Quote:
|
We seem to be getting off topic significantly here. So I will put forth my points in a clear concise way about Cicero being a greater champion of liberty then Caeser.
|
If I remember correctly, and I believe I do, the debate isn't about who was a greater champion of liberty, Cicero or Caesar, it was who was a greater man, Cicero or Caesar. Your rationale for selecting Cicero was because you believe he was great champion of liberty.
Quote:
|
1.) Given there were slave revolts in the ancient world, but no one viewed slavery as wrong, not even the slaves. The slaves simply wished the roles to be reversed or for them to simply not be slaves. There was no abolitionist movement or principled stand against the institution of slavery. So comparing Caeser and Cicero on this issue is completly rediculus as neither believed it to be wrong.
|
Slavery is the most extreme violation of individual liberty, it's no wonder they desired not to be slaves. They had no rights. Their status was no better than that of animals, they couldn't own anything, they were completely at the mercy of their owners.
I wasn't comparing Caesar to Cicero on the subject, other than I mentioned the fact that Caesar forced large landowners to hire one-third of their labor from freemen. I was pointing out that Cicero's championing of liberty was limited to a select part of the population, and that he was a hypocrite.
Quote:
|
2.) I am not putting an argument in defense of the decaying republic at the time of Cicero(which as you rightly stated was corrupt and no longer a republic) but of true republican principles.
|
Ok.
Quote:
|
3.) Anything positive that Julius Caeser had done was built on quicksand. The destruction of the last vestages of Republicanism doomed Rome to inevitable death.
|
Rome had had dictators before, Caesar was certainly not the first. Such a position was even provided for in the Roman constitution. The "destruction of the last vestiges of republicanism" occurred after the assassination of Caesar.
Caesar's positive accomplishments, as I have already stated, resonate to this day. Rome was falling apart at the seams, and Caesar was the glue that held it together for that precarious decade. The Empire that arose out of the ashes of the second civil war in 27 B.C. was a direct consequence of his assassination, and it was not part of his grand design. That being said, the Empire preserved Rome's legacy and institutions that we take for granted today.
Quote:
|
4.) Cicero's work shows Ciceros philosophical dedication to the system of rights and the Republican form of Government. It may not have been rights for everyone, but a system of rights and "natural law" none the less. The same can not be said about Caeser.
|
Caesar was a very prolific writer and speaker, unfortunately, almost none of his political writings or speeches have survived to this date, with the exception of his commentaries on the Gallic and Civil Wars. Cicero had the good fortune of having his works survive to this date, something that is more happenstance than anything else.
Caesar may have replaced an inefficient oligarchy with an autocracy, but he was not totalitarian or tyrannical in his method of governance. He did not trample on individual liberties as Hitler or Stalin did. He even extended protections to Romans against such violations. He was merciful to those he defeated, which ultimately proved to be his undoing.
The problem with comparing Caesar and Cicero is that they fall into different paradigms. They were contemporaries, but not peers. A far more valid comparison could be made of Caesar and Pompey, or Cato and Cicero.