Ironduke

Cicero ignored the rule of law, having men executed without even a trial. No better than Caesar. He was full of himself, and heaped praise upon himself by exaggerating his "feats". Even more so than most politicians of his day, he was a pompous windbag.

Caesar was an accomplished general, and far more virtuous than Cicero. He had common sense, was pragmatic, and had a sound vision for Rome. He was both an outstanding military and political leader. The Senate's decision to sack Caesar in 50 B.C. was purely political and treacherous. Caesar was enormously popular with the Roman people, and a bunch of snivelling, perfidious, backstabbing senators decided he was too great of a political threat.

Cicero championed a farcical, ineffectual, incompetent, corrupt, obsolete aristocrat-controlled republic. He was shrill, elitist, Ivy League, draft dodging, and was self-ingratiating. His philosophy was stale and unoriginal. He was a 1st century B.C. John Kerry.

Cicero talked the talk, Caesar walked the walk.

Anon

If i have to pick a great Roman, i'd probably pick Scipio Afrikanis.

Dude has a cool name.

Praxus

Are you going to say that the Aristocratic Republic which some checks and ballances is worst then an outright dictatorship?

Caeser was also a looter, murderer, and plunderer. He may have walked the walk but in by book it should be right to the Gallows.


I never said he was a perfect man. I am sure he has done numerous things that I would deam immoral and wrong. But it does not change the fact that Cicero was the greatest proponent of Individual Liberty during the late years of the Republic. Caeser was just a power hungrey dictator who by turning the Republic into an Empire caused the destruction of a once great civilization.

He was one of the many Hitlers of his day, how can you pretend to call him virtuous!

Officer of Engineers

I certainly look at things very different than you. History is history. To change one thing would make your entire arguement moot. Caeser spread Roman civilization and Roman ideals which helped formed the basis of our culture. Even during the Dark Ages, Rome was the standard to which all the countries try to replicate. Without Caeser, they would have tried to emmulate somebody else (Persains? Turks? Huns?)

Cicero was the man who created the conditions for Caeser and Caeser created the conditions for Europe.

To measure one against the other is taking things out of context and ignores the impact both had on our civilization.

__________________
Chimo

Praxus

Perhaps they would have formed their own Republics like Rome?

The fact tht something happened because of a Brutal tyrant doesn ot mean his actions were right. For example since Japan attacked us we grew extremely strong during WW2 and after and soon became the sole superpower. Does this make it right for the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, of coruse not (IMO).

Officer of Engineers

History has shown that weaker nations usually try to emmulate the strongest player on the block. If that weren't Rome, it would have been some other strongman.

But it does make it necessary. The Idea of Rome was always stronger than the Republic and the Empire. Even during the hey days of the Empire, there were always strong voices to try to return to the Republic. The Idea of Rome spread beyond Roman borders but that could only have happenned with Empire, not Republic.

I have a question for you. What would be your judgement if you were Japanese and Japan won the war?

Praxus

Here is a map showing the territory controled by Rome while it was under Republican control...

http://www.loyno.edu/~seduffy/MapImages/romanmap.jpg

As you can see a large portion of what is to be the empire(exspecially as far as Europe goes) has already been conquered prior Caeser and his military overthrow.

It seems that the Republic was already the big kid on the block. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

What do you mean?

I don't like your view point, I'm going to kill you because al though it's wrong it's "nessecary" to spread my will.

Officer of Engineers

Depends on how you view Casear's conquests, as part of the Republic or the beginning of Empire. Gaul and Britannia were Casear's projects.

The Japanese saw it as their right to control China and her wealth. The Americans disagree. It would seemed that your view of Iraqi oil differs very little from Japanese view of China's wealth.

It's necessary in the context that is what happenned. The Republic did not spread the Idea of Rome. The Empire did. Rome did not set out to spread the idea of Rome. The Empire did that by its very virtue of its existence.

Praxus

Japan was a totalitarian dictatorship, they had a right to conquer exactly nothing.

This being said, I never said the US Government has a right to Iraqi oil, what I did say is that the companies from whom they were stolen had a right to them. I also said that ones that were never owned by private companies should be claimable or actioned off to the highest bidder.

But the ends do not justify the means. The only thing I believe can be drawn from the whole Ceaser story is that Cicero and Brutus were the moral heros.

True. I will have to do a little more research and get back to you on this point.

