) Was he? He wasn't just fighting for the Senate, he was fighting for Rome's future, and even a corrupt Senate is better than a despot. And Ceasar wasn't just overthrowing the Senate. He was overthrowing the power of the Plebian Tribunes too. So was Hitler. And he could have used his forsight to reform the Senate and work for the people's betterment without trying to overthrow the rulers of a whole nation. Just because you implement plans to help the people doesn't mean you really care about them or plan on helping them in the future. Ceaser implemented these things as power plays, to get the mob behind him. He was looking out for number one, not the people. His moves threw Rome into the hands and whims of a succession of emperors, absolute powers who could only be removed through assassination, guaranteeing bloody revolts at least once a century, sometimes more. First of all, his planned conquests were just another aspect of his megalomania, not some sort of altruistic need to subjegate people for the good of Rome. Second, it wouldn't have brought any benefits at all. Sure, sya he manages to take over Germany. Once he does, then what? There are more barbarians nearby, and no river to stop them. The expense of guarding that huge new unprotected border would have been an immense drain.
|
|
|
Post by RaceWright on Feb 19, 2004 23:42:52 GMT -5
Hitler a genius?? yes he was actually. He was one of the greatest leaders in the past century. Dont get me wrong, I am not condoning his Holocaust, but he did single handedly bring a country (and most of Europe) out of the depression, six or seven years before America did.
Matt is right, despotism can be wrong. But in the case of the Roman Republic at that time, the choice was between two despots, Caesar and the Senate.
The Roman Senate was nothing like the Senate of America today. Popular elections?!?! The poor pleb didnt not vote and have any consequence. Roman politicians were the finest money could buy, save for Cicero and Cato perphaps. Julius Caesar taking over the powers of the Tribunes? removing power from the corrupt.
Yes despotism can be a bad thing, but in the hands of the right people it can be a great thing. For example Augustus brought unrivaled prosperity to Rome. In Greece many tyrannts enjoyed a great deal of peace and prosperity.
Do you believe that the Senate was capable of getting the Roman people out of the position they were in?
|
|