Cicero was not an Aristocrat, he was a plebeian by birth and he gained his position in Rome through persuasion. In fact there is one speech he makes that defends the rights of the plebeians to hold positions in power based on their character/achievements.
By the time of Cicero the Roman Republic was collapsing mainly because fourign
"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting, it summons to duty by its commands and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions… there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and all times, and there will be one master and ruler, that is, God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge"
How can anyone disposed toward individual liberty (which I assume you are) take the side of Caeser?
Quote:
"obsolete"
So I supose modern Republics are obsolete as well?
Rome had ceased to be a republic centuries before Caesar took power, if it ever was at all. It was an aristocratic oligarchy.
|
That doesn't answer my question. But I do agree that Rome ceased to be a Republic before Caeser's take over. Cicero was defending Republicanism not the corrupted system prior to the take over.
Quote:
Name me one emporer who wasn't an aristocrat.
Maximinius, Diocletian (son of a slave), Maximian, Carausius, Magnus Maximus, Petronius Maximus, Pertinax (son of a slave), Maximinus Thrax, Galerius (son of a peasant), Maximinus II Daia (Galerius's nephew), Licinianus, Constantius I (father of Constantine the Great, grandfather of emperors Constantine II, Constantius II and Constans, Julian) Jovian.
|
My bad!
Quote:
|
Bribery, extortion, assassinations, etc.
|
So by this logic, shouldn't one hate the empire just as much if not more?