I would say anytime prior to first triumvirate is The Republic and after this point is the Empire.

Ironduke

Like I said, the republic was decadent, farcical, ineffectual, incompetent, corrupt, obsolete, and aristocrat-controlled. Caesar brought a breath of fresh air into the decaying Rome.

What proponent of liberty has four political opponents executed without trial? Caesar did not destroy Rome, he revived it and made it greater than ever before. If Caesar was just a power hungry dictator, Cicero was just a egomaniacal, self-ingratiating aristocrat.

Caesar didn't destroy the republic anyways, the empire and republic had a considerable overlap, for at least four centuries. Rome became an empire when it conquered the first cities outside of its boundaries, and was so when Julius Caesar was born. Do you think the republic admitted conquered provinces to the republic like the US admitted new states? Of course not. It placed imperial governors, overseers to manage them.

When M21 said: "I don't think Praxus was really trying to compare him to Hitler", you said: "Yah, my point was that popularity does not determine if someone is a dictator."

So what is he, a Hitler or a non-Hitler?

As somebody else said, you believe only in absolutes. If somebody is a dictator, they are absolutely bad, they are a Hitler. Every emperor and king of past times was a Hitler.

Praxus

A Aristocrat Controled corrupt and incompotent Republic is by far supperior to a de facto fascist dictatorship.

Thoose political opponents were people who were planing an overthrow of the senate and a march on Rome. I would hardly call Cicero the bad guy in this event.

I did not compare him to Hitler then beyond the stated that popularity does not determine wether he is a dictator or not, but I never said they couldn't be compared.

"decadent"
How?

"farcical"
How?

"ineffectual"
Better then an effective tyrant.

"incompetent"
Yah and I can name all the politicians on one hand who were not incompotent throughout all history.

"corrupt"
And emporers weren't?

"obsolete"
So I supose modern Republics are obsolete as well?

"and aristocrat-controlled"

Name me one emporer who wasn't an aristocrat.

Officer of Engineers

First of all, in all of history. There is no such thing as a dictatorship. You can only push a people so far before they rise up to challenge you (and maybe even kill you). At some point, you have to appease the people. Casaer did more than that. He gave the Roman people pride. Rome was willing to follow him and that cannot be called a dictatorship.

So much so that his name was revered and remembered by the Romans (and Europeans - think Kaiser and Tzar - both take off on the name Casaer) far more than Ciecero. The Romans obviosuly approved of Casaer's actions.

Ironduke

The Roman Republic government was in fact thoroughly oligarchical. I prefer Caesar to a corrupt aristocratic oligarchy.

You said:
He was one of the many Hitlers of his day, how can you pretend to call him virtuous!

When you call Caesar a Hitler, you mean it in terms of popularity, right?

The fact is Cicero showed himself more than willing to suspend the writ and execute men without trial. Little evidence was presented by Cicero in his case against Catiline, and the two men had been bitter political enemies for years. Cicero had good motive to disposes of his long-time political rivals.

"decadent"
How?

"farcical"
How?
Bribery, extortion, assassinations, etc.

"ineffectual"
Better then an effective tyrant.
They were all tyrants in their own right.

"incompetent"
Yah and I can name all the politicians on one hand who were not incompotent throughout all history.
I could name even more incomptent, corrupt ones.

"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.

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.

Praxus

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?

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.

My bad!

So by this logic, shouldn't one hate the empire just as much if not more?

Ironduke

Although not patrician, Cicero came from a wealthy family of equestrian rank. You have to remember that first and foremost, Cicero was a politician. He was multifaceted and like most politicians today, he was not above speaking out of both sides of his mouth.

Cicero had himself made dictator during his tenure as a consul. He suspended the Roman constitution and declared martial law. The Catiline conspiracy is surrounded with controversy, but the simple fact is that his execution of four or five men was unconstitutional, leading to a temporary exile.

I believe that Caesar's good qualities outweighed the bad. His actions and accomplishments helped form the foundation of Western civilization. He brought order to a society and state falling apart at the seams.

The Empire was an inevitability. In the last two centuries of the republic, an empire was created, thus creating the condition for the arising of emperors. I judge each emperor individually based on his merits, and there were good emperors (Augustus, Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, Diocelatian, Constantine) as well as bad (Nero, Caligula, Caracalla, etc.)